Re: THEORY: Tenses (was: Re: THEORY: ... Auxiliaries...)
|From:||JS Bangs <jaspax@...>|
|Date:||Monday, July 18, 2005, 21:50|
> > Minor correction to what Ray said: in this construction you must use
> > the short forms of _a avea_, which are different in the 3sg, 1pl and
> > 2pl:
> > am să merg, ai să mergi, *a* să meargă, *am* să mergem, *aţi* să
> > mergeţi, au să meargă.
> Is that so? I know you use the short forms of _a avea_ _ past participle
> to form the perfect tense.
> I have just checked in "TY Romanian" (Lesson 22, Section 3/2) and it
> definitely gives the long forms of _a avea_ for the future. As the
> construction is colloquial in any case, can it be that usage varies in
> different dialects or indeed in different registers of colloquialness? Or
> is the TY info wrong in this instance?
I am certain that my Romanian book showed us to use the short form.
Interestingly, Google shows many more hits for "avem sa facem" than
"am sa facem". Some of those hits are spurious, but there are some
legitimate examples of each kind, so your dialectical theory is
"I could buy you a drink
I could tell you all about it
I could tell you why I doubted
And why I still believe."
- Pedro the Lion