Why are the 2nd/3rd singular forms of present of « potere » irregular?Relationship between indicativo presente and congiuntivo presente of 1st person plural (noi) conjugation?Is ‘cosare’ equivalent to the generic use of ‘do’ in English?Is 'si dispiace' ever an acceptable form of the verb dispiacere?Etymology of conjugation 2-person singularWhy are these two conjugations of 'viaggiare' irregular forms?How and why did avere get the 'h' in some present tense forms?Why do the numbers change format at 17-19?What's the origin of /ʎ/ sound of “gli”?Why does “congiuntivo imperfetto” come from Latin subjunctive pluperfect instead of subjunctive imperfect?How did “sapere” lose the middle consonant P in its indicative present table?Is “Cafeé und Thée Logia” partly Italian?
Is there an idiom that means that a clothe fits perfectly?
Are modes in jazz primarily a melody thing?
Learning how to read schematics, questions about fractional voltage in schematic
How to get file name from inside a latex file?
Splitting polygons and dividing attribute value proportionally using ArcGIS Pro?
Did any early RISC OS precursor run on the BBC Micro?
Many one decreasing function?
How do I give a darkroom course without negs from the attendees?
Would a legitimized Baratheon have the best claim for the Iron Throne?
How is it believable that Euron could so easily pull off this ambush?
What detail can Hubble see on Mars?
Why did not Iron man upload his complete memory onto a computer?
What does the copyright in a dissertation protect exactly?
My C Drive is full without reason
Why is there a cap on 401k contributions?
How does "politician" work as a job/career?
Did Ham the Chimp follow commands, or did he just randomly push levers?
The unknown and unexplained in science fiction
LiOH hydrolysis of methyl 2,2-dimethoxyacetate not giving product?
If quadruped mammals evolve to become bipedal will their breast or nipple change position?
What is more safe for browsing the web: PC or smartphone?
What's the difference between "ricochet" and "bounce"?
And now you see it
If an attacker targets a creature with the Sanctuary spell cast on them, but fails the Wisdom save, can they choose not to attack anyone else?
Why are the 2nd/3rd singular forms of present of « potere » irregular?
Relationship between indicativo presente and congiuntivo presente of 1st person plural (noi) conjugation?Is ‘cosare’ equivalent to the generic use of ‘do’ in English?Is 'si dispiace' ever an acceptable form of the verb dispiacere?Etymology of conjugation 2-person singularWhy are these two conjugations of 'viaggiare' irregular forms?How and why did avere get the 'h' in some present tense forms?Why do the numbers change format at 17-19?What's the origin of /ʎ/ sound of “gli”?Why does “congiuntivo imperfetto” come from Latin subjunctive pluperfect instead of subjunctive imperfect?How did “sapere” lose the middle consonant P in its indicative present table?Is “Cafeé und Thée Logia” partly Italian?
The verb potere comes from Latin posse and the conjugation table follows regular Latin → Italian patterns except for puoi and può. Why is that?
Latin Italian
possum posso
potes puoi
potest può
possimus* possiamo
potestis potete
possunt possono
Why doesn't Italian speak tu *poti and lui *pote?
* Latin possimus is given as the origin of possiamo instead of possumus because all 1st-person plural indicative present forms of Italian verbs are back-ported from the subjunctive present forms.
verbs etymology
asked Apr 28 at 16:43
iBugiBug
61211
add a comment |
The verb potere comes from Latin posse and the conjugation table follows regular Latin → Italian patterns except for puoi and può. Why is that?
Latin Italian
possum posso
potes puoi
potest può
possimus* possiamo
potestis potete
possunt possono
Why doesn't Italian speak tu *poti and lui *pote?
* Latin possimus is given as the origin of possiamo instead of possumus because all 1st-person plural indicative present forms of Italian verbs are back-ported from the subjunctive present forms.
verbs etymology
asked Apr 28 at 16:43
iBugiBug
61211
Wasn't it possumus? In general, it is pot- + forms of sum verb.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:53
@DaG Specifically regarding the fact that all Italian noi forms of indicative present are backported from subjunctive present.
– iBug
Apr 28 at 16:54
Not sure I understand: you have deliberately given the subjunctive rather than the indicative form for the 4th person for that reason? If so, perhaps you could make a note about it.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:56
@DaG That's right. I added a note about that
– iBug
Apr 28 at 17:02
Perfect, thanks.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 17:05
add a comment |
The verb potere comes from Latin posse and the conjugation table follows regular Latin → Italian patterns except for puoi and può. Why is that?
Latin Italian
possum posso
potes puoi
potest può
possimus* possiamo
potestis potete
possunt possono
Why doesn't Italian speak tu *poti and lui *pote?
* Latin possimus is given as the origin of possiamo instead of possumus because all 1st-person plural indicative present forms of Italian verbs are back-ported from the subjunctive present forms.
verbs etymology
asked Apr 28 at 16:43
iBugiBug
61211
The verb potere comes from Latin posse and the conjugation table follows regular Latin → Italian patterns except for puoi and può. Why is that?
Latin Italian
possum posso
potes puoi
potest può
possimus* possiamo
potestis potete
possunt possono
Why doesn't Italian speak tu *poti and lui *pote?
* Latin possimus is given as the origin of possiamo instead of possumus because all 1st-person plural indicative present forms of Italian verbs are back-ported from the subjunctive present forms.
verbs etymology
verbs etymology
asked Apr 28 at 16:43
iBugiBug
61211
asked Apr 28 at 16:43
iBugiBug
61211
edited Apr 28 at 17:02
iBug
asked Apr 28 at 16:43
iBugiBug
61211
asked Apr 28 at 16:43
iBugiBug
61211
asked Apr 28 at 16:43
iBugiBug
61211
61211
Wasn't it possumus? In general, it is pot- + forms of sum verb.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:53
@DaG Specifically regarding the fact that all Italian noi forms of indicative present are backported from subjunctive present.
– iBug
Apr 28 at 16:54
Not sure I understand: you have deliberately given the subjunctive rather than the indicative form for the 4th person for that reason? If so, perhaps you could make a note about it.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:56
@DaG That's right. I added a note about that
– iBug
Apr 28 at 17:02
Perfect, thanks.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 17:05
add a comment |
Wasn't it possumus? In general, it is pot- + forms of sum verb.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:53
@DaG Specifically regarding the fact that all Italian noi forms of indicative present are backported from subjunctive present.
– iBug
Apr 28 at 16:54
Not sure I understand: you have deliberately given the subjunctive rather than the indicative form for the 4th person for that reason? If so, perhaps you could make a note about it.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:56
@DaG That's right. I added a note about that
– iBug
Apr 28 at 17:02
Perfect, thanks.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 17:05
Wasn't it possumus? In general, it is pot- + forms of sum verb.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:53
Wasn't it possumus? In general, it is pot- + forms of sum verb.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:53
@DaG Specifically regarding the fact that all Italian noi forms of indicative present are backported from subjunctive present.
– iBug
Apr 28 at 16:54
@DaG Specifically regarding the fact that all Italian noi forms of indicative present are backported from subjunctive present.
– iBug
Apr 28 at 16:54
Not sure I understand: you have deliberately given the subjunctive rather than the indicative form for the 4th person for that reason? If so, perhaps you could make a note about it.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:56
Not sure I understand: you have deliberately given the subjunctive rather than the indicative form for the 4th person for that reason? If so, perhaps you could make a note about it.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:56
@DaG That's right. I added a note about that
– iBug
Apr 28 at 17:02
@DaG That's right. I added a note about that
– iBug
Apr 28 at 17:02
Perfect, thanks.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 17:05
Perfect, thanks.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 17:05
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The forms puoti and puote (obtained from poti and pote by regular stressed open syllable diphtongization) are in fact attested in the early Tuscan and survived in literary Italian till quite late (in fact, arguably till today, even). See for example the famous verse, from Dante's Comedy
Vuolsi così colà dove si puote
ciò che si vuole, e più non dimandare
("So it is wanted where one is able to do what one wants, and ask no more"). And, from the 1912 edition of Il Milione, chapter XCIII
Signore re, aguale ben puoti vedere che tu non se’ da guerreggiare con meco.
The passage from puote to può is in line with the elision of many final -te and -de in Italian: from cittade to città and from virtute to virtù.
It is a bit harder to explain how to go from puoti to puoi. I was unable to find a solid indication of the reason for this change in the literature (Röhlfs simply says it is a "simplification"). The best conjecture I can make is that this is by analogy to the (regular) form vuoi of volere. This is supported by the existence of an archaic third singular form puole or pole clearly influenced from vuole that survived in various regional languages (cfr. pòle in Pisa, pöl in Turin, pòle in Treia (Marche) and pól in Venice).
It is not impossible that this passed through an uncertainly attested *puoli (by analogy with the archaic vuoli), which lost the intervocalic l as it happened for many other words. Of course analogic pressure from può cannot be discarded either.
answered Apr 28 at 19:31
Denis Nardin♦Denis Nardin
7,25221541
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "524"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fitalian.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10457%2fwhy-are-the-2nd-3rd-singular-forms-of-present-of-potere-irregular%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The forms puoti and puote (obtained from poti and pote by regular stressed open syllable diphtongization) are in fact attested in the early Tuscan and survived in literary Italian till quite late (in fact, arguably till today, even). See for example the famous verse, from Dante's Comedy
Vuolsi così colà dove si puote
ciò che si vuole, e più non dimandare
("So it is wanted where one is able to do what one wants, and ask no more"). And, from the 1912 edition of Il Milione, chapter XCIII
Signore re, aguale ben puoti vedere che tu non se’ da guerreggiare con meco.
The passage from puote to può is in line with the elision of many final -te and -de in Italian: from cittade to città and from virtute to virtù.
It is a bit harder to explain how to go from puoti to puoi. I was unable to find a solid indication of the reason for this change in the literature (Röhlfs simply says it is a "simplification"). The best conjecture I can make is that this is by analogy to the (regular) form vuoi of volere. This is supported by the existence of an archaic third singular form puole or pole clearly influenced from vuole that survived in various regional languages (cfr. pòle in Pisa, pöl in Turin, pòle in Treia (Marche) and pól in Venice).
It is not impossible that this passed through an uncertainly attested *puoli (by analogy with the archaic vuoli), which lost the intervocalic l as it happened for many other words. Of course analogic pressure from può cannot be discarded either.
answered Apr 28 at 19:31
Denis Nardin♦Denis Nardin
7,25221541
add a comment |
The forms puoti and puote (obtained from poti and pote by regular stressed open syllable diphtongization) are in fact attested in the early Tuscan and survived in literary Italian till quite late (in fact, arguably till today, even). See for example the famous verse, from Dante's Comedy
Vuolsi così colà dove si puote
ciò che si vuole, e più non dimandare
("So it is wanted where one is able to do what one wants, and ask no more"). And, from the 1912 edition of Il Milione, chapter XCIII
Signore re, aguale ben puoti vedere che tu non se’ da guerreggiare con meco.
The passage from puote to può is in line with the elision of many final -te and -de in Italian: from cittade to città and from virtute to virtù.
It is a bit harder to explain how to go from puoti to puoi. I was unable to find a solid indication of the reason for this change in the literature (Röhlfs simply says it is a "simplification"). The best conjecture I can make is that this is by analogy to the (regular) form vuoi of volere. This is supported by the existence of an archaic third singular form puole or pole clearly influenced from vuole that survived in various regional languages (cfr. pòle in Pisa, pöl in Turin, pòle in Treia (Marche) and pól in Venice).
It is not impossible that this passed through an uncertainly attested *puoli (by analogy with the archaic vuoli), which lost the intervocalic l as it happened for many other words. Of course analogic pressure from può cannot be discarded either.
answered Apr 28 at 19:31
Denis Nardin♦Denis Nardin
7,25221541
add a comment |
The forms puoti and puote (obtained from poti and pote by regular stressed open syllable diphtongization) are in fact attested in the early Tuscan and survived in literary Italian till quite late (in fact, arguably till today, even). See for example the famous verse, from Dante's Comedy
Vuolsi così colà dove si puote
ciò che si vuole, e più non dimandare
("So it is wanted where one is able to do what one wants, and ask no more"). And, from the 1912 edition of Il Milione, chapter XCIII
Signore re, aguale ben puoti vedere che tu non se’ da guerreggiare con meco.
The passage from puote to può is in line with the elision of many final -te and -de in Italian: from cittade to città and from virtute to virtù.
It is a bit harder to explain how to go from puoti to puoi. I was unable to find a solid indication of the reason for this change in the literature (Röhlfs simply says it is a "simplification"). The best conjecture I can make is that this is by analogy to the (regular) form vuoi of volere. This is supported by the existence of an archaic third singular form puole or pole clearly influenced from vuole that survived in various regional languages (cfr. pòle in Pisa, pöl in Turin, pòle in Treia (Marche) and pól in Venice).
It is not impossible that this passed through an uncertainly attested *puoli (by analogy with the archaic vuoli), which lost the intervocalic l as it happened for many other words. Of course analogic pressure from può cannot be discarded either.
answered Apr 28 at 19:31
Denis Nardin♦Denis Nardin
7,25221541
The forms puoti and puote (obtained from poti and pote by regular stressed open syllable diphtongization) are in fact attested in the early Tuscan and survived in literary Italian till quite late (in fact, arguably till today, even). See for example the famous verse, from Dante's Comedy
Vuolsi così colà dove si puote
ciò che si vuole, e più non dimandare
("So it is wanted where one is able to do what one wants, and ask no more"). And, from the 1912 edition of Il Milione, chapter XCIII
Signore re, aguale ben puoti vedere che tu non se’ da guerreggiare con meco.
The passage from puote to può is in line with the elision of many final -te and -de in Italian: from cittade to città and from virtute to virtù.
It is a bit harder to explain how to go from puoti to puoi. I was unable to find a solid indication of the reason for this change in the literature (Röhlfs simply says it is a "simplification"). The best conjecture I can make is that this is by analogy to the (regular) form vuoi of volere. This is supported by the existence of an archaic third singular form puole or pole clearly influenced from vuole that survived in various regional languages (cfr. pòle in Pisa, pöl in Turin, pòle in Treia (Marche) and pól in Venice).
It is not impossible that this passed through an uncertainly attested *puoli (by analogy with the archaic vuoli), which lost the intervocalic l as it happened for many other words. Of course analogic pressure from può cannot be discarded either.
answered Apr 28 at 19:31
Denis Nardin♦Denis Nardin
7,25221541
edited Apr 28 at 20:05
answered Apr 28 at 19:31
Denis Nardin♦Denis Nardin
7,25221541
answered Apr 28 at 19:31
Denis Nardin♦Denis Nardin
7,25221541
answered Apr 28 at 19:31
Denis Nardin♦Denis Nardin
7,25221541
7,25221541
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Italian Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fitalian.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10457%2fwhy-are-the-2nd-3rd-singular-forms-of-present-of-potere-irregular%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Wasn't it possumus? In general, it is pot- + forms of sum verb.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:53
@DaG Specifically regarding the fact that all Italian noi forms of indicative present are backported from subjunctive present.
– iBug
Apr 28 at 16:54
Not sure I understand: you have deliberately given the subjunctive rather than the indicative form for the 4th person for that reason? If so, perhaps you could make a note about it.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 16:56
@DaG That's right. I added a note about that
– iBug
Apr 28 at 17:02
Perfect, thanks.
– DaG
Apr 28 at 17:05