[tied] Romanian verbal paradigm (Re: Late Proto Albanian...)

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

> Richard Wordingham wrote:

> > 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.
>
> First, thank you a lot for that posting Richard. I asked for it

since "a

> da" is a Conj. I verb and considered of Latin origin. Simply, I

wanted

> to compare the verbs of Conj. I which are of substratum origin.

A monosyllabic verb is the worst possible choice for such a
comparison. You should have gone for, say, _a purta_ 'carry'.

Present:
1s: _porto:_ > _port_.
2s: _porto:_ > *poartã. 2nd person ending replaced, yielding
_porti_.
3s: _portat_ > _portã_.
1pl: _porta:mus_ > *purtam. Vowel changed to that of 3rd person,
possibly also to avoid homonymity with the imperfect.
2pl: _porta:tis > *purtate. 2nd person ending replaced, yielding
_portatzi_.
3 pl: _portant_ > _poartã_

Imperfect:
3s: _porta:bat_ > portava > purtá.
Other persons similar - comments for development of do: also apply
here.

Simple perfect:
1s: porta:vi: > purtavi > _portai_
2s: porta:visti: > porta:sti: (contraction) > *purta$ti. 2nd person
ending simplified, yielding _purta$i_.
3s: porta:vit > portá:t (contraction) > *purtá. I cannot explain
why this changed to _purtã_, still with final stress.
1pl: porta:vimus > porta:mus (contraction) > *purtam. Plural of
perfect refashioned.
2pl: porta:vistis > porta:stis (contraction) > *purta$te or
*purtaste (TBD). Plural refashioned.
3pl: porta:verunt > porta:runt (contraction) > *purtar. Replaced by
what looks like 3pl of pluperfect:
porta:verant > prota:rant (contraction) > _purtarã_.

The

> Simple Perfect for " a da" versus "a bucura":
>
> dãdui, dãduSi, dãduse, dãdusem, dãduseTi, dãduse
> bucurai, bucuraSi, bucurã, bucurasem, dãduseTi, dãduse
>
> I tried this conjugation on more substratum verbs . It doesn't make
> sense to repeat the conjugation for all of them, just 1 sg is

enough for

> seeing an interesting aspect:
>
> anina > aninai, bãga > bãgai, zburda > zburdai, darâma > dãrâmai,
> adiia > adiiai(!), imbina > imbinai, gudura > gudurai,
> încurca > incurcai, leSina > leSinai, etc etc etc
>
> If we take as "good" the lexical data established by I.I. Russu for
> substratum verbs, then we will observed immediately, there in

substratum

> verbs are just "a:-" stems verbs, just verbs which ends in "a".
> Comparative with verbs of Latin origin, the perfect simple of these
> verbs is made _without_ this "u" which is in the verbs considered

of

> being of Latin origin.

Which tells us that they were sufficiently foreign to the
inflectional system of Latin that they were incorporated as regular
verbs.

> These paradigms are simple suffixed on the infinitive form of the

verb.

> Comparative, these of Latin origin of conj. I are:
> -ui, -uSi, -u, -usem , -useTi , -use
> -userãm, -userãTi, -userã

A purely internal development!

> The forms with "-eram" appears to be a compositum between the

original

> form and Latin participial of "to be". For remembering, there is

for pl

> the participial form of "essere", in Rom. "eram, eraTi, era".

Somehow,

> it appears to me , the speakers tried to "latinise" these using the
> Latin participium of both verbs ( the verb in discussion +

participial

> of "essere" form making more clear about the action) with their

usual

> way to speak. Thus, I guess, is to explain the forms with "u" and

the

> "era" there.

No. -ui: (perfect) and -u:tus (past participle) just became popular
in Vulgar Latin.

> Participium of "a da" is "dat" which appears to be from

an "*datu". In

> this manner , taking as "root" for ProtoRomanians the

word "*datu", they

> applied their stems for this verb giving:
>
> *dãtui, *dãtuSi, *dãtu, *dãtusem, *dãtuseTi, *dãtuse

No. The perfect of Latin _do:_ is _dedi:_. In Latin perfects made
by reduplication, either the prefixed syllable had -e- and the stem
vowel was slurred, or the vowel of the prefixed syllable was the
same as the stem. The regular phonetic development of dedi: wuold
have yielded extremely irregular conjugation. If the stem had been
allowed to develop naturally, while applying the flexional changes
that have occured, we would have got something like:

dedi: > zézi > zezéi
dedisti: > dedé$ti > dedé$i
dedit > *záde or *zéde
dedimus > *zédem or *zádem Replaced by *zadérãm
dedistis > dedé$te > *dedétzi Replaced by *zadératzi
dederunt > zéder or záder > *záderã.

At some point _dedi:_ or its derivative was replaced by dedui, which
in turn has been replaced by dãdui, the last surviving reduplicated
perfect in Romance. Or has _a sta_ also retained a reduplicated
perfect?

> > Rule (2) might explain why the 3s of _$ti_ 'know' is _$tie_,
> > compared to Latin _scit_.
>
> I guess there is another explanation. The verbs of Conj. IV which

ends

> in "-i" have for 3 sg. "-e"
>
> a Sti > Stie, a dormi > doarme, a fugi > fuge, a sui > suie, a

veni >

> vine, etc.

Yes, but note that we have _doarme_, not *doarmie, _fugi_ not
*fugie, _veni_ not *venie. In the case of _sui_, is not the <i> a
hiatus breaking glide?

>> ------------------------------------------------------------------

------

> I sg. II sg III sg I pl. II pl.

III pl.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------

-----

> Indicative: - (u), -i, -V, -(V)m, -(V)

Ti, V

> | | | |

| |

> Imperfect : - m, -i, -V, -(V)m, -(V)Ti, -

V

> | | | |

| |

> Plsq. prf.: -(se)m, -(seS)i, -V, -(se+era)m, -(se+era)Ti, -

(se+era)V

> | | | |

| |

> Prf. smpl.: - (V)i, -(VS)i, -V, -(Vra)m, -(Vra)Ti, -

(Vra)V

> -------------------------------------------------------------------

-----

>
> Stable & simple. Synthetic, natural?

The table is a mess, and wrong in several ways, but the basic
message that there is a large degree of regularity in the
inflections is correct. That's typical of human language. Sound
change messes the pattern up, and analogy creates a pattern again.

Richard.