Re: [tied] Romance Neuter Nouns (was: Lat. -idus)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:06:45 +0100, alex
<alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>
>> But in fact ouã does not have a plural in -ã, historically.
>
>you mean for sure "etymologicaly" here.

Same thing.

>The "-ã" should be considered as
>developed from "-e" if the etymon is the Latin word, the "-ã" should be
>developed from "-a" if from an word as Albanian "vë"(egg). I am afraid
>it is almost imposible to say here which is the right etymon.

I'm afraid it's quite easy to say.

>> In Romanian the old neuter pl. ending -a has been
>> analogically changed to -e (after the feminine -a, pl. -e,
>> something which is abundantly attested already in Vulgar
>> Latin), so most old neuters that do not have -uri (< -ure)
>> make their plural in -e (lemn, bratz, corn, os, mãr, etc.).
>> The same goes for ouã < oue, which goes like nove(m) > nouã,
>> with the regular development -we > -wa.
>
>is there any points to sustain this assumtion of "changing" ?

Actually, I wasn't completely accurate: the analogy is after
the demonstrative f./n. pl. illae(c). Partial analogy is
already seen e.g. in Agnellus: "gaudia versae(!) sunt". In
Northern Italy (le membre, le carre, le castelle) and
Romania, this became the norm.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...