(Tu) eres

THE phonetic match between the Latin future TU ERIS and the Castilian present tu eres is exact. The only possible objection, that the short eshould have produced a diphthong (hence *yeres), disappears in the light of the imperfect forms: era eres has met with general acceptance, some authors of historical grammars have recorded it with less than total conviction. ERIS, if retained in Spanish, would an isolated vestige, and an irregular one, of a Latin tense that otherwise vanished completely. The shift from future to present, moreover, lacks parallels in the spoken language, and a change involving a single form, independent of the verb system in general, has no precedents in Spanish or, apparently, in any other Romance language. This article proposes to show still another objection, one grounded in chronology, which makes the traditional derivation quite unacceptable. The historical grammars may register surprise or reservations regarding the derivation ERIS > eres, but by advancing no alternative they imply at least tentative acquiescence. Meyer-Liibke, usually no enemy of atomistic explanations, injects a grain of salt by noting that eres must be from ERIS.1 Others, such as Hanssen and Elcock, report the change without comment.2 Bourciez, perhaps more skeptical, acknowledges un remarcable transfert du futur au present.3 Garcia de Diego remains noncommittal: Eres co

Linguistics · Neologism · Basque language and culture studies · Linguistics and language evolution · Philosophy · Spanish Linguistics and Language Studies

• Anti-homophony and rhizotony in the Spanish preterite

  Richard E Morris•Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone…•2024

  Add to list