>Just a little correction .So far I know, in latin was no "s" in the
>conjugation of *fire.
What do you mean? To be in Latin -> sum, esse, fui. (The word
"fire" is in Romanian.)
>You wanted for sure to say "Umbric" but not Latin.
>If you want to say that "fusei, fusesem, fuseram" is a derivative from
"fusei, fuse$i, fuse, fuserãm, fuserãtzi, fuserã" along with
"fui, fu$i, fu, furãm, furãtzi, furã" (the latter group is much
closer to the original Lat. "fui, fuisti, fuit...") are the perfect
tense -- whereas "fusesem, fusese$i, fusese, fuseserãm,
fuseserãti, fuseserã" = the plusquam perfect (in Romanian).
And before you ride your "Umbric"-hobby-horse again, just
have a look at the conjugation tables of sum, esse, fui --
especially at the numerous derivations of the perfect form
fui -> take the root "fu-" and see with how many parts of
vocabulary this root connects (a Grammatik der lateinischen
Sprache fürs Gymnasium would be of great help).
>I don't try to make any connection among them since I cannot
>go too deep
The info you get in Pokorny's entries are more than enough
to discover "das Sein", "the being" & "fiintza". :)
>Slavic "trajU"= to live (the Slavic word is more usual as "vietsui"
>there have been a verb from "vi-" kind of "viia" or even the Latin verb
>"vivo" with a past form like "*viit".
We have the verb "a învia" (but note the long infinitive "înviere"!)
< Lat. *invivare < Lat invívere. There is also a _rare_ substantive
învietor. Let's assume the verb without this prefix "în-": "a via".
How would its past participle look like? "viat" - because it is of
the -a conjugation. A "viit" would imply a verb *"a vii". Or it
would imply the transformation of a "viet" > "viit". Why "viet"?
Because for the participle "înviat" it is possible to have the
variant "înviet" (just look at the substantivation of the long
infinitive "înviere", not "înviare"!), similar to "bãiat - bãiet".
So, there is some room for speculation. But any Romanian
native speaker (from the last illiterate to the most senior prof.
dr.) will tell you without hesitation that "viitor" also means
"coming; that what's coming; that what'll come". But nobody
will tell you that "viitor" has the connotation "that what makes
somebody/something alive/vivid/vivaceous".
I mean you should take these things into consideration, too,
as additional food for thought.
>We can just suppose it
>could exist because there was the Latin verb "vivo" and that is all.
Yeah, "primum vivere, deinde philosophare (or philosophari)".
AFAIK, there is no direct remnant of vivere in Romanian. Hence
the slavism "a trãi", hence "vivat! crescat! floreat!" would
translate into Romanian as "trãiascã! creascã! înfloreascã!".
>ALEX
George