Re: Romanian verbal paradigm

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

>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:

> > [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]
> > Because of the Indic merger of /e/, /a/, /o/ to /a/.

[Marius]

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

[Richard]
Yes. Miguel threw out a challenge and no-one else picked up the
gauntlet.

[Marius]

> > 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)

The same numbering isn't applied to French. I've seen the verbs in -
oir called the 4th conjugation.

[Marius]

> >> (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).

[Richard]

> > Please do explain the analogy.
>

[Marius]

> 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.

[Richard]
Do you have some examples of final -re > -rã to further break my
sound change applier? _mare_ 'sea' doesn't support this development.

But -u was also the 3rd plural morpheme in the present of the 3rd
and 4th conjugations! Maybe -u was seen as a present morpheme,
whereas the imperfect had unstressed -a as a past morpheme (1s, 3s,
3pl) before contraction. This is ironic, given that -u has been
added to the imperfect 3pl.

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

[Marius]

> 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.

[Richard]
I would have expected 2pl. development

-istis > -sti(s) (syncopation of -vi-, -ve:-) > -ste > -$te > -$ti
(new 2nd person ending)

becoming homonymous with the phonetically regular development of the
2s:

-isti: > -sti: (syncopation of -vi-, -ve:-) > -sti > -$ti.

Richard.