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

Richard Wordingham wrote:

> 1pl: _porta:mus_ > *purtam. Vowel changed to that of 3rd person,
> possibly also to avoid homonymity with the imperfect.

for imperfect is the same "u": purtam; the change is /a/ to /ã/ and that
is over all:
stãm - stam; cântãm - cantam; etc

> 2pl: _porta:tis > *purtate. 2nd person ending replaced, yielding
> _portatzi_.

actually this is "purtatzi"

> Simple perfect:
> 1s: porta:vi: > purtavi > _portai_

actually is "purtai"

> 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 in turn has been replaced by dãdui, the last surviving reduplicated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?

I guess yes. stãtui is the usual form, but there is too "stetei" and
"stãtei"

>
>>> 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?

why "*doarmie"? there is the IV conjugation with regular /e/ from /it/.
Why should you expect here /ie/ for 3 sg.?

>> 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

actually there are just the present paradigms of regular verbs in all
conjugations for indicative, imperfectum, simple perfectum, and plusque
perfectum. What is wrong in several ways here? I did not considered any
etymological aspect here, just wanted to show up the regularity of the
inflections. That was all.

> Richard.

Alex