Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> 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)
Which is very recognoscible in italian "voleo", Frenach "veux" and how
you point out in Romanian " a voi".
> 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
1 sg. "voiu" is the obsolet form,
2 sg. "veri" there is no "veri" as pronoun just substantiv " vãr=
cousin, veri= cousins)
3 sg. "voa", "voare" are not existent in Romanian so far I am informed.
> 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
No no. This is an interesting aspect. There are in all kind of
conjugations some verbs , they seems very old which at sg. have the
conjugation with the 0-grade of the root.
For instance a latin example, a substrate example:
a manca= to eat, a aburca= to climb up ( 0 grade of the root= manc-,
aburc-)
1 sg. mãnânc, aburc
2 sg. mãnânci, aburci,
3 sg. mãnâncã, aburcã
For plural, it doesnt matter if neologism, inherited or loan there is
the same terminations ( except irregular verbs):
1 pl= -ãm
2 pl -ati
3 pl = 3 sg.
In so far about the plural it doesnt make any sense to try to find a
explanation of a possible direct derivation because there is allways the
same terminations, regardless wherefrom the verb should be loaned.
But there are too an amount ov verbs which are conjugated with /-ez/ and
an another sorte which are conjugated with /-esc/
Here too, it doesn't matter if old or neologism . It is said that the
conjugation with /ez/ should came from Greek and entered the language
once with the chrstianisation .For instance " to baptise"= pretty old
verb ( IV-V century?)comparative with " a desena" = to draw, a loan
from French
1 sg. botez, desenez
2 sg. botezi, desenezi
3 sg. boteazã, deseneazã
For pluaral is the same muster as in the very old verbs ( these with
conjugation of 0-grade of the root)
botezam, botezati, boteazã; desenam, desenati, deseneazã
For the conjugation with "-esc" seems to be a lot of verbs which are
loans and have ben " rumanised".
a chefui= turkish loan ( to booze) --XIV century?
a c^iordi= loan from gypsi's language (to steal)-- XIV century ?
chefuiesc, chefuieSti, chefuieSte
c^iordesc, c^iordeSti, c^iordeSte
This is why I won't try to find any directe derivatves from Latin since
for plural is allway an "-ãm/em", "-aTi/eTi". And for singular , here is
the most interesting of all. Which is the time when the people derived
with "-ez" ( is this an old -es?) and which is the time when people
begun to conjugate with the 0-grade root. The conjugation with "-esc" is
still alive since every foreign verb can be rumanised with the help of
"-esc".
>
> 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).
" a avea " has the same way of conjugation as other too. It is
conjugate at sg with 0-grade and for plural is no exception there too:
1 sg: am
2 sg: ai
3 sg: are
For plural. av-em, av-eTi, au( "au" is the literary form. People use
normal the same rule for 3 sg, aka "are")
For conjuctive I don't understand the form ob the verb at the pers III
sg.
1 sg. sa am
2 sg. sa ai
3 sg. sa aibã or "sa aibe" but never " sã aive"
I know this is the alternation "v=b" but interesting, the intervoicalic
"v" ( like in the most used example caballo > cal) is not lost.
> 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
These are ususal desinences for the second conjugation of the verbs
which ends in "-ea"
a vrea( vreau, vrei, vrea), a bea ( beau, bei, bea).
If for albanian there is a "p" for pie to drink like in slavic , in
Thracian Space is astested the form "bie" and "bia" for drink & drinks
Seeing this form in Thracian I am reluctant for seeing Rom. "a bea" as
coming from latin "bevere" specialy when there is nothing which
preserved the "v" like in "a avea" for instance.
beau, bei, bea, sa beau, sa bei, sa bea, etc.
> 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 not only in Southern Italy ( interesting that the likeness of
Romanian and Italian is in the Apulia REgion of Italy in the most part
of these paralelism. And I do not forget about the Apulia and the
Apulian Dacians).
These forms are in Greek, Albanian , Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian too.
>
>> there is
>> an another genitive ( supposed to have been made in a later time)
>
> What other genitive?
1) nominative end in /-a/, /-ã/, /-e/ , genitive end in /-i/
2) that form of genitive with "la" . Literary form "Saua calului"= the
saddle of the horse, in the folks mouth " Saua la cal". "Ai dat de
mancare cal[ului] ? " , in folksmouth Ai dat de mancare la cal?"