[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Roger Mills scripsit: > What I meant was, how did they develop historically? Latin didn't have > regular pp's in -utus. Yet Ital. regularly has -uto for -ere verbs: devere > 'must', devuto; cadere 'fall' caduto, avere 'have', avuto,veduto 'seen' > etc.; and unexpected venire 'come' venuto. Likewise Catalan AFAIK and > perhaps Romanian; and French, though there it's always hard to tell how > "regular" they are-- venir, venu but devoir, d� (?) connaitre, connu etc. > (And Proven�al?) > > Perhaps there was a Latin pseudo-participial ~adjectival -utus, that seems > to survive in Span. barbudo 'bearded', peludo, Fr. poilu 'hairy'. But it > seems a limited usage......... Well, I'll consult Elcock and see what he > has to say. Yitzik quotes "Introduction to Romance Philology", p.245: <<Past participle uses less variants in Romance languages: suffix _-�tus_ (as in _p�rditus_) disappeared; Italian, French and Romanian started widely using a Vulgar Latin suffix _-utus_ for II and III conjugations that displaced irregular forms; Ibero-Romance languages lost _-utus_ forms that were active yet in 13th c. (OSp. _perdudo_, MnSp. _perdido_) and made suffix _-�tus_ standard for II, III and IV conjugations: cf. L. _cadere, pp _casum_, It. _caduto_, OFr. _che�t_, Ro. _c�zut_, but Sp. _ca�do_, Po. _ca�do_.>> -- Yitzik