French – (Franc-)Comtois - Pierrecourt

Name, Place and Date

Juret, C. 1917 Morphologie du patois de Pierrecourt (Arr. de Gray, Haute-Saône). Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 38:641-662.

Conditional

On all available evidence, the stem of the conditional is always identical to that of the future. It is probably for this reason that Juret (1917) often fails to specify the conditional, the implicit expectation being that the reader will be able to derive it from the future. We, however, have only supplied conditionals where we have direct attestations of the conditional stem.
Imperfect indicative

As a general (although not exceptionless) rule, the imperfect indicative comprises a lexical root identical to that found in the 1/2pl. present, plus the characteristic endings of the imperfect which are apparently the same for virtually all verbs. It is probably for this reason that a source such as Juret (1917) does not specify the imperfect indicative forms, expecting the reader to infer the correct forms. We, however, have been cautious in specifying the imperfect indicative where we have no direct information.
Third person plural present indicative

Juret (1917) indicates that 3pl. present indicative forms in this dialect generally have two forms. One systematically comprises the root found in the 1/2pl. present indicative, combined with the ending -ãː. The other seems, as a general rule, to be identical to the singular forms of the present subjunctive. However, we have been very cautious in giving 3pl. prs.ind. forms when we lack direct attestations of them.