Latin perfects

[petegray]

Leo said:

> Unless these forms are *attested*, *in Latin*, *as participles*, we cannot
> say that any kind of Latin actually *had* them.  ...  Sorry to be picky, but
> that's what I do.

I'm all for being picky, and think it is sometimes essential to prevent
woolly speculation dressing itself as fact.   Here, however, I think it
misses the point, since Anthony's argument can be easily restated without
the word to which you object - for example as "..Latin has reflexes of ..."
I think the more interesting point is the substance of his argument.

The -wos participle is widespread in IE, so we might legitimately look for
reflexes of it in Latin (though the absence of an otherwise widespread
feature is not in itself a problem).

The absence of an active participle on the perfect stem requires an attempt
at an explanation.   The old view that you never say "why" of a language
seems a cop-out now.   Given the wide use made of the few actives from
deponent verbs, we can't argue that there was no need for it.   On the other
hand the -to- participles do seem more securely PIE, more ancient, and more
widespread.

I know no Etruscan.  Can anyone confirm Paolo Agostini's statement that
Etruscan had a -v- perfective?

Peter