Re: [tied] anomaly

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

>>> m_iacomi wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Expected by whom?!
>>>
>>> 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?

No, I expect you to be able to understand a question and to answer
it correctly. "expected by whom?" was the question which required a
name as answer (actually "Alex" was the answer), and not "expected
by the token of which arguments?".

>> 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?)

Not "of whom?" but "of what?". Of course, of the same grammatical
categories mentioned: "nouns, pronouns, adjectives & determiners".

> is the same with the unique plural form

Self-correction of a unhappy statement: the plural form is unique
for possessive pronouns, not for other categories.

>> 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"

I do not "see" it. It _is_ a Genitive.

> here I wonder which is the difference for you between "mintsile
> mele" and "mamei mele".

Not being nasty, I can still remind the question is of elementary
school grammar you should be aware of. In the first text, "mele" is
feminine plural form while in the second it is a singular G/D form.

> But how do you come to the idea the possesive pronoun can be in
> genitive?

It happens I know grammar.

> Example with feminine:
>
> pantofii mamei mele
> pantofii= determined plural form of the noun in nominative
> mamei= noun in genitive
> mele = poss. pron. fem. pl

Wrong. "mele" is singular Genitive feminine possessive pronoun.

> 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.

"meu" is singular Genitive masculine possessive pronoun, having
the same form as for the N/A case.

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

No, you are confused by two different issues.
1. The grammar rule: possessive pronouns have to agree in case
with determined noun;
2. The form rule: G/D singular feminine is formally identical in
Romanian with N/A plural feminine (for nouns, adjectives, etc.).
This rule has been taught without explanation in elementary school
and it went something like: "if you're not sure about the feminine
singular G/D form, you just take the plural and that's it".
This second rule is obiously a remainder of the two-case late-VL
and Proto-Romance system which confounded singular "casus obliquus"
with plural "casus rectus" (and viceversa), as the other reminders
show out (the OF and O.Occ. systems).
About the first rule, think about "casa albã" (N/A) / "casei albe"
(G/D), with the adjective "albe" taking the singular G/D = plural
N/A form, just as for the possessive pronoun.
In order to avoid further questions, the same case rule helds for
masculine: "bradul alb" (N/A) vs. "bradului alb", only that forms
for masculine singular G/D are similar with N/A; the case becomes
clear when transferring the article (and its' different declination
forms) on the adjective: "albul brad" (N/A) / "albului brad" (G/D),
to be compared also with "alba casã" (N/A) / "albei case" (G/D).

The only question not being answered (because it was not the subject
of the thread) is why singular masculine G/D form is not identical to
plural N/A in Romanian, but to singular N/A. The answer is that the
case system became a sketch of the Latin one, reflecting the general
tendency to eliminate complications in all Romance (including French
and Occitan), and power of analogy prevailed over a non-standardized
system with two cases as in many other instances. OTOH, the "casus
rectus" and "casus obliquus" forms were quite similar in Eastern
Romance for most masculine singulars, since final -s played no role.

> I don't make here any comments about again Rom. with a special
> status between Romance, it is not the right topic for it.

You don't have to. Romanian has some special features among Romance
which are very normal. It would have been abnormal not to have them.

> The explanation, how you see it, does not explain the fact because
> in Masculine und Neutrum there is not this anomaly.

There is no anomaly. See above about formal identity of "rectus"
and "obliquus" for masculine in Eastern Romance.

> 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.

Well, just read something about two-case late VL system before being
afraid of anything. It would be of some help.

Marius Iacomi