Some forms of être are certainly derived from stare. But the infinitive probably not. The development is probably CL esse > VL essere > OF estre. The OF infinitive estre contrasts with ester < stare (the verb still exists though restricted to set phrases, like ester en justice). (Click)Back to "sedere" (to sit), it's rather odd that other forms in French (stem ét- for the imperfect, past participle été, gerund étant, infinitive être) derive from "stare" (to stand). Italian past participle "stato" (Catalan "estat") also have that origin. Besides, the second verb to be "estar" in Spanish/Portuguese/Catalan also derives completely from "stare".
The problem is that Old Spanish forms like seer derive straightforwardly from sedere, not *essere.But now that I read CapnPrep link that affirms the French stem "ser-" (probably Italian ser-/sar- too) come from esse> (es)sere> ser-, I have doubts. This explanation would be much more logical in Iberian Romance too.
That would be the simplest explanation, a priori, but the evidence seems to point toward a more complex state of affairs. Another thing to keep in mind is that words can have more than one etymological origin. So a given form might derive to varying degrees from both sedere and *essere. I don't think this is likely to be the case in French or Italian, but it could perhaps be argued for some parts of the Spanish paradigm.merquiades said:I think all these ser- forms must derive from the same source (whatever it is).
This shows that the link between the future/conditional and the infinitive is very strong in Portuguese, stronger than in the other Romance varieties. So it actually argues against Outsider's suggestion, that the future/conditional of ser might have a different origin from the infinitive (e.g. borrowed from French or Italian).That's probably because you have to break up the forms when you add object pronouns in the middle: falar-te-ia.
I agree, probably influenced by darà, farà.... I see Italian modern "sarà" just as a variant....
I don't think that it's a hesitation. Verbs in -are change this "a" quite regurarly in "e" (perhaps because of some kind of euphony). In case of dare the vowel "a" is rather "felt" as part of the stem and not of the infitive ending -are. The same in fare, which comes from an earlier facere.... There appears to be a lot of er/ar hesitation in the Italian future/conditional stem in general. Regular "are" verbs switch "a" for "e" whereas ser- becomes sar-. Other one syllable stems have "ar" too: darà, farà.
I think here we have two different phenomena: sedere becomes seer (eventually ser) for merely phonetic reasons (lenition of "d") independently on the meaning of the verb, while in case of stare there is a certain "semantic shift".There is an underlying notion of sitting and standing mixed into the equation of forming "to be" in Romance that I don't quite grasp.
There is a tendency to use the present instead of the future indicative, in Spanish as well as Portuguese, I believe. (Actually, this is common cross-linguistically, and found in the other languages mentioned in this thread.)
That's an interesting observation, but I disagree with your conclusion. As a matter of fact the forms of the future and the conditional with detached and infixed pronouns (mesoclisis) are clearly confined to high registers today (the spoken language tends to avoid them even in Portugal; and of course Brazilians find them rather alien). Perhaps this has always been the case!This shows that the link between the future/conditional and the infinitive is very strong in Portuguese, stronger than in the other Romance varieties. So it actually argues against Outsider's suggestion, that the future/conditional of ser might have a different origin from the infinitive (e.g. borrowed from French or Italian).
Using the imperfect subjunctive instead of the conditional is rather 'high register', and limited to a short number of verbs. Using the conditional instead of the imperfect subjunctive, on the other hand, is common for 'low registers' in places like Bilbao or Buenos Aires, for example "lo haría si podría".As for the conditional, while in modern Spanish it is not replaced by the imperfect indicative as frequently as happens in European Portuguese, in Spanish, historically as well as today, it is frequently conflated with the imperfect subjunctive.
In theory, I could accept this as a possible hypothesis/explanation, but it seems to me a bit "strong", i.e. a relatively "radical" influence on the grammar of the Iberian Romance. Can we suppose/admit such an ifluence of Italian or French on the Iberian Romance from a historical point of view?... So my suggestion -- which I have not had the chance to verify -- is that the future and the conditional might have been late additions to Spanish and Portuguese, borrowed from other Romance languages rather than developed directly from Latin ...
Please report back if you find any evidence to back this up. Future and conditional forms are used frequently in the earliest Spanish and Galician-Portuguese texts, so maybe you meant "late within the Proto-Romance period", although I don't see how this could possibly be proven, and I very much doubt that their status as high-register borrowed forms would have been maintained continuously for 1000 years…So my suggestion -- which I have not had the chance to verify -- is that the future and the conditional might have been late additions to Spanish and Portuguese, borrowed from other Romance languages rather than developed directly from Latin.
There is already (at least) one:At the moment, a common heritage from the "Protoromance" seems to me a more plausible hypothesis. This discussion leads necessarily to a more general question: where do the compuond tenses in the Romance languages come from? But this is evidently a question for a separate thread ...