Re: [tied] Was proto-romance a pidgin?

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:13:15 +0200, alex_lycos <altamix@...>
wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:41:03 +0200, alex_lycos <altamix@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well.... there are several scholars which admit the structure of
>>> Romanian is not the Latin one.
>>
>> Romanian is a typical Romance language. In its nominal morphology, it
>> stands rather closer to Latin than any other modern Romance language,
>> having preserved an oblique case (dative/genitive) and having
>> reintroduced a vocative.
>
>Why reintroduced? What makes you to think it every was lost?

The voc. feminine is -o, as in Slavic.

>Genitive/Dative has Slavis and Germanic too.

But not with Latin-derived endings.

>> The verbal morphology is standard Romance,
>> with preservation of the Latin a, i, e and C-styems, a present,
>> subjunctive, imperfect, sipmle perfect, pluperfect, perfect
>> subjunctive (in Macedo-Romanian), imperative, gerundive, perfect
>> participle, and a periphrastic perfect made with the verb "to be"
>> The only thing setting Romanian apart is the periphrastic future,
>> which is made with "to want" rather than "to have"
>
>There was pointed before. This "voi" is not " to vant" from Latin but it
>is supposed to be from slavic *volja. there is not future with "vreau".

The forms used with the future are derived from Vulgar Latin vole:re
(vole:o, vole:s, volet, vole:mus, vole:tis, volent) and Classical
Latin velle (volo, vi:s, vult, volumus, vultis, volunt; subj. velim,
veli:s, velit, veli:mus, veli:tis, velint).

1sg. voi, voiu is from *vol^u < voleo
2sg. vei, veri is from the present subjunctive veli:s
3sg. va, voa, voare is from volet
1pl. vom is perhaps reduced from vólumus (velle) rather than volé:mus
(volere)
2pl. vet,i is from volé:tis > vurét,i > vet,i or from subjunctive
veli:tis > vel^it,i > veit,i > vet,i
3pl. vor, voru is from volunt.

The use of the subjunctive in the 2nd person is unremarkable in a verb
such as "to want". Even in "to be", Spanish 2sg. eres "you are" is an
original 2sg. subjubctive. The reduction in some of the forms is also
unremarkable in an auxilary. Cf. the reduction of habe:re in the
Romance periphrastic future (habeo > *-aio, habes > *-as, habet >
*-at, habe:mus > *-aimos, habe:tis > *-aites, habent > *-ant). Catalan
uses the verb "to go" as an auxiliary of the preterite tense (vaig
anar "I went"), and the normal forms vaig, vas, va, anem, aneu, van
are replaced in the auxiliary with vai(g), vas, va, và(re)m, và(re)u,
van. The same phenomenon is seen in Romanian, where "to want" in its
non-auxiliary sense is conjugated:

vreau
vrei
vrea
vrem
vret,i
vreau

with forms that are largely rebuilt on the infinitive vrea (<
vole:re).

>There are the non latin constructions ( mine, cine, tine, etc.)

These are also found in Southern Italy and Dalmatia. They are derived
from interrogative/exclamative -ne appended to the pronouns (me-ne,
te-ne, quis-ne, etc.)

>there is
>an another genitive ( supposed to have been made in a later time)

What other genitive?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...