P&G wrote:
>> ==> the sufix in 'oi' (diftong) on the 'basic' words such :
>> Rom. Engl. Latin
>> 'doi' - 'two' - 'dos'
>> 'voi' - 'you pl.' - 'vos'
>> 'voi' - 'will' - 'volere'
>> 'noi' - 'we' - 'nos'
>> 'apoi' - 'then' - 'ad post' (?!)
>> 'oi' - 'sheep (pl.) - 'ovis'
>> don't seems at all a Latin form.
>
> It must have been a late Latin form. Compare Italian noi, voi, poi
>
> Peter
I can just tell what does the suffix "-oi" does. It "masculinise" the
property of some things in the singular form and it bold in big these
properties. I am afraid in the example given here there is no suffix
"oi" but the phonetic group "oi" which appears to have nothing
etymologicaly with the examples prooved here. Some example of finding
the suffix "-oi":
cioarã (crow) ; the word is feminine. For making out of it a masculine
one will say "cioroi"
iepure (rabbit); masculine noun. For showing an rabbit which is
something bigger , healther, stronger as an usual rabbit , one will say
"iepuroi".
bãiat (boy); masc. noun. For showing that a girl is handling/acting like
a young man she will be called "bãieToi"
I am not aware of the function of the Latin suffix "-onea" which is
supposed to be the suffix where from the Rom. derives.
For its form , one assume the "-onea" > "oaie" which should be the
feminine form of "-oi" and from this "-oaie" was made the singular
"-oi".
The bad thing is that feminine "-oaie" is almost as inexistent and the
feminine form for "-oi" is "-oaicã". Strange things but true..
Alex