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

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>
> But in fact ou� does not have a plural in -�, historically.

you mean for sure "etymologicaly" here. The "-�" should be considered as
developed from "-e" if the etymon is the Latin word, the "-�" should be
developed from "-a" if from an word as Albanian "v�"(egg). I am afraid
it is almost imposible to say here which is the right etymon.

> In Romanian the old neuter pl. ending -a has been
> analogically changed to -e (after the feminine -a, pl. -e,
> something which is abundantly attested already in Vulgar
> Latin), so most old neuters that do not have -uri (< -ure)
> make their plural in -e (lemn, bratz, corn, os, m�r, etc.).
> The same goes for ou� < oue, which goes like nove(m) > nou�,
> with the regular development -we > -wa.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

is there any points to sustain this assumtion of "changing" ? I could be
passible of mistake due overseeing something but the oldest records do
not have any words with plural in "a" just in "e". BTW; do not forget.
Rom. neuter does not continue the Latin neuter. So far I remember from
Rosetti. So, which is the basis for assume this change?

Alex




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.12 - Release Date: 14.01.2005