Re: Subject/Object participles
|From:||R A Brown <ray@...>|
|Date:||Friday, September 5, 2008, 12:53|
Jeffrey Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:46:34 -0500, Matthew <ave.jor@...> wrote:
>> R A Brown wrote:
>>> This was situation in Vulgar Latin and is the origin of the
>>> distinction observed in most (but not modern Spanish) Romance langs,
>>> cf. French:
>>> il est venue <-- *(ille) est venutus = he is having-come (cf.
>>> Esperanto 'li estas venita')
>>> il a lit le livre <-- (ille) habet lectum illum librum = he has the
>>> read (having been read) book.
>>> You will notice the lack of asterisk before the second example because
>>> this construction, which was obviously commonplace in Vulgar Latin, is
>>> also attested to a limited extent in the Classical language.
>> I have a problem with the phrase,/ il a lit le livre/; I can't make any
>> sense of it, and to me it defiantly does not seem to correspond to the
>> English translation.
>> I think that "he has the read book", in French would be /il a le livre lu
>> /whereas/ *il a lit le livre : he has (is reading/reads) the book/ and
>> i f by /lit /you meant /lu/, then it would be "he has read the book". I
>> my self would put He has the read book (which to me seems wrong somehow
>> anyway) as /il a le livre qui a Ã©tÃ© lu.
>> /If I'm missing something, please tell me so, and if I'm right, glad I
>> could help :)/
> This is interesting. Since I don't speak French, I thought it might be a
> difference in dialect,
No it ain't - just gross careless from someone suffering
hypocaffeination at the time :(
Somewhere I recalled _lectun_ --> _lit_ - but that's the word for *bed*!!
Of course I should have written _il a lu le livre_
..and that rather spoils the Latin equivalent. It's one of the many
instances where the Vulgar Latin of north Gaul remodeled the past
participle; instead of the Latin _legere_ ~ _lectu(m)_ in North Gaul one
had _legere_ ~ *legu:tu(m)
Sadly my lapse in concentration has drawn attention away from the actual
subject of the thread. Mea culpa!
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]