> Alex is actually mixeing here above the simple past tense with
> past perfect tense /fusesem/, /fusese$i/, /fusese/, /fusese(r&)m/,
> /fusese(r&)Ti/, /fuseser&/; of course "ei fusese/fuse", or "voi
> fusesati/fusera" are neither literary, nor regular (in fact these
> forms are specific to low vernacular Romanian, not deriving from
> Latin but from ignorance of one's own language)
"Se dusese Si se întorsese unde mai fusese odata. Ceruse Si i se daduse
iar ce i se ceruse ascunsese acolo unde fusese prima data.Dupã aia, zise
ca fusese acasa de mulsese vaca si umpluse oala cu lapte"
The "literary form" is not a penny worth in my eyes when we talk about
the way to speak of peasants.
The question here is how are we able to say "ignorance of one's
language"? Which are the criteria? The literary language? The language
of the elite? I don't know if this is a good explanation .
About the regularity you see that this is pretty regular:
Dusese, fusese, intorsese, trasese, mulsese but too the forms "duse,
fuse, intoarse ( see dyphtongation here), trase, mulse). Actualy all the
verbs which makes the participium in "s" are conjugated regular in this
way. I am not sure if there are some exceptions , I never looked for.
The form "fost" never existed in Latin but it existed in Umbric, and
this was the word "fust". There is no derivative with "fost", the word
is just used with auxiliar " to have" like in english: have been = am
fost. The word remains always in this form since the one who make the
conjugation is the auxiliar one ( am fost, ai fost, a fost, am fost,
atsi fost, au fost).
BTW, is the form "este" in other Romance languages too? I just ask
because in slavic is too the form "iesti", at least in Serbian and
Bulgarian. And I dont know if there is a Llatin influence in Slavic
"iesti". The "e" as short form for "is" is in slavic too: "Sto _e_ ?" If
we admite "o" as slavic influence for vocative in Rom. Lang., why not
admite and a influence in conjugation of "a fi" in forms like "esti" and