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

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

> 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"

I stopped paying attention at the last step! Sorry, everyone.

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 in turn has been replaced by dãdui, the last surviving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

_stetei_ is about what I would expect from Latin _steti_ - 2s.
_stetisti:_ yields steté$i after applying the known changes, while
regular phonetic changes give *$téte or *$táte from 3s. _stetit_.

> >>> 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.?

The point is that one would likewise expect *$te, and not _$tie_.

>
>
> >> 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.

For the present, the 3pl is (u) or V depedning on the conjugation.
The line for the imperfect is inconsistent about the vowel. The
pluperfect 3s should be -se, though it would probably have been
better to take out -se- altogether. Trailing 'V' on the perfect and
pluperfect lines is hard to interpret. However, anyone who wants to
see the patterns for themselves can just go to
http://www.dictionare.com/english/dictionaries.htm
and ask for the conjugation of typical verbs, e.g. _a purta_, _a
vedea_ (or is that not typical?), _a merge_, _a dormi_, _a pãrãsi_.
(Unfortunately, it doesn't show the stress.)

Richard.