Re: New Brithenig words, part Deux.

Raymond Brown sikayal:

> I know.  The evidence is pretty conclusive that the nom. & acc, plural of
> 1st decl. feminines were both -as in the Vulgar Latin period.  The Rumanian
> and Italian plural -e developed from -as --> -*aj --> -e; likewise the 3rd
> decl. plural developed -es --> -*ej --> -i.
>
> But it is also clear that the 2nd dec. mascs. retained two separate plural
> cases in Vulgar Latin, i.e. -i (nom.) and -os (acc).  The Rumanian &
> Italian -i could result from -os --> -*oj --> -i, and certainly in part
> does so.  But the nominative was alive enough to cause palatalization in
> common words, cf. Italian:
> amica ~ amiche <-- VL amica ~ amicas
> amico ~ amici /a'mitSi/ <-- amico ~ amici
Hmmm.  What, then is the explanation for the corresponding Romanian forms?
Romanian has /ami'c@ ~ ami'tSe/ for the singular and plural feminine forms
of this adjective, showing palatalization.  Did palatalization persist as
an active feature in Romanian, or are the forms analogous?  I would doubt
analogy, since *all* feminine plurals cause palatalization.

Romanian also has the pair /om ~ oameni/ for "man/men", which is obviously
from Latin HOMO~HOMINES.


Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton