# vulgar latin



## naranja123

Hello, Could someone say me how much grammar tenses are in classic latin and vulgar latin? Classic latin has 6 tenses  (praesens, imperfect, plusquamperfectum, futurum, perfectum).How much tenses has vulgar latin? I need the number. Thank you!!!!


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes! and a hearty welcome to the Forum, naranja.

Classical Latin does indeed have six tenses, though naranja's list omits the Future Perfect (or "Fut. II" as it is termed by German and some other grammarians).

This is not just a pedantic point, as will become apparent. But there are two or three observations to be made here.

First, almost by definition, there is no "grammar" of Vulgar Latin (VL), any more than there is of (say) Cockney English. There are other threads on this, but I am afraid I can't track them down right now (Cagey?).

Secondly, there are traces (already in "classical" Latin, notably Caesar) of the _habere_ + (past) participle verbal usage which leads to the French _passé composé_ or the Italian perfect like _ho detto_, "I have said", - I'm sorry, I still don't have convenient access to my books and notes: perhaps someone else can help here?): this would count as a tense in its own right.

Thirdly, the Fut. Perf. ("Fut. II"), typically with the formulation _amav-er-o_, often contracted in classical texts to _amaro_, gives rise to the conjugated future simple forms in Romance legacy languages such as _che *sarà*, *sarà*_, or _je ferai_ in French (from Latin _fecero_). VL seems unsurprisingly to have dominated in the vernacular which shaped the Romance.

It might be helpful if naranja123 could tell us why this information is needful.

Σ


----------



## bearded

Hello Scholiast
So far, I had always believed that Italian and French future tenses  have a slightly different origin, namely infinitive plus present of 'habeo':
amare habeo (I have to love) > amare ho> amerò,  aimer ai>aimerai
and - in a similar way - conditional from infinitive plus perfect:           
amare habui (I had to love) > amare ebbi > amerei/aimerais  
At least, that is what I was taught at Bologna University (Romance Philology Dept.)
Your theory with amavero (/amaveram?) is completely new to me.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete!

Well, well, well. In response to bearded man's intervention, I have to confess to D-I-Y philology here, and I should emphasize that I am very ready to be corrected by my (elders and) betters. I had fondly supposed that at _BG _4.25, where a daring _aquilifer_ plunges into the water off the coast of Britain, urging his comrades to follow and declaring "ego certe meum rei publicae atque imperatori officium_ *praestitero*_", Caesar was accurately reproducing the vulgar (-ish) linguistic register of an ordinary soldier.

And I seem to recall from somewhere (but cannot retrace this at present) an explanation of the regular Latin imperfect tenses as having to do with _habere_.

Advice and correction please? fdb? CapnPrep?

Σ


----------



## William Stein

bearded man said:


> Hello Scholiast
> So far, I had always believed that Italian and French future tenses  have a slightly different origin, namely infinitive plus present of 'habeo':
> amare habeo (I have to love) > amare ho> amerò,  aimer ai>aimerai
> and - in a similar way - conditional from infinitive plus perfect:
> amare habui (I had to love) > amare ebbi > amerei/aimerais
> At least, that is what I was taught at Bologna University (Romance Philology Dept.)
> Your theory with amavero (/amaveram?) is completely new to me.



The future is formed in the same way in Spanish: amar he -> amaré, amar has -> amarás, etc. but it isn't the same as Italian in the conditional: amar -> "amaría"  (unless it was originally "amar' + [habr]ía)


----------



## CapnPrep

William Stein said:


> The future is formed in the same way in Spanish: amar he -> amaré, amar has -> amarás, etc. but it isn't the same as Italian in the conditional: amar -> "amaría"  (unless it was originally "amar' + [habr]ía)


In Spanish (and French, Portuguese, etc.) the conditional emerged from the infinitive + imperfect forms of _habeo_ (_amare habebam_ > _amar _[_hab_]_ía >_ _amaría_, etc.).

See the following thread in EHL for more discussion:
All Romance languages - Creation of the Conditional Tense


Scholiast said:


> I had fondly supposed that at _BG _4.25, where a daring _aquilifer_ plunges into the water off the coast of Britain, urging his comrades to follow and declaring "ego certe meum rei publicae atque imperatori officium_ *praestitero*_", Caesar was accurately reproducing the vulgar (-ish) linguistic register of an ordinary soldier.


I think I must be missing something here; what is vulgar(-ish) about the form _praestitero_?


----------



## William Stein

CapnPrep said:


> In Spanish (and French, Portuguese, etc.) the conditional emerged from the infinitive + imperfect forms of _habeo_ (_amare habebam_ > _amar _[_hab_]_ía >_ _amaría_, etc.).
> 
> See the following thread in EHL for more discussion:
> All Romance languages - Creation of the Conditional Tense{?QUOTE}
> 
> Thanks, that's very interesting. I always wondered how the conditional evolved since Latin didn't have one.
> This is cheating but could you please take a look at my post "vocibus sibi parcere"?
> 
> 
> 
> Just to check the literal meaning of  "ego certe meum rei publicae atque imperatori officium _*praestitero*" = I will certainly have done my duty (fut. perf.?) to my general (emperor would be anachronistic, right?) and to the republic?_


----------



## Scholiast

salvete iterum!



> I think I must be missing something here; what is vulgar(-ish) about the form _praestitero_?


 This was based on what is now clearly my erroneous ("D-I-Y philology") supposition that these future and conditional Romance forms originated from the Latin future perfect. Sincere thanks to bearded man, William Stein and CapnPrep for putting me right here.

Σ


----------

