# French - the verb "avoir"



## Testing1234567

The French verb "avoir" is said to come from the Latin "habeo".

What makes me wonder is the fact that the forms of "avoir" are very different from the forms of "habeo".

Can someone please explain to me how the Latin forms could possibly give rise to the French forms?


habeere > avoir
habeens > ayant
habitus > eu

habeoo > ai
habees > as
habet > a
habeemus > avons
habeetis > avez
habent > ont

habeam > aie
habeaas > aies
habeat > ait
habeaamus > ayons
habeaatis > ayez
habeant > aient


----------



## merquiades

Avoir is most definitely Habere.  H is dropped, intervocalic b is weakened and or dropped, final consonant endings are dropped.  The vowel /a/ weakens to a schwa sound written "e", and /e/ often becomes /i/.  Then you can see for yourself.
Ex)
Habere > abeir > avoir
Habeo > abi(u) > ai
Habestis > abeste > avets > avez (z silent)
Habeant > abien > aien/ aient (t silent)


----------



## CryTogether

Hi,

"avoir" does come from Latin. During the Middle Ages, only monks could write and read. Therefore, French language was spoken by peasant people only by hearing it. And gradually, it was inevitable that spoken language was always changing because people didn't know how to spell a word or to say it properly, it was an approximate language I dare say.

For the letter _v_, it is very common that French words from Latin changed the_ b_ (or p) into a _v_. Examples: libra > livre ; hibernum (tempus) > hiver. That's why we have "avons" and avoir for habere. But, the letter _v_ was also changed into u, sometimes. That's why we have ayons for example ("auons" is a hiatus and is not very easy to say; thus for pronunciation we say and write "ayons"). From Old French, there have been a lot of strange things that happened such as contraction, vocalization of a sound, etc... You have to know that the flaw of languages is laziness that's why there are so many modification

Is it clear ? I hope I gave you more insights.


----------



## Penyafort

Testing1234567 said:


> The French verb "avoir" is said to come from the Latin "habeo".
> 
> What makes me wonder is the fact that the forms of "avoir" are very different from the forms of "habeo".
> 
> Can someone please explain to me how the Latin forms could possibly give rise to the French forms?



Romance languages, specially those in the West, are an evolution from the so-called Vulgar Latin, so be careful when you compare much of the vocabulary and grammar directly with Classical Latin. The forms you should consider are rather _abere; abente; abutu; a(b)io, a(be)s, a(be)t, abemus, abetis, a(be)nt._ So an approximation to the evolution of the forms could be like this:


habeere > avoir | *abere > aveir > avoir*

habeens > ayant | *abente > avent > aent/aient/aiant > ayant*

habitus > eu | *abutu > avut > aü/eü > eu*

habeoo > ai | *abio > ai*

habees > as | *abes > as*

habet > a | *abet > at > a*

habeemus > avons | *abemus > aveoms > avons*

habeetis > avez | *abetis > avets > avez*

habent > ont | *abent > ant > ont *(Here I guess a possible analogy to other common verbs, as it should have been _ant_)
You can find a similar pattern of evolution in the other Romance languages, only that they preserve more sounds, none having eroded so much as French. In many cases too, re-Latinization or analogy have produced unexpected changes, as it often happens with common words.


----------



## Testing1234567

Thank you for your detailed reply. The avut > eu still confuses me, and also the abemus > aveoms.


----------



## Testing1234567

merquiades said:


> Avoir is most definitely Habere.  H is dropped, intervocalic b is weakened and or dropped, final consonant endings are dropped.  The vowel /a/ weakens to a schwa sound written "e", and /e/ often becomes /i/.  Then you can see for yourself.
> Ex)
> Habere > abeir > avoir
> Habeo > abi(u) > ai
> Habestis > abeste > avets > avez (z silent)
> Habeant > abien > aien/ aient (t silent)



Thank you for you detailed reply. I would like to ask how can /aveir/ > /avwar/ if people are so lazy?


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> Thank you for you detailed reply. I would like to ask how can /aveir/ > /avwar/ if people are so lazy?



This is the normal evolution of the closed /e/ in open syllables in French: e > ei̯ > oi̯ > oe̯ > wɛ > wa

_sera > sei̯r > soi̯r > soe̯r > swɛr > swar 
avere > avei̯r > avoi̯r > avoe̯r > avwɛr > avwar
vedere > v(ed)ei̯r > voi̯r > voe̯r > vwɛr > vwar 
te > tei̯ > toi̯ > toe̯ > twɛ > twa 
me > mei̯ > moi̯ > moe̯ > mwɛ > mwa 
mese > mei̯s > moi̯s > moe̯s > mwɛ > mwa 
pera > pei̯rɐ > poi̯rə > poe̯rə > pwɛrə > pwar 
be(be)re (< bĭbĕre)  > bei̯r > boi̯r > boe̯r> bwɛr > bwar  
volere > vulei̯r > vuloi̯r > vuloe̯r > vulwɛr > vulwar 
sapere > savei̯r > savoi̯r > savoe̯r > savwɛr > sawar_

Before /n/ it remained /ei/:
_pena (< poena) > peinə > pein 
seno > sein_


----------



## CapnPrep

Testing1234567 said:


> The avut > eu still confuses me


As Penyafort said, classical _habĭtum_ was replaced by vulgar _abūtu[m] _, which evolved as follows:
abūtu > aβúto (lenition of intervocalic _b_)
> awúdo > aúðo (loss of _β_ under influence of following _u_, lenition of intervocalic dental)
> aúθ (loss of final vowels other than _a_, final devoicing)
> əüθ (centralization of initial _a_ before another vowel, fronting of _u_)
> əü > ü (loss of final consonants, simplification of sequences of vowels in hiatus, spelling ‹eu› retained)​


Testing1234567 said:


> and also the abemus > aveoms


Actually, _avons_ cannot come from _habēmus_, as far as the ending is concerned. It is not totally clear where the French 1st plural ending _-ons_ came from, but it eventually spread to all verbs, regardless of the original conjugation class in Latin. One possibility is that 1st person plural verbs were remodeled after _sŭmus_ (_-úmus_ > _-ons_ > _-õ(z)_).
abémus > aβémus > avémus (lenition, then fortition of _b_ between two non-back vowels)
→ av- + -úmus (analogical replacement of the verb ending)
> avóns (lowering of short _ŭ_, loss of final vowels other than _a_)
> avõs > avõ(z) (nasalization, loss of final consonants)​


----------



## Testing1234567

Thank you very much!


----------



## francisgranada

CapnPrep said:


> ... classical _habĭtum_ was replaced by vulgar _abūtu[m] _, which evolved as follows:
> abūtu > aβúto (lenition of intervocalic _b_)
> > awúdo > aúðo (loss of _β_ under influence of following _u_, lenition of intervocalic dental) ...​


A propos: in Spanish we have [_awído_] instead of [_awúdo_]. My question is if the Spanish (and other Ibero-Romance langages) maintain the original Latin _-i-_ or it's rather the result of a later regularization of some verbal endings (i.e. _abūtu _was the common Pre-Romance form)?​


----------



## CapnPrep

francisgranada said:


> A propos: in Spanish we have [_awído_] instead of [_awúdo_]. My question is if the Spanish (and other Ibero-Romance langages) maintain the original Latin _-i-_ or it's rather the result of a later regularization of some verbal endings (i.e. _abūtu _was the common Pre-Romance form)?​


The original Latin participle was weak (_hábĭtus_), so the strong Iberian form is also innovative. The ending_ -ūtus _did not spread as widely in Ibero-Romance; instead, _-ītus_ spread from the _-ir_ conjugation to become the default ending for the participle of _-er_ verbs (< Latin _-ēre_ and _-ĕre_ verbs).


----------



## francisgranada

Thanks.


----------



## swintok

Nino83 said:


> This is the normal evolution of the closed /e/ in open syllables in French: e > ei̯ > oi̯ > oe̯ > wɛ > wa
> 
> _sera > sei̯r > soi̯r > soe̯r > swɛr > swar
> avere > avei̯r > avoi̯r > avoe̯r > avwɛr > avwar
> vedere > v(ed)ei̯r > voi̯r > voe̯r > vwɛr > vwar
> te > tei̯ > toi̯ > toe̯ > twɛ > twa
> me > mei̯ > moi̯ > moe̯ > mwɛ > mwa
> mese > mei̯s > moi̯s > moe̯s > mwɛ > mwa
> pera > pei̯rɐ > poi̯rə > poe̯rə > pwɛrə > pwar
> be(be)re (< bĭbĕre)  > bei̯r > boi̯r > boe̯r> bwɛr > bwar
> volere > vulei̯r > vuloi̯r > vuloe̯r > vulwɛr > vulwar
> sapere > savei̯r > savoi̯r > savoe̯r > savwɛr > sawar_
> 
> Before /n/ it remained /ei/:
> _pena (< poena) > peinə > pein
> seno > sein_



In some Québecois dialects and Acadian French, which are roughly based on 16th century Norman French, the vowel changes in some cases did not go quite as far.  Hence:

_te > tei̯ > toi̯ > toe̯ > twɛ 
me > mei̯ > moi̯ > moe̯ > mwɛ_

but

_mese > mei̯s > moi̯s > moe̯s > mwɛ > mwa _


----------



## Testing1234567

Nino83 said:


> Before /n/ it remained /ei/:
> _pena (< poena) > peinə > pein
> seno > sein_



But, sir, peine is pronounced /pɛn/, and sein is pronounced /sɛ̃/ and in France nowadays even /sã/.


----------



## Testing1234567

Can /mejs/ "meis" and /mojs/ "mois" be dated to any century?


----------



## CapnPrep

Testing1234567 said:


> Can /mejs/ "meis" and /mojs/ "mois" be dated to any century?


The change _éi > ɔ́i > úe > wé_ took place during the 12th century, roughly speaking.

See also:
*French: Developments of <oi>*


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> But, sir, peine is pronounced /pɛn/, and sein is pronounced /sɛ̃/ and in France nowadays even /sã/.





Testing1234567 said:


> Can /mejs/ "meis" and /mojs/ "mois" be dated to any century?



900: nasalization of vowels before /n, m/: _sei̯r_ and _sẽĩ̯(n) _
1100:_ ei̯ > oi̯_ not before /n, m/: _soi̯r_ and _sẽĩ̯_
1300: _oi̯ > oe̯ > wɛ _and _ĩ > ẽ, ẽĩ̯ > ẽẽ > ẽ_: _swɛr_ and _sẽ_
later: _wɛ > wa_ and _ ẽ > ɛ̃ > æ̃_ (Parisian French): _swar_ and _sæ̃_

_peine_ is pronounced like that (without nasalization) because in Modern French nasalization in open syllables (i.e when there is a vowel after /n, m/) was lost, while _sein_ is pronounced with nasal vowels because all final vowels but "a" were lost, so the syllable became closed (this kind of syllables are called "late closed").

_pena > pẽĩ̯nə > pẽẽnə > pẽnə > penə _(open syllable, desanalization) > _pen_ (lost of final /ə/ in final syllables and in other positions in contemporary Northern and Central French)
_seno > sẽĩ̯n_ (final /o/ was lost) > _sẽĩ̯_ (the syllable is closed, so nasalization is mantained) > _sẽ > sɛ̃ > sæ̃_

it is like:
_bono > bɔ̃n > bɔ̃ 
bona > bɔ̃nə > bɔnə _(desanalization in open syllables) > _bɔn_ 

French phonology changed a lot.


----------



## Testing1234567

Is there any difference in the development of the short e and the long e in Latin?


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> Is there any difference in the development of the short e and the long e in Latin?



The Classical Latin /ē, ǐ/ > /e/  and /ě/ > /ɛ/ in Vulgar Latin (except in Sardinia).

In French:
/e/ > /wa/ in open syllables (sera > swar) and /e/ > /ɛ/ in closed syllables (sekko > sɛk)
/ɛ/ > /jɛ/ in open syllables (pɛtra > pjɛr) and /ɛ/ remained /ɛ/ in closed syllables (bɛlla > bɛl)

There are more than 40 vocalic changes from Vulgar Latin to French.

In this page you can find all these vocalic changes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_French


----------



## Testing1234567

I found a book written in 1609 that taught the Englishmen the language of France: https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=0hZEBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover


English "bod*e*ly", French "fac*e*", (Ecclesiastical) Latin "fac*e*re" were pronounced the same. I would assume that this is a schwa.
The parentheses indicate liasions: temps /tã(s)/, champs /ʃã(s)/, domptés /dɔ̃te(z)/, prompts /prɔ̃(s)/, aimerent /ɛmərə(t)/
Final consonants at the end of the sentence were *preserved*, i.e. prestez moy de l'argent /prɛː.te.mwɛ.də.lar.d͡ʒãt/ (prêtez-moi de l'argent /pʁɛ.te.mwa.də.laʁ.d͡ʒã/)

Exception of nasalization: emm-, emb-, emp- are not nasalized.
"L" were sometimes written and not pronounced: aultre /ɔtrə/, oultre /utrə/
"fou" was written as "fol" but pronounced /fu/. The similar goes with some other words ending in "-ou" coming from Latin "-oll-". Some was written as "-oil" instead of "-ol".
"L" at the end of the sentence was not pronounced.
"Gi" was pronounced same as English "gi", suggesting /d͡ʒ/.


----------



## CapnPrep

Are we still discussing the verb _avoir_? I don't think we can cover the entire phonological history of French in one thread…


----------



## Testing1234567

Yes, let me change the subject back.

Analyzing Latin "sum" and French "être" has brought me to the conclusion that:

Latin Perfect Active Indicative > French Passé Simple
Latin Pluperfect Active Subjunctive > French Imparfait du Subjonctif
Then the problem arises: how can "ego habuī" > OF "jeo oi" > "j'eus" ?

This seems to be the ending of every verb as well, e.g. "ego fuī" > OF "jeo fui" > "je fus".

Was the final "s" ever pronounced?


----------



## CapnPrep

Testing1234567 said:


> Then the problem arises: how can "ego habuī" > "j'eus" ?


The OFr form was in fact _oi_. The details are not completely established, but the evolution was something along these lines:
abŭi > áβwi > áwwi (lenition of _b_, non-syllabic _u_ prevented from becoming _v_)
> ɔ́wwi (influence of labial _w_ on preceding vowel)
> ɔ́wi > ɔ́i (degemination/absorption of _w_)​

This form was replaced by _eu(s)_ by analogy with the past participle (see above) and with the 2nd person singular:
abuĭsti > awwísti
> ɔwwústi (labialization of both surrounding vowels)
> ɔwúst > ɔús (loss of final vowel, loss of _w_, realignment of 2nd sing. ending)
> eüs > əüs > ü(z) (fronting of _u_ with influence on preceding vowel, schwa formation, simplification of hiatus)​


Testing1234567 said:


> Was the final "s" ever pronounced?


It only started to appear sporadically in the 1st person in the late 13th century, which is after the loss of final consonants. But I suppose it could have been pronounced as a spelling pronunciation (as it is today, in liaison contexts).


----------



## Testing1234567

Is the similar phenomenon observed when OF jeo avoie combined with OF tu avoies to give French j'avois?

But where did the "s" come from? I thought it came from the present tense endings -s -s -t, but:

The present tense sais sais sait < OF sai ses set.
The imperfect avois avois avoit < OF avoie avoies avoit.
The preterite eus eus eust <OF oi eüs ot
The "s" just simply wasn't there the whole time, including je suis < jeo sui.


----------



## Testing1234567

Also, V.L. abēre ai > OF avrai, arai > MF aray, airay, auray > Fr aurai ? Where did the "u" come from?


----------



## CapnPrep

Testing1234567 said:


> But where did the "s" come from?


It spread from verbs like _fenis _(< _finisco_) and _puis_ (< *_possyo_). 


Testing1234567 said:


> Also, V.L. abēre ai > OF avrai, arai > MF aray, airay, auray > Fr aurai ? Where did the "u" come from?


_Aurai_ may have been a dialectal form (like _arai_), or it has also been suggested that _avrai_ and _aurai_ represent the phonetic development in stressed vs. proclitic position, respectively.


----------



## Testing1234567

Is there any other av > au instances?

Also, why did the first group not inherit the "-s" ending?


----------



## CapnPrep

Testing1234567 said:


> Is there any other av > au instances?


No, this was not a regular sound change, but a replacement of one form by another. But cf. also possibly _abrotŏnu > aurone _ (name of a plant),_ fabrĭca_ > _faurga_ > _forge_.


Testing1234567 said:


> Also, why did the first group not inherit the "-s" ending?


In the first group, many verbs already had a 1st sing. form in _-e_, so this is the ending that spread to verbs like _chant _→ _chante_.


----------



## Testing1234567

CapnPrep said:


> In the first group, many verbs already had a 1st sing. form in _-e_, so this is the ending that spread to verbs like _chant _→ _chante_.



But the other groups also had an ending in -i. jeo sui > je suis, jeo fui > je fus, jeo sai > je sais, jeo voi > je vois


----------



## CapnPrep

Testing1234567 said:


> But the other groups also had an ending in -i. jeo sui > je suis, jeo fui > je fus, jeo sai > je sais, jeo voi > je vois


Yes, there are many different patterns that could have been generalized. And _-i_ did in fact become the 1st sing. ending in Occitan, in part because of verbs like these.


----------



## Testing1234567

So, are you suggesting that endings in -s were more than endings in -i?


----------



## CapnPrep

Testing1234567 said:


> So, are you suggesting that endings in -s were more than endings in -i?


I think they were, but you could try to verify this yourself. And frequency is not the only factor: _-s_ already existed as a verbal ending, maybe there was a preference for consonantal endings, etc. But in general, when it comes to analogical effects, I am afraid it is often impossible to say for sure why the language eventually went in one direction, and not in any other direction.


----------



## Testing1234567

I just came across a modern example of "fenis < finisco". A Spanish speaker pronounces /eskwelo/ as /eswelo/ colloquially.


----------



## francisgranada

An idea (nothing more): when the final consonants _-s, -t_ "were starting" not to be pronounced and the phenomenon of liaison "started" to took place instead, then the _liaison itself_ could have spontaneously/gradually become part of the paradigm (conjugation pattern) in some cases.

Thus e.g. in case of *_sui, es, est, sommes, êtes, sont _only the form_ *sui*_ lacks a final consonant (a possible "candidate" for liaison), so in the 1st person singular an _-s_ was added (a kind of hypercorrection) to fit the presupposed pattern.


----------



## Testing1234567

But sir, -t-was inserted instead for liasion. And if so, why has not the first group an inserted consonant?

It's probable considering that the only consonant ending for the first-person singular was "s", however minority "-s" is.

jeo vois > je vais
jeo conois > je connais
jeo faz > je fais
jeo plais > je plais

jeo boi*f* > je boys > je bois
jeo crie*m* > je crains > je crains
jeo me*t* > je mets > je mets

(I'm aware that lists are not allowed.)


----------



## francisgranada

Testing1234567 said:


> But sir, -t-was inserted instead for liasion. And if so, why has not the first group an inserted consonant?


The first group behaves differently (partly in other Romance languages as well), e.g. in the 3rd person sg. there is no _-t_ (>no liaison) anymore (e.g. _il aime_).

As to the _-s_ instead of _-t_, I don't think it was an insertion of an "arbitrary" or "usual" consonant for sake of liaison, but rather a kind of  regularization of the conjugation pattern itself. In other words,  according to my idea, not the lack of a consonant because of a more "pleasant" pronunciation was the reason, but the "disproportion" of the conjugation pattern itself. 

I don't know why _-s _and not _-t_; perhaps in that period the ending _-t_ was spontaneously"reserved" for the 3rd person (_est, sont_), or the final _-s_ and _-t_ did not "disappear" from the pronunciation at the same time. But this is a mere speculation ...


----------



## merquiades

francisgranada said:


> The first group behaves differently (partly in other Romance languages as well), e.g. in the 3rd person sg. there is no _-t_ (>no liaison) anymore (e.g. _il aime_).


When questions are asked following the inversion method the /t/ reappears.
Aime-t-il sa femme?
Parle-t-elle avec son mari?
Où va-t-on?


----------

