>The question here is how are we able to say "ignorance of one'sThat's what it is!
>Which are the criteria? The literary language? The languageIf you don't know, then listen to someone who knows.
>of the elite? I don't know if this is a good explanation .
Marius merely pointed out many people use forms that
are simply wrong. And they are wrong. That someone has
the... social status of a peasant does not makes him/her
a Moses-like prophet and his/her stammering milestones
in linguistics. (Ist das die Lach- und Schiessgesellschaft? :)
>About the regularity you see that this is pretty regular:<shucks> You still don't know how these tenses look like and how
>Dusese, fusese, intorsese, trasese, mulsese but too the forms "duse,
>fuse, intoarse ( see dyphtongation here), trase, mulse). Actualy
they are to be applied. (I posted the endings several times. To
no avail? Just try: "repetitio mater studiorum __est__".)
>verbs which makes the participium in "s" are conjugated regular in thisDo you mean participles such as "zis, dres, tras, dus, trimes/trimis, pus,
>way. I am not sure if there are some exceptions , I never looked for.
spus, expus"? If so, what do you wish to say in connection with the
Romanian morphemes "a fi, fire, fui, fost"? Where is the participle
>There is no derivative with "fost", the word(Oh boy, you dare give such an "explanation" to cybalist's linguists?
>is just used with auxiliar " to have" like in english: have been = am
>fost. The word remains always in this form since the one who make the
>conjugation is the auxiliar one
Ich fasse es nicht! :)
>am fost, ai fost, a fost, am fost, atsi fost, au fost).Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses. :)
>BTW, is the form "este" in other Romance languages too?Qu'est ce que c'est? [Kesskössee -- no lake in the Alps] :-)
> What a relationship shows the existent languages between the wordLatin already shows exactly what you are looking for, so it's no surprise to
> "future" and " to come" or life/being/existence ?
find the construction still in Romanian. E.g. rem venturam = the affair to
come, the future, at Livy 2:56:5 and at Horace Epistles 2:1:226.
- g wrote:
>> The question here is how are we able to say "ignorance of one'sIch glaube langsam das ist eine Lachgesellschaft. You can let the
> That's what it is!
>> Which are the criteria? The literary language? The language
>> of the elite? I don't know if this is a good explanation
> If you don't know, then listen to someone who knows
> Marius merely pointed out many people use forms that
> are simply wrong. And they are wrong. That someone has
> the... social status of a peasant does not makes him/her
> a Moses-like prophet and his/her stammering milestones
> in linguistics. (Ist das die Lach- und Schiessgesellschaft? :)
sarcasm slows down here since you say the peasants are wrong. Are they?
They are the people who made this language. Not me, not you and not
generations of linguists & or analyst of language. And you cannot say
they are wrong. You can just say the way they speak doesn't fit in the
"tried_to_be_found" rules and I guess , that should be the only one
thing which can be said about peasants.
> One question for our scholars. Which connection should be the LatinThe word is transparent within Latin as the future participle of a verb "to
> "futurus"? Time, existence, movement?
be", found in the perfect forms fui etc, infinitive fore (= futurum esse, in
meaning), and disguised in the -bo futures and the -ba- imperfects. There
has been some debate about connecting these -b- forms with the fui word, but
I think the doubters lost. We can take both back to the *bheu word = to
flourish, to be.
My personal heresy is that Latin foveo, I cherish, might derive from this
root, as a causative (regular -o- grade + -e/o ending, = I cause to
flourish) although it is normally taken back to a different root meaning to
The vivo word is completely different root, *gWei = to live. It has all
sorts of extensions and there's laryngeals in there if you want them. The
forms it shows are a delight.
>Ich glaube langsam das ist eine Lachgesellschaft.[my allusion was: "Lach- und Schiessgesellschaft" = a cabaret
in Munich, a celebrity in the German-speaking countries;
existence for about 5 decades now; verbatim "laugh and
shoot society", a pun based -I suppose- on the fact that
there is a company specialized in corporate security &
guarding personnel, called "Wach- und Schliessgesellschaft",
verbatim "guards and locking society (i.e. company)"]
>You can let theOnly then: whenever they (or other people, for that matter) ignore
>sarcasm slows down here since you say the peasants are wrong.
the rules *of their own dialect*! Ignoring them means *not knowing*
-- it can also mean being dumb, stupid as well as lazybones, reluctant
to open up that device kept on the neck for instances when it rains
or when it snows...
Democracy means that the stupid also has the right to utter his/her
opinion. But this doesn't mean that everybody will have to lie saying
it was wisdom and not stupidity.
>They are the people who made this language. Not me, not you and not"They" "made" those darned tenses with those specific endings --
>generations of linguists & or analyst of language.
and everybody has to learn them. Your attitude: "this is how I am
in command of the language X, the rest of you either adapt to my
system or buzz off!"
>You can just say the way they speak doesn't fit in theThose few examples with unfitting endings you had carelessly chosen
>"tried_to_be_found" rules and I guess , that should be the only one
>thing which can be said about peasants.
and Marius pointed out they weren't correct: they aren't correct even
if by the rules/standards of the subdialects where e.g. the
"simple" perfect is more frequent in usage than in other regions.
To put it bluntly: you yourself have problems in sentences where
you use one of these perfect tenses. You mix 'em (in a weird way)
and you even make a frequent mistake: putting the simple perfect
form of the 1st person singular in the place of the 2nd person
singular, e.g. "tu *fusei, *zisei"... instead of "tu fuse$i, zise$i"...
Then how on earth will you deal with further details, such as
the real Oltenian usage: "fusãi, fusã$i, fusAAAsã"? :-) (Is it at
least this clear to you now - that the simple perfect of "a fi"
also has these forms -- the older ones --: "fui, fu$i, fu, furãm,
furãtzi, furã"? I.e. without "-se-"/"-sa-", and much closer to the
latin perfect "fui, fuisti, fuit..."?)