Chapter III: Morphology (2)

143. (1) The present participle remained in use as an adjective: _fīlias placentes_ ＞ filhas plazẹns; cf. § 101, (3). In its verbal function it was replaced by the ablative of the gerund: _vĕnit accŭrrens_ ＞ _vĕnit accŭrrendo_ ＞ ven acorrẹn. In most Provençal dialects, however, the present participle and the gerund coincided in form (_amantem_ and _amando_ both ＞ amán), the gerund being distinguished from the participle only by its lack of inflection: see § 76, (2).

(2) The gerund retained only the ablative case, the use of which was considerably extended: see above. In its other cases it was replaced by the infinitive: _artem dīcendī_ ＞ _artem dīcĕre_ ＞ art de dire. The supine, too, was replaced by the infinitive: _vīsum vĕnit nōs_ ＞ _vĕnit nōs vĭdēre_ ＞ ven nọs (a) vezẹr.

INFINITIVE, PRESENT PARTICIPLE, AND GERUND.

144. The infinitive endings _-āre_, _-ēre_, _-īre_ regularly became -ar, -ẹr, -ir; _-ĕre_ became -re or -er: see § 48, (1) and § 52, (1). Ex.: _amāre_ ＞ amár, _vĭdēre_ ＞ vezẹr, _audīre_ ＞ auzir; _tŏllĕre_ ＞ tǫlre, _nascĕre_ ＞ náisser, _dīcere_ ＞ dire dízer. For shifts of conjugation, see § 137.

1. The fourth conjugation verbs _enantir_, _gauzir_, _grazir_,
_murir_, _servir_ sometimes took a final _e_ by the analogy of
_devire_ (＜ _divīdĕre_), _dire_, _rire_. On the other hand,
_dire_ occasionally lost its _-e_ by the analogy of the fourth
conjugation. _Lire_ for _leire_ (＜ _lĕgĕre_) is probably
French, and _lir_ is to be explained like _dir_.

2. _Far_ beside _faire_ doubtless comes from ✱_fare_ =
_facĕre_: see § 137, (1). _Trar_ beside _traire_ (＜ ✱_tragĕre_)
follows _far_.

3. _Escriure_ (＜ _scrībĕre_) sometimes became _escrire_ through
the analogy of _dire_.

4. Some verbs that passed from the second to the third
conjugation preserved the old infinitive as a noun: _debēre_ ＞
_deure_ _devér_, _placēre_ ＞ _plaire_ _plazér_.

145. The endings _-antem_ _-ando_, _-ĕntem_ _-ĕndo_ regularly became -an or -ant, -en or -ent: § 76, (2). See § 143, (1). The endings _-iĕntem_ _-iĕndo_ lost their i in Vulgar Latin (§ 40, 1), and were thus reduced to _-entem_ _-endo_. Ex.: _amantem_ _amando_ ＞ amán (or amánt), _vidĕntem_ _vidĕndo_ ＞ vezén (or vezént), _credĕntem_ _credĕndo_ ＞ crezén (or crezént); _sapiĕntem_ _sapiĕndo_ ＞ ✱_sapĕntem_ ✱_sapĕndo_ ＞ sabén (or sabént), _partiĕntem_ _partiĕndo_ ＞ ✱_partentem_ ✱_partendo_ ＞ partén (or partént). Fourth conjugation verbs which adopted the inchoative -sc- (§ 138), generally introduced it into the present participle and the gerund: florir, florissẹn. Cf. § 155. For the declension of the present participle, see § 101, (3).

PAST PARTICIPLE.

146. The Provençal past participle comes from the Latin perfect participle. It is to be noted that verbs which originally had no perfect participle were obliged to create one in order to form their compound tenses: see § 141, (1). Past participles in Provençal, when inflected, were declined like bęl: §§ 102; 102, 1; 103, (1). See § 141, (1).

147. In the first and fourth conjugations the endings were _-ātum_ and _-ītum_, which regularly became -at and -it: _cantātum_ ＞ cantát, _finītum_ ＞ fenít. The first conjugation verbs which had a form in _-ĭtum_ discarded it for _-ātum_: _crepāre_ _crĕpĭtum_ = crebár crebát. On the other hand, _aperīre_ and _operīre_ preserved their participle in _-ĕrtum_: cubrir (＜ _cooperīre_), cubęrt (also cubrít); ubrír (＜ _aperīre_ + _cooperīre_), ubęrt. By the analogy of these, sufrir (＜ _suffĕrre_) and ufrir (＜ _offĕrre_) have sufęrt (also sufrít), ufęrt. Tenẹr tenir keeps its Provençal second conjugation ending, tengüt (see § 148); and venir, following the analogy of tenir, has vengüt.

148. (1) Most Latin verbs of the second and third conjugations had no accented ending, but a few had an ending _-ūtum_, which corresponded very well to the _-ātum_ and _-ītum_ of the first and fourth: _arguĕre_, _argūtum_; _consuĕre_, _consūtum_; _sĕqui_, _secūtum_; _solvĕre_, _solūtum_; _volvĕre_, _volūtum_. This ending was considerably extended in Vulgar Latin, especially to verbs having a perfect in _-ŭī_: _habēre_, _habŭī_, _habĭtum_ ✱_habūtum_. In Provençal it spread still further: cazẹr, cazęc, cazegüt. Inasmuch as it was closely associated with the perfect, it came to be attached, more and more frequently, to the stem of that tense.

(2) Of the Provençal verbs of the second and third conjugations, about half adopted the ending -üt. In some the -üt is added to the stem of the infinitive: crezüt, defendüt, escondüt, molüt, perdüt, resemüt, respondüt, rompüt, vendüt, vezüt veüt. Most of the verbs, however, attach the -üt to the stem of the preterit: nasc, nascüt; pasc, pascüt; tems, temsüt; tesc, tescüt, venc, vencüt (from vẹnser); visc, viscüt. A few have both forms: agüt avüt; cazegüt cazüt; vengüt venüt. It is to be noted, in the case of verbs that add -üt to the preterit, that if the third person singular of the preterit ends in a voiceless consonant preceded by a vowel or l or n, that consonant is voiced in the participle: ac, agüt; bẹc, begüt; cazęc, cazegüt; conọc, conogüt; crẹc, cregüt; dẹc, degüt; elęc, elegüt; mǫc, mogüt; nǫc, nogüt; plac, plagüt, plǫc, plogüt; pǫc, pogüt; remas, remazüt; saup, saubüt; sęc, següt; tẹnc, tengüt; tǫlc, tolgüt; valc, valgüt; vẹnc, vengüt (from venir); vǫlc, volgüt. Exceptions are ceupüt, saupüt (beside saubüt), and vencüt (from vẹnser): for ceupüt, saupüt, cf. § 65, P, 3; in vencüt the c was perhaps kept to distinguish the word from vengüt (venir).

(3) The other half of the second and third conjugation verbs generally preserved the old participle with no accented ending: ars, cẹing, claus, dich, düit, estrẹit, fach, iọinch, mẹs, ọnh, pǫst, prẹs, trach, etc. Some of these have also forms in -üt: defẹs defendüt, elig eslęit elegüt, escọs escondüt, mǫut molüt, nat nascüt, remas remazüt, rọt rompüt, vis vezüt. A few verbs made up new forms without a stressed ending: conquęrre, conquẹs conquis; redemer rezemer, redems (rezemüt); sọrger, sọrs; tǫlre, tǫlt tǫut; vezẹr, vist (vis vezüt veüt); vǫlvre, vǫut. _Mĭttĕre_ probably had beside _mĭssum_ a form ✱_mīsum_ (cf. _mīsī_); hence mẹtre, mẹs mis. By the analogy of this, prendre has beside prẹs a form pris. ęstre borrowed estát from estar ＜ _stare_. Escriut, from escriure, is probably influenced by the infinitive; escrich follows dich. So, probably, does elig = eslęit, from elegir eslire eslir.

1. For sọi agütz (= ai estat), which is found not only in some
Provençal dialects, but also in southeastern France, French
Switzerland, and parts of northern Italy, see § 141, (1),
footnote 1.

FUTURE AND NEW CONDITIONAL.

149. For the formation of these parts, see § 142, (1), (2). Ex.: amarái, creisserái, florirái. Verbs of the second conjugation regularly, and verbs of the fourth very often, syncopate the e or i of the infinitive: remanrái, volrás; partrái, venría. Third conjugation infinitives with final e drop this e before the ending; those in -er keep the e: vẹndre, vendrái; náisser, naisserái. First conjugation infinitives regularly keep the a (§ 45), but in a few texts (especially the _Girart_ and the _Rasos de trobar_) the a is changed to e: cantarái, sonaría, trobarẹm; blasmerán, comterá.

1. _Esser_ keeps the old future forms _er_, _ers_, _er_, beside
_serái_, _serás_, _será_ (_serém_, _serétz_, _serán_).

150. For the phonetic changes exemplified in a_u_ría, de_u_rái, mo_u_rá; pla_i_ría; ca_i_rá, ve_i_rái; val_d_rái; reman_d_rém, ten_d_ría; po_i_ría, see § 70, βr, C´r, Dr, Lr, Nr, Tr. Anar (＜ _annāre_) has beside anarái a form irái from ir (＜ _īre_). ęsser drops its first syllable (serái), perhaps through elision (tu ’sserás, etc.), perhaps in accordance with the general principle stated in § 19. Faire far always makes its future and conditional from the latter form (farái). Sabẹr has beside sabrái a form saubrái, due no doubt to the combined influence of aurái and the preterit saup ＜ _sapuit_. Vezẹr, following the analogy of beurái, deurái, viurái, has veurái beside the regular veirái.

151. The composite nature of the future and conditional was still sufficiently felt, in the literary period, to admit of the separation of the component parts: amar vos ái, dar n’ẹtz, donar lo t’ái, tornar nos ẹm, tornar s’en ía.

FUTURE ENDINGS.

152. For the 1st pers. sg., the Provençal verb used the form ✱_ayo_ ＞ ai (§ 73, βy); for the 2d and 3d pers. sg. and the 3d pers. pl., the forms ✱_has_ ＞ as, ✱_hat_ ＞ a (§ 82, T), ✱_hant_ ✱_haunt_ ＞ an aun (§ 83, Nt): see § 137, (1). In the 1st and 2d pers. pl., _habēmu’_(§ 82, S, 2), _habētis_ naturally gave avẹm, avẹtz (§ 64); but inasmuch as the other four terminations were monosyllabic, the av- was dropped when avẹm, avẹtz came to be understood merely as future endings. The future is, therefore, inflected as follows:--

cantar-ái cantar-ẹm
cantar-ás cantar-ẹtz, -ẹs, -ẹt
cantar-á cantar-án, -ánt, -áun, -áu

1. In Gascony and Languedoc we find -ęi for -ai: see §§ 23,
2; 162, (4). In Gascon and in the modern dialects of some
other regions -am is used for ẹm. In some dialects of Béarn,
Languedoc, Provence, and Dauphiné, -ẹm becomes -ẹn: cf. § 65,
M, 1; also § 167, 2.

CONDITIONAL ENDINGS.

153. _Habēbam_ ＞ aβẹβa ＞ (probably through dissimilation: § 87, β) aβẹa ＞ avía (§ 26); so avías, avía, aviám, aviátz, avían. But inasmuch as the conditional was formed in imitation of the future, and none of the future forms retained the av-, the conditional endings were reduced to -ía, -ías, -ía, -iám, -iátz, -ían. Some dialects, which substituted -on for -an, introduced -íon into the conditional: § 169. The conditional is, therefore, inflected as follows:--

cantar-ía cantar-iám
cantar-ías cantar-iátz, -iás, -iát
cantar-ía cantar-ían, -íon, -ío

1. In verse these endings are sometimes counted as
monosyllabic: poiri͡a. Guiraut Riquier uses -íatz for -iátz. In
some dialects of Béarn, Languedoc, Provence, and Dauphiné, -iám
becomes -ián: cf. § 65, M, 1; also § 167, 2.

PRESENT.

154. The personal endings will be discussed separately in §§ 164-169.

155. The Provençal present indicative and subjunctive come, in the main, directly from the corresponding parts of the Latin verb:--

_amo_ ＞ am _amāmu’_ ＞ amám
_amas_ ＞ amas _amaātis_ ＞ amátz
_amat_ ＞ ama _amant_ ＞ áman

_faciam_ ＞ fassa _faciāmu’_ ＞ fassám
_facias_ ＞ fassas _faciātis_ ＞ fassátz
_faciat_ ＞ fassa _faciant_ ＞ fássan

In the 4th conjugation, however, most verbs have adopted the originally inchoative -sc- (§ 138) and incorporated it into the inflection of the present, except in the 1st and 2d pers. pl. of the indicative:--

_florīsco_ ＞ florísc _florēmu’_ ＞ florẹm[114]
_florīscis_ ＞ florís florísses _florētis_ ＞ florętz[114]
_florīscit_ ＞ florís _florīscunt_ ＞ floríscon

_florīscam_ ＞ florísca _floriscāmu’_ ＞ floriscám
_florīscas_ ＞ floríscas _floriscātis_ ＞ floriscátz
_florīscat_ ＞ florísca _florīscant_ ＞ floríscan

We occasionally find such forms as florissẹm, florissętz, and florám, florátz.

1. The s coming from sc´ was of course originally palatal; it
is sometimes written _sh_. The sc of the 1st pers. sg., the 3d
pers. pl., and the whole pres. subjunctive was replaced, in
some dialects, by s or sh: floris florish, florisson florishon,
florissa florisha.

156. Of the Latin imperative forms, only the present active, 2d pers. sg. and pl., remained in use. The Provençal verb kept the sg., but substituted for the pl. the 2d pers. pl. of the present indicative:--

_ama_ ＞ ama
_amāte_ _amātis_ ＞ amátz

_tĕne_ ＞ ten
_tenēte_ _tenētis_ ＞ tenętz

_crēde_ ＞ crẹ
_crēdĭte_ ✱_crēdĭ́tis_[115] ＞ crezętz

_partī_ ＞ part
_partīte_ _partītis_ ＞ partętz[115]

_fīnīsce_ ＞ finís
_finīte_ _finītis_ ＞ finętz[115]

In negative commands the present subjunctive is generally used instead of the plural imperative, and sometimes the infinitive is employed instead of sg. or pl. The verbs auzir, avẹr, dire, ęsser, sabẹr, vezẹr, volẹr regularly took their imperative forms from the present subjunctive: áuias, digátz, veiátz, etc.

1. _Fait_ ＜ _facĭte_ (beside _faitz_) seems to come directly
from the Latin form.

2. Before _vos_ the pl. drops final _-tz_ (or _-t_?): _departe
vos_, _vene vos_. _Ve vos_ becomes _veus_; a fusion of _ve vos_
and _ec_ ＜ _eccum_ results in _vecvos_.

DOUBLE STEMS.

157. Differences in accentuation and in the environment of vowels or consonants regularly developed different stems in different parts of some verbs. For instance, _ádjūtā́re_ ＞ aidar (§ 45), while _adjū́tat_ ＞ aiüda.

158. Sometimes, as above, an intertonic vowel disappeared: _mándūcā́re_ ＞ maniar, _mandūco_ ＞ ✱mandüc manüc; ✱_parabolāre_ ✱_páraulā́re_ ＞ parlar, ✱_parabŏlat_ ✱_paraulat_ ＞ paraula. In such cases the shortened stem usually prevailed: mania, parla. But in _adjutare_ the longer one was preferred: aiüdar.

159. (1) A vowel which breaks in one part of a verb may be unstressed, and therefore remain unbroken, in another part: _probāre_ ＞ proar, _prŏbat_ ＞ prueva,[116] ✱_sequīre_ ＞ sęguir, ✱_sĕquit_ ＞ sięc.[117] In such cases the phonetic development is generally undisturbed.

(2) A vowel which breaks in one part of a verb may, with different environment, remain unbroken even in another part in which it is stressed: ✱_volēre_ ＞ volẹr, ✱_vŏleo_ ＞ vuelh, ✱_vŏlet_ ＞ vǫl. If the breaking occurs in the 1st pers. sg., the phonetic development is regularly undisturbed; if it occurs in the 2d and 3d pers. sg., it is generally carried into the other forms in which the vowel is stressed: _cŏllĭgit_ ＞ cuęlh, hence cuęlh = _collĭgo_; _ĕxit_ ＞ ięis, hence ięsc, ięscon, ięsca.

160. A consonant may be followed by e̯ or i̯, and so palatalized, in one part of the verb, and not in another: ✱_cadeo_ ＞ chai, ✱_cadēmu’_ ＞ chazẹm; _dēbeo_ ＞ dẹch dẹi (§ 73, βy), _dēbet_ ＞ dẹu; _faciat_ ＞ fassa, _facĕre_ ＞ faire; _fŭgio_ ＞ füi, _fugĕre_ ＞ fugir; _jaceam_ ＞ iassa, _jacēre_ ＞ iazẹr[118]; _placeāmu’_ ＞ plassám, _placēmu’_ ＞ plazẹm; _sapiam_ ＞ sapcha, _sapit_ ＞ sap; _tĕneo_ ＞ tenh, _tĕnet_ ＞ ten; _valeo_ ＞ valh, _vales_ ＞ vals; _vĕniat_ ＞ venha, _venīre_ ＞ venir; _vĭdeam_ ＞ vẹia, _vidētis_ ＞ vezẹtz; ✱_vŏleo_ ＞ vuęlh, ✱_vŏlet_ ＞ vǫl. Verbs in _-eo_ generally keep this distinction; but we find mǫva, somóna, tẹma = _mŏveam_, _submŏneam_, _tĭmeam_. Most verbs in _-io_, on the other hand, dropped the i̯ in Vulgar Latin: _partio_ ✱_parto_ ＞ part, _partiunt_ ✱_partunt_ ＞ parton, _partiam_ ✱_partam_ ＞ parta; sen, senton, senta; sięrf, sięrvon, sięrva; etc. A few verbs show forms both with and without the e̯ or i̯: _audio_ ＞ auch (_audiam_ ＞ auia), ✱_audo_ ＞ au; _crēdo_ ＞ crẹ, ✱_crēdeo_ ＞ crẹi[119]; _vĭdeo_ ＞ vẹi[119], ✱_vĭdo_ ＞ vẹ.

161. Verbs in -ng- naturally developed a palatal consonant before e or i (§ 73, Ng´), but not before other vowels: _cĭngĕre_ ＞ cẹnher, _cĭngo_ ＞ cẹnc, _cĭngit_ ＞ cẹnh, _cĭngam_ ＞ cẹnga; so fẹnher, ọnher, plánher, pọnher, etc. The palatal was carried by analogy into the parts that were originally without it: hence the double forms cẹnc cẹnh, cẹngon cẹnhon, cẹnga cẹnha, etc. These double forms led tenẹr, venir to adopt tenc, venc, tenga, venga, beside the regular tenh, venh, tenha, venha. Such forms as these, supported by dẹrc ＜ _de-ērĭgo_, dic ＜ _dīco_, pręc ＜ _prĕco_, sęc ＜ ✱_sequo_, trac ＜ ✱_trago_, etc., afforded a starting-point for an ending -c, adopted by some other verbs in the 1st pers. sg. of the present indicative: _pĕrdo_ ＞ pęrt pęrc, _pr(eh)ĕndo_ ＞ pren prenc, _remaneo_ ＞ remanh remanc, etc.

PECULIAR FORMS.

162. The following verbs have individual peculiarities that call for special mention:--

(1) Anar (＜ _annāre_), ‘to go’, takes most of its present
from _vadĕre_: indicative, _vau_ _vauc_ (analogy of _estau_
_estauc_), _vas_, _va_ _vai_ (analogy of _fai_), _anám_,
_anátz_, _van_ _vaun_ (analogy of _estan_ _estaun_);
subjunctive, _an_ or _vaza_ (＜ _vadam_) _vaia_ (analogy of
_vai_ and of _traia_), _vaga_ (analogy of _traga_), etc.;
imperative, _vai_ (analogy of _fai_), _anátz_.

(2) Aucire (＜ _occīidĕre_: § 43) has in the pres. indicative
3d sg. _auci_ (＜ _occīdit_) and _aucis_ (analogy of _aucizém_,
_aucizétz_). Cf. _auzir_, _caire_, _rire_, _traire_, _vezér_.
These forms were doubtless helped by the analogy of _ditz_ (＜
_dīcit_), _dütz_, _fatz_, _iatz_, _letz_ (＜ _lĭcet_), _platz_,
_tatz_.

(3) Auzir (＜ _audīre_) has in the pres. indicative 3d sg. _au_
(＜ _audit_) and _aus_ (analogy of _auzém_, _auzétz_). Cf.
_aucire_, _caire_, _rire_, _traire_, _vezér_. See also § 160.

(4) Aver (＜ _habēre_) has in the pres. indicative: _ai_ (＜
_habeo_: § 73, βy), _as_, _a_, _avém_, _avétz_ (see §§ 167,
168), _an_ _aun_; see § 137, (1). There is no trace of ✱_ho_.
Instead of _ai_, the dialects of Aude, Tarn, Tarn et Garonne,
and Haute-Garonne have _ei_ (cf. _Gram._, II, p. 304), which
probably developed first in the future (§ 152, 1) through the
analogy of the preterit ending _-ei_ which took the place of
_-ai_: _amāvi_ ✱_amai_ ＞ ✱_amai_ _amei_ (§ 175), then _amarai_
＞ _amarei_, then _ai_ ＞ _ei_. The pres. subjunctive is _aia_ (＜
_habeam_: § 73, βy). For the imperative, see § 156.

(5) Caire cazér (＜ _cadĕre_ ✱_cadēre_) has in the pres.
indicative 3d sg. _ca_ (＜ _cadit_) _cai_ (analogy of _brai_ ＜
✱_bragit_, _fai_, _trai_ ＜ ✱_tragit_, _vai_) _cas_ (analogy of
_cazém_, _cazétz_: cf. _aucire_, _auzir_, _rire_, _traire_,
_vezér_).

(6) Conóisser (＜ _cognōscĕre_) has in the pres. indicative 1st
sg. _conosc_ (＜ _cognōsco_) and _conóis_ (analogy of 2d and 3d
sg., _conóisses_, _conóis_).

(7) Creire (＜ _crēdĕre_): pres. subjunctive _creza_ (＜
_crēdam_) and _crega_ (analogy of _diga_, _sega_, _traga_). See
also § 160.

(8) Créisser (＜ _crēscĕre_): pres. subjunctive _cresca_ (＜
_crēscam_) and _crega_ (analogy of _diga_, _sega_, _traga_, and
of the imperfect subjunctive _cregués_).

(9) Dar (＜ _dare_): _dau_ (＜ ✱_dao_), _daun_ (＜ ✱_daunt_); see
§ 137, (1).

(10) Destruire (＜ ✱_destrūgĕre_ = _destruĕre_): analogy of
_agĕre_, _tĕgĕre_, etc. Cf. _traire_. ✱_Destrūgit_ ＞ _destrüi_.

(11) Dever (＜ _debēre_) has in the pres. indicative 1st sg.,
beside _dech_ _dei_ (§ 160), _dec_ (analogy of _dic_, _prec_,
_sec_, _trac_, and perhaps of the preterit _dec_).

(12) Dire (＜ _dīcĕre_): _dic_ (＜ _dīco_) _diu_ (cf. § 51, 3; §
65, G, 1); _ditz_ (＜ _dīcit_) _di_ (analogy of _fai_, _trai_,
and of imperative _di_ ＜ _dīc_); _dízon_ (analogy of _ditz_,
_dizém_, _dizétz_); _diga_ _dia_ (both ＜ _dīcam_: § 65, G). For
the imperative, see § 156.

(13) Düire (＜ _dūcĕre_): _dütz_ (＜ _dūcit_) _düi_ (analogy of
_destrüi_, _trai_).

(14) Eissir (＜ _exīre_): _iesc_, _iescon_, _iesca_, analogy of
_conosc_, _florisc_, etc.; for vowel, see § 159, (2).

(15) Ésser estre (＜ ✱_ĕssĕre_ = _ĕsse_). Pres. indicative:
_sŭm_ ＞ sọn sọ (§ 82, M), then, by the analogy of _ai_ and
_füi_, sọi süi; _ĕs_ became ęst ięst, perhaps through _ĕs tu_
＞ ęs-t-u ＞ ęst-tü, supported by the analogy of the preterit
ending of the 2d sg. (vọs vendętz, tü vendęst or vendięst, so,
to match vọs ętz, a form tü ęst or ięst); _ĕst_ became ẹs,
probably through such combinations as quẹ’s (understood as
qu’ẹs); _sīmu’_, which existed in Latin beside _sŭmus_ (Rom.,
XXI, 347), gave sẹm, while from _ĕstis_ there was constructed
an ✱_ĕsmus_ ＞ ęsmes (rare), and from ętz a form ẹm (very
common); _ĕstis_ ＞ ęstz ętz (§ 78, 2); _sŭnt_ ＞ sọn sǫ (§
83, Nt). Pres. subjunctive: _sĭm_, _sīs_, etc., were replaced
in V. L. by ✱_sĭam_, ✱_sĭas_, etc. (on the analogy of _fiam_,
_faciam_, etc.), which gave sía sías sía siám siátz, sían síon;
we find also sẹia, etc., formed apparently on _deia_, _veia_.
Imperative borrowed from subjunctive.

(16) Estar (＜ _stare_). Pres. indicative: _estáu_ (＜ ✱_stao_)
_estáuc_ (§ 161); _estás_ (＜ _stas_); _está_ (＜ _stat_) _estái_
(analogy of _fai_, _trai_); _estám_ (＜ _stamu’_); _estátz_
(＜ _statis_) _estáitz_ (after _faitz_); _están_ (＜ _stant_)
_estáun_ (＜ ✱_staunt_); see § 137 (1). Pres. subjunctive:
_estía_, etc., _estéia_, etc., patterned on _sia_, _seia_; also
_estéi_, perhaps a cross between _esteia_ and ✱_esté_ ＜ _stem_.
Imperative: _está_, _estáitz_.

(17) Faire far (＜ _facĕre_ ✱_fare_): § 137, (1). Pres.
indicative: _fatz_ (＜ _facio_) _fau_ (analogy of _dau_,
_estau_) _fac_ _fauc_ (§ 161); _fas_ (＜ ✱_fas_); _fatz_ (＜
_facit_) _fa_ (＜ ✱_fat_) _fai_ (influence of _faire_, _faim_,
_faitz_, and of _trai_); _faim_ (＜ _facĭmu’_: § 167, 1) _fam_
(＜ ✱_famu’_) _fazém_ (see _fazétz_); _faitz_ (＜ _facĭtis_)
_fatz_ (＜ ✱_fatis_) _fazétz_ (analogy of regular verbs,
_crezétz_, etc.); _fan_ (＜ ✱_fant_) _faun_ (analogy of _daun_,
_estaun_). Pres. subjunctive: _faça_ _fassa_, etc. (＜ _faciam_,
etc.). Imperative: _fai_ (＜ _fac_); _fatz_ _faitz_ (borrowed
from indicative) _fait_ (＜ _facĭte_).

(18) Iazér (＜ _jacēre_), also _iassér_ (influence of _ias_
＜ _iatz_ ＜ _jacet_, and of _iassa_?): _iatz_ (＜ _jacet_)
_iai_ (analogy of _fai_, _trai_); _iassa_ (＜ _jaceam_) _iaia_
(analogy of _traia_, _vaia_).

(19) Movér móure (＜ _movēre_ ✱_mŏvĕre_): _mova_ (＜ ✱_mŏvam_ =
_mŏveam_) _moga_ (analogy of _traga_).

(20) Partir (＜ _partīre_): _part_ (＜ ✱_parto_ = _partio_)
_parc_ (§ 161); so _parta_ _parga_.

(21) Perdre (＜ _pĕdĕre_): _pert_ _perc_, _perda_ _perga_; see §
161.

(22) Plazér plaire (＜ _placēre_ ✱_placĕre_): _platz_ (＜
_placet_) _plai_ (analogy of _fai_, _trai_); _plassa_ (＜
_placeam_) _plaia_ (analogy of _traia_, _vaia_).

(23) Podér (＜ ✱_potēre_ = _pŏsse_): see § 137, (1). Pres.
indicative: _posc_ (＜ _pŏssum_ influenced by _cognōsco_)
_puosc_ _puesc_ (analogy of _puoc_ _puec_ ＜ _pŏtui_), _puecs_
(? ＜ ✱_pots_ ＜ ✱_pŏtsum_ + _puesc_), _pois_ (＜ ✱_pŏsseo_);
_potz_ (＜ _pŏtes_); _pot_ (＜ _pŏtet_ = _pŏtest_); _podém_ (＜
✱_potēmu’_); _podétz_ (＜ ✱_potētis_); _póden_ (＜ ✱_potent_)
_pódon_, _pon_ (analogy of _potz_, _pot_, and _son_ ＜ _sŭnt_).
Pres. subjunctive: _posca_ _puosca_ _puesca_ (like _posc_
_puosc_ _puesc_), etc.; _poissa_ (＜ ✱_pŏsseam_), etc.

(24) Prendre (_prĕndĕre_ = _prehĕndĕre_) penre (see § 71, end):
_pren_ (＜ _prĕndo_) _prenh_ (analogy of _tenh_, _venh_) _prenc_
(§ 161); so _prenda_ _prenha_ _prenga_.

(25) Rire (＜ ✱_rīdĕre_): _ri_ (＜ _rīdet_) _ritz_ (analogy of
_rizém_, _rizétz_: cf. _aucire_, _auzir_, _caire_, _traire_,
_vezér_); _ria_ (＜ _rīdeam_?).

(26) Sabér (＜ ✱_sapēre_): see § 137, 1. Pres. indicative:
_sai_ _sei_ (analogy of _ai_ _ei_ from _avér_); _saps_; _sap_;
_sabém_ (＜ ✱_sapēmu’_); _sabétz_ (＜ ✱_sapētis_); _sáben_ (＜
✱_sapent_) _sábon_. Pres. subjunctive: _sapcha_ (＜ _sapiam_).
Imperative from subjunctive.

(27) Tazér taire (＜ _tacēre_ ✱_tacĕre_): _tatz_ (＜ _tacet_)
_tai_ (analogy of _taire_ and of _fai_, _trai_).

(28) Tenér (＜ _tenēre_): _tenh_ (＜ _tĕneo_) _tenc_ (§ 161); so
_tenha_ _tenga_.

(29) Traire (＜ ✱_tragĕre_, perhaps also ✱_tracĕre_, =
_trahĕre_): _trac_ (＜ ✱_trago_ or ✱_traco_) _trai_ (§ 63,
6)[120]; _trai_ (＜ ✱_tragit_) _tra_ (analogy of _da_, _esta_,
_fa_, _va_) _tratz_ (＜ ✱_tracit_?: cf. _aucire_, _auzir_,
_caire_, _rire_, _vezér_); _trázon_ (analogy of _tratz_);
_traga_ _traia_ (both ＜ ✱_tragam_).

(30) Vezér (＜ _vidēre_): _vei_ (＜ _vĭdeo_) _vec_ (§ 161);
_ve_ (＜ _vĭdet_) _ves_ (analogy of _vezém_, _vezétz_: cf.
_aucire_, _auzir_, _caire_, _rire_, _traire_). Imperative from
subjunctive.

(31) Volér (＜ ✱_volēre_ = _vĕlle_): see § 137, (1). Pres.
indicative: _vuelh_ (＜ ✱_vŏleo_); _vols_ (＜ ✱_vŏles_); _vol_
(＜ ✱_vŏlet_); _volém_ (＜ ✱_volēmu’_)[121]; _volétz_ (＜
✱_volētis_); _vólon_ (＜ ✱_vŏlent_). Pres. subjunctive: _vuelha_
(＜ ✱_vŏleam_), _vuelhas_, _vuelha_, _vulhám_, _vulhátz_,
_vuelhan_. Imperative from subjunctive.

163. In verse the present subjunctive ending -ia sometimes counts as one syllable: si͡atz. Cf. § 153, 1.

PERSONAL ENDINGS[122].

164. (1) In the first person singular final _-o_ and _-em_ regularly disappeared: _amo_ ＞ am, _amem_ ＞ am. When, however, the _-o_ or _-em_ was preceded by a consonant group requiring a supporting vowel (§ 52), the ending was regularly retained as -e: _dŭbĭto_ ＞ dọpte, _sŭffĕro_ ＞ suffre, _trĕmŭlem_ ＞ tremble.

Through the analogy of ai, crẹi, dẹi, sọi, vẹi, and the 1st pers. sg. of the preterit, this -e was in the indicative generally changed at an early date to -i: ✱_cŏpĕro_ ＞ cǫbre cǫbri, ✱_opĕro_ ＞ ǫbre ǫbri; so _ĭmpleo_ ✱_ĭmplo_ ＞ ompli. This -i (occasionally -e) was then taken as a distinctive ending of the 1st pers. sg., and was added to many verbs that needed no supporting vowel: auzir, au auze; azorar, azọr azọri; cantar, can canti; cọrre, cọr cọrri; mẹtre, mẹt mẹti; prezar, prętz pręzi; remirar, remir remire remiri; respondre, respon respondi; sentir, sen senti; vẹndre, vẹn vẹndi.

In the subjunctive, when a final vowel was required, -e was usually kept; it was also extended to some verbs that did not need it: acabe, dọne, mire, plọre. Very rarely an unnecessary -i was added instead of -e: laissar, lais laissi.

(2) The ending _-am_ regularly gave -a: _audiam_ ＞ auia.

165. In the second person singular final _-as_ regularly remained, and _-ēs_ and _-ī̆s_ became -s (or, when a supporting vowel was required, -es): _amas_ ＞ amas; _valēs_ ＞ vals, _sapĭs_ ＞ saps, _partīs_ ＞ partz; _dŭbĭtēs_ ＞ dọptes. Cf. § 82, S. Sometimes, especially in late texts, -s is expanded into -es: canz cantes, partz partes, saps sabes, vals vales; so floris florisses, etc.

Final _-a_ remained, and _-ē̆_ and _-ī_ fell: _ama_ ＞ ama, _tĕne_ ＞ ten, _crēde_ ＞ crẹ, _partī_ ＞ part.

166. In the third person singular final _-at_ became -a, _-ĕt_ and _-ĭt_ fell (but remained as -e when a supporting vowel was needed): _amat_ ＞ ama, _amet_ ＞ am, _tĕnet_ ＞ ten te, _vĕnit_ ＞ ven ve; _trĕmŭlet_ ＞ tremble. Cf. § 82, T.

167. In the first person plural the final _-s_ disappeared early, _s_ being perhaps regarded as a distinctively second person ending[123]. The rare form ęsmes = _sŭmus_ is the only one that retains the _s_: cf. § 162, (15).

Then _-āmu’_, _-ēmu’_ gave regularly -am, -ẹm: _cantāmus_ ＞ cantám, _habēmus_ ＞ avẹm. Likewise _-ĭmu’_, through the analogy of _-āmu’_, _-ēmu’_, came to take the accent on its penult, and then regularly developed into -ẹm: _crēdĭmus_ ✱_credĭ́mu’_ ＞ crezẹm. This -ẹm of the second and third conjugations passed into the fourth, and entirely displaced the -im that would have been the regular representative of _-īmu’_: _partīmus_ ＞ ✱partím partẹm.

1. In _faim_ ＜ _facĭmu’_ the old accentuation apparently
survives: cf. § 52, (4), 1.

2. In some dialects of Béarn, Languedoc, Provence, and
Dauphiné, _-m_ apparently becomes _-n_: _devén_, _havén_,
_volén_; so _aurián_, _trobarén_, _segrián_ (cf. § 152, 1; §
153, 1). Cf. § 65, M, 1.

168. In the second person plural _-ātis_ regularly gave -atz: _amātis_ ＞ amatz, _audiātis_ ＞ auiatz. The regular form from _-ētis_ is -ẹtz, which we find kept in the future (veirẹtz) and in the present subjunctive (cantẹtz); in the present indicative it was replaced by -ętz, probably through the analogy of ętz ＜ _ĕstis_: _habētis_ ＞ avẹtz avętz, ✱_potētis_ ＞ podẹtz podętz, so sezętz, valętz, etc.; the rare avẹtz and podẹtz are the only forms that preserve ẹ. The ending _-ĭtis_, taking the accent on its penult (cf. § 167), became ✱-ẹtz, then -ętz: _crēdĭtis_ ＞ crezętz. This -ętz also displaced the -itz that would have been regular in the fourth conjugation: _partītis_ ＞ partętz.

The final -tz was reduced, in some of the principal dialects, to -s (§ 64): cantás, sezęs, partęs. In other dialects it was replaced very early by -t (§ 64): auiát, avęt, passát, podęt; so partirẹt, etc.

1. In _faitz_ ＜ _facĭtis_ the old accentuation apparently
survives.

169. In the third person plural _-ant_, _-ent_, _-unt_ gave respectively -an -ant, -en, -on -o (§ 83, Nt): _amant_ ＞ áman ámant, _audiant_ ＞ áuian áuiant; _valent_ ＞ válen, _ament_ ＞ ámen; _vēndunt_ ＞ vẹndon vẹndo. In Languedoc -an was replaced by -on or -o in the 13th century; in other regions, later: ámon, chanto ls, coménso l. The _Boeci_ has -en for -an: amen, monten. In Gascony and some of the Limousin territory -en partially displaced -on (floríssen, párten, vẹnden), elsewhere -on or -o displaced -en (válon).

IMPERFECT INDICATIVE.

170. In the first conjugation _-abam_ regularly gave _-ava_. In the second, through the analogy of _aβéa_ ＜ _habēbam_ (§ 153), _-ēbam_ came to be replaced, in southern Gaul, by _-éa_, which regularly changed to _-ía_ (§ 26). In the third, _-iēbam_ regularly became _-ēbam_ (§ 40, 1); and this and original _-ēbam_ were replaced by the _-éa_ ＞ _-ía_ of the second conjugation. In the fourth, _-ībam_, which had in the accented syllable the characteristic vowel of the conjugation, crowded out _-iēbam_; _-ībam_ then lost its β through the analogy of the second and third conjugations. We have, then, in Provençal, only two sets of endings: _-áva_, etc., in the first conjugation; _-ía_, etc., in the second, third, and fourth.

amáva vezía fazía partía
amávas vezías fazías partías
amáva vezía fazía partía
amavám veziám faziám partiám
amavátz veziátz faziátz partiátz
amávan vezían fazían partían

1. In poetry _ía_ is sometimes counted as one syllable:
_avi͡an_, _devi͡an_.

2. For some subsequent developments of western dialects, see
Meyer-Lübke, _Gram._, II, p. 326.

3. For the personal endings, see §§ 164-169.

4. _Esser_ has: ęra, ęras, ęra, erám, erátz erás, ęran ęron ęro.

PRETERIT, OLD CONDITIONAL, AND IMPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE.

171. These parts are all formed from the same stem, that of the Latin perfect: cf. § 141, (2). Ex.: cantęi, cantęra, cantęs; vendęi, vendęra, vendęs; partí, partíra, partís; vi, vira, vis; dẹc, dẹgra, deguẹs.

PRETERIT.

172. Preterits which stress the ending throughout are called _weak_; those which do not stress the ending throughout are called _strong_: part_í_, part_íst_, part_í_, part_ím_, part_ítz_, part_íron_ is weak; saup, saub_íst_, saup, saub_ém_, saub_étz_, sáub_ron_ is strong. Verbs of the first and fourth conjugations regularly have weak preterits (amęi, finí). Verbs of the second and third, with very few exceptions, originally had strong preterits (_placuī_ ＞ plac, _fēcī_ ＞ fis): many of them, however, developed weak preterits either in Vulgar Latin or in Provençal (irasquęi, nasquęi, tessęi tesquęi, visquęi); some assumed a weak form in -í in the 1st pers. sg. (dis dissí, pris prenguí, remas remanguí, trais traguí: cf. §§ 173, 177); quęrre, on the other hand, substituted a strong preterit (quis, etc.) for a weak one.

173. (1) Final _-ī_, in the first pers. sg., doubtless remained through the earlier stages of Provençal (_habuī_ ＞ águi, _dīxī_ ＞ díssi): cf. § 51, (2). Before it fell, it changed an accented ẹ in the preceding syllable to i (_vēnī_ ✱_vēnuī_ ＞ ✱vẹngui vinc): cf. § 27; occasionally, however, the ẹ was kept, through the analogy of the other persons (pris prẹs). Sometimes, instead of falling, the -i took the accent (following the analogy of the fourth conjugation) and remained: águi ＞ ac or aguí, díssi ＞ dis or dissí (cf. § 177).

When the -i was immediately preceded by an accented vowel, it regularly formed a diphthong with that vowel, and did not fall (_fuī_ ＞ füi): cf. § 51, (3); but -íi was simplified to -i (_partīvī_ _partīī_ ＞ partí).

Before enclitic l, -ei -iei were often reduced to -e -ie: cantiel.

(2) In the 2d pers. sg., _-stī_ became -st, a preceding ẹ being changed to i (§ 27): _partīstī_ ＞ partíst, _debuĭstī_ ＞ deguíst; sometimes, through the analogy of the 2d pers. pl., ẹ remains (venguẹst: cf. § 27, 2). Occasionally the final -t disappears: anięst anięs, fezíst fezís.

(3) The _-t_ of the 3d pers. sg. was lost in strong preterits: _placuit_ ＞ plac, _vīdit_ ＞ vi. In weak preterits, it was retained by most dialects after é, and by many after í: donęt donę, vendęt vendę; partí partít. Cf. § 82, T.

(4) In the 1st pers. pl., _-mus_ _-mu’_ (see § 167) was reduced to -m: _vīdĭmu’_ ＞ vim.

(5) The _-stis_ of the 2d pers. pl. regularly became -tz (§ 78, 2), later in many dialects -s (§ 64): _debuĭstis_ ＞ deguẹtz deguẹs.

(6) The _-runt_ of the 3d pers. pl. regularly gave -ron or -ro (§ 83, Nt): _partīrunt_ ＞ partíron partíro, _vīdĕrunt_ ＞ viron viro. In some dialects -en is substituted for -on: _fŭĕrunt_ ＞ fọron fọren (cf. § 169).

The _e_ before _-runt_, which in classic Latin was usually long, was always short in Vulgar Latin when it was preserved at all: _amavĕrunt_ ＞ _amārunt_, _fēcĕrunt_.

WEAK PRETERITS.

174. (1) In the first and fourth conjugations we find in Latin the following endings:--

_-āvī_ _-āī_ _-āvĭmus_ _-īvī_ _-īī_ _-īvĭmus_

_-āvĭstī_ _-āstī_ _-āvĭstis_ _-īvĭstī_ _-īstī_ _-īvĭstis_ _-īstis_
_-āstis_

_-āvit_ _-aut_ _-āvēre_ _-īvit_ _-īit_ _-īt_ _-īvēre_ _-īvē̆runt_
_-āvē̆runt_ _-ārunt_ _-īrunt_

The popular speech preferred in every case the shortened form, and generally reduced _-āvĭmus_, _-īvĭmus_ to _-āmus_, _-īmus_ (in southern Gaul _-āmu’_, _-īmu’_: § 167), on the analogy of the 2d pers. sg. and pl.

(2) In the second conjugation a few verbs (_delēre_, _flēre_, _nēre_, _-olēre_, _-plēre_, _viēre_) had similar endings (_delēvī_, etc.), which were doubtless contracted in like fashion in so far as these words were in common use. Most verbs of this conjugation, however, had strong preterits (_tacēre_, _tacuī_; _vidēre_, _vīdī_; etc.).

(3) The third conjugation had in classic Latin no weak endings corresponding to those of the first, second, and fourth; but the vulgar speech developed a set in the following manner. Compounds of _dare_ formed their perfect in _-dĭdī_ (_perdĭdī_); this _-dĭdī_, in accordance with the principle set forth in § 16, 3, came to be pronounced -dę́dị (_condédi_); and -dędị, probably through dissimilation[124], was shortened to -dęi (✱_credéi_). With this form as a starting-point, a weak preterit was created on the analogy of those of the other conjugations, the endings being something like -ęi, -ęstị, -ęt, -ęmus -ęmu’, -ęstis, -ęrunt. This inflection was probably extended to some verbs outside the _-dĕre_ class (✱_battéi_, etc.?).

175. (1) In Provençal the weak inflection disappeared from the second conjugation, _delēre_ and _-plēre_ passing into the fourth, and the other weak verbs going out of use.

(2) Verbs of the fourth conjugation (except venir) all took the weak endings -í, -íst, -í, -ím, -ítz, -íron: partí, partíst, partí, partím, partítz, partíron. Irregular verbs either disappeared or became regular (_sensī_ = sentí), with the exception of _venīre_ ＞ venir (vinc).[125]

(3) The new weak endings of the third conjugation developed into -ęi, -ęst, -ęt, -ém, -ętz, -ęron: vendęi, vendęst, vendęt, vendém, vendętz, vendęron. In the 1st pers. sg. the ę often broke (vendięi), and the diphthong was sometimes carried into the 2d pers. sg. (vendięst). These endings were considerably extended in Provençal (cazęt, etc.), and were occasionally attached to a strong preterit stem (nasquęt, tesquęt, venquęt, visquęt). Most verbs, however, kept their strong preterit (mis, conọc). The _-īvī_ perfect disappeared from the third conjugation: _quæsīvit_ ＞ ✱_quæsit_ ＞ quẹs.

(4) The first conjugation discarded its own weak endings, and substituted those of the third: cantęi cantięi, cantęst cantięst, cantęt, cantém, cantętz, cantęron. This strange phenomenon seems to have originated as follows: _dare_, _dĕdī_ ＞ dar, dęi; from dar the ending -ęi was readily extended to estar (estęi); and from these two very common verbs it spread to the whole first conjugation.

Irregular verbs (except _dare_, _stare_) either disappeared or became regular.

1. According to Meyer-Lübke, _Gram._, II, p. 304, Latin _-ai_
became by phonetic process -ęi in Vulgar Latin, and -ęi or -ięi
in Provençal. There seems to be no evidence to support this
theory. Cf. § 23, 2.

2. In the dialects of Béarn and Catalonia the original _a_
remains in some parts of the preterit.

176. A final -c, which developed in the strong _-ui_ preterits (§ 184), often became attached to the 3d pers. sg. of weak preterits of the fourth conjugation: floríc, fugíc, iauzíc, partíc.[126] It was sometimes extended to other weak preterits: chantęc, entendęc, nasquęc,[127] paręc.[128] We find also a 3d pers. pl. cazęgron, etc., and even a 1st pers. sg. ameguí, etc. In some western dialects the final -c was adopted by the whole first conjugation: donęc, portęc, etc.

177. Some strong preterits occasionally assumed weak endings:--

(1) In the 1st pers. sg. several verbs in -s sometimes either added an -í or shifted the stress to an originally unaccented final -i (cf. §§ 172, 173): dis dissí, pris presí, quis quesí, respos respozí. A few verbs in -c did the same: aic aiguí, bẹc beguí, conọc conoguí, saup saubí, vinc venguí, vǫlc volguí. An ending -guí being thus established, this syllable was sometimes added to preterits not of the -c class: costrenguí, destrenguí, prenguí, remanguí, restrenguí, traguí.

(2) In the 3d pers. sg. weak endings are rare: ac aguęt, vẹnc venguęt.

(3) In the 3d pers. pl. the weak ending is not uncommon in -s preterits: diron dissęron, düistrent düissęron, mẹsdren mezęron, prẹson presęron, remastrent remazęron, traissęron. We probably have to deal here, as in (1), with a shift of accent--_dīxĕrunt_ ＞ ✱dísseron ＞ dissęron, etc.: see § 49, (2). The same thing may be true of such a form as aguęron, beside ágron, from ✱_áβwerunt_ = _habuĕrunt_; such a form as visquęron, on the other hand, is doubtless imitative.

STRONG PRETERITS.

178. (1) The reduplicative perfects were discarded in Vulgar Latin, with the exception of _dĕdi_ (and its compounds) and _stĕti_, whose reduplicative character was no longer apparent. _Cecĭdī_ became ✱_cadui_ or ✱_cadéi_; the rest either disappeared or passed into the _-sī_ class: _cucŭrrī_ ＞ ✱_cŭrsī_, _momŏrdī_ ＞ ✱_mŏrsī_, _pepĕndī_ ＞ ✱_pē(n)sī_, _pupŭgī_ ＞ ✱_punxī_, _tetĕndī_ ＞ ✱_tē(n)sī_, _tetĕgī_ ＞ ✱_taxī_ ✱_tanxī_.

(2) The _-i_ perfects were greatly reduced in number in Vulgar Latin. Some disappeared (_ēgī_), some became weak (_fūgī_ ＞ ✱_fugīī_ ＞ fügí); others passed into the _-sī_ or the _-uī_ class: _prehĕndī_ ＞ ✱_prē(n)sī_ ＞ pris; _bĭbit_ ＞ ✱_bĭbuit_ ＞ bẹc, _vēnit_ ＞ ✱_vēnuit_ ＞ vẹnc. In Provençal only three _-ī_ verbs remained: _fēcī_ ＞ fis, _fuī_ ＞ füi, _vīdī_ ＞ vi.

(3) Of the _-sī_ class (including _-ssī_ and _-xī_) over twenty verbs were preserved in Vulgar Latin (_dīxī_, _excŭssī_, _mīsī_, _traxī_, etc.), and about the same number passed into this class from others (_absco(n)sī_, ✱_fraxī_ ✱_sŭrsī_, etc.): cf. (1) and (2) above. In Provençal nearly half the verbs of the second and third conjugations have _-sī_ preterits: _rema(n)sī_ ＞ remas, ✱_respō(n)sī_ ＞ respọs[129].

(4) The _-uī_ class held its own very well in Vulgar Latin (_placuī_, etc.) and received some additions (_natus sum_ ＞ ✱_nacuī_, _sustŭlī_ ＞ ✱_tŏluī_, _vēnī_ ＞ ✱_vēnuī_, _vīcī_ ＞ ✱_vĭncuī_, _vīxī_ ＞ ✱_vīscuī_, etc.)[130]. To this class belonged, in Vulgar Latin (and, according to Meyer-Lübke[131], in classic Latin also), all perfects in _-vī_, this ending being pronounced -wŭī, later -wwị or -βwị: _cognōvī_ ＞ ✱_conōvuī_ ＞ conọc, _crēvit_ ＞ ✱_crēvuit_ ＞ crẹc, _mōvī_ ＞ ✱_mŏvuī_ ＞ mǫc. Cf. § 148. In Provençal not far from half the verbs of the second and third conjugations have _-uī_ preterits. For a combination of a -c ＜ _-uī_ stem with a weak ending, see § 175, (3). For the extension of -c ＜ _-uī_ to other conjugations, see § 176.

179. In the 1st pers. pl. the accent was shifted to the ending, to make this form correspond to the 2d pers. sg. and pl.: _fēcĭmus_ ＞ ✱_fēcĭ́mu’_ ＞ fezẹm (cf. _fecĭstī_ ＞ fezist, _fecĭstis_ ＞ fezẹtz), ✱_prē(n)sĭmus_ ＞ ✱_presĭ́mu’_ ＞ prezẹm, _debŭĭmus_ ＞ _deβwĭ́mu’_ ＞ deguẹm. Exceptions are _fŭĭmus_ ＞ fọm, _vīdĭmus_ ＞ vim; in these verbs the 2d pers. forms also are monosyllabic (füst, fọtz; vist, vitz).

180. We find in some verbs an irregular 3d pers. pl. without -r-, made by adding -on or -en to the 3d pers. sg., the final consonant of which is voiced in all verbs in which it is voiced in the other persons of the plural: (aucire) aucis, aucíson; (plánher) plais, pláisson; (prenre) prẹs, prẹson; (remanre) remas, remáson; (venir) vẹnc, vẹnguen; (volẹr) vǫlc, vǫlgon.

1. _Prenre_ has _preiron_ (beside _preson_ _preseron_),
probably through the analogy of _feiron_ ＜ _fēcĕrunt_.
_Mairon_, from _maner_, is perhaps to be explained in the same
way.

181. (1) Through the change of -e- to -i- by the influence of a final -ī, as described in § 173, (1), a distinction was established between the first and the third person singular of some preterits: _crēvī_ ＞ cric, _crēvit_ ＞ crẹc; _fēcī_ ＞ fis, _fēcit_ ＞ fẹs; ✱_prē(n)sī_ ＞ pris, ✱_prē(n)sit_ ＞ prẹs; _tĕnuī_ ✱_tēnuī_[132] ＞ tinc, _tĕnuit_ ✱_tēnuit_ ＞ tẹnc; _vēnī_ ✱_vēnuī_[132] ＞ vinc, _vēnit_ ✱_vēnuit_ ＞ vẹnc. Mẹtre, also, has mis, mẹs, which may come from ✱_mĭssī_ ✱_mĭssit_ (cf. _mĭssum_) = _mīsī_, _mīsit_; or perhaps mis comes from _mīsī_ and mẹs is analogical. Through the analogy of such forms, quęrre has quis, quẹs. In the preterit of podẹr, both _pŏtuī_ and _pŏtuit_ would regularly have given pǫc puǫc puęc (§ 37), but pǫc was kept for the 3d person, and puǫc puęc was used for the 1st. The preterit of volẹr differentiates the two persons similarly--vuęlc, vǫlc; here the diphthong (perhaps under the influence of puęc) is borrowed from the present, where we have ✱_vŏleo_ ＞ vuęlh, ✱_vŏlet_ ＞ vǫl (§ 37). Avẹr, likewise, borrows a distinction from the present: aic, ac reproduce the vowels of ai, a; aic + aguí ＞ aiguí.

(2) For -í as a characteristic of the first person, see § 177, (1).

(3) For -c as a distinctive mark of the third person, see § 176.

182. The three -ī perfects developed in Provençal as follows:--

(1) _Facĕre_ ＞ faire (✱_fare_ ＞ far) has:

_fēcī_ ＞ fis, fezí _fēĭmus_ ✱_fēcĭ́mu’_ ＞ fezẹm
_fēcĭ́stī_ ＞ fezíst fezís _fēcĭstis_ ＞ fezẹtz fezẹs
_fēcit_ ＞ fẹtz fẹs _fēcĕrunt_ ＞ fẹiron fẹiro

1. We do not find, in the 1st pers. sg., as we should expect
(§ 65, C´), _fitz_ beside _fis_; doubtless the form came early
under the influence of _mis_, _pris_, _quis_, etc. For _fezí_,
see § 177, (1). There is also a form _fi_, due, perhaps, to the
analogy of _vi_ ＜ _vīdī_; corresponding to _fi_ are 3d pers.
sg. _fe_, and pl. _fem_, _fes_, _feron_. A rare _figuí_ is
evidently made on the model of _aiguí_, etc. In the 3d pers.
sg. we find also _fei_, which seems to be patterned after
_feiron_ or after the present _fai_.

(2) _Esse_ (＞ ✱_ĕssĕre_ ＞ ęsser ęstre) had originally a long _u_ in the perfect. In literary Latin the _u_ was shortened, but the popular speech seems to have kept _ū_ beside _ŭ_. The Provençal 1st and 2d pers. sg. apparently come from _fūī_, ✱_fūstī_ = _fuĭstī_ (although Pr. füi might be taken from _fŭī_), while the other forms presuppose _ŭ_:

_fūī_ ＞ füi _fŭĭmus_ ✱_fŭmu’_ ＞ fọm
_fūĭstī_ ✱_fūstī_ ＞ füst füs _fŭĭstis_ ✱_fŭstis_ ＞ fọtz fọs
_fŭit_ ✱_fŭt_ ＞ fọ, fọn, fọnc _fŭĕrunt_ ✱_fŭrunt_ ＞ fọron fọro,
fọren

1. A rare _fo_ in the 1st pers. sg. seems to be simply borrowed
from the 3d. In the 3d pers. sg., _fon_ beside _fo_ is due
to the analogy of _-on_ _-o_ in the 3d pers. pl., and, in
general, of such double forms as _bon_ _bo_, _mon_ _mo_, _son_
_so_, _ton_ _to_: cf. § 63, (5). _Fonc_ shows the influence of
_tenc_, _venc_.

(3) _Vidēre_ ＞ vezẹr has:

_vīdī_ ＞✱viði ✱við vi, vic _vīdĭmus_ ✱_vīdĭmu’_ ＞✱viðmu ✱viim vim
_vīdĭstī_ ＞vist vis _vīdĭstis_ ＞vitz vis
_vīdit_ ＞✱við vi, vit, vic _vīdĕrunt_ ＞✱viðrun viron viro

1. The 1st pers. sg. _vic_ is patterned upon _aic_ ＜ _habuī_,
_cric_ ＜ _crēvi_, etc. The 2d pers. forms are irregular, as
we should expect ✱_vezist_, ✱_vezetz_: evidently the 2d pers.
followed the analogy of the 1st and 3d. In the 3d pers. sg.,
_vit_ and _vic_ follow the model of _partit_, _partic_, etc.:
see § 173, (3), and § 176.

183. In the -sī perfect the 3d pers. pl. presented difficulties. If the -e- of the penult fell, an s or z and an r were brought together. Most dialects apparently preserved the -e-, and shifted the accent to it (aucizęron, condüissęron, dissęron, prezęron, remazęron, traissęron), or else borrowed outright the weak ending (respondęron): cf. § 49, (2), and § 177, (3). Dialects which lost the -e- too early to follow this method, generally suppressed the sibilant (aucíron, diron, mẹron from mẹtre, remáron), or omitted the -r- and formed the 3d pers. pl. directly from the 3d pers. sg. (aucízon, pláisson, prẹzon, remázon: § 180), or else imitated a preterit of another class (mairon from manẹr, prẹiron from prenre, doubtless patterned after fẹiron ＜ _fēcĕrunt_); some borderland dialects kept the sibilant and the r, and developed a dental between them (düystrent ＜ _dūxĕrunt_, mẹsdren ＜ _mīsĕrunt_ + ✱_mĭssĕrunt_: § 70, Sr, Zr).

As examples of the _-sī_ perfect we may take the preterit of dire ＜ _dīcĕre_ and penre prenre ＜ _pr(eh)ĕndĕre_:--

(1) _dīxī_ ＞ dis, dissí _dīxĭmus_ ✱_dīxĭ́mu’_ ＞ dissẹm
_dīxĭstī_ ＞ dissíst _dīxĭstis_ ＞ dissẹtz dissẹs
_dīxit_ ＞ dis _dīxĕrunt_ ＞ dissęron, diron
diro

(2) ✱_prē(n)sī_ ＞ pris, prẹs, presí ✱_prē(n)sĭmus_ ✱_prēsĭ́mu’_
＞ presẹm
✱_prē(n)sĭstī_ ＞ presíst ✱_prē(n)sĭstis_
＞ presẹtz presẹs
✱_prē(n)sit_ ＞ prẹs ✱_prē(n)sĕrunt_
＞ presęron, prẹson, prẹiron

(3) Escriure ＜ _scrībĕre_ has, beside escris ＜ _scrīpsī_, a preterit escrius (cf. p. p. escriut escrit escrich), in which the u is probably due to the influence of the infinitive.

(4) For dissí, presí, quesí, respozí, see § 177, (1). For pris prẹs, etc., see § 173, (1).

184. In the -uī perfect the development depends somewhat upon the consonant preceding the _u_. The treatment of the various cons. + w groups, which was discussed in § 72, may be illustrated by _ha_bu_it_ ＞ ac[133], _crēvit_ ✱_crē_vu_it_ ＞ crẹc[134]; _nŏ_cu_it_ ＞ nǫc[135]; _sēdit_ ✱_sĕ_du_it_ ＞ sęc, _pŏ_tu_it_ ＞ pǫc; _va_lu_it_ ＞ valc[136], _tĕnuit_ ✱_tē_nu_it_ ＞ tẹnc[137], _mĕ_ru_it_ ＞ męrc; _sa_pu_it_ ＞ saup[138]: the noteworthy features are the change of _u_ to -c (through w, gw, g), the absorption of the preceding consonant unless it be a liquid, a nasal, or a _p_, the preservation of the liquid or nasal, and the metathesis of the _p_.

Avẹr ＜ _habēre_, podẹr ＜ ✱_pŏtēre_ _pŏsse_, volẹr ＜ ✱_vŏlēre_ _vĕlle_, sabẹr ＜ ✱_sapēre_ _sapĕre_ will serve as examples (for the accentuation of the 3d pers. pl., see § 16, 2):--

(1) _habuī_ ＞ac, aguí, aic, aiguí _habuĭmus_ ✱_aβwĭ́mu’_ ＞ aguẹm
_habuĭstī_ ＞aguíst _habuĭstis_ ＞aguẹtz aguẹs
_habuit_ ＞ac _habuĕrunt_ ＞ágron ágro, aguęron

1. For _aguí_ (_beguí_, _conoguí_), see § 177, (1). For _aic_,
_aiguí_, (_cric_), see § 181, (1). For _aguęron_ (_visquęron_),
see § 177, (3).

(2) _pŏtuī_ ＞ pǫc puǫc puęc _potuĭmus_ ✱_potwĭ́mu’_ ＞ poguẹm
_potuĭstī_ ＞ poguíst _potuĭstis_ ＞ poguẹtz poguẹs
_pŏtuit_ ＞ pǫc, pǫt _potuĕrunt_ ＞ pǫgron pǫgro

1. For _puoc_, see § 181, (1). _Pot_ is apparently due to the
combined influence of weak preterits and the parts of _poder_
in which the dental is preserved.

(3) _vŏluī_ ＞ vǫlc, vuęlc, volguí _voluĭmus_ ✱_volwĭ́mu’_ ＞ volguẹm
_voluĭstī_ ＞ volguíst _voluĭstis_ ＞ volguẹtz volguẹs
_vŏluit_ ＞ vǫlc _voluĕrunt_ ＞ vǫlgron vǫlgro

1. For _vuelc_ (_tinc_, _vinc_), see § 181, (1); for _volguí_
(_venguí_), § 177, (1).

(4) _sapuī_ ＞ saup, saubí _sapuĭmus_ ✱_sapwĭ́mu’_ ＞ saubẹm
_sapuĭstī_ ＞ saubíst _sapuĭstis_ ＞ saubẹtz saubẹs
_sapuit_ ＞ saup _sapuĕrunt_ ＞ sáubron sáubro, sáupron

1. For _saubí_, see § 177, (1). For _sáupron_ (_sáupra_,
_saupés_, _saupút_), see § 65, P, 3; cf. § 148, (2).

OLD CONDITIONAL.

185. The old conditional came from the Latin pluperfect indicative, which had been supplanted in its pluperfect sense by a compound form, and was gradually restricted in its use to the functions of a preterit, a perfect conditional, and a simple conditional: see § 141, (2). In Provençal it had only the conditional meaning; and as the new conditional rendered it superfluous, it fell into disuse (with the exception of ágra and fọra) in the 13th and 14th centuries: see § 142, (2).

186. In the fourth conjugation the old conditional comes from the contracted form of the pluperfect (_audīram_ ＜ _audīvĕram_). Weak verbs of the third conjugation constructed a similar form (✱_vendęram_). First conjugation verbs started with the contracted pluperfect (_amāram_ ＜ _amāvĕram_), but in Provençal substituted ę for á, as in the preterit: § 175, (4). The Provençal types of the old conditional of weak verbs are, therefore, represented by: amęra, vendęra, auzíra. The inflection is as follows:--

amęra amerám
amęras amerátz
amęra amęran
auzíra auzirám
auzíras auzirátz
auzíra auzíran

187. Strong verbs of the _-ī_ and the _-uī_ classes regularly took their old conditional directly from the Latin pluperfect: _fēcĕram_ ＞ fẹira, _fŭĕram_ ＞ fọra, _vīdĕram_ ＞ vira; _habŭĕram_ ✱_áβwĕram_ (§ 16, 2) ＞ ágra, _pŏtŭĕram_ ＞ pǫgra, _vŏlŭĕram_ ＞ vǫlgra, _sapŭĕram_ ＞ sáubra sáupra (§ 65, P, 3). Of course the Latin pluperfect, and therefore the Provençal conditional, followed the shift of the perfect if it changed from one class to another: _vēnī_ ＞ ✱_vēnuī_, hence ✱_vēnŭĕram_ ＞ vẹngra. The inflection is as follows:--

fọra forám ágra agrám
fọras forátz forás ágras agrátz agrás
fọra fọran ágra ágran

1. _Faire_ has _féra_ (cf. _feron_) beside _féira_.

2. For _sáupra_, cf. § 148, (2), and § 184, (4), 1, and § 192.

3. _Devér_ has beside _dégra_ a form _déura_, evidently
influenced by the new conditional, _deuría_.

4. _Páisser_, _plazér_ have beside _págra_, _plágra_ the forms
_paisséra_, _plazéra_.

188. Strong verbs of the _-sī_ class regularly form their old conditional on the same plan as the 3d pers. pl. of the preterit (§ 183): (_dīxĕram_) díra, cf. díron; (✱_prēsĕram_) prẹira, cf. prẹiron; (_arsĕram_) arsęra, cf. arsęron.

189. It will be noted that in all verbs, weak and strong, the old conditional may be constructed from the 3d pers. pl. of the preterit by changing -on to -a.

IMPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE.

190. The Provençal imperfect subjunctive came from the Latin pluperfect subjunctive, which in Vulgar Latin assumed the functions of the imperfect and generally displaced it, its own place having been taken by a compound form: see § 141, (2).

191. For weak verbs the basis was the contracted form of the first and fourth conjugations (_amāssem_ ＜ _amāvĭssem_, _audīssem_ ＜ _audīvĭssem_); weak verbs of third conjugation had a similar analogical form (✱_vēndęssem_). First conjugation verbs substituted ę for á, as in the perfect and the old conditional: § 175, (4); § 186. The Provençal types are: amęs, vendęs, auzís. The inflection is:

amęs amessẹm auzís auzissẹm
amęsses amessẹtz -ẹs auzísses auzissẹtz -ẹs
amęs amęssen -on -o auzís auzíssen -on -o

192. Strong verbs regularly made their imperfect directly from the Vulgar Latin form of the pluperfect: _fecĭssem_ ＞ fezẹs, _fŭĭssem_ ✱_fŭssem_ ＞ fọs, _vidĭssem_ ＞ vezẹs, _venĭssem_ ✱_venuĭssem_ ＞ venguẹs; _dixĭssem_ ＞ dissẹs, ✱_pre(n)sĭssem_ ＞ prezẹs; _habuĭssem_ ＞ aguẹs, _potuĭssem_ ＞ poguẹs, _voluĭssem_ ＞ volguẹs, _sapuĭssem_ ＞ saubẹs saupẹs (§ 65, P, 3). The inflection is:--

fọs fossẹm aguẹs aguessẹm, acsẹm
fọsses fossẹtz -ẹs aguẹsses aguessẹtz -ẹs, acsẹtz -ẹs
fọs fọssen -on -o aguẹs aguẹssen -on -o

1. The syncopated forms in the 1st and 2d pers. pl. are common
to the _-uī_ class: _decsém_, _iacsém_, _pocsém_, _saupsém_.

2. In the 3d pers. pl. _-an_ sometimes takes the place of _-en_
or _-on_: _mezéssan_, _saubéssan_. This ending is doubtless
borrowed from the present subjunctive and the old conditional.

3. _Vezér_ has _vis_ beside _vezés_. From _faire_ we find in
the 3d pers. pl. _fésson_.

4. _Metre_ has _mezés_, due, no doubt, to the analogy of _mes_
and of _prezés_.

193. Some dialects have an ending -a, -as, -a, -ám, -átz, an, borrowed from the present subjunctive and the old conditional, but added to the stem of the imperfect subjunctive: chantęssa, vendęssa, floríssa; fọssa.

FOOTNOTES

[1] There should now be added: J. B. Beck, _Die Melodien der Troubadours_, 1908.

[2] See B. Schädel in _Rom._, XXXVII, 140.

[3] See E. Bourciez, _Les Mots espagnols comparés aux mots gascons_.

[4] See C. Chabaneau, _la Langue et la littérature du Limousin_, in the _Revue des langues romanes_, XXXV, 379.

[5] See G. Paris, _Origines de la poésie lyrique en France au moyen âge_.

[6] This h (coming from f) is peculiar to Gascon; the other dialects have no h.

[7] _G_, _b_, _d_ are sounded k, p, t only at the end of a word or before a final s.

[8] _G_, _b_, _d_ are sounded k, p, t only at the end of a word or before a final s.

[9] Rr is generally distinguished from r, but there are a few examples of their confusion in rhyme.

[10] Ts is usually written _c_ at the beginning of a word, _z_ or _tz_ at the end.

[11] _G_ has the sound of tš only at the end of a word or combined with final _z_.

[12] Cf. French.

[13] Cf. Spanish.

[14] For some exceptions see _Rom._, XXXII, 591; P. Marchot, _Phon._, p. 9.

[15] Cf. R. Karch, _Die nordfranzösischen Elemente im Altprovenzalischen_, 1901.

[16] See § 175, (4).

[17] There is no diphthong in the preterit ending -ęc: cazęc, etc.

[18] This view is a modification of the theory developed by C. Voretzsch in his admirable treatise, _Zur Geschichte der Diphthongierung im Altprovenzalischen_, Halle, 1900. That ę is not affected by an i in the following syllable is shown by such words as empęri, evangęli, saltęri, which must have been adopted fairly early. The same thing is true of ǫ: apostǫli, ǫli, etc.

[19] The diphthong of ǫ occurs, however, in this text, v. 203, in _uel_ ＜ _ŏculi_.

[20] _Derrier_ (_derer_, _dereer_), beside _dereire_, is manifestly due to the influence of _primier_. To the influence of the same ending _-ier_, as in _carr(i)eira_, is to be ascribed the diphthong in _cad(i)eira_ ＜ _cathĕdra_.

[21] The things just said of ę are true of ǫ: there is no breaking before u ＜ l (tǫut = tǫlt) nor before ts, dz, s, z (_nŏcet_ ＞ nǫtz, ✱_nŏptias_ ＞ nǫssas).

[22] The conditions are not quite the same as for e: an ę does not break before a labial (nęps) nor before n´ (vęnha). Breaking before g and k seems more general for ǫ than for ę.

[23] So the second person forms _cuebres_, _uebres_, _uefres_, and the third person forms _cuebre_, _uebre_, _uefre_; cf. cǫbron, ǫbri, etc.

[24] For a discussion of the date, see K. Nyrop, _Grammaire historique de la langue française_ (Copenhagen, 1899-1903), I, § 187.

[25] For the accent, see § 16, 1.

[26] Spelled _drictus_: see Schuchardt, _Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins_, II, 422.

[27] The period of the fall of the intertonic vowel covers, in part, the period of the voicing of intervocalic surds (§ 65); sometimes the vowel fell too soon for the surd to be voiced, sometimes it did not. The relation of the fall of unstressed vowels to the development of intervocalic consonants, in French, has been examined by L. Clédat in the _Revue de philologie française_, in a series of articles beginning XVII, 122. Cf. P. Marchot, _Phon._, pp. 84-90.

[28] Cf. H. Wendel, _Die Entwicklung der Nachtonvokale aus dem Lateinischen ins Provenzalische_, 1906.

[29] _Domnus_ may be the older form.