Re: Romanian verbal paradigm

>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:
> [Miguel]
> What other language has a present ptc. (gerund) in -nd-?
>
> [Richard]
> If the present participle had survived in Albanian, wouldn't it
> show -nd-? As it is, I can only think of the Germanic languages.
>
> [Marius]
> Survived... where from?!
>
> [Richard]
> PIE *-ont-.
>
> [Marius]
> AFAIK, Albanian doesn't exhibit that (I can think e.g. at Pokorny
> 1282 which suggest rather PIE *mend- > Alb. ment, or #490 PIE *ent-
> Alb. ent, int, there is no word suggesting eventual voicing of
> PIE /t/ in Albanian and I never saw such a law).
>
> [Richard] (new)
> See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18573 .

I saw there a transformation acting after the moment of first
Latin loans, not before. "As for -nt-, it did become -nd- in
Albanian, also in Latin loans, cf. qind <-- cent-, prind <--
parent-, etc. But the change of e > i before -nd- was not general
in Albanian [...]". That is: it could not concern substratum
of Romanian.

> [Miguel]
> What other language has verbal forms (pqpf.conj.) in -assem, etc.
>
> [Richard]
> -ss- has degeminated in Romanian, so it looks a rather like a
> thematic sigmatic aorist. Sanskrit again.
>
> For Sanskrit _dis'_ 'point', we have the thematic sigmatic aorist
> adik- -s.am, -s.ah., -s.at, -s.a:ma, -s.ata, -s.an .
>
> [Marius]
> Still doesn't exhibit -(s)se-.
>
> [Richard] (new)
> Because of the Indic merger of /e/, /a/, /o/ to /a/.

You were saying you're just answering the question?! :-)

> Incidentally, do you apply the Latin conjugation numbering to
> Romanian?

Of course, like everybody does, since they are usually preserved
in Romanian:
1st Lat. -a:re > Rom. -á(re)
2nd Lat. -e:re > Rom. -eá (ére)
3rd Lat. -ere > Rom. -e(re) (post-tonical)
4th Lat. -i:re > Rom. -í(re)

> [Richard] (new)
> I dispute that Miguel did not say that the Romanian simple perfect
> derives from the PIE perfect, i.e. I claim that he did say that the
> Romanian simple perfect derives from the PIE perfect.

Well, better ask him than dispute with me: it's by far a more
reliable source for his own intentions. :-)

>> (Daco-)Romanian 1st & 2nd plural were analogically rebuilt (as
>> already pointed out) after dialectal split, with -rã- of the 3rd
>> plural emerging as plural marker. Only the 3rd plural, with -rã
>> instead of etymological -ru can be seen as analogical

reconstruction

>> before Common Romanian, by internal reorganization of the paradigm
>> in PBR or by reproducing the pqpf regular ending. So Romanian
>> perfect doesn't reproduce Latin pqpf for the 1st & 2nd plural (as
>> even ancient texts still preserve etymological forms) and only for
>> the 3rd person there is something to explain -- but not the /r/
>> (which is there in Latin perfect), only the final vowel (which can
>> be perfectly well explained through analogy with other PBR verbal
>> times, not necessarily through 3rd plural of Latin pqpf indicative,
>> a time which did not really resist in PBR).
>
> Please do explain the analogy.

I suppose you refer to -rã instead of -ru for 3rd plural perfect.
The ending -u would have been unusual for a 3rd person (since up to
CR and dialectal, -u was/is usual for 1st singular present tense).
Instead of it, one has at the 1st conjugation an -ã for the 3rd
person, sg. -> pl. (for the other conjugations, 3rd singular has an
unstressed /-e/ which would have shifted between PBR and CR to /&/
if preceeded by /r/). So -ã was perceived as a kind of 3rd person
morpheme and replaced final -u in -ru.

> Also, what was the 'etymological form' of the 2pl. of the simple
> perfect? I'm wondering if it explains the form of the 2s.

For which verb?! In principle, it should be in -Ti (as it still
does in Megleno-Romanian), but insertion of analogical -rã- saves
it from disturbing homonimy with present tense.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi