--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > I hope this answers your question as to whether it fits.
> >
> > Richard.
>
>
> well,I just very glad how in this case the intervocalic "v" remains
> there where it must remains and it is reflected as "u" as it ought
and
> does not go hunting with no trace left.
Are you being sarcastic, or didn't you read my posting properly?
The only reason for having perfect _$tiui_ is a remodelling of the
perfect, not unlike what has happened with the perfect _vãzui_ of
_vedea_ 'see'.
> Would you please make the same for "dare" , to give?
> Or show me please one place on teh web where I can se by myself, I
would
> like to verify some things.
Both participles, the long infinitive, 2s. present indicative and 3s
and 1pl. present imperfect are regular phonetic developments of
Latin _dare_. Nothing else is!
Pres. ind. 1s: _do:_ > *do. Get (A) _dau_. Reg. form is *du.
Pres. ind. 2s: _da:s_ > _dai_. Reg. form is *zi.
Pres. ind. 3: _dat_, _dant_ > *da. Get (B) _dã_, the reg. form.
Pres. ind. 1pl: _damus_ > *dam. Get (C) _dãm_, the reg. form.
Pres. ind. 2pl: _datis_ > *date. Get (D) _datzi_, the reg. form.
Pres. subj. 1 and 2: Same ending as indicative in Romanian.
Pres. subj. 3: _det_, _dent_ > *ze. Get (E) _dea_.
Imperfect 1s: _dabam_ > *da. Get (F) _dam_, the reg. form.
Imperfect 2s: _daba:s_ > *da. Get (G) _dai_, the reg. form.
Imperfect 3s: _dabat_ > _da_, the regular form.
Imperfect 1pl: _daba:mus_ > _dam_, the regular form.
Imperfect 2pl: _daba:tis_ > *date. Get (D) _datzi_, the reg. form.
Imperfect 3pl: _dabant_ > *da. Get (E)_dau_ the regular form.
Perfect 1s: _dedi:_ > *zezi. Get _dai_, the reg. form. The whole
perfect is regular.
A: Possibly adds -u rather than replacing -a by it on analogy of
2s. See G(ii) for another possible explanation.
B: The inflectionally regular form has replaced the phonetically
regular form.
C: Presumably the regular form has the same vowel as the 3s. to
distinguish it from the imperfect. But why has the vowel of the 2pl
not been modified similarly?
D: Final vowel of second person is almost always -i, irrespective of
the history of the word.
E: Can anyone explain these forms: _dea_, _dau_? I can't.
F: Where does the final -m of the 1s. of the imperfect and
pluperfect come from? Ditto the 1s. present _am_ of _avea_ 'have'.
G: The 2nd person always ends in -i. There are two possible
explanations for _dai_ as opposed to *zi or *di, and they apply to
the imperfect of all verbs.
(i) The substitution was made before the vowels from Latin _daba:s_
coalesced, so only the second vowel needed to be replaced. Cf. the
Italian imperfect 2s in -avi.
(ii) The 2nd person ending -i is always unstressed. It was
therefore added instead of replacing a stressed vowel. This
argument might also explain the present tense _dau_ and _dai_.
Although this looks chaotic, all but one of the irregularities of
_da_ compared say to _purta_ 'carry' can be accounted for as follows:
1) The stem is da-, a 1st conjugation form.
2) Unstressed personal endings (-u, -i) are simply suffixed, rather
than replacing the final -a of the stem.
The upshot is that very few of the forms of _da_ are phonetically
regular developments because phonetic and inflectional regularity
conflict.
Rule (2) might explain why the 3s of _$ti_ 'know' is _$tie_,
compared to Latin _scit_.
I'm not sure why I've bothered working this out for myself (OK, with
a logt of background help) - surely it is well known in the right
circles!
Richard.