Re: [tied] Re: Late Proto Albanian *3 /dz/ = Early Proto Romanian

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:48:51 +0100, altamix <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:08:54 +0100, altamix <alxmoeller@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> what do you think about merging together of Latin conj. II and IV in
>>> PBR ?
>>
>> Absolutely not. Balkan Romance is the only variety of Romance that
>> has kept the Latin accentuation intact (except for some dialectal
>> variants): II -ém, -étzi vs. unaccented IV -em, -etzi. All the other
>> Romances have merged the two.
>>
>
>I don't know why I have the feeling there are some typos in your message
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30803 regarding the stems
>of the conjugations in Latin.

My grammar lists the conjugations in the order I, II, IV, III, which
confused me. I prefer the name them a:, e:, C and i:-stems, because I
can't the remeber the ordering anyway.

>As per
>http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.
>0001&query=head%3D%23114 the stems for the conjugations should be as
>follow:
>
> I - o: / -a:s / -at / -a:mus / -a:tis / -ant
> II -eo: / -e:s / -et / -e:mus / -e:tis / -ent
>III - o: / -is / -it / -imus / -itis / -unt
> IV - o: / -i:s / -it / -i:mus / -i:tis / -unt
>
>Thus, not II & IV will merge togehter but II & III. Are you sure that in
>other Romance II & IV merged together or there is too II and III?
>
>Actually for indicative, the II & III in Rom. *is* merged together.

Nope. pãreá, pãrém, pãrétzi vs. piérde, piérdem, piérdetzi


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...