--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, g <st-george@...> wrote:
> George
>
> PS: "Ce am scris eu & ce or fi citind cybali$tii?" :-)
Good question:-)
maybe some people will wonder now seing the "va" versus "o" here
again as in an older discussion where we thought about Alb. "va-" and
Rom. "o" in "orash" verus "varosh" and co.
That is, the literary language has "va face" and the folk's mouth
has "o face" and here none doubts that "va" is the same with "o".
Nevertheless, the locative progressive as called by Torsten, there is
not known that way in Rom. The fact appears to be simple. In teh Nord-
West "block" the need for subordinating of the actions was made a la :
-phisical state of the speaker is first, the second action being
subordonate to it. For subordonating this, one could use "and"
as "stay and speak" or the gerundial form "is speaking". Why
gerundial? Because gerundium shows an action which ist still
continuing, which ist still going one contrary with the first
principal action which shows repaos.In fact the second action is
answering to the question "how". How is X staying? he is staying but
speaking, thus he stay but speaking, stay speaking
In Rom. a such construction is not usual since it was replaced with
the answer of "why". Why is X staying? He is staying -also his
movement, his princpial action is stopped- because of a reason. Which
is the reason? The speach. He speaks with someone, thus, "stã de
vorbã" where "stã" = stay, "de"= because of, "vorbã" speach. He stays
because of the speak.
Alex