Romanian verbal paradigm (Re: Late Proto Albanian...)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > It is strikingly reminiscent of that alternation -e- for thematic
> > (-a-) stems versus -ya:- for athematic (non -a- :) stems in the
> > Sanskrit optative active.
>
> "reminiscent"?! That would imply some kind of kinship between
> Sanskrit
> alternance in optative (1st conjugation) and Latin (1st

conjugation)

> subjunctive alternance.

No! All 'reminiscent' implies is that they look similar.

> May I remind that Romanian corresponding
> alternance is to be found in subjunctive, not in optative.

Were it not for the Vedic subjunctive and the formal relationship to
the Greek optative, I think we would call the Classical Sanskrit
optative a subjunctive.

> Why are
> you linking it with a different verbal mode alternance for a quite
> distant IE language rather than to corresponding alternance in the
> originating Latin language?!

I was answering Miguel's question. He is claiming that individual
elements of Romanian conjugation scream out that it derives from
Latin; I am saying that one has to look more widely to be sure of
the Latin origin.

> >> What other language has a present ptc. (gerund) in -nd-?
> >
> > If the present participle had survived in Albanian, wouldn't it
> > show -nd-? As it is, I can only think of the Germanic languages.

> Survived... where from?!

PIE *-ont-.

The forms in -nd(o)- are specific to Latin

> & Oscan-Umbrian.
>
> >> What other language has verbal forms (pqpf.conj.) in -assem,

etc.

> >
> > -ss- has degeminated in Romanian, so it looks a rather like a
> > thematic sigmatic aorist. Sanskrit again.
>
> Keeping in mind that Romanian analogically inserted -rã- as plural
> marker (and sometimes an extra -se-), there is nothing to suggest
> rather Sanskrit over Latin for pqpf:
> Rom (pqpf ind.):
> -Vsem, -VseSi, -Vse, -Vse(rã)m, -Vse(rã)Ti, -Vse(rã)
> Lat (pqpf. subj.):
> -(i)ssem, -(i)sses, -(i)sset, -(i)sse:mus, -(i)ss:etis, -(i)ssent

Typos: -sse:- in the 2nd person forms.

> Skr (thematic sigmatic aorist):
> -(ai)s.am, -(ai)s.i:h, -(ai)s.i:t, -(ai)s.ma, -(ai)s.t.a, -(ai)

s.uh

That's the athematic sigmatic arorist!

For Sanskrit _dis'_ 'point', we have the thematic sigmatic aorist
adik- -s.am, -s.ah., -s.at, -s.a:ma, -s.ata, -s.an .

I was answering the question. I'm not claiming a better match with
Sanskrit than with Latin.

> >> What other language mixes s-aorists with true perfects?
> [...]
> > How can you tell that the Romanian simple perfect derives from

the

> > PIE perfect?
>
> He does not say that.

I dispute that.

> As a matter of fact, Romanian simple perfect
> simply continues Latin perfect, as well as other Romances do.

And accept this, if you replace 'perfect' by 'perfect' system. I
qualify the acceptance because the plural of the Romanian simple
perfect formally corresponds to the Latin pluperfect.

In the context of the question, I presume 'true perfect' means a
derivative of the PIE perfect. However, the original marks of the
PIE perfect (ablaut - o-grade in the singular and zero grade in the
plural; tendency to reduplication; special endings) have been almost
completely obliterated. All that's clearly left is the 1s ending
in -i, and there we have the development

-h2a + -i > -ai > -i: > -i

The New Greek aorist (whether sigmatic, asigmatic by phonetic
assimilation, or truly asigmatic) also has the perfect ending in the
1s. The meaning of the Vedic Sanskrit aorist was close to that of
the English perfect.

Richard.