[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Henrik,
<is/ea/id> to my knowledge didn?t survive in any Romance language.
It is possible that <ille> (nom.m.) could have been restructured to *illus
by analogy, though I don?t see this as particularly likely. Lausberg says
that It. <lo> represents <illu(m)> (acc.m.;nom./acc.n.) or <illu(d)>
(nom.n), since dropping of final <-d> is phonologically regular.
Romance *ille
sg. m. f. n.
nom. ille illa *illu (Rom., It.)
gen.-dat. illùi illàei
acc. illu illa
pl.
nom. illi illas, *-ae (?)
gen.-dat. illoru illoru
acc. illos illas
The dative and genitive merged in eastern Romance and was lost in western
Romance, though it could be argued that western Romance also lost the
destinction before giving up the common gen.-dat. case.
Where do you believe the <illuius> form survived?
Dan
________________________________________
From: Henrik Theiling
?Hi!
I thought these were not *Vulgar* forms, because 'totus', 'solus', 'alius',
etc. even took pronomial forms *from* is/ille/iste. Further, Allen and
Greenough state that 'eae' is an *old* form for f.dat.sg. of 'is, ea, id',
so I'd think that the pronomial forms were actually becoming more
wide-spread. For 'illae' vs. 'illius', they just state that the 'illae'
forms are 'sometimes' used.
I thought that in Vulgar times, 'ille' indeed went towards adjectives, but
still with different forms, among them 'illus' m.sg.nom., later 'illu' ('lo'
in some Modern Romance langs) instead of 'ille' and 'illaei' and 'illui' in
the dative to yield 'lui' and 'lei' in Italian, and with 'illaeius',
'illuius' in the genitive. (And abl. and acc. had probably merged due to the
drop of final -m.) So I'd reconstruct Proto-Romance forms as:
*illu(s) *illa (*illud)
*illuius *illaeius (*illuius)
*illui *illaei (*illui)
*illu *illa (*illud)
I am not sure at all, though. Is there some expert of Vulgar Latin around
who knows this?
In Germanic, a (possibly parallel) development has introduced pronomial
endings in the adjective endings. And for this reason, I have recently
reworked my Þrjótrunn to take some pronomial forms into adjective
declension. Therefore, the language is now written with -nn. :-) (North
Romance did not have the 'illuius' forms, however, but I'm still
investigating whether that is realistic.)
**Henrik
PS: Cross-posting to romconlang, maybe someone knows more, there.
I'm really curious!?
------------------------
Jan van Steenbergen writes:
> --- Keith Gaughan skrzypszy:
>
> > Let's suppose for a minute that 'Ille' served as the basis for the
> > Elbic definite article. In Latin, it was:
> > in the singular
> > nom. ille illa illud
> > gen. illius illius illius
> > dat. illi illi illi
> > acc. illum illam illud
> > abl. illo illa illo
>
> Just remember that in Vulgar Latin, the genitive ending -ius and the
> dative ending -i were substituted by regular endings. Therefore:
>
> nom. ille illa illum
> gen. illi illae illi
> dat. illo illae illo
> acc. illum illam illum
> abl. illo illa illo
>
> At least, if I'm not véry mistaken!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]