# Corumpe/Conrupe/Corupe



## SerinusCanaria3075

Bună!

There's something I don't understand about some Romanian verbs. To be more precise, are there verbs that have changed throughout the years and eventually have become archaic in modern day?
For example "to corrupt"
It came from Latin _corrumpo_ (_corrumpere_), but why are there 3 different forms of this verb in Romanian?
When I searched on DEX online "_coru*m*pe/__co*n*rupe"_ they send me to _corupe_, so is this final one the modern form to say _corrupt_?
In any case the _Participiu_ is always _corupt_, right?

(there's plenty more like _cure/curge_, _irumpe/irupe, mere/merge_...)


----------



## OldAvatar

I don't want to be rude, but how did you come up with these verbs?
There aren't any words like _corumpe _or _conrupe _in Romanian... They even sound funny .
Can you be more explicit, please?


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

I'm shocked (not really) but I'm not sure which is the right way to say the verb "to corrupt" in Romanian (corupe?)

I think someone said Verbix had a few mistakes but anyway, here's where I saw "the verbs" (in alphabetical order):
conrupe, corumpe, corupe

(hopefully someone can explain this mess)
One little detail though, if indeed _corumpe_ or _conrupe_ don't exist, shouldn't the words turn blue and not show anything else when you search on DEX online?


----------



## jazyk

Aici ai un dicţionar englez-român, român-englez. Se poate vede că verbul român este corupe.



> There aren't any words like _corumpe _or _conrupe _in Romanian... They even sound funny .


În mod jalnic, SerinusCanaria nu şi-a inventat această informaţie. Uită-te aici.


----------



## Forero

I think Verbix is trying to say that the future and conditional of _corupe_ have alternative forms and has cross referenced them with what would have been their infinitives.

I don't know anything about Romanian irregular verbs, but does _corupe_ have alternative future tense forms?


----------



## jazyk

Romanian future and conditional are made up of an auxiliary plus the infinitive, so your suggestion unfortunately doesn't work here.


----------



## Forero

I know that the Spanish conjugations in Verbix include some verbs from Medieval Spanish, and some cross link to their modern forms.  I suspect Verbix includes some erroneous data due to trying to be "complete".


----------



## OldAvatar

SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> I'm shocked (not really) but I'm not sure which is the right way to say the verb "to corrupt" in Romanian (corupe?)
> 
> I think someone said Verbix had a few mistakes but anyway, here's where I saw "the verbs" (in alphabetical order):
> conrupe, corumpe, corupe
> 
> (hopefully someone can explain this mess)
> One little detail though, if indeed _corumpe_ or _conrupe_ don't exist, shouldn't the words turn blue and not show anything else when you search on DEX online?



DEX online has a function of correction. In case you type a word incorrectly, it will still give you the closest option available. Many of Romanian software dictionaries work like that.

Edit:

Now, I see that DEX online proposes indeed some variations of the word. Hmmm... I guess I can say _Mea culpa_. It is very strange. However (înv. - învechit) means that the word is archaic and therefore the word is not used in the language anymore. (rar. - rarisim) also means that the version of the word is very rare. To be honest if someone uses those words, it will sound like a mistake. Most of people wouldn't consider those words as being correct. And if you check the explanation from the Ortographic and Ortoepic Dictionary, you can notice that it doesn't even mention these variations anymore. There is an explanation regarding such variants of words. I'll try to detail it when I'll have a bit of time.

_a mere _*(to go) *is also a known regional variation of the word _a merge_, used especially in regions of Banat and Transylvania.


----------



## ancuta

OldAvatar is right. The only form left in Romanian is "a corupe". Anything else will be interpreted as a mistake.


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

So _corupe_ is the correct form to use today (yeah, _conrupe_ does sound funny, like a Disney character). I'm guessing the same with _rumpe/rupe_ (_rupe_) and eventually _irumpe/irupe (irupe_) which in any case only the _*M*_ was dropped.



			
				OldAvatar said:
			
		

> _a mere _*(to go) *is also a known regional variation of the word _a merge_, used especially in regions of Banat and Transylvania.


So there can be variations in certain regions but are these included?:
_>råmâne/råmânea_
_>scri/scria/__scrie_ 
_>mâne/mânea_
(eventually evolution ocurred and probably these verbs were switched to another/new group, correct?)

A while back I used "_a libera_" and people said it was archaic so instead they proposed "_a elibera_" which made me wonder why an_ *E*_ was added (although apparently _eliberare_ was also Latin, strange since in Spanish we kept _liberar/librar_ from _liberare_) 

Anyway, I'll wait for some more opinions.


----------



## OldAvatar

The problem is that when Romanian language was re-latinized, in the middle of 19th century, scholars had a doubt, whether to use the original Latin or Italian/French form of the words or to apply Romanian Grammar rules on them. For example, word *a (e)libera* didn't even exist in Romanian at that time, the Slavic word _a slobozi, slobozire_ was the normal word for *to free*. So, a similar perspective was used for words like _a corupe, corupere_, scholars weren't sure if it would be a good thing to keep the original Latin form or to apply Romanian rules on it. Therefore all forms were acceptable, until recent times... I guess time gave them an answer.
I hope I made some point, it is a bit late in night over here, and I'm not sure if I was clear enough.


----------



## robbie_SWE

OldAvatar said:


> The problem is that when Romanian language was re-latinized, in the middle of 19th century, scholars had a doubt, whether to use the original Latin or Italian/French form of the words or to apply Romanian Grammar rules on them. For example, word *a (e)libera* didn't even exist in Romanian at that time, the Slavic word _a slobozi, slobozire_ was the normal word for *to free*. So, a similar perspective was used for words like _a corupe, corupere_, scholars weren't sure if it would be a good thing to keep the original Latin form or to apply Romanian rules on it. Therefore all forms were acceptable, until recent times... I guess time gave them an answer.
> I hope I made some point, it is a bit late in night over here, and I'm not sure if I was clear enough.


 
You make perfect sense OldAvatar!  

 robbie


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

Wow. So when Romanian was re-latinized some verbs where re-introduced to match those of Latin. Since _OldAvatar_ didn't even know or was unaware that _corumpe_ existed (and he knows a lot) I'm guessing this was the earliest form used to match the Latin _corrumpere_ and eventually lost the -_m_- throughout the years. This would have been in the early 19th century or at most in the early 1900's.
I say this because archaisms exist in all languages but there are some that are sometimes mentioned/used when grandparents (or someone born before the 30's) talk and obviously new generations just have a blank face when they hear certain "unfamiliar" words.

So what about "_scri/scria/__scrie_ ", are these variations in different parts of Romania or is it included in the re-latinization?
(I'm guessing the 2nd since all 3 would belong to different conjugation groups)


----------



## OldAvatar

SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> some verbs where re-introduced to match those of Latin



Not re-introduced, just introduced.

See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Modern Romanian
_Toate fiinţele *umane* se nasc *libere* şi *egale* în *demnitate* şi în drepturi. Ele sunt înzestrate cu *raţiune* şi *conştiinţă* şi trebuie să se *comporte,*_ unele faţă de altele, în _*spiritul* *fraternităţii*._

Romanian without French and Italian loanwords:
_Toate fiinţele omeneşti se nasc *slobode* şi *deopotrivă* în *destoinicie* şi în drepturi. Ele sunt înzestrate cu înţelegere şi cuget şi *trebuie* să se poarte unele faţă de altele în *duh* de frăţietate._

It's funny that not only Slavic words were removed. _Cuget, omeneşti, frăţietate _or_ înţelegere, _for example, have Latin etymology, but they got removed too. 

See this link, for further examples, in my oppinion not a very accurate site, though, you can make an idea...


----------



## ancuta

OldAvatar,

where can I find more info online on the 19th century re-latinization of the Romanian language?

Thx


----------



## OldAvatar

ancuta said:


> OldAvatar,
> 
> where can I find more info online on the 19th century re-latinization of the Romanian language?
> 
> Thx



I'm sorry. I don't have any online resources about such a subject. However, you may google about *Şcoala Ardeleană*, that may help a bit.


----------

