[tied] Re: the fascination of illV

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>>> Where does the plural -i corresponding to singular -e (3rd
>>> declension in Latin terms) come from? Is there a special
>>> development of Latin final -e:s?
>>
>> [...] I still think the reason has to do with analogy and
>> establishment of -i as plural morpheme as in some common
>> monosyllabs like nos > noi, vos > voi (It., Rom.) and at 2nd
>> declension (lupus/lupi, Nom. Pl. lupi)

[...]

>> Another theory links it with an equivalent form in -is: "Anche il
>> morfema pl. /-i/ dei nomi della III declinazione (it. <cani>,
>> rom. <câini>) può derivare dall'acusativo pl. -ES (lat. <canes>),
>> attraverso la forma -IS (<canis>), che sostituisce spesso quella
>> originaria nel latino tardo [...]", idea mentioned but also
>> criticized by Rosetti.
>> I don't think one can reach the consensus on this issue, maybe
>> Miguel would like to make some further comments.
>
> My opinion is that the paradigm canis, canem; cane:s, cane:s,
> should regularly have given (in ER): cane, cane; cane, cane.
> This is sub-optimal, and the plural forms were given the ending
> -i, the plural of the o-stems, resulting in sg. cane, pl. cani.

So at least we do agree somehow on that. :-)

> I don't believe in palatalization -es > -e(i) > -i, nor much in
> a variant plural form -i:s, which I associate rather with early
> pre-Clasical Latin than with "latino tardo".

That's also what Puscariu & Rosetti hint out, but while Puscariu
advocates for possible conservation of this early Latin feature,
Rosetti rules it out for phonetical inconsistency.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi