Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

R: Re: New Brithenig words, part Deux.

From:Mangiat <mangiat@...>
Date:Wednesday, May 30, 2001, 12:23
John Cowan wrote:

> Raymond Brown scripsit: > > > >In other > > >words, you have to assume that the nominative plural survived as in
> > >not the accusitive pl. /-o:s/ as in Spanish, French etc. > > > > Hang on - the nominative _did_ survive in Old French, cf. > > SINGULAR PLURAL > > Nominative: murs mur > > Oblique: mur murs > > But then it died almost without a trace, except for special cases like
> < PRESBYTER and on < HOMO. > > Anyway, it turns out that the Italian plural endings aren't really from
> nom. either, it just looks that way. Consider adj. "magnifico", fem. pl. > "magnifiche" /-ke/. If this were from MAGNIFICAE, it would have been > "magnifice" /-tSe/; instead, it is from MAGNIFICAS, with loss of "-s". >
I've just read Rohlfs's pages about the matter (in 'Historische Grammatik der Italienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten'), and he doens not believe this theory. Indeed we'd have, for exemple: LUPU(M) > lupo LUPO:S > lupi And here we do agree. But we have, also: AMAMUS > amiamo But the ending -us (where the u is breve) should give the same reflex -o:s gives (short u and long o merged). It isn't so, and, this way, we have demonstrated that the plural ending is directly coming down from Latin. It is true that palatalisation seldom appears in ending vowel+/s/ combinations (nos > noi; vos > voi; habes > *has > hai; vadis > *vas > vai...), but in monosyllabic words only. Then the fact that the plural of magnifica is magnifiche can be explained with analogy: the plural of 'amico', in some old texts, was 'amichi' /amiki/ as well, and the palatalisation indeed happens in educated words only (graeco-latin -ico adjectives and so on). Luca