>Mr Iacomy explained here the "unã" > "o" .
Yes, but the example above is the indefinite
article (articolul nehotarît), that in Aromanian
has stayed "unã."
The "o" in my sentence is a pronoun (for
the feminine), in the accusative case:
(I) pe mine mä, (II) pe tine te, (III) pe
el îl/pe ea ----->o<----- / (I) pe noi ne,
(II) pe voi vä, (III) pe ei îi/pe ele le.
"pe" is here the preposition typical for
the accusative ("pe cine?" = "whom?" ->
pe...); the former pronouns are the so-called
full forms, and the latter are the brief
forms ("formele contrase"):
Acc.: mine, tine, el/ea, noi, voi, ei/ele
Acc.: mä, te, îl/o, ne, vä, îi/le
(the reflexive short pronoun Acc: mä, te,
***se***, ne, vä, ***se***)
(These double pronouns, actually having the
same function (semantics) in the accusative
or dative, are an idiomatic peculiarity of
the Romanian language. So both of these
sentences are 100% correct: "Pe mine ma
cheama Alex." "Ma cheama Alex." And have the
same meaning: "My name is Alex.")
>"calul îl vãd". Which is the
>explanation of "îl" in this case?
A personal pronoun corresponding to "el", as
in the string above.
George
PS: dative:
mie+îmi, tie+îti, lui+îi/ei+îi; nouä+ne+ni,
vouä+vä+vi, lor+le+li
for linkings: -mi, -ti, -i; -ne/ne-, v'/-va,
-le/le-
reflexive: mie+îmi, tie+îti, îSi; nouä+ne+ni,
vouä+vä+vi, î$i
-mi, -ti, -Si, -ne/ne-, v'/-va, -Si
(in Romania, instead of v' => v-)