Re: Was proto-romance a pidgin?

altamix@ wrote:

> P&G wrote:
>
>>a future from "to wish" as well as one from "to have"
>
>Future with "to have"? you mean the compound of the
>"to have" + conjunctive maybe.

It doesn't matter: it is the Romanian verb "to have"
(a avea; avere) which is used as an auxiliary to form
the Future Tense; namely this way (let's take the verb
"to tell" (a spune): "am sa spun, ai sa spui, are sa
spuna/o sa spuna..."

>The Rom. " am sa fac" means once as in Germanic
>if follows the explanation of the work "am treabã sa
>fac" (i have work to do) or it is a vague
>undefinetly future form " I will do".

But it is a genuine future tense; and "am sa fac"
& "o sa fac" can 100% be replaced by "voi face"
without altering anything semantically. (Whereas,
the English possibilities, I shall do, I will do,
I'll do, I'm gonna do, I do - let alone I'll be
doing - aren't so inter-changeable.)

>Faci asta? ( Do you make it?), Da, am sã fac.
>(Yes I do?, Yes, I will do, Yes I wish to do? I
>am unsure how to translate the exact meaning.

Don't you bother looking for anything here, coz
there is no such thing you hardly try to suggest.
"Am sa fac" - even in your context above - simply
means "I'll do it" with no other implication or
connotation. Additional implications-connotations
you can express in Romanian only with additional
words/locutions and with additional syntax features.

>For these who means they know something about
>thracian let us

Your Thracian obsession. Why after all Thracian
only, whilst neglecting Dacian-Moesian? :)

George