g wrote:
>> 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.)
I just want to say that in the latin verb *fire was not "s" in
conjugation.
Miguel gave a nice link where yxou could see by yourself :
osk. fu-fans `erant', fu-fens `fuērunt', fusíd = lat. foret, fust (=
umbr. fust) `erit' und `fuerit', fuid Konj.-Perf. `fuerit'; aber über
futír `Tochter' s. Vetter Gl. 29, 235, 242 ff. gegen WH. I 557, 867;
umbr. fust `erit', furent `erunt' (*fuset, *fusent), fefure `fuerint',
futu `esto' (fuu̯etōd oder fu-tōd).
The "s" in conjugation of "*fire" is not latin but umbric so "fost"
cannot be a derivative of latin but of Umbric.
We know Umbric was long tiem dead as romans arrived in Balcan but this
does not mind. For sure in the " vulgar latin" the umbric way to speak
impossed itseld and so you have now in romanian "fost".
Alles klar?