Re: Romanian verbal paradigm

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:
> Of course all changes are explicable.

> > 2. Most nouns in -or are masculine, so when the rule that trees

are

> > feminine was abandoned, _arbor_ could switch too. (I've a

feeling

> > this change is *not* Common Romance.)
>
> Well, CIL XIII, 1780, 8-9 quoted above, along with masculine It.
> "albero", Fr., Cat. "arbre", Sp. "árbol" (also "árbor"), etc. would
> be some arguments against your feeling.

Yes, my feeling was misplaced. It is the abstract nouns in -or
which do not have consistent gender acros Romance, e.g. Fr.
_douleur_ (f.), Sp _dolor_ (m.), It _dolore_ (m.). It is striking
that Romanian abstract nouns in -oare should be feminine. Is this a
native development or French influence? I notice that DEX
identifies a lot of the Romanian abstract nouns in -oare as loans
from French.

> > 3. In Latin, abstract nouns (or at least, those derived from or
> > 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_.
>
> Actually Rom. "dor" < VLat. "dolus" (derivative of "dole:re"). If
> you start as usual with accusative of "dolor", you'll

get "dolorem"

> -> *durore, no way for "dor(u)".

The accusative would indeed have yielded *duroare.

What is the evidence for *dolus?

Just as there is no way for Romanian _sorã_ 'sister'? I recall
seeing the explanation _soror_ > sor(u) > sorã, with the masculine
ending being replaced by the feminine ending.

Richard.