--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-05-09 09:52, altamix wrote:
>
> > that appears to be a speculation.( there is no fus+t > *fust >
fost;
> > for "fãcu" you have "fuse" and if "fãcu+t" > "fãcut", a "fuse+t"
> > will
> > give allways an "fuset", but not "fost"; here is no space to make
> > speculations about such reductions). Since the form with "fost"
> > was
> > known already in Umbric ( I hope I am not mistaking now) then the
> > presence of this form in Romance should be considered as
> > explanable.
>
> Umbr. fust is a 3sg. future form, not a participle.
then this form should be ruled out since semanticaly doesnt fit.
> What else can <fost>
> be, in your opinion , if -t- is a transparent ppp. suffix?
see below
> You can't be
> serious about "fuset". If there is no vowel in <rupt> from <a rupe,
> rupse> etc., why rule out fost <-- fus- + -t?
>
> Piotr
>
The first question here is why are you trying to link together an
irregular verb as this with the desinences of a regular verb? For
showing some corespondences? Taking your example
a rupe - rupse - rupt, the root is "rup-" here and it has the forms
as each regular verb and this says all!
If you wish to see the regular verbs ( as "a rupe"), you get a lot of
examples and if you indeed want, we can take exemples from each
conjugation:
a manca - mancase - mancat
a vedea - vãzuse - vãzut
a pune - puse - pus
a muri - murise - murit
a omorâ - omorâse - omorât
thus, from such examples one sees that there is the rule "rot +
desinences" and no place for speculations of any kind.
Maybe one thinks one needs some verbs whose phonetic aspect are more
appropiate to the form "fost" so they can maybe shows such phonetic
reductions. Can you find one? I am thinking about and I cannot recall
any example. These examples should say that we cannot use the regular
verbs to show a form of a irregular verb as "to be" because it will
be an "one-example-rule" and that is no rule at all.
My opinion about "fost"? I did not try to go too deep until now but
if you ask, then what about the melting together of "fu" ( simple
perfect) and "est(e)" (indicative prezent) giving a "compounded
form" as the the "fost" ?
foneticaly the "o" will be explained since "fu" +"este" > "fuãste"
(e>ã) and "fuãst(e) > fost (uã=o)
Alex