Why is “ayant” the participle of “avoir”, instead of “avant”?












6














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?










share|improve this question






















  • What I wonder is why would avant look more intuitive to you than avoyant ?
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday






  • 3




    @aCOSwt: As a learner, I was taught the rule to form the present participle on the same stem as the present-tense indicative first person plural. Avons gives us av-, not avoy-.
    – sumelic
    yesterday












  • @sumelic : Fair enough. Thanks for the info.
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday










  • @aCOSwt Adding to that, if you build the participle that way, there are only 3 exceptions: étant, ayant, sachant.
    – iBug
    23 hours ago










  • You provide a rationale. Fair enough. I misunderstood your pretty intuitive. With regards to the irregularity of avoir, I was interested to know more about intuition. How intuition governs numerous irregularities.
    – aCOSwt
    15 hours ago
















6














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?










share|improve this question






















  • What I wonder is why would avant look more intuitive to you than avoyant ?
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday






  • 3




    @aCOSwt: As a learner, I was taught the rule to form the present participle on the same stem as the present-tense indicative first person plural. Avons gives us av-, not avoy-.
    – sumelic
    yesterday












  • @sumelic : Fair enough. Thanks for the info.
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday










  • @aCOSwt Adding to that, if you build the participle that way, there are only 3 exceptions: étant, ayant, sachant.
    – iBug
    23 hours ago










  • You provide a rationale. Fair enough. I misunderstood your pretty intuitive. With regards to the irregularity of avoir, I was interested to know more about intuition. How intuition governs numerous irregularities.
    – aCOSwt
    15 hours ago














6












6








6


1





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?










share|improve this question













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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked yesterday









iBug

1857




1857












  • What I wonder is why would avant look more intuitive to you than avoyant ?
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday






  • 3




    @aCOSwt: As a learner, I was taught the rule to form the present participle on the same stem as the present-tense indicative first person plural. Avons gives us av-, not avoy-.
    – sumelic
    yesterday












  • @sumelic : Fair enough. Thanks for the info.
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday










  • @aCOSwt Adding to that, if you build the participle that way, there are only 3 exceptions: étant, ayant, sachant.
    – iBug
    23 hours ago










  • You provide a rationale. Fair enough. I misunderstood your pretty intuitive. With regards to the irregularity of avoir, I was interested to know more about intuition. How intuition governs numerous irregularities.
    – aCOSwt
    15 hours ago


















  • What I wonder is why would avant look more intuitive to you than avoyant ?
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday






  • 3




    @aCOSwt: As a learner, I was taught the rule to form the present participle on the same stem as the present-tense indicative first person plural. Avons gives us av-, not avoy-.
    – sumelic
    yesterday












  • @sumelic : Fair enough. Thanks for the info.
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday










  • @aCOSwt Adding to that, if you build the participle that way, there are only 3 exceptions: étant, ayant, sachant.
    – iBug
    23 hours ago










  • You provide a rationale. Fair enough. I misunderstood your pretty intuitive. With regards to the irregularity of avoir, I was interested to know more about intuition. How intuition governs numerous irregularities.
    – aCOSwt
    15 hours ago
















What I wonder is why would avant look more intuitive to you than avoyant ?
– aCOSwt
yesterday




What I wonder is why would avant look more intuitive to you than avoyant ?
– aCOSwt
yesterday




3




3




@aCOSwt: As a learner, I was taught the rule to form the present participle on the same stem as the present-tense indicative first person plural. Avons gives us av-, not avoy-.
– sumelic
yesterday






@aCOSwt: As a learner, I was taught the rule to form the present participle on the same stem as the present-tense indicative first person plural. Avons gives us av-, not avoy-.
– sumelic
yesterday














@sumelic : Fair enough. Thanks for the info.
– aCOSwt
yesterday




@sumelic : Fair enough. Thanks for the info.
– aCOSwt
yesterday












@aCOSwt Adding to that, if you build the participle that way, there are only 3 exceptions: étant, ayant, sachant.
– iBug
23 hours ago




@aCOSwt Adding to that, if you build the participle that way, there are only 3 exceptions: étant, ayant, sachant.
– iBug
23 hours ago












You provide a rationale. Fair enough. I misunderstood your pretty intuitive. With regards to the irregularity of avoir, I was interested to know more about intuition. How intuition governs numerous irregularities.
– aCOSwt
15 hours ago




You provide a rationale. Fair enough. I misunderstood your pretty intuitive. With regards to the irregularity of avoir, I was interested to know more about intuition. How intuition governs numerous irregularities.
– aCOSwt
15 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















11














I think ayant was 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. (However, see Eleshar's answer for information on an alternative form of the present participle that apparently existed in later Latin.)



How the subjunctive stem evolved from Latin forms with -be-



The present subjunctive forms of habeo in Latin have a -bea- sequence where the e would have evolved into a semivowel [j].



According to a book I found, Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction
(by Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen, 2010), in “Popular Latin” -b- had already been lost entirely before [j] in forms of habeo. For example, Alkire and Rosen give *[ajatis] as the “Popular Latin” ancestor of Modern French ayez. The complete loss of -b- in this context does not seem to have been a regular sound change, but rather an irregular reduction that occurred because habeo was a frequent verb that was often used as an auxiliary (p. 140).



I’m not sure whether this reduction was complete before the split of the Romance languages, since Italian has -bbi- in the present subjunctive. But Spanish seems to agree with French in this: it has the present subjunctive stem hay-.



If habeo had developed regularly, I think the intervocalic -be- would have evolved to [βj] > [dʒ] > [ʒ] instead (see TKR's answer to the Linguistics SE question How did French lose the Latin -v-?). So the [β]/[v] would still have been lost, just later on.



Why the subjunctive stem?



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 French present participles that currently has an irregular form, also shares its stem with the present subjunctive (but in the case of sachant, the form looks like it might be traced back etymologically to the Latin present-participle form sapient-).



Ewert (1960) says





  1. The close connection of the present participle-gerund with the pres. ind. and subjv. results in its being frequently re-modelled on these tenses, with or without the added support of the infinitive: ayant for avant (habentem), pleuvant for plouvant, voyant for veant, croyant for creant (which survives in archaic mécréant); O.F. vueillant (beside voulant < volentem) survives in bienveillant, malveillant; (as)seyant and (as)soyant crowded out (as)seant (< sedentem) which survives as a substantive and in bienséant, malséant. Other verbs in which both forms survive (one as the pres. part.-gerund, the other in a specialized use which has isolated it from the rest of the verb) are: pouvant—puissant ([by analogy with] puis, puisse); sachant ([by analogy with] sache) (twelfth-century)—savant being used only as an adj. or substantive since the sixteenth century; valant—vaillant ([by analogy with] vail, vaille) now a pure adj. except in n'avoir pas un sou vaillant; en son vivant, sur son séant are survivals of the O.F. substantival use of the gerund.







share|improve this answer























  • didn't notice ayant comes from subjonctif présent! This reminds me of sachant.
    – iBug
    23 hours ago










  • Pour ce qui est de pourquoi le subjonctif. Il n'y a pas de raison. Il faut partir de l'observation qu'il s'agit ici d'un cas de supplétion. Puis la ranger, avec les autres, dans un espace thématique et mentionner sur ce sujet l'hypothèse avancée par Morin (1987) de l'existence de règles d'implication. Ces "régles" sont des règles par défaut.
    – aCOSwt
    14 hours ago












  • Le comm ci-dessus laisse évidemment entrevoir un travail long et compliqué. C'est pourquoi, en regrettant encore ici que l'OP ne poursuive pas son pretty intuitive, je préfère, pour ma part, rejoindre Claire Blanche-Benveniste et observer que avoir est un des 5 verbes les plus utilisés en français. Et que, comme c'est aussi le cas dans beaucoup d'autres langues, les verbes les plus utilisés sont aussi les plus irréguliers.
    – aCOSwt
    14 hours ago










  • Toujours à propos de mon 1er comm, Peut-être peut-on retrouver sur le net un travail mené dans les années 2000 sur le sujet par Gilles Boyer de l'Université de Nancy.
    – aCOSwt
    14 hours ago












  • Gilles Boyé. Pardon!
    – aCOSwt
    11 hours ago



















1














Just a guess (and not quite obvious as I thought initially). In this way the confusion with the fundamental word avant was avoided.






share|improve this answer























  • L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday










  • @aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
    – dimitris
    yesterday










  • @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
    yesterday












  • @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
    yesterday






  • 2




    @MatthieuBrucher: Latin V is pronounced as [u] (as a vowel), as [w] (as a semivowel), or as [β] or [v] (as a consonant that developed from the semivowel [w]). It wasn't ever pronounced like "y".
    – sumelic
    yesterday



















1














For habere, there is attested active participle form habeant-, probably from late Latin that evolved to the French dialect of proto-romance. From there, it would be the same evolution as the subjunctive itself.



The forms based on habeant- are easy to find just by googling, but if you need some better source, e.g. Foley,J: Theoretical Morphology of the French Verb indicates there seem to be quite a few other verbs where the late Latin seems to have used the subjunctive stem as a source for the active participle. My guess would be this was an analogy with the prevalent a-form verbs of the first conjugation, ending with -ant- along with the pressure to maintain the stem vowel -e-.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Eleshar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1




    I thought -vj- would be expected to merge with -bj- and also develop into -ž-. This Linguistics SE question gives the example of alleger from alleviare and the linked duplicate gives the example of abbreviare to abréger.
    – sumelic
    yesterday












  • Actually, I see that you wrote the answer to the duplicate there!
    – sumelic
    yesterday












  • Good point. No idea about the exact rules - abbreviare gives abréger. Might have something to do with timing perhaps? Earlier /vj/ > /ž/, later/secondary /vj/ > /j/? Or perhaps stress comes into play? Will have to research more. In any case the subjunctive-like participle form goes back to Latin.
    – Eleshar
    yesterday










  • I added a cite to my answer that gives an explanation. The -be- is supposed to have been reduced to -[j]- already in “Popular Latin”, as a special reduction in the verb habeo
    – sumelic
    yesterday





















0














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.






share|improve this answer























    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    11














    I think ayant was 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. (However, see Eleshar's answer for information on an alternative form of the present participle that apparently existed in later Latin.)



    How the subjunctive stem evolved from Latin forms with -be-



    The present subjunctive forms of habeo in Latin have a -bea- sequence where the e would have evolved into a semivowel [j].



    According to a book I found, Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction
    (by Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen, 2010), in “Popular Latin” -b- had already been lost entirely before [j] in forms of habeo. For example, Alkire and Rosen give *[ajatis] as the “Popular Latin” ancestor of Modern French ayez. The complete loss of -b- in this context does not seem to have been a regular sound change, but rather an irregular reduction that occurred because habeo was a frequent verb that was often used as an auxiliary (p. 140).



    I’m not sure whether this reduction was complete before the split of the Romance languages, since Italian has -bbi- in the present subjunctive. But Spanish seems to agree with French in this: it has the present subjunctive stem hay-.



    If habeo had developed regularly, I think the intervocalic -be- would have evolved to [βj] > [dʒ] > [ʒ] instead (see TKR's answer to the Linguistics SE question How did French lose the Latin -v-?). So the [β]/[v] would still have been lost, just later on.



    Why the subjunctive stem?



    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 French present participles that currently has an irregular form, also shares its stem with the present subjunctive (but in the case of sachant, the form looks like it might be traced back etymologically to the Latin present-participle form sapient-).



    Ewert (1960) says





    1. The close connection of the present participle-gerund with the pres. ind. and subjv. results in its being frequently re-modelled on these tenses, with or without the added support of the infinitive: ayant for avant (habentem), pleuvant for plouvant, voyant for veant, croyant for creant (which survives in archaic mécréant); O.F. vueillant (beside voulant < volentem) survives in bienveillant, malveillant; (as)seyant and (as)soyant crowded out (as)seant (< sedentem) which survives as a substantive and in bienséant, malséant. Other verbs in which both forms survive (one as the pres. part.-gerund, the other in a specialized use which has isolated it from the rest of the verb) are: pouvant—puissant ([by analogy with] puis, puisse); sachant ([by analogy with] sache) (twelfth-century)—savant being used only as an adj. or substantive since the sixteenth century; valant—vaillant ([by analogy with] vail, vaille) now a pure adj. except in n'avoir pas un sou vaillant; en son vivant, sur son séant are survivals of the O.F. substantival use of the gerund.







    share|improve this answer























    • didn't notice ayant comes from subjonctif présent! This reminds me of sachant.
      – iBug
      23 hours ago










    • Pour ce qui est de pourquoi le subjonctif. Il n'y a pas de raison. Il faut partir de l'observation qu'il s'agit ici d'un cas de supplétion. Puis la ranger, avec les autres, dans un espace thématique et mentionner sur ce sujet l'hypothèse avancée par Morin (1987) de l'existence de règles d'implication. Ces "régles" sont des règles par défaut.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago












    • Le comm ci-dessus laisse évidemment entrevoir un travail long et compliqué. C'est pourquoi, en regrettant encore ici que l'OP ne poursuive pas son pretty intuitive, je préfère, pour ma part, rejoindre Claire Blanche-Benveniste et observer que avoir est un des 5 verbes les plus utilisés en français. Et que, comme c'est aussi le cas dans beaucoup d'autres langues, les verbes les plus utilisés sont aussi les plus irréguliers.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago










    • Toujours à propos de mon 1er comm, Peut-être peut-on retrouver sur le net un travail mené dans les années 2000 sur le sujet par Gilles Boyer de l'Université de Nancy.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago












    • Gilles Boyé. Pardon!
      – aCOSwt
      11 hours ago
















    11














    I think ayant was 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. (However, see Eleshar's answer for information on an alternative form of the present participle that apparently existed in later Latin.)



    How the subjunctive stem evolved from Latin forms with -be-



    The present subjunctive forms of habeo in Latin have a -bea- sequence where the e would have evolved into a semivowel [j].



    According to a book I found, Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction
    (by Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen, 2010), in “Popular Latin” -b- had already been lost entirely before [j] in forms of habeo. For example, Alkire and Rosen give *[ajatis] as the “Popular Latin” ancestor of Modern French ayez. The complete loss of -b- in this context does not seem to have been a regular sound change, but rather an irregular reduction that occurred because habeo was a frequent verb that was often used as an auxiliary (p. 140).



    I’m not sure whether this reduction was complete before the split of the Romance languages, since Italian has -bbi- in the present subjunctive. But Spanish seems to agree with French in this: it has the present subjunctive stem hay-.



    If habeo had developed regularly, I think the intervocalic -be- would have evolved to [βj] > [dʒ] > [ʒ] instead (see TKR's answer to the Linguistics SE question How did French lose the Latin -v-?). So the [β]/[v] would still have been lost, just later on.



    Why the subjunctive stem?



    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 French present participles that currently has an irregular form, also shares its stem with the present subjunctive (but in the case of sachant, the form looks like it might be traced back etymologically to the Latin present-participle form sapient-).



    Ewert (1960) says





    1. The close connection of the present participle-gerund with the pres. ind. and subjv. results in its being frequently re-modelled on these tenses, with or without the added support of the infinitive: ayant for avant (habentem), pleuvant for plouvant, voyant for veant, croyant for creant (which survives in archaic mécréant); O.F. vueillant (beside voulant < volentem) survives in bienveillant, malveillant; (as)seyant and (as)soyant crowded out (as)seant (< sedentem) which survives as a substantive and in bienséant, malséant. Other verbs in which both forms survive (one as the pres. part.-gerund, the other in a specialized use which has isolated it from the rest of the verb) are: pouvant—puissant ([by analogy with] puis, puisse); sachant ([by analogy with] sache) (twelfth-century)—savant being used only as an adj. or substantive since the sixteenth century; valant—vaillant ([by analogy with] vail, vaille) now a pure adj. except in n'avoir pas un sou vaillant; en son vivant, sur son séant are survivals of the O.F. substantival use of the gerund.







    share|improve this answer























    • didn't notice ayant comes from subjonctif présent! This reminds me of sachant.
      – iBug
      23 hours ago










    • Pour ce qui est de pourquoi le subjonctif. Il n'y a pas de raison. Il faut partir de l'observation qu'il s'agit ici d'un cas de supplétion. Puis la ranger, avec les autres, dans un espace thématique et mentionner sur ce sujet l'hypothèse avancée par Morin (1987) de l'existence de règles d'implication. Ces "régles" sont des règles par défaut.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago












    • Le comm ci-dessus laisse évidemment entrevoir un travail long et compliqué. C'est pourquoi, en regrettant encore ici que l'OP ne poursuive pas son pretty intuitive, je préfère, pour ma part, rejoindre Claire Blanche-Benveniste et observer que avoir est un des 5 verbes les plus utilisés en français. Et que, comme c'est aussi le cas dans beaucoup d'autres langues, les verbes les plus utilisés sont aussi les plus irréguliers.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago










    • Toujours à propos de mon 1er comm, Peut-être peut-on retrouver sur le net un travail mené dans les années 2000 sur le sujet par Gilles Boyer de l'Université de Nancy.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago












    • Gilles Boyé. Pardon!
      – aCOSwt
      11 hours ago














    11












    11








    11






    I think ayant was 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. (However, see Eleshar's answer for information on an alternative form of the present participle that apparently existed in later Latin.)



    How the subjunctive stem evolved from Latin forms with -be-



    The present subjunctive forms of habeo in Latin have a -bea- sequence where the e would have evolved into a semivowel [j].



    According to a book I found, Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction
    (by Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen, 2010), in “Popular Latin” -b- had already been lost entirely before [j] in forms of habeo. For example, Alkire and Rosen give *[ajatis] as the “Popular Latin” ancestor of Modern French ayez. The complete loss of -b- in this context does not seem to have been a regular sound change, but rather an irregular reduction that occurred because habeo was a frequent verb that was often used as an auxiliary (p. 140).



    I’m not sure whether this reduction was complete before the split of the Romance languages, since Italian has -bbi- in the present subjunctive. But Spanish seems to agree with French in this: it has the present subjunctive stem hay-.



    If habeo had developed regularly, I think the intervocalic -be- would have evolved to [βj] > [dʒ] > [ʒ] instead (see TKR's answer to the Linguistics SE question How did French lose the Latin -v-?). So the [β]/[v] would still have been lost, just later on.



    Why the subjunctive stem?



    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 French present participles that currently has an irregular form, also shares its stem with the present subjunctive (but in the case of sachant, the form looks like it might be traced back etymologically to the Latin present-participle form sapient-).



    Ewert (1960) says





    1. The close connection of the present participle-gerund with the pres. ind. and subjv. results in its being frequently re-modelled on these tenses, with or without the added support of the infinitive: ayant for avant (habentem), pleuvant for plouvant, voyant for veant, croyant for creant (which survives in archaic mécréant); O.F. vueillant (beside voulant < volentem) survives in bienveillant, malveillant; (as)seyant and (as)soyant crowded out (as)seant (< sedentem) which survives as a substantive and in bienséant, malséant. Other verbs in which both forms survive (one as the pres. part.-gerund, the other in a specialized use which has isolated it from the rest of the verb) are: pouvant—puissant ([by analogy with] puis, puisse); sachant ([by analogy with] sache) (twelfth-century)—savant being used only as an adj. or substantive since the sixteenth century; valant—vaillant ([by analogy with] vail, vaille) now a pure adj. except in n'avoir pas un sou vaillant; en son vivant, sur son séant are survivals of the O.F. substantival use of the gerund.







    share|improve this answer














    I think ayant was 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. (However, see Eleshar's answer for information on an alternative form of the present participle that apparently existed in later Latin.)



    How the subjunctive stem evolved from Latin forms with -be-



    The present subjunctive forms of habeo in Latin have a -bea- sequence where the e would have evolved into a semivowel [j].



    According to a book I found, Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction
    (by Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen, 2010), in “Popular Latin” -b- had already been lost entirely before [j] in forms of habeo. For example, Alkire and Rosen give *[ajatis] as the “Popular Latin” ancestor of Modern French ayez. The complete loss of -b- in this context does not seem to have been a regular sound change, but rather an irregular reduction that occurred because habeo was a frequent verb that was often used as an auxiliary (p. 140).



    I’m not sure whether this reduction was complete before the split of the Romance languages, since Italian has -bbi- in the present subjunctive. But Spanish seems to agree with French in this: it has the present subjunctive stem hay-.



    If habeo had developed regularly, I think the intervocalic -be- would have evolved to [βj] > [dʒ] > [ʒ] instead (see TKR's answer to the Linguistics SE question How did French lose the Latin -v-?). So the [β]/[v] would still have been lost, just later on.



    Why the subjunctive stem?



    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 French present participles that currently has an irregular form, also shares its stem with the present subjunctive (but in the case of sachant, the form looks like it might be traced back etymologically to the Latin present-participle form sapient-).



    Ewert (1960) says





    1. The close connection of the present participle-gerund with the pres. ind. and subjv. results in its being frequently re-modelled on these tenses, with or without the added support of the infinitive: ayant for avant (habentem), pleuvant for plouvant, voyant for veant, croyant for creant (which survives in archaic mécréant); O.F. vueillant (beside voulant < volentem) survives in bienveillant, malveillant; (as)seyant and (as)soyant crowded out (as)seant (< sedentem) which survives as a substantive and in bienséant, malséant. Other verbs in which both forms survive (one as the pres. part.-gerund, the other in a specialized use which has isolated it from the rest of the verb) are: pouvant—puissant ([by analogy with] puis, puisse); sachant ([by analogy with] sache) (twelfth-century)—savant being used only as an adj. or substantive since the sixteenth century; valant—vaillant ([by analogy with] vail, vaille) now a pure adj. except in n'avoir pas un sou vaillant; en son vivant, sur son séant are survivals of the O.F. substantival use of the gerund.








    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 21 hours ago

























    answered yesterday









    sumelic

    1,638513




    1,638513












    • didn't notice ayant comes from subjonctif présent! This reminds me of sachant.
      – iBug
      23 hours ago










    • Pour ce qui est de pourquoi le subjonctif. Il n'y a pas de raison. Il faut partir de l'observation qu'il s'agit ici d'un cas de supplétion. Puis la ranger, avec les autres, dans un espace thématique et mentionner sur ce sujet l'hypothèse avancée par Morin (1987) de l'existence de règles d'implication. Ces "régles" sont des règles par défaut.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago












    • Le comm ci-dessus laisse évidemment entrevoir un travail long et compliqué. C'est pourquoi, en regrettant encore ici que l'OP ne poursuive pas son pretty intuitive, je préfère, pour ma part, rejoindre Claire Blanche-Benveniste et observer que avoir est un des 5 verbes les plus utilisés en français. Et que, comme c'est aussi le cas dans beaucoup d'autres langues, les verbes les plus utilisés sont aussi les plus irréguliers.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago










    • Toujours à propos de mon 1er comm, Peut-être peut-on retrouver sur le net un travail mené dans les années 2000 sur le sujet par Gilles Boyer de l'Université de Nancy.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago












    • Gilles Boyé. Pardon!
      – aCOSwt
      11 hours ago


















    • didn't notice ayant comes from subjonctif présent! This reminds me of sachant.
      – iBug
      23 hours ago










    • Pour ce qui est de pourquoi le subjonctif. Il n'y a pas de raison. Il faut partir de l'observation qu'il s'agit ici d'un cas de supplétion. Puis la ranger, avec les autres, dans un espace thématique et mentionner sur ce sujet l'hypothèse avancée par Morin (1987) de l'existence de règles d'implication. Ces "régles" sont des règles par défaut.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago












    • Le comm ci-dessus laisse évidemment entrevoir un travail long et compliqué. C'est pourquoi, en regrettant encore ici que l'OP ne poursuive pas son pretty intuitive, je préfère, pour ma part, rejoindre Claire Blanche-Benveniste et observer que avoir est un des 5 verbes les plus utilisés en français. Et que, comme c'est aussi le cas dans beaucoup d'autres langues, les verbes les plus utilisés sont aussi les plus irréguliers.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago










    • Toujours à propos de mon 1er comm, Peut-être peut-on retrouver sur le net un travail mené dans les années 2000 sur le sujet par Gilles Boyer de l'Université de Nancy.
      – aCOSwt
      14 hours ago












    • Gilles Boyé. Pardon!
      – aCOSwt
      11 hours ago
















    didn't notice ayant comes from subjonctif présent! This reminds me of sachant.
    – iBug
    23 hours ago




    didn't notice ayant comes from subjonctif présent! This reminds me of sachant.
    – iBug
    23 hours ago












    Pour ce qui est de pourquoi le subjonctif. Il n'y a pas de raison. Il faut partir de l'observation qu'il s'agit ici d'un cas de supplétion. Puis la ranger, avec les autres, dans un espace thématique et mentionner sur ce sujet l'hypothèse avancée par Morin (1987) de l'existence de règles d'implication. Ces "régles" sont des règles par défaut.
    – aCOSwt
    14 hours ago






    Pour ce qui est de pourquoi le subjonctif. Il n'y a pas de raison. Il faut partir de l'observation qu'il s'agit ici d'un cas de supplétion. Puis la ranger, avec les autres, dans un espace thématique et mentionner sur ce sujet l'hypothèse avancée par Morin (1987) de l'existence de règles d'implication. Ces "régles" sont des règles par défaut.
    – aCOSwt
    14 hours ago














    Le comm ci-dessus laisse évidemment entrevoir un travail long et compliqué. C'est pourquoi, en regrettant encore ici que l'OP ne poursuive pas son pretty intuitive, je préfère, pour ma part, rejoindre Claire Blanche-Benveniste et observer que avoir est un des 5 verbes les plus utilisés en français. Et que, comme c'est aussi le cas dans beaucoup d'autres langues, les verbes les plus utilisés sont aussi les plus irréguliers.
    – aCOSwt
    14 hours ago




    Le comm ci-dessus laisse évidemment entrevoir un travail long et compliqué. C'est pourquoi, en regrettant encore ici que l'OP ne poursuive pas son pretty intuitive, je préfère, pour ma part, rejoindre Claire Blanche-Benveniste et observer que avoir est un des 5 verbes les plus utilisés en français. Et que, comme c'est aussi le cas dans beaucoup d'autres langues, les verbes les plus utilisés sont aussi les plus irréguliers.
    – aCOSwt
    14 hours ago












    Toujours à propos de mon 1er comm, Peut-être peut-on retrouver sur le net un travail mené dans les années 2000 sur le sujet par Gilles Boyer de l'Université de Nancy.
    – aCOSwt
    14 hours ago






    Toujours à propos de mon 1er comm, Peut-être peut-on retrouver sur le net un travail mené dans les années 2000 sur le sujet par Gilles Boyer de l'Université de Nancy.
    – aCOSwt
    14 hours ago














    Gilles Boyé. Pardon!
    – aCOSwt
    11 hours ago




    Gilles Boyé. Pardon!
    – aCOSwt
    11 hours ago











    1














    Just a guess (and not quite obvious as I thought initially). In this way the confusion with the fundamental word avant was avoided.






    share|improve this answer























    • L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
      – aCOSwt
      yesterday










    • @aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
      – dimitris
      yesterday










    • @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
      yesterday












    • @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
      yesterday






    • 2




      @MatthieuBrucher: Latin V is pronounced as [u] (as a vowel), as [w] (as a semivowel), or as [β] or [v] (as a consonant that developed from the semivowel [w]). It wasn't ever pronounced like "y".
      – sumelic
      yesterday
















    1














    Just a guess (and not quite obvious as I thought initially). In this way the confusion with the fundamental word avant was avoided.






    share|improve this answer























    • L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
      – aCOSwt
      yesterday










    • @aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
      – dimitris
      yesterday










    • @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
      yesterday












    • @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
      yesterday






    • 2




      @MatthieuBrucher: Latin V is pronounced as [u] (as a vowel), as [w] (as a semivowel), or as [β] or [v] (as a consonant that developed from the semivowel [w]). It wasn't ever pronounced like "y".
      – sumelic
      yesterday














    1












    1








    1






    Just a guess (and not quite obvious as I thought initially). In this way the confusion with the fundamental word avant was avoided.






    share|improve this answer














    Just a guess (and not quite obvious as I thought initially). In this way the confusion with the fundamental word avant was avoided.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday

























    answered yesterday









    dimitris

    5,6222525




    5,6222525












    • L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
      – aCOSwt
      yesterday










    • @aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
      – dimitris
      yesterday










    • @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
      yesterday












    • @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
      yesterday






    • 2




      @MatthieuBrucher: Latin V is pronounced as [u] (as a vowel), as [w] (as a semivowel), or as [β] or [v] (as a consonant that developed from the semivowel [w]). It wasn't ever pronounced like "y".
      – sumelic
      yesterday


















    • L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
      – aCOSwt
      yesterday










    • @aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
      – dimitris
      yesterday










    • @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
      yesterday












    • @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
      yesterday






    • 2




      @MatthieuBrucher: Latin V is pronounced as [u] (as a vowel), as [w] (as a semivowel), or as [β] or [v] (as a consonant that developed from the semivowel [w]). It wasn't ever pronounced like "y".
      – sumelic
      yesterday
















    L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday




    L'explication est séduisante. Néanmoins... bon... faut... hmmm... faut voir... ;-)
    – aCOSwt
    yesterday












    @aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
    – dimitris
    yesterday




    @aCOSwt J'ai dis plusieurs fois : Non locuteurs natif:-)!
    – dimitris
    yesterday












    @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
    yesterday






    @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
    yesterday














    @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
    yesterday




    @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
    yesterday




    2




    2




    @MatthieuBrucher: Latin V is pronounced as [u] (as a vowel), as [w] (as a semivowel), or as [β] or [v] (as a consonant that developed from the semivowel [w]). It wasn't ever pronounced like "y".
    – sumelic
    yesterday




    @MatthieuBrucher: Latin V is pronounced as [u] (as a vowel), as [w] (as a semivowel), or as [β] or [v] (as a consonant that developed from the semivowel [w]). It wasn't ever pronounced like "y".
    – sumelic
    yesterday











    1














    For habere, there is attested active participle form habeant-, probably from late Latin that evolved to the French dialect of proto-romance. From there, it would be the same evolution as the subjunctive itself.



    The forms based on habeant- are easy to find just by googling, but if you need some better source, e.g. Foley,J: Theoretical Morphology of the French Verb indicates there seem to be quite a few other verbs where the late Latin seems to have used the subjunctive stem as a source for the active participle. My guess would be this was an analogy with the prevalent a-form verbs of the first conjugation, ending with -ant- along with the pressure to maintain the stem vowel -e-.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Eleshar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.














    • 1




      I thought -vj- would be expected to merge with -bj- and also develop into -ž-. This Linguistics SE question gives the example of alleger from alleviare and the linked duplicate gives the example of abbreviare to abréger.
      – sumelic
      yesterday












    • Actually, I see that you wrote the answer to the duplicate there!
      – sumelic
      yesterday












    • Good point. No idea about the exact rules - abbreviare gives abréger. Might have something to do with timing perhaps? Earlier /vj/ > /ž/, later/secondary /vj/ > /j/? Or perhaps stress comes into play? Will have to research more. In any case the subjunctive-like participle form goes back to Latin.
      – Eleshar
      yesterday










    • I added a cite to my answer that gives an explanation. The -be- is supposed to have been reduced to -[j]- already in “Popular Latin”, as a special reduction in the verb habeo
      – sumelic
      yesterday


















    1














    For habere, there is attested active participle form habeant-, probably from late Latin that evolved to the French dialect of proto-romance. From there, it would be the same evolution as the subjunctive itself.



    The forms based on habeant- are easy to find just by googling, but if you need some better source, e.g. Foley,J: Theoretical Morphology of the French Verb indicates there seem to be quite a few other verbs where the late Latin seems to have used the subjunctive stem as a source for the active participle. My guess would be this was an analogy with the prevalent a-form verbs of the first conjugation, ending with -ant- along with the pressure to maintain the stem vowel -e-.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Eleshar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.














    • 1




      I thought -vj- would be expected to merge with -bj- and also develop into -ž-. This Linguistics SE question gives the example of alleger from alleviare and the linked duplicate gives the example of abbreviare to abréger.
      – sumelic
      yesterday












    • Actually, I see that you wrote the answer to the duplicate there!
      – sumelic
      yesterday












    • Good point. No idea about the exact rules - abbreviare gives abréger. Might have something to do with timing perhaps? Earlier /vj/ > /ž/, later/secondary /vj/ > /j/? Or perhaps stress comes into play? Will have to research more. In any case the subjunctive-like participle form goes back to Latin.
      – Eleshar
      yesterday










    • I added a cite to my answer that gives an explanation. The -be- is supposed to have been reduced to -[j]- already in “Popular Latin”, as a special reduction in the verb habeo
      – sumelic
      yesterday
















    1












    1








    1






    For habere, there is attested active participle form habeant-, probably from late Latin that evolved to the French dialect of proto-romance. From there, it would be the same evolution as the subjunctive itself.



    The forms based on habeant- are easy to find just by googling, but if you need some better source, e.g. Foley,J: Theoretical Morphology of the French Verb indicates there seem to be quite a few other verbs where the late Latin seems to have used the subjunctive stem as a source for the active participle. My guess would be this was an analogy with the prevalent a-form verbs of the first conjugation, ending with -ant- along with the pressure to maintain the stem vowel -e-.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Eleshar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    For habere, there is attested active participle form habeant-, probably from late Latin that evolved to the French dialect of proto-romance. From there, it would be the same evolution as the subjunctive itself.



    The forms based on habeant- are easy to find just by googling, but if you need some better source, e.g. Foley,J: Theoretical Morphology of the French Verb indicates there seem to be quite a few other verbs where the late Latin seems to have used the subjunctive stem as a source for the active participle. My guess would be this was an analogy with the prevalent a-form verbs of the first conjugation, ending with -ant- along with the pressure to maintain the stem vowel -e-.







    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Eleshar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday





















    New contributor




    Eleshar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered yesterday









    Eleshar

    1113




    1113




    New contributor




    Eleshar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    Eleshar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    Eleshar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.








    • 1




      I thought -vj- would be expected to merge with -bj- and also develop into -ž-. This Linguistics SE question gives the example of alleger from alleviare and the linked duplicate gives the example of abbreviare to abréger.
      – sumelic
      yesterday












    • Actually, I see that you wrote the answer to the duplicate there!
      – sumelic
      yesterday












    • Good point. No idea about the exact rules - abbreviare gives abréger. Might have something to do with timing perhaps? Earlier /vj/ > /ž/, later/secondary /vj/ > /j/? Or perhaps stress comes into play? Will have to research more. In any case the subjunctive-like participle form goes back to Latin.
      – Eleshar
      yesterday










    • I added a cite to my answer that gives an explanation. The -be- is supposed to have been reduced to -[j]- already in “Popular Latin”, as a special reduction in the verb habeo
      – sumelic
      yesterday
















    • 1




      I thought -vj- would be expected to merge with -bj- and also develop into -ž-. This Linguistics SE question gives the example of alleger from alleviare and the linked duplicate gives the example of abbreviare to abréger.
      – sumelic
      yesterday












    • Actually, I see that you wrote the answer to the duplicate there!
      – sumelic
      yesterday












    • Good point. No idea about the exact rules - abbreviare gives abréger. Might have something to do with timing perhaps? Earlier /vj/ > /ž/, later/secondary /vj/ > /j/? Or perhaps stress comes into play? Will have to research more. In any case the subjunctive-like participle form goes back to Latin.
      – Eleshar
      yesterday










    • I added a cite to my answer that gives an explanation. The -be- is supposed to have been reduced to -[j]- already in “Popular Latin”, as a special reduction in the verb habeo
      – sumelic
      yesterday










    1




    1




    I thought -vj- would be expected to merge with -bj- and also develop into -ž-. This Linguistics SE question gives the example of alleger from alleviare and the linked duplicate gives the example of abbreviare to abréger.
    – sumelic
    yesterday






    I thought -vj- would be expected to merge with -bj- and also develop into -ž-. This Linguistics SE question gives the example of alleger from alleviare and the linked duplicate gives the example of abbreviare to abréger.
    – sumelic
    yesterday














    Actually, I see that you wrote the answer to the duplicate there!
    – sumelic
    yesterday






    Actually, I see that you wrote the answer to the duplicate there!
    – sumelic
    yesterday














    Good point. No idea about the exact rules - abbreviare gives abréger. Might have something to do with timing perhaps? Earlier /vj/ > /ž/, later/secondary /vj/ > /j/? Or perhaps stress comes into play? Will have to research more. In any case the subjunctive-like participle form goes back to Latin.
    – Eleshar
    yesterday




    Good point. No idea about the exact rules - abbreviare gives abréger. Might have something to do with timing perhaps? Earlier /vj/ > /ž/, later/secondary /vj/ > /j/? Or perhaps stress comes into play? Will have to research more. In any case the subjunctive-like participle form goes back to Latin.
    – Eleshar
    yesterday












    I added a cite to my answer that gives an explanation. The -be- is supposed to have been reduced to -[j]- already in “Popular Latin”, as a special reduction in the verb habeo
    – sumelic
    yesterday






    I added a cite to my answer that gives an explanation. The -be- is supposed to have been reduced to -[j]- already in “Popular Latin”, as a special reduction in the verb habeo
    – sumelic
    yesterday













    0














    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.






    share|improve this answer




























      0














      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.






      share|improve this answer


























        0












        0








        0






        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.






        share|improve this answer














        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.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited yesterday

























        answered yesterday









        LPH

        5,064317




        5,064317






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Human spaceflight

            Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

            File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg