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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- 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.

>

It's interesting (at least to me) that western Romance picked the
consonant ending -s of acc. pl. to be the caseless pl., while
eastern Romance picked the vowel endings -i, -ae. Once that ending
was shibbolethised, is it possible -i spread to other abodes of -s,
ie 2nd sg., in eastern Romance?


Torsten