Re: [tied] anomaly

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>>
>> I guess here can be the mistake where I am in doubt about. I must
>> honestly admit that I am stil searching for an answer in the forming
>> of genitive here. I am not sure, I repeat, I am not sure if for
>> making the genitive is the "-lui" and "-i" you mention here.
>
> The feminine should be -ei (Old Romanian capre-ei, Aromanian
> capre-l^ei).

I guess you are right. It seems it is "-ei" and not "-i". I assume that
in some words the "e" sincoped and thus we have the "ii" at the end like
in "mãrii" < *mãrei.

>
> I don't understand what you don't understand. The endings are
> exactly the same:
>
> (e)ll-u un-u est-u
> (e)ll-ui un-ui est-ui
> (e)ll-i est-i
> (e)ll-oru un-oru est-oru
>
> (e)ll-a un-a est-a
> (e)ll-ei un-ei est-ei
> (e)ll-e est-e
> (e)ll-oru un-oru est-oru
>
> From Latin:
>
> illum unum/unus istum
> *illui *unui *istui
> illi isti
> illorum unorum istorum
>
> illa(m) una(m) ista(m)
> *illaei *unaei *istaei
> illae istae
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>

Tis "-ui" and "-ei" disturb me. In Latin we have "ae" as genitival form
for Rom. genitival "ei". but lautgesetzlich we should have an "e" from
Latin "ae". So, why "ei"?
Miguel, which are please the cognates in Romance for Rom. "-ui", "-ei"
for allowing the reconstruct "*illui, *illaei, *unui, *unaei" beside
Romanian?
I guess the question "do they play the same genitival role" shuld be
avoided since other Romance has an another construction for genitive.
That sounds maybe a bit strange for an non-accomodated but the simply
comparation of Romance "lui" shows that they play different gramatical
role in the languiages where we have to find it.
Alex