Re: Rom aia - Alb ajo < PAlb aja: 'that/this one (fem.)'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

> Latin duo - PAlb *dwuai - Alb. dy - Rom doi (where Rom ua>o is
> regular as in una >o ) -> nobody can told me here that the Albanoid
> Subtratum that have been Romanized didn't influenced this word at
> all (when the PIE was *duoi-jo). On the other hand to consider that
> the Latin had no influence here is a big mistake too.
> So this category Latin-PAlb-CommonForms should be introduced as a
> concept that should include this type of cases.
>
> ( NOTE: Regarding the Romanian doi 'two' I think that is
> unaccetable to explain like Rosetti did: that i in doi represents
> the mark of the plural (Rosetti ILR I): ok, plural! but from where?
> For sure not from duo but in this case from where? (a similar
> explanation is given by Rosetti for the i in Rom. trei 'three')).

'Adverbial -i'! In monosyllables, final Latin -s yields -i, as in
Italian, where the resulting final -i is known as 'adverbial -i'. The
accusative masculine and feminine of Latin _duo_ are _duo:s_ and
_dua:s_. The question here is then probably when _duo:s_ would have
become a monosyllable. The regularisation of the nominal plural to
*dui: is also not impossible - I don't remember whether Italian shows
a similar development.

The development Latin _tre:s_ > Romanian _trei_ presents no problems.

Richard.