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

> Italian doesn't have a Dacian substratum.
>
> After the loss of -s and -(n)t in Eastern Romance, the
> endings had become:
>
> [a:-stems]
> -o: > -u
> -a:s > -a
> -at > -a
> -a:mus > -amu
> -a:tis > -ate
> -ant > -a
>
> [i:-stems]
> -io: > -(i)u
> -i:s > -i
> -it > -e
> -i:mus > -imu
> -i:tis > -ite
> -iunt > -(i)u
>
> [e:-stems]
> -eo: > -(i)u
> -e:s > -e
> -et > -e
> -e:mus > -emu
> -e:tis > -ete
> -ent > -(i)u [instead of regular *-e]
>
> [e/o-stems]
> -o: > -u
> -is > -e
> -it > -e
> -imus > -emu
> -itis > -ete
> -unt > -u
>
> 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).

I don't get it; *-s > *-j ? How's that supposed to happen,
phonologically? And why does it coincide with the only separate 2nd
sg. ending? No analogy here at all?
I assume something similar happened in Italian. How does one explain
the plural -es > -i for 3rd declension nouns and adjectives?


Torsten