|Verb conjugation exception
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||topa [ 2009 09 29, 11:43 ]|
|Post subject:||Verb conjugation exception|
I have a question about the conjugation of verbs, more specific about the exceptions. The verb 'būti' is a complete exception because you don't take the second main form to make the conjugation in the present tense and now I was wondering if there are still other verbs of which the conjugation is completely different from the standard rule, or is ' būti' the only verb?
|Author:||asCii [ 2009 09 29, 16:28 ]|
There are no other irregular verbs like that one.
|Author:||topa [ 2009 09 30, 08:04 ]|
thank you, Ačiū
|Author:||rinkevichjm [ 2010 04 25, 16:21 ]|
|Post subject:||"Some Unique features of Lithuanian"|
Dr A. Klimas, in the Lituanus article http://www.lituanus.org/1984_3/84_3_05.htm" Some Unique features of Lithuanian wrote this
V. Lithuanian has developed four different present tense conjugational patterns of the verb būti 'to be:'
(aš) esmi esu būnu būvu 'I am'
(tu) esi esi būni būvi 'thou art'
(jis) esti yra būna būva 'he is'
(mes) esame esame būname būvame 'we are'
(jūs) esate esate būnate būvate 'you are (pl)'
(jie) esti yra būna būva 'they are'
The first two patterns are really based on the ancient Indo-European root *es- 'to be,' and the last two are based on another Indo-European root *bheu-/*bhou-/*bhu-which also meant 'to be.' In the course of many centuries, even millennia, certain subtle semantic shifts have developed between these forms, and the normative, or school grammars of Lithuanian usually present only the second pattern, but all four are still used in various dialects and regions of Lithuanian. Although the form esm; 'I am' is at least 5,000 years old, it is exactly the same as in the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European. But the most mysterious form in the whole system is yra 'is/are.' Nobody can explain its origin, and some linguists surmise that yra is not even a verbal form as we understand it today, but a very ancient petrified noun, or, rather, an apellative word from those primordial times when no distinction was "felt" between what we today understand as a "noun" and a "verb." [Cf. Jonas Kazlauskas, Istorinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius, 1968.]
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC + 2 hours|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group