Re: [tied] Romanian Verb Endings and Substratum influence (repost)

Miguel wrote:
" Rubbish. Latin cantare is an a:-verb, so the relevant
Lithuanian endings are the endings of the Lith. a:-verbs
(conj. III):
-au -ai -o -ome -ote -o (there is no 3pl. in Lith.)
No match.
The Lithuanian simple thematic verbs indeed have the
endings:
-u -i -a -ame -ate (-a)
This corresponds to the Latin endings:
-o: -is -it -imus -itis -unt,
Romanian:
-(u) *-e (replaced by -i) -e -em(u) -etzi -(u) "


Well, well Miguel, please don't hurry here....the rubbish is in your
logic. What do you means by "so the relevant Lithuanian endings
are..."? Relevant for who? What do you mean when you said "this
corresponds" in your phrase below...

"-u -i -a -ame -ate (-a)
This corresponds to the Latin endings:
-o: -is -it -imus -itis -unt, "

"This Corresponds..." for who?


Supposing that the Dacians borrowed the Latin verb 'cantare'....
Who was in charge to apply your "relevant correspondance", that you
talked about above? The Dacians? At the loan moment? For sure not.
The ending-sounds that you show us/them are very different...so I
see no reason for them to use such "relevant correspondance"...At
least if we supposed that not all the Dacian heard bad...And I think
that you will agree that we couldn't make such a supposition...

So to conclude, your "relevant correspondance" above was made by
you, now, and you present us, this "correspondance" as the single
possible one, that could be, if there was one? On what basis : only
because cantare has an a: and because a:=a: you assert that the
Dacians should have been follow you "logic" above and asked themself:

"So let's see what we need better to apply here? ok we have an a:-
for the thematic vowel so we will apply the 3rd Dacian Conjugation
because we have an a: there...and of course a: = a:"

So if they didn't follow your "relevant correspondance" described
above, no adaptation of "cantare" to another Dacian conjugation was
possible, isn't it?

But if one of their conjugation have sounded like :
-u -i -a -ame -ate -a

and they have heard for "cantare" Latin Sounds like
-o -a(s) -a(t) -amu(s) -ati(s) -a(nt)

and at least if we supposed that not all the Dacian heard bad...

DO YOU THINK THAT IT COULD BE POSSIBLE, MIGUEL, THAT THEY HAVE TRIED
TO USE THEIR CONJUGATION ENDINGS/SOUNDS THAT SOUNDED CLOSEST TO THE
LATIN ENDINGS/SOUNDS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN HEARD FOR CANTARE?

OF COURSE IS POSSIBLE.....AND NOT ONLY THAT IS POSSIBLE BUT IS/WAS
THE BETTEST CHOICE FOR THEM.

DO YOU ALLOW THEM, MIGUEL, TO USE THEIR CLOSEST PHONETIC MATCH, SO
THE BETTEST CHOICE?

OR YOU WILL STILL INSIST THAT THE SINGLE CONJUGATION THAT THEY COULD
HAVE BEEN TRIED TO USE WAS:
-(u) *-e (replaced by -i) -e -em(u) -etzi -(u) "

because 'cantare is an a:verb and a:=a:"...and so on....

Sorry to use capitals...but is necessary when such pseudo-arguments
as your "correspondance" above are used....

Please try to put "more logic" in your arguments in your next
postings...especially when you used so delicate adjectives in your
introductions....

Best Regards,
Marius