Part 10

(5) Altre autre ＜ _alter_, ‘other’, pronoun and adjective. A dative ✱_altrūī_, following _illūī_, goes back to Vulgar Latin. The Provençal forms autrüs, autrü show the influence of alcüs and negüs; autri belongs to the southeastern dialects (cf. aquẹli, ẹli, nǫstri, tüti, etc.). Inflection:--

MASCULINE FEMININE

Sg. {_nom._: autre autres autrüs autra {_obj._: autre autrüi autrü autra

Pl. {_nom._: autre autri autras {_obj._: autres autras

(6) Altretals autretals ＜ _alter talis_; by dissimilation, atretals: by substitution of ai- (first syllable of aissi ＜ _ac sīc_) for atre-, aitals; by fusion of aitals and atretals, aitretals; through analogy of atressi, atrestals. Cf. § 74, 2. Inflection like that of cals (§ 134).

(7) Altretan atretan aitan atrestan etc. ＜ _alter_ + _tantum_: see altretals.

(8) Cada un ＜ κατά + _ūnum_,‘every one’. The Greek preposition κατά was introduced into the Latin territory, probably by Greek merchants, in stating prices: καθ᾽ἕνα = _cata ūnum_, κατά τρεῐς = _cata trēs_; hence cada ün, cada trẹi. Inflection: cada üs, cada ü(n); cada üna.

(9) Calacom qualacom qualaquom, ‘something’, ‘a little’, seems to be a Provençal compound of cal and acǫ (§ 132), the last syllable of which was perhaps understood as cọm cọ ＜ _quōmŏ_(_do_). Cf. quezacom below. There is a diminutive calacomet, which helped to maintain the m of calacom.

(10) Cals que quals que, cal que qual que, ‘whoever’, is a Provençal compound.

(11) Cant quant can quan ＜ _quantum quanti_, ‘how much’, ‘how many’. Cant, inflected like bęl (§ 103), is used also as an adjective and as a masculine and feminine pronoun.

(12) Cascüs chascüs, ‘everyone’, ‘every’, appears to be a fusion of cada üs and ✱cescüs ＜ ✱_cisqu’ ūnus_ = _quĭsque ūnus_ = _ūnus quĭsque_. Inflection: cascüs, cascü(n); cascüna.

(13) Ent en n ne ＜ _ĭnde_,‘some’: cf. § 123.

(14) Maint mant man manh ＜ Celtic ✱_mantî_, ‘many’, ‘many a’, ‘many a one’. Obj. pl. in -s, f. sg. in -a, f. pl. in -as.

(15) Molt mout mot mul mon ＜ _mŭltum_, ‘much’. For mọt, mul, mọn, see § 74, (2) and § 74, 1. Mọlt, inflected like bęl (§ 103), is used also as an adjective and as a masculine and feminine pronoun.

(16) Negüs ＜ _nĕc ūnus_, ‘no one’. Inflection: negüs, negü(n); negüna. Beside negün we find degün, apparently through dissimilation.

(17) Nüls ＜ _nūllus_, ‘no’, ‘none’. Inflection: nüls, nül, nül, nülh, nüls; nüla, nülas. From nülh ＜ _nūllī_ comes a set of forms with lh: see § 67, (2). Hence, by metathesis suggested by the analogy of negün, lhün. A fusion of nülh and lhün results in lünh, whence a set of forms with nh.

(18) Om ＜ _hŏmo_, ‘one’.

(19) Pauc ＜ _paucum_, _pauci_, ‘little’, ‘few’. There is also a regular adjective, paucs, ‘small’.

(20) Que que, ‘whatever’, is a Provençal compound.

(21) Quecs ＜ _quĭsquis_ (§ 78, 2), ‘everyone’. From quẹcs were formed an objective quẹc and a feminine quẹga (cf. amics amic amiga).

(22) Quesacom (diminutive quesacomet), ‘something’, ‘a little’, is formed like calacọm above, the first element in this case being either quẹs ＜ _quĭd_ or quẹ s = quẹ es.

(23) Qui que, ‘whoever’, is a Provençal compound.

(24) Res re, ‘anything’, ‘something’.

(25) Tals ＜ _talis_, ‘such’, inflected like cals (§ 134).

(26) Tamanh ＜ _tam magnum_, ‘so great’; f. tamanha.

(27) Tant tan ta ＜ _tantum_, _tanti_, ‘so much’, ‘so many’. Tant, inflected like bęl (§ 103), is used also as an adjective and as a masculine and feminine pronoun.

(28) Totz ＜ _tōttus_ = _tōtus_ (_Gram._, I, § 547), ‘all’, had a regular inflection: tọtz, tọt, tọt, tọtz; tọta, tọtas. In the masculine nominative plural, however, we find oftener the forms tüch tüich tüit tüt tüti, which point to a Latin ✱_tūctī_ (cf. Italian _tutti_); for this no satisfactory explanation has been discovered (see Nigra, _Rom._, XXXI, 525). Hence we occasionally have in the singular tütz, tüt, and in the objective plural tügz tütz; the last form occurs also as a nominative plural. Tọt is frequently used as a neuter pronoun and as an adverb.

(29) Üs, ‘some’; from _ūnus_, used as an indefinite adjective or pronoun, we have the plural forms; ü(n), ü(n)s; ünas.

2. CONJUGATION.

THE FOUR CONJUGATIONS.

137. (1) In Vulgar Latin there were some shifts, the verbs of the second and third conjugations being particularly unstable: _cadĕre_, _capĕre_, _sapĕre_, for instance, often passed into the second, while _mŏvēre_, _rīdēre_ frequently followed the third, and _mŏri_, _sĕqui_ usually went into the fourth. _Pŏsse_, _vĕlle_, with the new infinitives ✱_potēre_, ✱_volēre_, were made to conform with more or less regularity to the second conjugation type. Beside _do_, _dant_, _sto_, _stant_, there came into use the forms ✱_dao_, ✱_daunt_, ✱_stao_, ✱_staunt_. Beside _facĕre_ there doubtless existed a verb ✱_fare_,[102] strongly influenced by _dare_ and _stare_; the first suggestion of shortening probably came from the monosyllabic imperative singular _fac_ (or _fa_[103]), which must have led to a plural ✱_fate_ beside _facĭte_. _Habēre_ and _vadĕre_[103] also came under the influence of _dare_ and _stare_; the former adopted, beside _habeo_, _habes_, _habet_, _habent_, the forms ✱_ho_, ✱_has_, ✱_hat_, ✱_hant_ or ✱_haunt_. _Vadĕre_ generally lost its past tenses, which were replaced by _īre_ and, in southern Gaul, by _annare_.[104]

(2) In Provençal the first conjugation was well preserved, and the fourth lost but little. The second and the third lost many verbs (especially learned words) to the fourth: delir, emplir, envazir, espandir, fugir, iauzir, merir, regir, relinquir, reluzir, vertir;[105] cọzer cozir ＜ _consuĕre_,[106] devire devezir ＜ _divīdĕre_, dire dir ＜ _dīcĕre_, lęire legir (also lire lir) ＜ _lĕgĕre_, quęrre querir ＜ _quærĕre_, sęgre seguir ＜ _sĕqui_, tenẹr tenir[107] ＜ _tenēre_. Moreover, the second and third conjugations, which in Provençal differed practically only in the infinitive, were much confused: cabẹr, cazẹr, mǫrdre, rire, sabẹr; cọrre accorrẹr, mentavẹr mentaure ＜ _mente habēre_, movẹr mǫure, quęrre querẹr, redẹbre rezemẹr ＜ _redĭmĕre_. Uc Faidit, a 13th century grammarian, enumerates about 500 verbs in -ar, about 100 in -er and -re, and a little over 100 in -ir.

138. The inchoative ending _-scĕre_ lost its original sense. The _-īsc-_ type, for verbs of the fourth conjugation, was very widely extended, the _-isc-_ becoming a part of the regular present stem of the fourth conjugation, and disappearing from the infinitive: _finīre_, ✱_finīsco_ ＞ finir, finisc. An obscure substitute for the Latin _-ēsc-_ type produced an ending -eissir -ezir -zir (_dis-pigrēscĕre_ = despereissir, _evanēscĕre_ = envanezir[108]), which was used in forming some new verbs: enfolezir[109] ＜ fǫl, envelhezir ＜ vęlh, envelzir ＜ vil, esclarzir ＜ clar, escürzir ＜ escür oscür, espaorzir ＜ paọr.[110] The _-āsc-_ and _-ōsc-_ types appear in old verbs: _irāscĕre_ ＞ iráisser, _co(g)nōscĕre_ ＞ conọisser.[111]

139. New verbs were formed, in late Vulgar Latin and in Provençal, only in the first and fourth conjugations. The commonest suffixes were _-āre_, _-iāre_, _-icāre_, _-idiāre_ (＜ -ίζειν: § 57, Z), _-īre_: ✱_oblītāre_ ＞ oblidar, ✱_altiāre_ ＞ aussar, ✱_carricāre_ ＞ cargar, ✱_werridiāre_ ＞ guerreiar, ✱_abbellīre_ ＞ abelir. Germanic verbs generally went into the first conjugation, except those in _-jan_, most of which entered the fourth: _roubôn_ ＞ raubar (also raubir), _wîtan_ ＞ guidar; _furbjan_ ＞ forbir.

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN INFLECTION.

140. The Latin perfect passive took the sense of a present; _amātus est_, for instance, under the influence of such phrases as _carus est_, came to mean ‘he _is_ loved’. This led to the establishment of an entire passive inflection made up of the perfect participle and the parts of the verb _ĕsse_; and the old passive forms were gradually abandoned, leaving no trace (save the perfect participle and possibly the gerundive) in the Romance languages. So the passive is constructed in Provençal as in French: ẹs amatz, ęra amatz, fọ amatz, será amatz, etc.; the participle regularly agrees with the subject in gender and number. Latin deponent verbs became active: _mŏri_ ＞ morir, _sĕqui_ ＞ seguir.

141. (1) Such phrases as _ĭd habeo factum_ shifted their meaning from ‘I have it done’, etc., to ‘I have done it’, etc. The Latin perfect came to be restricted to its aorist sense, and the perfect was expressed by compounds of _habēre_ with the perfect participle. In the Romance languages all compound tenses were eventually formed in this way: ai cantat, avia cantat, aurai cantat, etc. In Provençal the auxiliary is sometimes ęsser, instead of avẹr, if the main verb is reflexive, passive, or neuter; ęsser is particularly common with neuter verbs of motion: sọi vengütz.[112] A participle used with avẹr may agree in gender and number with the direct object, if there is one: ai cantat _or_ cantada la cansọ.

(2) The Latin perfect indicative continued to be used as an aorist, and is the source of the preterit in Provençal, as in the other Romance languages: _vīdī_ ＞ vi, ‘I saw’. The pluperfect indicative survived in some regions; in Provençal it is used with the sense of a conditional: _fŭĕrat_ ＞ fọra,‘he would be’. The future perfect indicative and the perfect subjunctive did not remain in Provençal: _amavĕro_ = aurai amat, _amavĕrim_ = aia amat. The pluperfect subjunctive assumed the functions of the imperfect, which disappeared from nearly every part of the Romance territory: _audīssem_ (for _audīrem_) ＞ auzis. The perfect infinitive left no trace: _audīsse_ = avẹr auzit.

142. The Latin future, which was not uniform in the four conjugations, and, in the third and fourth, was liable to confusion with the present subjunctive, was gradually replaced by various periphrastic constructions: instead of _faciam_ people said _factūrus sum_, _dēbeo facĕre_, _vŏlo facĕre_, _habeo_ (_ad_) _facĕre_, etc. The construction that prevailed in the greater part of the Empire was _facĕre habeo_, a combination of the infinitive with the present indicative of _habēre_. The verb _ĕsse_ was the only one that ultimately retained the old future beside the new: Pr. ęr, ęrs, ęr, beside serái serás será; in the plural, only serẹm, serẹtz, serán. The new composite future was occasionally used by Tertullian, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine, and became common in Italy by the 6th century.[113]

(2) As an imperfect of the future, there was evolved a combination of the infinitive and the imperfect or perfect indicative. To correspond to _dīcit quod venīre habet_, was constructed _dīxit quŏd venīre habēbat_ (or _habuit_); to match _sī pŏssum, venīre habeo_, was made _sī potuĭssem, venīre habēbam_ (or _habuī_). In Gaul, as in most of the Empire, only the imperfect of _habēre_ was used for this purpose. Traces of such a construction are found as early as the 3d century. This form is generally called the _conditional_, and it existed in Provençal side by side with the conditional described in § 141, (2): sería, serías, sería, etc., beside fọra, fọras, fọra, etc. The Romance languages developed also a perfect conditional: auría agüt = ‘I should have had’.

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.