FFlores wrote:
>
> Grandsire, C.A. <grandsir@...> wrote:
> > > > imperfect (used for the progressive and/or habitual past): widely used
> > > > in all the Romance languages I know (French, Spanish and Italian), it is
> > > > generally very regular.
> > >
> > > Indeed, IIRC, the only irregular imperfects in Spanish are _ir_ and
> > > _ser_.
>
> No kidding! You're right! I can't find any other one!
Someone pointed the imperfect of 'ver': vei'a. But as the old form of
'ver' was 'veer', it is not that irregular! :)
> I guess it must be a late development. IIRC the imperfect
> ending was a clitic at some point in time...
>
At least the imperfect of -ar verbs goes directly to Latin:
amaba < amabam
amabas < amabas
amaba < amabat
ama'bamos < amabamus
ama'bais < amabatis
amaban < amabant
I don't know for the -i'a forms.
> >
> > Maybe that's a manifestation of the fact that this tense is still seen
> > as compounded. Is 'a' the 3rd person present of "to have" in Portuguese?
> > It seems very likely to me.
>
> It must be. In archaic-tone Spanish we still say _Ha de verme_
> (which, if _haber_ is equalled to modern _tener_, literally means
> 'He has of to see me' = 'He must/will see me').
>
I thought it had only a meaning of mandatoriness. But I can see the
connection between the obligation and the future.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but "estar" must take the gerund of the verb, and not all verbs
> > have a passive form. I was talking only about the perfect tenses.
>
> You *can* have _estar_ with a passive participle, as in _estar camdo_
> ('to be fallen').
>
I tend to see those forms as simply the verb "estar" with an adjectival
participle more than a compound form of a verb. For me it explains
better their meaning (you know, I'm one of those students who is still
nearly unable to use correctly 'ser' and 'estar' :) ).
> > > Spanish has a subjunctive future, but it's archaic.
> > >
> >
> > I remember it now. I heard it only once in a song (_Hijo de la luna_
> > from the group Mecano, if you know them). I don't remember its
> > conjugation though.
>
> It's like the (past) imperfect subjunctive, but changing -ara -aras -ara etc.
> to -are -ares -are etc. (no double form as in the imperf. -ara/-ase).
>
I remember now. Anyone knows the origin of this form? It must have been
a later development compared to Latin (which had no subjunctive future
except a compound form using the future participle derived from the
supinum).
--
Christophe Grandsire
Philips Research Laboratories -- Building WB 145
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AA Eindhoven
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-40-27-45006
E-mail: grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com