> > I don't quite get it how explaining the -ul's as articles would
help
> > much
> >
> > Evelina
>
> To help to what?
I do not see how the explanation of this morpheme as an article
helps make the explanation better and more acceptable. Generally, I
would not expect an article to break the morphemic structure of a
word and I cannot think of a language where such a thing would
happen. In Bulgarian, you have the article attached at the end of
the word, AFTER all the grammatical endings. Most old languages did
not have an article at all, not to mention many of those I am
acquainted with - modern or ancient, do not like using articles with
proper names. So it seems highly improbable that your theory turns
right. I don't know about those diminutives, at least they do not
sound grammatically absurd to me. For example, the Bulgarian...
pile "chicken"
pile-n-ce "little chicken" - diminutive
pile-n-ce-to "the little chicken"
The article comes at the end of the word, as expected, *after* the
diminutive suffix. I would be glad to hear of a language where the
opposite would happen.
>
> I just showed it because it is mentained the idea that the "-
ul", "-uli"
> is seen as a Latin property.
So whose "property" should it be then? And how can you back this
historically? Just curious.
Evelina