France Language – Morphology Part II
Perfect Latin forts other than the type – ŭ i have held up well. In the ant. fr. they were strong in the 1st and 3rd singles. and 3ªplur., and weak in the 2ª sing. and 1st and 2nd plur. [ϕ]: perfect in – si (d ī xi etc.): dis desís dist desímes desí (s) tes dístrent ; perfect with lengthening (v ī d ī, v ē n ī, etc.): vi (s) vëís vit vëímes vei (s) tes virent ; vin (s) venís vint venímes veni (s) tes vin (d) rent. They then became strong in all people (ϕ: veís – vis ; a venís – vins).
According to Thereligionfaqs.com, the plumperfect of the Latin subjunctive has replaced the imperfect of the disappeared subjunctive: II dorm ī (vi) ssem, etc. gave in sing. 1st and 2nd asleep – isses (with – and on to the pres. Cong. Sleeping. And also to the 2nd person to δ in relation to dormis 2nd sing. Pres. Ind.); 3rd pers. – ist [ϕ]; plur. 1st and 2nd – issons issez become – issions – issiez (α of dormions – iez); 3ª – issent [α and δ]. Parallel I cantassem gave chantasse – asses – a (s) t – hsons – issez (a of II, under the influence of the indicative imperfects in – iiens: α: chantissons: chantiiens = dormissons: dormiiens). With regard to III, the decline was adjusted in the normal manner on that of the perfect indicative Fusse, valusse, OUSSE, Veisse, desisse, were, then eusse, lived, said, won [α]. The past participle, in addition to the two weak types of classical Latin I – atum: – é [ϕ], II – itum: – i [ϕ], had a third vulgar – ū tum, deduced from trib ū tum and become – u [ϕ]: eu, venu, voulu, etc. The strong participi of Latin both in – s – (clausum) and in – t – (factum) have been partially preserved: clos, fait. Often they are influenced by the perfect corresponding prensum: pris [α], not * prois [ϕ]; m ĭ ssum: mis instead of mes ; they are often supplanted by a weak form: mordu and tordu instead of mors and tors.
The present participle – ant, common to all conjugations, represents [ϕ] at the same time the present Latin participle – antem and the gerundive – ando, which had replaced the other endings of the present participles and gerundives.
Among the new verbal inflections of Romance formation, the future is born from the juxtaposition of the infinitive and the present indicative of avoir: I cantar (e) (h) a (b) ĕ o * cantaraio: chanterai [ϕ]; * audiraio: orrai [ϕ]; III * mitteraio: you will put[ϕ]. But in the II and III more frequently secondary formations prevailed: you will sleep to sleep + ai.
The same happens in the conditional, formed by the infinitive and the indicatic imperfect of avoir: I. cantar (e) (hab) ÿ (o) a (m) * cantaréa: cmteroie [ϕ]; II * audiré ??? a: orroie [ϕ]; III * m ĭ tteré ??? a: mettroie [ϕ]: whence dormiroie [α], then dormirais, etc. [ϕ and α].
Since its origins, French has developed periphrastic forms, by combining an auxiliary, être or avoir, with the past participle. They are used both to express the passive: je suis, j’étais, je serai, je serais aimé, etc., and to express time, j’ai, j’avais, j’eus, j’aurai, j’aurais, que j’aie, que j’eusse aimé, etc., je suis, j’étais, je serai sorti, etc. There are also doubly compound forms, j’ai eu fine, j’ai été parti.
The Latin declension has almost been destroyed in French, especially for nouns and adjectives. Of the six cases of Latin, only two have survived originally: the nominative, which also performs the functions of the vocative, and the accusative, which replaces all the other cases (fr. Ant. Ancienor, etc., fr. Mod. Chandeleur are scholarly fossils). In masculine nouns the type ϕ (sing. Nom. Murus: murs, acc. Murum: mur, plur. Nom. Muri: mur, acc. Muros: murs) gradually supplanted the others, that is: 1. Since origin, the 4th Latin declension, type fructus, confused with it [ϕ]; 2. the canis type (parisyllables of the 3rd decl.), Whose nom. plur. canes was replaced by the form * dogs [α] already in the Merovingian age; 3. the type sérpens serpéntem, cárbo carbónem (imparisyllabic of the 3rd decl.) Which became parisyllable at the same time * serpéntis serpéntem, * carbonis carbónem and treated as such; 4. the liber librum types of the 2nd decl. and pater patrem of the 3rd, first out of stock with – s to nom. sing.: pedre, père [ϕ], then placed in the common type pères [α]. Only the parisyllables of the 2nd and especially the 3rd decl. Latin, which indicate persons and which were frequently used in the nom.-voc., ordinarily characterized by accent shifts and phonetic alternations, resisted for a long time the α of the murs type. Such were the nouns in – or – ó ??? rem, – átor – atorem, – o, – ó ??? ṇ em become [ϕ] in ant. fr. pastre pasteur, emperere empereur, compain lotton, and some others ábbas abbátem: ábes abé ; infans infántem: énfes enfánt, népos nepótem: nies neveu ; présbyter pre (s) byterum: prestre provoire. Later, the s of the murs type tended to add as much to the nom. sing. of these names when they had not already:. Over time the use of nominatives, to which accusatives competed greatly, became increasingly rare, and the accusative ended up prevailing, giving rise to a decline with only one case, sing. mur, plur. murs. pa (s) tre (s), emperere (s), compain (z), quanto ad alcuni imparisillabi, in piccolo numero, con accento fisso: hómo hóminem: (h) on (s) (h) ome. A questi nomi si era imposto in epoca antica il nom. plur. muri: empereor, pa (s) tor, (h) ome, comte