Re: A C-a grammar question

On Thursday, June 9, 2005, at 06:46 , Adam Walker wrote:

> --- Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
[snip]
>> A bit, perhaps, not that you point it out. I'm
>> thinking that in most Romance
>> languages, a for-to clause with change of subject is
>> more likely to be
>> introduced with que/che etc. and take the
>> subjunctive.
I think this is so for all Romance langs. In some other languages, like
modern Greek for example, where there is no infinitive or verbal noun,
this is the only way to express a purpose clause, whether there is a
change of subject or not.

But a clause seemed to me so obvious, I had assumed that for some reason
C-a - which does not seem to me to be a 'typical' Romance lang - had to
use the 'pera + infinitive' construction.

[snip]
> Hmm.  Maybe I should change to FI (the C-a cognate of
> que/che) rather than PERA.  That does seem more
> Romance.
That is certainly true, but I get the impression C-a is not typically
Romance.

> And knowing when C-a should use the
> subjunctive just gives me fits.
It varies among the Romancelangs themselves. In Spanish the subjunctive
seems to be widely used and whether one uses the subjunctive or the
indicative in certain subordinate clauses depends upon the nuance one
wishes to give. In French it is, as I understand it, confined in its use
to certain specific subordinate clauses. I have also been told on several
occasions that in French the correct use of the subjunctive marks one as
'cultured'; this must surely imply that in colloquial French the
subjunctive is not used or is incorrectly used by some (many?) speakers.
===============================================

On Thursday, June 9, 2005, at 08:18 , Roger Mills wrote:

> Adam Walker wrote:
> (snipping Ray Brown's excellent discussion, except--)
Thanks   :)

>> «Echa, esti junu fapu grandu pera undrari _AD_ junu
>> cadoligu ils cunxueduñis djils huidelis.» dichid
>> al chimpeda.
>>
>> "Already, it's a deed great for to.honor to a catholic
>> the customs of.the faithful," said the beggar.
>>
>> I like.  Pondering . . .
>
> Yes, makes sense, especially as it preserves the "dative" sense of the
> Latin
> construction.
The dative of the gerundive construction, I assume. As it more or less
follows the modern welsh construction, it gives a Celto-Romance flavor.

> A nice variation on the usual Romance constructions that I
> pointed out.
> -----------------------------------------
> As for the subjunctive...I always loved the Latin/Romance forms, but with
> disuse, lots of grey areas have developed :-((
Yes, there are lots of grey areas and variation within Romance practice -
so I guess Adam can basically do what he likes, if he chooses to retain
the subjunctive.

(Spanish usage snipped)

> Of course one way around all this is, simply to lose the subjunctive (boo
> hiss).
My understanding is that the subjunctive has fallen together with the
indicative in Romanian except for the 3rd pers. singular, where separate
forms are retained. This comes near to losing it. I am told that one can
get by in French without using it (see above).

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply