(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3512
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » 13 Jul 2019 04:16

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
04 Jul 2019 23:09
So what's the deal with Italian apocope? Is there any specific rule to when one would delete the final vowel? I listen to a lot of opera and follow along with the Italian libretti, and I would notice final vowel deletion but could never discern any patterns. It seems so random. Why is it "Castiglione del Lago" but "Castiglion del Bosco"? Is there any rhyme or reason to it?
Do you have access to the scores by any chance? Or even just listen attentively to the rhythms at those locations. Check and see if it's not simply a case of "there being too many notes" if the -e isn't deleted. (And, yes, I get that there would be the same number of syllables if the -e weren't deleted! I'm heading towards a comparison of musical motifs in the locations where these phrases are sung!)

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2707
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Omzinesý » 14 Jul 2019 23:44

Do it appear in natlangs that the accusative marker is used only in clause-initially, where it is necessary for telling the subject and the object apart?
That appears in Ido but it's not a natlang.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4518
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » 15 Jul 2019 00:53

People would probabky call it a topic marker or something, maybe object topic marker. Fronting object is often called topicalization independent of the actual information structure status. IIUC, you could call the marker a topic marker. If you are talking about something else, please let me know.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 686
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 15 Jul 2019 04:16

elemtilas wrote:
13 Jul 2019 04:16
Do you have access to the scores by any chance? Or even just listen attentively to the rhythms at those locations. Check and see if it's not simply a case of "there being too many notes" if the -e isn't deleted. (And, yes, I get that there would be the same number of syllables if the -e weren't deleted! I'm heading towards a comparison of musical motifs in the locations where these phrases are sung!)
Yes, in fact, I did think of that, and I think sometimes that is the reason, at least in lyrics. Consider this example from L'elisir d'amore:

Cantiamo, facciam(o) brindisi.
A sposi così amabili.
Per lor sian(o) lunghi e stabili
I giorni del piacer(e).

If you listen to it, you can tell that the addition of those vowels in parentheses would not fit the melody properly. So maybe in opera libretti there is some method to the madness.

But even then I'm not sure. I know in one recitative the character of Nemorino is referred to as "Nemorin" and it seems to be for no reason given that recitatives are relatively free in their form.

And still doesn't account for why one town in Tuscany is called "Castiglione" and another "Castiglion". That just boggles my mind...

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2707
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Omzinesý » 15 Jul 2019 16:33

Creyeditor wrote:
15 Jul 2019 00:53
People would probabky call it a topic marker or something, maybe object topic marker. Fronting object is often called topicalization independent of the actual information structure status. IIUC, you could call the marker a topic marker. If you are talking about something else, please let me know.
Thanks, I didn't think about that analysis.
Though I think topicality is usually marked by the word-order and the semantic role is marked by the case or some marker in the verb. So I still think it should rather be analysed as a case.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4518
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » 15 Jul 2019 22:45

You could say it's differential object marking and accusative is only marked on topicalized objects. Is the fronted-accusative used for anything else? Are in-situ objects unmarked? Could you give an example from your conlang?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2707
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Omzinesý » 16 Jul 2019 15:20

Creyeditor wrote:
15 Jul 2019 22:45
You could say it's differential object marking and accusative is only marked on topicalized objects. Is the fronted-accusative used for anything else? Are in-situ objects unmarked? Could you give an example from your conlang?
This is just a theoretical idea I'm thinking about.

In Ido it seems to be a focus marking, though grammars hardly ever can use the terminology of information structure, but "if an argument is especially stressed" or you just "want" to position it in before subject :)
"Me havas la blua libro." 'I have the blue book.'
"La blua libron me havas." 'It's the blue book I have.'

I was rather thinking that the object is the topic, for what English needs a passive to express. 'The book was seen by me.'
My understanding is that topicalization is a bit messy term. Sometimes it just means that some argument is the topic, sometimes it means that the argument is (left-)dislocated, sometimes it means that the referent of the argument is taken to the discourse from outside the immediate discourse.

Maybe the marker could have some other uses, say object is expressed by the nominative in the end of the clause and with the dative, which has usual dative meanings too, in the beginning of the clause.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4518
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » 16 Jul 2019 19:42

Omzinesý wrote:
16 Jul 2019 15:20
Maybe the marker could have some other uses, say object is expressed by the nominative in the end of the clause and with the dative, which has usual dative meanings too, in the beginning of the clause.
Sounds very plausible. This would be kind of a split-alignment between neutral marking and nom-acc marking.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 313
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Zekoslav » 17 Jul 2019 13:28

Omzinesý wrote:
14 Jul 2019 23:44
Do it appear in natlangs that the accusative marker is used only in clause-initially, where it is necessary for telling the subject and the object apart?
That appears in Ido but it's not a natlang.
Turkish marks only definite objects with the accusative case, but that's not quite what you're looking for (indirectly it could be, if definite objects are topics and fronted, as other people have said). I prefer the dative idea.
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 686
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 17 Jul 2019 20:01

Are there other natlangs that have different forms of adjectives depending on whether they're used attributively or predicatively? I'm sure I know examples, I just can't think of any right now. Are they always a few irregular forms (like English my vs. mine and lone vs. alone) or are there any languages that do it systematically?

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3328
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 » 17 Jul 2019 21:02

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
17 Jul 2019 20:01
Are there other natlangs that have different forms of adjectives depending on whether they're used attributively or predicatively? I'm sure I know examples, I just can't think of any right now. Are they always a few irregular forms (like English my vs. mine and lone vs. alone) or are there any languages that do it systematically?
I think in German, adjectives only agree when they're used as an attributive. That's literally the only example I can think off the top of my head, other than maybe the distinction between short and long form adjectives in Russian, but I've honestly forgotten how they work.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2839
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Dormouse559 » 17 Jul 2019 22:45

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
17 Jul 2019 20:01
Are there other natlangs that have different forms of adjectives depending on whether they're used attributively or predicatively? I'm sure I know examples, I just can't think of any right now. Are they always a few irregular forms (like English my vs. mine and lone vs. alone) or are there any languages that do it systematically?
Due to liaison, French adjectives can have different forms depending on whether they precede a noun. For example, the singular petit and plural petits are both pronounced /pəti/ when they don't precede the noun they modify. But before a noun beginning with a vowel, they both change pronunciation.

le petit arbre / les petits arbres
/lə pəti‿taʁbʁ | le pəti‿zaʁbʁ/
the little tree / the little trees

That alternation is relatively predictable, especially for the plural. A few adjectives have a more drastic change. Beau /bo/ becomes bel /bɛl/ when it precedes a vowel-initial noun.

This isn't strictly an attributive-predicative opposition (it's more based on word order, and only a few adjectives can precede the noun), but it wouldn't take many tweaks to make it into one.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4518
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » 18 Jul 2019 00:35

sangi39 wrote:
17 Jul 2019 21:02
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
17 Jul 2019 20:01
Are there other natlangs that have different forms of adjectives depending on whether they're used attributively or predicatively? I'm sure I know examples, I just can't think of any right now. Are they always a few irregular forms (like English my vs. mine and lone vs. alone) or are there any languages that do it systematically?
I think in German, adjectives only agree when they're used as an attributive. That's literally the only example I can think off the top of my head, other than maybe the distinction between short and long form adjectives in Russian, but I've honestly forgotten how they work.
According to Wiki, Hungarian adjectives only agree when used predicatively.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1533
Joined: 11 May 2010 05:46
Location: Upp.
Contact:

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Aszev » 18 Jul 2019 11:42

sangi39 wrote:
17 Jul 2019 21:02
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
17 Jul 2019 20:01
Are there other natlangs that have different forms of adjectives depending on whether they're used attributively or predicatively? I'm sure I know examples, I just can't think of any right now. Are they always a few irregular forms (like English my vs. mine and lone vs. alone) or are there any languages that do it systematically?
I think in German, adjectives only agree when they're used as an attributive.
That's correct. In northern Swedish dialects you have something similar, as adjectives don't agree with number when used predicatively.

en stor bil 'a big car'
stora bilar 'big cars'
bilen e stor 'the car is big'
bilarna e stor 'the cars are big'
Sound change works in mysterious ways.

Image CE

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 313
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Zekoslav » 18 Jul 2019 13:32

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
17 Jul 2019 20:01
Are there other natlangs that have different forms of adjectives depending on whether they're used attributively or predicatively? I'm sure I know examples, I just can't think of any right now. Are they always a few irregular forms (like English my vs. mine and lone vs. alone) or are there any languages that do it systematically?
As sangi39 said, probably some Slavic languages, depending on how short and long adjectives are used. In Croatian, simplifying a bit, only short adjectives can be used as predicates, while both short and long adjectives can be used as attributes: the distinction is that short adjectives qualify and long adjectives identify nouns, with the distinction roughly corresponding to indefinite and definite articles. So we can have dobar čovjek 'a good man' = what is he like and dobri čovjek 'the good man' = which one is he. However in the spoken language long adjectives have almost completely ousted short adjectives, so that with very few exceptions short adjectives = predicates and long adjectives = attributes. I use short adjectives as attributes roughly once a year, and as predicates every day (this is not an exaggeration), so while the distinction still isn't completely dead it is nearly so. Short adjectives as attributes are limited to the nominative case, so they only appear in sentences like "There was a..." but not "I saw a...".
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

User avatar
cedh
MVP
MVP
Posts: 377
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by cedh » 18 Jul 2019 14:10

sangi39 wrote:
17 Jul 2019 21:02
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
17 Jul 2019 20:01
Are there other natlangs that have different forms of adjectives depending on whether they're used attributively or predicatively? I'm sure I know examples, I just can't think of any right now. Are they always a few irregular forms (like English my vs. mine and lone vs. alone) or are there any languages that do it systematically?
I think in German, adjectives only agree when they're used as an attributive.
Yes. Attributive adjectives agree with their head noun in gender, number, and ~definiteness [the latter is technically not exactly "agreement for definiteness", but attributive adjectives do use different inflectional paradigm when they're preceded or not preceded by a definite article, so it's pretty close]:

ein grüner Baum (MASC.SG.INDEF)
der grüne Baum (MASC.SG.DEF)

eine grüne Wiese (FEM.SG.INDEF)
die grüne Wiese (FEM.SG.DEF)

grüne Bäume/Wiesen (PL.INDEF)
die grünen Bäume/Wiesen (PL.DEF)

Predicative adjectives do not agree with anything:

der Baum ist grün
die Wiese ist grün
die Bäume/Wiesen sind grün


There are two (marked) intermediate constructions too: First, predicative adjectives in a relative clause exhibit no agreement, even though they're functionally similar to attributives:

ein Baum, der grün ist
eine Wiese, die grün ist
Bäume/Wiesen, die grün sind


Second, however, nominalized attributive adjectives (with an omitted head noun) do show agreement, even though they're functionally similar to predicatives:

dieser Baum ist ein grüner [Ø]
diese Wiese ist eine grüne [Ø]

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2707
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Omzinesý » 18 Jul 2019 15:56

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
17 Jul 2019 20:01
Are there other natlangs that have different forms of adjectives depending on whether they're used attributively or predicatively? I'm sure I know examples, I just can't think of any right now. Are they always a few irregular forms (like English my vs. mine and lone vs. alone) or are there any languages that do it systematically?
Northern Saami is a very clear example.
Google examples if needed.

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 686
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 18 Jul 2019 18:27

Thanks for the examples, guys [:D]

User avatar
Ser
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 115
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Ser » 21 Jul 2019 03:33

Zekoslav wrote:
24 Jun 2019 18:35
Old French weak preterites in -ui (like valui, valus, valut...)
I was discussing your posts with a French guy who likes linguistics/romlangs a lot, and this topic seems pretty interesting.

A list of verbs I made in the process (using E. Einhorn's Francien handbook, except for oloir which I looked up on the DMF/DECT/FEW, and note that I have also regularized the 3SG ending to end in -t/-ṭ):
  • FUI
    fuī fuistī fuit fuistis > fui fus fut fustes
  • G1: group one, 2nd conj. verbs with -oi and a hiatus in forms with stress shift
    habuī habuistī > oi eüs
    placuī placuistī > ploi pleüs
    potuī potuistī > poi peüs (moved from 3rd conj. to 2nd: possum posse > *possiō *potēre > puis poḍeir > puis pooir)
    sapuī sapuistī > soi seüs (moved from 3rd conj. to 2nd: sapiō sapĕre > *sapiō *sapēre > sai saveir)
    tacuī tacuistī > toi teüs
  • G2: group two, 2nd conj. verbs with -ui and a hiatus in forms with stress shift
    dēbuī dēbuistī dēbuit dēbuistis > dui deüs dut deüstes
    iacuī iacuistī iacuit iacuistis > jui geüs jut geüstes
    nocuī nocuistī nocuit nocuistis > nui neüs nut neüstes
  • G3: group three, 2nd (or 3rd) conj. verbs with -ui and a simple vowel in forms with stress shift
    caluit > chalut
    doluī doluistī doluit doluistis > dolui dolus doluṭ dolustes
    moluī moluistī moluit moluistis > molui molus moluṭ molustes (actually 3rd conj.: molĕre > moldre > moudre)
    pāruī pāruistī pāruit pāruistis > parui parus paruṭ parustes
    tremuī tremuistī tremuit tremuistis > cremui cremus cremuṭ cremustes (actually 3rd conj.: tremĕre > criembre, perf. also criens crensis)
    valuī valuistī valuit valuistis > valui valus valuṭ valustes
    texuī > unsure, but probably has attestations that go here judging by "tu tissus" in the DMF (infinitive texĕre > tistre > tissir > modern tisser)
  • MISC: miscellaneous, mostly irrelevant
    battuī battuistī > bati batis (3rd conj.)
    consuī consuistī > cousi cousis (3rd conj.)
    flōruī flōruistī > flori floris (moved from 2nd conj. to 4th: flōrēre > florir)
    oluī oluistī > apparently unattested in the simple past (2nd conj., other forms: olēre > oloir, olet > uelt)
    rapuī rapuistī > ravi ravis (moved from 3rd conj. to 4th: rapĕre > ravir, rapimus + -īscimus > ravissons)
    studuī studuistī > estudia estudias (moved from 2nd conj. to 4th: studēre > *studiāre > estudier)
    tenuī tenuistī > tin tenis (2nd conj.)
    voluī > voil/vol/voli volis/vols (2nd conj.)
    vomuī vomuistī > vomi vomis (moved from 3rd conj. to 4th: vomĕre > vomir, vomimus + -īscimus > vomissons)
It is pretty interesting that all G1 and G2 verbs have a Latin stem ending in a plosive, whereas all verbs in G3 have a Latin stem ending in a consonant that doesn't disappear in the development of Old French phonology (a sonorant, or Lat. x /ks/ > Fr. ss /s/ in texuī). I wonder whether the nature of the stem end played a role, perhaps by keeping the old -uī ending around for longer in the case of G3. The stem end certainly explains the presence of the hiatus in G2 at least. But then there's the question of why the difference between G1 -oi and G2 -ui exists at all, esp. between tacuī and iacuī. The French guy I talked to thinks habuī probably lost the [ b ] early enough for [aw] to become [ o ]: [ˈaβui] > [ˈawi] > oi [oi] (pāvī > poi might be relevant too), and then this ending was copied by placuī/potuī/sapuī/tacuī; meanwhile, the -ui/eüs endings of dēbuī/iacuī/nocuī are the "normal" evolution/outcomes (see more below).
Zekoslav wrote:
29 Jun 2019 11:18
when in Vulgar Latin perfects and past participles of the 2nd and 3rd conjugations were regularized so as to be stressed on the suffix, like in the 1st and 4th conjugations (-āvī, -ātum and -īvī, -ītum), the ideal solution would have been the symmetrical -ēvī and -ētum: thematic vowel + -vī, -tum. But only one rather infrequent verb, implēre 'to fill' could provide a model for such endings, and so Vulgar Latin rather generalized the more frequent -didī (from vēndere, vēndidī) and -ūtum (from battuere, battūtum) even if they were'nt symmetrical (thence French je vendis, vendu and je battis, battu).
I'd like to point out not one but three verbs could provide a model for a spreading -ēvī: implēvī, crēvī (i.e. crēscō), and dēbuī. Implēvī ended up in the MISC group as a 4th conjugation verb (> emplir), but both crēvī and dēbuī do appear with -ui/eüs/ut/eümes/eüstes/eürent in Old French: crui creüs and dui deüs. This makes me suspect, so far, that what happened might have been that -ēvī spread from dēbuī/crēvī to other 2nd conjugation verbs to get remodelled as -ūvī later on under influence of the -ūtus past participle, perhaps with reinforcement from existing fuī fuistī > fui fuis, mōvī mōvistī > mui meüs, cognōvī cognōvistī > conui coneüs and plū(v)it > plut. I'd especially classify fuī and cognōvī under "mere reinforcement" because both are third conjugation verbs (esse > *essere > estre, cognōscere > conoistre).

Also, the spread of simple past -i is a phenomenon of some 3rd conjugation verbs, and not 2nd conjugation verbs, although the spread of -ūtum > -uṭ did apply to both the 2nd and 3rd conjugations. I think the only inherited 2nd conjugation verb with simple past -i in Old French is vīdī vīdistī > vi veïs, and only because the Latin verb already had a long -ī- in the stem...

The French guy seems to think that dēbuī > dui, iacuī > jui and nocuī > nui are regular phonological developments, but I disagree looking at dēbūtum > deüṭ (why are dēbuī dēbuit not *deüi *deüṭ? or nocuī nocuit > *neüi *neüṭ?).

Having said all the above on the 2nd conjugation, the 3rd conjugation OTOH also has a stress shift in the simple past forms to the endings -i or -ui that similarly needs an explanation.

Regarding -i, there are no inherited 3rd conj. verbs with the ending already stressed in Latin (-didī is not stressed in Latin), so the stress shift of -i might be explained as analogical influence of the 4th conjugation (which has lots of verbs like audīvī audīvistī > oḍï oḍïs, fīnīvī fīnīvistī > fini finis, dormīvī dormīvistī > dormi dormis), perhaps indirectly reinforced by the past participle as -ūtum > uṭ is stressed after the stem. And so vīcī > *vincī > venqui, rompī > rompi, fūdī > *fundī > fondi, etc., happened.

However, for -ui there is only fuī fuistī > fui fus, so this might be analogical influence of the 2nd conjugation on stems with a sonorant end (moluī > molui, tremuī > cremui), reinforced by fuī, since for some weird reason no 3rd conj. -uī verb with a stem ending a plosive inherited the -ui ending (see battuī/rapuī in the MISC group!), followed by a spread to stems ending in a non-sonorant (bibī bibistī > bui beüs, recēpī recēpistī > reçui receüs, lēgī lēgistī > lui leüs, crēdidī crēdidistī > crui creüs, etc., none of which had -uī in Latin before).

Please note that this is just me talking to a guy to try to figure out a model of the evolution of these Old French verbal forms, and I do not claim to have found a definitive explanation. There are many problems, especially with regard to timing. Saying that the 3rd conj. simple past -i comes from -(d)idī, as you do, assumes -idī (or *-ei, or straight -*i, maybe stressed, maybe unstressed) spread after the reduction of word-final -ī to [ə] or null; however, could it be that the stress shift (which I claim is an influence of the 4th conjugation) happened in words like rompī and fūdī > *fundī before that vowel reduction happened? That would mean it wasn't -idī that spread but straight -ī.

Can -ēvī also really be assumed to have spread and then gotten completely replaced by -ūvī (or stressed -ui) as I say? Other Romance languages like Spanish and Italian show simple pasts like creí and credei, but it is hard to tell as the 2nd conjugation moved to stressed -ui so thoroughly. Also, I'm really not confident whether dēbuī/crēvī could really carry this out on the rest of the entire conjugation class, perhaps there was influence from the 4th conjugation here as well (as part of the overall theme arc of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th conjugations existing in eternal mutual influence...).

Hopefully something in this post will be useful to you or anyone. I spent far too long thinking about this today. [xD]

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2839
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Dormouse559 » 21 Jul 2019 05:25

Oh, I kind of abandoned this conversation. I got sucked down a bit of a rabbit hole reading about the passé simple.
Ser wrote:
21 Jul 2019 03:33
Regarding -i, there are no inherited 3rd conj. verbs with the ending already stressed in Latin (-didī is not stressed in Latin), so the stress shift of -i might be explained as analogical influence of the 4th conjugation (which has lots of verbs like audīvī audīvistī > oḍï oḍïs, fīnīvī fīnīvistī > fini finis, dormīvī dormīvistī > dormi dormis), perhaps indirectly reinforced by the past participle as -ūtum > uṭ is stressed after the stem. And so vīcī > *vincī > venqui, rompī > rompi, fūdī > *fundī > fondi, etc., happened.
There's too much here for me to go through right now, but this caught my eye. I've seen these verb endings explained through analogy with the preterite of (dedī, dedistī, dedit). It makes a lot of sense; many of the verbs are derived from , and it explains the third person in -ié with regular sound changes (and the first-person singular, as it happens.)

Post Reply