Re: i and the imperative ( it was [tied] Romanian Verb Endings...)

From: alex
Message: 38227
Date: 2005-06-01

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> Italian doesn't have a Dacian substratum.
>
> [...]
> 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).
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal


I am afraid there are a lot of doubts. Italian has the "i" in Imperative
2 sg as well which coincide with the 2-sg indicative. And it makse sense
somehow since the imperative could be "catch" as the normal desinence
since formaly there is no diference of sense but a diference of
tonality, thus it is very simple to transfer the desinence of the
imperative to the one of the indicative in this manner.

Conj I andare (tu) vai (indicative and imperative)
Conj II facere (tu) fai (indicative and imperative)
Conj III perdere (tu) perdi (indicative and imperative)
Conj IV capire (tu) capisci (indicative and imperative)

On the contrary, in Rom. we have a merger here of the desinences in
imperative and indicatives just in the conj. II

Conj I a aburca (tu) aburci (indicative) , aburc� (imperative)
Conj II a vedea (tu) vezi (indicative) , vezi (imperative)
Conj III a spune (tu spu(n)i (indicative) , spune (imperative) !!!
Conj IV a sui (tu) sui (indicative) , suie (imperative) !!!
*Conj V a omor� (tu) omori (indicative) , omoar� (imperative)


In French we have the same merger of indicative and imperative for pers
II sg ( faire-> fais-fais, aller - > va(s)-va, venir -> viens-viens,
puvoir -> puex-peux, prendre -> prends-prends)
In Portuguese it appears the desinences merged too together if one makes
abstraction of the last "-s"( cantas-canta)
In Spanish the imperative and indicative does not merge allways, but the
desinences are not the same as in Rom.

Thus, making the comparation of these languages, one cannot say we have
to deal with the same situation but it appears
we have different situations which probably have different origins.



[!!]

I used this attention signs here since for the conjugation IV there are
some verbs which does not respect the imperative of the conjugation they
are belonging to.
For instance, for III conj. the ind. is "-i", imp. is "-e" but for a
verb as "zice" the imperative is "-i" (zici-zi); for conj. IV ind. is
"-i", imperat. is "-e" but for a verb as "a fugi" the imperative is "-i"
again, thus having an irregular imperative. Why this is that way? Well..
that is another subject.

Alex





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.2.0 - Release Date: 27.05.2005