Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:08:54 +0100, altamix <alxmoeller@...>
> wrote:
>
>> what do you think about merging together of Latin conj. II and IV in
>> PBR ?
>
> Absolutely not. Balkan Romance is the only variety of Romance that
> has kept the Latin accentuation intact (except for some dialectal
> variants): II -ém, -étzi vs. unaccented IV -em, -etzi. All the other
> Romances have merged the two.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
I don't know why I have the feeling there are some typos in your message
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30803 regarding the stems
of the conjugations in Latin.
As per
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.
0001&query=head%3D%23114 the stems for the conjugations should be as
follow:
I - o: / -a:s / -at / -a:mus / -a:tis / -ant
II -eo: / -e:s / -et / -e:mus / -e:tis / -ent
III - o: / -is / -it / -imus / -itis / -unt
IV - o: / -i:s / -it / -i:mus / -i:tis / -unt
Thus, not II & IV will merge togehter but II & III. Are you sure that in
other Romance II & IV merged together or there is too II and III?
Actually for indicative, the II & III in Rom. *is* merged together. The
only difference is in the simple perfect and plusque perfect's
desinences which we discussed. The difference is made up not by stress,
but by the vowel before the paradigm.
zãcea & spune ( I use "U" for "u", "E" for "e", "sh" for "S", and "tz"
for "T" just for making more visible the difference)
smpl. prf.: zãcUi, zãcUshi, zãcU, zãcUrãm, zãcUrãtzi, zãcUrã
: spusEi, spusEshi, spusE, spusErãm, spusErãtzi, spusErã
plsq. prf.: zãcUsem, zãcUseshi, zãcUse, zãcUserãm, zãcUserãtzi,
zãcUserã
: spusEsem, spusEseshi, spusEse, spusEserãm, spusEserãtzi,
spusEserã
Indicative and Imperfect form are identically, all other tenses have no
importance for analyse of the desinences.
Alex