Le verbe "aller" dans les langues latines
Le verbe Fr <aller> = Es <ir> est très irrégulier en français :
Indicatif présent
je vais - tu vas - il va
nous allons - vous allez - ils vont
Indicatif imparfait
j'allais - tu allais - il allait
nous allions - vous alliez - ils allaient
Indicatif passé simple
j'allai - tu allas - il alla
nous allâmes - vous allâtes - ils allèrent
Indicatif passé composé
je suis allé - tu es allé - il est allé
nous sommes allés - vous êtes allés - ils sont allés
Indicatif futur
j'irai - tu iras - il ira
nous irons - vous irez - ils iront
Conditionnel présent
j'irais - tu irais - il irait
nous irions - vous iriez - ils iraient
Subjonctif présent
j'aille - tu ailles - il aille
nous allions - vous alliez - ils aillent
Subjonctif imparfait
j'allasse - tu allasses - il allât
nous allassions - vous allassiez - ils allassent
Est-ce que c'est aussi le cas en espagnol, catalan, italien, portugais, roumain, interlingua et autres langues latines ?
Le catalan présente une irrégularité comparable et je dirais que l'italien aussi. Quant à l'espagnol, c'est encore pire. L'irregularité là est extrème car les formes du passé n'ont rien à voir ni avec l'infinitif ni avec le présent ni avec le futur.
IR
/el va/ indicatif présent
/el irá/ indicatif futur
/el fue/ indicatif passé
The french verb "aller" can easily be associated with English.
To go for a walk in the alley.
Also, Va - invade & evade.
Joan & Gjones2 : est-ce que je me trompe en imaginant que Es <fue> et Po <fui> & <fosse> sont en fait issus des étymons latins du verbe <être> au passé ?
Le portugais a même les formes <for> & <fora>.
By association:
A very commonly used IRregular verb in spanish is "ir".
I believe that the English verbs to invade (Fr: envahissez)
and to evade (Fr: eludez), which have a go element within
them, came from the same Latin source as did such romance
go words as vais, vas and va.
Greg,
Il semble que ce soit une hypothèse vraisemblable. "IR"/"SER" coincident à la lettre lorsqu'il s'âgit des temps passés, indicatif et subjonctif.
Geoff One,
You're right to believe there must be the same Latin source behind these words. The difference being that in English they have been "borrowed" from Latin whilst in roman languages they have naturally "evolved" from vulgar Latin.
Joan,
Only a small portion of the loans comes directly from Latin.Most words come from French wich kind of means they too have 'evolved' from Latin.
What's interesting is that "ir" (to go) and "ser" (to be) both end up as "fui, fuiste, fue, fuimos, fueron" in the preterite. Does this happen in other languages as well?
An hypothesis:
Spanish distinguishes between IR/ANDAR.
Sp. IR: yo voy, tu vas, el va ... and then: yo iba (past) yo iré (fut.)
Sp.ANDAR: yo ando, tu andas, el anda... and then: yo andaba (past)
While other languages don't.
Cat.ANAR: jo vaig, tu vas, ell va... but then: jo anava (past) jo aniré (fut.)
It.ANDARE: io vado, tu vai ... but then: io andavo (past) io andró (fut.)
Fr.ALLER: je vais, tu vas, il va ... but then: j'allais (past), BUT J'IRAI (fut.)
Couldn't be these verbs as they are nowadays the result of a "collage" of preexisting verbal forms belonging to initially different verbs?
That would explain so many irregularities.
Catalan and Occitan "anar", French "aller" and Italian "andare" come from the Latin word "ambulare", which means "to walk".
Spanish and Portuguese "ir" come from Latin "ire", the original word for "to go" in Latin. The Latin word "ambulare" has survived as "andar" in both languages, with its original meaning of "to walk".
The present tense of those verbs comes from the conjugation of "vadere" who (surprise!) also means "to walk".
The French future tense (j'irai) comes from the Latin word "ire".
>What's interesting is that "ir" (to go) and "ser" (to be) both end up as "fui, fuiste, fue, fuimos, fueron" in the preterite. [Uriel]
Here's a net explanation (not very clear but probably better than nothing): "Why do ser and ir have the same form in the preterite? First, it is really the perfect conjugation of the Latin verb esse which came to be used for both ser and ir in Spanish. In Spoken Latin, the preposition in (> Sp. en) used with a location signified «movement toward». Also, ser and estar did not have the same restrictions in Old Spanish that they do in Modern Spanish and consequently ser occurred at times where one might expect estar. Thus fuerunt in campum = «they were (moving/in route) toward the country», e. g., eventually came to mean «they went to the country», and this paradigm eventually became associated with the infinitive ir «to go»."
http://tinyurl.com/8mvlk
The gist seems to be that the preterite forms originally came from 'esse' (to be), but in Latin when used with the preposition 'in' -- and, if I recall correctly, the accusative case -- those forms could imply movement. This led to their having not only the meaning 'was'/'were' but 'went' too.
That happened in Spanish and Portuguese, but apparently modern French and Italian went in a different direction.