174. (1) In the first and fourth conjugations we find in Latin the
following endings:--
_-āvī_ _-āī_ _-āvĭmus_ _-īvī_ _-īī_ _-īvĭmus_
_-āvĭstī_ _-āstī_ _-āvĭstis_ _-īvĭstī_ _-īstī_ _-īvĭstis_ _-īstis_
_-āstis_
_-āvit_ _-aut_ _-āvēre_ _-īvit_ _-īit_ _-īt_ _-īvēre_ _-īvē̆runt_
_-āvē̆runt_ _-ārunt_ _-īrunt_
The popular speech preferred in every case the shortened form, and
generally reduced _-āvĭmus_, _-īvĭmus_ to _-āmus_, _-īmus_ (in southern
Gaul _-āmu’_, _-īmu’_: § 167), on the analogy of the 2d pers. sg. and
pl.
(2) In the second conjugation a few verbs (_delēre_, _flēre_, _nēre_,
_-olēre_, _-plēre_, _viēre_) had similar endings (_delēvī_, etc.),
which were doubtless contracted in like fashion in so far as these
words were in common use. Most verbs of this conjugation, however, had
strong preterits (_tacēre_, _tacuī_; _vidēre_, _vīdī_; etc.).
(3) The third conjugation had in classic Latin no weak endings
corresponding to those of the first, second, and fourth; but the
vulgar speech developed a set in the following manner. Compounds of
_dare_ formed their perfect in _-dĭdī_ (_perdĭdī_); this _-dĭdī_,
in accordance with the principle set forth in § 16, 3, came to
be pronounced -dę́dị (_condédi_); and -dędị, probably through
dissimilation[124], was shortened to -dęi (✱_credéi_). With this form
as a starting-point, a weak preterit was created on the analogy of
those of the other conjugations, the endings being something like -ęi,
-ęstị, -ęt, -ęmus -ęmu’, -ęstis, -ęrunt. This inflection was probably
extended to some verbs outside the _-dĕre_ class (✱_battéi_, etc.?).
175. (1) In Provençal the weak inflection disappeared from the second
conjugation, _delēre_ and _-plēre_ passing into the fourth, and the
other weak verbs going out of use.
(2) Verbs of the fourth conjugation (except venir) all took the weak
endings -í, -íst, -í, -ím, -ítz, -íron: partí, partíst, partí, partím,
partítz, partíron. Irregular verbs either disappeared or became regular
(_sensī_ = sentí), with the exception of _venīre_ ＞ venir (vinc).[125]
(3) The new weak endings of the third conjugation developed into -ęi,
-ęst, -ęt, -ém, -ętz, -ęron: vendęi, vendęst, vendęt, vendém, vendętz,
vendęron. In the 1st pers. sg. the ę often broke (vendięi), and the
diphthong was sometimes carried into the 2d pers. sg. (vendięst).
These endings were considerably extended in Provençal (cazęt, etc.),
and were occasionally attached to a strong preterit stem (nasquęt,
tesquęt, venquęt, visquęt). Most verbs, however, kept their strong
preterit (mis, conọc). The _-īvī_ perfect disappeared from the third
conjugation: _quæsīvit_ ＞ ✱_quæsit_ ＞ quẹs.
(4) The first conjugation discarded its own weak endings, and
substituted those of the third: cantęi cantięi, cantęst cantięst,
cantęt, cantém, cantętz, cantęron. This strange phenomenon seems to
have originated as follows: _dare_, _dĕdī_ ＞ dar, dęi; from dar the
ending -ęi was readily extended to estar (estęi); and from these two
very common verbs it spread to the whole first conjugation.
Irregular verbs (except _dare_, _stare_) either disappeared or became
regular.
1. According to Meyer-Lübke, _Gram._, II, p. 304, Latin _-ai_
became by phonetic process -ęi in Vulgar Latin, and -ęi or -ięi
in Provençal. There seems to be no evidence to support this
theory. Cf. § 23, 2.
2. In the dialects of Béarn and Catalonia the original _a_
remains in some parts of the preterit.
176. A final -c, which developed in the strong _-ui_ preterits (§
184), often became attached to the 3d pers. sg. of weak preterits
of the fourth conjugation: floríc, fugíc, iauzíc, partíc.[126] It
was sometimes extended to other weak preterits: chantęc, entendęc,
nasquęc,[127] paręc.[128] We find also a 3d pers. pl. cazęgron, etc.,
and even a 1st pers. sg. ameguí, etc. In some western dialects the
final -c was adopted by the whole first conjugation: donęc, portęc, etc.