Gjuhësi Ballkanike

http://www.dielli.net
Weigand have had different opinions, the first sustaining a Roman source, the second a
“Thracian-Albanian' origin. But some other linguists have not adhered to such opinions.(18).
In order to achieve an adequate solution of this complex problem, it is necessary to take into
account the following general considerations: 1) The creation of future analytic forms through
the grammaticalization of former free word groups is a well-known phenomenon of numerous
I.E. languages. 2) The future type built by means of the auxiliary “will” is encountered also in
languages outside the Balkans. 3) The future type with the suxiliary “have” is not encounterd
only in the Romance and Balkan languages, but in other languages as well. 4) The influence of a
language upon the grammatical structure of another one is an extraordinary phenomenon. Even
when such a rare phenomenon appears, the influenced language should have previously
developed the premises for such an influence. In such cases, one should take into account the
chronlogy of facts as well. 5) The creation of more than one type of future tenses is not an
unknown phenomenon.(19). On the basis of the above general considerations one can draw the
following conclusions with regard to the Albanian future formations: 1) The attestation of both
future types since the pre-literary period of Albanian is a clear evidence of their relatively old
age in both of its dialects, in which they have obviously developed through the
grammaticalization of two different types of word groups, as futurum voluntatis and futurum
necessitatis respectively. Later on, however, their modal nuances have disappeared. 2) The
relatively early attestation of the type do të punoj in the northern dialect is also a clear evidence
against Sandfeld's affirmation that this future type has come from the southern Albania, where it
was allegedly formed under the Greek influence. 3) Sandfeld's other opinion about the
formation of the future type with “kam” under the Latin influence is not less liable to criticism
either.(20).
The above mentioned observations (& 20) are still more valid for Rumanian, for which, because
of its geographical position, a direct or indirect Greek influence can hardly be sustained.(21).
For the Balkan Slavish languages, in this case, one can think of a further reviving of the word
group with the auxiliary “will”, probably, under the influence of the neighbouring languages or
of the substratum.(22).
The above observations aim mainly at rediscussing Sandfeld's well-known thesis about the
Greek influence upon the other Balkan languages in coining the future tense forms with the
auxiliary “will”. This problem, however, requires further investigations.(23).
On the basis of what was exposed in && 19-23, one can draw the following general conclusions
concerning the future formation with the auxiliary “will': 1) This type is due to the
grammaticalization of a former free word group. 2) The fossilization of the auxiliary “will”,
followed by the subjunctive, should have taken place after the replacing of the infinitive (see
Chapter XI). 3) The last phenomenon demonstrates a relatively ancient tendency of the Balkan
languages to get rid of biflectivism in grammaticalized word groups.(24).
188