Re: [tied] anomaly

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:51:04 +0100, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>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.

Not quite. Class II stems like mare "sea" had in Latin a dative in -i.
The masculines have lost the dative in Romanian (câine obl. câine), but
feminines still have it (mare obl. mãri). mari-l^ei then becomes mari-ei.
which becomes mãrii.

>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"?

The dative of the demonstrative pronouns in Latin was:

hui(-c), isti:, illi:

There was no distinction between masc., fem. or neuter.

On the model of hui, the forms istui and illui were formed.

Later, when the need was felt for a separate feminine form, the forms
*illaei, *istaei were created (apparently, the m./n. forms in -ui were by
then felt to be composed of the thematic ending -o: (> -U) + -i, so the new
fem. dative was made similarly: nominal dat. -ae (> -E) + i).

>Miguel, which are please the cognates in Romance for Rom. "-ui", "-ei"
>for allowing the reconstruct "*illui, *illaei, *unui, *unaei" beside
>Romanian?

French lui, leur, Italian lui, lei, loro.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...