--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
>> futu:rus (*fu-tu:s-os?)
The form you contested the existence.
> Very nice. I learned that Latin rotacised the intervocalic "s" so
> from such an *fuesam > *fueram.
> Now take a look at the romanian:
>
> eu fusei
> tu fusei
> el fuse
> noi fusesem ( fuseram)
> voi fusesati (fuseti, fusera)
> ei fusese (fuse, fusera)
The original paradigm is /fui/, /fu$i/, /fu/, /fu(r&)m/, /fu(r&)Ti/,
/fur&/. There is also a late Daco-Romanian innovation: introduction
of -se- in past tense forms (also in past perfect). In our case,
the newer paradigm becomes: /fusei/, /fuse$i/, /fuse/, /fuse(r&)m/,
/fuse(r&)Ti/, /fuser&/, though the original one is still used in
Daco-Romanian.
Alex is actually mixeing here above the simple past tense with
past perfect tense /fusesem/, /fusese$i/, /fusese/, /fusese(r&)m/,
/fusese(r&)Ti/, /fuseser&/; of course "ei fusese/fuse", or "voi
fusesati/fusera" are neither literary, nor regular (in fact these
forms are specific to low vernacular Romanian, not deriving from
Latin but from ignorance of one's own language).
So, past tense comes straight forward from Latin, without any
need of avoinding "rhotacism".
> Don't you find nice to find here the Old Latin form without the
> rhotacisation of the "s"? Almost just as in the very ancient form
> of latin? There must be an expalantion, which is the one?
> I guess you will tell me that Latin "ui" > "u" in romanian,
> and that the form with "s" is the one from Latin "fuiss-"
> don't you?
The past perfect form has an original Latin -ss- (> -s-) from the
conjunctive pluperfect and the syllable "se" was doubled to avoid
confusions. Nothing to look out for.
Marius Iacomi