Conlang: Re: latin verb examples and tense meanings (Raymond Brown, Jan 17 '00, 19:30)

Re: latin verb examples and tense meanings

From:	Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:	Monday, January 17, 2000, 19:30

From:

Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>

Date:

Monday, January 17, 2000, 19:30

At 11:36 pm -0500 16/1/00, Steg Belsky wrote: [....]

There is, of course, no precedent for conflated the two tenses in the Romance langs. The imperfect has maintained itself as a separate tense. It is very like the Slav imperfective past in meaning and contrasts with the past definite (where it survives) or a perfect tense which corresponds to the perfective past in the Slav langs. That is, the difference between the two tenses is very much one of aspect and, since I understood that aspect is fundamental to the verb system in the Semitic langs, I'm a bit surprised at this development in Jûdajca. (Hope the u-cirmcumflex come out OK)

>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.

Yes, but the "have"-based constructions did fuse into single words. I guess you'd maybe have the problem to account for the development when they werent.

>But, the /b/ >that is one of the future's major distinguishing characteristics would >tend to confuse it with the passive of the past.

Yes, one reason it died out in spoken Latin is that in late Latin 'amabit' (future) & 'amauit' (perfect) came to be pronounced alike in many areas, as did 'amabimus' and 'amauimus'. And generations of schoolkids have confirmed that the confusion with the imperfect was always a possibility!

>Also, the /b/ is only >in latin -ARE verbs, so it might drop out anyway.

Not so - the -b- forms are used for -E:RE verbs also. In early Latin they were also found with -IRE verbs; and such forms still occasionally appeared in verse in the Classical period. I think, maybe, it would be helpful to give the full paradigms of the infectum of all five types of regular verbs (in my definition of 'regular') - five, as the 3rd conj. has the 'capio' subset. Thus: PRESENT INDICATIVE Active amo: teneo: mitto: capio: audio: ama:s tene:s mittis capis audi:s amat tenet mittit capit audit ama:mus tene:mus mittimus capimus audi:mus ama:tis tene:tis mittitis capitis audi:tis amant tenent mittunt capiunt audiunt Passive amor teneor mittor capior audior ama:ris tene:ris mitteris caperis audi:ris ama:tur tene:tur mittitur capitur audi:tur ama:mur ten:mur mittimur capimur audi:mur ama:mini: tene:mini: mittimini: capimini: audi:mini: amantur tenentur mittuntur capiuntur audiuntur You will see that in the 1st, 2nd & 4th conj. the thematic vowel - 'a', 'e' and 'i' respectively - is long where-ever possible and the stress will therefore fall on the endings of the 1st & 2nd plural active and on all the passive endings except the 1st pers. singular. The long thematic vowel is regular shortened before -nt-, and before _final_ -t, -r and, where it occurs, -m. The two 3rd declension varieties have short vowels in all endings except -o:. In all except 'mittimini', 'mittuntur' and 'capimini', 'capiuntur' the stress fell on the verb stem. There was a drift towards a three conj. system in western Romance. In Iberian Romance the 3rd conj. got absorbed into the second. In France -E:RE --> -OIR while -ERE --> -RE. Thus, one can see the drift was entirely in the opposite direction there. The -OIR verbs are very much a minority in modern French. Italian keeps closest to Latin but the surving 'capio' do not remain distinctive. Romanian also, I believe, keeps the 4 conjugations. IMPERFECT INDICATIVE Active ama:bam So also: ama:ba:s tene:bam, tene:ba:s etc ama:bat mitte:bam, mitte:ba:s etc ama:ba:mus capie:bam, capie:ba:s etc ama:ba:tis audie:bam, audie:ba:s etc ama:bant Passive ama:bar So also: ama:ba:ris tene:bar, tene:ba:ris etc ama:batur mitte:bar, mitte:ba:ris etc ama:ba:mur capie:bar, capie:ba:ris etc ama:ba:mini: audie:bar, audie:ba:ris etc ama:bantur In early Latin 'audi:bam', 'audiba:s' etc were common. These continue to occur as alternative to the "correct" Classical form in Classical verse. They must have remained in spoken Latin since the Romance forms are derived from -iba(m), -ibas etc. 'capiebam' would have become [ka'pje:ba] in speech. FUTURE INDICATIVE (a) system 1 Active Passive So also: ama:bo: ama:bor tene:bo:, tene:bis etc ama:bis ama:beris tene:bor, tene:beris etc ama:bit ama:bitur and in early Latin and ama:bimus ama:bimur in Classical verse also ama:bitis ama:bimini: audi:bo, audi:s etcama:bunt ama:buntur audi:bor, audi:beris etc (b) system 2 Active passive So also: mittam mittar capiam, capie:s etc mitte:s mitte:ris capiar, capie:ris etc mittet mitte:tur and mitte:mus mitte:mur audiam, audie:s etc mitte:tis mitte:mini: audiar, audie:ris etc mittent mittentur Well, we mentioned the -b- forms of 'system (a)' already. Vulgar Latin developments would mean that, e.g. -e:s of the future and -is of the present would be identical in pronunciation in most places! Indeed with weaking of post-stressed final vowels, this tense is asking to be confused with the more frequently used present! No wonder the Latin futures died out. One possible future might be a development from the early Latin construction of 'supine + to go'. In VL such forms would naturally have fused had they been used, thus 'tene:tum eo' ("I am going to hold", "I will hold") --> [te'ne:tjo:] What you'd have forms derived from the Classical (where ' shows elision of a syllable), e.g. tene:t'eo tene:t'i:s tene:t'it tene:t'i:mus tene:t'i:tis tene:t'eunt Of course that would mean regularizing the 3rd conj. supines - possible extenting the -u:tu(m) ending of VL. But it'd give pretty distinctive forms :)

> >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)

The fact that the singular imperative passive was always identical to the active infinitive didn't appear to worry the Romans :) The imperatives for all conj. were: ACTIVE ama: tene: mitte cape audi: ama:te tene:te mittite capite audi:te PASSIVE ama:re tene:re mittere capere audi:re ama:mini: tene:mini: mittimini: capimini: audi:mini:

The present subj. for all conjugations was: ACTIVE amem teneam mittam capiam audiam ame:s tenea:s mitta:s capia:s audia:s amet teneat mittat capiat audiat ame:mus tenea:mus mitta:mus capia:mus audia:mus ame:tis tenea:tis mitta:tis capia:tis audia:tis ament teneant mittant capiant audiant PASSIVEamar tenear mittar capiar audiar ame:ris tenea:ris mitta:ris capia:ris audia:ris ame:tur tenea:tur mitta:tur capia:tur audia:tur ame:mur tena:mur mitta:mur capia:mur audia:mur ame:mini: tenea:mini: mitta:mini: capia:mini: audia:mini: amentur teneantur mittantur capiantur audiantur

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

Me too :) Hope this helps, Ray. ========================================= A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language. [J.G. Hamann 1760] =========================================