19.06.2013 Views

THE STRONG PERFECTS IN THE ROMANCE ... - Page ON

THE STRONG PERFECTS IN THE ROMANCE ... - Page ON

THE STRONG PERFECTS IN THE ROMANCE ... - Page ON

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

standard forms like poüs, poüst. But once again I cannot feel that his case<br />

is necessarily indisputable. It is a well-known fact that beside pout,<br />

pourent the forms pot, porent were found, and likewise ot, orent, sot,<br />

sorent etc., and I would like to say that one should not exclude the<br />

possibility of two complete inherited paradigms, one poi, poïs, pot, porent<br />

etc. (NFr. the same) and the other poi, poüs, pout, pourent etc. (NFr. pou,<br />

powis, pout, pourent, as given by Pope), which then got confused and set<br />

the pattern for the change of out, ourent, sout, sourent etc. to ot, orent,<br />

sot, sorent. (It is interesting that the Chanson de Roland has pout and<br />

poüst throughout, whereas Chrétien in general uses pot, poïst. In the case<br />

of forms like poüs, powis one has to suppose an intermediate *poðw-<br />

which became *poww-, pow-, just as oüs, awis arose from *aβwis,<br />

*awwis, and ploüs, plawis (attested?) from *plaγwis, *plawwis.) Once<br />

again, I doubt if any clear case can be made either way, unless we can find<br />

writers who consistently used either poi, poïs, pot or poi, poüs, pout, but<br />

anyway there is a chance that pouvoir was like vouloir and tenir in<br />

having paradigms with and without u (see below), though whether this<br />

loss of u goes back to Latin forms like poterit, volerit, tenerit is another<br />

matter. In the case of potui, potuisti the u could have been absorbed,<br />

possibly, in a different way from that seen in the other verbs (that is, the<br />

ones with Proto-Fr. *-ww- that I have just described), seeing that this is<br />

the only verb in -tere (cf. the Spanish and Portuguese forms); clearly pot<br />

(without diphthongisation), if inherited, could not have come from a form<br />

*potit, and we would have rather to imagine *pottit or *poutit or Proto-Fr.<br />

*poððit (cf. vouloir below). In conclusion, let me emphasise that French<br />

usually has the same type throughout the paradigm, whether with or<br />

without -u-, and does not follow the Italian pattern; we shall see a similar<br />

parallel development of different types when come to vouloir, tenir,<br />

venir.<br />

22

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!