Latin prohibitions and the origins of the u/w-perfect and the type amasti

Among the various types of Latin prohibitions, there is one that does not fit well Into the synchronic tense and aspect system: like all prohibitions, ne with the perfect subjunctive has non-past meaning, while this tense has past or anterior meaning elsewhere. Diachronically, however, the non-past usage makes sense. The prohibitive perfect subjunctive continues the functions of modal aorist forms. Magarinos ( 1939) showed that in early Latin reduplicating perfects are by and large avoided in prohibitions in the perfect. The reason Is that they go back to old perfects, not to old aorists. There are various theories about the origins of the u/w-perfect (types monui and amaui). It is difficult to decide for one of them on purely morphological grounds. Looking at restrictions similar to those discovered by Magarinos cart help us here. Like the reduplicating perfects, the u/w-perfects are avoided in prohibitions. This makes it likely that they originated in perfects and that Rix ( 1992) was right to derive them from perfect active participles followed by the Copula. There are two main theories about the origins of short forms like amasti. Some Scholars derive them from s-aorists and believe that the association with amauisti is secondary, while others think that the short forms are Younger and derived from the long ones. Just like their longer counterparts, the short forms are avoided in prohibitions, which is a strong argument in favour of common origin; there is no reason why original aorists Should be restricted in this way.