Re: [tied] Romanian Verb Endings and Substratum influence (repost)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:19:52 +0000, alexandru_mg3
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>> 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

Yes, of course. So what?

>3. Also why nothing happens in Lithuanian from about 2000 years ?

Where did you get that ridiculous "2000 years" from?

>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...

Not at all. Happens all the time. It just doesn't _always_
happen.

>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

That's not an idea, it's a fact: Latin <dui> is attested
from the IIIrd century, and we have Ital. (Old Tuscan) dui,
doi and Romanian doi.

>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

Who says the a- is "from the previous word"? Acest and acel
are the same as Catalan aquest and aquell (*accu-iste/u,
*accu-ille/u).

>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...
>
>

[...]

>So if we have had a Balto-Dacian areal where some verb-endings was:
>-u
>-i
>-a
>-ame
>-ate
>-a

Nonsense. Those are the Lithuanian endings. They are not
Proto-Baltic and even less Proto-Balto-Slavic, so there is
no chance that they can be proto-Balto-Slavic-Dacian.

>==========================================
>The theory above explain 3 things, Miguel:
>==========================================
>1. Why the 2nd sg is -i in Romanian / Balkan Language

And in Italian?

>2. Why there is no trace of 3sg. -t in Romanian / Balkan Language

And in Italian?

>3. Why there is no trace of 3sg. -nt in Romanian / Balkan Language
>(but their is one in Western Romance)

-nt became -n in Italian and Romanian, and final -n was lost
in Romanian (cf. aeramen > aramã).

The Romanian verbal endings are essentially the same as the
Italian verbal endings.

The absurd notion that they should be compared instead to
the wrong set of Lithuanian-in-lieu-of-Dacian endings, is,
I'm afraid, completely laughable to anybody who has any idea
about the Italian, Romanian and Lithuanian languages.

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