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

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

>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [tied] Romanian verbal paradigm (Re: Late Proto
> Albanian...) (09-Feb-2004 6:46)
> From: alxmoeller@...
> To: moeller@...
>
> > Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
>
>
> > The line for the imperfect is inconsistent about the vowel.
>
> You got me to think about with this sentence. It appears the

relation

> between tenses is made otherways.We have in fact the imperfect

which

> is *very* consistent with the infinitive since this is made from

the

> infinitive form + the paradigms with tho exceptions:
>
> I a purta: purta-am, purta-i, purta-a, purta-am, purta-atzi, purta
> II a vedea: vedea-am, vedea-i, vedea-a, vedea-am, vedea-atzi, vedea
> III a merge: merge-am, merge-ai,merge-a, merge-am, merge-atzi,

mergea

> IV a dormi: dormi-am, dormi-ai,dormi-a, dormi-am, dormi-atzi,

dormia

You'd do better to analyse the I and II 2s as purta-ai and vedea-ai.

> Note: ia > ea: I cannot verify now if Latin "dormire" has a

short "i"

> but I expect it has since it seems Rom. points to a short "i". If I
> am right in my assumption, then the verb "a dormi" changed the
> conjugation and there should be "a doarme" but not " a dormi".

Oh dear, is the Perseus site down? Save the conjugation pages when
it comes back up. The infinitive ending <ire> always has /i:/.
Similarly, with the exception of _dare_ and its compounds, the
infinitive ending <are> always has /a:/.

While one might reasonably expect Latin to have the imperfect
*dormi:bam, such forms did not catch on, and the actual form was
_dormie:bam_.

> The alternance in vowel in Simple Perfect and Plusque Perfect made

me

> a bit head aches until I found out these two tenses are not related
> to Imperfect but to ... participium. Here too, there is no

exception

> from the rule all of them being conjugated with no exceptions.

First,

> a bit introduction in participium:
>
> Conj I: a-stem, participium always in "-at"
> Conj II: ea-stem, participium always in "-ut"
> Conj III: e-stem, participium in "-s" and "-ut"
> Conj IV: i-stem, participium always in "-it"
>
> Now, the participium is to be analysed whas is made that way, but
> from the forms of participium we have very regulated the Simple
> Perfect and the Plusque Perfect. It ought to observe the final
> consonant of participium is droped in Simple Perfect and Plusque
> Perfect before paradigms of these two tenses.The (C) noted

consonant

> is the dropped one. The "ã" was becoming mute after "u and e" in
> the
> group "uã", "iã" and "eã" and I note it with "*".I have
> further a
> problem with the Conj. III where there appears an "e" which
> I cannot explain unless this is of epentetic nature for making
> posible the pronounciation of the root and the plural paradigms.
>
> Simple Perfect
> --------------
> I: a purta- purta(t)i, purta(t)shi, purta(t)ã, purta(t)rãm,
> purta(t)rãtzi, purta(t)rã
> II: a vedea- vãzu(t)i, vãzu(t)shi, vãzu(t)*,
> vãzu(t)rãm, vãzu(t)rãtzi, vãzu(t)rã
> III: a merge- mers e i mers e shi, mers e *, mers e rãm,
> mers e rãtzi, mers e rã
> IV: a dormi- dormi(t)i, dormi(t)shi, dormi(t)* dormi(t)rãm,
> dormi(t)rãTzi, dormi(t)rã
>
> It worth to mention that there is stil dialectal speach which use

the

> unshorted forms with an "ã" between usualy droped consonant of
> participium and paradigm of Simpl. Prf. specialy in plural forms:
> purtatãrãtzi, vãzutãrãtzi, dormitãrãm, etc.

This is nothing like standard Romanian! The perfect stem and past
participle are in principle independent, even though they do
influence one another.

> As rule, it appears clear. Simple perfect is made by participium of
> the root + paradigms
> The same is for Plusque Perfect:
>
> Simpl. Perf= root & -i, - shi, - a, - rãm, - rãtzi, -
> rã
> Plsqp. Perf= root & -sem, -seshi, -se, -serãm, -serãtzi,
> -serã

Omit the -a for the 3s of the perfect. You don't need it for your
explanation, and it has no place historically.

> About your other questions here, I will try to answer in the

evening.

> I don't know how this Participium & Plusque Perfect & Simple

Perfect

> fits etymologicaly with Latin in this case since I have had not

time

> to verify the Latin counterparts.

Historically, the 3rd conjugation did not have a theme vowel - it is
sometimes called the consonant conjugation. (All four conugations
have the _thematic_ vowel, which followed and was absorbed into the
theme vowel in the other three conjugations.) I will ignore the
exception of the 3rd conjugation verbs in -uere; for the purposes of
the perfect (and past participle), they relate to the 2nd conjugation.

Consider the 1st conjugation verb porto: and the 3rd conjugation verb
mergo:. The first had perfect _porta:vi:_ and past participle
_porta:tus_; the second had perfect mersi: and past participle
_mersus_.

The developments of the 2s, 3s and 3pl from Latin to Romanian are:

porta:vísti: > portá:sti: > purtá$i
portá:vit > portá:t > purtá > purtã'
portá:verunt > portá:runt > purtáru > purtárã

mersísti: > mersé$i
mérsit > mérse
mérserunt > mérseru > mérserã

Note that this evolution explains the synchronically strange stress
of the 3rd person of the 'perfects in -se'.

So the "e" that was bothering you is not epenthetic; it has been
syncopated in the regular 1st, 2nd and 4th conjugation verbs. It's
still there in the irregular 1st conjugation non-standard _stetei_
(perfect of _a sta_ 'stand').

The 1s of prefects in -se has been rebuilt by the analogy

mersé$i : merséi :: purtá$i : purtái

replacing the phonetically regular *mér$i.

It seems that the 2pl should have developed

mersístis > merséste > mersétzi.

The stress position has been preserved in refashioned mersérãtzi.

Richard.