France Language – Morphology Part I
In general, the inflection of French continues the Latin inflection, in accordance with the principles of phonetic evolution [ϕ], whose normal effectiveness is often modified both by analogy [ a ] and by the need for precise forms with an easily recognizable value [δ]. Many Latin inflections have been lost: ablative, imperfect subjunctive, etc.; some pushups are romance creations: future, conditional, etc.
In the conjugation I – er, II – ir, III – oir or – re come [ϕ] from the infinitives – are ; – ire ; – ē re, – ĕ re. But, in all ages, the analogy [α] has transferred infinitives from one class to another: paver instead of * pavir, tenir instead of * tenoir, courir instead of courre, recevoir instead of reçoivre, plaire instead of plaisir, rire instead of * rioir. The associative scheme [a] is of the following type: tenir – tenons = venir – venons.
In the present, the three conjugations have uniform endings for the plural: 1. persona – ons seems to represent * – omus, of uncertain origin; 2. – ez continues I – atis, which from the beginning has been extended to II, III (α: Our agency You sell – vendons = chantez – chantons); 3. – continuous ent – ant [ϕ], as well as – ent, – ŭ nt [δ]. In the singular 1. I canto: chant was initially confused with II, III vendo: ant. fr. vent. But for 2, 3, the termination was distinct: I. 2. cantas: chantes, 3. cantat: chante (t); II-III. 2. vendis: ant. fr. venz ; 3. sales: vent. The distinction was later completed for the 1st person: I. chant became chante (α: chante – chanter = tremble from trem (ŭ) lo [ϕ] – trembler); II-III have generalized a s: ant. fr. venz, fr. mod. vends: (α: vends – vendons = sens, from sentio [ϕ]: sentons). These terminations of the present indicative are found in other times and ways, except for the exceptions that will be indicated. As for the radical, it was unstressed everywhere in the 1st and 2nd plural, tonic in the other people. This caused alternations, due to the phonetic laws: mild levons, aime amons, meurt mourons, parole parlons, etc. Some of these alternations, which also exist in the present tense of the subjunctive and imperative, were later destroyed ([α]: parle – parlons = chante – chantons); but several remain (peut – pouvons), and new ones have been formed ([ϕ]: lève levons).
In most verbs in -ir the radical has undergone [δ] the increase of the incoative suffix -īsco, detached from verbs like (ob) dorm ī sco: unis unissons, and – is – has extended [α] up to present subjunctive, indicative imperfect and participle in – ant: join, unissais, unissant.
According to Softwareleverage.org, the present subjunctive originally had two distinct types in the singular: I.1. chant; 2. chance; 3. chant, from cantem, etc. [ϕ]; II-III vende, vendes, vende, da vendam, ecc. [ϕ]. Ma poi II-III invase I, e perciò chante, ecc. [α] (sing – sing = sell – sell). The 1ª pl. I. – ons da * omus [ϕ], in concorrenza con II (e in parte III) – iens da – ĕámus, – ĭámus [ϕ] ha messo dappertutto capo a – ions, che ha dappertutto cagionato 2- iez [α, and partially ϕ: – ĕátis, – ĭátis], instead of I – oiz da – ētis [ϕ], and III – ez da – atis [ϕ]. As for 3. chantent, it is explained by α and δ. Thus a unique paradigm for the present subjunctive was obtained.
Likewise, in the imperfect indicative, the primitive forms of I chanteve, chantoe da cantabam [ϕ, dialectal forms] were soon replaced by III vendeie by * vendéa [ϕ], which is due to the extension [α] of * Habé ??? a, * debé ??? a, from habebam, debebam [ϕ for consonantal dissimilation]. The ending – eie has become – oie [ϕ], then – ois [α] and – ais [ϕ]. Nella 1ª plurale la forma primitiva – iienṣ, da – ẹámue [ϕ], has been replaced by – ions [α of the present tense].
The imperative is represented by the present indicative for the 2nd plural (chantez, vendez), while the 2nd singular comes from the Latin imperative (chante: canta [ϕ], ant. Fr. Vent: vende [ϕ], fr. Mod. vends [α of the vendis ind.).
In the perfect, a distinction must be made between the weak types, with an accent on the termination in all persons: chantai, fine (s), valu (s), and the strong types, with an accent on the radical, at least in the 1st and 3rd sing. and 3rd plur.: fis, vin(s). The weak type I chant – to – as – in (t) – ames – in (s) tes – erent continues the Latin type sang, etc., In the vernacular reduced to I sang. In the 2nd sing., – as, instead of * – ast da – asti [ϕ], is due to the second persons in – s [α]. In the 3rd sing., -Α (instead of * chanto da * cantaut [ϕ]) seems to be due to the analogy of the a, under the influence of the perfect compound (perfect past tense) of almost identical meaning: j’ai chanté, tu as c., and the ac., perhaps also under that of the future, of opposite meaning [ á by antithesis]: chanterai, – as, – a, whence perfect chantai, – as, – a. In the 1st plural, lat. vulg., cantámus, for canta (vi) mus should have given * chantains [ϕ]; chantâmes owes its a to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd sing. and 2nd plur.; the final – e is explained by δ, like that of chanta (s) tes [ϕ * chantaz ]. In the 3rd plur., – arunt gives – èrent [ϕ, and δ for the final e ], dialectal – arent [α, δ, and partially ϕ influence of the r ]. The weak type II fine (s), – is, i (t), – imes, – (s) tes, – irent is explained in a parallel way, according to Lat. fin ī (v) i, etc. The third weak type valu (s), in fr. ant. valúi, is an original creation of the French [α]. Indeed vál ŭ i should have given * vail, cf. vol ŭ i, ant. fr. voil [ϕ]. The perfect of vulgar and archaic Latin. f ū ??? ī (class. f ŭ ??? ī) f ū ??? (i) sti f ū ??? (i) tf ū ??? (i) mus f ū (i) stis f ū (e) runt, which became strong in all people and reduced in French to fui (later fus) fus fu (t) fumes fu (s) tes furent – in accordance with what has been said for I and II – at first it imposed itself on most perfects in -tili, with the radical in – l, – r, making these perfects weak, which originally they were strong, and therefore there was fr. valúi (later valus [α]) valús valú (t) valúmes valu (s) tes valurent. Then, at different times, all the other perfects in – ŭ i were influenced by f ū ??? ī: thus, for example, d ÿb ŭ i, etc. become dui (later dus [α]) dëus dút dëúmes dëüstes dúrent. Originally strong persons (1st and 3rd sing., 3rd pl.) Resisted longer to α of the type f ū i, especially when the stressed root was originally a. Thus, while hábui háb ŭ it h â b ŭ (ĕ) runt gave ói ót órent, one already had tu oü ′ s, nous oü ′ mes, vous oü ′ (s) tes ; and then finally J (e) ü ′ s, tu e (ü ′) s il (e) ü ′ t, nous (e) ü ′ mes, vous (e) ü ′ tes, ils (e) ü ′ rent, where the type fü ′ i triumphs across the board.