> Miguel wrote:
>The only conjugation to maintain a difference between 2 and
>3 sg. was the i-conjugation, so teh 2sg. ending -i spread to
>the other conjugations. This was no doubt aided by the fact
>that in monosyllables -s had become -j (It. hai, stai, dai,
>fai, (s)ei; Rom. ai, stai, dai).
Not true.
1. There are other situations when we have same endings and nobody
care: In Romanian we have 'El cântã' 'Ei cântã' ...and no spreading
process is started.
2. Also based on your ideea why nothing happens in English in this
case? Where we have :
I go, You go, We go, etc...
3. Also why nothing happens in Lithuanian from about 2000 years ?
Where we have similar 3rd sg and pl:
CyrBabaev: "The peculiarity of Lithuanian is the joint 3rd person
form, with no number distinction. It was caused by the disappearance
of two Indo-European endings -t and -nt, so only a vowel remained,
and since then all Lithuanian verbs have the same forms for "he does"
and "they do". Another sign of analytization. "
Strange enough: this is similar enough with Romanian (another
coincidence, isn't it?) where is no trace of -t, -nt as it is in
general in Western Romance.
4. Also why there is no spread of endings in Romanian nouns forms
where Gen.Dat. and Nom.Acc. forms are the same ? (Similar situation
in Albanian...)
I thing that points 1-4 above demonstrate that your argument is "an
ad-hoc one", trying to explain with a formal workaround, the fact
that we cannot obtain in Romanian from a Latin (can)-tas > the Rom.
ân-Ti (Lat -tas would gave -ta, -tã in Romanian and Not Ti /ci/)
So such an ideea that "a conjugation spreading their endings in order
not to maintain identical endings in other conjugation" is a false
one...
Is similar with other ideas like:
1. "i- in Rom. doi is the mark of plural that was added to Latin duo"
=> this in order to obtain doi from duo
2. "an a- was added in front of Rom. Dem. Pronouns that was taken
from the a- of the previous word" in order to explain: a-ia , a-
ceasta, a-cea, a-sta etc...
=> this in order to obtain Rom. asta from Lat. ista
add I will add your ideea at the end...
3. "an i- was spreading from a less important conjugation to the most
important one in order not to have the same endings"
=> this in order to obtain Rom. cânTi /-ci/ from Lat. cantas
etc...
Now I re-propose you again at least a logic connection not a formal
one as is yours:
Theory:
==================================================================
The Dacians have tried to adapt the Latin Verbs that they have
learnt to their conjugation that match bettest the Latin ending-
sounds they have heard.
==================================================================
This theory is simple, is common-sense, is logical.
So if we have had a Balto-Dacian areal where some verb-endings was:
-u
-i
-a
-ame
-ate
-a
and they have heard some endings very closer to that ones in Late
Latin:
cant-o
cant-a(s)
cant-at
cant-amus
cant-atis
cant-ant
they adapted the verb 'cantare' to their conjugation to their endings
like:
cant-u > later cânt(u)
cant-i > cânTi
cant-a > cântã
cant-ame > cântãm
cant-ate > cântaTi(e)
cant-a > cântã
==========================================
The theory above explain 3 things, Miguel:
==========================================
1. Why the 2nd sg is -i in Romanian / Balkan Language
2. Why there is no trace of 3sg. -t in Romanian / Balkan Language
3. Why there is no trace of 3sg. -nt in Romanian / Balkan Language
(but their is one in Western Romance)
Now is your turn to explain these 3 things above Better using a "pure
Latinist" theory: but please don't used "ad-hoc spreading arguments"
Best Regards,
Marius