Appendix talk:Old French verbs

"Second conjugation verbs mainly are descended from the second conjugation in Latin. The -ire ending of Latin infinitives becomes -ir"

I believe the -ire (-īre) infinitive suffix is characteristic of Latin fourth conjugation verbs; the corresponding infinitive suffix of Latin second conjugation verbs is -ēre.

A note on etymology
The table below shows pairs of verbs. One of each pair is Modern French and the other Classical Latin. In each pair, the Classical Latin verb is presumably the etymological ancestor of the Modern French verb. (Note the long vowels: ā, ē, and ī in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th conjugation (respectively) infinitive suffixes. The 3rd conjugation infinitive suffix has short vowels: faciō, facere (3rd conjugation) versus habeō, habēre (2nd conjugation).)

Grosbach 22:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

partir
Aren't imperative forms partez and	partons mixed up? Ignatus (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure looks like it. Fixed. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

agreement with past participles
The part about the past participles is very confusing. First it states that unlike modern French the participle agrees with the object "even" if the object precedes it. However, according to this wikipedia article the past participle in modern French agrees with the object exactly when it precedes it, so that means that if the text of the appendix is correct the participle agrees in exactly the same contexts (although probably Old French has more constructions where the object precedes the participle). Then it proceeds to show this supposed contrast, but the modern French translation has the object following the participle, so there is no way to tell from that example that modern French doesn't allow agreement with preceding object (which as a matter of fact according to the wikipedia article linked above it does).Merijn2 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was about to make the exact same comment. This section is misleading, if not totally wrong. Julien Daux (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Same. If anything, the article should point out that the past participle agrees even if the direct object follows it. So, if you adjust the phrase given in the example: "Ai veüe sa nef en la mer." However, I doubt that this is correct. I believe the participle wouldn't agree in that instance (analogous to modern French).
 * What is nevertheless special about the example phrase is that you can actually put the direct object in front of the finite verb (and in front of the subject, which is however not explicitly stated here). As far as I know, that would be considered ungrammatical in modern French without repeating the direct object pronoun (Son bateau, je l 'ai vu.) 195.189.146.78 14:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ai veüe sa nef en la mer" is an actual example from one of the Tristan poems (from one of my paper copies, so I can't easily find it) and you see it elsewhere. Of course it's no longer allowed in the modern language, but it did exist. Merijn2, it seems you're actually disputing the modern French translation, which is fine of course, but you can't use that to discredit the original text. 2.30.100.90 11:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actual example then:
 * Quant Helenus ot achevee
 * La parole qu’il ot mostree (Roman de Troie, verses 3983-4, ed. Constans)
 * Here we see 'achevee' agreeing with 'la parole' which follows rather than precedes the verb ('ot' is eut). 2.30.96.240 15:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to write the same thing. It's still wrong, but I don't know enough about Old French to fix it. Weylaway (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)