a question about Vocative in Rom.

Vocative for masculine sg. in Rom. is "-e" , for feminine sg. "�" or "o".
Until here nothing new, I remember we discussed these once as I questioned
the vocative in "o" which was supposed to be of Slavic origin. Why at that
time one did not mention the plural form, I have no idea. But here is this;
the vocative for plural masculine or feminine is absolutly strange since it
is "-lor".

Masc. pl: fraTi, vocative -> fraTilor !
Fem . pl: surori,vocative -> surorilor !

Here it doesnt matter from which a language a word comes, it doesnt't matter
how old or how recent an word is. The vocative is made up in pl. with this
"-lor". But "-lor" is in fact the genitive desinence for pl. as well.

un b�iat (a boy); doi baieTi (two boys), b�ieTilor (of the boys)
o fat� (a girl); dou� fete (two girls), fetelor (of the girls)

The difference between vocative and genitive in this situation can be
understood just from the context of the sentence. Just reading/hearing the
whole sentence one see if there is vocative or genitive.
It is worth to mention that the genitive plural has too no alternance as in
Sg. There is too exceptionless made up with "-lor" for all the words,
regardless if they are masc., fem. , or neutra.

Since it is hard to believe that the genitive can have the same form with
vocative ab originis, apparently one of two forms is a form which just
coincidentaly got the aspect of the another. Since for genitive plural ,
there is no beter explanation as Latin "illorum" given, I ask myself how is
to explain this vocative plural "-lor".


Alex