>The question here is how are we able to say "ignorance of one'sThat's what it is!
>Which are the criteria? The literary language? The languageIf you don't know, then listen to someone who knows.
>of the elite? I don't know if this is a good explanation .
>About the regularity you see that this is pretty regular:<shucks> You still don't know how these tenses look like and how
>Dusese, fusese, intorsese, trasese, mulsese but too the forms "duse,
>fuse, intoarse ( see dyphtongation here), trase, mulse). Actualy
>verbs which makes the participium in "s" are conjugated regular in thisDo you mean participles such as "zis, dres, tras, dus, trimes/trimis, pus,
>way. I am not sure if there are some exceptions , I never looked for.
>There is no derivative with "fost", the word(Oh boy, you dare give such an "explanation" to cybalist's linguists?
>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).Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses. :)
>BTW, is the form "este" in other Romance languages too?Qu'est ce que c'est? [Kesskössee -- no lake in the Alps] :-)