Latin perfects and Fluent Etruscan in 30 days!

[Adolfo Zavaroni]

Steven A. Gustafson wrote:

> but it would
> seem to me that this form in -ve, if it's really there (and I would not
> presume to even form a personal opinion on that), would seem to me to
> have a past progressive or "imperfect" meaning, rather than a past
> definite.  All the verbs you mention seem more plausible as past
> progressives:  "he held," "he ruled," "it is foretold," "he was
> priest."  (Then why -svalce-, "he lived?" rather than *svalve?)

Three different verbal forms are present in inscriptions
having an analogous structure, pertaining to the same matter
(cursus honorum) and all written on sarcophagi, sometimes of the same
family:
ZILAXN(U)CE "gubernavit" ("praetor fuit" according to other scholars),
ZILAXNVE, ZILAXNU.
I then deduce that these forms are semantically equivalent
and, semplifying, I consider them as preterites, although only
the forms in -KE are so called by many scholars.
ZILAXNU is a preterit form in -U like LUPU ( = LUPUCE) "mortuus (est)"
and TENU ( = TENVE)
It is remarkable that TENU is followed by EPRTHNEV-C
(where -C means Lat. -que), so that the verbal function of -V < -VE
is demonstrated (nobody doubts that TENU is a verb like LUPU).
I think that these 3 forms have also the function of past participles
and that this fact is connected with the absence of a verb "to be"
(copula).
I am sure (but probably I am the only one!) that AME, AMCE are not forms
of the verb "to be", but mean "cum, co-, united with",
given that they are accompanied only by PUIA = "mulier" (puia ame =
"coniunx")
and ZILATH "rector, praetor"  (*co-praetor, "co-director").

I have to rectify what I said about the attested forms in -VE:
just in the museum of my town (REGGIO EMILIA, Gallia Cisalpina)
two twinned inscriptions of the VI B.C. have the verbs
IMITVE "memoravit"
and (MI) IMA AME "(ego) com-memoro".
Now I do not see how this archaic form in -VE, attested in this place,
could derive from Latin. Furthermore I point out that Raetic too has
not only the verbal morphemes -KE and -XE (interchangeable), but also
-VE in
KATIAVE, EPETAV(E), PITIAVE, ZEZEVE
(in very short sentences where the verbal function  3d sing. pret. 
is probable  certain to my mind).
Now somebody might formulate a new hypothesis on Latin perfects in -vi
&c.

Good work!
Adolfo Zavaroni