Re: [tied] anomaly

m_iacomi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>
>> m_iacomi wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> 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.
>
> "by whom" requires a person not an lame explanation. "Expected"
> only by people who have no clue about gramatics of the own tongue.

You expect a person for a fact present in a language?It seems you stil
don't get the point ant this should be lame.

>> I am afraid there are some comunication troubles. I just compare
>> masculine with feminine in several languages versus this example.
>> From the example you gave here I am afraid there is nothing to see
>> to what I asked.
>
> Geez, that's hard, even if stated clearly. Let's try again: the
> G/D singular form in Romanian (corresponding to the oblique) is
> the same with the unique plural form for feminine nouns, pronouns,
> adjectives & determiners.

Do you understand something here? I understand that genitive and dative
form (of whom?) is the same with the unique plural form for feminine
nouns, adjectives etc...

If for you "fatã" with pl. "fete" and "femeie" with pl. "femei" has an
unique plural form , then something is very bad with the meaning of the
word "unique".

Have you got the statement?! Good. Now:

> in "pantoful mamei mele", the noun "mamei" and the pronoun "mele"
> have to be in the Genitive case; since "mama" is a feminine, the
> rule for G/D singular form equal to plural applies. Therefore the
> expected form has to be "mele", as for the plural.

If you see Genitive in "mele" here I wonder which is the difference for
you between
"mintsile mele" and "mamei mele". But how do you come to the idea the
possesive pronoun can be in genitive?
And if yes, why just the feminine and not the masculine too?
OK:
1)poss. pron. fem. sg= mea
2)poss. pron. fem. pl= mele
3)poss. pron. msc. sg= meu
4)poss. pron. msc. pl= mei

Example with feminine:

pantofii mamei mele
pantofii= determined plural form of the noun in nominative
mamei= noun in genitive
mele = poss. pron. fem. pl

Example with masculine:

pantofii tatalui meu ( the shoes of my father)

pantofii= determined plural form of the noun in nominative
tatalui= noun in genitive
meu = poss. pron. msc. sg.

This is an anomaly if we try to explain it trough some weiered oblique
case in Latin.

>
>>> 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"
>> [...]
>> Do I make any mistake or all the Fr., It. Cat. here presents
>> singular forms of possesive pronoun?
>
> The declination survives nowdays only in Romanian. The Genitive
> (case of possession) is expressed in modern Romances not through
> modifying the form of the pronoun (noun, adjective, etc.), but by
> inserting a particle whichy I underlined. The point is that you
> do not translate Romanian "mele" by French "ma" or Italian "mia"
> but by French "de ma" or Italian "di mia": hence there is not an
> formal identity between Genitives and Nominatives even in other
> Romance languages, only the difference appears at another level.
>
> Miguel made a reference to a very well-known feature of VL and
> Proto-Romance, that is "disparition" of most cases by melting down
> in some general form, continuing thus a tendency already existent.
> The system became bi-casual, with "casus rectus" continuing
> formally Nominative and Vocative, while "casus obliquus" held
> for the other Latin cases. This distinction was still conserved
> in O. Fr. and O. Occ. (which preserved for some time two different
> cases); the distinction still operates in Romanian, with Accusative
> assigned to "casus rectus". The essential point to retain is that
> the system of cases was gradually lost, but this tendency was not
> completely achieved in modern Romanian: thus the _expected_ form
> for any singular Genitive is not the same with the Nominative as
> you falsely stated.
>
> M.M. de M.

I don't make here any comments about again Rom. with a special status
between Romance, it is not the right topic for it. The explanation ,
how you see it, does not explain the fact because in Masculine und
Neutrum there is not this anomaly.
I am afraid there are other rules at work as this explanation trough an
oblique in Latin, but never mind, I keep very considering your opinion.
Thank you for it.

Alex