the vulgar latin (proto-romance） conjugation system - Page ON

THE VULGAR LATIN (PROTO-ROMANCE)
CONJUGATION SYSTEM
1
Hugh E. Wilkinson
In my last paper on “The Latinity of Ibero-Romance” (Ronshu, Vol. 8)
I explored the position of Spanish and Portuguese with relation to the other
main Romance languages, with particular emphasis on the verbal system.
This present paper is intended as a corollary, as it were, to the other, setting
forth my conception of the verb conjugation system as it was found in
Vulgar Latin (using this outmoded but convenient term to denote the Latin
deduced as having been spoken in Imperial times, before the break-up of
the Empire brought about the clear differentiation of the various branches
of Romance). In my view, obtained from an examination of the Romance
languages, the verb system of Vulgar Latin (VL) was remarkably
homogeneous; this probably means, not that there were not great local
differences in the speech of the different parts of the Empire, but that the
Romance languages are derived in the main from a standard set by speakers
of “correct spoken Latin” who tended to reject the innovations made by the
common people. It is a fact in the history of all languages that where there
is a standard language, especially a written standard, the process of change
is arrested. However, there were conjugational variants even in the
“standard” VL, and popular forms occasionally broke through.
In comparison with Classical Latin (CL), the tendency in VL was to
simplify and standardise the conjugation system. Although CL had four
clearly defined conjugations (with a few anomalies like the “capio verbs”)
there was great irregularity in the formation of the perfect and the past
participle (or supine). In VL the trend was towards producing a system
where a certain perfect and past participle type corresponded to a certain
infinitive type. The result, with a few exceptions, was a new alignment as
1

follows:
Conjugation I: -are, -a(v)i, -atu;
Conjugation II: -ēre, -ŭi, -ĭtu, later -ūtu in most areas;
Conjugation III: a) -ĕre, -si, -tu/-su;
b) -ĕre, -edi/-ŭi, -ĭtu/-ūtu;
Conjugation IV: -ire, -i(v)i, -itu.
(Conjugation IV was also later to include a new type formed by a
coalescence with -scere verbs. I will discuss the -edi ending in the relevant
section.)
It is my intention here, on the basis of the thesis stated above, to offer
an explanation of the processes by which these changes came about. This
cannot be an exhaustive study, but just sufficient to establish my thesis. We
must not be content merely with observing that such and such verbs
changed over to such and such conjugations without trying to find a reason,
though sometimes we may be defeated in our search. It is also important to
differentiate between the changes which took place in the VL period and
those which belong to the later history of the individual languages, even if
the seeds of the later divergences had already been sown earlier. Misunder-
standing can be caused by, for example, quoting a “VL *tenire” as the
ancestor of Fr. tenir, when all that is meant is that the change of conjugation
had taken place in pre-literary French, and thereby creating the impression
that the differentiation occurred much earlier than it actually did. In point of
fact, as I have already said, my conclusion is that there was a relatively long
period of common development throughout Romania, and that distinctions
like the preference for -si perfects in the East and -edi perfects in the West
are subsequent reflections of what was originally only a hesitation between
the two types. I base this and similar conclusions on the appearance of the
alternative form in the earliest recorded stages of the various languages, and
it is on the forms that point to a common VL ancestor that I will concentrate,
2
2

only paying the minimum of attention to the subsequent developments in
the individual languages.
Of these languages, Sardinian and some of the southern Italian dialects
were the first to be isolated, and did not take part in later changes such as
the substitution of -ūtu for -ĭtu (Lausberg, 914), or the merging of -ire and
-scere verbs. (Their vowel system is also more archaic in preserving the
distinction between ĭ, ŭ and ē, ō.) And they share a propensity for extending
the -ĕre infinitive at the expense of -ēre and even -ire (Bourciez, 417;
Lausberg, 789). Of the other languages, though modern Spanish and
Portuguese, and to a lesser extent the oldest recorded forms of these
languages, show many points of divergence from the other Romance
languages, it is my belief that these languages can hardly have been isolated
in earliest times, and that it is therefore most reasonable to believe that they
went through the same VL stages as, for example, French and Italian. (For
further elaboration on this see my previous paper.)
Having said this, let us now proceed to an examination of the
individual conjugations.
Conjugation I.
In this conjugation the majority of verbs were denominatives which
followed the regular pattern. There were, however, a certain number of
primary verbs with a weak grade of stem vowel, giving -ŭi, -ĭtu in the
perfect and past participle; these verbs, such as secare, sonare, tonare,
vetare, crepare, lavare, some of them originally belonging to the third
conjugation, thus sonĕre, tonĕre, lavĕre (cf. abluĕre), were all regularised
in VL, but the old past participles sometimes remained as fossilised forms:
Rum. sunet, tunet, crepet, Sard. boitu, impitta, krebidu, It. vuoto (from
vocitu for vacatu, found in an inscription, see Fouché, 177, via a form
3
3

*vogitu), prestito, cretto, lievito (from *levitu), Fr. vide, prêt, emplette, OFr.
pleit, esploit, Prov. voig, emplecha, esplech, Cat. buit, crètua, OCat. esplet,
manleuta, Sp. (em)pleita, grieta, OSp. préstido, liebdo > leudo, OSp.
(Arag.) bueyto, Ptg. empreita, empréstido, lêvedo, grêta. The only two
verbs which remained irregular were dare and stare. Their perfects in VL
were dedi and *stetui, with a certain amount of reciprocal influence: thus It.
diedi and detti, after stetti, Rum. dedei (earlier dedi(u)) and detei after stetei
(earlier steti(u)), Engad. det after stet (Lausberg, 825), but imperfect
subjunctives dess and stess with the -edi forms (Lausberg, 892; but note
that 3rd person det might have come from ded(i)t, thus providing a point of
contact between the two types), OFriul. die. OProv. has est(i)ei after dei,
with 3rd person estet/estec (cf. OCat. estec), det (as Engad. det; cf. OCat.
1st pers. di, subj. des); in the modern patois this gives 1st person
estère/estaguèri, with a Gascon form estouy, having the accented -ui ending
generalised in Gascon. In OSp. and OPtg., estide, estede appear, but the
modern forms estuve, estive, together with OCat. estic, show the influence
of other perfect types tuve, tive, sic (from *sēdui, itself remodelled on the
general perfect type ending in -c); from dedi Sp. has di, Ptg. dei and OCat.
di. OSard. has de(d)i, and stetti. OFr. has estui with matching p.p. estëu,
and a new form estai (dare is not found in French, apart from the old future
forms dara/dera and the fossilised p.p. form dé). Rumanian also has dădui,
stătui, the latter presumably derived from the ending-accented stătuşi from
*stetu(i)sti, and dădui formed by analogy with stătui. In Sard.,
Campidanian has a past participle istediu, as well as istau.
This conjugation did not lose words to other conjugations, and also
gained remarkably few from the other conjugations. These are purely
isolated words and the reasons for the change are not clear: Sp., Ptg. torrar
from torrere (Bourciez, 203), It. tremare for tremere, It. abburare, Sp.
aburar (Ast. amburar) from amburere, Cat. torçar for tòrcer. They could
all be new formations based on noun forms. Rum. ploua is newly formed
4
4

from the pres. indic. plouă, where -uă has developed phonetically from
Latin -vit (cf. nouă from novem) and the etymological infinitive would have
become anomalous; scuipa, for earlier scu(i)pi, from conspuere via
*conspuire, is more difficult to explain.
In certain areas of eastern Romania, namely Rumanian, Apulian and
Lucanian, an infix-conjugation is found using the suffix *-idio (from Greek
-izo) in the forms originally accented on the vowel of the root, thus Rum.
lucra/lucrez, Ap.-Luc. nivicare/nivicheia (Lausberg, 801). Traces are also
found elsewhere, in Vegliot sperayo, OVenet. vendegea, the south Tyrol
and Corsica (Bourciez, 207), while Engadinian and Sursilvan have a
corresponding use of the suffix -esco. (Compare also the endings -eie/-oie,
-eisse/-oisse found in the subjunctive of eastern and south-eastern dialects
of OFr., with similar forms sometimes appearing in the indicative; other
such forms also appear in the north; Fouché, 19.) The other languages have
the suffix throughout as a derivative-forming element, and even Rumanian
has boteza < baptizare, but it is not certain whether they ever went through
the stage of having an infix-conjugation, though we can find verbs of
similar meaning with and without the infix, such as It. ventare/venteggiare,
Sp. ventar/ventear, where Rumanian has one verb, svânta/svântez.
Certain languages later replaced the -avi perfect by -edi or -etui ones,
on the analogy of dare, stare. Thus Prov. cantei, Cat. cantí using -edi (cf.
OProv. dei, OCat. di from dedi; canté from canta(v)i was also found in
OCat.), Engad. chantet using -etui. It. also has dialectal andiedi, and OSp.
has forms like andido (now anduvo), entridieron, while in OFr. there was
great confusion between the -ai and -i perfects.
a) Presumed VL forms.
Conjugation II.
5
5

In this conjugation the regular type in CL is that of monere, monui,
monitu, with the variations tenere, tenui, tentu and movere, movi (=
*mowwi), motu (from *moweto-). Other types include a handful of
denominatives, like delere, delevi, deletu and implere, implevi, impletu;
verbs with -si perfects like ardere, ridere, mulgere, manere; some with
reduplicated perfects such as mordere, spondere, and some with lengthened
vowel in the perfect, such as videre, sedere. In VL it was mainly only the
verbs of the regular type that remained in this conjugation. Such verbs are:
tenere, habere, calere, debere, movere, dolere, iacere, licere, nocere,
parere, placere, mucere, tacere, docere (partly crossed with ducĕre), valere,
solere, olere. They were also joined by certain other common verbs:
*potere, *volere, which had -ui perfects; sapere, which developed the
forms sapui and sapitu in late Latin, and capere which followed the
analogy of sapere (capui is recorded in the 3rd c.). Finally cadere, which
seems to have formed a -ui perfect from an earlier -edi in the same way as
credere and was perhaps attracted semantically to sedere, iacere. Here
there is also another factor involved; being an intransitive verb, cadere had
no p.p. *casus, and the supine casum and future part. casurus had fallen out
of use, so there was no stem on which to form a -si perfect as other verbs in
the 3rd conjugation did, and so alternative devices were resorted to.
In general the verbs with -si and reduplicated perfects went over to the
-ĕre conjugation. Such verbs are: ardere (but note Fr. ardoir, appearing
alongside and perhaps before ardre and difficult to account for), adaugere,
mulgere (everywhere confused with mungĕre), ridere, tergere, torquere,
mordere, pendere (a cognate pendĕre also existed), respondere, tondere
(confused with tundĕre). CL sorbēre, -ui, -itu also gave way to late Latin
sorbĕre, -psi, -ptu. In some cases, such as tergere, fervere, there was
already hesitation in CL, while 3rd conjugation forms are attested in late
Latin for tondere, miscere, respondere, augere, ridere. The verbs with CL
6
6

-si perfects were naturally attracted to the more numerous -ĕre verbs of this
class, while the reduplicating verbs formed new perfects in -si or -idi > -edi
(morsi, tunsi and respondidi are attested) and joined their fellows in the
third conjugation. Miscere joined the -escere verbs. We can also assume
that fervĕre carried the day on the basis of the It. and Rum. forms (in Rum.
it has joined the -si, -tu class). Of the -evi, -etu verbs probably only implere
remained as a popular verb (where delere appears, mostly with -ire forms, it
should probably be regarded as a learned borrowing), and there is lack of
unanimity in its treatment. (See below.)
Of the remaining verbs, remanere, videre and sedere stayed in the 2nd
conjugation; it has been suggested that this is because they were stative
verbs, like most of the others. Timere tended to follow the -mere verbs of
the 3rd conjugation, and I will treat it there.
There still remains one more group of words, which are represented
by -ire forms in the Romance languages. To this group belong florere,
languere and putrere and also abolere, abhorrere, which appear as learned
borrowings in Romance, though the latter shows signs of being an older
word which became latinised in the west, cf. Rum. urî

situation when -ēre, -escere and -ire forms all had an independent existence.
Thus lucere appears as lucére, rilúcere in It. and allúgere in Sard., but with
-ire forms in the other languages; in Rum. luci has the infix, while Fr.
luisir/luire has alternative -si, -tu forms following the analogy of cuire,
duire. For implere, Rum., It. and the consensus of the Iberian forms point
to -ēre (so OIt. compiére in the rhyme), while It. also has empire with infix
and émpiere, and OFr. and Cat. have -ir forms without infix. Splendere
appears in It. as learned (ri)splendere and in Sp., Ptg. as learned esplender
but these latter also have the forms resplandir (Ast.) and resplandecer,
while OFr. and Prov. have resplandir with and without infix, with an
alternative infinitive resplandre in Prov., and the perfect resplandiet and
past participle resplandu in OFr. Merere provides an interesting case. OFr.
and Prov. have merir without infix, and with the -ui perfect of merere in
Prov. merc, while Cat. has mereixer with infix throughout like the Sp., Ptg.
merecer, Sard. mereskere (but OCat. also had merir). This is reminiscent of
OFr. paroistre, Prov. pareisser, Cat. pareixer alongside pareir, parer and
Sp., Ptg. parecer, while It. has apparire with both infix and parere forms.
In most of the Romance languages the -escere verbs did not survive as a
separate type, but were merged with the corresponding -ire verbs; in Sp.,
Ptg., however, merecer and parecer attracted other -ere verbs, producing
Sp. acaecer (originally with simple perfect acayó), pertenecer, Ptg.
esquecer, pertencer, OSp., OPtg. remanecer, remaecer etc. (These -ecer
verbs are not to be confused with those which developed out of the OSp.,
OPtg. -ir verbs with infix; I shall discuss these when I come to the 4th
conjugation.) Putere is universally represented by verbs with -ire forms,
but without infix in the older stages of the languages; here we are justified
in supposing the creation of a Latin form *putire beside putescere
(putiscere is also found) on the basis of other pairs in -ire, -escere, and we
may also see a similar formation in *lucire beside lucere and *implire
beside implere (note that Sard. has both pudire and pudeskere).
8
8

For the remaining verbs it is difficult to find a reason for the change in
conjugation. Gaudere has joined the -ire conjugation in western Romania,
perhaps on the analogy of audire, but in It. it remains as godere, and it does
not occur in Rum. Paenitere has -ire forms (as *pentire) in Fr., Prov., Cat.,
Sp., OGal. and It. (but with OIt. (ri)pentére, south It. péntere), but OSp.
(Berceo) has rependir and Ptg. has repender; the latter could be a later
formation from -ir (cf. Ptg. sofrer, morrer and many other such forms in
Gal.), but the old past participle repeso (in Sp. repiso), on the analogy of
prender/preso seems to indicate that repender is an early form. Moreover
Prov. has peneder and penedre (also empentir), and Cat. has penedir and
old pinedre. It is possible that we are dealing with two forms, an early
*pentere, which was attracted to sentire, mentire, and a later learned
borrowing in which t was changed to d in West Romance (cf. OFr.
penance), and that these two forms interacted on each other. Monere also
appears in both -ere and -ire forms; perhaps there was confusion with
munire, as seen in the use of municionis and monitionis as alternatives in
the same late Latin document and in the mediaeval Latin confusion of
praemonere and praemunire; cf. OFr. amonir as a variant of munir, and
comunimentum next to comonir in an OCat. document.
It will be seen from this that there was no fundamental shift from -ere
to -ire in VL times, but rather in the subsequent history of the individual
languages.
The original past participle in -ĭtu corresponding to the perfect in -ui
was preserved in Sard. and south It. dialects, but elsewhere it only
remained in a fossilised form. In most areas it was replaced by -utu in the
VL period on the analogy of the verbs in -uere, which also had perfects in
-ui. As this -utu had also replaced -ĭtu in verbs of the -edi class, probably
on the analogy of battedi/battutu (see below), or else because -ĭtu and -utu
were felt to be interchangeable, this led to the introduction of -edi perfects
9
9

into verbs of the 2nd conjugation also in some of the Romance languages.
b) Romance development.
1. Infinitive type.
All the Romance languages except Sp. and Ptg., where there are only
scant traces remaining of the -ĕre conjugation, have to a greater or lesser
extent recorded a drift from the -ēre to the -ĕre conjugation. This has gone
furthest in modern Sard., where the -ēre conjugation no longer exists
(though the indications are that the endings of OSard. forms such as avere
must have been pronounced -ēre), and where -ere verbs such as tennere,
offerrere (or was this earlier an -ire verb?) have attracted to themselves
bennere, aperrere, koperrere and morrere, from the -ire conjugation. The
same absorption of -ēre and -ire has happened in south Italy (Sicilian
vénniri, séntiri) and Corsica (góde, móre). (Bourciez, 417; cf. Fr. dialect -re
for -ir, Fouché, 114.)
In the other languages one widespread change to -ĕre involves the
verbs in -cēre. Rum., It., Fr., Prov., Cat. all show double forms, so the
confusion may date from early times, and may have helped conversely to
change the -cĕre verbs to -cér in Sp. and Ptg. Fr. has plaisir/plaire,
nuisir/nuire etc., the latter forms dating from the 12th c.; It. has piacére,
tacére, lucére but lécere, nuócere (old nocére), rilúcere; Rum. has
plăcea/place, tăcea/tace; Prov. has plazer/plaire, nozer/noire; OCat. has
plaher, jaher, soon replaced by plaure, jaure > jeure, and also lleure (with
the noun lleer), noure. The impulse for this change came from the fact that
in their futures these verbs resembled the common verbs dicere, facere,
ducere. In Fr., Prov., OCat. the etymological future forms, such as plaira,
plaira, playra, are derived from *plager-at, just as dira comes from
10
10

*diger-at with voicing in the proparoxytone infinitive (cf. *vogitu for vocitu
above). In Cat. the change of ce to u also meant that there was a large
degree of similarity between the -cere, -dere and -vere verbs, amongst
which those in -ĕre preponderated.
Another, but less widespread, change involves the verbs in -vēre,
which followed the example of *escrivere, vivere, *plovere. It. has muóvere
after pióvere, Prov. has deure, moure beside dever, mover, while Cat. has
only the forms deure, moure, and also haure > heure beside haver. Eastern
dialects of OFr. have muevre after pluevre (Fouché, 43). In the -dēre verbs,
Prov. has seire, veire, beside sezer, vezer, and in Cat. seure, veure early
supplanted seher, veher. For cadere Cat. has only caure (apart from cader
in the Provençalised Hom. d’Org.), but an early future cayra is recorded, as
is also veyra from veher. These could be interpreted as coming from
*cahera, *vehera, rather than *cad’ra, *ved’ra, as the normal development
of -d’r- is -ur-, as seen in eura from hedera and in the futures of the -dĕre
verbs, such as creurà, riurà, raurà, where no other forms are recorded.
Prov. also has a future caira, in this case from *cad’ra. In both languages
the new infinitives can be explained on the basis of the identity of the
futures with those of the -dĕre verbs. Northern dialects of OFr. also have
forms veir, seir, cheir (disyllabic), and Prov. has vezir, sezir; in the case of
Fr. they can be explained as coming from the perfect cheit. The compound
assidēre has been merged with assidĕre, producing OFr. assire, Prov. assire,
OCat. asiure, It. assidere besides forms based on the simple verbs. (Is this
also a possible origin for Sp. asir ?)
The other changes belong purely to the history of the individual
languages. Rumanian, where the change from -edi to -ui perfects in verbs of
the vendere class broke down the essential distinction between the 2nd and
3rd conjugations, has the variants (besides plăcea/place etc.) Ńinea/Ńine,
rămânea/rămâne, apărea/apare, umplea/umple, încăpea/încape. (It also has
11
11

a new form voi beside vrea, created on the basis of the 1st person voi
(*voleo).)
Italian has capere, corresponding in form and meaning to the cognates
in the other languages, and also capire with a change of meaning, formed
on the analogy of rapire. For olere, only the dialect form olire is found (cf.
OSic. piacire, dolire, avire and north It. infinitives in -ir, Bourciez, 417).
The change to apparire has already been mentioned; dialectal apparere is
also found.
Rhaeto-Rom. follows the VL pattern. Compare Engad. savair,
plaschair, taschair, (a)vair, pudair, vulair, vzair, rumagnair with
respúonder, mórder, túonder, múndscher (Surs. múlscher) which come
from VL -ĕre forms. Friulian fluctuates, with old plasê, vedê, as (a)vê, volê,
podê, now plási, viódi as rispuíndi, mólzi.
In Fr., apart from the words already mentioned, there are some cases
of transfer to the -re infinitive, seemingly based on the future forms: so we
have ardoir/ardre (see above), remanoir/remaindre, semonoir/semondre,
douloir/doudre. Tenere gives tenir by analogy with venir (rarely tenoir);
these two verbs interacted on each other in most languages. Apart from this
there is one phonological change; the verbs in -cēre give -sir because of the
Fr. change of -iei- to -i-, thus OFr. plaisir, taisir, gesir, leisir, moisir, nuisir
(we may also see luisir as coming from lucere rather than *lucire, though
this is less likely).
In Prov. we can find comparable parallel forms remaner/remandre,
somoner/somondre. Tenere gives both tener and tenir. Many other verbs
have also developed -ir infinitives; there are the vezir, sezir, gauzir, merir,
emplir and penedir mentioned above, and besides these somonir, remanir,
jazir, taizir, cabir, indicating a general tendency to divide this conjugation
between the -re and -ir conjugations. Nevertheless the -er type still remains
in the modern patois: avé, poudé, voulé, valé.
In Cat., as we have seen, the verbs in -cere, -vere, -dere have all
12
12

moved over to the -re type. Tenere gives tenir/tener/ten(d)re, merere old
merir beside mereixer; remanere gives romandre/romanir with no trace of
*romaner. Implere gives omplir. There are now just ten infinitives in -er
surviving: haver, poder, voler, saber, caber, caler, doler, valer, soler, parer
(a-, com-), and these verbs also have -re forms such as heure, cabre, caldre,
doldre, valdre, as well as new -er forms created on the perfect stem, such as
poguer, tinguer, volguer.
In all the areas above mentioned it can be seen that the -ēre
conjugation was a very weak type which tended to lose ground to the
stronger -ĕre or -ire types. In Sp. and Ptg. (and also Macedo-Rum.),
however, it gained ground at the expense of the -ĕre verbs. I will leave a
discussion of this till we come to the 3rd conjugation. Of the verbs that
remained in the -ēre class in VL, that is, excluding forms like ridĕre,
respondĕre etc., which I take to be the ancestors of the Sp. and Ptg. forms
equally with those of the rest of the Romance languages (cf. responduntur
in the Pereg. Silv.), nearly all show no change in Sp. and Ptg., but there are
some few changes. Monere has given muñir in Sp., monir and premunir in
Ptg., as discussed above. Tenere gives Sp. tener, Ptg. ter but also Arag., Gal.
tenir. Implere gives Sp. henchir, but Arag. empler (as against inplire in the
Glos. Em.), Ast., Gal., Ptg. encher. Remanere gives OSp. romaner/romanir
and OPtg. remãer. Gaudere gives Gal. gouir, Ptg. gouvir/gouver. Nocere
gives OSp. nozir, Gal. nocer/nocir, OPtg. nozer/nozir. For cadere modern
Ptg. has cair, but OPtg. has caer, conjugated fully as an -er verb, as does
Spanish. Here again, I will postpone a discussion of the distribution among
the -er and -ir types in Sp. and Ptg. till we come to the 3rd conjugation. In
all these cases we can assume a VL and early Iberian -ēre which was
changed in the later history of the languages.
2. Perfect types.
13
13

The -ui type has survived everywhere (in Rhaeto-Rom. only in forms
from -etui and in fui (Lausberg, 896, 905 etc.), but cf. also the imperfect
subj. forms avess, savess, vuless etc., which, like dess and stess, may in this
case have originally been formed from the perfect stem, with loss of -u-,
rather than the present stem, though the subjunctives of the -si perfects were
clearly re-formed on the present stem, cf. old perfect dis and subjunctive
dschess), but has undergone many changes, which are best considered
language by language, though one common tendency is observable, namely
to absorb or assimilate the -u- to the preceding consonant. In Rum. this has
taken place in the case of stetei, detei, mentioned above, but as far as the
2nd conjugation is concerned a new type has been created with the accent
on the u. The origin is perhaps to be found in forms like habúimus, VL
habúerunt, but this presupposes a different treatment from the rest of
Romania: the analogy of fui, *fusti, *fut etc. and *-ammus, -arunt, *-immus,
-irunt from -avimus, -averunt, -ivimus, -iverunt would also help, not to
speak of the accented -u- of the past participle. All the verbs in this
conjugation have -ui perfects, except rămânea, which has rămăsei (old
rămaşi(u)). This includes văzui from vedea, for which a VL *vidui can be
assumed, as it is required as a basis for forms in other languages too. Vedea,
cădea and şedea have z in their perfects, either from the forms with a yod in
the present paradigm or as reminiscences of an earlier vidi, *cadiedi, sedi,
though this last is unattested in Romance. (D before i gives z in Rum.)
In OSard. this type is well in evidence, as seen in appi, potti, tenni,
modern deppesi, with assimilation of the u, and also in bolvit/voluerun,
paruit, piaqui, jagui and other forms to be inferred from the p.ps.; -si forms
were also sometimes created, as bolsi, parsit, tensit. From remanere we
have remasit, and from videre vidit. In the modern dialects, the perfects,
where they are found, are formed in -esi (-isi) or -ei (Wagner, p. 337). (It is
not certain whether this -ei comes from -ai or from -edi.)
In Rhaeto-Rom. also the synthetic perfect is little used (only in the
14
14

Engadine), and ends in -et from -etui, thus Upper Engad. vzet, taschet. As
mentioned above, the original -ui, with loss of u before the accent, would
seem to survive in the imperfect subjunctive, though, to all intents and
purposes, this has been formed on the present stem. Traces of old strong
forms are also found, reformed with -s-, so pous (*potere), vous (*volere),
stous (*estopere, from est opus). There is also an ob (habere) found in Old
Friulian.
In It. the -ui perfect survives only on a greatly reduced scale. Existing
forms are: tenni, ebbi (analogy of debui ? — dial. abbi, appi), dolvi and
dolsi, giacqui, nocqui, parvi and parsi (analogy of corsi), piacqui, tacqui,
caddi, seppi (analogy of ebbi, *recepui ? — dial. sappi), volli and volsi
(dialects), with old potti, dibbi/debbe, sedde, possette, valli, valve, and
OAbruz. cappissero, continuing capui. In the other cases the -si or -edi
perfects have taken over: mossi (muovere, analogy of scrissi, vissi), calse,
valsi (analogy of sciolsi, colsi etc.), sedei, dovei, godei, potei.
Empiere/empire only has empii, but compiè from compiere is found in
Dante. The change to -si perfects might also have been assisted by the
resemblance between the respective -(ĭ)tu and -tu participles, if the roots of
the change stretch back that far; the ending-accented forms movesti, paresti,
dolesti etc., it should be noted, go back to the original -uisti forms.
Likewise the change to -ei (an analogical form which replaced etymological
-iedi) comes from the identity of the ending-accented forms of the -ui and
-edi types; in the -ui verbs the u was lost before an accented ending and the
consonant was not doubled, giving cadesti, avesti, tacesti, paresti, movesti,
dolesti, valesti, dovesti, potesti etc. These last forms dovesti, potesti and the
like provided the basis for new forms dovei, potei etc., replacing OIt. dibbi,
potti. Likewise, after these ending-accented forms, taken as being formed
from the present stem, had led to similar new formations in the other strong
perfects, the correspondence between movesti, paresti, valesti and vivesti,
corresti, togliesti would further help to encourage the spread of the -si
15
15

perfect. One more type which has shown a great extension in It. is the -etti
type. Not only does this provide an alternative to -ei forms, but it is found
replacing other types, thus vedetti, tacetti. Compare the similar extension in
Rhaeto-Rom.
On the question of the perfect it is also worth noting that south It. still
preserves the old accent in the 1st person plural, as ébbimo, matching
OSard. appimus. (So also díssimo, cf. ORum. zisemu, Bourciez, 210, 423,
479.)
Of the remaining verbs in It., those that changed to -ire have perfects
formed accordingly. Rimanere has rimasi. Sedere shows no signs of -si
forms as found in Fr. and Prov.; however, assidere has assisi, and the noun
sesso is found, as are similar forms elsewhere. As the basis of the rare form
sedde and the weak sedei I presume VL *sēdui, which accords with the
forms found in Rum., Prov., Cat., Sp., Ptg., showing the commmonly found
addition of -u- to a perfect with lengthened vowel (note the Catalan Latin
form residui). For videre, It. vidi would seem to go back directly to Latin
vidi; however, Fouché (155), in order to explain the past participles It.
veduto, Fr. vu < vëu (cf. also Rum. văzut. Prov. vezut etc.), supposes a form
*vidui, which then changed back to vidi, and quotes a popular It. vidde
(154); the Rum. form, as has been seen, also presupposes *vidui. On the
other hand there is no trace of this in Prov., Cat., Sp., Ptg.; the vic found in
Prov. is not significant as this -c is also added to -ire perfects. Similarly the
final vowel in Sp. vio, Ptg. viu (as also that in Sp. hubo etc. where Ptg. has
-e) can be better explained on the analogy of partió, partiu.
In Fr. many of the -ui perfects underwent drastic sound changes, which
Fouché (155) attributes to anticipation of the -u-, to account for the loss of
the final consonant of the stem (I am not sure that he is right here; it seems
to me the same result would be obtained if one supposes the consonant,
having become a voiced fricative, was assimilated to the following -u-).
16
16

The results in OFr., as concerns the verbs in this category, are mui (moveir),
oi (aveir), dui (deveir), estut (estoveir), jui (gesir), lut (leisir), nui (nuisir;
also nuis on the analogy of cuis, duis, from cuire, duire, cf. luis for luisis),
ploi (plaisir), toi (taisir), soi (saveir), poi (poeir). Fouché also gives a very
credible explanation of the treatment of the root vowels in their evolution
from Latin (my assumption would give the same result). Cadere has a
different history. French, besides having forms derived from *cadedi, as do
Prov., Sp., Ptg., shares with Prov. and Cat. what are apparently hybrid
forms from *cadedui: OFr. dechëurent (Pope, 1022; I am following
Bourciez in the placing of the diaeresis), Prov. cazec, OCat. caic earlier
cadec, caec. The same formation is also shown in the past participles OFr.
chëu, Prov. cazegut, Cat. caigut. Furthermore, the same correspondence
appears in the verbs parere, currere: OFr. parui, parëu, corui, corëu, Prov.,
Cat. parec, paregut, correc, corregut (does the same phenomenon underlie
the difference in It. between parvi, corvi, dolvi, valve and volli, valli ?). It
seems to me that here we have the starting point for the Fr. “weak -ui”
perfects, as found in chalut, dolui, olui, valui, solui, East Fr. somonui, MFr.
voulus. The phonological process of change to produce parui, corrui etc. is
obscure, but the fact that Latin words in this class accented as válui did not
just switch their accent and suddenly become pronounced as *valúi in the
Latin of Gaul is shown by the survival in OFr., especially in the dialects, of
forms accented as válui. Firstly, there is voil from volui; besides this, solt
and dout from soluit and doluit are found (Fouché, 162), and forms like
valist could come direct from a -ui perfect or from a weak perfect reformed
to avoid ambiguity with the present. Then the northeast dialects have
forms tinve (tenui) and vowist (voluisset), which suggests that here volui
became *volve, showing that it was possible for a strong -ui perfect to
develop even in stems ending in liquids and nasals, though it seems likely
that, because of the difficulty of pronouncing válui in two syllables, a
glide-vowel developed, which affected all the l and r stems in French. That
17
17

this tendency may also have once had wider currency outside French is
suggested by the existence of OCat. calec, valec, tenec alongside calc, valc,
tenc.
As in It., -si perfects were also developed by some of these verbs:
chalsist, valsisse, volsisse (-s- found especially in the ending-accented
forms), somons. The first three Fouché (144) suggests go back to VL,
formed on the basis of past participles in -(i)tu; this explanation, as we have
seen, could apply equally to the It. forms. Somons is formed on the analogy
of words like remes (remaneir), which keeps its inherited -si perfect. Fr.
and Prov. are remarkable for creating a -si perfect for sedere: Fr. sis beside
a rare sut, Prov. sis beside sec, perhaps derived from the compound assis,
which may go back to a VL *assisi, as risi, *occisi. Tenir has followed
venir and created tin from *teni; the form tinve quoted above, however,
shows that tenui also survived in France. Fouché (155) opines that vin came
from an earlier *vēnui which lost its -u-, and this change induced the
change from tenui to tin; similarly, that vi, as It. vidi, mentioned above,
came from *vidui > vidi.
Jouir, emplir, merir have perfects in accordance with their infinitives.
If Latin implevi survived, it would have become *implivi in West Romance;
or it may have been merged with the -edi perfects. In either case the result
would be empli in Fr.
In standard OFr. the ending-accented forms of the -ui perfects have the
accented vowel u: ëus, dëus, pöus etc., which have come from -uisti forms
with rounding of i to u [y]. In the north-east there was no rounding and the
forms are awis, dewis, powis. In the case of the last word, forms like podis,
pois are also found, suggesting that there was also in France, as in Italy and
elsewhere, a tendency to drop the -u- before the accented ending (volis from
voluisti could equally point to this).
In Prov., and in Cat., the *-wwi forms which developed in the -ui
18
18

perfects changed to *-gui, giving -c in final position. Thus we have Prov.
aic/ac (aver), calc (caler), dec (dever), dolc (doler), jac (jazer), lec/lic
(lezer), merc (merir), moc (mover), noc (nozer), olc (oler), plac (plazer),
poc (poder), sec (sezer), valc (valer), volc (voler), tinc/tenc (tener/tenir).
Cazec and parec have been mentioned above. It will be seen that the forms
*dic etc. (by metaphony) expected in the 1st person have been levelled to
the vowel of the other persons. Dec, lec, sec (*sēdui), cazec, parec have
close e, whereas the o’s of moc, noc, poc are open; this is in accordance
with their etymology. Tazer has tais (*taxi), but probably tac also existed.
Soler is defective. The remaining -ui perfects are from verbs in -pere, and
these produced forms without -g-: saup (saber), caup (caber). Remaner has
remas, and following it somoner has somos (no -ui forms found). Other -si
perfects are sis, assis, as mentioned above. Vezer has vi. The -ui perfects
later produced weak forms agui, degui, pogui, tengui, volgui, saubi etc.
The situation in Cat. is very similar: OCat. hac (haver), calc (caler),
dec (deure), dolc (doler), jac (jaure/jeure), llec (lleure), moc (moure), noc
(noure), olc (oler), plac (plaure), poc (poder), sec (seure), solc (soler), valc
(valer), volc (voler), tinc (tener/tenir). Caic, parec have already been
mentioned. The -pere verbs give sap (saber), cap (caber). Of the remaining
verbs, romandre has romas, and veure viu or veí > vi (*videdi, cf.
videderunt in the Itala, Grandgent, 426). As in Prov., weak forms later
appeared, giving haguí, deguí, poguí, tinguí, volguí, sabí/sapiguí etc.
Romas also gave way to romanguí, and vi to vegí or veguí.
In Sp. and Ptg. the number of -ui perfects is greatly reduced, but some
are still found. In OSp. there are tove/tuve (tener; also dial. tive/teve), sove
(seer; dial. sive/seve), ove (haber), yogue (yacer), plogue (placer), cope
(caber), sope (saber), pude (poder); of these, tuve, hube, cupe, supe, pude
still remain. Of the other verbs, mover, deber, caler, doler, oler, soler,
valer, nozir, following the ending-accented forms, created new -edi
19
19

perfects, which eventually coalesced with those of the -ivi type. In the case
of caer, its -edi perfect is probably inherited from VL. Henchir is
conjugated as an -ire verb. Of the remainder, remanere produces OSp.
remase, and videre vi. Parecer, which replaced *parer, had a perfect form
paresco in OSp., coming from *parescuit as nasco from *nascuit, and there
is a similar remasco from remanere.
In the case of the ending-accented forms, though Castilian had oviste
as ove, there is reason to believe that forms like abierat, sapieret, naisceset
in the Glos. Sil. may reflect an earlier, or equally early, state of things,
rather than being reformations. That is, Spanish also may have lost the -u-
before the accent, at any rate in some areas. This would further facilitate
the change to a weak conjugation, as in It. (see Fouché, 156). However,
Castilian, at least, seems to have anticipated the -u-, as Fouché says Fr. did,
rather than metathesised it; compare tove with Ptg. tive. Also, if sope, sopo
came from *saupui, *saupuit, with early anticipation of the -u-, this would
offer one explanation for the p and the final o (note that Latin -aup-
behaves as -alp-, with the surd preserved in the consonant group), as
compared with Ptg. soube (*saupi, *saupit, perhaps with later metathesis).
Therefore the o of Cast. oviste may be inherited rather than formed on the
analogy of ove.
In Ptg. the position is much the same as in Sp., but there are a few
more relics of an earlier state of affairs. In the -ui perfects, parallel to Sp.,
you have tive (ter), sive (seer), houve (haver), jougue, later jouve (jazer),
prougue, later prouve (prazer), coube (caber), soube (saber), pude (poder);
as in the Sp. dialects, tive, sive show metaphony (inherited in the case of
sive from *sēdui, analogical in tive) and have not anticipated the -u-; coube,
soube have -b- from a single p, where the Sp. forms reflect either a double
p, perhaps from the present subjunctive, or else a consonant cluster, as
indicated above. Besides these forms, Ptg. preserves other traces in old
dolverom, valvera, valvesse, valver from doer, valer. Apart from this, the
20
20

changes are as in Sp.: mover, dever, caer (calere), doer, soer, valer,
lezer/lazer, nozer/nozir changed to -edi perfects (does old diverão show
signs of having followed the pattern of tive ?), and OPtg. caer (cadere)
similarly had cai with 3rd person caeu. Encher, gouvir follow their
infinitive types, -edi and -ivi. Remanere gives OPtg. remas, and videre vi.
3. Past Participle types.
The original participle in -ĭtu is, as we have seen, only preserved as
such in Sard. and south It. dialects. Thus Sard. has tentu/tennidu, appidu,
pottidu, deppidu, settidu, partu/parfidu, balfidu, boffiu, dolfidu, romasitu
(those in -idu all formed on the perfect stem), moviu, and even
bidu/bittu/bidiu (videre) and also fossilised placitu, malaidu; alluttu seems
to have come from a strong *alluctu. South It. has such forms as muóppitu,
sáppitu (Lausberg, 914), ONeap. mòsseto, Neap. appárzeto (Fouché, 177),
likewise from the perfect stem, though the -ui perfect *muoppi is not
otherwise attested.
In the other languages the participle is derived from -utu, which
supplanted -ĭtu in VL times, and whose origin we have already traced.
However, traces of -ĭtu have remained fossilized in nouns or adjectives (or
adjectival participles) or other derivative forms, especially those in -itor,
-itoriu. In this last case one can compare CL future participles in -iturus
formed on the present stem, such as bibiturus, nasciturus, moriturus,
caniturus, ruiturus.
In Rum. there are no remains of the simple -ĭtu past participle in this
conjugation, but the adjectival participles in -ător must go back originally
to -itoriu, which appears generally in Romance, added to the present stem,
and the form of the preceding consonant, as in tăcător, văzător, căzător,
must be a later development as in the gerunds tăcând, văzând, căzând,
21
21

where -ând is the normal development of Latin -endo (cf. also the
subjunctives tacă, vază, cază). Other such forms are încăpător, and dator
from debitoriu, where the simple verb debere has disappeared.
In Italian, remaining forms are malato/malattia, debito (re-formed, cf.
OIt. devito, detta), piato, movitoso (and OIt. motta, also muta, this perhaps
from Fr.), merto, plus the forms in -itore, -itoio, such as debitore, tenitore,
caditoio, giacitoio. It also has learned forms such as solito, tacito, lecito,
monito. (Piato is from *plagitu, cf. vuoto, frale for the loss of g.) North It.
dialects have dolto, volto (Fouché, 177); the south ones have many -eto/-itu
forms such as those we have already looked at. Other survivals are dotto
(doctu), voto. For Rhaeto-Rom. I have found a Surs. noun deivet.
In Fr. there are a certain number of forms remaining, such as dette,
meute (if this is an etymological form, it is evidence for the antiquity of the
diphthongisation of ŏ, preceding the loss of post-tonic ĭ, which in turn
precedes voicing of medial t), malade, plaid, gîte, voeu. The past participles
nuit, luit (beside OFr. nöu/nëu, luisi) could conceivably go back to nocitu,
*luctu, but are probably rather new formations on the analogy of cuit, duit.
OFr. has another duit (doctu) with matching infinitive and perfect duire,
duist, following the forms from ducere, with which docere seems to have
crossed paths. Agent nouns like teneur go back originally to -itore (which
was extended in VL to all verbs in the 2nd and 3rd conjugations), but
during the early development of Fr., in order to keep this as a distinct living
suffix, the vowel i was preserved as a neutral vowel; thus the ending fell in
with -atore, giving -eur for all conjugations in modern Fr. (hence also the
spelling bibator in the Gl. Reich.).
In Prov. there are similar forms deute, mouta, malaute, plait/plach, vot
and lesda (licita). As Fr. duit, dozer (docere) has dueit/duech/dog. Agent
nouns like tenedor have preserved the e of the termination for the same
reason as in Fr.
The equivalent words in Cat. are deute, mota, malaute, plet, boda and
22
22

lesda, now lleuda, with -edor nouns like movedor and the adjective movedis.
Sp. has deuda, muebda, pleito (borrowed?)/plazo, malato (borrowed?),
boda, lezda, ducho/old duecho (doctu), coto (cautu), foto (fautu) and
deudor, tenedor, movedor etc.; Ptg. dívida, pleito/preito/prazo, old malato,
boda, old doito (doctu), couto, afouto, queda (*cadita), old seeda (*sedita),
jázeda (iacita), lezdo (OGal.), devedor, movedor, old teedor etc.
Where -ĭtu was replaced by -utu the latter has held its ground
everywhere except in Sp., Ptg., where it was later replaced by -īdo, because
of the similarity between the -er and -ir paradigms, and because there was
no recognisable -ui perfect type. Rum. consistently has -ut, as in Ńinut, putut,
plăcut, zăcut, tăcut, căzut, văzut, şezut, avut, părut, durut, vrut, umplut,
încăput. Lower Engad. has forms like savü, plaschü, taschü, pudü, tgnü,
and the other Rhaeto-Romance dialects have similar forms; Friulian has
plasut, vidut > viodut. It. has tenuto, potuto, piaciuto, taciuto, giaciuto,
nociuto, caduto, veduto, seduto, avuto, old paruto beside parso (as perfect
parsi), doluto, valuto (and valso), voluto, empiuto, saputo, dovuto; Fr. tenu,
pu, plu, tu, old gëu, lëu, nöu/nëu, chëu, doulu, soulu, then vu, eu, valu,
voulu, su, dû, mû; Prov., with introduction of -g- from the perfect, tengut,
pogut, plagut, (tazer makes taizit from inf. taizir, but probably also used
tagut), jagut, legut, nogut, cazut/cazegut, vezut/veut/vegut, segut, mergut (as
perfect merc), agut, earlier avut, dolgut, valgut, volgut, saubut/sauput (as
perfect), modern caupu (ditto), degut, mogut. Fr. and Prov. also have chaeit,
cazech, with the -ectu ending of collectu (see below). Cat. similarly has
tengut/tingut, pogut, plagut, jagut, segut, old llegut, nogut, caut/caigut,
haut/hagut, dolgut, solgut, valgut, volgut, sabut, cabut, degut, mogut. On
the correspondence between OFr. chëu, parëu, Prov., Cat. cazegut, caigut,
paregut etc. see above under the perfect. Sp. has avudo, tenudo, sabudo,
cabudo, movudo, doludo, cayudo (Gl. Sil. kadutu) etc., Ptg. avudo, teudo,
sabudo, cabudo, devudo, movudo, veudo, caudo (*cadutu) etc. Williams
23
23

states (From Latin to Portuguese) that all -er verbs in Ptg. had the past
participle in -udo, apart from those with strong past participles; the -udo
ending lasted into the 15th c., and some fossilized forms, teudo, conteudo,
manteudo, still remain. In Sp. it was not so long lasting, the Cid already
having -ido forms beside -udo, but -udo is still found through the 13th and
14th c.; after that its use waned, and it had completely disappeared by the
16th c. (Bourciez, 365). (The -uto formation seems not to have penetrated
into Mozarabic, which has ronpito, miššita.)
Of the strong past participles, rema(n)su remained everywhere: Rum.
rămas, It. rimaso (later rimasto by analogy with posto), OEngad. armes, Fr.
remes, Prov. remas (and remasut), Cat. romas, Sp., Ptg. not recorded but to
be presumed from the perfects remase, remas. Fr. somons, Prov.
somos/somost are formed on the analogy of the similar forms from
respondre, which in turn followed repondre. A similar semosi is found in
Old Genoese.
Sedere generally has the past participle in -utu, including Prov., Cat.
(as)segut, OSp. seudo and a rare form su and dial. assëu in OFr. (Fouché,
190), but the usual participle in OFr. is sis, which may, like the perfect, be
derived from a compound form *assisu (as risu, occisu), which gives It.
assiso, Fr., Prov. assis. Videre, besides the -utu participle, found in Rum.,
It., Rh.-Rom., Fr., Prov., Ptg., had a form *visĭtu (originally formed on
visere, perhaps), giving It., Sp., Ptg. visto, Prov., Cat. vist, Sard. vistu, and
the Fr. adverb vite from OFr. viste (*visĭta). Old visu survives in OIt. and It.
dialects, OFriul., OFr., Prov. and Engad. (Lausberg, 917), generally in a
passive construction meaning ‘it seems’. It is also found universally as a
noun, sometimes with the sense of ‘face’, cf. Fr. vis-à-vis. Compare also the
fossilised forms It. avviso, Sp., Ptg. aviso, Fr., Prov., Cat. avis.
Conjugation III.
24
24

This was the most heterogeneous one in CL, containing verbs with
perfects in -si, -vi, -ivi, -ui, reduplication, lengthened vowel, or simple
addition of the personal endings to the present stem, and past participles in
-tu, -su, -ītu, -ĭtu, -utu. The present stems of some verbs had an n infix
added to the root, others were augmented with -sc- or reduplication; the
conjugation also included verbs with stems ending in -u-, and the “capio
verbs” which resembled those of the 4th conjugation in some of their forms.
In VL most of the anomalous forms disappeared, and new groupings
were made, largely according to the final consonant of the present stem,
which determined the new perfect and past participle types. The most
convenient way of discussing this conjugation, accordingly, is to take each
of these new types in turn, including among them the new acquisitions from
the 2nd conjugation.
The new types thus formed are firstly velar and labial stems with
perfects in -si and past participles in -tu, or, in the case of some velars, -su.
Then dental stems with either -si, -su, or -edi, -ĭtu/-utu, the latter originating
with the compounds of dare, where the e of dedi replaced the i of -didi and
received the accent. (The forms in the modern languages require an original
open e. Authorities have not been in agreement that the -(d)edi forms
underlie the weak conjugations of the reflexes of the Latin -ere verbs, but
the evidence heavily favours this conclusion, if we make allowance for
analogical changes in each area. The most conclusive evidence is the fact
that forms with -ie- appear in the earlier stages of the languages that
diphthongise Latin open e. In most areas the second d was lost by a natural
phonetic development; in the case of It., -iedi was reformed as -ei under the
influence of the ending-accented forms, which were based on the present
stem.) In the modern languages many verbs hesitate between the two types,
and this hesitation seems to go back to VL times. Abscondere, for example,
has three perfect forms in late Latin: abscondi, abscondidi and absconsi,
25
25

and two participles, absconditus and absconsus. The next class have -ui,
-(ĭ)tu/-utu, and form a strong enough group not to have been attracted into
the 2nd conjugation; some of them have stems in l and r, and these verbs
also have forms in -si, -tu/-su. (In the case of certain other verbs too, the
Romance forms point to more than one VL form.) Finally there are a
handful of common verbs which need to be treated separately, and others
which changed to the 2nd or 4th conjugations.
Firstly I will append a list of the verbs I will discuss, according to
these types:
1. Velars and labials in -si, -tu/-su.
a) CL perfect in -si, infinitive in -ĕre: cingere, fingere, iungere, lingere,
ningere, pingere, plangere, exsting(u)ere, (con-)stringere, tingere,
ung(u)ere, coq(u)ere, dicere, (ad-, tra-)ducere, despicere (sus-), affligere,
intellegere, regere, dirigere, (ad-)erigere, excorrigere, (ex-)porrigere,
surgere, sugere, *destrugere, *tragere (+-ui), frigere, figere, mergere,
spargere, scribere, vivere (+-ui), sumere, premere (+-ui).
b) CL infinitive in -ĕre, other forms in the perfect: impingere (ex-),
pungere, (at-)tangere, attingere (per-), frangere (+ -ui), infringere,
*ringere, vincere (+ -ui), legere (+ -ui), e(x)ligere (+ -ui), (ex-)colligere,
*exseligere, parcere (+ -ui), subicere, traicere (+ -ui), redimere (+ -ui),
rumpere (+ -ui).
c) CL infinitive in -ēre: adaugere, mulgere (crossed with mungĕre), tergere
(ex-, abs-), torq(u)ere, (ab)sorbere (+ absorbire in even later Latin), in part
paenitere, which must also largely have become *pentire.
2. Dentals in -si, -su.
26
26

a) CL infinitive in -ĕre: claudere, concludere, mittere, radere, rodere,
*aucidere, assidere (+ *assedēre), pertundere, prehendere, excutere,
succutere.
b) CL infinitive in -ēre: ardere, ridere, mordere, respondere.
3. Dentals in -ĭdi, -ĭtu (CL), VL -edi, -ĭtu/-utu.
inaddere, credere (+ -ui), perdere, reddere/*rendere, tradere, vendere.
4. Dentals which hesitate between VL -si and -edi (various CL types).
(pro)cedere, discedere, findere, abscondere, tendere, accendere, incendere,
defendere, descendere, expandere, fundere, tondere (crossed with tundere),
pendere, splendere (learned, + -escere, -ire), *exconscindere.
5. VL perfects in -ui.
a)Verbs in -mere: fremere, gemere, timere, tremere, (+ premere, redimere).
b)Verbs in -cipere, -ripere: concipere, decipere, incipere, percipere,
recipere, suscipere, eripere.
c) CL -uere verbs: (at-)tribuere, battuere, fut(t)uere, consuere.
d) Other (various CL types): bibere, fervere, *plovere, lambere, *sequere,
vertere, contingere, cognoscere, crescere, pascere, *expergiscere,
*irascere, *nascere, miscere, texere, vivere (+ -si), colere, molere, tollere
(+ -si), currere (+ -si), cernere, sternere, (+ frangere, vincere, legere,
eligere,*tragere, credere, traicere, parcere, rumpere). To these can be
added solvere, volvere, which had CL -vi but probably only -si in VL,
though some of the Romance languages show -ui forms.
6. Other verbs.
ponere, quaerere, conquirere, facere, conficere (pro-), comedere, *essere.
27
27

7. Transfers to other conjugations.
a) To -ēre: cadere, sapere, capere, *potere, *volere.
b) To -ire: cupere, fodere, fugere, parere, rapere, *morere, *patere,
*offerere, *sufferere, conspuere, petere, fallere, *fiere, conti(n)gere.
Although all these verbs are neatly classified here, the actual state of
affairs was not so neat. As might be expected from the subsequent history
of the Romance languages, with their interaction between various perfect
and past participle types, there is evidence of variety in VL, some of which
is not reflected in the modern languages. My scheme, then, represents what
may be called the dominant type, or sometimes types, for each verb, as
determined, probably, by those who were considered the most cultivated
speakers.
The first category of velars (CL -xi, -ctu) is fairly numerous and
consequently stable. It attracted to itself verbs of the -si, -su and
reduplicating or lengthened vowel classes, including those of the 2nd
conjugation. (In late Latin the forms lexi, elexi, collexi, tanxi, attinxi,
impinxi, punxi, panxi, parsi, and with them the labials sorpsi, rupsi, are
recorded.) However, some of these verbs also retained a past participle in
-su, thus setting a precedent for the later creation of new past participles in
-su. In VL the verbs with an n infix in the present generally extended it
throughout, thus fingere, finctus (in Commodian), but forms without n, e.g.
fractu, strictu, are also preserved.
The labials are few in number, but scribere has generally been
preserved as a strong verb, at least in part.
In the case of the dentals, those that originally had past participles or
supines in -su but not perfects in -si, probably started by forming -edi
perfects (cf. cadere above); for example, we have late Latin forms such as
28
28

descendidit, respondidi, prendidistis, impendidi, prandidi, pandiderunt,
tendiderint, incendederit recorded (Bourciez, 91, Grandgent, 426). These
forms then interacted on each other, producing on the one hand -ĭtu
participles, and on the other -si perfects. Thus we have late Latin forms
absconsi, extensi, persi, occisi, morsi, tunsi, difusi recorded, and from a
later period presi in the Lex Salica. The Romance languages then settled for
one or other of the combinations -si, -su or -edi, -ĭtu/-utu, as a general rule.
It is not always clear whether forms like the respondidi, prendidistis
above continued uninterrupted alongside -si forms in languages like Fr., Sp.,
Ptg., for example, or whether they were analogically reintroduced later.
Similarly -ui, -ĭtu and -edi, -ĭtu have got mixed. Many -ui verbs made
-edi perfects because of the loss of -u- after double consonants, which
meant that the stem-accented forms were now indistinguishable from those
of the present, and the ending-accented forms were similar to the -edi ones,
from which the -ed- had been dropped in imitation of original forms
without -ed- such as abscondisti, descendisti, pre(he)ndisti. In some verbs
this change came early (as in batt(u)ere), in others later, in fact in West
Romance the -edi ending gradually encroached on the other perfects.
In many cases the perfects with lengthened vowel seem to have been
changed to -ui perfects. Thus in late Latin we have forms like legueris (and
after it reguit, Bourciez, 91), fecuit (Bourciez, 423), and the Romance
languages require other forms such as *fregui, *-cepui (or *-cipui from the
present?), *rupui (erupuit is attested), *credui (from *credi for credidi by
haplology?), *cognovui, *crevui, *pavui. Then on the model of other -ui
perfects like molui, fremui, ferbui, new ones were formed like lambui,
parcui, convertuit (found in the Vulgate and inscriptions), bibui, *plovuit,
*currui, *premui, and on miscui and texui, which seems to have become
*tescui in those areas where the reflexes of sc(e), sc(i) fell in with those of x,
*nascui, *viscui (for *vixui) and others.
Certain other verbs, such as solvere, volvere, which developed new
29
29

past participles in -(i)tu, then developed -si perfects to match the participles.
(Absolsi is found in late Latin.) Finally there remain other isolated verbs
which do not fit into any class, and have largely remained “irregular” in all
the Romance languages.
The verbs that changed to -ēre have already been discussed. Of those
that changed to -ire (many of them from the “capio” class), some also still
have -ere, whether inherited or reformed. It is easy to see why these
should have changed, and also petere, which had petivi, petitu, and *fiere
(for fieri, actually attested in early Latin); in fact many -ire forms are
found in early Latin, moriri, fodiri, fugire, cupiret (Fouché, 3). In the case
of the others, *offerere, *sufferere were probably attracted to ferire, and
fallere to salire. Conspuere (*exco(s)puere?) has a chequered history; the
modern languages point to *cospire/*escopire. It should also be
mentioned here that many CL -ēre verbs turn up in the -ire conjugation in
the Romance languages as learned borrowings; many of these were later
changed in Fr. to the -er conjugation. It. and Rum. also have many
learned borrowings in ㅗere, ㅗe.
1) Development of the infinitive type in the Romance languages.
In standard Rum. the -ĕre type remains as ㅗe (and ㅗere as a noun),
but in Macedo-Rum. these have all been changed to the 2nd conjugation
type -eare (Mac.-Rum. undzeare as compared with Rum. unge(re),
Bourciez, 473). There are also some nouns in standard Rum. with a change
of accent: vânzare, crezare, născare.
There are practically no changes of conjugation; adauge has become
adăuga; (ab)soarbe has given way to (ab)sorbi. Reddere and tradere have
been re-formed on the simple verb, giving reda, trăda. Bibere has produced
bea from *beauă; ploua has been reformed on the present plouă, as noted
above. The changes to the 2nd conjugation are as in the other languages,
30
30

cădea, încăpea, putea, vrea. The changes to the 4th also follow the standard
pattern: from the “capio” verbs, fugi, răpi, muri, păŃi, and besides them
oferi (late borrowing?), suferi and peŃi. Conspuere went through an -ire
form scu(i)pi to arrive at scuipa; VL*excopio, *excopiat could conceivably
have given scuip, scuipă, with the u extended from the ending-accented
forms. Note also cuceri beside cere.
It. is equally conservative, having just a few (learned?) -ire forms
alongside those in -ere, such as assorbere/-ire, cernere/-ire, fremere/-ire,
gemere/-ire. (Other changes are lambire, cucire (dial. cucere, cosere),
concepire and percepire (beside dial. concipere, percipere). In these cases
dialectal or learned influence is at work, as in OIt. rimedire, now redimere,
OVen. querire for chiedere.) There is some hesitation in the changes to the
4th conjugation, thus cupere, fuggire/fuggere, rapire/rapere, morire, patire,
offrire, suffrire, petire/petere (dial.), fallire/fallere (dial.). Also *sequere
has become seguire, as in certain other languages. (The -ere forms may
have come from the south, where the -ire verbs have changed to -ere.)
There are also certain seeming changes in conjugation due to
contraction, e.g. fare, dire, bere etc. The first two, together with (ad)durre,
go back to VL forms *fagere, *digere, *dugere, as evidenced by the forms
in the other Romance languages, including Sard. (Camp. fairi from earlier
fagere, attested in Greek characters, Wagner, p. 98).
In Fr. the position is similar, though there have also been a certain
number of new analogical formations, as well as new learned words such as
gémir (which largely replaced inherited g(i)embre > geindre), frémir. (We
have already noted that in one case Fr. stands apart, in that an earlier Fr.
form of ardere was ardoir, with the expected ardre possibly only coming
later.) One group that changed to the -ēre type is the verbs with a -v-, which
followed the pattern of devoir, mouvoir; so you have pleuvoir (OEFr.
pluevre), recevoir (OFr. receivre) and the other verbs in -cevoir. New -ire
forms are seen in vertir and querir, courir for earlier querre, courre, on the
31
31

analogy of ferir, mourir; similarly cueillir, tolir for earlier cueudre, toldre
on bolir/boillir. Of the verbs which changed to -ire in VL, OFr. has covir,
foir (fodere), fuir, ravir, morir, offrir, soffrir, escopir, faillir. *Sequere
remains as suivre, but there were also infinitives in -ir in OFr.; in many
other cases there was fluctuation, some of it affecting the modern forms, as
secouer, tisser (for secourre, tistre/tissir).
Prov. practically follows the general VL pattern. Changes to -ir are
vertir, querir beside querre, colhir beside Gasc. coelher, seguir beside
segre; fremir is of learned introduction. Certain other verbs also show
alternative infinitives in -ir, such as sorzir beside sorzer/sorger, fregir
beside frire, esperir beside esp(e)reisser. From legere, or rather *leggere,
the usual infinitive is legir, though léger and leire are found. Similarly regir
and riejer from regere. E(x)ligere gives e(s)lire. Of the “capio” verbs and
the like, Prov. has cobir, escodre/escodir, foire/fozer/fudir, fuire/fugir,
ra(u)bir, erebre, morir, ofrir, sofrir/soferre, escopir, falir.
In Cat. there is a further extension of the change to -ir, especially in
the -gere verbs, though this is not universal. The verbs affected are: munyir,
cenyir, junyir, renyir, tenyir, punyir, unyir (but also cínyer, júnyer, together
with fènyer and others); fregir, afegir, llegir, elegir, espargir, surgir,
destruir. In addition to these there are teixir, cosir, querre/querir,
espandre/esbandir, escondre/-ir (these last three having counterparts in
Prov.), and then, as elsewhere, co(i)llir, seguir, and, in the “capio” class,
sacudir, fugir/fúger, morir, compadir, oferir, soferir/sofere, now sofrir,
escopir, fal(l)ir.
It is when we come to Sp. and Ptg. that we find real changes, and this
surprisingly so, in view of the lack of any basic tendency to change, at least
to the -ēre type, in the neighbouring languages. (I am assuming that the VL
of Iberia also included forms like *ridĕre, *respondĕre etc.)
There are only puny traces of the -ĕre infinitive left, in OSp., OGal. fer
and OArag. dir, and in the futures Sp. haré, diré, OSp. aduré, and Ptg. farei,
32
32

direi, OPtg. adurei, trarei (but see also below). Otherwise all the verbs have
newly formed -er or -ir infinitives, except in some Pyrenean dialects.
There is no space here to go fully into the distribution among the two
types (for more details see my earlier paper). In Sp. we can basically expect
to find the infinitive in -er if the root vowel is (1) a, (2) e, often alternating
with ie, or (3) o, often alternating with ue. Those with root vowel (1) e
alternating with i, (2) i, and (3) u (including those that originally had o
alternating with u) have the infinitive in -ir. The reasons leading to the
choice of -ir rather than -er are very complicated, but basically are derived
from the interaction between verbs of the decir/dice type, with original root
vowel i changing to e before a following i, and those of the vestir/viste type
with original e alternating with ie which was changed to i in the
neighbourhood of an s (cf. avispa from earlier aviespa).
In my last paper I showed that in Castilian the etymological reflexes of
many of the -ĕre infinitives would produce highly anomalous forms such as
*piérdel, *muérdel, thus hastening the demise of this type. I also speculated
on how infinitives like dir, fer, *rir, *adúir would naturally become
changed to decir, hacer, reir, aducir, by the process of remodelling on the
unaccented form of the root. This holds good for Castilian, but not
necessarily for the other dialects; however, the influence of Castilian was
always strong. Other infinitives that can be traced straight back to -ĕre
forms are OSp. escorrir from *excorrigere (cf. Gal. escorrer/-ir), OSp.,
OPtg., cuntir, contir from conti(n)gere, Sp. espurrir from *exporrigere,
Arag. cullir from colligere (cf. Cast. coger, Ptg. colher), Ptg. decer/descer
from discedere, Sp., Ptg. comer from comedere (and asir from assidere ?).
For the elimination of anomalous forms, compare Fr. cueillir, querir, courir,
for cueudre, querre, courre.
It should be noted further that the above scheme only holds good for
the verbs inherited from VL, and not for the learned borrowings, which also
show -ir verbs with root vowel e alternating with ie.
33
33

Those verbs of the -ir class that fit into the above scheme are: ceñir,
decir, aducir, heñir, uncir, regir, erguir, escribir, estreñir, surgir, teñir,
ungir, vivir, freir, OSp. descir, concluir (semilearned), rendir, pungir,
contundir, OSp. espremir, now exprimir, beside premer, OSp. tremir beside
tremer, OSp. reemir/reme(d)ir etc., now redimir, confundir, desleir, elegir
(OSp. esleer/esleir), tullir, destruir, concebir (de-, (a)per-), recibir, reñir,
plus the old -ēre verbs muñir (monere), henchir, mucir/muñir (mulgēre/
mungĕre), tundir (tondēre/tundĕre), reir (VL ridĕre), nucir. There is only
one -ir from -ere verb with e/ie alternation and that is hervir, but even here
variants herver and hirvo occur. There are a few other cases of double
infinitive forms: cerner/-ir, verter/-ir; erguir also has yergo etc., and to this
there also correspond dialect -er forms; similarly we find the Asturian
variants joncer/juñir, rancer/riñir, mocer/-ir/mucir. Apart from this there
are a few verbs with root vowel a and infinitive in -ir: añadir, batir,
esparcir, plañir; but these all had infinitives in -er in old Castilian, cf.
romaner/-ir in OCast. and modern manir. If estarcir goes back to extergere,
there is an old infinitive terzer to balance it. So far I have omitted to
mention those verbs which commonly changed to -ire in Romance; these
are sacudir, huir, parir, morir, OSp. padir (now with infix, but OSp. had
pades, padan), seguir, OSp ofrir (now with infix, but OSp. had uffre, ufrió),
sufrir, pedir, OSp. fallir (now with infix, but OSp. had fallen), escupir/Ast.
cuspir. Apart from these verbs, the rest have -er infinitives in Sp., or have
undergone learned reformation, e.g. gemir for OSp. emer. The position in
Sp. is therefore very clear-cut. But note a tendency to -ir infinitives in Arag.,
reminiscent of Cat., such as escondir, leir, texir, vincir, atrivir, and
conversely OSp. co(n)fonder, render, toller, *receber (extrapolated from
p.p. recebudo), for confundir, rendir, tullir, recibir, reflecting an earlier
stage of development.
In Ptg. (including Gal.) there is a basic tendency towards -er (e.g. dizer,
34
34

escrever, viver, reger, erguer, eleger (OPtg. esleer), tolher, render, descer,
receber (con-, (a)per-), gemer, espremer, tremer), but also some fluctuation.
The pattern of change to -ir is similar to that seen in Cat., in that it basically
affects the -gere verbs, perhaps for some reason connected with
palatalisation. But in the case of Ptg. the old language has an -er infinitive,
so we have doublets nozir/-er, mungir/monger, cingir/-er, aduzir/-er,
fingir/-er, jungir/jonger, corrigir/correger, constringir/co(n)stranger,
tingir/-er, ungir/onger, sumergir/somerger, espargir/-er, frangir/-er,
ringir/ranger etc. Other -ir forms are frigir, surgir, chouvir/choer (OGal.),
cair/-er, confundir/co(n)fonder, remiir > remir, rir. The fact that this last
has never shown any -er form seems to me to point strongly to an original
*rir from ridĕre interpreted as riir (OPtg.), and then contracted again to rir.
Common Romance changes to -ire appear in Ptg. as: sacudir, fugir,
parir, morrer, OPtg. padir (now with infix), seguir, OPtg. oferir (now with
infix, but OPtg. ofeiro), sofrer/-ir (OGal.), pedir, falir (now with infix, but
OPtg. fal), cuspir/old escupir. It will be seen that morrer is reformed on
correr (the etymological OPtg. future morrei would be the starting point;
esmorido and OPtg. moiro etc. preserve an older state of affairs); sofrer
shows a tendency which is particularly strong in Galician, though it occurs
in Ptg. too, to confuse the -ir and -er conjugations. We will study this
further below.
*Essere appears in Sp. seré, Ptg. serei, which combine both *esser-ayo
and *seder-ayo. The plain infinitive esser appears only in OArag.
2) The Perfect.
a) Perfect in -si.
In Rum. this type is still well represented. In the first person the
modern language has a weak ending -sei, but in the earlier stages of the
35
35

language the strong form -şi(u) still existed. In the velars there exist, to
quote the strong 3rd person forms, cinse, coapse, zise, duse, fripse, înŃelese
(also weak forms as 1st pers. înŃelegui), ajunse, linse, ninse, depinse
(pingere), înfipse, merse, sparse, împinse (impingere), împunse, atinse,
frânse (as against Macedo-Rum. freadze), alese, culese, plânse, drese,
strânse, supse, întinse (tingere), trase, unse, stinse, distruse (loanword from
It.), adause/adaose, mulse, şterse, toarse. In the labials, scrise, (în)vise.
(The perfects in -pse are formed after the participles in -pt.) Other verbs,
such as învinge, earlier învence, ru(m)pe, învoalbe (des-), and fierbe, have
joined this type, but the old language has forms as 1st pers. învencui, fierbui
and 3rd pers. rupe. Similarly, trece, from traicere, has trecui, but we cannot
be sure what the original VL perfect was. (Some verbs in this and the next
class are learned borrowings.)
In the dentals you have închise, trimise, rase, roase, ucise, pătrunse,
scoase, râse, purcese, arse. In addition, those that hesitated in VL between
-si and -edi, mainly those that had no perfect suffix in CL, have -s- perfects
in Rum.: ascunse, întinse (intendere), încinse, deştinse, depinse (dependere),
împinse (impendere), prinse, răspunse, tunse, old pierse. It will be seen that
in the stems ending in -nd- the n is extended to the perfect; on the other
hand, Macedo-Rum. has forms without the n. It has been said that Eastern
Romance favours -si perfects, but this reflects a later development in
Western Romance, not an early split in VL, though the tendency may have
shown itself early. One condition underlying this dichotomy is the
disappearance of the -edi type in Rum., to be discussed later.
In It. the same VL velar forms are represented by (1st persons): cinsi,
cossi (also cocqui, as nocqui), dissi, addussi, finsi, afflissi, frissi, giunsi,
munsi, pinsi, piansi, ressi, eressi, (ad)ersi, corressi, accorsi, scorsi, porsi,
sporsi, strinsi, sorsi, sussi, tinsi, trassi, unsi, stensi (dial.), distrussi, fissi,
emersi, sparsi, spinsi, punsi, attinsi, fransi, lessi, elessi, colsi, scelsi, mulsi
(dial.), tersi, torsi, also arrosi, if this is from adauxi (inf. arrogere; this verb
36
36

is similar in meaning to Rum. adauge). Vincere has also joined this type
(with dialectal vicqui). Labials are scrissi, assorsi (old), assunsi, redensi,
solsi, volsi; espressi is a learned borrowing, and (s)pressi is labelled ‘old or
literary’. Vissi may directly represent CL vixi, or may, more probably, in the
light of the past participle and the forms in other languages, come from
*vixui. In the dentals are found chiusi, misi, rasi, rosi, uccisi, contusi
(learned), presi, scossi, risi, morsi, risposi, arsi. Of those that hesitated,
some came down on the side of -si in It.: nascosi, scesi, scoscesi, accesi.
Others still show hesitation: incendei/incesi, pendei/spesi/sospesi,
difendei/difesi, tendei/tesi, fendei/fesi, fondei (old)/fusi etc. Tondere has
only tondei. There was also a tendency, as in Western Romance, to produce
other weak forms such as radei, met(t)ei, and conversely some original -edi
perfects were later attracted into the -si class, so we have resi beside rendei,
persi (first recorded in a Latin form) beside perdei, and even cresi in Dante.
Besides this there are many learned adoptions from CL, such as divisi, cessi
(beside cedei), delusi, intrusi, invasi etc. Note that the ending-accented
forms of the -si perfects were based on the present stem (cf. the 2nd
conjugation), with the result that they coincided with those of the -edi
perfects, which were based on the same stem, forming a link between the
two types.
In Sard. the -si ending is strong, even in the modern language. In
OSard., forms like misi, iskrissi, presi, indulsi, aiunsi, battussi (< adduxi),
lessi, gollessi, ockisi, arreposi, intesi, vissi and others are found (Wagner,
passim), and the ending -esi/-isi was so common that in the modern
language it has been extended to all verbs of all conjugations, especially in
Logudorian, which still uses this tense whereas the other dialects have
abandoned it for the analytical perfect.
In Rhaeto-Rom., only scant traces of the -si perfects are found, but the
existence of others can be inferred from the existence of strong participles
in -tu, -su. Here we have the inherited OEngad. dis, trass, pus (ponere), and
37
37

(in the 2nd conjugation) the new formations vous (*volere), pous (*potere)
and stous (*estopere, formed from est opus); also old Friulian respos,
sprens/sprenz (*expremsit). All the verbs in this conjugation form the
imperfect subjunctive by adding -ess to the present stem, though in some
cases an earlier -edi or -ui form may have underlain this.
In OFr., as in the rest of Western Romance, the old pattern is largely
preserved at first, but the -s- perfects soon gave way to weak perfects. Thus
in OFr. we find velars: ceins, cuis, despis, dis, duis, feins, af(f)lis, fris, joins,
peins, plains, aers, estreins, sors, teins, trais, oins, esteins, destruis, clofis,
espars, empeins, poins, atains/ateins, frains, enfreins, lis, aois, mols, ters,
tors. Labials: escris, ra(i)ens, (es)pr(i)ens, g(i)ens, cr(i)ens (tremere), sols,
vols (for vivere, Fouché quotes a form vist, tracing it to vixit; see below for
a discussion of this). Dentals: clos, conclus, mis, res, ocis, escos (excutere),
socos, ris, mors, ars. Of those that hesitate, OFr. has pris, respos/respondi,
escos (abscondere); the rest only had -edi perfects. These -s- perfects
attracted a few others from other conjugations: duist (docere), luis (lucere),
nuis (nocere). Note also encursist beside corui.
In the later stages of the language most of these perfects became weak;
those from infinitives in -indre formed perfects on the present stem, as
ceignis, plaignis, atteignis, joignis, épreignis, craignis; those in -uis
followed the weak forms of the perfect and produced cuisis, conduisis etc.;
those in -us joined the -ui perfects, thus conclus as valus; those from other
infinitives ending in -dre joined the -edi verbs, as mordis, tordis; écrire
made écrivis on the present stem; other verbs simply died out. Those that
remained as strong perfects are those ending in -is, as dis, mis, pris; in this
case the weak forms like desis, mesis, presis came to lose intervocalic -s-
on the analogy of fesis/feis, which go back to VL variants fecisti/*fegisti
(see below), and after loss of pretonic e fell in with the strong forms, thus
creating a perfect with a uniform strong accent.
In OProv. the position is much the same as in OFr. The -s- forms
38
38

appear in velars, with -nx- generally reduced to -is-: ceis, dis, duis, feis,
jois/jons, peis, plais, ers (erigere), ders, aders, pors, estreis, sors, teis, trais,
ois, esteis, destruis, espars, empeis, espeis (expingere), pois/poins, tais
(tangere), atais, ateis, frais, mols, pars (parcere), ters, tors. Labials:
escris/escrius, crems, tems, rezems, prems, sols, vols. Dentals: claus,
conclus, mis, ras, ros, aucis, escos (excutere), socos, fos (fodere), ris, mors
(beside more usual mordei), ars. In the hesitating verbs, -s- forms are:
pris/prendei, respos/respondei, escos/escondei (abscondere), tes beside
more usual tendei, and aces/azeis/acendei from acendre (from encendre the
past participle ences leads one to suppose ences in the perfect too). Note
also cors beside correc. Differences from Fr. are an -ui perfect coc from
cozer (analogy of noc from nozer), and the weak -i perfects of the verbs
with infinitives in -ir, e.g. fregir, afegir, regir, legir. Elire makes perfect
elesquei, with a formation based on -scu- which is mainly found in the areas
on both sides of the Pyrenees where the reflexes of sc(e), sc(i) fell in with
those of x, but sometimes spread further, notably in the case of *viscui (an
altered form of *vixui, as noted above), which gives Prov. visquei, earlier
visc, corresponding to OFr. vesqui (see below).
patois.
As in Fr., these verbs have changed to weak perfects in the modern
In OCat. the position seems to have been the same originally, but the
change to weak perfects came much sooner, so the number of -s forms
recorded is correspondingly fewer. All that we have records of are: dix
(dicere), (a)dux ((ad)ducere), empès (impingere), mis (mittere), clos,
conclòs ((con)claudere), compòs (componere), concés (concedere), defès
(defendere), (re)encès (incendere), pris (prehendere), ris (ridere), somrís
(subridere), respús (respondere), entès (intendere), estès (extendere), oucís
(*aucidere). From trahere there is trasc, and from scribere escrisc,
showing the same change as seen in visc (now visquí) from vivere and also
39
39

in Prov. visc/visquei, elesquei. To the 1st person forms mis, pris, respús
correspond 3rd persons mes, pres, respòs. In addition to these perfects the
more numerous participles in -s lead one to suppose that there were once
more perfects in -s, along the lines of those in Provençal.
Otherwise the same tendency appeared as in Prov. coc, from *cocui
formed as nocui, and ultimately produced a new type of weak perfect,
peculiar to Prov. and Cat. (e.g. modern Prov. prenguère, with -èr- extended
from the 3rd pers. pl., modern Cat. prenguí). This started in the velars, but
was then extended to the other stems because these words already had -c in
the 1st person present (analogically extended from the velars); thus a
correspondence between planc(h) = both plango and *plangui brought with
it entenc(h) = intend- + -go and -gui. (In this case there is also an old form
enteneren (= *intendederunt) in the Hom. d’Org., as well as a -si perfect;
similar -edi forms are seen in old estené, fené, vení from estendre, fendre,
vendre, and a Roussillonese preneren from prendre.) The results in OCat.
are, in the velars: empenc(h) (impingere), estrenc(h) (stringere), planc(h)
(plangere), coc (coq(u)ere), trac (*tragere). The modern language has
planguí, coguí, traguí, and also diguí, duguí for dix, dux, but forms as
estrenyí, empenyí for some of the verbs in -nyer; torcí has replaced torguí
from tòrcer. Labials: escric, now escriguí/escriví. Dentals: cloc, encenc,
entenc, fonc, ofenc, rac, ric, now cloguí, encenguí, entenguí, fonguí,
ofenguí, raguí, riguí, also despenguí, estenguí, prenguí, responguí etc., with
venguí from a later venc which replaced vení (vendere), and fenguí from
fendre. Other verbs such as ardre, mordre evidently follow the “plain” -edi
type without -gu- seen in secondary metí from metre. The verbs with
infinitives in -ir form their perfects accordingly.
In OSp. there are equally few traces of -si perfects, but here again we
can assume from the existence of strong past participles that these are just
the last survivors of what was once a more extensive group. Those that are
40
40

ecorded are, velars (3rd person): cinxo, coxo, dixo, aduxo, tinxo, trexo (see
below), destruxo/destruso, tanxo/tanso, fraysit (in a Latinising text). Labial:
escripso. Dentals: miso, raxo, riso/rixo, and, from the hesitating class,
preso/priso, respuso, despiso, espiso. Trexo is the etymological reflex of
trax-, but the more common form is troxo, and besides this there is traxo,
reformed with the vowel of the present, and, in dialects, trogo and trasco
showing the same *tragu- and *trascu- formations as in Cat. Troxo
represents *trax-uit, with anticipation or metathesis of the -u-, but this form
must also have fallen together with the form developed from traduxit,
corresponding to the infinitive trocir and past participle form trocha.
Though the -si perfects are so little recorded in OSp., they must have been a
flourishing class at one stage, as new forms peculiar to Ibero-Romance
were produced, such as fuxo (fugere), repiso (re-paenitere). We also find
other Old Aragonese forms similar to trasco, thus fusco, aduscomos,
conquisco, remasco, following OSp. visco (see also the -ui forms below).
All the other verbs only appear with -edi (merged with -ii) perfects, and the
above verbs also subsequently changed to that class, with the exception of
dijo, adujo, trajo.
In OPtg. the position is similar; the strong perfects that are not found
can reasonably be presumed from the strong participles. Those found are,
velars: disse/dixe, adusse/aduxe, ersi, trougue (trouve)/trouxe/treixer (not
found in the perfect itself), these last forms showing the same development
as in OSp. Dentals: arse, pris (3 pres), apris (3 apres), respos. Of these,
disse and trouxe (combining traduxit ?) survive, otherwise all the verbs
have joined the appropriate weak conjugations, -edi or -ii according to the
infinitive.
In conclusion it may be said that Rum., It., Fr., Prov. agree to a
remarkable extent on the -si perfects, and in Cat., Sp., Ptg., though there is
less evidence of the -si perfect, yet there is enough to give reasonable
grounds for believing that the situation there was originally essentially the
41
41

same.
b) Perfects in -edi and -ui.
It is most convenient to treat these two types together, because of their
interaction on each other, as explained above, but first let us look at the
originals, and those that followed the original patterns without being
affected by the other type.
The original -edi verbs are, of course, the compounds of dare, the
perfects of which originally ended in -didi, but are later attested with the
-dedi ending, thus perdedi, reddedit (though this tells us nothing about the
quality of the e): (in)addere, abscondere, credere, perdere, reddere, tradere,
vendere. Of these, abscondere had three perfects, abscondi, abscondidi and
absconsi, in late Latin (Väänänen, 336, 338); as we have seen, absconsi
seems to have prevailed. Inaddere is only represented in Ibero-Romance.
Reddere also developed a form *rendere, on prendere. In Rum. it was
reformed as reda. Tradere survived in OIt. tradere, OSp., OPtg. traer, but
otherwise was reintroduced in the learned form *tradire, which then
developed popular forms (but Rum. trăda).
The Romance derivatives of the perfect forms, then, are: It. credei,
perdei, rendei, vendei, old tradei (also popular or dialectal foms in -diedi);
OFr. crei, perdi, rendi, vendi; OProv. escondei (rare), crezei, perdei, rendei,
vendei; OCat. creren, perdí, redí, vení, escondí; OSp. enadí, escondí, creí,
perdí, rendí, vendí, tra(h)í; OPtg. ẽadi, escondi (as-), crei, perdi, rendi, vendi,
tra(h)i.
I have not been able to verify the earliest position in Rh.-Rom. and
Sard. In modern Rh.-Rom. the perfect, where it appears, in Engad., seems
only to have -etui forms, as vendet (Lausberg, 896), bavet (bibere) with the
-et appearing, as -ett-, in all the persons; but the imperfect subjunctive
42
42

forms, such as vendess, bavess, seem to represent the earlier -edi type (cf.
dess, stess from dedissem, *stedissem). In fact the -et may have started in
the 3rd pers. sing. and come, as I have said earlier, from ded(i)t;
extrapolating from various extant forms, one can judge that the original
personal endings may have been -eg/-eck (from -edi, with palatalisation?),
-est/-ist, -et, -eschen/-ischen(s), -isches, -enn, all pointing to -edi forms. For
OSard., Wagner quotes creterun and vendisti (with participles pérditu,
vénditu, créttitu), and also, from dare, dedi/dei and derun, and says that in
Old Camp. the perfects of the II and III (-ire and -ere) conjugations were in
-ii. So I presume vendisti represents vendi(d)isti. The similarity will be seen
between the -ui and -edi types; in fact, creterun is patently an -ui form, =
cretterun (with doubled consonant as in appi from habui), cf. modern
crettesi and p.p. créttitu with tt.
Besides the -edi forms, It., as Engad., has -etti forms as vendetti,
credetti. In the case of credere, there is evidence in many languages for a
form *credui, which has a long history dating back to a concredui in
Plautus: Rum. crezui, OIt. creddi, OFr. crui, OProv. crezec (< *crededui),
and so also OCat. credec/crezec > crec, OSp. crove, OPtg. crive/crevi,
OSard. cretti. What the original impulse for this change was is not clear, but
it is noteworthy that credere differs from its fellows perdere, reddere,
vendere in having an open first syllable, and therefore would not be felt to
belong naturally to the same class; the same thing seems to have happened
in the case of cadere, which probably first created *cadidi for cecidi, and
then *cadui (with a subsequent blend of the two in Fr., Prov. and Cat., cf.
cazec, ca(d)ec as crezec, credec/crezec). A form *credi < credi(d)i could
account, in Rum., for the z of crezui, as being a reminiscence of an earlier
*crezi, in the same way as văzui can be explained as a reminiscence of an
earlier *vizi; in that case the -ui perfects would be formed on the past
participles crezut, văzut, as făcui was formed on făcut to replace earlier
43
43

feci(u). This would date the change fairly late in Rum., compared with an
early change elsewhere. In any case, the -edi type has disappeared in Rum.,
giving not only crezui, but also pierdui, vândui for these verbs. It is not
certain how long the original forms survived, but it appears that there was
no analogical extension of -edi in Rum., so that *vendedi, *perdedi would
become anomalous and thus more liable to replacement by new forms
based on the past participles in -utu.
Early extensions of -edi are seen in late Latin descendidi, respondidi,
ascendiderat, prendidistis, with -edi forms descendedi, respondedi,
adtendedit, ostendedi, battedi (to take forms belonging to the common VL
period only). Of these respondidi and prendidi were early challenged by
*resposi (backed up by similarity to *reposi from reponere) and presi, and
these latter forms appear so consistently in Romance that it may be doubted
whether there is in fact any continuity between respondidi, prendidi and the
-edi forms in modern Romance. Descendidi has a continuous history, and
was the forerunner of other changes in -ndere verbs, such as incendidi (Lex
Sal. incendederit; incidentally not surviving in Fr.), *defendidi, *expandidi,
*(sus-)pendidi, *(in-, at-)tendidi, *findidi, *fundidi, *splendidi, *tondidi,
*-scindidi; some of these words had no distinctive perfect stem in CL
(intendi, suspendi, incendi, defendi, respondi), so they took the -edi ending
for clarity’s sake, though less frequently in the ending-accented forms,
which were already marked clearly enough. Then such pairings as
abcondidi, abscondisti and the like gave rise to perdidi, *perdisti and the
like, thus (in conjunction also with pairs like absconsi, abscondisti) paving
the way for the present situation in It. As far as the modern languages go,
there is no trace of this extension in Rum., as has been noted, and It. also
shows an inclination towards -si perfects, thus: ascesi, (di)scesi, scoscesi,
difendei/-si (but only offesi), incendei/-si (but only accesi), spandei,
pendei/sospesi, spesi, tendei/tesi, fendei/fesi, fondei (old)/fusi, splendei,
44
44

tondei (some of the -si forms may be learned ones, based on the past
participles). The other languages have -edi perfects, except in the cases
already mentioned above under the -si perfects.
The original -ui perfects from the -uere verbs must have become quite
few in number in VL, owing to phonetic change; that is to say, if the
perfects followed the same pattern as the present stems of *battere,
*fut(t)ere, *co(n)sere, *co(n)spere, we should expect *batti, *futti, *cosi,
*cospi, unless the -u- was consciously preserved as a sign of the perfect.
This would leave, of the verbs that have survived into Romance, only
tribuere and its compounds, the past participle forms acutu, imbutu, minutu,
sternutu, rutu (Sard. ruttu), and perhaps echoes of statuere, exuere in forms
belonging to stare, exire. (For pluere, already become plovere in Petronius,
see below.)
The other original -ui perfects in verbs which have survived are: timui,
fremui, gemui, tremui, vomui, messui, texui, miscui, colui, molui, rapui,
sapui, posui, but these have not had a common development, and must be
discussed separately. Here again the -u- would have been subject to
phonetic loss in messui, while posui appears in late Latin as posi.
The original -ui perfects that have survived in Romance are: attribui in
OSp. atrove; gemui, timui, tremui, vomui in Rum. gemui, temui, vomui, OFr.
gemui, cremui; colui, molui in OProv., OCat. colc, molc, OFr. molui; battui,
futtui, consui, texui, miscui in Rum. batui, futui, cusui, Ńesui, mescui (see
below); eripui in Prov. ereup. Sapui has already been discussed. It will be
seen that they are a very small group, and we shall find below that they
were later subject to -edi extension in many cases.
However, there were early analogical extensions which expanded this
class somewhat. They came from the perfects which only added -i to the
present stem, with or without lengthening of the root vowel, and which had
past participles in -(i)tu like the -ui perfects, or from the perfects in -vi.
45
45

These latter followed the analogy of perfects like movi, cavi, which
represented pronunciations *mowwi, *cawwi; one of them, fervi, already
had an alternative spelling ferbui in CL, while in late Latin expabui is found
for expavi (from expavere; Grandgent, 428). The new forms created were:
(a) bibui, *fregui, legui, *rupui (attested in compounds), *vi(n)cui (attested
in compounds), lambui, parcui, *tollui, *-cepui, *secui, *credui (see above),
*currui (also challenged by *cursi), and perhaps also *solvui, *volvui,
*vertui (attested in compounds), *premui, *redemui, *contiguit (continguit
is attested), *traiecui, *cernui, *sternui and quite possibly *expergui
(*expergiscere); (b) *co(g)novui, *crevui, *pavui (pascere), *plovuit (from
*plovit for pluit). There is also one other group which followed the analogy
of miscui and *tescui (for texui): *irascui, *nascui, *pascui, *viscui (for
*vixui); cf. also *elescui, *trascui and others mentioned above as having
developed in one area. In the same way an -escui type seems to have
developed for the -escere verbs, giving *crescui and *parescui, *merescui
in this area. This whole -ui- class was very probably more widespread in
VL than would appear from the modern languages.
Direct representatives of these forms in the modern languages are:
Rum. băui, începui, pricepui, crezui, trecui, cernui, aşternui, temui, scremui
(*expremui), născui, with analogical crescui, cunoscui, păscui; It.
bevvi/bebbi, ruppi, ORom. vicque (vincere), tolle (in Dante), OSic. recippe,
conobbi, crebbi, dial. corvi, piovve, nacqui (influence of old giacqui, tacqui
etc.), vissi (probably from *vixui rather than vixi, cf. the participle vissuto);
OFr. bui, frut (*freguit, Pope, 1022), lui, reçui etc., sut (*secuit, Pope,
1022), crui (credere), corui (see parui, above), cremui, gemui, premui,
conui, crui (crescere), (re)poi (pascere), plut, and cf. also Lex Sal.
diferbuerat (vist, quoted by Fouché, 145, probably represents *viscuit rather
than the otherwise unattested vixit); OProv. bec, enfrec (*infreguit; hapax
leg.), elec, tolc, receup etc., crezec, correc, esp(e)rec (see parec, above),
solc (solvere), volc (volvere), conuc, crec (crescere), pac, ploc, irasc, nasc,
46
46

visc; OCat. bec, tolc/tol (from toll(u)i ?), reb etc., crezec > crec (credere),
correc (see parec, above), absolc (there are no traces of a -si perfect), conec
(with the vowel of the present but also early conogren), crec (and cresc),
ploc, nasc, visc, meresc, (com)paresc; OSp. crovo (credere), conuvo, crovo
(crescere), nasco, visco, paresco, cuntió (from contigit, perhaps via
*contiguit which early lost its -g- and was interpreted as *contivit, thus
producing a new infinitive contire); OPtg. crive (credere), and OGal. contiu.
The only OSard. forms I have found in this class are vinki, cretti (credere)
and perhaps elegirunt.
In general these verbs have developed -edi forms (and some -si forms),
and we now need to explore these.
Firstly the perfects batt(u)i, futt(u)i, co(n)s(u)i, perhaps also texui,
miscui, *currui, *vertui and others from stems ending in two consonants,
developed -edi forms at a very early stage, though they may also have
consciously retained the -u- from forms like battúimus, battúero. Battederit
appears in the Lex Sal. The stems ending in a dental would easily be
attracted to the -edi class. This set up a correspondence -edi, -utu, which
was soon followed by the original -edi verbs. This in turn attracted other
verbs with past participles in -utu (replacing earlier -ĭtu), especially if the
-ui perfect had lost its distinctiveness. In some cases the new perfects were
formed from the earlier perfect stem containing -u-, in others from the
present stem. Let us now turn once more to the individual languages.
Rum., of course, does not show this type, having either -ui forms as
batui, futui, cusui, Ńesui or new -si forms created to match the past
participles: rupse (cf. late Latin rupsi, Bourciez, 91; also old rupe), fierse,
învinse (from învinge for older învence), învoalse, curse (with new
infinitive curge, replacing cure/cură). New -ui forms are cunoscui, crescui,
păscui. Plouă follows the infinitive type.
It. has many -ei, -etti forms, some alternating with, some replacing the
47
47

-ui forms, as bevei, rompei, OPied. venquè, piovè/piovette, vivei/-etti,
(per)seguetti, solvei, evolvei; battei, fottei (but cucii with change of
conjugation, though old cucere presumably made cucei), tessei, mescei;
fremei, gemei, temei, premei, redimei, old vomei in the -mere verbs; fervei,
mietei, vertè, (s)cernei, pascei, ricevei/SIt. recepetti. -Si forms are seen in
corsi, scersi, vinsi, redensi, tolsi, solsi, sciolsi, volsi, all formed in keeping
with the past participles. Seguire, besides seguetti, has seguii following the
infinitive.
OFr. has bati (with 3rd person batiet; similarly the other verbs), foti,
cosi, teissi, rompi, sevi, corret (in dialects where -rr- was maintained,
Fouché, 133, 155 B.2), toli; venqui (now vainquis), irasqui, nasqui (now
naquis), vesqui (now vécus), maintaining the original -u-. -Si forms are
found, as noted above, in (1) the -mere verbs, as cr(i)ens, g(i)ens, pr(i)ens,
ra(i)ens; (2) the -l(v)ere verbs, as sols, tols, volst (and note also encursist).
These are formed on the past participles in -(ĭ)tu (but *redempsi, *premsi
are probably earlier than *redemui, *premui, and also set the example for
the change in the others); in the case of the -mere verbs the -ui type also
survived with a new participle in -utu. Verti, from vertir, probably also goes
back to -edi.
OProv. has batei, fotei, cosei, teissei, rompei, seguei (and segui from
infinitive seguir); venquei, irasquei, nasquei, visquei/vesquei (besides older
visc without the -edi ending), also pasquei (besides pac from *pavui),
mesquei (miscere), elesquei, tesquei, with other forms in the modern
dialects based on various stems, so couneguère/counousquère/counessèri,
creiguère/cresquèri/creisseguère/creissèri, paresquèri. For the -mere verbs
I find mostly -s forms quoted, crems, tems, prems, rezems (reems etc.), but
the latter also has rezemei, which leads me to suspect that the other verbs
also had -ei forms, matching the participles in -ut, which they all have.
Other -s forms are cors (besides correc), sols, vols (and volc).
48
48

In Cat. the strong forms quoted above have taken the weak -edi ending,
making beguí, tolguí, rebí, creguí, correguí, absolguí etc. Besides these we
have batí, rompí, cosí (from new infinitive cosir), and similarly seguí, llegí,
teixí, and evidence of OCat. solví, volví. Llegí may have replaced *legui or
*lescui (cf. OCat. past participle lest as against elegut, and an old perfect
leseren, which looks to me like a misreading of *lescren, cf. Prov. elesquei,
lescut). Vencí is formed from the infinitive vèncer, earlier vençre (a perfect
*venc formed from the *vincu- stem would have come into conflict with the
perfects of venir, vendre). In the -mere verbs, we have temí, tremí,
(es)premí, remí. Of the -scere verbs, cognoscere has modern Cat. standard
coneguí, with conesquí/coneixí. Visc developed to visqui, and similarly we
have the modern forms cresquí (and creguí), nasquí, pasquí, irasquí,
(a)paresquí, meresquí, and also creixí, naixí etc. I am uncertain whether
teixir has followed eixir in having a perfect tisquí, as well as teixí, but I
suspect it, in view of the Prov. tesquet.
Sp. has batí (modern infinitive batir), hodí, cosí, herví, recibí (OSp.
recebí; modern infinitive recibir) etc., bebí, llovió, rompí, vencí, seguí
(infinitive seguir), leí, vertí, OSp. cuntió now aconteció (as an -ecer verb),
conocí, crecí, pací, nací, mecí, tejí, viví, gemí (from gemir, replacing old
emer), OSp. premí (infinitive premir, as well as OSp. premió from premer),
temí, tremí, molí, corrí, cerní, tullí, solví, volví, all formed from the present
stem with -edi endings, which appear with the diphthong -ie- in OSp. in
ending-accented forms such as vençiemos, and are identified with the -ii
endings in the case of the verbs with infinitives in -ir. Ptg. has
corresponding forms with -edi or -ii perfects according to the infinitive.
In general it will be seen from the above that the -edi type was
stronger, except in Rum., and partly in OFr., in both of which languages an
accented -ui type appeared, and that the two coincided at the expense of the
old -ui type. (In Fr., as in Rum., there was a certain extension of the -ui
type, as seen in some modern forms, like vécus, fallut, backed up by the
49
49

participle in -u.)
c) Anomalous Perfects.
Finally there is one other group of verbs not yet discussed, those that
do not fit into any of the above categories: ponere, quaerere (-quirere),
facere (-ficere), comedere, *essere. Posui, from ponere, in general became
posi, with long o as *resposi, but there are some forms requiring a short o
(Fouché, 145). The Romance forms are: Rum. pusei, old puşi(u) (with the
vowel of pune; also dial. punsei), OSard. posi, It. posi (also OIt. puose),
OEngad. pus, OFriul. ponz, OFr. pus (also pos/pons, later pondi), OProv.
pos, OCat. compòs (also ponc, later ponguí), Sp. puse, Ptg. pus.
Quaerere had quaesi, first found in an inscription of A.D. 75 (Fouché,
144). This must have been the original perfect, but it was replaced in CL by
quesesivi, the perfect of quaesere, which was conjugated as an -essere verb,
in accordance with its etymology. The Romance forms sometimes show
confusion with the compound form *-quisi (cf. the similar confusion of
claudere, -cludere); new forms with -ui are also found. Thus we have Rum.
cerui, also old cerşii, perhaps from quaesivi with the -r- of the present
inserted, and the combined form cerşui, Sard. kerui/kerfi/kersi, It.
chiesi/chiedei/conquisi, OFr. quis/queri, OProv., OCat. quis, Sp. quise, Ptg.
quis; note also OFr. querui, Prov. querec, OCat. requeregués as parui,
parec, and OSp. conquisco.
From facere the basic form feci survived, but VL created others, as
shown from the fecuit, feit recorded in inscriptions. Besides feci, the
Romance forms go back to *fegi. This originated in forms like fecĕrunt
(VL), fecimus, fecerit etc. where post-tonic c became g in proparoxytones,
as in the infinitive *fagere for facere (also further reduced to *fare).
*Fegerunt etc. produced *fegi, and the feit of the inscriptions probably
50
50

equals *fegit. The alternation of the forms with and without s (z) in the Fr.,
Prov., Cat. reflexes affected other perfects with s coming from Latin s, ss, x,
as OFr. mis, dis, OProv. mis, dis, OCat. dix, producing forms like 2 meis, 6
mirent, 2 deis, 6 dirent; meiron, diron; diren respectively. The Romance
forms from feci are: ORum. feci(u) (now făcui), OSard. feki/fegi (also
faguit), It. feci and poetical fei, Fr. fis, OProv. fis, Cat. fiu, Sp. hice, Ptg. fiz.
Engad. has fet (+ -tui ending; infinitive fer), and OFriul. 1 feis, 3 fes. There
are also Old Dalmatian forms 1 fei, 3 fe.
Comedere has only survived in Ibero-Romance, apart from a noun
form comând in Rum. The perfect comedi developed like any other -edi
perfect, Sp. comí, Ptg. comi.
From *essere, fui survived everywhere, but in the contracted forms fui,
*fusti, *fut etc.: Rum., OSard., It., OFr., OProv., Cat., OSp., Ptg. fui, Engad.
3 füt (+ -tui ending), subjunctive füss, OSurs. fo (= *fut), subj. fuss, OFriul.
foi, subj. fos. In the modern languages there have been various
modifications; Rum. also has fusei, with addition of -si.
The verbs that changed to -ire will be discussed later.
3) The Past Participle.
There are four past participle types in CL (discounting anomalous
forms like stratu, natu, cretu, petitu): -tu, -su, -ĭtu and -utu. These were all
preserved in VL but with a somewhat different distribution. We will deal
with them here according to the perfect types to which they correspond.
a) Past Participles in -tu, -su, corresponding to VL perfects in -si.
In CL the ending -tu is found attached to stems ending in a velar or
labial; where it was attached to dental stops, the combination of two dentals
changed to -ss- in pre-literary times, and this -ss- was simplified to -s- after
51
51

a long vowel; the ensuing forms in -su then also affected some velar stems
with perfects in -si. In Romance the -tu participles generally survive, but in
some cases have yielded ground to -su; late Latin already had torsus for
tortus, frixus for frictus, conversely tertus for tersus, fictus for fixus,
*spartus for sparsus. Another change affecting these participles is the
addition of the -n- from the present stem, thus late Latin finctus, pinctus for
fictus, pictus. I have also included in this group of velars and labials the
participles in -tu of some of the verbs which had perfects with a lengthened
vowel in classical Latin and did not always change over to -si perfects.
In Rum. the change to -su is especially noticeable. Standard Rum. has
copt, fript, supt, înfipt, spart, frânt, smult/(s)muls (CL mulctus/mulsus),
întort/întors, and fossilised înŃelept, drept, strâmt, unt, treaptă, tort, toartă,
but otherwise all the participles have been changed to the -su type to match
the perfects, following the analogy of mergere–mers, ştergere–şters (but
trece makes trecut, as trecui, and înŃelege has an alternative inŃelegut; so
also învence/învinge, which joined this class, has an old p.p. învencut). Of
the above it will be seen that înfipt and spart continue VL forms fictus and
*spartus, attested by the evidence of the other languages.
Macedo-Rum., on the other hand, is more conservative and keeps
many (but not all) of the old participles: traptu, aleptu, culeptu, înŃeleptu,
ndreptu, adaptu (= adauctu), az-vimtu (= vi(n)ctu), pimtu, plâmtu, tsimtu,
strimtu, astimtu, adžumtu, alimtu (= linctu), (a)umtu, stortu (Bourciez,
481).
Scribere likewise produces scris, and vivere învis, but there is an
ORum. script, matched by standard rupt (rumpere) and the noun form vipt
from victu.
In Sard. in this class there are such forms as cottu, fintu, lintu, istrintu,
plantu (modern pi-, pr-), puntu, ğuttu (ducere), gollettu, arrettu (and
arressu), (as)suttu (sugere), ispartu, assoltu (absolvere), multu/mulliu
52
52

(mulgere), lessu/lettu/lesidu, iscrittu, ruttu. Frigere makes frissu (in Sard.
frittu = frigidu). On the other hand, imbergere (Latin immergere) has
imbertu.
In It. almost all the verbs quoted above in this class have past
participles in -to. However, of these, fitto, erto, and sparto are only
adjectives. Note a dialectal lesto for letto (a late Latin legestum is attested).
Also note rotto beside perfect ruppi. Participles in -so are: fisso, sparso,
(e)merso, terso, erso, (e)mulso, backed by (e)multo through confusion with
(e)munto; some of these may be learned forms. Earlier colletto was replaced
by colto, but in the north this -etto ending was extended to other verbs.
Other fossilized forms are: diritto, asciutto, stretto, intelletto (adj.), dispetto,
sospetto, getto, tragitto, assunto (noun, but also still a regular p.p.;
evidently learned, as are its cognates below), and arroto if this is from
adauctu. There is also a tendency in dialect to replace the strong forms with
weak forms in -uto, such as leggiuto, piangiuto, cociuto.
In Rh.-Rom. the fact that this type of participle still survives and is
flourishing is an indication that the corresponding perfect types were also
once in use. Examples are (including fossilised forms): Engad. dit, cundüt,
cot, trat, dret, tert, sdrüt, clet, (per)inclet, stret, let, plaunt (planctu), tit
(tinctu), dschüt (iunctu), püt (punctu), üt (unctu), süt (suctu), stüert
(extortu), scrit, ruot, Surs. detg, cotg, tratg, antaletg, scret, rut, and the
adverb fich/fetg from *fictu. (Meyer-Lübke also quotes mysterious fränt,
stränt, depänt. The first seems to be a “phonetic” representation of fraunt.)
-S- forms are seen in smers (*exmersu), mous (mulsu). Friulian has cundott,
cott, suspiet.
In Fr. the position is the same as in It., and the strong participles have
been preserved into modern times, even if new weak perfects have been
created. (But lit has given way to lu; fossilised élite remains.) Those that
hesitate between -t and -s appear in OFr. as: aers/aert, fit/clofis, mous
(mulgere), sors, tors/tort (later tordu), espars/espart, ters/tert. Frait and
53
53

estreit (adj.) show the old participle without -n-, beside new forms fraint,
enfreint, estreint. Coilleit is the old participle of cueillir, used adjectivally;
this ending -eit was later extended to other verbs. Fossilised forms are: droit,
jet, étroit, dépit, route, old constreinte; trait(e) may be a mixture of tractu
and traiectu. (A form traeit beside trait is found in OFr.) Aoit, ra(i)ent,
souspite and sougit became obsolete.
OProv. has participles ending in -i(n)t or -(n)ch (also written -g, -h)
according to the dialect, thus: ceint/cench, cueit/cuech and similarly afit,
aflit, dit, duit, feint, frit, joint, peint, plaint, estreit, teint, trait, oint, esteint,
destruit, empeint, espeint, point, taint, ateint, frait/fraint, eslig, rot, modern
vint, and, from escriure, escrit (etymological)/escrich (on the analogy of
dit/dich)/escriut (from the perfect escrius, where -us- is etymological). -S
forms appear in ers, (a)ders, pors, sors, espars, mols, pars, ters and estors
beside tort/estort, with rezems beside rezemt. (There is also esteins formed
by confusion with extendere.) Fossilised forms are: azaut, dreit, fita,
nalech/ne-, culheta, eissuch, despieit, sospiecha, jieit, sotzjeit, tragiet.
In modern Cat. the number of strong participles in this class is very
limited: cuit/cogut, dit, dut (OCat. duit), tret (and compounds a-, con-, es-,
re- etc.), estret (strictu, and compounds co(n)-, de-), escrit. OCat. also had
elet/elegut, now elegit, and lest, now llegit; the old form lest suggests an
original *lescitu/*lexitu to be equated with Prov. lescut, though it may also
be cognate with It. lesto. The adjective tort was also a participle in earlier
days. Other old participial forms are: despit, sospita, (re)dret, nelet,
ert/eret, surt, eixut, atent, cinta, frant, junt, punt, pint, empenta, tint, unt,
assumpte (learned), fita, culleta, rot, get/git, elet, fretura, and, in the -su
class, atès (attingere, confused with attendere), empès, fix (learned?) and
fluix. Thus, though most of these verbs have either disappeared or taken
weak participles, as tenyit, there is evidence that the VL pattern was carried
through here too. Other verbs in -nyer, such as plányer, pertányer, have
planyut/-gut, pertanyut/-gut.
54
54

Sp. and Ptg. show the same position. In this class in modern Sp. there
are only dicho, frito, escrito as past participles; OSp. had (a)ducho, frecho,
cojecho/escollecho, erecho, esleyto (Arag.), costreito (Arag.), destruito
(Arag.), empenta (Arag.), old afflito, escorrecho etc. Fossilised forms are:
cocho, arrecho, correcho, derecho, yerto, surto, estrecho, trecho, cosecha,
despecho, sospecha, echura, cinto, junto/yunta, finta, llanto, pinta, punto,
tinto, unto, asunto, absorto, enjuto, hito/cohita, tuerto, roto, and, with a -su
form, flojo. That the change to the present weak participles in -ido went via
-udo is shown by forms like OSp. costreñudo, tañudo, esparzudo, ergudo,
leudo. Trecho probably combines tractu and traiectu (cf. the meaning of
Rum. treaptă < traiecta); traducta gives trocha (cf. the possible similar
confusion of traxi and traduxi).
Modern Ptg. just has the participles dito, escrito. OPtg. had also adoito,
ereito, treito, colheito, escolheito (on the pattern of which new participles
were created in other verbs, e.g., tolheito, coseito), coito, esleito (now
eleito), cinto, junto, (in)finto, tinto, escorreito (OGal.; now an adj. in Ptg.),
sogeito (OGal.; modern sujeito). Fossilised forms are: freito, direito,
(h)irto, estreito, contreito, despeito, suspeito, jeito, trejeito (with the same
meaning as It. tratto), chanto/pranto, pinto/pito, ponto, unto, assunto,
absorto, surto, enxuto, aflito, fito/confita, frito, torto, rôto, and, with -su
forms, frouxo, emerso, esparso, asperso (these last evidently learned). As in
OSp., intermediate -udo forms appear in this class of verbs, later giving
way to -ido: aduzudo, constrangudo/constreniudo, tanjudo, regudo,
correjudo, onjudo, (e)merjudo, espargudo (esparjudo)/sperçudo, leudo,
esleudo.
b) Past participles in -su, corresponding to VL perfects in -si, -edi.
We are concerned here with the past participles from stems ending in a
55
55

dental; the velars and labials have already been dealt with above. This class
is observable throughout Romania.
Rum. has închis, trimis, ras, ros, ucis, pătruns, prins, purces, scos, râs,
răspuns, ars, ascuns, încins, întins, old deştins, depins, tuns, following the
perfect stems. Here Macedo-Rum. shows the influence of the velars, with
ascumtu, pătrumtu, tumtu, apres/aprimtu, tes/timtu.
Sard. has forms like presu, prasu/prandidu (cf. pranso in Dante), tusu
(tondere), pertusu/pertuntu, intesu/inténditu, rrispostu (italianised?),
infusu/infustu, and the noun form isposu. There are also forms with added
-ĭtu, such as arsidu, intesidu, offensidu, residu, missidu, arrisiu, mossiu
(mordere; cf. the noun form mossu).
It. has chiuso, messo (and OIt. mettuto), raso, roso, ucciso, contuso
(learned), preso, scosso, riso, morso, arso, risposto (re-formed on (ri)posto,
cf. sposo), OIt. (n)ascoso, similarly changed to nascosto, and -so or -uto
forms for those with -si or -edi perfects, sceso/(old) scenduto, scoceso,
acceso, inceso/incenduto, teso/tenduto, difeso/difenduto, feso/fesso/fenduto,
(con)fuso/(old) fonduto, speso, sospeso/penduto, toso/tonso (as
adj.)/tonduto, cesso/ceduto, perduto/perso, renduto/reso. Besides these
there are learned borrowings, and in fact words like difeso, fuso, fesso,
cesso (di-, dis-) may be learned, and feso purely an It. formation.
Rh.-Rom. has forms like Engad. ars, ris, miss, prais (pre(he)nsu), tais,
difais, sfes, -clüs, füs, rus (rosu), tus (tonsu), scus (excussu), respus, spans,
müers, Surs. ars, ris, mess; contrast Friul. mettut. Also the nouns spus,
spaisa, resposta. There has also been some extension as in It.; where the old
language had perdudus, modern Engad. has pers, Surs. piers/pl. piars
(Bourciez, 530, 531). There is also a Dalmatian respwast.
OFr. likewise has -s participles for -s perfects: clos, conclus, mis (with
the vowel of the perfect; cf. mets, messe, promesse, showing the original
form), res, ocis, pris (vowel of the perfect; so also ap-, com-, re-, etc.),
escos, socos (cf. secousse), ris, mors, respons/respondu (cf. époux), ars,
56
56

escons/escondu. Fossilised forms are toise, poids, fesse, ces (OFr.), décès,
defois (OFr.), touse (OFr.), and, with learned influence, dépens(e), offense,
encens, confus, contus etc. Compare also the derivative pertuis. The verbs
of this class with -edi perfects have -utu participles, as tendu, pendu, fondu,
tondu, descendu, later joined by mordu.
OProv. has claus, conclus, mes (pro-, sos-, tra-, etc.)/Gasc. metut, ras,
ros/rodut, aucis, pres/prendut (a-, com-, em-, re- etc.), cofus/coffondut,
escos, socos, fos (fodere), mors/mordut, respos/respost/respondut, ars,
rescos/escost/escondut, deisses (descendere), tes/tendut, ences/acendut,
defes/defendut. Respost, escost correspond to It. risposto, nascosto.
Fossilised: pes, ces, espos. Derivative: pertuis. As in Fr., the -edi perfects
have -utu participles, thus pendut, fondut, tondut, deissendut.
OCat., and the modern language too, has more strong participles than
perfects, leading one to suppose that there were originally more strong
perfects too: clos, conclòs, enclòs/enclús, mes, promès (sot-, per-, tra-, etc.),
ras (now adj.), oucís, pres, après (com-, em-, re-, etc.), fos (fusu with vowel
of fonder), confús, mos (noun, from morsu), respost (and noun espòs), tos,
tes, atès (en-, es-, pre-), sospès (and nouns pes, despesa), defès (OCat., and
noun devesa), ofès, encès. We can also suppose -s participles for the old
perfects ris, concés. Fendre has fes and fenut, also fendit like those verbs
that have changed to the -ir type. Note the old escondut, now escondit.
Other p.ps. for verbs in -dre are as atengut, pretengut, depengut.
In Sp. the -su participles are in general to be sought amongst the
fossilised forms, though some still existed as participles in OSp., such as
preso, apreso, meso, espeso, repiso/repeso (repender/-ir), defeso, enceso,
ascuso. The forms are: llosa, concluso (in-), remesa (pro-), raso, roso, tuso,
confuso, contuso (learned), occiso, risa (son-), mueso, respuesta, tieso/teso,
enceso, dehesa/OSp. devesa, peso/pesa, espesa, esposo, a excusa etc. These
forms were early replaced as past participles, giving place to -udo forms
like ardudo, prendudo, defendudo, pendudo, (de)spendudo, espandudo,
57
57

co(n)fondudo, arrepentudo, ascondudo, encendudo, entendudo, metudo,
which in turn yielded to -ido forms.
OPtg. has such participles as preso, apreso, despeso, repeso/arrepiso
(repender). Fossilised forms are: chousa, concluso (in-), remessa (pro-),
raso, riso (sor-), tosa, confuso, contuso (learned), mossa, remorso, resposta,
têso, aceso, devesa/defesa, pêso, espesa, despesa, espôso, escoso/escuso.
OGal. also has the noun rosa. As in Sp., early changes produced -udo forms
like (a)prendudo, metudo, defendudo, entendudo (es-), encendudo,
despendudo, fendudo, cofondudo, ascondudo, mordudo, espandudo,
repentudo, which later gave way to -ido forms.
c) Past participles in -ĭtu (including participles in -tu corresponding
to VL Perfects in -ui).
This type is attested as a growing type in late Latin, with forms like
sapitus, dolitus, tremitus, tollitus, vincitus, vivitus, parcitus (and cf. the
future participles noted above, and verb formations in -itare, such as
agitare, pascitare). But later it gave way everywhere to -utu, except in Sard.
and certain secondary formations in south It., and except in cases where the
-i- had been lost and the form had become the equivalent of a strong
participle in -tu; in this case the verbs concerned formed a class with words
like rumpere, colere, redimere, recipere, whose participles (partly noted
above) will also be considered here as these verbs belong to the same VL
-ui perfect type, along with the forms from currere, -serere and those from
other verbs with perfects in -ui. -Ĭt- is still a live element in word formation,
however, in the endings -itor, -itoriu, as in the 2nd conjugation (see above).
Taking the more conservative type first, in Sard. we have forms like
curtu/curridu, nascidu, vinkitu (also vissu/binsu), bittu (from bibitu),
crettitu (on the perfect stem), intenditu, venditu, perditu, cumprendiu,
battitu (replacing the *battutu to be supposed from the CL form), ruttu
58
58

(from ruptu), pettitu, proppiu/proitu (*plovitu), assoltu/assolviu. (Central
dialects have -tu, Logudorian -du, Campidanian -u.) Fremida, emida,
premida are also found, as nouns.
In the other languages the -ĭtu participles that still appeared in the
verbal system in one language or another are: positu (to be discussed later),
*expanditu, *fervitu, fremitu, gemitu, *premitu, tremitu, molitu, tollitu,
*solvitu, *volvitu, vincitu. The others, which were replaced as participles by
-utu forms, appear as fossilised forms.
In Rum. only *fervitu, *volvitu survive in the verb system, as fiert,
desvolt. Învinge has a new form învins and curge the CL form curs. The
only other forms found are freamăt, gemăt/geamăt, ORum. temet, beat
(bibitu), nat, vipt (from vivere, as noted above), Ńesătură, deşert, and new
forms like treacăt, cusătură, bătătură. Then there are, as mentioned, all the
nouns and adjectives in -ător, as crezător, vânzător, învingător, attached to
each verb in this conjugation. Rupt, from ruptu, also belongs here.
Rh.-Rom. also has ruot (Engad.), rut (Surs.) in this class. Otherwise
there are fossilized forms like Engad. siut, vieult/veulta/vouta, miot, tot,
where the Latin l has become vocalised, Surs. antschet (inceptu), retschet
(receptu), cret (creditu), Friul. témit; also cuors from classical cursu. The
-itor formation also survives, but is sometimes affected by -ator; Engad.
credéder, Surs. mulgíder/mulgiáder, rumpáder (Bourciez, 520).
In It. there are the full participles spanto (and spaso), tolto (also
tolletto, after colletto), solto (and soluto), sciolto, volto (and involuto), vinto.
-Ĭtu survives in dialect, e.g., Ven. creto (creditu), Neap. chiuóppeto
(*plovitu), curzeto (cursu), vippeto (bibitu), Apul. fiersetu (*fervitu), these
formed on the perfect stem. Fremito, gemito, premito, tremito appear as
nouns (also as Neap. participle prémmeto); as they remained proparoxytone
they were not drawn into the class of redimere–redento, (as)sumere–
(as)sunto. The verb molere has disappeared, leaving only the form molenda.
59
59

-Tu forms, apart from redento, (as)sunto, are rotto, nato (and dialectal
nasciuto), irato, old testo, old decetto, ricetta. Correre keeps the CL form
corso, and scernere forms the new scerso, while the CL -su, -stu forms also
survive fossilised in presso/pressa (with p.p. espresso, perhaps learned, as
also in the other languages), pasto, misto, converso. Fossilised -(ĭ)tu forms
are: perdita, rendita, vendita, ascondito, tenda (if this and cognate forms
are from *tendita; cf. Rum. tindă), fenditura, fondita/fonditura, tonditura,
spendita, tessitura, mietitura, vincita, seguito, conto (cognitu), gen(i)to
(learned?), colto, diserto, inserto, bibita (learned influence)/bevitura,
crescita, mescita, nascita, cernita, peto. The -itor/-itoriu form is seen in
genitore, bevitore, vincitore, venditore, pascitore, accenditore, accenditoio,
corridoio etc. Note also battito, which suggests that batt(u)ere did indeed
follow the vendere pattern at an early stage.
Participial forms in OFr. are: solt (and sols), tolt (and toleit on the
analogy of coilleit), volt (and vols), crient, gient, prient; modern Fr. absoute
(ré-)/absous (ré-), voûte (noun), craint, geint, empreint, épreint. Né and
OFr. (d)espert (experrectu), ra(i)ent, rot, iré also belong here; these verbs
also developed new -utu forms to match the perfect or present stems: rompu,
nascu/naissu, irascu/iraissu. Fossilised are: OFr. friente, mouture (there is
also an old participle mols formed on the perfect mols, itself formed on an
earlier participle *molt), perte, rente, vente, aprentis > apprenti,
fente/(OFr.) fenture, tente, fonte, tonte, pente, descente, attente, entente,
crainte, route, désert, boite (the vowel from the present, cf. dette), suite,
OFr. cointe (cf. accointer), gent, croît, pet, with OFr. deceite, receite;
cours(e), repas, près/presse, exprès, OFr. convers survive from the CL
forms. (Some of these forms, such as descente, are not recorded until late,
so they may have been formed analogically in Fr., rather than going back to
VL.) -Itor/-itoriu appear in défendeur, vendeur, vainqueur, etc., cf. modern
abattoir (for the formation, see above, under the 2nd conjugation).
60
60

In the Prov. verb system the roots ending in l have kept the -ĭtu type:
molt, (ab)solt, tolt, volt, and with them colt from cultu. Those ending in m
have -s: crems, prems, rezems/rezemt, tems. This s comes from the perfect,
except in the case of prems, which was formed by inserting the m of the
present stem into the old participle pressu; this formation is found in other
languages too. The forms *premsi, *premsu thus formed, together with an
early *redempsi, set the pattern for the introduction of s forms in the other
-mere verbs. -Tu forms are found in espert (experrectu), rot, nat, irat (with
alternative -utu forms). Fossilised forms are: venda/-ta, fenda/-ta/fendedura,
perda, renda, tenda, atenda, ententa, penda, descenda, fonda, tonda, crenta,
desert, beu(e)t (bibitu), volta, coinde/cuenhde (cognitu), gent, peit, teissura,
naissedura, and cosedura beside costura. Corre keeps the CL form cors
(beside corregut); fossilised CL forms are près/pressa, exprès, mest,
recet(a). -Itor/-itoriu forms like batedor, crezedor, vendedor, naisedor,
temedor/-a, conoisedor also flourish.
In Cat. the l verbs have also kept the participle in -t: molt, absolt (dis-,
re-), envolt, tolt, colt. Of the m verbs, premsa survives as a noun, alongside
the CL forms pres/pressa, exprés. Lest (perhaps from *lexitu/*leskitu) has
already been mentioned. Despert, rot, nat (alongside romput, nascut), irat
also belong here. Other fossilised forms are: venda, renda, tenda, pèrdua,
fenedura, volt(a), desert, pet, test, naixedura, with recepta in a Latin dress,
and cos (cursu). The -edor ending also flourishes, e.g. corredor,
estenedor/-a, prenedor, venedor, batedor.
In Sp., suelto, vuelto, roto, and, in OSp., nado, tuelto (OArag.), remain
as participial forms, with adjectival despierto. Surviving fossilised forms
are: pérdida, renta (OSp. renda), venta (OSp. véndida), aprendiz,
hendedura (and dial. fenda), pendura, (con)tienda, tunda, mesta, receta, old
tiesto/tejedura, moledura, vuelta/bóveda, desierto, injerto (inserere), beodo
(dial. bébedo), irado, pedo, OSp. gento, yemdo, and prisa from CL pressa
61
61

(also prensa from Prov. or Cat., and learned expreso), corso/coso. Nado
survives in nadie, nada. The -itor/-itoriu forms are seen in vencedor,
vendedor, perecedero, prendedor, prendedero etc., with -ero < -uero <
-oiro.
OPtg. had tolheito (for *tolto by analogy with colheito) and nado.
Other forms remaining are desperto, sôlto, (en)volto/volta/abóbada, rôto,
perda, renda, venda, aprendiz, fenda, pendura, (con)tenda, tunda, tecidura,
moedura, bêbedo/bêbado, deserto, enxerto, irado, peido, receita, pressa
(and prensa, expresso), corso/cosso; also old teisto, gento. Nado survives in
nada. -Itor/-itoriu forms are as in vendedor, batedor/-doiro, vencedor,
perecedor/-doiro, prendedor.
Apart from the above examples, the -ĭtu participles were replaced by
-utu and other forms, to be discussed next.
d) Past Participles in -utu.
We have already traced the origin and spread of this form. There are
several instances of such forms in late Latin (which, in many cases, can
better be regarded as a latinised form of the local Romance language):
perdutus, reddutus, incenduta, molutus, pendutus, Creduta, Venutus,
battutus, tolutum, fundutas (Väänänen, 341; Bourciez, 212). It would seem
that this was a process that was only given an initial impulse in VL, without
being brought to completion; witness modern forms such as Fr. connu, Prov.
conogut, Rum. cunoscut, It. conosciuto derived independently from
different stems.
Rum. has bătut, futut, cusut, Ńesut, cunoscut, crescut, născut, mescut,
păscut, crezut, pierdut, vândut, gemut, scremut (*expremutu), vomut, temut,
început (pri-, per-), băut, trecut, cernut, aşternut, old învencut. Fossilised
are: mărunt/amănunt, strănut, stătut (attached to sta; but this may rather be
62
62

formed from *stetui).
It. has battuto, fottuto, soluto/OLomb. solvuo, involuto, creduto,
perduto/perso, renduto/reso, venduto, old traduto, OLomb. asconduo,
ceduto/cesso (perhaps learned), fenduto/fes(s)o, incenduto/inceso,
tenduto/teso, fonduto (old)/fuso, tonduto/toso (as adj.), risplenduto, penduto,
mietuto, fremuto, gemuto, premuto, vomuto, temuto, leggiuto/OAquil. lesto,
ricevuto/ORom. receputo, bevuto, fervuto, piovuto, vinciuto/vinto/vitto,
conosciuto, cresciuto (with the consonant seen also in crescita), pasciuto,
nasciuto (dial.)/nato, mesciuto, tessuto, vissuto (and vivuto), scernuto, old
(pro)sternuto. Cucire (consuere) makes cucito, but consutu survives in
costura. Fossilised forms are: acuto, minuto, imbuto, starnuto, tributo
(learned re-formation). Other -uto forms are found in dialects, such as
convertuto, metudo, currutu.
Sard. also has the fossilised forms minutu, OCamp. trauda (tributa),
and ruttu, the participle of ru(g)ere from ruere.
In Rh.-Rom. the -utu type is the normal one, with forms like Lower
Engad. battü, vendü, naschü, creschü, cunschü, and corresponding ones in
the other dialects. Friul has cognossut, recevut.
Fr. has battu, foutu, cousu, cru, perdu, rendu, vendu, fendu, répandu,
tendu (at-, en-, é-, pré-), défendu, OFr. ofendu, descendu, pendu (sus-, dé-),
fondu, tondu, répondu, OFr. escondu, OFr. resplandu, OFr. cremu, OFr.
gemu, OFr. premu, reçu (con-, dé-, a(p)er-), bu, plu, rompu, vaincu, OFr.
sëu (*sequutu), lu, élu, connu, crû, repu, OFr. irascu, OFr. nascu/naissu,
tissu, vécu, moulu, couru, OFr. tolu, OFr. vertu (con-, per-, re-). Fossilised
are: aigu, imbu, menu, éternue, OFr. trëu; perhaps the influence of statutu
may be seen in OFr. estëu (participle of ester), of indutu in enduit.
OProv. has batut, fotut, cosut, crezut/cregut/crezegut, perdut, rendut,
vendut, fendut, espandut, tendut (en-)/tes, acendut, defendut, deissendut,
fondut, coffondut/cofus, tondut, pendut, respondut/respos/respost,
escondut/rescos/escost, resplandut, penedut, cremut/crems, premut/prems,
63
63

ezemut/rezems/rezemt, temut/tems/temsut, receubut (de-, con-, (a)per-,
soisseubut), ereubut, begut, plogut, romput/rot, vencut, segut/seguit (to
infinitive seguir), legut/lescut (from perfect *lexui/*lescui)/legit (to
infinitive legir), elegut/elescut/eslig/elech, conogut, cregut, pagut/pascut,
irascut/irat (adj.), nascut/nat, tescut/teissut, viscut, molut/molt, tolgut/tolt,
volgut/volt, corregut with old CL form cors. Fossilised are: agut, embut,
menut, estranut, treut/traut. Gascon has the participle form metut.
Cat. has: batut, fotut, (cosit from infinitive cosir, but costura shows
consutu), cregut, perdut, retut, venut, fenut, penedut, (es)premut, temut,
OCat. resemut, rebut (concebut, de-, (a)per-), begut, plogut, romput/rot,
vençut, conegut/conescut, crescut, nascut/nat, viscut, pascut, irascut/irat,
merescut, corregut. Seguir, teixir make seguit, teixit. There is also
dialectal creixit, and fendit from fendre, beside the usual fenut/fes.
Fossilised forms are: agut, menut, embut, esternut, traut.
In Sp. the modern language has weak past participles in -ido
corresponding to the -edi (including former -ui) perfects, but the ancient
language had -udo, which enjoyed a wide extension to those verbs which
originally had -to or -so participles (some cases already listed above), thus
producing a uniform conjugation in -er, -í, -udo. The relevant forms I have
found quoted are: batudo, fududo (hodudo), atrevudo, creudo (credere),
perdudo, rendudo, vendudo, tra(h)udo (tradere), ascondudo, tendudo,
entendudo, encendudo, defendudo, pendudo, (de)spendudo, (a)prendudo,
descendudo, espandudo, co(n)fondudo, ardudo, metudo, arrepentudo, leudo,
temudo, cernudo, recebudo, (a)percebudo, (cor)rompudo, vençudo,
conosçudo (conoçudo, conuzudo etc.), cresçudo, nasçudo, pazudo,
estavlezudo (-bleç-), desparesçudo, texudo, segudo, moludo, tolludo,
comudo. Fossilized are: agudo, embudo, menudo, estornudo, OSp. treudo.
In Ptg. the same situation is found; the weak -er verbs all had past
participles in -udo, which were finally changed to -ido. Relevant forms
64
64

quoted are: batudo, fududo (fodudo), creudo (credere), perdudo, rendudo,
vendudo, traudo, adudo (inaddere), ascondudo, tendudo (en-, es-),
encendudo, defendudo, despendudo, (a)prendudo, fendudo, espandudo,
cofondudo, mordudo, metudo, (con)vertudo, repentudo, leudo, esleudo,
recebudo (con-, de-, (a)per-), bevudo, atrevudo, conhoçudo, (a)pareçudo,
estabele(s)çudo (and so other -e(s)cer verbs), creçudo, vençudo, teçudo,
temudo, premudo, remeudo (redimere), mudo (molere), corrudo (a-, de-),
persolvudo. Fossilised are: agudo, embudo, miudo, old trevudo.
e) Past Participles of the Anomalous Verbs.
In VL ponere had the past participle postu for CL positu, a form found
in late Latin inscriptions, from which the Romance forms come: Rum. pus
(after the perfect puse, but *post must have existed and may remain
reflected in adăpost; see also essere below), Sard. postu, It. posto, Friul.
puost, Engad., OFr., OProv., Cat. post (OFr. also had pos, pus, pons after
the perfect, later pondu; cf. also the noun ponte), Sp. puesto, Ptg. pôsto.
Quaerere had *quaestu, *-quistu replacing CL quaesitu (cf. perf. quaesi);
this must have been the earlier form, cf. noun quaestus and other formations
in quaest-. Rum. has a new weak form cerut, also cerşit (< quaesitu?) and
cerşut (with the new formations cestor, cestiune based on *quaest-), It.
chiesto/conquista (n.), dial. chieduto, Fr. quis/conquis after the perfect, but
fossilised forms quête/conquête, OProv. ques/quis/quist/conquest, Cat.
request (con-)/requist, Sp. quisto (adj.)/conquista (n.), Ptg. benquisto
(adj.)/conquista (n.)/OGal. conquisto. Note the OFr. queru, Prov. queregut,
OCat. requeregut, as paru, paregut. There are also -utu forms in an
uncertain OSp. malquerudo and OPtg. enquerudo. Prov., Cat., Sp., Ptg. now
have weak -itu forms, and Rum. has cucerit from cuceri, while Sard. has
the -ĭtu forms kerfidu/kertu, and also kersu.
65
65

From factu come: ORum. fapt (now only a noun, superseded as a
participle by făcut; but Macedo-Rum. still has faptu), Sard. fattu, It. fatto,
Engad., Friul. fat, Surs. fatg, Fr. fait, OProv. fait/fach, Cat. fet, Sp. hecho,
Ptg. feito. In compounds It. has confetto, sconfitto, profitto (for the vowel,
cf. diritto, tragitto), Fr. (dé)confit, profit, suffi (OFr. soffit), Prov. confiech,
profieit/profiech, Cat. confit, profit, Sp. cohecho, provecho, Ptg. confeito,
proveito. Vegliot has regular fwat and an anomalous fayt. From comedere,
comestu survives in OPtg., OGal. comesto, with analogical extension to
bebesto; comido is the modern participle in Sp., Ptg.
*Essere had no past participle; the stem fut- seen in futurus was used
in Rum., thus Macedo-Rum. futu. In standard Rum. the past participle is
fost, formed from the extended form of the perfect, fuse, on the proportion
puse:*post; fuse: fost. In It., Rh.-Rom., Fr., Prov., Cat., statu is used: It.
stato, Upper Engad. sto, Fr. été, Prov., Cat. estat; but OIt. also has *essutu
forms, suto/essuto, and Cat. has dialectal sigut, set, formed on the
subjunctive and infinitive. Sp. and Ptg. use the participle of sedere: s(e)ido,
earlier seudo (but ser has been replaced by estar in some of its functions).
Conjugation IV.
Most of the original verbs in this conjugation follow the regular
pattern of perfect -i(v)i, participle -itu. A few irregular types survived into
Romance, but in many cases they are only remembered by fossilised forms,
such as It., Prov., Cat., Sp., Ptg. salsa, Fr. sauce, Prov., Cat. fart, Sp. harto,
Ptg. farto, ORum. sâmt, Sard. santu, It., Sp., Ptg. santo, Surs. sontg, Engad.
saunch, Fr. saint, Prov. sanch, Cat. sant, or by CL noun forms as in the case
of Rum., Prov., Cat. salt, It., Sp., Ptg. salto, Surs., Fr. saut, Engad. sot, Rum.
măsură, It. misura, Fr. mesure, Prov., Cat., Sp., Ptg. mesura, Engad.
masüra, It. sarto, Prov. sartre/sastre (borrowed in Cat., Sp.).
In late VL times a new distinction was introduced into this conjugation,
66
66

corresponding to that discussed in the case of the -are conjugation, in that
in certain verbs an “infix” appeared in the parts of the verb originally
accented on the vowel of the root. The origin and distribution of this infix I
discussed at length in my last paper, so I will only summarise my
conclusions here. This type of verb arose, as mentioned above under the
2nd conjugation, out of a fusion of two kinds of verbs formed from
adjectives, the one in -escere (intr.), the other in -ire (trans.; but these two
endings later became used for either sense), both expressing a change to the
state described by the adjective, so, for example, the combination of
mollescere plus mollire (‘soften’) gives a new conjugation — mollire with
1st person singular mollesco. This type then spread to other -ire or -escere
verbs containing similar notions; thus, corresponding to finire (‘bring to an
end’), *finescere (‘come to an end’) was formed, and, to florescere (‘come
into bloom’), florire (‘bring into bloom’ and ‘come into bloom’ — attested),
and the two types subsequently fused.
Finally this formation spread to a wide range of -ire verbs. That this
change did not take place in the earliest period of VL is shown by the fact
that, like the past participles in -utu, it does not appear in Sard. (But parallel
conjugations, such as pudire and pudeskere, occur.) It does, however,
appear in Rum. It is also a reasonable certainty that it appeared in the
earliest stages of Sp. and Ptg., as I showed in my last paper, and that the
present position in these languages, in which the -esc- forms appear
throughout the paradigm, is a later development, as is the replacement of
-udo by -ido. Examples of this conjugation in Romance are: VL
*(in)vir(i)descere/-ire, Rum. înverzi, It. inverdire, Fr., Prov., Cat. verdir, Sp.
enverdir and enverdecer, Ptg. enverdecer; VL florescere/-ire, Rum. înflori,
It. fiorire, Fr. fleurir, Prov., Cat. florir, Sp., Ptg. florir/florecer; VL
finire/*-escere, (Rum. fini is a new form), It. finire, Fr. finir (OFr. fenir),
Prov. fenir, Cat. finir (OCat. fenir), Sp. fenecer (OSp. finir, and fenir, as
shown by the vowel of fenecer), OPtg. fĩir, modern fenecer from Sp. (In the
67
67

case of Sp. and Ptg. the -ir infinitive represents the putative infix
conjugation of the old languages, and the -ecer the modern form with -ec-
throughout; where modern -ir forms are found, as in florir, enverdir, abolir
etc., they only occur in those parts of the verb where the -esc- infix did not
originally appear.) In most of the modern languages this infix type has
spread to other -ire verbs which were not so affected in VL, including the
later learned borrowings from other conjugations in Latin, or loan-words
from other languages; in Sp., Ptg., however, it is confined to the verbs
formed from adjectives, a certain number of other verbs like florecer,
perecer, fenecer, padecer, obedecer, aborrecer, and verbs introduced from
Germanic, like guarecer, earlier guarir, which followed the Gallo-Romance
cojugation pattern, showing that these verbs were introduced before
Ibero-Romance was effectively isolated from the rest of Romance; but
evidently, in most areas, the -ecer forms had largely driven out the -ir forms
in this type by the time of the introduction of learned Latin words, as these
all appear in the plain -ir class, except in OArag., where forms like
destribuescan, punescer, presumescer, possedezcan, constituezcan appear.
(In Sp., Ptg. the extension of -ec- forms throughout was helped by the
existence of verbs like parecer, merecer, which never had any -ir forms.)
One other subdivision of this group concerns those languages which
have -isc- instead of -esc- by extension of the -i- of -ire. The -isc- forms
appear in It., Lower Engad., Fr., Prov., and Cat. dialects. In various areas,
notably in Fr. and modern Prov., the -isc- forms have been extended beyond
their original domain; for example, in OProv., OCat. to the whole of the
present subjunctive (but in modern Cat. the distribution is the same as in the
indicative), and in OProv. to the present participle. The same distribution in
the subjunctive was probably found in OSp., OPtg., and it was only a short
step from there to extending the infix to the whole of the present paradigm,
as in Fr. and modern Prov., and then to the whole conjugation, eliminating
68
68

all the -ire forms.
In all the Romance languages this infix type was greatly used to form
verbs from adjectives, some going back to VL forms, some being new
formations, so that in the early stages of Romance, in the areas where this
infix type had developed, the number of verbs in this class greatly
outnumbered the simple verbs without infix. This had the effect, in the
languages other than Sp. and Ptg., that the simple verbs were more and
more refashioned on the model of the infix verbs; in It., OFr., OProv. and
OCat., many verbs hesitate between forms with and without the infix, and
in the modern languages there are only a handful of verbs without infix. (In
a Table appended to my original article, I drew up a list of verbs which did
not have the infix in VL, and another of those that did, separating them on
the basis of the Sp. and Ptg. forms and the situation in OFr., which mostly
agrees with Sp., Ptg. in having no infix in any of these verbs, though some
verbs have both forms, but this does not correspond to the distribution in
the modern languages, which varies from one language to another. This
Table is omitted here, as being too difficult to reproduce in this format.) In
Sp. and Ptg., on the other hand, the simple -ir class was swollen partly by
the influx of learned words and partly, especially in Sp., by the further
addition of words from other conjugations.
Apart from the additions to this conjugation made in the individual
languages, which have already been mentioned, it is worth repeating here
those verbs which, to a greater or lesser extent, changed over to -ire in VL
times; the reasons for these changes have been discussed above. These are,
from the 2nd conjugation, lucere, implere, splendere (semilearned), merere,
putere, gaudere, paenitere (in the form *pentire), monere, and, from the 3rd,
cupere, fodere, fugere, parere, rapere, *morere, *patere, *offerere,
*sufferere (and other compounds of ferre), conspuere, petere, in part fallere.
The forms of these verbs will all be considered here, as they had some
69
69

effect on the development of this conjugation. In general, there were no
losses to other conjugations in earliest times, though there were later, in
Sard. and south It., as already observed. However, the verb prurire seems to
have had an alternative form *prudere, which is the basis of It. prudere/-ire,
Prov. pruzer, Cat. pruir, OGal. proer, Ast. and Ptg. pruir. Tussire has
suffered subsequent change in Fr. and Sp. to tousser, toser (but Ast. tusir);
in Fr., other verbs too have changed to the 1st conjugation, such as grander,
puer, vesser and the great majority of the learned borrowings (Fouché, 111).
Ptg. has morrer, sofrer, repender (beside Gal. sofrir, repintir), while Gal.
fluctuates quite greatly with -er forms beside -ir ones as in vester/vistir,
senter/sintir, menter/mintir, proer/proir, seguer/siguir, peder/pidir,
locer/locir, nocer/nocir, old offerer/offerir, besides having alternative -ir
forms where Ptg. has only -er, such as sofrer/sofrir, coser/cusir.
There were three irregular perfect types in CL, in -ui, -si, and -i. To the
first belonged aperui, (co)operui. These survived into VL, as is shown by
Prov. oberc, coberc, beside obri, cobri. They attracted *offerire and
*sufferire, producing Prov. oferc, soferc (cf. also esp(e)rec, p.p. espert, and
new infinitive (r)esperir, beside esp(e)reisser). Ferire may also have been
affected, as witness the participle forms in -utu surviving. These perfects
were joined by paenituit, merui (Prov. merc), rapui and perhaps conspui, if
this -u- was artificially retained. It is possible that *vestui (cf. ORum.
învăscui), *fodui, *morui (cf. Fr. mourus, and Cat. muigui formed on one of
the present stems), *parui, *fallui (cf. Fr. fallut) were also formed, and
*exui seems highly likely, to judge from Mac.-Rum. esui, Cat. isqui (but
this last could also be from the present subjunctive stem isc-) and the OSp.
strong perfect ixe and the -utu type participles in SIt., Fr. and Prov. (exire
would also be attracted to the forms of texere, and there was also a CL
exuere ‘cast off’). The other compounds of ire — perire, transire, redire,
subire — probably also had -ui perfects to match their participles in -ĭtu (cf.
Mac.-Rum. k’erui (perire), It. (Marches) subbe, and also OIt. infinitives
70
70

trasere, riedere, p.p. transuto). A valid reason for this change could be the
fact that a perfect form like -iit was contracted to -it — perit, trasit, exit,
obit are attested — necessitating the creation of a new -uit form to
distinguish the perfect from the present; a VL obuit is in fact found. One
further consideration arguing the for the postulation of such -ui perfects is
the need to account for the presence in OFr. of -edi type perfects, as well as
-ii forms, and in Fr., Prov., It. of -utu participles. (For the forms, with a
different explanation of their origin, see Fouché, 133, 134.) In general,
these verbs all have -i(v)i perfects in the Romance languages, but Fr. is not
alone in confusing the -ii and -edi types; if we suppose that certain verbs
had -ui perfects in VL, which then changed to -edi as in the other
conjugations, we then have a starting point for this confusion, and also for
the further confusion between the 2nd, 3rd and 4th conjugations (see below).
Such -edi forms found in OFr. are feriet, repentiet, vestiet, and, in the
dialects, also isseit, defallerent, peret. Also resplendiet, which is perhaps a
form from an original 3rd-conjugation verb which became attached to a
4th-conjugation infinitive. (On the question of the -ui perfects, note also
that forms like cooperuisset, *moruissem might underlie OIt. (Umbrian)
scopresse, moresse, which have the -esse derived from a strong perfect, not
the -isse of the -ir verbs.
Of the original -si perfects, none survived in Romance (Fr. luis,
together with the participle luit, is most likely a reformation on the analogy
of cuis–cuit, duis–duit; the weak -ii, -itu forms are also found), but various
new ones were formed, challenging the -ui type. Thus we have *offersi,
*suffersi, perhaps *salsi, *falsi, *fossi, formed on the past participles, and
other perfects which were attracted to this type; so Sard. offersi, affersi,
apersi, coberssi, It. offersi/offrii, soffersi/soffrii, salsi/salii, apersi/aprii,
copersi/coprii, morsi/morii (cf. apparsi/-vi/-ii from apparire/-ere), OFr. fals,
Prov. fos. In OSp. there was a perfect fuxo, perhaps based on the form
71
71

fugere, which seems to have survived widely beside *fugire, and
consequently given rise to a perfect formed on the analogy of destruxo from
*destrugere; there is also a local fusco, matched by OCat. fusqué, showing
the same development as seen earlier.
Apart from the forms mentioned above, a new Rum. form ştiui, and
the descendants of veni, mentioned below, all the VL 4th conjugation verbs
have regular perfects in Romance.
The past participles corresponding to these perfects are (1) in
-ĭtu/-tu/-su: Rum. mort (VL *mortu from mortuu), It. aperto, coperto,
offerto (Latin offertus found in Gl. Reich.), sofferto (and Istr. riferto), morto,
OGen. futo (< fugitu), fossilised merto, ratto, falta (VL *fallitu as tollitu),
redito, parto, fossa, Sard. abbertu, fertu (cf. inferturus in a Latin
inscription), mortu, Surs. aviert, miert, Engad. avert, müert, ofert, Fr.
ouvert, couvert, offert, soffert, mort, fossilised faute, fuite, fosse, Prov.
ubert, cubert, sofert, ofert, mort, fos (still used as a participle), fossilised
falta, Cat. obert, cobert, sofert, ofert (and analogical omplert, complert),
mort, OCat. and dial. fuit, fossilised falta, fossa, Sp. abierto, cubierto,
muerto, OSp. sufierto, fossilised falto/-a, oferta, refierta/reyerta, huesa,
Ptg. aberto, coberto, morto, OPtg. vesto, fossilised falto/-a, oferta, referta,
fossa; (2) in -utu: Rum. ştiut, învăscut, Mac.-Rum. k’erut, OIt. feruto,
pentuto, vestuto, empiuto, sparuto, falluto, dial. issuto/usciuto, OFr. feru,
repentu, eissu, vestu, fallu, resplendu, emplu (but only recorded late),
OProv. ferut, eissut, vestut (in general the -utu forms are found alongside
-itu forms), OSp. arrepentudo, OPtg. repentudo (these verbs also had
infinitives in -der, see above). (Note OPtg. sofrudo, inf. sofrer.) CL falsu
has also left fossilised forms everywhere: Rum. falş (from German?), Sard.
falsu, It., Sp., Ptg. falso, Prov., Cat. fals, Fr. faux.
The above perfects in -edi and participles in -utu, together with the
group of verbs with forms in various conjugations, led to a wide confusion
72
72

etween the 2nd, 3rd. and 4th conjugations. The similarity of the future
forms also contributed. Thus in old or dialectal It. there are perfects such as
odetti, finetti, sentetti, and participles finuto, partuto, sentuto, servuto
(Bourciez, 423, 426). (Engad. also uses *-tui in forming the regular perfect,
as durmit.) OFr. dialects, apart from the above forms, have forms like partei,
saillei, assentei, and participles like mentu, partu, öu, sentu, saillu, boulu
are found. In one case a new verb was formed, falloir beside faillir. Other
new infinitives were also created, and appear in modern dialects as sentre,
repentre, vestre etc. (Fouché, 114). In Sp. the perfects and past participles
of the -ir and -er verbs have merged completely, and similarly in Ptg. the
past participles, while, especially in Sp., some -ere verbs have the infinitive
in -ir. We have also seen how in Gal., and to some extent in Ptg., there is a
converse tendency for -ire verbs to have -er, perhaps on the analogy of
paenitere/*-ire which gave repender and repintir.
In general the -i(v)i perfect has survived until modern times in
Romance, except for Engad. (cf. durmit above), and Prov., where parti etc.
gave way to new forms partiguère, partisquèri, with -gu- from the -ui
perfect and -squ- from the infix. Gascon has partiscoui.
In the remaining class, the perfects in -i with lengthened vowel, is
venire, which requires special mention. In VL the perfect and past participle
forms were veni/*venui (subvenuit in Chiro) and *venĭtu, later *venutu
(venitus, probably with short i, in Pereg. Silv., Venutus in an inscription),
formed to match *venui, and this verb was greatly affected by the
conjugation of tenere. From veni come: ORum. véni(u), which was later
replaced by weak venii, OFr. vin (but N.E. dial. vinve from *venui), OCat.
vin (but see vinc below), Sp. vine, Ptg. vim (the -o of vino, veio could
conceivably go back to an -ui ending, but it is more reasonable to treat it as
added on the analogy of the -ió, -eu, -iu endings, as the u forms do not
appear in the other persons). From *venui come: Sard. venni/benni, It. venni,
Fr. dial. vinve, OProv., OCat. vinc, later Prov. vengui, Cat. venguí, now
73
73

vinguí (OCat. vin could also represent *venui, as OCat. tol does *tollui).
OEngad. venn could come from either; the verb now has only a new weak
form gnit (with subjunctive vigness). (Note the It. dial. subjunctive forms as
ven(n)esse from the strong form *venuisset.) The participle form *venĭtu
survives in Sard. vennitu/bennidu, with the doubled consonant of the perfect
(but in some dialects there is a new weak form bennidu). *Venutu is found
in It. venuto, Lower Engad. gnü (with corresponding forms in the other
dialects), Friul. vignut, Fr. venu, OProv. vengut/venut, Cat. vengut/vingut
(with g from the perfect), OSp. (Ast.), OGal. venudo, OPtg. vẽudo. Rum.
and modern Sp., Ptg. have replaced the -utu forms with a new weak
participle in -itu: venit, venido, vindo.
Conclusion
We have seen that, in spite of various individual tendencies in
different regions, which led, to a greater or lesser extent, to subsequent
changes which now distinguish one language from another, the VL of the
whole of the Roman Empire was remarkably homogeneous. The only
major split before the break-up of the Empire lay in the fact that Sard. and
the remote dialects of south Italy were not affected by the change from -ĭtu
to -utu participles or the merging of the -escere and -ire verbs. (This latter
seems clear in the case of Sard., but I am not sure about the position in
south It.) Greater variety of forms there must have been, but the state of
affairs inherited by the modern languages must represent the VL norm
established by educated speakers, who put restrictions on the changes
made by the less educated. It is notable that the standard forms of the
modern languages, based on a literary standard, are more conservative
than the dialect forms, which have had no written norm; changes in
infinitive types, for example, are widespread in the dialects, and in relation
74
74

to these the few changes recorded in the standard languages represent the
tip of an iceberg. Similarly, the far-reaching changes in Sp. and Ptg. may
reflect their longer history of existing without a written standard.
Expressed negatively, the conclusions I would draw are that there
was no clearly defined cleavage in VL times between, for example, areas
which preferred -si and those which preferred -edi perfects, and the
corresponding participles; nor between those that rejected -ĕre and those
that rejected -ēre infinitives; nor that Ibero-Romance had no -utu
participles or mixed -ire/-escere conjugation. No doubt such tendencies
existed, but the preferences, such as for -si perfects in It. and Rum. and
-edi perfects in West Romance, only became clearly defined after the
different languages had separated, or, often, only in quite recent times.
Bibliography. Works referred to in the text.
Bourciez, E. Éléments de Linguistique Romane, Paris, 1967.
Fouché, P. Morphologie Historique du Français: Le Verbe, Paris,
1967.
Grandgent, C.H. An Introduction to Vulgar Latin, New York, 1962.
Lausberg, H. Romanische Spraschwissenschaft, Berlin, 1962-69.
Pope, M. K. From Latin to Modern French, Manchester, 1952.
Väänänen, V. Introduction au Latin Vugaire, Paris, 1967.
Wagner, M.L. La Lingua Sarda, Berne, 1951.
******
This is a revised version of a paper published in Ronshu, Vol.10 (Tokyo,
Aoyama Gakuin University, 1969).
75
75

76
76

77
77