Notably, the S-future of the present used to be used for the actual future in Old Latin ( faxō "I will do" < fac-s-ō is attested), while the optative of the S-future of the present was used for the present subjunctive ( faxīs "you should do" < fac-s-īs). Once again, the similarity seems coincidental. So this amāveris comes from older amāverīs, from amā-v-is-ī-s. The long vowel distinguished this from the future perfect indicative at first, but as Alex B points out, the distinction vanished by Classical times. This comes from the optative of the S-future of the perfect: the optative morpheme -ī- added on to the future perfect stem. But I'm not sure where eris itself (as in "you will be") comes from, so I can't be sure they're unrelated. The similarity to eris seems to be coincidence: vowel reduction and rhotacism turned -is-is into -eris. So a form like amāveris comes from amā-v-is-(i)s. But in Latin, it was replaced with a relative of fiō in the first and second conjugations, and the original subjunctive in the third and fourth.) (The "S-future" is very common for the actual future tense in Ancient Greek: present lyō → future lysō.
/civisromanussum-5b9036bdc9e77c002cf6d2a0.jpg "latin esse conjugation")
In other words, the future morpheme -(i)s- attached to the perfect stem.
This tense comes from "the S-future of the perfect". So using this rule will get the vowel lengths wrong. But this isn't correct either: the infinitive was formed with an ending * -si, with a short vowel. When I was first learning, I was taught to form the imperfect subjunctive by attaching personal endings to the infinitive. But in the rare athematic verbs, the s appears as itself or assimilates: * es-sē-s > essēs, * vel-sē-s > vellēs. In most verbs, this rhotacized: * amā-sē-s > amārēs, * face-sē-s > facerēs, and so on. Where this morpheme comes from is unclear, since it doesn't line up with anything in PIE, but it doesn't seem to be related to sim, sīs, sit (Proto-Italic * si-ēm, * si-ēs, * si-ēd). The imperfect subjunctive in Latin was formed from a Proto-Italic morpheme reconstructed as * -sē.
#Latin esse conjugation free#
If this is contradicted by more recent scholarship, please feel free to correct me!Īll but one of the example words given are in the second person singular, because this shows off the vowel lengths more reliably (and because it's what Jasanoff does). Jasanoff (Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1991). Preface: My main source for this entire answer is The Origin of the Italic Imperfect Subjunctive by J. Whether the vowel lengths match perfectly between esse and perfect stem forms, the similarity is striking. There was a separate question about the vowel length in feceris and similar forms. Probably the perfect active infinitive should be included as well. This question concerns pluperfect and future perfect of indicative and perfect and pluperfect of conjunctive. I will completely ignore those forms for this question they can be explored in separate questions. The active perfect indicative forms ( feci, fecisti, …) do not have this similarity to esse. Were the active forms originally perhaps a combination of an active perfect participle and esse? The corresponding forms of esse are used explicitly in the passive counterparts of these forms.
Is this similarity between esse and perfect stem forms a coincidence? These sound changes are easy to accept, so the analogy between the two conjugations is clearly similar. In pluperfect conjunctive the -ess- is replaced with -iss. In perfect conjunctive an -e- seems to be added and the s>r is explained by rhotacism. It looks as if a form of esse was directly attached to the perfect stem. Many forms formed from the perfect stem ( habitav-, fec-, tetig-, and others) resemble forms of esse.
0 kommentar(er)
