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

form veguí (Gar.), and -ec forms are occasionally found in other verbs
instead of -c , as in plaech (Fou., R.), aeg (R.-G.) and the calech, valech,
tenech quoted above in §§6c, 6f.
Of the attempts at explanations, Wahlgren feels that Prov. cazec is
too early to be explained by the substitution of -ec for -et, which would not
account for cazegron or cazegut either, at that date, and suggests, very
persuasively, the mixing of *cac < *cadui and cazei < *cadedi, possibly
backed up by the analogy of elec, p.p. elech, giving cazec, p.p. cazech.
Dardel (pp. 140-1) sees the analogical working of correc, parec, supposing
that hypothetical arrhizotonic forms like *corrist, *cazist acted as the link;
this is in line with his theory, but seems rather tenuous to me. It looks as if
we must leave the matter as a mystery, but what does seem clear is that
these verbs had two forms in Proto-Romance. For credere Italian, French,
Spanish and Portuguese offer both -ui and -edi forms; here Dardel believes
in an early paradigm crui, creïs, crut etc. for French, but I can find no
justification for this from a sampling of early texts, in which -edi and -ui
forms seem to be used indiscriminately, while in Spanish and Portuguese
also the two paradigms appear to be independent and fully developed in all
the tenses and moods. It is therefore rather remarkable that the creguè(t)
type does not appear in the oldest stages of Provençal. For cadere, on the
other hand, the other languages do not offer the same degree of duality;
caddi, cadesti is the standard Italian type, cadei/cadetti being popular, and
Spanish and Portuguese know only caí. In French chaï/cheï is standard, and
cheüt dialectal, mostly Eastern, barring the decheürent in the Western
Roman de Rou (cf. the similar seüt). This cheüt can easily be explained in
the light of the p.p. cheü, for which compare similar veüt, veü; Wahlgren (p.
178 and n.) points out that *chui, *chut, formed as jui, jut from iacui(t), are
not found, so that there is no question of forms coming from *cadui, but
given the Prov. and Cat. cazec, casech and the correspondence between Fr.
46