Augment (was Re: German ge- ptcpl cognates?)

[Vidhyanath Rao]

>> Blumenthal, [comparing]  strong aorist ..and weak aorist

> Thanks!  But can I check two things:

> (a) Has he used "strong" to mean "asigmatic" rather than "second"?
>[...]
> (b) What about verbs that appear to be asigmatic/"strong" merely because
> they lost their -s- in the development of the language?

I don't remember any details being given about the classification. As
the couts were used to support an historical distinction, I assumed that
history of the verb forms was taken into account. In hindsight, this is
unwarranted. The only way to find out seems to be to do a recount.