>One question for our scholars. Which connection should be the Latin
>"futurus"? Time, existence, movement?
>Me personally I guess "futurus" is related to "existence"
Have a look again at the link (posted by Miguel):
http://iiasnt.leidenuniv.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?flags=undnnnl&root=leiden&basename=\data\ie\pokorny&first=231&sort=lemma
to see this form of out of the string of derivations of
"fui" (= preserved in Rum. as "fui" or "fusei" and also
having the meaning of "am fost"):
[...] Lat. fui- (alat. fu-i-) 'bin gewesen' aus *fu--ai,
Umgestaltung des alten Aor. *fu-m (= gr. ?-????, ai.
a?-bhu-t 'er war'), fu-tu-rus 'künftig', forem 'wäre',
fore 'sein werden', alat. Konj. fuam, fuat 'sei'
(*bhuu?a-m; vgl. lit. bu?vo `war' aus *bhu-u?a-t)
[...]
So, "to be"......
>For Romanians here , I should like to ask them why Romanian "viitor"
>should be better related to "veni"=movement and not with "viu"= "alive".
Is there any necessity for you, as a native-speaker, to build a
substantive out of the adjective "viu" by making use of the
suffix "-<vowel>tor"? IMHO, there is no necessity for that:
"viu" as such can be used as a substantive too: masc. sing.
(with defin. art.) "viul", plural "viii", fem. "via" & "viile"
(although highly unusual; on top of that "via", "viile" also
means "the vineyards" :-). But, OTOH, if you want to generate
a substantive out of "a veni - venire" you have to use the
so-called long infinitive "venire" or the past participle
"venit" or "venitor". Well, there is no "venitor" (who knows?
once upon a time, there was a "venitor" too), instead there
is "viitor".
As for the verb "a vietzui" (from "vi(e)atza" = life), of course
there is the substantive & adjective "vietzuitor" & "vietzuitoare"
+ plural "vietzuitoare" (= roughly "being", "living being").
You see here a derivation with "-itor" -- not a direct one of
"viu/vie", but via the intermediaries "viatza" > "a vietzui".
>Alex
my 2 cents
George