Re: East Romance -i v. West Romance -s (was: Rom aia - Alb ajo < PA

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

> > Then the 2.sg ending of the 4.th decletion was analogically
> > transformed to all 2.sg forms. Thus the defect caused by the
> consonant
> > loss was repaired.
>
> Aquila this argument is not sufficient. As I already asked

Miguel:

> Why the English people didn't try "to repair" I go, you go, we go,

Why

> the Lithuanians didn't try to "repair" their III-pl with III-sg.
> forms , why the Romanians and Albanians didn't try "to repair"

the

> Gen.Dat. forms that are the same or their Ac.Nom. forms that are

the

> same too?
>
> So if somebody tries to put this explanation in front he needs

to

> say more: to explain why this "reparation" was needed, to "detect"

the

> cause that triggered such a phenomenon based on several well known
> examples...otherwise is easy to find "another ending" that fits

and to

> say that this and that "was spreading" from there....to the place
> that "doesn't fit" initially...
>
> Until then this "restitutio day" regarding the "spreading"

of "some

> endings" mainly that ones that "didn't fit" is an "ad-hoc"
> theory....that is put in place of the real investigation regarding

the

> possible causes...
>
> With all the respect,
> Marius

-------------------------------------------------------------

The answar is easy. When loss of distinctive features get too
toublesome, a reaction will occure. in Italian the loss of
consonats made trouble, because it is not normal to use unstressed
subject pronouns.

The type of reaction chosen, depend on what fits best into the
structure and rhythm of the language.

In italian, the i-ending from the 4th declention was the best fit.

An althernative repair would be to use unstressed pronouns. This was
simply not chosen, because it does not fit well into the rythm of
the Italian language.