Considerations to some forms of the verb a fi : sum and sunt

The history of the verbal forms sum and sunt, introduced into the literary writing by the Transylvanian Latinist School, reveals a winding process in the elaboration of certain cultured norms proper to the modern literary Romanian. Not at all linear, this process was concurrently influenced by two, often divergent, tendencies that were active from the end of the 18th century up to the beginning of the 20th century: the use of some cultured forms, borrowed from Latin or created according to Latin patterns; and the revitalization of certain linguistic forms with regional diffusion.
 Initially proposed as literary pronunciations, the two verbal forms were soon adopted and used as etymological graphic forms that corresponded to sîm and suntu from certain conservative patois. During the second half of the 19th century (sum), and during the first decades of the 20th century (sunt), the two graphic forms became orthoepic norms as well, due to the phonological tradition of the Romanian writing.

, to embracing certain Latino-Romance models (the classes of adjectives and adverbs ended in -e, see Avram, 1992a, p. 234-250, and the participial forms in -înd and -ind, see Avram, 1992b, p. 205-217), or to the imposition of some verbal forms of cultured type (like sum and sunt).
The history of the two aforementioned verbal forms, graphic or/and of pronunciation, reveals a winding process in the elaboration of certain cultured norms proper to the modern literary Romanian, a process indissolubly linked to the Transylvanian Latinist movement.Not at all linear, this process was concurrently influenced by two tendencies, not always convergent, present and highly active in the Romanian literary writing, from the end of the 18 th century up to the beginning of the 20 th century: the use of some cultured forms, borrowed from Latin or created according to Latin patterns; and the revitalization of certain linguistic forms with regional diffusion.
› II.1.The authors of the thesaurus Dicționarului tezaur al limbii române [The Dictionary of the Romanian Language], the only lexicographic work intended to the general public that records sum, write in a lapidary manner, without any illustration, that "the forms sum [I am], sunt [they are], suntem [we are], sunteți [you are, pl.] were introduced into the literary language by the Latinist school" (da 1934, p. 113, s.v. fi), the observation being almost exactly reproduced in Micul dicționar academic [The Small Academic Dictionary] (mda 2002, p. 410, s.v. fi).
By saying so, Sextil Pușcariu was referring, of course, to the main grammar work that had illustrated the academic Latinism, Gramateca limbei române [The Grammar of the Romanian Language] (Cipariu, 1869(Cipariu, /1987(Cipariu, , 1876(Cipariu, /1992)), where sum had been recommended as the basic form of the "substantive verb" a fi [to be], both in the section reserved to the morphological description of the language, and in the section with examples concerning the syntax (Cipariu, 1869(Cipariu, /1987, p. 274;, p. 274;1876/1992, p. 19, 21, 71, 83, 206, 214).Nevertheless, Sextil Pușcariu knew, undoubtedly, that the same form had appeared in some previous works of the scholar from Blaj (Cipariu, 1854;1855;1866).Timotei Cipariu accepted and used a linguistic form that had been constantly appearing in the writings of the Transylvanian Latinists, since the end of the 18 th century3 .
The form sum (spelled sủm, from 1819 on, in many a text written with etymological alphabet), which was not at all scarce in the programmatic works by scholars who belonged to the Transylvanian Enlightenment 7 , made its way into various texts that were being printed in Transylvania, but also into some of the schoolbooks printed in Moldavia and Wallachia.In these regions, beside sum (or sủm)-in manuals printed with Latin letters and etymological orthography-there are sõm, s m or s mŭ-in grammars written with Cyrillic letters or with the "alphabet of transition".
The form sum, spelled as such in texts authored by Transylvanian Latinists and by other Transylvanians or Moldavians who had been influenced by the linguistic concepts of the first-mentioned thinkers, had a quite limited echo in the Romanian texts of the second half of the 19 th century.
Timotei Cipariu, who had had recommended it (see supra) in the first academic Grammar of the Romanian Language (Bucharest, 1869), used to avoid it in his non-linguistic writings 10 ; and A.T. Laurian

Lexicon.)
7 The use of sum in the Viennese Calendariu from 1794 is only a seeming exception to this assertation, since, by publishing the translation called Istoria amerii, Paul Iorgovici aimed at popularizing a new type of belletristic texts, and also at illustrating a particular attitude towards the form of a literary piece of writing.For all of these, see Chivu (2002b, p. 149-158).
8 Petru Maller had printed, in Buda, in 1832, Grammatică hungarico-valachică [A Hungarian-Wallachian Grammar] for schools (Maller, 1832). 9The entire fragment, like the book itself, is written with Cyrillic letters, with the exception of sum.Therefore, the author might have used it here to indicate not a Romanian flexional form, but a Latin equivalent (or the etymon?) for (î)sủ. 10The form sum-which is not used in Jurnal [Diary] (written, nevertheless, in 1836), in Scrisorildin Italia [Letters from Italy] (1852), and in Memorii [Memoirs] (1855) (see Cipariu, 1972)-appears once in a discourse prepared in 1863, for the and I.C.Massim did not select it, as a recommendable form (s.v.fire), in Dicționarul limbei române-the first project of an academic dictionary, printed between 1871 and 1877 (Laurian & Massim, 1871).
However, the Latinist scholars and their followers (mainly jurists, public functionaries and journalists) 11 resorted to sum (maybe even in academic conversations), since B.P. Hasdeu-a categorical opponent of the Latinists-used it in Duduca Mamuca [Miss Mamuca] (as well as in Micuța [The Little One], a variant of the former) and in Orthonerozia sau Trei crai de la răsărit [The Orthostupidity or Three Kings from the East] 12 , with a stylistic intention, apparently.Mocking, seemingly, a certain manner of speech 13 , Hasdeu introduced sum in the speaking of the main character of the story, a law student, and in that of Vladimir Aleșchin-Uho, a journalist: "sum prea rumen la față" [I am too ruddy in the cheeks] (p.154, 227), "Nu sum în stare!Nu sum frumos!" [I am not able!I am not handsome!](p.197) 14 .It is also used in the play Orthonerozia, to characterize Numa Consule (a character built to mock the Latinism) through language; the form appears in the letter that this character sends to Hagi-Pană: "eu nu sum emptore, io sum procu" [I am not a buyer, I am a suitor] (Hasdeu, 2003, p. 223), "Io, Peregrine Pannonie, sum antica classicitate, Roma avitica" [I, Peregrine Pannonie, am the classical antiquity, the forefathers' Rome] (p.243).
The less educated Transylvanians too might have used the form sum, under the influence of the school and due to the prestige enjoyed there by the Latinist movement, since Teofil Frâncu and George Candrea registered it, in 1888, in the language of the people living in the Hălmagiu Valley ("Verbul a fi se aude în următoarele forme: îs, sum, sâmt, sânt, escŭ, estŭ; aceste două din urmă se aud în comuna Țebea, iar sum se aude pe valea Hălmagiului, pe cînd mi-'s se aude numai în părțile inferioare ale Zărandului" [The verb a fi is used with the following forms: îs, sum, sîmt, sînt, escŭ, estŭ; one can hear the last two in Țebea, and sum, in the Hălmagiu Valley, while mi-'s is heard exclusively in the lower parts of Zărand], Frâncu & Candrea, 1888, p. 78); V.E.Ardelean introduced it, in 1903, in a poem called Marșul redactorilor "Tribunii" [The March of the Tribuna's Editors], written right after the periodical had been established in Sibiu: "sum agitator" [I am an agitator] 15 .
› II.2.The aforementioned data confirm the validity of Sextil Pușcariu's observation, from 1934: sum was a morphological norm of scholarly nature, introduced into the Romanian literary language by some of the scholars who belonged to the Latinist movement, at the end of the 18 th century.(This norm should not be confused with sum, seldom used, and, again, only by the Latinists 16 , during the middle decades of the 19 th century, as a result of the "rehabilitation" and of the etymological spelling of sem, pronounced săm-the old form of the 1 st person, plural, indicative, of the same verb a fi.) Registered for the first time in texts printed with Cyrillic letters, in which the phonological principle was dominant 17 , sum (spelled s ¶m) was corresponding, undoubtedly, around 1800, to an actual orthoepic norm, naturally identical with the pronunciation of the Latin form it proceeded from 18 .From 1819 till the abandoning of the etymologism as the dominant orthographic principle governing the Romanian writing with Latin letters, sum, with its graphic variant sủm, corresponded to sîm /sɨm/ in pronunciation.(Those who used the graphic form sum/sủm, and had a knowledge, for sure, of the form s ¶m that had been introduced by Paul Iorgovici, interpreted the latter, most probably, in the etymological spirit.)That sum was to be pronounced /sɨm/ was first indicated by the graphic form sßm, present in the Cyrillic column of Dialogul pentru începutul limbei română (p.54, 58), and was confirmed by various grammars printed with Cyrillic letters or in the alphabet of transition, during the first half of the 19th century, in Moldavia and Wallachia (sõm, s m or s mŭ), and also by an explicit assertion of Timotei Cipariu: "în sum, u se pronunță oscur, ca õ" [in sum, u is pronounced close, like õ; /ɨ/, n.n., G.C.] (Cipariu, 1854, p. 148;1876/1992;1869/1987, p. 46).Under the influence of the writing-almost normal in the Romanian culture, where the Cyrillic writing, governed by the phonological principle, had had a long tradition-the pronunciation sum /sum/ (attested in Paul Iorgovici's texts) reappeared, after 1860, in the speech of some scholars, more or less close to the Latinism19 , and also (if the information given by Teofil Frâncu and George Candrea be true 20 ), in the speech of people in the Hălmagiu Valley.
With a history that covers more than a century, and with a winding evolution (concerning its spelling and pronunciation), sum-a cultured norm that had enjoyed a limited echo even in the linguistics-like works of the Latinists-practically vanished from the literary language at the beginning of the 20 th century.
The alternation between sum and sîm in Transylvanian texts and the exclusive presence of sîm in grammars published in Moldavia and Wallachia 21 show-apart from the differences between the etymological and the phonological (with Cyrillic letters) method of writing, and apart from a possible internal evolution (sum-a morphological borrowing from Latin-might have been pronounced /sɨm/ in the works of the Latinists through phonetic "Romanianizing")-that, at the beginning of the modern Romanian literary language, there was a strong attempt to revitalize certain forms that were considered to be "classic", closer to Latin 22 ), and that had been registered by the old texts, and by the more conservative Dacoromanian dialects 23 .
The thinkers of the Transylvanian School knew sîm, the form of the 1 st person singular, indicative present, from the Banatian patois 24 , from some of the Transylvanian patois and from the Aromanian dialect 25 .Timotei Cipariu too made the observation that the same form "încă tot se mai aude în gura poporului din Transilvania pe alocurea" [can still be heard in the people's speech, here and there, in Transylvania] (Cipariu, 1866, p. 141) 26 .And Gh.Săulescu-although he might have used it, in his Gramatica [Grammar] from 1833, under the influence of Petru Maller Câmpeanu-probably met sîm in old texts written in the north-eastern corner of the country 27 .
In Romanian, the form sîm represented, actually, the result of two different phonetic evolutions: in some Dacoromanian patois and in Aromanian, sîm had appeared under a South-Slavic influence 28 ; while sîm from certain northern patois and from the old Romanian texts was a phonetic variant of sîmt < sînt).However, Petru Maior, as well as Gh.Seulescu believed that sîm (for the 1 st person singular, indicative present) was a continuer of the Latin form sum. Timotei Cipariu wrote, in fact, in his Elemente de limbă după dialecte și monumente vechi, that sîm was an "original" [Rom."originarie"] (p.148) 29 , after some other Latinist scholars, like Ion Codru Drăgușanu, had considered it a "classical form" (p.69).(Sum-a cultured form in Romanian-was registered in the southern part of the Romanic territory, in Calabria, and interpreted as the natural continuation of the corresponding Latin form; see Rohlfs (1968, p. 540).)› III.1.The form sunt, like sum, has been considered a cultured norm, "introduced into the literary language by the Latinist School" (da 1934, p. 113, s.v.fi); the idea is indeed supported by its occurrences in various texts.
The form sunt (spelled also sủnt) is used, in 1819, by Petru Maior, in the column written with Latin letters and etymological orthography of his programmatic Dialog pentru începutul limbei română, an appendix to Orthographia Romana sive Latino-Valachica, but it corresponds both to the 3 rd person plural and the 1 st person singular of the verb a fi: "precum si în scripturile lor se vede, nu escu (sủnt) fỏrả indoelả" [as one can see from their texts too, it is not indeed] (p.54), "doả sunt pareri le invetiaților" [two are the opinions of the scholars] (p.55), "multe cuvėnte ... nu sunt in limba latinả" [many a word… are not in Latin] (p.56), "limbile aqueste sunt cuscrite la olaltả, érỏ de limba latinả ... sunt strảinate" [these languages are related to each other, and are estranged… from Latin] (p.57) 30 .
In Wallachia, having published, in 1839, Paul Iorgovici's Observații de limbă rumânească in Curier de ambe sexe 33 , Ion Heliade Rădulescu adopted-undoubtedly, under the influence of the Banatian scholar 34 -the form sunt (3 rd person pl., spelled s ¶nt, in many an issue of the magazine printed with the so-called "alphabet of transition": II,p. 84,86,91,351,352,358,375;III,p. 169,190;IV,31,33), instead of sînt (spelled sõnt ¶ or sõnt).Later on, when the "alphabet of transition" was replaced by the Latin alphabet, and the magazine began to be printed with the latter, the verbal form appeared as sunt (V,p. 2,31,83,245;VI,p. 85,90), still referring to the 3 rd person plural of the indicative present of the verb a fi.
After 1860, the graphic form sunt was recommended by Timotei Cipariu's Gramateca limbei române (Bucharest, 1869): "suntu, -su" (I, p. 274) and also by August Treboniu Laurian și Ioan C. Massim's Dicționariul limbei române: "indic.presente: ... su sau sunt sau suntu; in urmarea acestei forme d'in pers.III pl.s'au formatu dupo analogi'a verbeloru de conjugationea III … suntu, suntemu, sunteti" [indicative present: su or sunt or suntu; following this form of the 3 rd person pl., through analogy with the verbs of the 3 rd conjugation, there have been formed suntu, suntemu, sunteti] (I, p. 1240)-two normative works that were published under the aegis of the Romanian Academy; moreover, it was presented as a rule in Regulele 30 The references concern the text published as an opening to the Buda Lexiconului.See also the modern edition of the Dialog..., edited by Florea Fugariu (in Maior, 1976). 31The form sủnt appears, in the same context, in the prospectus of the dictionary of Samuil Micu, printed in Buda, in 1814.  3See also Chivu (2000a, p. 431-437). 33The edition published in 1839, with the "alphabet of transition", in Curier de ambe sexe (II,no. 6, would be published again, during the same year, in Curierul românesc (no. 55, 56, 61, 65, 67, 72).34 Ivănescu (1980, p. 665) held the same idea, that Ion Heliade Rădulescu had written sunt and suntem under the influence of Paul Iorgovici.The literary texts from the second half of the 19 th century would gradually adopt the orthographic norm of the Academy; and sunt would continue to be the explicit orthographic norm at the beginning of the 20 th century as well 35 .› III.2.It results from the above that, like sum (formerly written s ¶m), the verbal form sunt (formerly written s ¶nt) was introduced into the Romanian writing by Paul Iorgovici, through Calendariul rumânesc from 1794, and through Observații de limba rumânească from 1799, where-judging by the Cyrillic orthographic rules, and also by its specific morphological value-it used to cover a pronunciation similar to that of the Latin form that it was, in fact, reproducing: /sunt/.
After 1800, sunt, written with Latin letters, and in multiple variants (sunt, sûnt, sủnt, sŭnt), appeared constantly in texts signed by Transylvanian and Banatian Illuminists.After 1840, it was adopted, due to the Latinists' influence, by the Wallachian writers, and became, during the second half of the 19 th century, due to the general embracing of the Latin alphabet, the official orthographic norm.
Under the influence of its graphic form, sunt gradually became, during the first decades of the 20 th century, the literary pronunciation as well (/sunt/); nevertheless, it continued to alternate with the etymological form sînt /sɨnt/, for a long time 37 .
Used first at the end of the 18 th century, in two texts that owe their existence to Paul Iorgovici, the verbal form sunt (spelled s ¶nt)-coexisting with sum (spelled s ¶m) and having the exact morphological value of the Latin sunt 38 -seems indissolubly connected to the Latin model promoted by the Transylvanian School.At the end of the 18 th century and the beginning of the 19 th century, suntu (written with Greek letters, and then, in 1813, by Mihail Boiagi, with Latin letters) appears in several Aromanian texts pub- 35 See Regule ortografice, Glosar, Institutul de arte grafice "Carol Göbl", Bucharest, 1904, p. 14.  36 One may notice the examples written with Latin letters and re-written-in order to clarify their pronunciation-with Cyrillic letters, in various orthography manuals of the epoch, and in the two columns of Petru Maior's Dialog pentru începutul limbei română-one written with Cyrillic letters, one with Latin letters-, and in the introduction to the Lexicon from Buda. 37In Pușcariu & Naum (1941, p. 69), the authors state that "in everyday speech, one can hear forms with â (/ɨ/, n.n., G.C.) instead of u (/u/, n.n., G.C.), namely sânt, sântem, sânteți, sânt". 38The form sum corresponded to the 1 st person sg., indicative present, while sunt corresponded to the 3 rd person pl.
lished in Vienna, Venetia or in Buda (Boerescu, 2002, p. 136-137).The form suntu, characteristic for Aromanian (Papahagi, 1963, p. 659-660, s.v. hiu) is registered by Constantin Ucuta, in Nea paidagogia, a primer he publishes in 1797 (σ ¶υτ ¶, p. II, 7, 40); then, by Daniil Moscopoleanu, in Eisagogiki didaskalia (= Învățătură introducătoare), from 1802 (p.3), and by Mihail Boiagi, in Grammatiki romaniki itoi Makedovlahiki, from 1813 (p. 68, 132, 136, 226).Is it possible that Paul Iorgovici took the form sunt from Latin?Is it possible that he adopted a linguistic feature of the Aromanians he had met in Buda and in Vienna, in his struggle to create a literary norm by making use of some elements that belonged to the historical variants of the Romanian language?(Petru Maior contended, in 1819, in his Orthographia Romana, that the literary language which the Transylvanian Latinists were trying to create "must agree with the nature of the Romanian language and involve all the dialects of this language", p. IV.) Or is it possible that he discovered sunt in one of the local patois spoken in Banat? 39ny of the answers suggested above may be true.Evaluating the information existing so far, we are in the position to state that, as in the case of sum, the Transylvanian Latinists may have assumed that suntwhich had been proposed by Paul Iorgovici, following a Latin model-was a "classical" form, preserved by Aromanian and by certain conservative Dacoromanian patois (although sunt(u) doesn't actually correspond to the Latin sunt, but to an accidental phonological evolution: the change of ɨ/ from sîntu into /u/, through a regressive vocalic assimilation).

›
IV.The present analysis argues the idea that sum and sunt-two cultured verbal forms that appeared simultaneously, at the end of the 18 th century, in texts related to Paul Iorgovici-knew similar histories and evolutions.
Initially proposed as literary pronunciations shaped after the Latin model, the two verbal forms were soon adopted, but also reinterpreted by the majority of the Transylvanian scholars: thus, they become a common presence in texts written with Latin letters and etymological orthography; later on, they regain the status of literary pronunciations, due to the influence of the writing with the Latin alphabet (given the phonological tradition of the Romanian writing).
The histories of the two cultured verbal forms are also similar in what concerns their relation to certain regional pronunciations that may seem conservative, namely sîm and suntu, which were erroneously regarded by the Transylvanian Latinists as reminiscences of some forms inherited from Latin.