morphological? - KOPS - Universität Konstanz

3.1. Second person plural –t(u) vs -!i
3.1.1 Old Romanian
Present Subjunctive Imperfect Preterite Pluperfect Conditional
cânt cânt cânta cântai cântase cântare
cân!i cân!i cântai cânta"i? cântasei? cântari
cânt# cânte cânta cânt# cântase cântare
cânt#m cânt#m cântam cânt#m cântasem cântarem
cânta!i cânta!i cânta!i cântatu cântasetu cântaretu
cânt# cânte cânta cântar# cântase cântare
zic zic ziceam zisei zisese zisere
zici zici ziceai zise"i? zisesei? ziseri
zice zic# zicea zise zisese zisere
zicem zicem ziceam zisem zisesem ziserem
zice!i zice!i zicea!i zisetu zisesetu ziseretu
zic zic# ziceau ziser# zisese zisere
3.1.2 Most modern Daco-Romanian varieties do not have –t(u) (and have lost the
conditional tense-form altogether)
Modern Romanian
Present Subjunctive Imperfect Preterite Pluperfect
cânta!i cânta!i cânta!i cântar#!i cântaser#!i
zice!i zice!i zicea!i ziser#!i ziseser#!i
3.1.3 Modern Aromanian preserves the conditional (but not the pluperfect); it has –t(u) in
the preterite but, according to subdialect, either –t(u) or -!(i) in the conditional:
Present Subjunctive Imperfect Preterite Conditional
cânta!i cânta!i cânta!i cântat cântaret / cantare!
zice!i zice!i zicea!i zicearet zicearet / ziceare!
3.1.4 –t(u) probably originates in the preterite, and then extends into other tense forms:
•Inexplicable in historical phonological terms (all 2pl. endings in Romanian should be -!i,
the regular development of Latin –TIS). Every explanation ever given has involved
attributing its origins to analogical changes in the preterite (cf. Rosetti 1964:131; Rothe
1957:92; Graur 1968:228; Maiden forthcoming), and nobody has been able to see how
the phenomenon could have originated in any other tense form. The consensus is, then,
that it originates in, and then spreads from, the preterite.
•Two groups of modern Daco-Romanian dialects, the western Carpathians (Mun!ii
Apuseni with parts of Cri"ana), and parts of Muntenia in south-eastern Romania,
systematically have –tu in the preterite, but -! everywhere else. They perhaps preserve
the original distribution, with –tu restricted to the preterite.
93