Re: to kill

From: m_iacomi
Message: 28259
Date: 2003-12-09

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

> Mr. Iacomi, when you say "analogic" you assume you have an word
> which has a certain form [...]

Table resuming analogy (fixed font, infinitive form is given for
indicative purposes, doesn't play any role in analogy):

Infinitive Past Participle 1st person Present Indicative
----------------------------------------------------------------
mulge muls mulg(u)
strange strans strang(u) [A]
plange plans plang(u)
....
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now a look to the etymological forms of the considered verb:
----------------------------------------------------------------
ucide ucis ucid(u) [B]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Usually, the p.p. ends in -t, so ending in -s is something rather
special which can lead speakers to the idea those verbs form a
class apart; since there are a lot of verbs [A] for which the 1st
person ends in -g, the paradigm in [A] (there etymological), is
"erroneously" applied on our verb by analogy, thus replacing the
etymological paradigm [B] with the analogical...
----------------------------------------------------------------
ucide ucis ucig(u) [C]
----------------------------------------------------------------
The forms with analogical /g/ instead of /d/ appear in ancient
Romanian texts, _along with_ etymologically correct forms with
/d/. The power of analogy was not enough to impose on the overall
the paradigm [C] over [B]: it was just a temporary hesitation in
spelling some centuries ago. The only reminder of this historical
fluctuation are some derived words preserving the /g/: "ucigaS"
`killer`, "ucigator" `murderous`, etc.

Note: final -u was present in Common Romanian as well as it is
nowdays in Aromanian; in DR it was lost some centuries after the
dialectal split, but it remained there as a graphical etymological
sign in Cyrillic and XIX-th century Latin script texts (written
with the shortness sign above). Afterwards, it has been gradually
removed from the written language.
Putting it in brackets means only it probably had no longer any
phonetical value at the moment of writing those texts, as well as
in [A] that in [B] and [C] paradigms; even if that was not the
case, that does not influence the paradigms (which in modern DR
are written and pronounced without /u/).

> For helping you here, I suggest the analogy was made by "înfige"
> where "înfigu" could have been the form which helped out to make
> "ucigu".

Analogy with what?! The analogy goes like this: one notes "muls"
ending in -s like "ucis" then why not ending "ucig" like "mulg"?!
In your case there is nothing similar to suggest any analogy since
the p.p. of "înfige" is "înfipt", end of the story.

> What does it mean? Don't ask me for my opinion. It seems I still
> have to listen a lot here

That's the first sensed thing you wrote in this thread.

Marius Iacomi