Re: About Romance natlangs and conlangs (Re: ) (LONG)

"Grandsire, C.A." wrote:
>         I don't know for the -i'a forms.
>From -ibam.  Ordinarily, intervocalic voiced stops were lost in the
evolution of the Romance languages, so -ibam --> -i'a is quite regular;
it's -abam to -aba that seems irregular.  Maybe the fact that it was
identical vowels had something to do with it?  Otherwise the endings
would've been:

ama'
ama's
ama'
amamos
ama'is
ama'n

Of course, 1st and 2nd person plurals would have homophonous forms with
present.

>         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).
Here's where they come from:

Imperfect subjunctive, -ara forms < Imperfect Subjunctive of Latin
Imperfect subjunctive, -ase forms < Pluperfect Indicative of Latin
Future subjunctive < Perfect Subjunctive of Latin

In fact, in Portugues, the -ara forms are pluperfect, -ase forms are
imperfect subjunctive, and I think that the future subjunctive of
Portugues is cognate with that of Spanish.

--
"Old linguists never die - they just come to voiceless stops." -
anonymous
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor