--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>> What other language has verbal forms (pqpf.conj.) in -assem, etc.
[...]
>> 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",
>
> Reformulate, please? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Well, there is a fair chance that Alex himself has no idea about
that.
I cannot be sure about my guess, but I think he remembered something
I
once explained (
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/r-lang/message/1694)
about
some late DR innovations for past tenses (perfect & pqpf ind.), that
is
perception of -se- as marker of past and analogical propagation from
pqpf
to pf., followed by its redoubling in the paradigm of pqpf in order to
make it still different (more in the past); this rebuilding was
restricted
to some (short) verbs. Of course, this has nothing to do with prior
simple
evolution of Romanian pqpf. indicative from Latin pqpf. conjunctive
hinted
in the same message: probably he retained only that at some point
there
was some extra -se- inserted with no etymological motivation, so a
good
"reason" to challenge any Latin paradigm involving -sse-. :-)
Regards,
Marius Iacomi