Re: [tied] anomaly

m_iacomi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:36:39 +0100, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Romanian:
>>>
>>> pantoful mamei mele
>>> pantoful mamei tale
>>> pantoful mamei sale
>>>
>>> That is strange. There is "mele, tãle, sale" the possessive
>>> plural instead of the expected sg. "mea, ta, sa".
>
> Expected by whom?! In principle, the forms of possessives are
> to be systematically learned during the first years of school,
> along with a bunch of grammar issues one should have already in
> mind when using one's own tongue (not mentioning etymological
> issues).

Expecting by the comparation with the masculine.

>
>>> Should be this explained how? Etymologically?
>>
>> It's not a plural. It's an oblique. And this phenomenon is not
>> confined to possessive pronouns but to practically all nouns,
>> pronouns, adjectives and determiners: the oblique form of
>> feminines is equal to the plural form.
>
> Actually, Alex should be aware of nouns, adjectives, pronouns and
> determiners declination in Romanian since was taught in school. I
> think of little use would be explaining "casus rectus & obliquus",
> it's simpler to remind that there are basically two forms in
> Romanian declination, one is N/A (Nominative/Accusative) and the
> other is G/D (Genitive/Dative). The rule about G/D articulated form
> (singular & feminine) being linked to N/A plural by adding the -i
> was equally taught in school (though with little effect on some
> ex-pupils): "o casã / douã case / casei", "o scarã / douã scãri /
> scãrii", etc.; that is to account on your example:
>
>> E.g. Marea Neagrã, oblique Mãrii Negre "of the Black Sea" (where
>> mãri- and negre are just like the plural forms).

I am afraid there are some comunication troubles. I just compare
masculine with feminine in severallanguages versus this example. From
the example you gave here I am afraid there is nothing to see to what I
asked.

>
> Let's put that simply: those pronouns are in genitive case, so
> their form is the one required by declination rules. The same goes
> for other Romances, though noticing that possession is expressed
> through particles and not by modifying pronoun's form:
> Fr. "la chaussure _de_ ma mère"
> "la chaussure _de_ ta mère"
> "la chaussure _de_ sa mère"
>
> It. "la scarpa _della_ mia madre"
> "la scarpa _della_ tua madre"
> "la scarpa _della_ sua madre"
>
> Cat. "la sabata _de_ la meva mare"
> "la sabata _de_ la teva mare"
> "la sabata _de_ la seva mare"
>
> etc.
>
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi

Do I make any mistake or all the Fr., It. Cat. here presents singular
forms of possesive pronoun? If I don't mnake a mistake and these Fr "ma,
ta, sa,", It "mia, tua, sua", Cat "meva, teva, seva" are all singular
posesive pronouns and not plural as in Rom. Right?

Alex