[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
En réponse à Mangiat <mangiat@hidden.email>: > > Certainly not;-) inf.: vess > pres. (I will include also pronouns and pronominal proclitics): mi (a) > sont > [mI a suNt], ti te seet [tI te se:t], lù/lee l'è [lY lE]/[le: lE], nun > (a) > semm [nYN a sEm], vialter (a) sii [vjalter a si:], lor (i) hinn [lu:r > jIn]. > And I thought Romance languages were not exotic enough to my taste :))) . Your dialect also features these strange personal clitics. Where do they come from? Grammaticalisation of the personal pronouns in subject position which went so far that they lost meaning, until people had to reuse the subject pronouns despite their presence? What surprises me is that they ever were felt necessary enough to become mandatory (I could understand it from a language like French which lost most of its conjugation suffixes, but it doesn't appear in French as much as in Friulan, whereas Friulan didn't lose much of its endings!!). > I will list you also Aemilian and Friulian inf. and aff. (these langs > have > particular conjugation for interrogative also) pr. tense: > > Aem.: inf: èsser; pr.: mé a sòn, té t'î, ló l'é, nó a sèn, vó a sî, lòur > i > én; > Fr.: inf.: jessi; pr.: o soi, tu sês, al è, o sin, o sês, a son. > > Unfortunately I don't have other dictionaries/grammars at hand... > For Friulan: http://www.eirelink.com/alanking/modals/documents/do-g-frl.htm I found this site enlightening :)) . > > STARE > ESTARE ok, that's the normal French development; but how's it > possible that the stress shifts on the *first* syllable (in French???) > and > give EST(A)RE? If it were from STARE I'd expect *éter, not e^tre.. any > ideas? I have to look at this one. I'm thinking that it could indeed come from ESSERE, but the appearance of the T is not a normal development. Maybe one of the infinitive contaminated the other as they became synonymous and finally collapsed into a single declension... I have a book about Old French at home. When I'm there I will look at it. And about Spanish estar/ser: which are their respective uses? I > seem > to recall positional verb/copula, respectively, but I'm not sure... > The difference between both verbs is more complicated than that, especially since they can both be used as copulae. As copulae, ser defines more intrisic qualities, while estar is more about peripheric qualification. Also, indeed, estar is used exclusively for position (meaning inherited from Latin). With past participles estar seems to be used with transient states while ser is more used for unchangeable states (though IIRC you say "estar muerto" instead of *"ser muerto", which sounds a bit contradictory - maybe connected to the belief of the resurrection of the bodies at the end of days of the Catholic Church ;))) -). There are also plenty of expression which differ only by the use of "ser" or "estar" (I remember the long lists of expressions I had to learn for my Spanish classes :)) , though I don't remember the expressions themselves :)) ). Here again, ser seems to be more intrisic and estar more transient. Christophe. http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.