# Romance: fui (temporarily closed for moderation)



## Encolpius

I find it interesting, past tense of be is in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Catalan fui. Do you think the reason is this form was rarely used???? Thanks a lot.


----------



## Outsider

On the contrary, _fui_ -- the 1st. person singular of the preterite indicative -- is used quite a lot.


----------



## Encolpius

Outsider said:


> On the contrary, _fui_ -- the 1st. person singular of the preterite indicative -- is used quite a lot.


 

Yes, yes. That's right it is very common is Portuguese, but my questions is, *originally the Latin form was fui *and during centuries the original Latin forms changed, see "he was" in those languages. So I think fui stayed the same as it was 1500 years ago, because people didn't use it. Hm... except in Portuguese.


----------



## berndf

In French it has changed to _fus_ and there it is certainly less used than in Portugese. I read about studies (unfortunately, I don't have any references handy) which came to the opposite conclusion, namely that frequently used words tend to resist change better than less frequently used ones.


----------



## Encolpius

berndf said:


> In French it has changed to _fus_ and there it is certainly less used than in Portugese. I read about studies (unfortunately, I don't have any references handy) which came to the opposite conclusion, namely *that frequently used words tend to resist change better than less frequently used ones*.




I'm not an expert at all, but you can't believe that yourself, can you?  You just need to look around & some common rules just pop out.


----------



## Outsider

My idea:

3st. person singular in Latin was _fui*t*_

In the changes to Romance, the final "t" was lost, which may have led to sound changes in the vowel that preceded it. Hence, Fr. _fut_ (with silent "t"), Sp. _fue_, Pt. _foi_, etc.

In the case of the 1st. person singular _fui_, though, no sound was lost. Furthermore, the diphthong _ui_ already existed in Latin, and is normal in most Romance languages (except French, where indeed the word changed into _fus_, with silent "s").


----------



## berndf

Encolpius said:


> I'm not an expert at all...


I am confident that this can be fixed. This article has initiated a lively discussion at the time: 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/full/449665a.html.

It would be a good entry point into the topic to read the article and to look for reviews.

Let me know what you find out, I would be interested. At the time, I only read an abstract of the article and did not follow the discussion.


----------



## Grop

Outsider said:


> Furthermore, the diphthong _ui_ already existed in Latin, and is normal in most Romance languages (except French, where indeed the word changed into _fus_, with silent "s").



Well, French actually has a verb _fuir_ (to flee), with a lot of _ui_ forms. It may have influenced the verb _être_. Furtermore, we have no problem saying _je suis_ (présent, first person singular).


----------



## Outsider

Grop said:


> Well, French actually has a verb _fuir_ (to flee), with a lot of _ui_ forms. It may have influenced the verb _être_. Furtermore, we have no problem saying _je suis_ (présent, first person singular).


The "ui" in those words does not originate in a pre-existing Latin "ui" diphthong, though.

They're also pronounced differently:

French "ui" = [ɥi] (approximant + vowel)
Latin "ui" as in "fui" = [ui̯] (strong vowel + weaker vowel)


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> The "ui" in those words does not originate in a pre-existing Latin "ui" diphthong, though.


French _ui_ is normally found where a consonant was lost after _u_:
_conducere>conduire_
_fugere>fuir_
_fructus>fruit_


----------



## modus.irrealis

Just to add, the _i_ of _fui_ in Latin was long so there was no diphthong there -- the _i_ of _fuit_ was short but _fuit_ also had two syllables. The difference in vowel length, though, should be enough to explain the different developments, since short _i_ regularly became close _e_.

About French _fus_, I've noticed that the modern forms of the 1st person have often been influenced by the 2nd person forms and that seems to be the case here since I looked up the Old French 1st person form and it was also _fui_.



berndf said:


> I read about studies (unfortunately, I don't have any references handy) which came to the opposite conclusion, namely that frequently used words tend to resist change better than less frequently used ones.


I think I've read that both occurs. Frequently used words are more resistant to changes due to analogy but they're also more likely to undergo irregular changes.


----------



## berndf

modus.irrealis said:


> ...I've noticed that the modern forms of the 1st person have often been influenced by the 2nd person forms...


 
Can you give examples here. I am trying to find one but nothing crosses my mind.


----------



## Encolpius

Actually if we say preterite is now less common in Romance languages except Portuguese, it is logical, they kept the Latin fuî. But then why didn't Portuguese change the original Latin fuî?


----------



## modus.irrealis

berndf said:


> Can you give examples here. I am trying to find one but nothing crosses my mind.


What I remember reading is that in many of the 1st person forms the final -_s_ cannot be traced back to Latin but is due to the influence of the 2nd person. For example in the imperfect, Old French had _chantoe, chantoes_ which became _chantais, chantais_. Or in the present of verbs like _partir_ where Old French had _part, parz (= parts)_, becoming _pars, pars_. I believe the explanation was that this started with verbs like _finir_ where _finis_ does go back to Latin (through _finisco_) and so both the 1st and 2nd person forms had a final _-s_.


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:


> Just to add, the _i_ of _fui_ in Latin was long so there was no diphthong there [...]


Do you mean that it was a hiatus (foo-ee)? That's interesting! Now that I think about it, the pronunciation does fluctuate slightly in the Romance languages -- e.g. Spanish _fui_ is pronounced [fwi] by many speakers, if not by all of them. Still, as far as I know the descendants of _fui_ and _fuit_ are monosyllables in all the Romance languages.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:


> Do you mean that it was a hiatus (foo-ee)?


Yes. According to my textbook the only words where the diphthong _ui_ occurs are _huius, cuius, huic, cui, _and _hui_.


----------



## berndf

modus.irrealis said:


> What I remember reading is that in many of the 1st person forms the final -_s_ cannot be traced back to Latin but is due to the influence of the 2nd person. For example in the imperfect, Old French had _chantoe, chantoes_ which became _chantais, chantais_. Or in the present of verbs like _partir_ where Old French had _part, parz (= parts)_, becoming _pars, pars_. I believe the explanation was that this started with verbs like _finir_ where _finis_ does go back to Latin (through _finisco_) and so both the 1st and 2nd person forms had a final _-s_.


 
I see what you mean. The _i_ in 1rst singular was long and stayed while in 2nd+3rd signular the _i_ was short in Latin and therefore lost, as in Italian: _fu*i*,fosti, fu_. And in French 1st copied from 2nd and the _i_ was lost as well. Interesting hypothesis. But can we extend the argument which explicitly targets final _-s_ to other letteres, notably vowels?


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> Do you mean that it was a hiatus (foo-ee)? That's interesting! Now that I think about it, the pronunciation does fluctuate slightly in the Romance languages -- e.g. Spanish _fui_ is pronounced [fwi] by many speakers, if not by all of them. Still, as far as I know the descendants of _fui_ and _fuit_ are monosyllables in all the Romance languages.


 
You find it in conjugation tables normally as _fuī_, i.e. with long _i_. If this is correct, it must have been _foo-eeh_.


----------



## Outsider

Why not "fwee", though (as in modern Spanish)? Metric considerations, I suppose...?


----------



## berndf

modus.irrealis said:


> I think I've read that both occurs. Frequently used words are more resistant to changes due to analogy but they're also more likely to undergo irregular changes.


That makes a lot of sense. At any rate, the topic is controversial.


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> Why not "fwee", though (as in modern Spanish)? Metric considerations, I suppose...?



Maybe you are right. My argument really only excludes the diphthong.


----------



## Outsider

An interesting entry at the Language Log.


----------



## CapnPrep

Outsider said:


> Why not "fwee", though (as in modern Spanish)? Metric considerations, I suppose...?


Yes, in verse it is always two syllables. Actually I don't have any examples of 1sg here, but in Plautus you can find both _fūit_ and _fuit_ (variation in the length of the root vowel) but it always counts as two syllables.

The initial assumption of this thread is incorrect, at least for Spanish. Latin _fui_ developed normally (by regular sound change) into Old Spanish 1sg _fue_, which was used until the 16th century. The modern form _fui_ is analogical (pressure from the weak _-er/-ir_ paradigm).


----------



## OldAvatar

Just as a curiosity, in Romanian, perfect simple, 1st pers, singular:

_Eu fusei_

but few still use _Eu fui_, an incorrect form;

also, the infinitive is _a fi_


----------



## Penyafort

Just adding that _fui _is not rare at all in both Portuguese and Spanish because 1) the past simple forms are very used, and 2) it's the same form for TO BE and TO GO.

However, in Catalan, French and Italian, it is indeed rare because 1) compound forms for the past are preferred (Catalan _vaig anar_, French _suis allé_, Italian _sono andato_), and 2) _fui/fus_ is only for TO BE, not for TO GO (Catalan _aní_, French _allai_, Italian _andai_).


----------



## danielstan

OldAvatar said:


> Just as a curiosity, in Romanian, perfect simple, 1st pers, singular:
> 
> _Eu fusei_
> 
> but few still use _Eu fui_, an incorrect form;
> 
> also, the infinitive is _a fi_


I believe _Eu fui_ is an older form, as it is mentioned in various dictionaries.
It had the same fate as the verb _a avea_ ("to have") which has 2 forms in perfect simple:
_Eu avui/Eu avusei_.
See:
Avui, avusei. Fui, fusei

As a personal opinion, I guess the forms _Eu fusei_ and _Eu avusei_ came by "folk etymology" from the forms of _plus-que-parfait_: _Eu fusesem_ and _Eu avusesem_.

I admit that I never heard in real life the forms_ Eu fui_ and _Eu avui_, but I heard many times _Eu fusei/Eu fusăi_ (popular form) by speakers from Oltenia.
The areas where the perfect simple is used in Romania:
Romanian Perfect Simple.svg


----------



## Olaszinhok

Penyafort said:


> However, in Catalan, French and Italian, it is indeed rare because 1) compound forms for the past are preferred (Catalan _vaig anar_, French _suis allé_, Italian _sono andato_), and 2) _fui/fus_ is only for TO BE, not for TO GO (Catalan _aní_, French _allai_, Italian _andai_).


I am sorry but I partially disagree.  In Italian, the simple past is still used in many areas of the country unlike French, so I find the above statement a bit inaccurate. I must admit that I happen to read the same erroneous statement on a few sites on the Internet as well. Anyway, you are right when you say that the preterite of the verb to be _(fui)_ is not that used in contemporary spoken Italian, it is more used in passive forms, though. As for the _passato remoto_ at large,  I know that many foreigners learning Italian are not used to learning the " _passato remoto_", unless they study Italian more deeply at university, for instance. After all, they can certainly survive without using it, particularly at a basic/intermediate level, but this does not mean that the _passato remoto_ is no longer used in Italian (except maybe in Northern Italy). You will never hear a Parisian utter a sentence with _le passé simple, _while it's pretty common to hear the _passato remoto_ in Rome, for instance.
It is true, however, that the Italian usage is rather inconsistent, compared to the one of Portuguese or Spanish.
As far as I know the _pretèrit perfet _is not longer used in Catalonia, except for certain marginal areas, but it is still alive and kicking in Valencian.


----------



## Penyafort

Olaszinhok said:


> but this does not mean that the _passato remoto_ is no longer used in Italian (except maybe in Northern Italy).



So interesting! I didn't mean they were not used at all, though, only that the usage wasn't comparable to that in the West Iberian languages. I wasn't fully aware that Northerners were not using it as much. I wonder if this may be due to Northerners being more distant from the standard than Southerners, as it happened in Germany and Spain, where Southerners tend to keep variants because they just saw them as part of the language.



Olaszinhok said:


> As far as I know the _pretèrit perfet _is not longer used in Catalonia, except for certain marginal areas, but it is still alive and kicking in Valencian.



It is also used in Catalonia but seen as rather formal and as such restricted to written texts, literature and historical accounts, and often only in the 3rd person. Valencians are the ones who use it the most in common speech, that's true, but even they alternate forms and from what I've seen the usage is not homogeneous, some never using it.


----------



## Şafak

Olaszinhok said:


> am sorry but I partially disagree.


Disagree? With Penyafort? You're crazy!

On a serious note, it was indeed an interesting contribution. Thank you.


----------



## Penyafort

Şafak said:


> Disagree? With Penyafort? You're crazy!




But it was only a partial disagreement, so no problem!


----------



## symposium

Penyafort said:


> I wonder if this may be due to Northerners being more distant from the standard than Southerners, as it happened in Germany and Spain, where Southerners tend to keep variants because they just saw them as part of the language.


A commonly given explanation is precisely the influence of Spanish on Southern Italian languages. It may just be that language habits have developed differently in different areas of Italy. The influence of Spanish on Southern Italian is indenianble in other respects, though: for exemple "tenere" is commonly used instead of "avere" and they also put an "a" in front of a direct object when that object is a person (if that makes sense): "vidi a Maria" instead of "vidi Maria", so Spanish is not to be ruled out completely as an explanation...


----------



## Şafak

symposium said:


> A commonly given explanation is precisely the influence of Spanish on Southern Italian languages. It may just be that language habits have developed differently in different areas of Italy. The influence of Spanish on Southern Italian is indenianble in other respects, though: for exemple "tenere" is commonly used instead of "avere" and they also put an "a" in front of a direct object when that object is a person (if that makes sense): "vidi a Maria" instead of "vidi Maria", so Spanish is not to be ruled out completely as an explanation...


Now I'm curious. When and how did Spanish exert its influence on Southern Italian?  What do I need to google?


----------



## Olaszinhok

symposium said:


> A commonly given explanation is precisely the influence of Spanish on Southern Italian languages. It may just be that language habits have developed differently in different areas of Italy


Sorry Symposium but that sounds unrealistic and even a bit hilarious not only to me but also to many linguists.  In my view, the influence of Spanish over southern Italian has always been overrated. Some grammar and vocabulary features of many southern dialects are essentially considered to be sponataneous develpoments of such Romance languages nowadays. For instance, in all southern languages the preterite is well preserved with indipendent forms morphology-like, whose endings are pretty different from the Spanish ones. Besides, the preterite is retained in Tuscany and in other Central areas of the country and even in Bolonia (in the North) and as everybody knows the Spaniards never ruled over these regions . Actually, according to many linguists, most northern Italian dialects/languages lost their preterite during the 18th or at the beginning of the 19th century, so when the majority of Lombards, Piedmontese, Venetians started speaking Italian, they were not accustomed to using this verb tense and opted for the extensive use of the _passato prossimo (Present Perfect)_ in the spoken language. However, I agree with you when you say that Italian is highly inflenced by regional languages and this is particularly true for the usage of the preterite.
As for the accusative _a (ho veduto/vidi a Giovanni/he visto/vi a Juan)_ it is widespread in my region as well and we did not have any Spanish domination in the past. Last but not least, even Romanian uses a similar preposition in front of a direct object when that object is a person.


----------



## bearded

Şafak said:


> Now I'm curious. When and how did Spanish exert its influence on Southern Italian?  What do I need to google?


I know you understand Italian, so please see some sites here: dominio spagnolo in italia.


----------



## Şafak

bearded said:


> I know you understand Italian


"Some" seems to be missing in the sentence.


----------



## bearded

Şafak said:


> "Some"" seems to be missing in the sentence.


Just in order to avoid a double 'some' in my sentence.  Some Italian + some sites, hmmm, not elegant.


----------



## Penyafort

symposium said:


> A commonly given explanation is precisely the influence of Spanish on Southern Italian languages. It may just be that language habits have developed differently in different areas of Italy. The influence of Spanish on Southern Italian is indenianble in other respects, though:



Indeed. But I also suspect that the (mutual) influence of some Italian languages with Catalan first (Crown of Aragon) and Spanish later (Monarchy of Spain) is mainly restricted to lexical borrowing.


----------



## Sobakus

As Ledgeway expounds here (p. 464+ and esp. 468+) and here (p. 340+, esp. 349), the prepositional accusative is a parallel development motivated by a shift in language typology, observed in varieties that preserve the early Romance active/stative syntax (instead of SVO like in French), but generalise the auxiliary HABERE (instead of ESSE) for all non-passive subjects, with parallel loss of past participle agreement with non-passive subjects, with the net result that accusative objects need to be explicitly marked to distinguish them from nominative subjects. In Italian varieties it often has various limitations absent e.g. in Spanish, like being limited to the 1st/2nd person, pronouns or fronted objects only.

So I don't think the "a" accusative in southern Italian dialects can be attributed to either Spanish or Catalan influence, at least directly. Rather, it's part of a general typological restructuring, and "a" simply happens to be the most available way to mark the accusative in all these languages (but Rumanian went for "pe").

Come to think of it, the prepositional accusative may be the optimal solution to disambiguate potential subjects (highly active/animate referents) from objects in those varieties with relatively flexible word order that either 1) don't use the compound perfect much, or 2) do use the compound perfect, but it doesn't agree in gender/number with the object. Spanish is the best example of all three.


----------

