At 11:36 pm -0500 16/1/00, Steg Belsky wrote:
[....]
>But so far, all i've figured out so far (and tentatively, at that) is the
>conjugation of -¬L (-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

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)

>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.

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:

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

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]
=========================================