Re: [tied] Re: Late Proto Albanian *3 /dz/ = Early Proto Romanian

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 30782
Date: 2004-02-06

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:12:56 +0100, altamix <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:31:26 +0100, altamix <alxmoeller@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The rom. verbal desinences are allways the same, the quality of the
>>> vowel in infinitive being the one who has an influence on the vowels
>>> in derivation. AS I once pointed out, this conjugation is not just
>>> as one of the IV latin conjugations but the same as in Lithuanian as
>>> well.
>>
>> And if I recall, I pointed out the gross mistakes in your argument at
>> the time.
>
>No. You just showed all IV latin conjugations and there has been ( do I
>mistake?) that some verbs simply changed the conjugation as some people
>the shoes.

No. I showed that you were trying to compare Romanian a:-stems with
Lithuanian thematics. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/23608

>> Almost everything in the Romanian conjugations points to Latin and
>> Latin alone. What other IE language has an e:-subjunctive for
>> a:-stems, and an a:-subjunctive for all other stems? What other
>> language has a present ptc. (gerund) in -nd-? What other language
>> has verbal forms (pqpf.conj.) in -assem, etc. What other language
>> mixes s-aorists with true perfects? And so on, and so forth.
>
>Well, I speak here about verbal desinences of the verb.

Me too.

>All the other
>aspects you are pointing to could be discussed as well. Even the fact
>that the Latin "-sesse" versus considered "parazitar" Romanian "se" in
>"-sese",

Reformulate, please? I have no idea what you're talking about.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...