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

Miguel:
"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). "

Really? 'Same' evolution at more then 2000 Km inside the Roman
Empire? That happens only in Catalan and Romanian but you suppose
taht is a Common Latin evolution (*accu < ecce) having the same root
cause but that happened only in Catalan and Romanian ?
Same cause that have been completly ignored the others 1000km in
the middle part of the Roman Empire?

Let's be more serious Miguel with this Catalan-Romanian a-=a-
correspondance...

On the other hand: Rom. a-ia a-cea a-sta, a-ceeaSi Alb. a-jo a-të
a-so a-si a-saj reflect the Catalan too? Or is a common feature of
that areal? What your common-sense will tel you here?

Also there is no attested Latin form *accu isn't it? Only a
reconstructed form *accu based on the "common" Catalan, Romanian
features? How are many other Catalan-Romanian phonetic
correspondances can you present us?

Let's ask you also: *accu is from ecce?
If you have supposed this: I want to tell you that there is no e>
a in Romanian, Miguel...

So please apply Catalan and Romanian phonetic rules here and don't
shows us only the same letters like i-=i-, a-=a- etc...

Also when this e>*a took place? (In Romanian and next in Catalan)
You need to say this too if you want to be credible...with
this "common" Romanian-Catalan evolution that happens "in
synchronization" having "2000km" distance between...

Best Regards,
Marius Alexandru

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> 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@...