Re: [tied] anomaly

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

> m_iacomi wrote:
> [...]
>>>> That is strange. There is "mele, tãle, sale" the possessive
>>>> plural instead of the expected sg. "mea, ta, sa".
>>
>> Expected by whom?! In principle, the forms of possessives are
>> to be systematically learned during the first years of school,
>> along with a bunch of grammar issues one should have already in
>> mind when using one's own tongue (not mentioning etymological
>> issues).
>
> Expecting by the comparation with the masculine.

"by whom" requires a person not an lame explanation. "Expected"
only by people who have no clue about gramatics of the own tongue.

>>>> Should be this explained how? Etymologically?
>>>
>>> It's not a plural. It's an oblique. And this phenomenon is not
>>> confined to possessive pronouns but to practically all nouns,
>>> pronouns, adjectives and determiners: the oblique form of
>>> feminines is equal to the plural form.
>>
>> Actually, Alex should be aware of nouns, adjectives, pronouns and
>> determiners declination in Romanian since was taught in school. I
>> think of little use would be explaining "casus rectus & obliquus",
>> it's simpler to remind that there are basically two forms in
>> Romanian declination, one is N/A (Nominative/Accusative) and the
>> other is G/D (Genitive/Dative). The rule about G/D articulated form
>> (singular & feminine) being linked to N/A plural by adding the -i
>> was equally taught in school (though with little effect on some
>> ex-pupils): "o casã / douã case / casei", "o scarã / douã scãri /
>> scãrii", etc.; that is to account on your example:
>>
>>> E.g. Marea Neagrã, oblique Mãrii Negre "of the Black Sea" (where
>>> mãri- and negre are just like the plural forms).
>
> I am afraid there are some comunication troubles. I just compare
> masculine with feminine in several languages versus this example.
> From the example you gave here I am afraid there is nothing to see
> to what I asked.

Geez, that's hard, even if stated clearly. Let's try again: the
G/D singular form in Romanian (corresponding to the oblique) is
the same with the unique plural form for feminine nouns, pronouns,
adjectives & determiners. Have you got the statement?! Good. Now:
in "pantoful mamei mele", the noun "mamei" and the pronoun "mele"
have to be in the Genitive case; since "mama" is a feminine, the
rule for G/D singular form equal to plural applies. Therefore the
expected form has to be "mele", as for the plural.

>> Let's put that simply: those pronouns are in genitive case, so
>> their form is the one required by declination rules. The same goes
>> for other Romances, though noticing that possession is expressed
>> through particles and not by modifying pronoun's form:
>> Fr. "la chaussure _de_ ma mère"
>> "la chaussure _de_ ta mère"
>> "la chaussure _de_ sa mère"
> [...]
> Do I make any mistake or all the Fr., It. Cat. here presents
> singular forms of possesive pronoun?

The declination survives nowdays only in Romanian. The Genitive
(case of possession) is expressed in modern Romances not through
modifying the form of the pronoun (noun, adjective, etc.), but by
inserting a particle whichy I underlined. The point is that you
do not translate Romanian "mele" by French "ma" or Italian "mia"
but by French "de ma" or Italian "di mia": hence there is not an
formal identity between Genitives and Nominatives even in other
Romance languages, only the difference appears at another level.

Miguel made a reference to a very well-known feature of VL and
Proto-Romance, that is "disparition" of most cases by melting down
in some general form, continuing thus a tendency already existent.
The system became bi-casual, with "casus rectus" continuing
formally Nominative and Vocative, while "casus obliquus" held
for the other Latin cases. This distinction was still conserved
in O. Fr. and O. Occ. (which preserved for some time two different
cases); the distinction still operates in Romanian, with Accusative
assigned to "casus rectus". The essential point to retain is that
the system of cases was gradually lost, but this tendency was not
completely achieved in modern Romanian: thus the _expected_ form
for any singular Genitive is not the same with the Nominative as
you falsely stated.

M.M. de M.