On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:32:36 +0200, alex <
alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>And Romanian shows it just with Latin.And of course the desinences of
>the conjugation for the II conjugation in Romanian ( the one where the
>verbs ends at infinitive with "-ea") is a simply coincidence that is
>_identical_ with the Lithuanian or it shows the Latin influence, doesn't
>it?
>
>Lithuanian/Romanian endings for conjugation present tense
>1 sg. -u -u
>2 sg. -i -i
>3 sg. -a -a
>1 pl. -ame -am/em
>2 pl. -ate -aTi
>3 pl. -a -a
Latin had three conjugations (verbs in -a:re, -e:re, -i:re and -ere), which
more or less correspond to the the more usual types of infinitives in
Lithuanian (verbs in -oti (< *-a:-tei), -e.ti (< *-e:-tei), -yti (<
*-i:-tei) and -ti (< *-tei)).
In the present tense, Latin verbs were conjugated as follows:
(IV) (II) (I) (III)
thematic -i:-verbs -a:-verbs -e:-verbs
(-ere) (-i:re) (-a:re) (-e:re)
-o: -io: -o: -eo:
-is -i:s -a:s -e:s
-it -it -at -et
-imus -í:mus -á:mus -é:mus
-itis -í:tis -á:tis -é:tis
-unt -iunt -ant -ent
This gives Vulgar Latin:
-o -(y)o -o -(y)o
-e(s) -i(s) -a(s) -e(s)
-e(t) -e(t) -a(t) -e(t)
-emo(s) -ímo(s) -ámo(s) -émo(s)
-ete(s) -íte(s) -áte(s) -éte(s)
-on(t) -(y)on(t) -an(t) -en(t)
This should have given Romanian:
-(u) -(u) -(u) -(u)
*-e -i *-ã *-e
-e -e -ã -e
-em -ím *-ám -ém
-eTi -íTi -áTi -éTi
-(u) -(u) -ã *-e
Instead, the 2sg. ending -i was generalized to all conjugations in the
s-dropping Romances (Italian and Romanian). Two minor irregularities are
the 1pl. ending -ãm for expected -am (the same thing, curiously, happens in
Catalan, where we have -em, 2pl. -eu for expected *-am, *-au), and the
generalization of -unt > -0 in the 3pl. to the e:-stems at the expense of
-ent.
Thus we have Romanian:
vînd-0 dorm-0 cânt-0 tac-0
vînz-i dorm-i cânT-i tac-i
vînd-e doarm-e cânt-ã tac-e
vînd-em dorm-ím cânt-á~m tac-ém
vînd-eTi dorm-íTi cânt-áTi tac-éTi
vînd-0 dorm-0 cânt-ã tac-0
Lithuanian has three conjugations: thematic (I), i-stems (II) and o-stems
(*a:-stems):
-u -iu -au
-i -i -ai
-a -i -o
-ame -ime -ome
-ate -ite -ote
(Lithuanian has no 3pl. verbal endings)
The Lithuanian i-stems (short /i/) are not directly comparable to the Latin
i:-stems (long /i:/), but otherwise the forms are mostly traceable to a
common PIE prototype:
PIE Latin Lithuanian
(thematic) IV I
*-o: -o: -u
*-es -is --
*-et -it -a
*-omes -imus -ame(:)
*-ete -itis -ate(:)
*-ont -unt --
Lithuanian has generalized the thematic vowel *o (> -a-), and the exact
endings of the 1. and 2. pl. are long-standing PIE mysteries, but on the
whole the only serious irregularity is Lithuanian 2sg. -i (< *-ei).
Whatever its origin, it has nothing to do with the extension of the i:-stem
2sg. ending -i:(s) to the other conjugations in Italian and Romanian.
>Lithuanian/Romanian endings for conjugation present tense
>1 sg. -u -u
>2 sg. -i -i
>3 sg. -a -a
>1 pl. -ame -am/em
>2 pl. -ate -aTi
>3 pl. -a -a
>
>with example:
>Lithuanian " to work" ( dirbti)
>dirb-u
>dirb-i
>dirb-a
>dirb-ame
>dirb-ate
>[dirb-a]
>
>Romanian " to want" ( a vrea)
>vre-au
>vre-i
>vre-a
>vre-am
>vreTi
>vrea
As you say, the verbal roots are not related. Neither are the endings.
The Lithuanian verb corresponds etymologically to the Romanian verbs in
-e(re):
dirb-u vînd-0
dirb-i vînz-i
dirb-a vînd-e
dirb-ame vînd-em
dirb-ate vînd-Ti,
while the Romanian verbs in -ea do not correspond to anything in the
Lithuanian present tense (infinitives in -e.ti have -i- in the present
tense). One may want to compare the Lithuanian past tense in -e:-:
gérti "to drink" vedea "to see"
gé:r-iau < *-e:-o: vãd-0 < video: < *-e:-o:
gé:r-ei < *-e:-ei vez-i < vide:s < *-e:-s
gé:r-e: < *-e:-t ved-e < videt < *-e:-t
gé:r-e:me < *-e:-me: ved-ém < vide:mus < *-e:-mos
gé:r-e:te < *-e:-te: ved-éTi < vide:tis < *-e:-tes
vãd-0 < vident < *-e:-nt
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...