Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure why I've bothered working this out for myself (OK, with
> a logt of background help) - surely it is well known in the right
> circles!
>
> Richard.
First, thank you a lot for that posting Richard. I asked for it since "a
da" is a Conj. I verb and considered of Latin origin. Simply, I wanted
to compare the verbs of Conj. I which are of substratum origin. The
Simple Perfect for " a da" versus "a bucura":
dãdui, dãduSi, dãduse, dãdusem, dãduseTi, dãduse
bucurai, bucuraSi, bucurã, bucurasem, dãduseTi, dãduse
I tried this conjugation on more substratum verbs . It doesn't make
sense to repeat the conjugation for all of them, just 1 sg is enough for
seeing an interesting aspect:
anina > aninai, bãga > bãgai, zburda > zburdai, darâma > dãrâmai,
adiia > adiiai(!), imbina > imbinai, gudura > gudurai,
încurca > incurcai, leSina > leSinai, etc etc etc
If we take as "good" the lexical data established by I.I. Russu for
substratum verbs, then we will observed immediately, there in substratum
verbs are just "a:-" stems verbs, just verbs which ends in "a".
Comparative with verbs of Latin origin, the perfect simple of these
verbs is made _without_ this "u" which is in the verbs considered of
being of Latin origin. I thought first that maybe the last syllable of
the verb is the one which influenced a such derivation but it appears
the last syllable of the verb does not play any role since there are :
-ina, -aga, -da, -âma, -ia, -ra, -ca
Since there is not a such influence, it appears that the simple perfect
paradigms in substratum verbs are:
-i, -Si, -ã, -sem, -seTi, -se
-serãm, -serãTi, -serã
These paradigms are simple suffixed on the infinitive form of the verb.
Comparative, these of Latin origin of conj. I are:
-ui, -uSi, -u, -usem , -useTi , -use
-userãm, -userãTi, -userã
The forms with "-eram" appears to be a compositum between the original
form and Latin participial of "to be". For remembering, there is for pl
the participial form of "essere", in Rom. "eram, eraTi, era". Somehow,
it appears to me , the speakers tried to "latinise" these using the
Latin participium of both verbs ( the verb in discussion + participial
of "essere" form making more clear about the action) with their usual
way to speak. Thus, I guess, is to explain the forms with "u" and the
"era" there.
Participium of "a da" is "dat" which appears to be from an "*datu". In
this manner , taking as "root" for ProtoRomanians the word "*datu", they
applied their stems for this verb giving:
*dãtui, *dãtuSi, *dãtu, *dãtusem, *dãtuseTi, *dãtuse
The conj. of Rom verb" a da" from "dare" is explained trough VulgarLatin
thus "eu dau" is not from Latin "do" but, Vulgar Latin "*dao" . A such
form should have existed , analogic to "*vao" (an another re-constructed
form) . This *vao should has been the short form of "vado". This
assumption is made up on Italian short "o" in "do" and Old Provensal
"dau". That was intended as answer for your question "E", thus:
1 sg "dau" ->irregular, but accepted as from *dao
2 sg "dai" ->the "i" paradigm which is "generalised"
3 sg "dã" ->unexplained
1 pl "dãm" ->not regulary but analogically
2 pl "daTi"-> not regulary but analogically
3 pl "dau" -> analogicaly after "au" (they have)
Conjunctiv "dea" analogicaly after "bea" (to drink). Densusianu supposed
that the Latin verbs with exitus in "e:" yelded an "ea", thus the form
"dea" should came from an "de:t" after "t" became mute". Simple Perf. in
Old Rom. has dialectal forms where some are "dediu", "dedu".
For your question "F" regarding the "m". Usually the comparation is made
with Albanian which has for I have the form "kam".
> Although this looks chaotic, all but one of the irregularities of
> _da_ compared say to _purta_ 'carry' can be accounted for as follows:
>
> 1) The stem is da-, a 1st conjugation form.
Yeap.
>
> 2) Unstressed personal endings (-u, -i) are simply suffixed, rather
> than replacing the final -a of the stem.
> The upshot is that very few of the forms of _da_ are phonetically
> regular developments because phonetic and inflectional regularity
> conflict.
Yes. In fact nothing is regular developed there.
> Rule (2) might explain why the 3s of _$ti_ 'know' is _$tie_,
> compared to Latin _scit_.
I guess there is another explanation. The verbs of Conj. IV which ends
in "-i" have for 3 sg. "-e"
a Sti > Stie, a dormi > doarme, a fugi > fuge, a sui > suie, a veni >
vine, etc.
In fact the conj I presents the alternance a~ã and conj. IV presents the
alternace i~e
>
> I'm not sure why I've bothered working this out for myself (OK, with
> a logt of background help) - surely it is well known in the right
> circles!
>
> Richard.
Maybe to give to me to think about:-)
It is interesting to follow the verbal paradigms here for indicative,
imperfect, simple perfect and plusque perfect here since these are the
only forms where we have other desinences, the others being made with
help of "to have" +participium of the verb which should be conjugated. A
table here should be here speaking for itself but I guess there will be
some little exceptions regarding the vocalism here (all on the basis of
"u").As usual the "V" here represent the vowel which is at end of the
verb in its infinitive form and the usually colour of it dues stress.
Mostly of these difference should be the pairs "a/ã" and "e/ã", in fact
the both vowels (a,e) wherefore an "ã" could derive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sg. II sg III sg I pl. II pl. III pl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicative: - (u), -i, -V, -(V)m, -(V)Ti, V
| | | | | |
Imperfect : - m, -i, -V, -(V)m, -(V)Ti, - V
| | | | | |
Plsq. prf.: -(se)m, -(seS)i, -V, -(se+era)m, -(se+era)Ti, -(se+era)V
| | | | | |
Prf. smpl.: - (V)i, -(VS)i, -V, -(Vra)m, -(Vra)Ti, -(Vra)V
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stable & simple. Synthetic, natural?
Alex