Re: [tied] Re: Late Proto Albanian *3 /dz/ = Early Proto Romanian

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:31:26 +0100, altamix <alxmoeller@...>
> wrote:
>
>> The rom. verbal desinences are allways the same, the quality of the
>> vowel in infinitive being the one who has an influence on the vowels
>> in derivation. AS I once pointed out, this conjugation is not just
>> as one of the IV latin conjugations but the same as in Lithuanian as
>> well.
>
> And if I recall, I pointed out the gross mistakes in your argument at
> the time.

No. You just showed all IV latin conjugations and there has been ( do I
mistake?) that some verbs simply changed the conjugation as some people
the shoes.

>
>> What should be so special Latin here, just God knows.
>
> Almost everything in the Romanian conjugations points to Latin and
> Latin alone. What other IE language has an e:-subjunctive for
> a:-stems, and an a:-subjunctive for all other stems? What other
> language has a present ptc. (gerund) in -nd-? What other language
> has verbal forms (pqpf.conj.) in -assem, etc. What other language
> mixes s-aorists with true perfects? And so on, and so forth.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>

Well, I speak here about verbal desinences of the verb. All the other
aspects you are pointing to could be discussed as well. Even the fact
that the Latin "-sesse" versus considered "parazitar" Romanian "se" in
"-sese", we can point to Rom. "fost" comparative with Umbric "fost-" and
so one. Not all at once, but everything at its time, don't you find?

Alex