Re: latin verb examples and tense meanings

At 6:48 pm -0500 15/1/00, Steg Belsky wrote:
[...]
>
>When i found out that Latin had a passive paradigm, i was looking
>forwards to finding out the passive forms of "to be" so that i could use
>them for the verb "to become" in Jšdajca, the way Hebrew does.
>Do you think it would be possible for an entire paradigm to be made up
>without a previous record of its use?  In Semitic languages it doesn't
>seem that hard, i do it a lot myself :-). but in a Romance language i
>don't know how flexible it would be.
I had further thoughts on this.  I think given the Hebrew unfluence, it
would be feasible to develop passive forms from 'fio, fieri' to become.  In
fact the infinitive already has a a passive ending and the perfectum was
supplied by using the perfect _passive_ forms of 'facere' (to make, to do).
So it's on its way, so to speak, to being passive.

Indeed, in Classical Latin 'fio, fieri' also supplied the passive tenses of
the infectum for 'facere'.  The modern Romancelangs have not perpetuated
this & the descendants of 'facere' form their passives just as other verbs
do in the various varieties of Romance.  I'd strong urge keeing 'facere'
quite separate from 'fieri' in Jšdajca also.

But Romanian at least has used forms derived from 'fio, fieri' to supply
parts of "to be", namely (ý should be t-cedilla):
present infin.  a fi
imperative      fii, fiýi
pres. subj.     fiu, fii, fei, fim, fiýi, fie

It is not unlikely that under the influence of 'fui' (I have been), 'fio,
fieri' could've aquired the meaning "to be", especially if the verb
developed passive forms in Jšdajca to express the meaning 'become'.

The evidence of all the other Romancelangs is that the very irregular
present of 'to be' was so well established that derived forms lived on into
Romance.  I think this must be the case in Jšdajca - unless, of course, the
copula normally is omitted in the present tense as it is in the Semitic
langs.  Actually there are sufficient examples of its omission in literary
Latin to make it not at all unlikely that a Semiticized Romancelang might
well have discarded the inherited present tense forms.

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.



=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================