Skip to main content

Full text of "The Loom Of Language"

See other formats

The Latin Legacy


which it also contributed formed the basis of a fiesh flesional tense-
form (pp 105 and 106) This new analytical future makes its appear-
ance in the first century A D Its predecessor had two entirely different
forms Qfdico (I say) the future was dtccan (I shall say)5 and oflavo (I
wash) it was lavabo (I shall wash) In the second century A D the
classical future had lost caste, and people resorted to affective cir-
cumlocutions such as wlo la&are (I will wash), debetu lavare (you



love (infin )

I have              I shall
	j'ai               j'aimerai

thou hast         thou wilt
	tu as            tu aimeras

he has             he will
	il a               il aimera

we    ^             we shall
	nous avons   nous numerous

you   Xhave    you will
	vous avez     vous aunerez

they J             they will
	ils ont          ils aimeront



yo he                   yo amare
		10 ho               10 amer6

tu has                  tti amards
		tu hai              tu amerai

el ha                    el amara
		egli ha             egh amera

nosotros hemos    nosotros amaremos
		noi abbiamo    noi ameremo

vosotros habeas    vosotros amareis
		voi avete         voi amerete

ellos han              ellos ajnar<in
		essi hanno       essi ameranno

shall wash)., vado (or eo) lavaie (I am going to wash), or lavare hdbeo
(I have to wash) Of these helpers., habere prevailed in all of the written
Romance languages except in Rumania, where we hear to-day voiu
cdnta Elsewhere hdbere, which usually followed the infinitive, got
glued to it, as explained on p. 106.
In our outline of Classical Latin nothing has been said about nega-
tion To give a statement a negative meaning, ne was used in archaic
Latin, but it could also kbel a question* as such. In Classical Latin,
it is replaced by the stronger nony a contraction of ne and unum (lit not
one). In daily speech, Latin-speaking peoples used to strengthen the
particle by adding another word for something small or valueless They
said / can't see a speck (Latin punctum)> we haverft had a crumb (Latin
micam)> I worft dnnk a drop (Latin guttani). In the modern Romance
languages the negative particle is still the Latin non (Italian non> Spanish
* Cf You have noi undeistood this?