AHAHAH I GOT IT!

[highlyeccentric]

If 'fers" is derived from 'fero, ferre', meaning to bear or to carry, I think it's functioning in the same way as "falloir" does in necessity clauses ("il faut que...") in modern French.* And there it is, with ara forming a compound tense! Modern French doesn't do compound futures, does it? But I wouldn't put it past Old French, the bastard.

* ETA: AHAHA. Apparently there is a requirement construction in Latin that uses 'fero'. I WIN.

So we have:

Ja n'i ara fors que t'en fuises

[Then* it will only be necessary that you flee it (me? the situation?).]
*I don't know why I think ja means then, but I do.

And THAT explains why the modern French has translated the clause with *avoir + a + infinitive* and the "fors" has disappeared. NECESSITY CONSTRUCTIONS, THEY CHANGE.

OMG. Efil bloody language. I am so glad I'm taking Latin you guys, this wouldn't have come together if I didn't know fero, ferre.

Also it wouldn't have come together without tarimanveri explaining modern french grammar to me. Or frith, who put in an impressive go at translating Old French without actually knowing what it *was*. Thanks guys! (Incidentally, Frith, if you ever have an inclination to become a medievalist, I recommend Old French! Many are the students and native speakers of French who can't make head or tail of OF on first sight, you'd do well.)

... for all that, I may have to cut the slide out of the paper. DAMN.

Comments

[tarimanveri.livejournal.com]

That seems to make good sense for the old French, yay! I'd say avoir+à is a little weird as an expression of necessity in modern French, but what do I know? Presumably the translators know better.