Re: latin verb examples and tense meanings

On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:44:56 +0100 Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
writes:
> At any rate, what I'd suggest is that, apart from the present active
> of 'to
> be', you derive all the tenses of the infectum from 'fio, fieri' for
> both
> 'to be' & 'to become', using passive endings for the latter.  'fui'
> should
> then be similarly used for tenses of the perfectum.
> Should be fun  :)
> Ray.
.

I certainly hope so! :-)
But so far, all i've figured out so far (and tentatively, at that) is the
conjugation of -ÂL (-A:L) verbs in the indicative three tenses, poth
paradigms (active and passive).
Last time i used _ama:l_, "to love", so this time i guess i'll use a
semi-opposite, _macta:l_ "to kill".  ;-)

MACTA:L (active) / MACTA:R (passive)

Present:
active:  macto: | macta: | macta | macta:mu: | macta:ti | mactan
passive:  macto | macta:ri | macta:tu | macta:mu | macta:mi:n | mactant

Past: (active from active-perfect, passive from passive-imperfect)
active:  macta:i: | macta:si: | macta:u | macta:mu: | macta:si |
macta:run
passive:  macta:ba | macta:ba:ri | macta:ba:tu | macta:ba:mu |
macta:ba:mi:n | macta:bant

Future:
active:  macta:bo: | macta:bi: | macta:bi | macta:bi:mu: | macta:biti |
macta:bun
passive:  macta:bo | macta:beri | macta:bitu | macta:bi:mu | macta:bimi:n
| macta:bunt

Okay, here are my problems:
1.  i don't want to throw out the latin future tense and replace it with
the common "have"-based constructions, because the Semitic adstrates to
Ju:dajca would support "simple" forms over constructions.  But, the /b/
that is one of the future's major distinguishing characteristics would
tend to confuse it with the passive of the past.  Also, the /b/ is only
in latin -ARE verbs, so it might drop out anyway.  So the future forms
are very tentative, until i know more about the other -_RE patterns.
So....how about i drop the /b/s from the Future forms, based on
equalization between the patterns and widening of dissimilarity between
Future and Past....that'll give me:

Future:
active:  macta:o: | macta:i: | macta:i | macta:i:mu: | macta:iti |
macta:un
passive:  macta:o | macta:eri | macta:itu | macta:i:mu | macta:jmi:n |
macta:unt

2.  the imperatives and subjunctives.  i'm not sure whether the
subjunctives would just fall out of use, or what.  Hebrew and Aramaic
sometime uses future or past forms of "to be" with a present participle
in order to express ideas like "would have", but i have no idea how that
system (which i don't really understand) would influence the
Latin/Romance system of using single-word forms of the verb.  Right now
i'm thinking that whether i keep the subjunctives as subjunctives or not,
the you and you-guys "present" (as Allen and Greenough Latin Grammar
calls it) imperatives would be used as simple commands, and the
subjunctive would be used (either additionally or exclusively) as more
formal, exhortative "let's!" kind of imperatives, expressed in Hebrew and
Aramaic by imperative forms of _hav_, "give" + future verb.
So those would probably be:

Imperative:
active:  macta: | macta:t
passive:  macta:r | macta:mi:n
(with possibly _macta:l_ instead of _macta:_, based on the passive "you"
form being identical to the passive infinitive, or simply having _macta:_
stressed on the last syllable)

Present Subjunctive:
active:  macte: | macte: | macte | macte:mu: | macte:ti | macten
passive:  macte | macte:ri | macte:tu | macte:mu | macte:mi:n | mactent


wow, that was a lot....i need some sleep.  :-)

note:  {s} is /S/, and {t} after a "big" vowel is [s]. all the {c}s there
are [x].


-Stephen (Steg)
 "Vorks or miles, it will make no difference when the Stars come out."