On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:31:20 +0100, "alex_lycos" <
altamix@...>
wrote:
>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 `fu?runt', fusi?d = lat. foret, fust (=
>umbr. fust) `erit' und `fuerit', fuid Konj.-Perf. `fuerit'; aber über
>futi?r `Tochter' s. Vetter Gl. 29, 235, 242 ff. gegen WH. I 557, 867;
> umbr. fust `erit', furent `erunt' (*fuset, *fusent), fefure `fuerint',
>futu `esto' (fuu?et?d oder fu-t?d).
There is no Latin verb *fire (the asterisk is appropriate). You're
referring to <fieri> which is the source of the _infinitive_ or
Romanian <a fi> "to be". The othr forms are plainly derived from teh
Latin verb <esse> pres. sum, es, est, sumus etc., impf. eram, eras,
erat, etc., pf. fui, fuisti:, fuit etc. The forms derived from fui
most certaily have s'es all over their paradigm:
fui: fueram (*fu-es-a:-m) fuero: (*fu-es-o:)
fuisti: fuera:s (*fu-es-a:-s) fueris (*fu-es-es)
fuit fuerat (*fu-es-a:-t) fuerit (*fu-es-et)
fuimus fuera:mus (*fu-es-a:-mos) fuerimus (*fu-es-o-mos)
fuistis fuera:tis (*fu-es-a:-tes) fueritis (*fu-es-e-tes)
fue:re fuerant (*fu-es-a:-nt) fuerint (~ *fu-es-o-nt)
fuerim (*fu-es-i:-m) fuissem (*fu-es-se:-m)
fueri:s (*fu-es-i:-s) fuisse:s (*fu-es-se:-s)
fuerit (*fu-es-i:-t) fuisset (*fu-es-se:-t)
fueri:mus (*fu-es-i:-mos) fuisse:mus (*fu-es-se:-mos)
fueri:tis (*fu-es-i:-tes) fuisse:tis (*fu-es-se:-tes)
fuerint (*fu-es-i:-nt) fuissem (*fu-es-se:-nt)
fuisse (*fu-es-se)
futu:rus (*fu-tu:s-os?)
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...