![]() Classical Latin had distinct past tense conjugations for esse “to be” and īre “to go”. The fue/fue example underscores the importance of this capability even in untroubled speech.Īs for the historical side, the facts of the merger are clear. In general, people are skilled at using context to fill in gaps in meaning-this is how we’re able to communicate effectively despite speech errors, static phone lines, and other complications. The reverse interpretations just don’t make sense. Likewise, Juan Carlos fue a Barcelona can only mean that he went to Barcelona. Juan Carlos fue el primer rey de España después de Franco can only mean that Juan Carlos was the first king of Spain after Franco. ![]() ![]() In practice, of course, context invariably prevents confusion. They always wonder how Spanish speakers deal with this ambiguity: “How can they tell which one is which?” As a linguist I’m also interested in the historical side of the question: since the purpose of language is to convey meaning, how did such an ambiguous situation evolve? Those of us who have spoken Spanish for years take this fact for granted, but it’s rather a shock when new students encounter it for the first time. Fui can mean either “I was” or “I went,” fuiste can mean either “you were” or “you went,” and so on. When you stop to think about it, it’s rather amazing that two of the most common Spanish verbs, ser “to be” and ir “to go,” are identical in the past tense.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |