On Saturday, February 14, 2004, at 11:13 PM, Richard wrote:
> And now I've found some more germane examples:
>
> _acoperi_ 'to cover': 3s ind. _acoperã_, 3 subj. _acopere_
Noteworthy: until the generations that went to school before
the WW2, the 3 plur. _acopãr_ [a-'ko-p&r] was (also) standard.
To generations born after WW2, the school has inculcate that
the standard form has to be _acoperã_ [a-'ko-pe-r&].
> _parea_ 'to seem' : 3s ind. _pare_, 3 subj. _parã_
>
> This shows the normal 2nd conjugation endings.
Noteworthy:
Romanian native-speakers have almost always had
problems with this category of verbs, e.g. pãrea, cãdea, scãdea,
tãcea, prevedea..., tending to transfer them into the next, 3rd,
conjugation. Inf. forms such as _a pare, cade, scade, tace,
prevedea_ (where the stress falls this way: ['--]) are...
endemic. Hence the combinations in tenses, too (e.g. ind.
future I: va pare, va cade, va scade, va tace -- which continue
to be seen (and they are) *wrong*, even if used by people with
academic ranks such as prof.dr.dr.). An interesting thing is:
_vedea_ vs _prevedea_. Almost no one treat _vedea_ as a 3rd
conjugation verb. But as soon as it is prefixed, _prevedea_,
most people treat it as it belonged to the 3rd conjugation.
Worse: the substantivation _prevedére_ has (for decades) stressed
by more and more people like this _prevédere_. So much so that
official dictionaries endorsed and published by the Academy of
RO ackknowledged this pronunciation too (towards the end of
the sixties; methinks especially since the dictator himself
knew only of this stupid variant).
> Richard.
g