Re: [tied] Romance Neuter Nouns (was: Lat. -idus)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "petegray" <petegray@...> wrote:
> > > I think it can reasonably be said that Italian
> > > words like _uovo_ (singular, masculine), _uova_ (plural,
> > > feminine) 'egg' are neuter rather than of mixed gender.
> >
> > Grammatical gender refers not to the form of the noun, but to

the

> > form of adjectives, articles, determinants, etc which agree with
> > that noun. So I disagree - the term "neuter" would not make

sense

> > in Italian, and plurals like uova, paia, braccia etc must be

called

> > feminine plural.

This is exactly the behaviour of the Romanian 'neuter'. I do not
see any difference between Italian and Romanian in this respect.

> I agree with you here. I have to add tough, my remarque with "I
> shouldn't use "neutra" within Romance" was pointing not to the
> forms "neutra" versus "neuter" but just to the almost inexistence

of

> this gender in Romance.

Alex, you confuse me. Are you saying Romanian does not have a
neuter gender? (It's a defensible view - Pete Gray has already
defended it!)

> The flash-point of the remarque was in fact the desinence "-oris"
> which at least in Rom. is used for neuter gender in the plural

forms.

> sg "puts" ( < puteus) - pl. "putzuri"
> sg "vad" ( < vadus) - pl. "vaduri"
> pod-poduri
> loc-locuri
> etc
>
> Interesting, the words as "ou" ( < ovum) do not have the plural

_even

> if they are neuter_ in "-uri"(< -oris ?) but they have a curious
> plural in "-ã":
> ou - ouã(< uoua)
>
> Why I say "interesting" here? Because the plural is the same as in
> Italian and, different from the normal neuter plural desinence in
> Romanian.
> So the word "egg" has in sng & pl the same form as in Italian:
>
> sg: - Rom. "ou" / It. "uovo"
> pl: - Rom. "ouã" / It. "uova"
>
> since the intervocalic "w" ( herewith included Latin "b,v" ) is
> allways preserved,

- Alex reminds me of an unfinished debate at Balkanika -

> then one has to asks himself how does it comme
> the both forms, sg. and pl. are identicaly in Rom. and Italian ?

Do

> we have indeed to do with accidental identicaly developments from
> Latin to Italian and Romanian or we have to speak here about loans
> from a language to another language?

In Latin:

Nom, acc s.: o:vum
Abl. s.: o:vo:
Nom, acc pl: o:va

This Latin pattern has been preserved in both Italian and Romanian.
(The Latin pattern is pretty much the same as the corresponding PIE
pattern.) The common innovation is that adjectives qualifying
neuter plural nouns have the feminine plural form. Is there any
trace of this in Western Romance, or indeed in the western provinces
of the Empire?

Richard.