At 2:42 pm -0500 26/3/01, Steg Belsky wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:10:46 +0200 Christophe Grandsire
><christophe.grandsire@...> writes:
>> En rÈponse ý Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>:
>> > PrÙnÙminnÙrš: eg / tš / hac h’jic / nÙs / jÙs / hÓdÍ hajdÍ
>> > (pronouns: i / you(sg) / he she / we / you(pl) / they(m) they(f)
>
>> Where do hac and h’jic come from?
>-
>
>>From _hic_ and _haec_.
>_hi:d,e:_ and _hajde:_ come from _hi: ei:dem_ and _hae eaedem_.
So Latin h-, which was universally lost elsewhere, gets preserved or
restored? The loss in the spoken language seems to have happened before
the end of the BCE era. I assume the preservation or restoration of /h/
must be due to the influence of Aramaic and/or Hebrew.
[snip]
>
>> > Puttšr’ (future/conditional?):
>> > actÓv’:
>> > -’lj'
>> > -’l‘
>> > -’l‘t
>> > -’l‘mš
>> > -’l‘tÓ
>> > -’lj¤n
>
>> Same origin as in other Romance langs (infinitive + habere)?
>-
>
>Almost... it's infinitive + i:re.
Instead of the supine + ire found in written Latin?
[snip]
>
>> One thing I'm wondering is whether any Romance lang kept a trace of
>> the Latin
>> future imperative...
Not as far as I know.
>>Maybe I should keep it for my Arabo-Romance
>> lang...
>-
>
>What was the future imperative used for?
Thou shalt not steal etc.
It was pretty rare, except for a few verbs where the singular came to be
used instead of the normal imperative, e.g. _esto_ (thou shalt be) is often
used with the same meaning and in preference to _es_ (be!).
Ray.
=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
[J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================