From: m_iacomi
Message: 31115
Date: 2004-02-16
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:Of course all changes are explicable. The main reason is that
>
>> Gender change is by no means surprising, especially for things
>> without clear reason to be more likely masculine than feminine:
>> Lat. F arbor > Rom. M. arbore, Lat. F. fagus > Rom. M. fag but
>> Lat. M. dolor > Rom. F. durere, etc.
>
> I thought these changes were explicable:
> 2. Most nouns in -or are masculine, so when the rule that trees areWell, CIL XIII, 1780, 8-9 quoted above, along with masculine It.
> feminine was abandoned, _arbor_ could switch too. (I've a feeling
> this change is *not* Common Romance.)
> 3. In Latin, abstract nouns (or at least, those derived from orActually Rom. "dor" < VLat. "dolus" (derivative of "dole:re"). If
> parallel to adjectives) are feminine, *except* for abstract nouns
> in - or, which are masculine. This exception was abandoned, so the
> abstract nouns in -or became feminine. I'm not sure that this rule
> applies to Romanian. The only example I can think of is Latin
> _dolor_ (m.) > *doru > _dor_ (n.) 'longing'. The new gender may be
> connected with the plural in Romanian being _doruri_.
> Surely Romanian _durere_ (f.) is merely the verbal noun ofProbably right, but Lat. m. "pontem" > Rom. f. "punte" `narrow
> _durea_ 'to hurt, be in pain', i.e. derived from the Latin
> infinitve _dole:re_.