Why is “ayant” the participle of “avoir”, instead of “avant”?
It looks pretty intuitive to me if the participle of avoir is avant, but it's actually ayant. What is the story behind this V vs Y difference?
vocabulaire étymologie
asked 4 hours ago
iBug
1636
add a comment |
It looks pretty intuitive to me if the participle of avoir is avant, but it's actually ayant. What is the story behind this V vs Y difference?
vocabulaire étymologie
asked 4 hours ago
iBug
1636
add a comment |
It looks pretty intuitive to me if the participle of avoir is avant, but it's actually ayant. What is the story behind this V vs Y difference?
vocabulaire étymologie
asked 4 hours ago
iBug
1636
It looks pretty intuitive to me if the participle of avoir is avant, but it's actually ayant. What is the story behind this V vs Y difference?
vocabulaire étymologie
vocabulaire étymologie
asked 4 hours ago
iBug
1636
asked 4 hours ago
iBug
1636
asked 4 hours ago
iBug
1636
asked 4 hours ago
iBug
1636
asked 4 hours ago
iBug
1636
1636
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
I think it is quite obvious. In this way the confusion with the fundamental word avant is avoided.
answered 3 hours ago
dimitris
5,6122525
L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
– aCOSwt
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt avoir vient du latin habeo, avant du bas latin abante. Si avant est apparu le premier c'est bon. Autrement, il me faut...effacer la réponse:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littre : Avant : Bourguig. aivan ; provenç. avant ; ital. avanti ; du latin abante (qu'on trouve dans des inscriptions), de ab, de, et ante, avant (voy. ⤷AINZ).
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littte Avoir: Bourguign. aivoy ; provenç. aver ; espagn. haber ; portug. haver ; ital. avere ; du lat. habere. Comparez l'allemand haben, le gothique haban. Dans l'ancienne langue, on disait non pas il y a, mais simplement il a (illud habet), ce qui voulait le cas régime du substantif : il avoit un chastel, il y avait un château ; chastel est le cas régime : chastels ou chastaus serait le nominatif. Pourtant, l'adverbe y se montre dans cette locution dès le XIIIe siècle. La forme archaïque, sans y, s'est conservée dans le style marotique, au moins avec la négation (...)
– dimitris
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I think ayant must have been built on the subjunctive stem (found in ayons, ayez). The present participle of the Latin verb habeo had the stem habent-, which wouldn't be expected to develop to French ayant.
The present subjunctive forms of habeo in Latin have a -bea- sequence where the e would have evolved into a semivowel [j], which would have regularly led to the loss of the preceding consonant sound. See TKR's answer to the Linguistics SE question How did French lose the Latin -v-? I can't tell why the [j] didn't develop to [dʒ] > [ʒ] in this case; maybe it has to do with the position of the stress.
I don't know why the present participle of avoir would have been built on the subjunctive stem; maybe dimitris's suggestion about avoiding homophony is correct. Sachant, one of the two other irregularly formed French present participles, also has the same stem as the present subjunctive forms (but in the case of sachant, the form might be traced back etymologically to the Latin present-participle form sapient-).
answered 21 mins ago
sumelic
1,523512
Nice answer indeed!
– dimitris
1 min ago
add a comment |
I can find nothing else but a piece of puzzling information that could concern the origin of this form; it's the present participle of the verb « ( avair) » in Gallo;
This verb correspond to « avoir », however no claim is made of « ayant » having been borrowed.
answered 2 hours ago
LPH
4,999317
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "299"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ffrench.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33134%2fwhy-is-ayant-the-participle-of-avoir-instead-of-avant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think it is quite obvious. In this way the confusion with the fundamental word avant is avoided.
answered 3 hours ago
dimitris
5,6122525
L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
– aCOSwt
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt avoir vient du latin habeo, avant du bas latin abante. Si avant est apparu le premier c'est bon. Autrement, il me faut...effacer la réponse:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littre : Avant : Bourguig. aivan ; provenç. avant ; ital. avanti ; du latin abante (qu'on trouve dans des inscriptions), de ab, de, et ante, avant (voy. ⤷AINZ).
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littte Avoir: Bourguign. aivoy ; provenç. aver ; espagn. haber ; portug. haver ; ital. avere ; du lat. habere. Comparez l'allemand haben, le gothique haban. Dans l'ancienne langue, on disait non pas il y a, mais simplement il a (illud habet), ce qui voulait le cas régime du substantif : il avoit un chastel, il y avait un château ; chastel est le cas régime : chastels ou chastaus serait le nominatif. Pourtant, l'adverbe y se montre dans cette locution dès le XIIIe siècle. La forme archaïque, sans y, s'est conservée dans le style marotique, au moins avec la négation (...)
– dimitris
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I think it is quite obvious. In this way the confusion with the fundamental word avant is avoided.
answered 3 hours ago
dimitris
5,6122525
L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
– aCOSwt
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt avoir vient du latin habeo, avant du bas latin abante. Si avant est apparu le premier c'est bon. Autrement, il me faut...effacer la réponse:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littre : Avant : Bourguig. aivan ; provenç. avant ; ital. avanti ; du latin abante (qu'on trouve dans des inscriptions), de ab, de, et ante, avant (voy. ⤷AINZ).
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littte Avoir: Bourguign. aivoy ; provenç. aver ; espagn. haber ; portug. haver ; ital. avere ; du lat. habere. Comparez l'allemand haben, le gothique haban. Dans l'ancienne langue, on disait non pas il y a, mais simplement il a (illud habet), ce qui voulait le cas régime du substantif : il avoit un chastel, il y avait un château ; chastel est le cas régime : chastels ou chastaus serait le nominatif. Pourtant, l'adverbe y se montre dans cette locution dès le XIIIe siècle. La forme archaïque, sans y, s'est conservée dans le style marotique, au moins avec la négation (...)
– dimitris
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I think it is quite obvious. In this way the confusion with the fundamental word avant is avoided.
answered 3 hours ago
dimitris
5,6122525
I think it is quite obvious. In this way the confusion with the fundamental word avant is avoided.
answered 3 hours ago
dimitris
5,6122525
answered 3 hours ago
dimitris
5,6122525
answered 3 hours ago
dimitris
5,6122525
answered 3 hours ago
dimitris
5,6122525
5,6122525
L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
– aCOSwt
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt avoir vient du latin habeo, avant du bas latin abante. Si avant est apparu le premier c'est bon. Autrement, il me faut...effacer la réponse:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littre : Avant : Bourguig. aivan ; provenç. avant ; ital. avanti ; du latin abante (qu'on trouve dans des inscriptions), de ab, de, et ante, avant (voy. ⤷AINZ).
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littte Avoir: Bourguign. aivoy ; provenç. aver ; espagn. haber ; portug. haver ; ital. avere ; du lat. habere. Comparez l'allemand haben, le gothique haban. Dans l'ancienne langue, on disait non pas il y a, mais simplement il a (illud habet), ce qui voulait le cas régime du substantif : il avoit un chastel, il y avait un château ; chastel est le cas régime : chastels ou chastaus serait le nominatif. Pourtant, l'adverbe y se montre dans cette locution dès le XIIIe siècle. La forme archaïque, sans y, s'est conservée dans le style marotique, au moins avec la négation (...)
– dimitris
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
– aCOSwt
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt avoir vient du latin habeo, avant du bas latin abante. Si avant est apparu le premier c'est bon. Autrement, il me faut...effacer la réponse:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littre : Avant : Bourguig. aivan ; provenç. avant ; ital. avanti ; du latin abante (qu'on trouve dans des inscriptions), de ab, de, et ante, avant (voy. ⤷AINZ).
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littte Avoir: Bourguign. aivoy ; provenç. aver ; espagn. haber ; portug. haver ; ital. avere ; du lat. habere. Comparez l'allemand haben, le gothique haban. Dans l'ancienne langue, on disait non pas il y a, mais simplement il a (illud habet), ce qui voulait le cas régime du substantif : il avoit un chastel, il y avait un château ; chastel est le cas régime : chastels ou chastaus serait le nominatif. Pourtant, l'adverbe y se montre dans cette locution dès le XIIIe siècle. La forme archaïque, sans y, s'est conservée dans le style marotique, au moins avec la négation (...)
– dimitris
2 hours ago
L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
– aCOSwt
2 hours ago
L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
– aCOSwt
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt avoir vient du latin habeo, avant du bas latin abante. Si avant est apparu le premier c'est bon. Autrement, il me faut...effacer la réponse:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt avoir vient du latin habeo, avant du bas latin abante. Si avant est apparu le premier c'est bon. Autrement, il me faut...effacer la réponse:-)!
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littre : Avant : Bourguig. aivan ; provenç. avant ; ital. avanti ; du latin abante (qu'on trouve dans des inscriptions), de ab, de, et ante, avant (voy. ⤷AINZ).
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littre : Avant : Bourguig. aivan ; provenç. avant ; ital. avanti ; du latin abante (qu'on trouve dans des inscriptions), de ab, de, et ante, avant (voy. ⤷AINZ).
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littte Avoir: Bourguign. aivoy ; provenç. aver ; espagn. haber ; portug. haver ; ital. avere ; du lat. habere. Comparez l'allemand haben, le gothique haban. Dans l'ancienne langue, on disait non pas il y a, mais simplement il a (illud habet), ce qui voulait le cas régime du substantif : il avoit un chastel, il y avait un château ; chastel est le cas régime : chastels ou chastaus serait le nominatif. Pourtant, l'adverbe y se montre dans cette locution dès le XIIIe siècle. La forme archaïque, sans y, s'est conservée dans le style marotique, au moins avec la négation (...)
– dimitris
2 hours ago
@aCOSwt Littte Avoir: Bourguign. aivoy ; provenç. aver ; espagn. haber ; portug. haver ; ital. avere ; du lat. habere. Comparez l'allemand haben, le gothique haban. Dans l'ancienne langue, on disait non pas il y a, mais simplement il a (illud habet), ce qui voulait le cas régime du substantif : il avoit un chastel, il y avait un château ; chastel est le cas régime : chastels ou chastaus serait le nominatif. Pourtant, l'adverbe y se montre dans cette locution dès le XIIIe siècle. La forme archaïque, sans y, s'est conservée dans le style marotique, au moins avec la négation (...)
– dimitris
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I think ayant must have been built on the subjunctive stem (found in ayons, ayez). The present participle of the Latin verb habeo had the stem habent-, which wouldn't be expected to develop to French ayant.
The present subjunctive forms of habeo in Latin have a -bea- sequence where the e would have evolved into a semivowel [j], which would have regularly led to the loss of the preceding consonant sound. See TKR's answer to the Linguistics SE question How did French lose the Latin -v-? I can't tell why the [j] didn't develop to [dʒ] > [ʒ] in this case; maybe it has to do with the position of the stress.
I don't know why the present participle of avoir would have been built on the subjunctive stem; maybe dimitris's suggestion about avoiding homophony is correct. Sachant, one of the two other irregularly formed French present participles, also has the same stem as the present subjunctive forms (but in the case of sachant, the form might be traced back etymologically to the Latin present-participle form sapient-).
answered 21 mins ago
sumelic
1,523512
Nice answer indeed!
– dimitris
1 min ago
add a comment |
I think ayant must have been built on the subjunctive stem (found in ayons, ayez). The present participle of the Latin verb habeo had the stem habent-, which wouldn't be expected to develop to French ayant.
The present subjunctive forms of habeo in Latin have a -bea- sequence where the e would have evolved into a semivowel [j], which would have regularly led to the loss of the preceding consonant sound. See TKR's answer to the Linguistics SE question How did French lose the Latin -v-? I can't tell why the [j] didn't develop to [dʒ] > [ʒ] in this case; maybe it has to do with the position of the stress.
I don't know why the present participle of avoir would have been built on the subjunctive stem; maybe dimitris's suggestion about avoiding homophony is correct. Sachant, one of the two other irregularly formed French present participles, also has the same stem as the present subjunctive forms (but in the case of sachant, the form might be traced back etymologically to the Latin present-participle form sapient-).
answered 21 mins ago
sumelic
1,523512
Nice answer indeed!
– dimitris
1 min ago
add a comment |
I think ayant must have been built on the subjunctive stem (found in ayons, ayez). The present participle of the Latin verb habeo had the stem habent-, which wouldn't be expected to develop to French ayant.
The present subjunctive forms of habeo in Latin have a -bea- sequence where the e would have evolved into a semivowel [j], which would have regularly led to the loss of the preceding consonant sound. See TKR's answer to the Linguistics SE question How did French lose the Latin -v-? I can't tell why the [j] didn't develop to [dʒ] > [ʒ] in this case; maybe it has to do with the position of the stress.
I don't know why the present participle of avoir would have been built on the subjunctive stem; maybe dimitris's suggestion about avoiding homophony is correct. Sachant, one of the two other irregularly formed French present participles, also has the same stem as the present subjunctive forms (but in the case of sachant, the form might be traced back etymologically to the Latin present-participle form sapient-).
answered 21 mins ago
sumelic
1,523512
I think ayant must have been built on the subjunctive stem (found in ayons, ayez). The present participle of the Latin verb habeo had the stem habent-, which wouldn't be expected to develop to French ayant.
The present subjunctive forms of habeo in Latin have a -bea- sequence where the e would have evolved into a semivowel [j], which would have regularly led to the loss of the preceding consonant sound. See TKR's answer to the Linguistics SE question How did French lose the Latin -v-? I can't tell why the [j] didn't develop to [dʒ] > [ʒ] in this case; maybe it has to do with the position of the stress.
I don't know why the present participle of avoir would have been built on the subjunctive stem; maybe dimitris's suggestion about avoiding homophony is correct. Sachant, one of the two other irregularly formed French present participles, also has the same stem as the present subjunctive forms (but in the case of sachant, the form might be traced back etymologically to the Latin present-participle form sapient-).
answered 21 mins ago
sumelic
1,523512
edited 10 mins ago
answered 21 mins ago
sumelic
1,523512
answered 21 mins ago
sumelic
1,523512
answered 21 mins ago
sumelic
1,523512
1,523512
Nice answer indeed!
– dimitris
1 min ago
add a comment |
Nice answer indeed!
– dimitris
1 min ago
Nice answer indeed!
– dimitris
1 min ago
Nice answer indeed!
– dimitris
1 min ago
add a comment |
I can find nothing else but a piece of puzzling information that could concern the origin of this form; it's the present participle of the verb « ( avair) » in Gallo;
This verb correspond to « avoir », however no claim is made of « ayant » having been borrowed.
answered 2 hours ago
LPH
4,999317
add a comment |
I can find nothing else but a piece of puzzling information that could concern the origin of this form; it's the present participle of the verb « ( avair) » in Gallo;
This verb correspond to « avoir », however no claim is made of « ayant » having been borrowed.
answered 2 hours ago
LPH
4,999317
add a comment |
I can find nothing else but a piece of puzzling information that could concern the origin of this form; it's the present participle of the verb « ( avair) » in Gallo;
This verb correspond to « avoir », however no claim is made of « ayant » having been borrowed.
answered 2 hours ago
LPH
4,999317
I can find nothing else but a piece of puzzling information that could concern the origin of this form; it's the present participle of the verb « ( avair) » in Gallo;
This verb correspond to « avoir », however no claim is made of « ayant » having been borrowed.
answered 2 hours ago
LPH
4,999317
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
LPH
4,999317
answered 2 hours ago
LPH
4,999317
answered 2 hours ago
LPH
4,999317
4,999317
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to French Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ffrench.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33134%2fwhy-is-ayant-the-participle-of-avoir-instead-of-avant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
