Re: Romanian verbal paradigm

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

>>> 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.

Well, we weren't discussing French, were we?! "Everybody" applies
to linguists speaking about Romanian language.

>> 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.

The developement is indeed specifical to inital syllable, but
sometimes faces up also on the final: brachiale > brãTarã (for
regularising purposes).

> But -u was also the 3rd plural morpheme in the present of the 3rd
> and 4th conjugations!

It was probably not strong enough with respect to the 1st.

> 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 possible, too.

> This is ironic, given that -u has been added to the imperfect 3pl.

...as a late DR innovation.

>>> 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.

OK, but there is never analogy-free developement, especially when
resulting some homonyms. There are several explanations for these
developements, the most probable being propagation of -Ti desinence
for 2nd pl. (which is supported by all Romanian dialects), but there
were recorded also other ancient DR forms with -Vt(u), suggesting a
simple loss of /s/ (/s^/), combined with analogy.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi