The study is primarily concerned with the mechanism of this remodeling process, but some chronological suggestions are also made. It is claimed here that the development of sum from *esmi is related to the origin of the variation est ∼ st (< *esti). But there is evidence that 'aphaeresis' has no linguistic basis in Latin, and the IE paradigm described must be in terms of the allomorphic variation observable in Plautus. This has been used as a synchronic morphophonemic rule, generating the surface variants from the underlying forms /ess/ and /est/ respectively, and with the implication that the IE model is related directly to these underlying forms. At face value, the paradigm of Plautus contains allomorphic variation-sum, ess ∼ ss, est ∼ st-which has traditionally been explained away by 'aphaeresis'. The data, as they appear, e.g., in early drama, are well known, but they have been incorrectly described. sum, es(s), est from IE *esmi, *esi, *esti involves methodological problems. No doubt the forms sum and sunt themselves (and even the subjunctive form simus) made their contribution to the choice in vowel.The derivation of Lat. But the indicative present tense of sum had no forms with the thematic i, so sumus retained its u. optumus and optimus), and there are the nearby forms ducit and ducitis, the i prevailed and now we have ducimus. DUC -e/o-mos → duc-o-mos → duc-u-mus → ducimusĭucimus technically should be ducumus like sumus (where the u represents o, which is etymologically the same as the ο in Greek λύομεν), but since u before m tends to interchange with i (cf.It is in the third conjugation that we can readily see versions of the thematic vowel e/o: Yes, sum does have third-conjugation-like features in the present tense. *sum, esse may be part of the third conjugation, but it should not be used as an example for the third conjugation because of its principal parts It still retains the present tense endings (-ō/-m, -s, -t, -mus, -tis, -nt). Notice how this verb isn’t completely “irregular”. So which conjugation is it in so I can conjugate it? It’s not in a conjugation at all*. Even if we remove the -e, there is no vowel before it, just an s. Its second principal part is esse, which does not end in -re like most infinitives do. Yes, -m is an acceptable first person singular ending in the present tense, but it doesn’t give us the correct present stem. Its first principal part, sum, does not end in ō, but it ends in m. Since this is a verb we’ll be seeing very often, I will include this verb with other lessons on tenses.Įven in its principal parts, it’s hard to tell what conjugation sum, esse is in. This week, I will cover the irregular verb sum, esse, fui, futurus in the present tense and infinitive. In the specific case of the copula (esse in Latin, be in English), it resulted from the merger of separate verbs. odi, odisse, -, -, hate) are defective others (like sum, esse, fui. I will have lessons on different irregular verbs along the way. A synopsis is common pedagogical tool for those learning/teaching Latin. Some don’t conjugate the same way as those in their conjugation, and some don’t fit into a conjugation at all. Internet Memes in Latin / | \ Διαδικτυακα Μιμιδια Ρωμαιστι Search LinksĢ4 notes AugIrregular Verb: sum, esse, fui, futurus (present active indicative and infinitive)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |