>the same way, John of Sam. I mean this "alu" there.
No *alu there. It's "a lu'", two words! The possessive particle
with the meaning "of" is indeed "a", and is indeed used
as such no matter whether the determined word is masculine,
feminine or a neutrum - or singular or plural. But this
is today valid only in "popular", colloquial, regional,
slangy speech. As well as in older Romanian language phases
(up to the 19th century). In correct, standard Romanian,
this particle changes accordingly -- "al, ai" (for masc.),
"a, ale" (for fem.) (the Rum. neutral subst. being
"ambi-gender", in the singular you'll use the masc. "al",
and in the plural "ale").
So, for the regional and colloquial "a lu'", the standard
Romanian language equivalent is "a/al/ai/ale + ***lui". The
feminine counterpart: "a/al/ai/ale ***ei" (in some, rather
dialectal or sloppy-language, cases also "***ii"). Hence
the Moldavian second names of the kind Ailenei, Alupoaiei,
Avadanei are strictly constructed in the feminine form.
There ain't no such names as *Aileanului, *Alupoiului,
*Avaduvului in Moldavia.
As anybody can see, the contruction isn't complete without the
genitive ending of the main word: masc.+neutr. sing. "-lui",
fem. sing. "-ei" & plur. "-lor".
As for the Dacian-Thracian composite names of the
Aulu- family (such as Aulucentus, Auluporis) nobody knows
for sure what Aulu- stands for. But it's more than probable
that Aulu had a meaning either as substantive or as adjective
(God knows what tribe or clan of... howling ululantes :-).
But not as a mere possessive particle, as the Romanian
"a, al, ai, ale". Especially since the assumption is very
strong that "-centus" and "-poris" meant approx. "born as/in
the"/"belonging to the clan of" and "son of" respectively.
The "equation" you're forever insisting on would imply e.g.
a nonsensical "Aulucentus" = "born as... of".
>tatal a multi oameni
>adunarea a multe capete
>radacina a toate bunatatile
These are those few idiomatic exceptions:
tatal oamenilor => tatal a multi oameni, but also tata al
multor oameni [tata without a definite article];
adunarea capetelor => adunarea a multe capete, but also
adunare a multor capete [adunare (gathering, assembly)
without a definite article].
The same pattern with numerals: tata a 5 copii (despite
being put in connection with a plural, the standard language
uses only "a"; possible remnant from the times - very
recent times - when an universal "a" for all cases was
good standard Romanian; just have a look at the literature
and official scripts (laws etc.) of the 19th century).
>radacina a tuturor relelor
This doesn't budge with an iota out of the rule frame:
"a" + the feminine "radacina" (root) + the plural genitive
ending both in "tuturor" and in "relelor" (<- "rele" + "-lor").
>precum si formele de genitiv dativ ca in tuturor, multora,
In these forms you also have the plural genitival suffix
-lor, reduced to -or. (The... ornamental ending -a doesn't
matter, it won't alter this pattern at all.)