The Oxford History of Romanian Morphology 2020941615, 9780198829485
This book offers the first comprehensive account of the development of the Romanian morphological system. Romanian is on
260 30 5MB
English Pages [542] Year 2021
Recommend Papers
- Author / Uploaded
- Martin Maiden
- Adina Dragomirescu
- Gabriela Pană Dindelegan
- Oana Uță Bărbulescu
- Rodica Zafiu
- Similar Topics
- Linguistics
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
The Oxford History of Romanian Morphology
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
The Oxford History of Romanian Morphology By
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
MARTIN MAIDEN, ADINA DRAGOMIRESCU, GABRIELA PANĂ DINDELEGAN, OANA UȚĂ BĂRBULESCU, AND RODICA ZAFIU
1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Martin Maiden, Adina Dragomirescu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Oana Uță Bărbulescu, and Rodica Zafiu 2021 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2020941615 ISBN 978–0–19–882948–5 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198829485.001.0001
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Contents Preface Abbreviations, symbols, journal acronyms, and other conventions
1. Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Aims and background A brief outline of the history of the Romanian language The Romanian writing system Major typological characteristics of Romanian morphology Major patterns of allomorphy in Romanian nouns, verbs, adjectives, and derivational morphology due to sound change
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2. Nouns and adjectives 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Sketch of basic morphological structure of the noun and adjective 2.1.2 Morphological similarities and asymmetries between nouns and adjectives: number, gender, and case 2.1.3 The role of ‘animacy’ and of ‘mass’ meaning in the history of nominal morphology 2.1.3.1 Animacy traits 2.1.3.2 Mass traits 2.1.4 Morphological segmentation: difficulties and solutions 2.2 Patterns of desinential number marking and the history of the desinences 2.2.1 Introduction 2.2.2 The masculine 2.2.3 The feminine: the nature and inventory of plural endings 2.2.4 Final considerations on number endings 2.3 The morphological history of the Romanian genus alternans (or ‘neuter’) 2.3.1 Characteristics of the genus alternans 2.3.2 The correlation between endings and genus alternans membership, in synchrony and diachrony 2.3.3 Genus alternans nouns in plural -ă 2.4 Inflexional case marking of nouns and adjectives 2.4.1 Introduction 2.4.2 Inflexional case marking 2.4.2.1 Syncretism in feminine nouns 2.4.2.2 Feminine inflexional endings in oblique cases 2.4.2.3 The function of agreement in genitive–dative singular marking 2.4.3 Between enclitic–inflexional and proclitic marking 2.4.3.1 Introduction 2.4.3.2 Oblique marking by proclitic lui 2.4.3.3 Genitive mixed marking: inflexional + proclitic al
xiii xv
1 1 2 4 7 9
19 19 19 20 25 25 30 33 37 37 38 43 51 53 53 56 70 74 74 75 75 81 83 84 84 84 87
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
vi
2.5
2.6 2.7
2.8
2.9
2.4.4 Analytic (prepositional) markers of oblique cases 2.4.4.1 Introduction 2.4.4.2 The genitive relationship 2.4.4.3 The dative relationship 2.4.4.4 Origins, evolution, frequency Analogical levelling and creation of alternation 2.5.1 Levelling and creation of number alternations in nouns 2.5.2 Novel allomorphy in feminine nouns: the type stradă ~ străzi The patterning of case and number marking: feminine nouns Idiosyncratic irregularities 2.7.1 Idiosyncratic remnants of Latin imparisyllabics 2.7.2 Imparisyllabics of the type mamă ~ mămâni 2.7.3 The type ferăstrău ~ ferăstraie 2.7.4 The type grâu ~ grâne The history of morphologically invariant forms 2.8.1 Introduction 2.8.2 Inventory of invariant nouns according to gender 2.8.3 Typology, causes, and history of invariant forms 2.8.3.1 The etymological and/or phonological type 2.8.3.2 The neological type 2.8.4 Invariant adjectives: typology and the evolution of the class History of the morphological marking of the vocative 2.9.1 Vocative desinences 2.9.2 The history of the vocative endings 2.9.3 Other means of marking the vocative morphologically 2.9.4 The complex diastratic use of different vocative forms
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3. Pronominal and indefinite structures 3.1 History of the stressed versus clitic distinction 3.1.1 Overview 3.1.2 The stressed forms: preservation versus reduction of distinctions 3.1.3 The stressed forms: inventory 3.1.4 The clitic forms 3.2 Morphological characteristics of clitics and combinations of clitics 3.2.1 Overview 3.2.2 Syllabic versus asyllabic clitics 3.2.3 Paradigmatic gaps 3.2.4 Pronominal clitic clusters 3.3 Emergence of morphological markers of distance/respect in pronouns 3.3.1 Overview 3.3.2 Absence of politeness distinctions 3.3.3 Binary politeness distinctions 3.3.4 Plural for singular 3.3.5 Dânsul 3.4 Gender and number in pronouns 3.4.1 Overview 3.4.2 Morphological heterogeneity and preservation versus reduction of gender oppositions 3.4.3 Number
89 89 89 93 95 96 96 98 99 104 104 109 112 113 114 114 114 116 116 126 127 129 129 132 136 137
140 140 140 140 141 143 145 145 145 146 148 150 150 150 151 156 157 158 158 158 162
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.5 Case marking in pronouns 3.5.1 Overview 3.5.2 Defective paradigms 3.5.3 ‘Overabundance’ and suppletion 3.5.4 Suppletive and other modes of case distinction 3.5.5 Types of inflexion and case syncretisms 3.5.6 Multiple marking 3.5.7 Synthetic versus analytic structures in genitive–dative case marking 3.6 Relative and interrogative pronouns 3.6.1 Inventory, distribution, usage 3.6.2 Inflexional properties 3.6.3 Origins, history, and special uses in old Romanian 3.7 Indefinites 3.7.1 Overview 3.7.2 Unul and its compounds (niciunul, vreunul) 3.7.2.1 Unul, una 3.7.2.2 Niciunul, niciuna 3.7.2.3 Vreunul, vreuna 3.7.3 Altul, alta 3.7.4 Nimeni, nimic 3.7.5 Compounds with interrogative–relative elements 3.7.5.1 Overview 3.7.5.2 The formative -şi 3.7.5.3 Indefinites neşte, neştine, nescare/nescai, neşchit 3.7.5.4 Series with the indefinite marker from forms of the verb a vrea 3.7.5.5 The series in fie3.7.5.6 The series in nici3.7.5.7 The series in măcar 3.7.5.8 New series 3.7.6 The quantifiers tot ‘all’, atât ‘so much, that much’, mult ‘much’, puţin ‘little’ 3.7.7 Atare, cutare, acătare 3.7.8 Anume, anumit 3.7.9 Compounds formed from indefinites and non-lexicalized collocations 3.8 The form alde
4. Determiners and the deictic system 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Historical morphology of the definite article from Latin 4.2.1 Forms and allomorphy 4.2.2 Origin 4.2.3 The position of the definite article and its host 4.2.3.1 Enclisis 4.2.3.2 Proclisis 4.2.3.3 Position in the nominal phrase 4.2.4 Morphophonological changes 4.2.5 Polydefinite structures 4.2.6 Idiosyncrasies and irregularities
vii 163 163 163 164 165 167 168 168 169 169 175 177 182 182 183 183 186 187 187 189 191 191 191 192 193 196 196 197 197
197 198 199 199 200
201 201 201 202 203 204 204 204 207 209 212 213
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
viii
4.3 Al in diachrony 4.4 Morphological history of the indefinite article 4.5 Demonstratives as determiners, deictic adjectives, and pronouns 4.5.1 Introduction 4.5.2 Proximal demonstratives 4.5.3 Distal demonstratives 4.5.4 Inflexional and distributional properties 4.5.5 Special demonstrative systems 4.5.6 Demonstratives in diachrony 4.5.7 The grammaticalization of the determiner cel 4.6 Other modes of deixis (locatives, adverbs) 4.7 The formatives -a, -le, and -și 4.7.1 Introduction 4.7.2 The formative -a 4.7.3 The formative -le 4.7.4 The formative -şi 4.7.5 The formatives -re, -ne, -te, -i
5. Possessives 5.1 Introduction 5.2 The paradigm: conservation and reorganization 5.2.1 Stressed forms of the first and second persons 5.2.2 Stressed third-person forms 5.2.3 Possessive affixes
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6. The verb 6.1 A brief overview of the structure of the Romanian verb 6.2 Inflexion classes and their origins 6.2.1 The four inherited classes: their origins and characteristics 6.2.2 The distinction between the ‘second’ and the ‘third’ conjugations in diachrony 6.2.3 Historical productivity of the classes 6.2.4 The emergence of new inflexional subclasses and their causes 6.2.5 Phonologically induced neutralization of conjugation class distinctions, and resultant changes of conjugation class 6.2.6 On the genesis of new conjugation classes 6.3 The inflexional paradigm of the verb 6.3.1 The inflexional marking of person and number 6.3.2 Inflexional marking of tense: present, imperfect, preterite, pluperfect, and synthetic conditional 6.3.3 Inflexional marking of indicative vs subjunctive 6.3.4 Inflexional marking of imperatives 6.4 Allomorphy in the lexical root 6.4.1 Introduction 6.4.2 The remnants of Latin perfective root morphology: ‘PYTA’ roots 6.4.2.1 Introduction 6.4.2.2 General characteristics of Romanian PYTA roots: stress, sigmatism, and thematic [e] 6.4.2.3 The fate of non-sigmatic PYTA roots: a veni, a fi, a face, a da, a sta, a cere 6.4.2.4 Other morphological effects of PYTA roots
216 219 220 220 220 222 222 224 224 227 235 238 238 239 244 246 248
249 249 249 249 252 254
258 258 260 260 265 268 269 273 274 278 278 289 297 301 308 308 308 308 309 311 314
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
6.5
6.6
6.7
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.8
6.4.3 Suppletion and other unusual forms of allomorphy: the verbs lua ‘take’, avea ‘want’, putea ‘be able’, vrea ‘want’, and fi ‘be’ The morphological history of non-finite forms 6.5.1 The divergence and semantic specialization of long and short infinitives 6.5.2 The morphology of the past participle 6.5.3 The origins of the ‘supine’ and its relation to the past participle 6.5.4 The gerund 6.5.5 The morphological ‘feminization’ of non-finite forms The emergence of ‘morphomic’ patterns in the verb 6.6.1 Introduction 6.6.2 Morphomic repercussions of Latin perfective morphology 6.6.3 The ‘N-pattern’ 6.6.4 The fate of patterns of alternation originally produced by palatalization 6.6.5 The supine and past participle as ‘morphome’ in diachrony The morphological history of auxiliary verbs 6.7.1 Overview 6.7.2 Auxiliary have 6.7.3 Auxiliary want 6.7.4 Conditional auxiliaries 6.7.5 Auxiliary be Novel periphrastic constructions involving auxiliary verbs and non-finite verb forms 6.8.1 Introduction 6.8.2 The periphrastic perfect 6.8.3 The trans-Danubian pluperfect periphrasis 6.8.4 Future periphrases 6.8.5 The future in the past periphrasis 6.8.6 The conditional periphrasis 6.8.7 Periphrases with past participle 6.8.8 Periphrases with the gerund
7. Word formation in diachrony 7.1 Structure and segmentation of affixes 7.1.1 Difficulties of analysis 7.1.2 Variants of suffixes 7.1.3 The phonetic structure of suffixes, and stress 7.1.4 Types of bases selected by suffixes 7.2 Diminutive and augmentative suffixes 7.2.1 Diminutive suffixes 7.2.1.1 Grammatical and semantic properties 7.2.1.2 Inventory and origins 7.2.1.3 Productivity 7.2.2 Augmentative suffixes 7.2.2.1 Grammatical and semantic properties 7.2.2.2 Inventory and origins 7.2.2.3 Productivity 7.3 Agentive suffixation 7.3.1 Grammatical and semantic properties 7.3.2 The grammar of -tor derivatives
ix
315 323 323 326 328 333 338 341 341 342 345 350 356 359 359 360 362 364 368 369 369 370 371 372 374 374 376 379
383 383 383 385 385 387 388 388 388 390 391 393 393 394 394 394 394 396
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
x
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.3.3 Inventory and origins 7.3.4 Productivity Ethnic suffixation 7.4.1 Organization of ethnonyms 7.4.2 Inventory, origin, and characteristics of ethnonymic suffixes 7.4.3 Productivity Suffixal marking of sex/natural gender 7.5.1 Mobile noun and sex-marking suffix (motional suffix) versus epicene noun 7.5.2 Sex-marking suffixes: inventory, origin, characteristics 7.5.3 Productivity Suffixes for abstract nouns 7.6.1 Typology and semantics 7.6.2 Inventory, variants, characteristics, origin 7.6.2.1 Deverbal abstracts 7.6.2.2 Deadjectival/denominal abstracts 7.6.2.3 The grammar of the suffix -re and its variants 7.6.2.4 The status of the suffix -are: the relation to -re 7.6.2.5 The grammar of the suffixes -it/-ărit 7.6.2.6 The suffixes -tură, -ciune, and their variants 7.6.3 Productivity, synonymy, competition 7.6.3.1 Competition between the long infinitive and the nominal supine 7.6.3.2 Suffixal formation ~ competition with the long infinitive (and nominalized supine) 7.6.3.3 Competition between different suffixal formations Adjectival suffixation 7.7.1 Characteristics, inventory, origin 7.7.2 Productivity Adverbial suffixation 7.8.1 Preliminary remarks 7.8.2 Inventory of suffixes and their characterization 7.8.2.1 The suffixes -eşte, -iceşte 7.8.2.2 The suffix -iş/-â 7.8.2.3 The suffix -mente 7.8.2.4 Diminutive adverbial suffixes 7.8.2.5 On the (old and neological) suffix -e 7.8.2.6 Notes on expressive formants (adverbial augments) Verbal suffixation 7.9.1 Inventory, grammatical and semantic characteristics, origins 7.9.2 Productivity, competition, semantics The negative prefix ne7.10.1 Origin and history 7.10.2 Forms and grammatical properties 7.10.3 Semantic properties 7.10.4 Productivity 7.10.5 Other negative prefixes Other derivational prefixes 7.11.1 Inventory, characteristics 7.11.2 Origins
398 400 401 401 402 404 406 406 407 409 410 410 411 411 413 413 414 415 416 416 418 420 420
422 422 425 426 426 426 426 430 430 431 431 432 433 433 436 438 438 438 440 440 441 441 441 444
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.11.3 Meaning 7.11.4 Productivity 7.12 Prefixoids and suffixoids 7.13 The formation of compound nouns, adjectives, and verbs 7.13.1 Introduction 7.13.2 Compound nouns 7.13.3 Compound adjectives 7.13.4 Compound verbs 7.14 The historical morphology of numerals 7.14.1 Introduction 7.14.2 Cardinal numerals 7.14.3 Ordinal numerals 7.14.4 Other numerical expressions
xi 445 446 446 449 449 450 464 467 468 468 469 471 473
8. Conclusion
474
Textual sources References Index
479 487 515
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Preface Romanian has long remained rather a ‘Cinderella’ among the Romance languages, being too often overlooked or simply misrepresented, despite widespread acknowledgement of its importance for Romance linguistics and linguistic theory. This situation, which has in part been due to the dearth of reliable descriptions of Romanian in languages easily accessible to international scholarship, is now changing (see, for example, Pană Dindelegan 2013b, 2016d; Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea 2013). The present Oxford History of Romanian Morphology is a further step in this direction: it is the first volume exclusively devoted to the historical description and interpretation of all of Romanian morphology. To the extent that standard histories of Romanian have addressed morphology at all, their treatment has often been at the level of description and presentation of forms. There is no shortage of often excellent indepth diachronic discussions of particular morphological phenomena, as the References section in this book will testify; but they are usually to be found in articles scattered across specialist journals, or in chapters of edited volumes. Moreover, for the most part they are written in Romanian and are therefore inaccessible to most linguists. The lack of a comprehensive account of the historical morphology of the language is particularly serious because Romanian morphology often presents profound and problematic differences when compared with all or nearly all other Romance languages (see §1.1). The origins of many of the distinctive developments of Romanian morphology are problematic, indeed controversial, and the interpretation of these phenomena deserves the kind of thorough historical presentation that this book aims to offer. Moreover, all these matters are relevant not only to the history of Romance linguistics but, more broadly, to morphological theory. It is a central aim of this book to make the phenomena described here accessible to all historical linguists. The history of Romanian morphology is explored and documented here by taking account of, and synthesizing, all available historical and comparative sources, not least textual material from old Romanian. The recorded history of Romanian is frustratingly short (it does not go back beyond the end of the fifteenth century), and the early texts, written as they were mainly in the Cyrillic alphabet, often pose subtle problems of interpretation that require special philological expertise. Detailed examples culled from early texts are a central feature of the book, along with discussion of their importance, of the problems they present, and of how to address them. We also draw on an impressive range of modern comparative evidence, as furnished by a set of extremely rich Romanian linguistic atlases and by a large corpus of descriptive studies, both dialectological and historical.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
xiv
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
The book is the result of fruitful collaboration between all five authors, and every part of it has been read and reread by each one of them. Some parts are genuinely the result of multiple input; but, even then, general indications about authorship can be made. Adina Dragomirescu is mainly responsible for §§4.1–4.6, 6.5.1–6.5.3, and 7.12–7.14; Martin Maiden for chapters 1 and 8 and for §§2.3, 2.5–2.7, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4.3, 6.5.3–6.5.5, and 6.6; Gabriela Pană Dindelegan for §§2.1–2.2, 2.4, 2.8–2.9, §3.6, and 7.1–7.11; Oana Uță Bărbulescu for chapter 5 and for §§3.1–3.6; Rodica Zafiu for §§3.7–3.8, 4.7, 6.1, 6.4.1–6.4.2, and 6.7–6.8. Maiden coordinated the entire volume, which is why his name comes first; the remaining names are ordered alphabetically, since no hierarchy or ‘order of importance’ was in operation among the authors. We thank Manuela Tecușan for her patient and painstaking work in copy-editing this book. Our heartfelt thanks go, also, to Julia Steer and to Vicki Sunter of Oxford University Press for their constant encouragement, understanding, and patience as we put the book together.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Abbreviations, symbols, journal acronyms, and other conventions For abbreviations and acronyms of the source texts cited in the book, see the Textual Sources section (pp. 479–86). * ** []
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
´ > or < ! or ABL ACC ADJ ADV Aro. AUX Bg. CL COMP CONJ DAT DEF DER DOM f. F FD Fr. FUT GEN GER Gk GS IND
unattested form or construction whose existence is assumed form or construction whose existence is denied Forms or constructions placed in square brackets are to be understood as representing ‘speech sounds’ (as opposed to orthographic representation). Unless explicitly stated, no position is taken as to the phonetic or ‘phonemic’ status of such representations. An acute accent (not used in Romanian orthography) is occasionally employed in this book to mark the position of stress in words. ‘X > Y’ or ‘Y < X’ = ‘Y is historically derived from X’ ‘X ! Y’ or ‘Y X’ = ‘Y is derived from X (in word-formation)’ ablative accusative adjective adverb Aromanian auxiliary Bulgarian Cercetări de lingvistică complementizer conjugation dative definite derived form differential object marker and the immediately following page feminine Fonetică și dialectologie French future genitive gerund Greek Grai și suflet indicative infinitive interjection
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
xvi , , , IPF IRo. It. Lat. LR M MeRo. N NOM O PL pop. PP PRF PRS PRT REFL RLR Ro. RR RRL SCL SG SUFF SUP TAM Tk. TPS ZRP
invariant imperfect Istro-Romanian Italian Latin Limba română modern; masculine Megleno-Romanian noun nominative Old plural pluperfect popular possessive past participle perfect(ive) present preterite reflexive Revue de linguistique romane Romanian Revue romane Revue roumaine de linguistique Studii și cercetări lingvistice singular suffix supine tense, aspect, and mood Turkish Transactions of the Philological Society Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
1 Introduction 1.1 Aims and background
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Despite the remarkable complexity of the morphological system of Romanian, no single work devoted to its historical description and interpretation exists. Of course, histories of the language do include accounts of its morphology, and these are often highly reliable.¹ What is more, there are plenty of separate treatments of specific morphological phenomena—many of them excellent, and most in Romanian. But the lack of a focused and comprehensive historical account is surprising, especially if we bear in mind that the morphology of Romanian often presents profound and problematic differences from those of other Romance languages. Here are some of the most salient distinctive traits to be considered in these pages:
ndelegan, Oana Ut 85.003.0001
• the morphological system of Romanian appears to possess a third gender, in addition to masculine and feminine—a gender called ‘neuter’, with distinctive morphological characteristics; • it possesses an inflexional case system; • unlike other Romance languages, it has an inflexional vocative; • the morphological marking of number reaches such a level of unpredictability that, for most nouns (and for many adjectives), the form of the plural must be independently specified alongside that of the singular; • there is a non-finite form of the verb that apparently continues the Latin supine; • relatively recently, the infinitive has undergone a morphological split such that one form now functions purely as a noun, while the other remains purely a verb; • the distinctive morphology of the subjunctive has largely disappeared (with systematic exceptions); • striking morphological differences have emerged between auxiliary verbs and the lexical verbs they originate from;
¹ Manuals of the history of the language (e.g. Densusianu 1938; Rothe 1957; Graur 1968; Ivănescu 1980; Rosetti 1986; Sala 1999; Philippide 2011) often contain discussions of the subject, and there are important monographic studies dedicated to describing major aspects of historical morphology (e.g. Coteanu 1969a–h; Zamfir 2005–7). Some of the chapters of major encyclopaedic descriptions of the Romance languages (e.g. chapters 165–206 in Holtus et al. 1989) contain useful information. There is little that is available in English: some accounts of Romanian morphology, largely synchronically oriented, can be found in Mallinson (1986, 1988); Maiden (2016b–d); Dragomirescu & Nicolae (2016); and Loporcaro (2016). Reliable but elementary notions of historical morphology may be gleaned from Avram & Sala (2000). Many useful historical remarks may be found in Pană Dindelegan (2013b). The Oxford History of Romanian Morphology. Martin Maiden, Adina Dragomirescu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Oana Ută Bărbulescu, and ̓ ă Bărbulescu, ̓
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
2
• the morphology of both noun and verb is deeply permeated by the effects of successive sound changes, and this has created remarkably complex patterns of allomorphy.
The origins of many of these developments are problematic, often controversial, and it is to be hoped that their interpretation will benefit from the kind of thorough historical exposition that this book offers. Moreover, they are problematic in ways that are of interest from the broader perspectives of historical Romance linguistics as well as of morphological theory more generally. And we should repeat here that one of our aims in this book is to reach beyond the horizon of Romance linguistics, making the phenomena described here accessible to all students and scholars of historical morphology.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
1.2 A brief outline of the history of the Romanian language Romanian is the principal member of the Daco-Romance branch of Romance languages. This branch comprises four major sub-branches: the dialects known as ‘Daco-Romanian’, to which standard Romanian belongs, and the three dialects we call ‘trans-Danubian’, spoken south of the Danube, namely Aromanian (or MacedoRomanian), Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian. That these varieties have a common historical origin is beyond doubt, but their prehistory, the details of the dialectal separation, and the geographical ‘cradle’ of Daco-Romance are all controversial and probably in the end unrecoverable (cf. Andreose & Renzi 2013: 287). Linguists generally assume that Romanian continues the Latin spoken in Dacia, since it is spoken over a geographical area that broadly corresponds to the Roman province of Dacia, occupied by the Romans for less than two centuries, from 106 to 271. Aromanian probably split off from the rest of Daco-Romance before the eleventh century, while Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian seem to have become detached no earlier than the thirteenth century. Romanian is today the official language of Romania (and the mother tongue of 90% of its approximately 22 million inhabitants), and also the official language of the Republic of Moldova (where it is the mother tongue of about three-quarters of a population of 3.4 million).² Romanian is also the language of communities settled near the frontiers of Romania and the Republic of Moldova, in north-eastern Bulgaria, Serbia (Timoc Valley and Voivodina), Hungary, and the Ukraine. The emergence of Romanian as a written or official language was a slow and sporadic process, not completed before the nineteenth century. Until the sixteenth century the language of writing and of elevated discourse was mainly Old Church Slavonic. The basis of the modern standard language is the
² The ‘Moldovan language’, essentially indistinguishable from Romanian (see Popușoi 2013 for recent Russian influences), is basically a political invention. See e.g. Andreose & Renzi (2013: 309–10) and Varvaro (2013: 341).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
3
dialect of Muntenia, the south-eastern representative of a dialectal continuum characterized by a high degree of mutual intelligibility—a continuum that includes the following varieties: Moldovan in the north-east, maramureșean in Maramureș (in the north-west), crișean in Crișana (in the west), bănățean in Banat (in the west), and Transylvanian (best seen as a transitional zone between the others). Istro-Romanian is spoken in the north-eastern Istrian peninsula (Croatia), in some villages south of Mount Učka, and in Žejane, to the north of the mountain. The IstroRomanians probably descend from pastoral communities that settled during the late Middle Ages in Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia, having entered Istria from the fifteenth century. The place of origin of their language and the question whether it branched off from varieties spoken in Romania or from other varieties spoken in the Balkans, or whether it represents a mixture of dialects are controversial (cf. Sârbu & Frățilă 1998: 13–18). Documentary and toponymic evidence indicates that the Istro-Romanians were once more widespread in Istria, as well as on the nearby Adriatic islands of Krk and Rab. Today there may be no more than a couple of hundred speakers left in Croatia, most of them elderly and bilingual in Istro-Romanian and Croatian (Orbanić 1995; Filipi 2003). The Aromanians are found in the Balkan area, particularly in Albania, in central and northern Greece and in south-western Macedonia (see Kahl 1999, 2006; Demirtaş-Coşkun 2001; Nevaci 2013). They number anywhere between 200,000 or 300,000 and 500,000 (see Dahmen 2005; Nevaci 2013: 18). Their main subdivisions are the pindean and grămostean varieties, spoken mainly in Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, and the fărşerot and grabovean varieties, spoken mainly in Albania. Megleno-Romanian counts barely 5,000 speakers, all settled in villages in the Pella and Kilkis prefectures of northern Greece and in the Republic of Macedonia on the other side of the frontier, in the region of Huma (Umă). We know next to nothing about Megleno-Romanian before the beginning of the twentieth century. Some hold that it originates in southern Romanian dialects; others (see Atanasov 2002: 15–27), that it is an offshoot of Aromanian. While the main focus of this book is the historical morphology of Romanian, the morphology of the other branches of Daco-Romance often throws considerable light on Romanian and displays developments that deserve our attention. For this reason frequent reference will be made to them all. The dominant characteristics of the history of Romanian (and of Daco-Romance generally), particularly in its earliest stages, are isolation and obscurity. Cut off from other Romance languages by the Slav incursions of the fifth and sixth centuries (and, later, by the arrival of Hungarians towards the end of the ninth century), Romanian is almost totally inaccessible to direct linguistic analysis until the sixteenth century. The language seems not to have been set down in writing before the fourteenth century, and the earliest texts to have come down to us, written in the Cyrillic alphabet, date from no earlier than the beginning of the sixteenth century. The earliest surviving document is Psaltirea Hurmuzaki, a copy, from about 1500, of a fifteenth-century
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
4
translation of the Psalms into Romanian. The earliest surviving document spontaneously written in Romanian is a letter of 1521, by a certain Neacșu de Câmpulung. These documents clearly continue a long-established written tradition and certainly cannot be considered to represent the first stages of written Romanian. The beginning of the written history of the language, at the opening of the sixteenth century, also marks the commencement of what is known as the ‘old Romanian’ period. The end of this period is conventionally dated to 1780. Even before the time of the earliest surviving text, Romanian words (anthroponyms, toponyms, common names) are attested in documents written in Slavonic,³ Latin, or Hungarian, the official languages in the Romanian lands at that time. Texts in the Cyrillic alphabet are clearly in the majority during the old period, but there are also Romanian texts in the roman alphabet (Cartea de cântece, printed in Cluj, and a version of the Lord’s Prayer, composed by Luca Stroici and published in Kraków). The beginnings of the Romanian (ortho)graphic tradition can be traced back to the midfifteenth century, to judge both from the appearance at that time of certain graphical peculiarities that are not found in the writing of Slavonic words and from two variable graphemes that reflect, respectively, tradition and actual usage (see further Gheție 1997b). The sixteenth-century texts are, overwhelmingly, translations of canonical religious writings, but there are also apocrypha, printed or in manuscript, most of them in Romanian, some bilingual (Slavo-Romanian, with intercalated translation). Lay literature is represented by a translation of Florea darurilor, a few medical recipes, and a popular magic text from Codicele Bratul. Sixteenth-century texts directly written in Romanian are few and far between, being represented by chancellery and private documents and by prefaces and epilogues to religious translations. The linguistic isolation of Romanian from other Romance languages begins to diminish from the eighteenth century, mainly as a result of the activities of intellectuals. A new awareness of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Latin manifests itself linguistically in the introduction of structures, especially vocabulary, borrowed from Latin, French, and Italian. If modern written Romanian, especially in its higher and scientific registers, may be relatively easy to understand for a reader who knows French or Italian, this is because of these linguistic and especially lexical influences from recent centuries. In contrast, a sixteenth-century Romanian text is likely to be very difficult to understand. These influences will frequently be apparent in the following discussions of Romanian historical morphology.
1.3 The Romanian writing system Our understanding of morphological history is perforce dependent on written sources. Moreover, the Romanian examples cited in this book are generally given in the
³ There are also comments made in didactic writings (Gheţie & Mareş 1974).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
5
standard Romanian orthography, except where the orthography crucially obscures morphological phenomena. Some observations on the writing system and its history are therefore in order. As we have said, the earliest Romanian texts are written in the Cyrillic alphabet, according to a sometimes erratic system, which may create ambiguity about the phonological and morphological realities it represents. For the sixteenth century there are problems with the interpretation of Cyrillic letters, some of which have a bearing on morphological analysis, notably with respect to the realization of the continuants of historically underlying final *-u (associated especially with the marking of first-person singular in verbs and masculine singular in nouns and adjectives) and final *-i (associated especially with the marking of second-person singular in verbs and plural in nouns and adjectives). The issues are too complex to be explored in detail here and bear mainly on the history of the writing system. Suffice it to say that the graphic evidence may be ambiguous as to whether the relevant vowels are full vowels or devoiced vowels or have in fact been deleted despite being retained in orthography. There is also ambiguity regarding the value of the letters used to represent the diphthong [e̯a] and the central vowel [ɨ]. It is not until the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century that one sees multiple, often untidy attempts to simplify the traditional orthography (see Onu 1989: 305–6). The same period witnesses the first attempts to write Romanian in the roman alphabet (see Stan 2012). Romanian texts with roman letters appear in Transylvania by the eighteenth century; they follow Polish, Hungarian, German, or Italian orthographic models. From the eighteenth century on, intellectuals belonging to the ‘Transylvanian School’ (see Onu 1989: 307–8), especially as represented by Petru Maior (1756–1821),⁴ laid the foundations of modern Romanian orthography. Between 1828 and 1859, ‘transitional’ alphabets comprising both Cyrillic and roman letters were devised (Onu 1989: 309–10). A standardized orthography using the roman alphabet was intoduced in Wallachia and Moldova in the early 1860s. The Romanian Academy’s first official orthography, which was of a broadly phonemic kind and promoted Wallachian norms of pronunciation, appeared in 1881. The twentieth century saw various spelling reforms (Stan 2012).⁵ The current spelling system, which is used in this book, has the following characteristics. Modern Romanian orthography is broadly phonemic and the relation between sounds and letters, at least at the segmental level, is transparent and predictable, as shown in Table 1.1.
⁴ Petru Maior is also the inventor of the letter ț, which is apparently unique to Romanian among the world’s writing systems. ⁵ The Romanian of the Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and subsequently of the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic, adopted Cyrillic as part of the linguistic policy of the Stalinist era (see Deletant 1996: 53, 58–9, 61). This was no reversion to the traditional Cyrillic script of Romanian; it was an adaptation of Cyrillic as used in the notation of modern Russian, with concessions to the peculiarities of Romanian phonology.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
6
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 1.1 Letter–sound correspondences in modern Romanian letter
sound
a ă â b c d e f g h i î j l m n o p r s ş t ţ u v x z
[a] [ә] [ɨ] [b] [k] (or [ʧ], see below) [d] [e] [f] [g] (or [ʤ], see below) [h] [i] (but see below) [ɨ] [ʒ] [l] [m] [n] [o] [p] [r] [s] [ʃ] [t] [ʦ] [u] [v] [ks] or [gz] [z]
This system nonetheless displays some mismatches between letter and sound, and certain of them are relevant to morphology: i. The letter i may have purely diacritic value when it immediately follows c or g and is not followed by a front vowel letter, indicating the pronunciations [ʧ] and [ʤ]: ciocan [ʧoˈkan] ‘hammer’, ciuguli [ʧuguˈli] ‘nibble’, giuvaer [ʤuvaˈer] ‘jewel’, treci [treʧ] ‘pass2.’, răngi [rәnʤ] ‘crowbars’. A particularly important observation from the point of view of morphology is that word-final i (if it does not represent a stressed vowel) almost always marks a palatalized pronunciation of an immediately preceding consonant: lupi [lupʲ] ‘wolves’, pari [parʲ] ‘poles’, şcoli [ʃkolʲ] ‘schools’, suni ‘you sound’ [sunʲ], rupi ‘you tear’ [rupʲ]. After the letter j or ş it has no distinctive value (although it may serve as an orthographical marker of plural in nouns and adjectives, or of second-person singular in verbs): mieji [mjeʒ] ‘kernels’, paşi [paʃ] ‘steps’, ieşi [jeʃ] ‘go out2. ’. Final unstressed -i is always pronounced [i] after [Cr] clusters (e.g. acri ‘sour.’, codri ‘woods’). When the unstressed vowel [i] occurs at the end of a word, it is normally represented in spelling as double ii: lupii [ˈlupi] ‘the wolves’,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
v.
vi.
7
parii [ˈpari] ‘the poles’, paşii [ˈpaʃi] ‘the steps’. As these examples show, final -ii is prominent as a marker of the (masculine) plural definite article. Romanian does not orthographically indicate primary stress in words. Minimal pairs such as present tense [ˈkɨntә] ‘(s)he sings’ vs preterite [kɨnˈtә] ‘(s)he sang’, or [ˈmɨna] ‘the hand’ vs imperfect tense [mɨˈna] ‘(s)he drove’, or present tense [fuʤ] ‘you2 flee’ vs preterite [fuˈʤi] ‘(s)he fled’, or [ˈia] ‘the linen blouse’ vs present tense [ja] ‘(s)he takes’ are, homographically, cântă, mâna, fugi, and ia. In principle, it is possible to deploy a written acute accent to indicate stress (e.g. fugí). The letters â and î both have exactly the same pronunciation, namely [ɨ]. The letter â is currently used everywhere for [ɨ], except when it is the first or last sound of a word, in which case î must be used (including at the beginning of words forming parts of compounds): thus înger ‘angel’ but sânge ‘blood’. This convention has the effect of producing purely orthographic allomorphy in the verb system (cf. infinitive hotărî [hotәˈrɨ] ‘decide’ vs gerund hotărând [hotәˈrɨnd], where there is in fact no difference in the phonological or morphological identity of the relevant vowel). Note also the etymologizing rather than phonemic spellings sunt suntem sunteți for present tense forms of the verb ‘be’ (reflecting Latin ), despite the fact that their root is generally pronounced [sɨnt]. The letters c and g stand for [k] and [g], except that before letters representing front vowels (e and i) they have, respectively, the values [ʧ] and [ʤ]: cană [ˈkanә] ‘mug’, cină [ˈʧinә] ‘dinner’, fugă [ˈfugә] ‘flee3.’, fuge [ˈfuʤe] ‘flee3.’. The letter h is used as a diacritic between c or g and immediately following front vowel letters, in order to indicate that c or g represent velars: China [ˈkʲina] ‘China’, cina [ˈʧina] ‘the dinner’, ghem [gʲem] ‘ball of wool’, gem [ʤem] ‘I moan’. Elsewhere, h always has the value [h]: pahar [paˈhar] ‘glass’, duh [duh] ‘spirit’. The letters e and o represent the sounds [e] and [o], except in the digraphs ea and oa, which are read as opening diphthongs [e̯a] and [o̯a]: pleacă [ˈple̯akә] ‘departs’, poate [ˈpo̯ate] ‘(s)he can’.
1.4 Major typological characteristics of Romanian morphology The brief typological outline that follows is intended to highlight some major characteristics of Romanian inflexional morphology. No detailed examples are given here, but readers will find plenty of them by following the trail of references to the relevant parts of the volume. Romanian, like other Romance languages, displays inflexional morphology in its nouns, adjectives, pronouns, determiners, and verbs. While many word forms in these classes have a broadly agglutinative structure—at least in the sense that one can identify a ‘root’ that bears the lexical meaning followed by a desinence that carries grammatical meaning—the inflexional morphology is, to a high degree, ‘fusional’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
8
The desinences are often cumulative (quite frequently one cannot separate clearly the carriers of particular grammatical meanings), and sometimes grammatical meanings may have no overt realization (e.g. ‘zero’ endings). There are pervasive, sometimes unpredictable patterns of root allomorphy, and these are present in Romanian to a notably higher degree than in other standard Romance languages. There are also alternations of stress. As in other Romance languages, the position of the stress is invariable in adjectives and pronouns, and almost always in nouns, too. In contrast (and, again, as elsewhere in Romance), verbs are characterized by systematic patterns of stress alternation between ‘rhizotony’ (stress falling on the lexical root) in some parts of the paradigm and ‘arrhizotony’ (stress not falling on the root) elsewhere in the paradigm. Romanian inflexional morphology is also extensively characterized by syncretism, especially in the verb (§6.3). Root allomorphy frequently obeys recurrent and diachronically persistent patterns of paradigmatic distribution that cannot be directly correlated with any coherent morphosyntactic or morphosemantic values (§6.6). In the verb in particular, one also sometimes finds ‘empty morphs’, that is, systematic elements of linear structure located between the root and the grammatical desinences to which no lexical or grammatical value can be assigned (§6.2.4). Pronouns, determiners, and virtually all nouns (and all adjectives in agreement) inflect for number (singular vs plural). The pronominal system also distinguishes firstperson singular, first-person plural, second-person singular, first-person plural, second-person plural, third-person singular, and third-person plural forms. Finite forms of the verb inflect according to the number (singular or plural) of the subject. Unlike other modern Romance languages, Romanian retains in its determiner system (demonstrative adjectives, definite and indefinite articles), in its demonstrative pronouns, and marginally in its nominal system (feminine singular nouns and adjectives) a vestigial inflexional case system comprising two case forms, one broadly associated with the subject and the direct object of the verb, the other broadly associated with the values of the genitive or the dative (see §2.4). Most pronouns distinguish inflexionally between the accusative and the dative (§3.5). Romanian is also distinctive among Romance languages in possessing desinences that mark the vocative, both in the singular and in the plural (§2.9). Adjectives, determiners, and third-person pronouns inflect for gender (masculine vs feminine). There is a strong but imperfect correlation between the inflexional structure of nouns and the selection of masculine or feminine agreement (§2.3). In common with other Romance languages but unlike Latin, Romanian makes a morphological distinction between full and clitic forms of personal pronouns (in the accusative and dative forms); these distinctions are mainly suppletive or near-suppletive. The clitic forms themselves display considerable allomorphy, as a function of their position in relation to their host or to each other (§3.2). As in all Romance (and as in other Indo-European) languages, the inflexional paradigm of the verb is made up of finite forms (inflecting for person and number, but also for tense and mood and, vestigially, for aspect) and non-finite forms. In finite forms, the markers of person and number (cumulatively expressed) tend to occur
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
9
‘rightmost’ in the word; these endings also tend to display allomorphy according to tense, mood, and aspect (§6.4). It can be difficult to identify and isolate markers of mood (indicative vs subjunctive vs imperative) and of tense (chiefly present vs past, but also anteriority), which are often fused cumulatively, not only with each other but sometimes also with person and number markers. Inflexional distinctions of aspect, pervasive in Latin verb morphology, have been all but effaced; but, as elsewhere in Romance, the aspect distinction does persist in the distinction between the forms of the preterite tense and those of the imperfect tense (§6.4.2). Markers of tense, mood, and aspect, where they can be clearly isolated, appear between the root and the person and number endings. Unlike many Romance languages, Romanian does not have synthetic inflexional forms for the future or the future-in-the past (but see §6.4.2), nor does it mark differences of tense in the inflexional morphology of the subjunctive. Like other Romance languages, Romanian inherits from Latin at least three non-finite verb forms: the infinitive, the gerund, and the past participle. The infinitive shows a distinctive morphological bifurcation in Romanian into a ‘short’ and ‘long’ form, the former being morphologically invariant, the latter reanalysed as a verbal noun and inflectible as a noun (§6.5.1). The gerund is a (usually) morphologically invariant element, mainly with clausal value (§6.5.4), and is probably derived from the ablative form of the Latin gerund. The past participle continues its Latin antecedent and can function both as a verbal adjective (usually with passive value) and as a constituent either of passive periphrases, in combination with the auxiliary verb ‘be’, or of perfective periphrases, in combination with auxiliary forms of the verbs ‘have’ or ‘be’ (§6.7). Romanian can be distinguished from other Romance languages, however, insofar as it may be seen to have preserved from Latin also a kind of verbal noun known as the ‘supine’ (§6.5.3). Nouns, adjectives, and verbs are divided into a number of distinct inflexional classes, each noun, adjective, or verb usually belonging to one of them. In nouns and adjectives, such classes are linked to the identity of the number- (and case-)marking desinences. In verbs, the inflexional classes are primarily associated with the identity of a ‘thematic vowel’ that, in certain parts of the paradigm, comes immediately after the root (§6.2), although these classes have other structural correlates apart from the vowel. Finally, derivational morphology in Romanian tends to be of a more agglutinative character than inflexional morphology. Typically, derived forms comprise a lexical root followed by a derivational affix, although the presence of that affix is often correlated with allomorphy in the root and with arrhizotony (§§7.1–7.9). Less common, but by no means rare, is derivation by prefixation, which is never associated with any root allomorphy or with any stress shift (§§7.10–7.11).
1.5 Major patterns of allomorphy in Romanian nouns, verbs, adjectives, and derivational morphology due to sound change Few other Romance languages, and certainly no standard ones, have absorbed the effects of their phonological history into their morphology as fully as has Romanian.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
10 Elimination (‘levelling’) of original alternations that arise from sound change certainly occurs, but Romanian morphology remains profoundly marked by allomorphy resulting from phonological change. We summarize below some of the most commonly encountered alternation types directly attributable to sound change, although the list is far from exhaustive. We then exemplify each type with material from nominal, verbal, or derivational morphology, as appropriate, remarking on the status of the historically underlying sound changes. Historical–phonological explanations are given here in outline only; many of the details appropriate to a fuller account of historical phonology are omitted. Where necessary, stress is marked by an acute accent in orthographical representations. The major morphological alternant sets are presented in Table 1.2. Table 1.2 Major consonantal and vocalic alternation sets in Romanian Consonantal C1. C2. C3. C4. C5.
(a) k ~ ʧ (a) n ~ j (a) t ~ ʦ (a) s ~ ʃ l ~ j/i ̯
(b) g ~ ʤ (b) r ~ j (b) d ~ z (ʣ) (b) z ~ ʒ
(c) sk ~ ʃt
Vocalic
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
V1. V2. V3. V4. V5. V6.
a~ә o~u (a) o̯a ~ o (a) u ~ Ø (a) i ~ ɨ (a) ә ~ e
(b) e̯a ~ e (b) i ~ ʲ/Ø (b) e ~ ә (b) a ~ e
Type C1 reflects proto-Daco-Romance palatalization and affrication of velar consonants before the front vowels [i] and [e].⁶ Although these processes have long been extinct and examples of unpalatalized velars before front vowels abound in the modern language, modern Daco-Romance shows the effects of this palatalization extensively. Here are a few examples: > *ˈpake > pace [ˈpaʧe] ‘peace’; > *oˈkide > ucide [uˈʧide] ‘(s)he kills’; > *ˈkinke > cinci [ʧinʧ] ‘five’; > *ˈlege > lege [ˈleʤe] ‘law’; > *ʤinˈʤia > gingie [ʤinˈʤie] ‘gum’. The sequence *[sk] before a front vowel ultimately becomes [ʃt]: > *ˈsʧimu > știm [ʃtim] ‘we know’; > *ˈpeske > pește [ˈpeʃte] ‘fish’. Typical resultant morphological alternations are presented in Table 1.3.
⁶ For the tricky question of whether it is part of the same historical palatalization of velars attested in most other Romance languages (cf. Repetti 2016), such as Italian, see Skok (1926); Merlo (2014); and Maiden (2019a: 105–11).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
.
11
Table 1.3 Alternation type C1 sac [sak] ‘bag’
1 2 3
zic [zik] ‘say’ zici [ziʧ] zice [ˈziʧe] plec [plek] ‘leave’ pleci [pleʧ] pleacă [ˈple̯akә]
firesc [fiˈresk] ‘natural’
firească [fiˈre̯askә]
1 2 3
plătesc [plәˈtesk] ‘pay’ plătești [plәˈteʃtʲ] plătește [plәˈteʃte]
lung [luŋg] ‘long’
lungă [ˈluŋgә]
1 2 3
fug [fug] ‘flee’ fugi [fuʤ] fuge [ˈfuʤe]
1 2 3
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
saci [saʧ] zic [zik] zici [ziʧ] zică [ˈzikә] plec [plek] pleci [pleʧ] plece [ˈpleʧe]
firești [fiˈreʃtʲ]
firește [fiˈreʃte] ‘naturally’
plătesc [plәˈtesk] plătești [plәˈteʃtʲ] plătească [plәˈte̯askә]
lungi [lunʤ]
lungime [lunˈʤime] ‘length’
fug [fug] fugi [fuʤ] fugă [ˈfugә]
The alternation types C2, C3, and C4 mainly reflect the palatalizing or affricating effects on an immediately preceding consonant of proto-Romance yod (cf. Repetti 2016: 658–62; Sala 1976: 122–35): > *ˈvinja > *ˈviɲa > vie ‘vine’ [ˈvije]; > *ˈfolja > *ˈfoʎa > foaie [ˈfo̯aʲe] ‘leaf ’; > *ˈmedju > ˈmjedzu > miez [mjez] ‘kernel’; > *ˈradja > ˈraʣa > rază [ˈrazә] ‘ray’; > *ˈpretju > *ˈpretsu > preț [preʦ] ‘price’.⁷ As these examples show, in Daco-Romanian (but not in transDanubian dialects), original [ɲ] and [ʎ] have merged as a glide. An original, voiced dental alveolar affricate [ʣ] survives in many dialects of Moldova, Maramureș, and Banat, and in Aromanian, but has become [z] in standard Romanian, MeglenoRomanian, and Istro-Romanian: Ro. vezi [vezʲ] ‘you see’ vs Aro. [veʣ]. As it happens, the noun and the adjective have never encountered the right phonological circumstances for morphological alternation to arise as a result of the effects of yod, nor are there any alternations between derivationally related forms directly attributable to the effects of yod. This means that yod-related alternations are limited to the verb. ⁷ Surprisingly, the regular effects of original *[kj] and *[gj], namely [ʦ] and [(d)z], do not participate in any alternations in the Romanian verb. Thus > *ˈfakja > față ‘face’, > *ˈbrakju > braț ‘arm’; but from , , we get not the expected **faț [faʦ], face [ˈfaʧe], **față [ˈfaʦә], but 1. fac [fak] ‘do’, 3. face [ˈfaʧe], 3 facă [ˈfakә]. For the significance of finding a velar alternant instead of the expected affricate in such cases, see §6.8.3.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
12 In modern standard Romanian, in fact, these effects of yod have been largely eliminated from the verb (see §6.6.4 for further discussion), but in earlier stages of the language and in many modern dialects they remain prominent in the form of a type of allomorphy characteristic of the first-person singular present and of the third-person singular and plural in the subjunctive. In Table 1.4, the older, ‘iotacized’⁸ allomorphs appear in parentheses. Table 1.4 Alternation types C2 and C3
1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3
aud (auz < *ˈaudjo < ) ‘hear’ aude aud simt (simț *ˈsentjo < ) ‘feel’ simte simt vin (viu < *ˈvenjo < ) ‘come’ vine vin
aud (auz) audă (auză *ˈaudja < ) audă (auză *ˈaudja < ) simt (simț) simtă (simță < *ˈsentja < ) simtă (simță < *ˈsentja < ) vin (viu) vină (vie < *ˈvenja < ) vină (vie < *ˈvenja < )
The alternation type C2(b) (r ~ j) is extinct in modern standard Romanian, and was always rare. It reflects (cf. Sala 1976: 87–8) both palatalization of [l] before yod, and rhotacization of original intervocalic [l] (e.g. > sare ‘(s)he jumps’ (see Table 1.5).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 1.5 Alternation type C2b
1 3 3
sar (saiu < *ˈsaljo < ) ‘jump’ sare sar
sar (saiu) sară (saie < *ˈsalja < ) sară (saie < *ˈsalja < )
The alternation type C3 has a second, historically more recent origin in a sound change peculiar to Daco-Romance, such that dentals undergo affrication before an immediately following [i]. As seen in (C4), sibilants in the same environment become palatalized as [ʃ]—quite systematically in the case of [s], only sporadically for the relatively rare [z]: > *sub’tire > subțire [supˈʦire] ‘thin’; > *ʣiˈʧea > zicea [ziˈʧa]; > *reˈsina > rășină [rәˈʃinә] ‘resin’. In fact any Romanian noun, adjective, or verb whose root ends in one of the consonants [t], [d], [s] will invariably display the alternants [ʦ], [z], [ʃ] when immediately followed historically by inflexional *-[i] (and in most cases before derivational suffixes in [i]). If the root ends in [st(r)], it will show the alternant [ʃt(r)] in those circumstances (see Table 1.6). ⁸ ‘Iotacized’ (iotacizat) and ‘iotacization’ (iotacizare) are the terms used in Romanian linguistics for alternants that reflect the original effects of yod.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
.
13
Table 1.6 Alternation types C3 and C4 perete ‘wall’ pereți [peˈreʦʲ] . lat ‘broad’ . lați [laʦʲ] lățime [lәˈʦime] ‘breadth’ 1 2 3 1 2 3
cânt ‘sing’ cânți [kɨnʦʲ] cântă cântăm cântați cântă
. crud ‘raw’ ied ‘kid’ 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3
simt ‘feel’ simți [simʦʲ] simte simțim simțiți simt
las ‘leave’ lași [laʃ] lasă lăsăm lăsați lasă
aud auzi audă auzim auziți audă
auzitor ‘hearing, hearer’
pași
depăși ‘surpass’
las lași lase lăsăm lăsați lase
ies ‘go out’ ieși [jeʃ] iese ieșim ieșiți ies
. treaz ‘awake’ treji[treʒ] . viteaz ‘hero’ viteji [viˈteʒ] Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
. nostru ‘our’ 1 2 3
simt simți simtă simțim simțiți simtă
simțitor ‘feeling, sensitive’
. cruzi [kruzʲ] cruzime ‘rawness’ iezi [jezʲ] iezișor ‘kidling’
aud ‘hear’ auzi [aˈuzʲ] aude auzim auziți aud
pas ‘step’
cânt cânți cânte cântăm cântați cânte
ies ieși iasă ieșim ieșiți iasă
trezi ‘to awaken’ vitejie [viteˈʒie] ‘heroism’
. noștri
mustru ‘reprimand’ muștri mustră
mustru muștri mustre
Type C5—that is, the alternation between [l] and [j] (or [i ̯] word-finally)—reflects palatalization of proto-Daco-Romance [l] (in word-initial position or derived from *[ll])⁹ before an immediately following [i] (see Sala 1976: 230), becoming first [ʎ] (a phase preserved in trans-Danubian dialects), and then a glide in most Daco-Romanian varieties (e.g. > *ˈlinu > *ʎin > in [jin] ‘flax’; > *galˈlina > *gәˈʎinә > găină [gәˈjinә] ‘hen’). The morphological effects of this change are limited; indeed they are restricted to nominal morphology, where some (but by no means all) words in root-final [l] display the alternant [j] ([i ̯] in word-final position) before the original plural desinence -[i] (see Table 1.7). ⁹ Single intervocalic *[l] became [r]: e.g. > sare ‘jumps’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
14 Table 1.7 Alternation type C5 vale ‘valley’ cale ‘road, path’ cal ‘horse’ chel ‘bald’ -el (masculine diminutive suffix) el ‘he’
văi [vәi ̯] căi [kәi ̯] cai [kai ̯] chei [kʲei ̯] -ei [-ei ̯] ei ‘they’ [ʲei ̯]
The alternation type V1 (a ~ ә) has two quite distinct phonological origins and, correspondingly, two different morphological patterns of distribution. It occurs mainly as the result of a regular proto-Daco-Romance change of *[a] into [ә] in unstressed positions (e.g. > *kaˈpestru > căpăstru [kәˈpәstru] ‘halter’, > *ˈkompara > cumpără [ˈkumpәrә] ‘buys’; see Table 1.8). Table 1.8 Alternation type V1 drăgúț (diminutive) depășí ‘surpass’ căruciór ‘wheelchair, trolley’
drag ‘dear’ pas ‘step’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
car ‘cart’
1 2 3 1 2 3
car ‘carry’ cari cáră cărắm căráți cáră
sar ‘jump’ sari sáre sărím săríți sar
Type V1 (a ~ ә) also arises in Daco-Romanian as a reflex of the original alternation type V3 (b), namely e̯a ~ e, where these vowels were further subject to centralization, under the conditions described further down for type V5. Thus original [e̯a] (e.g. older speală ‘he washes’) and [e] (e.g. spel ‘I wash’) become respectively [a] and [ә] after labials (see Table 1.9). Table 1.9 Alternation type V1 via V3(b)
1 2 3 1 2 3
spăl ‘wash’ speli spálă spălắm spăláți spálă
spăl speli spéle spălắm spăláți spéle
Type V2 (o ~ u) reflects regular Daco-Romance raising of *[o] to [u] in unstressed position (e.g. ´ > cunosc ‘I know’; í > furnică ‘ant’; ´ > umblu ‘I walk’; see Table 1.10).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
.
15
Table 1.10 Alternation type V2 1 2 3 1 2 3
mor ‘die’ mori moáre murím muríți mor
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
sóră ‘sister’ . copt ‘baked’ róșu ‘red’
mor mori moáră murím muríți moáră
mureám mureái mureá mureám mureáți mureáu
muritór ‘mortal’
suróri cuptór ‘oven’ rușíne ‘shame’
The alternation type V3 (o̯a ~ o and e̯a ~ e) reflects regular Daco-Romance opening diphthongization of stressed mid vowels before original non-high vowels (see e.g. Sala 1976: 195–201; Loporcaro 2011: 128–9). While the historical nature of the processes involved is problematic, what matters for our purposes is that there was diphthongization of stressed mid vowels, except where an unstressed high vowel followed in the next syllable (e.g. + > *aˈprope > aproape ‘near’; > *ste > stea ‘stand3.’; > *ˈmergo > *ˈmergu > merg ‘I go’): unstressed mid vowels remain undiphthongized. For some Daco-Romanian varieties, including standard Romanian, the history of this phenomenon is further complicated by the fact that, from at least as early as the fifteenth century (see Rosetti 1986: 364), there has been subsequent reclosure of the diphthong [e̯a] (but not of [o̯a]) before an unstressed [e], so that, for example, old Romanian leage ‘law’ later became lege. Thus, in modern Romanian, the [e̯a] alternant no longer appears when followed by [e]. Some examples of the diphthongal alternation in Romanian morphology are presented in Table 1.11. Note that consonant-final forms of the masculine singular and the first-person singular (and, in some verbs, the third-person plural) of the present indicative originally ended in -u (e.g. cotu, cocu). Table 1.11 Alternation type V3 floáre ‘flower’ cot ‘elbow, ell’ om ‘person’
flori coáte ‘elbows’, coți ‘ells’ oámeni
. copt ‘baked’ . coáptă
. copți . coápte
1 2 3 1 2 3
coc ‘bake’ coci coáce coácem coáceți coc
floricícă ‘little flower’ omenésc ‘human’
coc coci coácă coácem coáceți coácă
fereástră ‘window’
feréstre
ferestrícă ‘little window’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
16 seáră ‘evening’ seri . des ‘thick’ . deși . deásă . dése 1 2 3 1 2 3
plec ‘leave’ pleci pleácă plecắm plecáți pleácă
plec pleci pléce plecắm plecáți pléce
Type V4 (Table 1.12) reflects a deletion of word-internal and particularly word-final unstressed [u] detectable in Daco-Romanian as early as the thirteenth century (see Rosetti 1986: 370). This development can be observed especially in word-final position, but is still blocked in modern Romanian after muta cum liquida (i.e. after consonant + [l] or [r]). Type V4(b) is, in part, a parallel type and affects unstressed [i] in word-final position (see also Sala 1976: 64). Although preserved orthographically, in modern Romanian this [i] is generally reduced to [ʲ], surviving as a full vowel [i] only after muta cum liquida and disappearing completely after [ʧ], [ʤ], and [ʃ]. The phonetic and phonological status of word-final postconsonantal [ʲ] is problematic: E. Vasiliu (1989: 2–3) represents this sound as [ʲ̥], an ‘asyllabic sound with palatal timbre lacking glottal vibration and resembling a simple palatal aspiration whose duration is shorter than that of the semi-vowel [j]’. Table 1.12 Alternation type V4 lup ‘wolf ’
lupul ‘the wolf ’
lupi [lupʲ] ‘wolves’
lupilor [ˈlupilor] ‘of the wolves’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
codru ‘wood’ codri [ˈkodri] codruleț ‘little wood’ sac ‘bag’ sacul ‘the bag’ pas ‘step’ pasul ‘the step’ 1 2 3 1 2 3
rup (< rúpu) ‘tear’ rupi [rupʲ] rúpe rúpem rúpeți [ˈrupeʦʲ] rup (< rúpu)
saci [saʧ]
sacilor [ˈsaʧilor] ‘of the bags’
săculeț ‘little bag’
pași [paʃ]
pașilor [ˈpaʃilor] ‘of the steps’
usúc (< *uˈsuku < *ekˈsuko) ‘dry’ usúci [uˈsuʧ] usúcă uscắm uscáți [usˈkaʦʲ] usúcă
áflu ‘find out’ áfli [ˈafli] áflă aflắm afláți [aˈflaʦʲ] áflă
Type V5 reflects ‘centralization’, a phenomenon whereby some or all front vowels ([i], [e], [e̯a]) acquired centralized articulations (respectively as [ɨ], [ә], [a]) when preceded by certain consonants (see Table 1.13). Centralization of front vowels (see Sala 1976: 76–80, 190) is produced by ‘intensive’ or ‘fortis’ [r̻] (reflexes of [rr] or of word-initial [r]: e.g. > *ˈrivu > *ˈr̻ivu > râu [rɨu] ‘river’, > *r̻es’punde > răspunde [rәsˈpunde] ‘answers’). There are relatively few detectable effects of this change in nominal morphology (but compare the older and dialectal plural ending -ă -[ ә] in the plural of nouns with roots in -[r]: car ‘cart’ - cară for care, discussed in §2.3.3). The phenomenon has left a prominent mark on verb
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
.
17
morphology (cf. §6.2.6), as can be seen by comparing two verbs that are otherwise conjugationally identical, but one of which contained the triggering environment for centralization (urî [uˈrɨ] ‘hate’ from < *oˈr̻ire). Table 1.13 Alternation type V5 involving centralization triggered by historical[r̻] plătesc ‘pay’ plătești plătește plătim plătiți plătesc
1 2 3 1 2 3
plătesc plătești plătească plătim plătiți plătească
urăsc ‘hate’ urăști urăște urâm urâți urăsc
urăsc urăști urască urâm urâți urască
Centralization was also sporadically triggered in Daco-Romanian (Sala 1976: 191) by sibilants and by the affricates [ʦ] and [(d)z]: thus ˈʦe̯arә - *ʦeri > țară ‘country’ ~ țări. Type V6 is a kind of centralization limited to Daco-Romanian (cf. Sala 1976: 106–7, 191). It affects mid front vowels; is triggered by immediately preceding labial consonants; but is crucially blocked where the immediately following vowel is a front one (e.g. *ˈpera > peară > pară ‘pear’ but *ˈpeske > pește ‘fish’; *veˈtranu > bătrân ‘old’ but *veˈkinu > *veˈʧinu > vecin ‘neighbour’; *ˈvesku > vâsc ‘mistletoe’ but *ˈveneri > vineri ‘Friday’; *peˈduklu > păduche ‘louse’ but *peˈdestru > pedestru ‘one who goes on foot’). Some morphological effects of centralization by labials are observable in Table 1.14. Table 1.14 Alternation type V6 involving centralization triggered by labials
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
fată ‘girl’ masă ‘table’
fete mese
număr ‘number’ . proaspăt ‘fresh’ . proaspătă 1 2 3 1 2 3
văd ‘see’ vezi (veade >) vede vedem vedeți văd
fetiță ‘little girl’ măsuță ‘little table’
numere . proaspeți . proaspete văd vezi vadă vedem vedeți vadă
supăr ‘upset’ superi supără supărăm supărați supără
supăr superi supere supărăm supărați supere
Type V7 (Table 1.15) reflects what is, in effect, a rule of ‘decentralization’ (absent from Megleno-Romanian and northern and western Aromanian: cf. Pușcariu 1937: 254): central vowels are fronted when they are immediately preceded by a front vowel or by yod (including [kʲ] and [ɡʲ]). This phenomenon has notable consequences for the inflexional ending -ă -[ә] and the gerund ending -ând -[ɨnd], which never occur in the relevant environments and are replaced by the corresponding front vowels. The effects of this phonological modification, which remains ‘live’ in modern Romanian, can best be appreciated by comparing nouns, adjectives, and verbs that lack the relevant environment with ones that have it.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2021, SPi
18 Table 1.15 Alternation type V7 casă ‘house’ căsoaie ‘big house’ fie(-ta) ‘(your) daughter’ fiică ‘daughter’ (originally diminutive of fie) . grec ‘Greek’
. greacă căra ‘carry’ cărând
tai tai taie tăiem tăiați taie
tai tai taie tăiem tăiați taie
. veche [ˈvekʲe] veghea [veˈgʲa] ‘be awake’ veghind [veˈgʲind]
1 2 3 1 2 3
car cari cară cărăm cărați cară
veghez¹⁰ veghezi veghează veghem [veˈgʲem] vegheați veghează
veghez veghezi vegheze veghem vegheați vegheze
prinde ‘catch’ prinzând
scrie ‘write’ scriind
prinzător ‘catcher’
scriitor (< scrietor) ‘writer’
1 2 3 1 2 3
prind prinzi prinde prindem prindeți prind
prind prinzi prindă prindem prindeți prindă
scriu scrii scrie scriem scrieți scriu
scriu scrii scrie scriem scrieți scrie
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
car cari care cărăm cărați care
. vechi [vekʲ] ‘old’ tăia ‘cut’ tăind
¹⁰ Note that this verb, unlike the two with which it is compared, takes the ‘augment’ (§6.2.4) in the present and in the subjunctive.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
2 Nouns and adjectives 2.1 Introduction
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.1.1 Sketch of basic morphological structure of the noun and adjective
indelegan, Oana Ut 85.003.0002
The prototypical structure of Romanian nominal and adjectival forms comprises stem + inflexional ending (or desinence); the stem is the bearer of lexical information,¹ and the inflexional ending encodes the grammatical features of gender, number, and case. Stress falls on the stem, any inflexional ending being unstressed. The inflexional ending is frequently ‘cumulative’. So are the final -ă, -e, and -i in casă curată (house...- clean...-), (unei) case frumoase (a...- house...- beautiful...-), nori negri (cloud...--- black.. .---). Syncretisms occur in the paradigms of nouns and adjectives; compare (unei) case frumoase ((a...-) house...- beautiful...-) and (nişte) case frumoase ((some) house...--- beautiful...---), where the desinence -e encodes in the first phrase the values [feminine singular genitive–dative], and in the second the values [feminine plural nominative–accusative–genitive–dative]. Two situations characterize nouns and adjectives bearing the suffixed definite article: (1) the inflexional ending is not analysable in forms in which the article replaces the desinence, since there is cumulative expression of definiteness with gender and number (see casa house., frumoasa (casă) beautiful. house, where -a cumulatively marks [singular feminine nominative–accusative definite]); (2) the inflexional ending is analysable as desinence + article when the article attaches to the desinence (e.g. codr-u-l forest- -., cas-e-i house-.-., frumoas-e-i (case) beautiful-.-. (house), frumoas-e-le (case) beautiful-.-. (houses)): here gender, number, and case are expressed both by the desinence and by the article, the article also marking definiteness.
¹ The element bearing lexical information may also be termed the ‘root’.
The Oxford History of Romanian Morphology. Martin Maiden, Adina Dragomirescu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Oana Ut a̦ ̆ Bărbulescu, and ̆ a̦ ̆ Bărbulescu,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
20
2.1.2 Morphological similarities and asymmetries between nouns and adjectives: number, gender, and case Nouns and adjectives share numerous characteristics attested throughout the history of Romanian. These characteristics involve features (gender, number, and case) as well as inflexional markers (both with respect to their inventory and to their cumulative properties). With a few exceptions, each inflexional ending can appear in nouns and adjectives alike, as in example (1): (1) a .. codru, socru ~ .. codri, socri ‘forest’, ‘father-in-law’ a' .. mândru, negru ~ .. mândri, negri ‘proud’, ‘black’ b .. bou [bou̯], leu [leu̯] ~ .. boi [boi̯], lei [lei̯] ‘ox’, ‘lion’ b' .. greu [greu̯], rău [rău̯] ~ .. grei [grei̯], răi [răi̯] ‘hard’, ‘bad’ c .. casă, fată ~ .. case, fete ‘house’, ‘daughter’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
c' .. bună, frumoasă ~ .. bune, frumoase ‘good’, ‘beautiful’ The vocative inflexional endings . -e, . -(u)le, /. -lor attach to the noun and to the adjective (see (2a–d); also §2.9.1), sometimes spreading to all the components of the vocative phrase + (see (2a–c); the inflexional ending -o has special status, as discussed in §2.9.1). (2) a Diavole înturecate² devil... dark... ‘You dark devil!’ b prea luminate şi cinstite şi too enlightened... and honoured... and milostive Doamne³ merciful... Lord. ‘Most enlightened and honoured and merciful Lord!’ c O, va de voi, oameniloru păcătoşilor oh woe of you. people.. sinful... şi necuraţilor⁴ and unclean... ‘Oh woe to you, sinful and unclean people!’
² CSXI.1583–619.
³ ŞT.
⁴ CLRV (1535–55).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
21
d Milosule, lung răbdătoriule, totputearnice merciful... long patient... almighty... Doamne⁵ Lord. ‘Oh, merciful, very patient, almighty Lord!’ Not only are the inflexional endings common to nouns and adjectives, but so are their patterns of syncretism (see the syncretism between the feminine genitive–dative singular and both the forms of the feminine plural, which in Romanian is specific to the inflexion of feminine nouns and feminine adjectives alike (see (3a) and (3b); for details, see §2.6). (3) a contra unei boli against a. illness... ‘against a severe illness’
grele severe...
b despre boli grele about illness... severe... ‘on severe illnesses’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Irregular inflexional patterns, such as rândunică ~ rândunele ‘swallow ~ swallows’, created by replacing, in the singular form, the diminutive suffix -ea with -ică, are attested in the inflexion of both classes (see §§2.2.3, 7.2.1.1); an adjective such as măricică big.. . ~ măricele big.. . illustrates this pattern. For the adjective as for the noun, the pattern is found in old Romanian (see (4a) vs (4b)). (4) a puţinică şi deşartă lume⁶ little... and vain.. world ‘small and vain world’ b puţineale şi reale dzilele few... and bad.. days. vieţiei meale⁷ life.. my.. ‘the few and bad days of my life’ Another common feature of nouns and adjectives that is specific to Romanian is their ability to take the enclitic definite article, together with the ability of the affixal definite article to take part in the inflexion of both classes; the article hosted by the prenominal adjective can double the definite article found on the noun, as can be seen in (5a) and (5b).
⁵ DPar.
⁶ Mărg.
⁷ PO.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
22 (5) a sunt amu ale lui Hristos, [blândului are now al... lui. Christ kind.... Domnului nostru]⁸ Lord.. our ‘They belong now to Christ, our kind Lord.’ b voia [luminatului craiului wish. lighted.... duke.... leşescu]⁹ Polish ‘the wish of our wise Polish duke’ The old pattern with double articles is progressively eliminated [- + -] ((5a) to (5c)), and the enclisis of the article to adjectives becomes severely restricted: nowadays it is used only with prenominal adjectives [- + ], as in (6). (6) a interesantul film interesting. film ‘the interesting film’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b împotriva nervosului coleg against nervous.. colleague ‘against the nervous colleague’ The two classes also have in common a rich inventory of phonological alternations, with similar phonological restrictions and with similar values. Their similar morphological value is noteworthy: the alternations supplementarily encode the morphological categories of noun and adjective (see §1.5). Case marking applies only to feminine nouns and adjectives, and only in the singular. The contrast between example (7c) and examples (7a) and (7b) shows that the genitive of the noun frâmseaţe ‘beauty’ and of the adjective sufletească ‘spiritual’ is encoded not only by the inflexional ending and the definite article (-(e)i) but, additionally, by phonological alternations (consonantal [sk] ~ [ʃt] and vocalic [e̯a] ~ [e]). (7) a cu mare with great
frâmseaţe¹⁰ beauty
b veselie sufletească¹¹ joy spiritual.. ‘spiritual joy’ c noirea sufleteştiei frâmseţi¹² renewal. spiritual.... beauty... ‘the renewal of spiritual beauty’ ⁸ CC².
⁹ DÎ XVIII.
¹⁰ CC².
¹¹ CC².
¹² CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
23
The common features listed above allow the recategorization of the adjective as a noun. Recategorization is realized through the ellipsis of the head noun and through the use of the adjectival modifier (which is frequently prenominal and suffixed by the definite article) in positions specific to nouns. This type of recategorization is attested throughout the history of Romanian, but is especially frequent, with particular means of realization, in old Romanian ((8a–d); see Nicolae 2016a and the references therein). Any inflexional form of the adjective—singular, (8a); plural, (8b); masculine, (8c); feminine, (8b); genitive–dative, (8a); vocative, (8d)—may undergo the recategorization process. (8) a cumu se protiveaşte reacele as ..3 matches cold.... caldului şi albului negrulu¹³ warm.... and white.... black.... ‘as the cold matches the warm and the black matches the white’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b Cu mânile ucideai săracii kill..2 poor... with hands. şi săracele¹⁴ and poor... ‘you were killing the poor with your hands’ c şi micii şi marii, şi derepţii and small... and big... and righteous... şi păcătoşii, ( . . . ) şi bogaţii şi mişeii and sinful... and rich... and poor... vor sta toţi asemenele¹⁵ ..3 stay. all similarly ‘Small and the great, righteous and sinful, rich and poor will be all the same.’ d E voi, dragilor, pomeniţi graiurele and you. dear.. mention..2 languages de ainte zile¹⁶ of before days ‘And you, dear ones, keep the memory of the old languages alive.’ Besides the symmetries discussed above, there are also significant differences between the two classes. Although the common grammatical categories are realized in the same way (as far as the inventory and the inflexional endings are concerned), they differ to a great extent with respect to their content or significance: in the case of the adjective, they are realized via agreement. The capacity to host the enclitic definite article is common to the noun and the adjective. However, while the noun is able to
¹³ CC².
¹⁴ CSV: 1590–1602.
¹⁵ CSV: 1590–1602.
¹⁶ CB.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
24 take the definite article without restrictions, the adjective can host the definite article only if the nominal head is present. In the absence of the head, the adjective hosting the definite article undergoes nominalization, as in (9)—and see also (8). (9) Cu mânile ucideai săracii copii with hands. kill..2 poor... children. şi săracele copile¹⁷ and poor... children. ‘You killed the poor ones with your hands.’ The most salient difference between nouns and adjectives involves genus alternans (see for details §2.3). For nouns, genus alternans is specific to a rich subclass of items. By contrast, there is no subclass of adjectives belonging to genus alternans; when an adjective agrees with a noun from the genus alternans class, it takes the masculine form in the singular, as in (10a), and the feminine form in the plural, as in (10b). (10) a un cuvânt-Ø putred-ع⁸ a word. rotten.. ‘a rotten word’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b real-e cuvint-e¹⁹ bad.. word. ‘bad words’ This is not the end of the asymmetry, for there is an inflexional plural marker (-ure/-uri)²⁰ that attaches itself, as in (11a), mainly to genus alternans nouns (see §2.3), but never to adjectives; therefore, when it attaches to an adjective, the adjective is recategorized as a noun (it undergoes substantivization); for old Romanian, see (11b); for modern Romanian, see (11c). (11) a [[ greale] difficult b [ greuri]²² ‘difficult c adâncuri, ‘deeps’
[ lucruri]]²¹ things things’
cenuşiuri, ‘ash-greys’
griuri, albastruri ‘greys’ ‘shades of blue’
Of the vocative inflexional endings, -o attaches to feminine nouns, but also to a few masculines (e.g. popo ‘you priest!’) (for details, see §2.9.1); when it is attached to adjectives, these are recategorized as nouns (Frumoaso! ‘Beauty!’; Iubito! ‘Sweetheart!’; Nemiloaso! ‘You merciless woman!’). ¹⁷ CSV: 1590–1602. ¹⁸ CC¹. ²¹ CazV. ²² CDicţ.
¹⁹ CC¹.
²⁰ Or a complex ending (-ur-i; §2.1.4).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
25
In spite of the similar behaviour of nouns and adjectives with respect to phonological alternations, there is one alternation that is specific to the noun only: [a] (a) ~ [ә] (ă) (affecting stressed vowels).²³ This alternation is not found in adjectives under the same phonological and morphological conditions (see mare.. ‘sea’ ~ mări.. ‘seas’ vs (casă) mare.. ‘(house) big’ ~ (case) mari.. ‘(houses) big’). This difference is ancient; for old Romanian, compare examples (12a), (12b), and (12c). (12) a Era corabiea în mijlocul măriei[]²⁴ was ship. in middle. sea.. ‘The ship was in the middle of the sea.’ b picăturile mărei[]²⁵ drops. sea.. ‘the drops of the sea’ vs c şi mai mari[] de aceastea arăta-va and more big. of these show.=..3 lui lucrure²⁶ him things ‘And he will show him things more important than these.’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.1.3 The role of ‘animacy’ and of ‘mass’ meaning in the history of nominal morphology 2.1.3.1 Animacy traits Since the earliest surviving texts in Romanian, the specific marking of animacy has been obvious: the class of [+animate] nouns, especially nouns referring to persons, displays special inflexional, syntactic, and morphosyntactic features, which set these nouns apart from [-animate] nouns. Animacy correlates with the morphological phenomena discussed in what follows.²⁷ 2.1.3.1.1 The proclitic marking of oblique cases in the singular Most of the [+personal] nouns encode the oblique cases through the prenominal marker lui/lu²⁸ (originating in the definite article). This feature characterizes (sub)classes that occupy a high position in the animacy hierarchy (Comrie 1989: 185–97), namely:
²³ In some words, the presence of this alternation in the stressed vowel entails the same alternation in pretonic [a]: e.g. talangă ‘cowbell’ ~ tălăngi. This alternation affects virtually all paroxytonic feminine nouns in stressed [a], and it is always associated with the inflexional ending -i (Brâncuş 2007a; §1.5). ²⁴ CT. ²⁵ az. ²⁶ CT. ²⁷ Other syntactic phenomena, such as differential object marking with pe, will not be analysed here (see Nicula Paraschiv 2016: 123–43). ²⁸ In non-standard modern Romanian and in old Romanian, the proclitic marker also has the form lu (§2.4.3.2); the two forms have the same value.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
26 (i) masculine proper names (lui Ion ‘to/of John’, lui Lupu ‘to/of Lupu’, lui Vasile ‘to/of Vasile’) and feminine invariable proper names (lui Kati ‘to/of Kati’, lui Carmen ‘to/of Carmen’); (ii) kinship nouns in fixed possessive constructions, regardless of the gender of the referent (lui frate-său ‘to/of his brother’, lui taică-su ‘to/of his father’, lui bunică-su ‘to/of his grandfather’, lui maică-sa ‘to/of his mother’, lui soru-sa ‘to/of his sister’); (iii) proper names of animals, mostly masculine (lui Grivei ‘to/of Grivei’, lui Azorel ‘to/of Azorel’, these being dog names); (iv) by extension, feminine proper names that are normally variable (lui Maria ‘to/ of Maria’, lui Ioana ‘to/of Ioana’); cf. standard Mariei, Ioanei; (v) by extension, in the non-standard register, common personal nouns with a unique referent, known or easily identifiable in the communicative setting, regardless of gender (lu’ domnu’ ‘to/of the gentleman’, lu’ doamna ‘to/of miss’, lu’ doctoru’ ‘to/of the doctor’, lu’ doctora ‘to/of the woman doctor’); (vi) by extension, in the non-standard register, pronouns with a personal referent, regardless of gender in the singular (lu’ ăsta ‘to/of this guy ()’, lu’ asta ‘to/of this woman ()’, lu’ dânsu’ ‘to/of him’, lu’ dânsa ‘to/of her’) and even in the plural (lu’ câţiva ‘to/of a few (people)’).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Although the phenomenon is ancient (see (13a) and (13b)), it is not general but shows a high degree of diachronic and diastratic variation. Regardless of period and register, in the standard language common inanimate nouns are always incompatible with proclitic marking (**culoarea lu’ peretele colour. . wall., **contra lu’ răspunsul dat against . answer. given), but this is not always the case dialectally (see §4.2.3.2). (13) a zilele lui Alexandru days. . Alexandru ‘the days of Duke Alexandru’
vodă²⁹ duke
b Şi dzâsă lui maică-sa³⁰ and say..3 . mother-his ‘and he said to his mother’ 2.1.3.1.2 Desinential marking of the vocative Since the earliest surviving Romanian texts, the vocative (§2.9) has always been very extensively attested, either in forms syncretic with the nominative or in forms where it has a specific inflexional marking. The vocative endings originate in different etymological strata of the language (they are inherited from Latin, borrowed from Slavonic, or developing internally within Romanian), so that the strong morphological marking
²⁹ DÎ IV.
³⁰ DPar.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
27
of the vocative—and, implicitly, of the feature [+animate]—has played an important role throughout the history of Romanian. 2.1.3.1.3 Kinship nouns in possessive constructions Kinship nouns, which occupy a high position in the animacy hierarchy (Comrie 1989: 185–97), show special behaviour regardless of historical period,³¹ as they appear in possessive constructions with special syntactic and inflexional features (Nicolae 2013f: 341–2). A kinship noun and a possessive adjective may form a fixed construction in which the possessive adjective acts as a clitic and attaches itself to the bare form of the noun, as in (14a) and (14b). For comparison, see the prototypical possessive construction in (15), where the kinship noun has a suffixed definite article and combines with a non-clitic variable possessive. When the article is absent and the clitic is present, as in (14a) and (14b), the possessive clitic acts as a definite determiner (and the entire syntagm functions as a definite phrase: Nicolae 2013f: 342, 2016b: 125). As far as inflexion is concerned, the entire phrase is invariable or indeclinable, having the same form in the genitive—(14a)—and in the dative—(14b); compare (14) with the prototypical phrase in (15), where the dative is marked by the enclitic definite article (fratelui ‘brother’..). (14) a pre numele maică-sa³² on name. mother=.. ‘on the name of his mother’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b şi-l deade maică-sa³³ and=..3. give..3 mother=.. ‘and he gave it to his mother’ (15) zi fratelui mieu³⁴ say..2 brother.. my ‘say to my brother’ The possessive construction with kinship nouns is a high-frequency construction that has been extremely richly attested from the earliest texts on (Densusianu 1938: 384–5; Şovar 2012; Nicolae 2016a: 339–40). For example: cumnată-mea sister-inlaw=my.; cumnatu-său³⁵ brother-in-law=his/her.; fiiu-său³⁶ son=his/her.; fie-sa³⁷ daughter=his/her.; finu-său godson=his/her. ;³⁸ frate-său brother=his/ her.;³⁹ ginere-său⁴⁰ son-in-law=his/her.; giupânu-său⁴¹ master=his/her.; hină-sa⁴² goddaughter=his/her.; mătuşi-sa⁴³ aunt=his/her.; mumă-sa⁴⁴ mother=his/her.; moşu-său⁴⁵ older.brother=his/her.; moaşe-sa⁴⁶ older.sister= his/her.; muiere-sa wife=his.,⁴⁷ nănaşu-său⁴⁸ godfather=his/her.; nănaşe-sa ³¹ ³² ³⁹ ⁴⁴
This phenomenon is also attested in the southern and central Italian dialects (Salvi 2011: 337). DVS. ³³ DPar. ³⁴ CT. ³⁵ Prav. 1581. ³⁶ CC². ³⁷ MC. ³⁸ LDVI. ⁴² DRH.B.XXIII. ⁴³ DRH.B.XXIX. CC². ⁴⁰ Prav. 1581. ⁴¹ DRH.A.XXIII. MC. ⁴⁵ CDicț. ⁴⁶ MC. ⁴⁷ DPar. ⁴⁸ PA.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
28 godmother=her/his.;⁴⁹ nepoată-sa niece=his/her.;⁵⁰ noru-sa daughter-in-law=his/ her.;⁵¹ soru-sa⁵² sister=his/her., soacră-sa mother-in-law=his/her.;⁵³ socru-său⁵⁴ father-in-law=his/her.; soţu-său companion=his/her.;⁵⁵ tată-său father=his/her.;⁵⁶ unchiu-său⁵⁷ uncle=his/her., vară-sa cousin.=his/her..⁵⁸ It also correlates with the existence of a rich inventory of kinship relations, for which Romanian possesses special, lexicalized terms, sometimes without equivalent in other Romance languages (e.g. cumătru. ~ cumătră ‘father/mother of one’s godchild’ (cumătră-sa);⁵⁹ cuscru. ~ cuscră. ‘father/mother of one’s child’s spouse’ (cuscru-său);⁶⁰ fiastru., ~ fiastră. ‘stepson/daughter’ (fiiastră-mea);⁶¹ fârtat ‘sworn brother’ (fârtatu-său);⁶² maştehu. ~ maştehă.‘stepfather/mother’ (maştehă-mea)),⁶³ and with the existence of lexical variants (e.g. mumă-sa; mâni-sa; maică-sa; îmă-sa ‘his mother’),⁶⁴ including ones inherited from Latin (tată ~ tătâne ‘father’ (< ); mamă ~ mămâne ‘mother’ (< ); e.g. frate-său/frăţâni-său ‘his/her brother’, tată-său/tătânisău ‘his/her father’, mumă-sa/mumâni-sa ‘his/her mother’).⁶⁵ The possessive is frequent in the singular but also attested in the plural; see, for old Romanian, tătâni-vostru ‘your father’; soru-noastră ‘our sister’, frate-nostru ‘our brother’.⁶⁶ This pattern of clitic possessive and bare noun is possible only for kinship nouns or nouns associated with the kinship relation, such as vecinu-său ‘his neighbour’; domnu-său ‘his master’; doamnă-sa ‘his lady’;⁶⁷ it is not available for inanimate nouns.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.1.3.1.4 Decline of allomorphy with feminine proper nouns In contrast to feminine common nouns ending in -că, -gă, feminine proper names with the same phonological shape preserve their velar consonants in the genitive–dative; contrast (16a) and (16b).⁶⁸ (16) a Florica ~ Floricăi [floˈrikәi]̯ ; Olga ~ Olgăi [ˈolgәi]̯ b frică ~ fear ~ vacă ~ cow ~ ferigă ~ fern ~
(unei) frici [friʧ] of/to a fear (unei) vaci [vaʧ] of/to a cow (unei) ferigi [ˈferiʤ] of/to a fern’
This different behaviour of feminine proper names for humans is attested in the oldest Romanian texts; contrast (17a–d) with (17f). In old Romanian, the same phenomenon also characterizes masculine anthroponyms (17e) (see Frâncu 2009: 37).
⁴⁹ LDVI. ⁵⁰ CC². ⁵¹ PO. ⁵² DÎ XXXII. ⁵³ CC². ⁵⁴ PO. ⁵⁵ CC². ⁵⁶ CC². ⁵⁷ CazV. ⁵⁸ CC². ⁵⁹ CPrav. ⁶⁰ NL. ⁶¹ Prav. 1581. ⁶² A. . ⁶⁵ CC². ⁶⁶ CC²; PO. ⁶⁷ CC²; FD. ⁶³ Prav. 1581. ⁶⁴ CC² ; Ev.; CazV. ⁶⁸ A similar behaviour characterizes feminine toponyms (e.g. Volga Volga ~ Volgăi Volga., Praga Prague ~ Pragăi Prague.).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
29
(17) a partea Anuşcăi⁶⁹ part. Anușca.. ‘Anușca’s part’ b Scriş eu popa Ştefan ( . . . ) anu priest Ștefan namely write..1 I Voicăi⁷⁰ Voica.. ‘I, priest Ștefan, wrote to Voica’ c jupâneasei lui, Margăi⁷¹ wife..- his Marga..- ‘of/to his wife, Marga’ d li-au dat ..3=.3 given aceii mueri, Veronicăi⁷² that woman. Veronica.. ‘he gave them to that women, Veronica’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
e hitlenşugul Focăi⁷³ cheating. Foca.. ‘Foca’s cheating’ but f veşmintele besearecei⁷⁴ clothing. church... ‘the clothing of the church’ The absence of other kinds of otherwise normal root allomorphy (cf. §1.5) is also observed in feminine proper names; contrast (18a) with (18b). (18) a Floarea ~ Floarei⁷⁵ Liliana ~ Lilianei Floarea ~ of/to Floarea Liliana ~ of/to Liliana vs b floare ~ florii buruiană ~ buruienii flower ~ of/to the flower weed ~ of/to the weed 2.1.3.1.5 Profusion and productivity of ‘personal’ suffixes Throughout its history, Romanian has made use of numerous suffixal markers to encode sex distinctions as well as ethnic distinctions (for ethnic suffixes, see §§7.4, 7.5) into personal nouns. The following features are relevant to these markers:
⁶⁹ DÎ LX. ⁷⁰ DÎ XI. ⁷¹ DRH.B. ⁷² Cron. ⁷³ MC. ⁷⁴ DÎ LXII. ⁷⁵ The common noun floare ‘flower’ has the vocalic alternation [o̯a] ~ [o] (floare ~ flori).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
30 (i) the high productivity of personal sex-marking suffixes and of ethnic suffixes; (ii) the existence of more than one marker for the same value (these suffixes often form series of two or three variants), which creates synonyms—for example, in old Romanian, jiupăneasă ~ jupaniţă⁷⁶ ‘wife’; logodnică⁷⁷ ~ logodniţă⁷⁸ ‘fiancée’; dumnedzoe⁷⁹ ~ dumnezeiţă⁸⁰ ‘goddess’; in modern Romanian, ospătară ~ ospătăriţă ~ ospătăreasă ‘waitress’; ministră ~ ministreasă ~ ministroaică (Zafiu 2004) ‘woman minister’; (iii) the hyper-marking obtained by associating two or three suffixes with similar values (-ean + -că; -an + -ean + -că; -oa(i)e + -că; iudeiancă⁸¹ ‘Jewish woman’; africăneancă⁸² ‘African woman’; turcoaică⁸³ ‘Turkish woman’). Alexandru Niculescu (2003) highlights, as a special feature of feminine ethnonyms, the parallel usage of two or more suffixes differentiated by etymology, age, and stylistic register (americană ~ americancă ‘American woman’, australiană ~ australiancă ‘Australian woman’, grecoaie ~ grecoaică ‘Greek woman’, turcoaie ~ turcoaică ‘Turkish woman’; bulgară ~ bulgarcă ~ bulgăriţă ~ bulgăreasă ~ bulgăroaie ~ bulgăroaică ‘Bulgarian woman’).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.1.3.1.6 Summary of the feature ‘animate’ Taken independently, none of the features inventoried here so far is decisive, but the aggregate they form indicates that Romanian is morphologically sensitive to animacy. From a diachronic and synchronic point of view, Romanian shows great variation in marking such features. This variation is explained by the dynamics of the features themselves and by the position that each feature occupies in the animacy hierarchy. The type of variation related to the latter explains the differences between personal proper names and kinship nouns on the one hand and animate non-human common nouns on the other. 2.1.3.2 Mass traits The inherent semantic feature of being a mass noun influences the grammar of those nouns that have it: mass nouns contrast with regular, ‘countable’ nouns in their inflexional (see also Nedelcu 2013c: 260–1) and morphosyntactic (Pană Dindelegan 2016c: 331) features. The value [-countable] in mass nouns is inflexionally reflected in the fact that most of them have no plural (they are singularia tantum nouns: see (19a–b)) or some, exceptionally, have no singular (they are pluralia tantum nouns: see (20a–b)). (19) a unulu amu auru dăruindu, şi altulu argintu, one now gold giving and other silver e altulu păine⁸⁴ and other bread ‘one giving gold, another silver, and yet another bread’ ⁷⁶ DÎ LXXXIX, XXIX. ⁸² CDicț. ⁸³ CDicț.
⁷⁷ DVS. ⁸⁴ CC².
⁷⁸ PA.
⁷⁹ CazV.
⁸⁰ CDicț.
⁸¹ CV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
31
b Miiare, lapte din pământ vor honey milk from earth will izvorî⁸⁵ spring. ‘Honey and milk will spring from the earth.’ (20) a era tremişi în cetate să cumpere they.were sent in town buy bucate⁸⁶ fare. ‘they were sent into town to buy food’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b Şi le-au trimis de saţâu and ..3=.3 sent of satiety merinde⁸⁷ food. ‘And they sent food to sate them.’
⁸⁹ A.
To form a plural for mass nouns, masculine or feminine, the ending -uri is used (see §2.3.1). This ending can be attached to mass nouns of either gender, but the plural it gives rise to is always feminine, so that mass nouns whose singular is masculine will display gender alternation. As far as function is concerned, the ending -uri in this usage might be viewed as a derivational suffix; indeed Maiden (2014b: 41) suggests that such plurals have a derivational rather than strictly inflexional relation to the corresponding singulars, taking meanings such as ‘different sorts of X’, ‘objects made of X’. Use of -uri specifically to mark the plural of mass nouns occurs only in dialects north of the Danube and was first observed in the seventeenth century, its earliest attestation being from 1620 (Frâncu 1982b; see (21a)); in the subsequent period, examples become more frequent and diversified (e.g. (21b)). There are several cases of pluralization. The ending -uri may attach itself to the stem of feminine mass nouns,⁸⁸ making the whole word express a rather different meaning from the one it has in the singular, for example ‘sorts, varieties of a certain material’, as in (21a–b), or take on a deprecatory connotation, as in (21c). (21) a Şi carne o dede tătarilor and meat ...3 gave Tartars. de o mncară, şi ziseră că
that ...3 ate and said that is mai dulce de toate cărnurile pre lume⁸⁹ more sweet than all meats in world ‘He fed meat to the Tartars and they said that it was sweeter than all the meats in the world.’
⁸⁵ DPar.
⁸⁶ CC².
⁸⁷ DPV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
32 b cărnuri ( carne ‘meat’); dulceţuri ( dulceaţă ‘jam’); ierburi ( iarbă ‘herb’);⁹⁰ mătăsuri⁹¹ ( mătase ‘silk’); povăruri⁹² ( povară ‘weight’); sălături⁹³ ( salată ‘salad’); unsoruri⁹⁴ ( unsoare ‘oil’); verdeţuri⁹⁵ ( verdeaţă ‘verdure’); zoiuri⁹⁶ ( zoaie ‘suds’) c delicateţuri ‘delicacies (ironic)’ ( delicateţe ‘delicacy’), gentileţuri ‘acts of amiableness (ironic)’ ( gentileţe ‘amiableness’), politeţuri ‘act of rudeness, impoliteness (lit. acts of politeness)’ ( politeţe ‘politeness’), străinătăţuri ‘places abroad (ironic)’ ( străinătate ‘foreign land’), tandreţuri ‘acts of tenderness (ironical)’ ( tandreţe ‘tenderness’) In addition, -uri (-ure) may attach to the stem of a masculine mass noun, resulting in a rather different meaning: ‘objects made of that material’, as in (22a–c), or ‘sorts of ’, as in (22d). (22) a Au nu cu arginture te-ai not with silver. ...2=..2 tocmitu cu mine?⁹⁷ bargained with me ‘Was it not with silver coins that you bargained with me?’ (cf. argint) b Când vei vrea să when you.will want speli arginturile you.wash silver.. ‘when you will want to wash the silverware’ (cf. argint) Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
c metaluri ‘metal objects’( d vinuri ‘types of wine’ (
metal ‘metal’) vin ‘wine’)⁹⁸
Similar cases of derivational plurals have been discussed in connexion with other Romance varieties (Asturian, Leonese, Neapolitan) and have received the same interpretation or a different one (see Ramat & Ricca 2016: 61). One should mention that in no other variety does this phenomenon appear to have the productivity and regularity it has in Daco-Romanian. Another feature of mass nouns that, within Romance, is restricted to Romanian is their ability to function as bare NPs in argument positions (see (19a–b)). Like Spanish, Portuguese, and southern Italian dialects (see Ramat & Ricca 2016: 52–3), Romanian lacks a partitive article (Pană Dindelegan 2016c: 331). However, in old Romanian, in contrast to modern Romanian, in addition to constructions without article,
⁹⁰ CBuc. ⁹⁷ CT.
⁹¹ CDicț. ⁹⁸ CBuc.
⁹² CDicț.
⁹³ CBuc.
⁹⁴ CDicț.
⁹⁵ Cron.
⁹⁶ CDicț.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
33
such as (23a), there are also constructions with partitive de in argument positions, such as (23b). The latter have disappeared from the standard language. (23) a Cerşu elu să bea asked he drink ‘He asked to drink water.’
apă⁹⁹ water
b Să bea de apa ce-i drink..3 of water. that-to.him voi da eu¹⁰⁰ I.will give I ‘Let him drink the water that I will give him.’ In summary, the semantic feature of mass influences the grammar of the noun, giving rise to inflexional and morphosyntactic restrictions. Romanian has developed a special mechanism (plural marking with -uri) for changing the character of the lexeme in the transition from singular to plural.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.1.4 Morphological segmentation: difficulties and solutions The inflexion of the nominal system is relatively impoverished by comparison with that of the verb; and forms have a simple structure, being limited to two components— stem + inflexion (cas-ă ‘house’, cas-e ‘houses’)—or at most three, when the definite article is also present (cart-e-a ‘the book’, cărţ-i-le ‘the books’) (see §2.1.1). Both of these characteristics facilitate the analysis and segmentation of nominal forms. In forms such as socri ‘fathers-in-law’, boi ̯ ‘oxen’, case ‘houses’, dureri ‘pains’, teatre ‘theatres’, it is easy to separate stem and inflexional ending; comparison with singular forms alone (socru ‘father-in-law’, bou̯ ‘ox’, casă ‘house’, durere ‘pain’, teatru ‘theatre’) indicates a unique solution for the segmentation of the plural forms, namely socr-i, bo-i̯, durer-i,¹⁰¹ teatr-e. In certain situations the morphological segmentation is not as straightforward as it may seem, and thus more than one analysis may be proposed. The problems of segmentation seem also to reflect the speakers’ perspective, since certain speakers interpret one and the same inflexion in different ways. The interpretative difficulties fall into several classes, more or less straightforward: (i) Invariant forms (e.g. masculine un/nişte pui ‘a/some chicken(s)’, feminine o/ nişte învăţătoare ‘a/some female teacher(s)’, un/nişte nume ‘a/some names’) raise the question whether the final vowel belongs to the stem, so that the ⁹⁹ CC². ¹⁰⁰ CazV. ¹⁰¹ For dureri ‘pains’, the final i is phonologically different from that of socri ‘fathers-in-law’. In the Romanian linguistic literature, there is debate over the phonological interpretation of final i, which is a full syllabic vowel (in socri [ˈsokri]) or a glide (in dureri [duˈrerʲ]); in both cases, it has been taken to represent an inflexional ending.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
34
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
ending is a syncretic Ø, or represents the syncretic inflexional ending: = puiØ ̯ or = pu-i̯; = învăţătoare-Ø or = învăţătoar-e; = numeØ or = num-e. (ii) Forms ending in the affricate consonants ([ʧ], [ʤ]) or in the palatal stops [c], [ɟ] may be invariant (arici ‘hedgehog’, vraci ‘doctor’, genunchi ‘knee’, ochi ‘eye’), or variable (drac ~ draci ‘devil’, drug ~ drugi ‘bars’, bici ~ bice ‘whip’), with some discrepancies between the written and the phonetic form. (iii) A special segmentation problem is raised by the feminine type foaie [foaie̯ ] ~ foi [foi]̯ ‘sheet’, baie [baie̯ ] ~ băi [bәi]̯ ‘bath’, which, from a synchronic perspective, allows for two analyses: the singular is realized as -ie̯ and the plural as -̯i,̯ or the singular is realized as -e and the plural as Ø (Guţu Romalo 1985: 135). From a diachronic and phonological perspective, the second variant is preferable, if we take into account the role played by i in eliminating the palatalized l from the stem ( ‘leaves’ > fo̯al’e> fo̯ai-e; foi-Ø). (iv) Special irregular paradigms, such as rândunică ~ rândunele ‘swallow’, can be segmented in three ways: (a) rândun-ică ~ rândun-ele; (b) rândunic-ă ~ rândunel-e; or (c) rândun-ică~ rândune-le. The choice between these analyses is tantamount to a choice of the locus of irregularity: this can be the inflexional ending (regular stem and irregular inflexion) or the stem (regular inflexional ending and irregular stem). Beyond these situations, the analysis of which has been generally agreed (see the analysis adopted in §2.2), the history of certain plural forms is more complicated, with important consequences for their interpretation and for the possible differing segmentations. This is the case with feminine nouns whose singular form ends in a stressed vowel (or a stressed diphthong) and whose plural ends in -le (zi ~ zile ‘day’, stea ~ stele ‘star’), and with genus alternans nouns ending in -uri (timp ~ timpuri ‘time’, gând ~ gânduri ‘thoughts’). Both patterns have been inherited from Latin ( ~ ; ~ ) and have then been extended to other nouns, first to nouns of Latin origin with other inflexional features, and then to nouns of other origins. The two types have in common the difference in syllable count in the singular (one) and in the plural (two) (stea [ste̯a] ~ ste.le, timp ~ timpuri [ˈtim.purʲ]), but this feature can be explained in different ways: for feminines, the geminate ll disappears from the stem as a result of an expected phonological change, which accounts for the different phonological shape of the singular and the plural. For genus alternans nouns (Æ2.3.1), the imparisyllabic nature of the type of Latin noun from which they derive (e.g. ) is preserved in the difference in number of syllables between the singular and the plural. This difference yields the following analyses:
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
35
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(i) zi-Ø ~ zi-le or zi-Ø ~ zil-e (ii) timp-Ø ~ timp-uri or timp-Ø ~ timpur-i or () timp-Ø ~ timp-ur-i Analysis as timp-uri, zi-le is preferred by Romanian linguists working in a synchronic perspective (e.g. Guţu Romalo 1968: 57). The segmentation in (i) forces us to recognize a new inflexional ending, -le, which is specific to the plural of Romanian feminine nouns and has no parallel in other Romance languages, and yet another one, -uri, for the plural of genus alternans nouns. Both are yielded by reanalysis of the plural inflexion in contrast with the singular, which has a smaller number of syllables (see the analyses in §§2.2, 2.5). The strongest argument for the segmentation in (i) comes from the linguistic consciousness of present-day speakers: many of the (very) recent loanwords from English and French form the plural with -uri, an ending that speakers often take to be both a noun marker and a plural marker and often separate graphically from the stem through hyphen. Here are a few examples of French loanwords: aidemémoire-uri ‘checklists’, aperçu-uri ‘surveys’, acquis-uri ‘acquis communautaires ()’, clou-uri ‘points of interest’, grisaille-uri ‘shades of grey’, maquis-uri ‘maquis’, partipris-uri ‘biases’, tête-à-tête-uri ‘tête-à-têtes’, tiramisu-uri ‘tiramisus’, etc.—and a few examples of English loanwords: body-uri ‘jerseys’, brunch-uri ‘brunches’, derby-uri ‘derbies’, display-uri ‘displays’, duty-free-uri ‘duty-free shops’, garden-party-uri ‘garden parties’, hobby-uri ‘hobbies’, love-story-uri ‘love stories’, puzzle-uri ‘puzzles’, remakeuri ‘remakes’. The analysis timpur-i, zil-e has the advantage of ensuring a smaller inventory of plural inflexional endings for Romanian (only -e and -i), also attested in other Romance languages. The consequence of this analysis is the recognition of different stems in the singular and in the plural ( zi- vs zil-; timp- vs timpur-), with differences which go beyond phonological alternations. Maiden (2016a) notes a ‘structural asymmetry’ between the singular and the plural, suggesting that it is not the inflexion that is irregular but the stem. The following arguments support this interpretation: (i) It is transparent and expected from a diachronic point of view; the segment -ur- in the stem corresponds to the Latin segment --. (ii) It ensures a unique analysis for the class in -uri, for irregular masculine nouns such as om ~ oameni ‘person’, oaspe ~ oaspeţi ‘guest’, jude ~ judeci ‘judge’, for irregular feminine nouns such as soră ~ surori ‘sister’, noră ~ nurori ‘daughter-in-law’, and for the irregular noun cap ~ capete ‘head’, all of these being inherited from the Latin imparisyllabic declension (§2.7.1). Moreover, all these cases are explained by the same analysis ( om-Ø vs oamen-i; oaspe-Ø vs oaspeţ-i; . sor-ă vs suror-i; cap-Ø vs capet-e), according to which the irregularity belongs to the stem.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
36
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(iii) The stem is identical to the lexical root of the derived forms, a fact that makes it easier to analyse derived forms (see stel-e ‘stars’, as well as stel-uţă ‘little star’, în-stel-at ‘starry’; zil-e ‘days’, as well as zil-nic ‘daily’, zil-ier ‘day worker’, în-zili ‘to give days’; timpur-i ‘times’, as well as timpur-iu ‘early’; gândur-i ‘thoughts’, as well as în-gândur-a ‘cause anxiety’, în-gândur-at ‘anxious’). (iv) Speakers do not always assign to these endings the value of plural markers, as shown by the tendency to create analogical singulars that include -ur- and -lebut where these have clearly lost any particular plural value (examples from Byck & Graur 1967): (a) ram ‘branch’ ~ ramuri ! ramură ‘branch’, vrasc ‘twig’ ~ vrascuri ! vrascură ‘twig’, râu ‘river’ ~ râuri ! râură ‘river’, frig ‘cold’ ~ friguri ! frigură ‘cold’, pic ‘drop’ ~ picuri ! picur ‘drop’¹⁰² (b) sarma ‘cabbage roll’ ~ sarmale’ ! sarmală ‘cabbage roll’, za ‘chain’ ~ zale ! zală ‘chain’. The analysis timp-ur-i is discussed by Maiden (2016a, 2016f). It identifies two distinct plural formatives (-ur- and -i). This interpretation takes into account the diachronic data, namely that, in the sixteenth century, in the complex ending -ure, the plural marker -i replaces just the older formative -e rather than the whole formative -ure (-ure > uri: timpure > timpuri ‘times’). The change -e > -i follows the same pattern as in other feminine nouns (e.g. bălţi ‘swamps’, boli ‘illnesses’, gropi ‘pits’, răni ‘wounds’, roți ‘wheels’, tălpi ‘soles’, which replaced older balte, boale, groape, rane, roate, talpe; also numerous other non-standard forms, e.g. băniţi ‘bushels’, catarămi ‘buckles’, crătiţi ‘pans’, făbrici ‘factories’, hăini ‘clothes’, îngheţăţi ‘ice-creams’, which are used in alternation with the older and still standard forms in -e). Such double marking of the plural via co-present inflexional endings would support the idea that the Romanian plural is supplementarily marked or, alternatively, that it is characterized by ‘multiple exponence’; this would mean that plural marking is not limited to the inflexional component but also occurs in the stem, greatly complicating the task of segmentation. When the singular feminine noun ends in the diphthong [e̯a] (stea ‘star’, măsea ‘molar’), there are problems related to the analysis of the singular, which can be segmented in two ways: stea-Ø or ste-a. Adopting the type ste-a implies accepting, for feminines, a new singular ending, -á (stressed), alongside -ă (unstressed). In this book, the stea-Ø type analysis is preferred, because it offers a unified analysis for the pattern stea, măsea, which ends in a stressed diphthong, and for the pattern zi ‘day’, basma ‘kerchief ’, which ends in a stressed vowel. The alternation [e̯a] ~ [e], which is assumed in the analysis of the type stea-Ø, is also attested in other cases of feminine inflexion ( creastă ‘crest’ ~ creste).
¹⁰² In the creation of such new forms, genus alternans is lost, the nouns affected becoming either wholly masculine or wholly feminine.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
37
2.2 Patterns of desinential number marking and the history of the desinences
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.2.1 Introduction Belonging as it does in the ‘eastern’ group of Romance languages, which are characterized by vocalic desinences in the plural (Italo-Romance, Dalmatian, and DacoRomance; see Maiden 1996: 147–8 and references therein; Maiden 2016c: 697–700), Romanian uses the desinences -i and -e for the plural of nouns and adjectives (e.g. codri ‘forest..’ deşi ‘thick..’, case ‘house..’ frumoase ‘beautiful..’). Each plural desinence expresses gender and number cumulatively (in the forms codri and case, for instance, the desinences -i and -e express respectively the masculine plural and the feminine plural of the noun; and they convey the same information for the adjective in forms such as deşi, frumoase).¹⁰³ Plural marking is primarily realized through desinences ( codru ‘forest’ ~ codri, casă ‘house’ ~ case, lucru ‘thing’ ~ lucruri) and, additionally, through root allomorphy. The plural desinence may alternate with a phonetically realized singular desinence ( codr-u, cas-ă vs codr-i, cas-e), or may attach itself to the root when a singular desinence is not phonetically realized ( pom-Ø ‘tree’, scaun-Ø ‘chair’ vs pom-i, scaun-e).¹⁰⁴ Under the influence of the historical plural ending -i there occurred palatalization and/or affrication of the final consonant of the root, leading to the alternation between the consonant of the plural and that of the singular (brad ‘fir tree’ ~ brazi, poet ‘poet’ ~ poeţi, urs ‘bear’~ urşi) or between a non-palatalized and a palatalized consonant cluster (artist ‘artist’ ~ artişti). (For the extent of the phenomenon of allomorphy in the realization of the plural, for masculine and feminine nouns and adjectives, see the discussion in §§1.5, also 2.2.4.) This phenomenon, purely phonological in origin, has parallels in Ladin and Friulan (Iliescu 2007: 228) but is more regular and systematic in Romanian, where it plays an extremely important role in inflexion—a fact that singles out this language in the Romance family. In Romanian, plural marking is frequently realized both through the ending and through the root. Of the features case, gender, and number, it is number that is the most consistently expressed in nominal inflexion. This is manifest in the frequent double marking of number (ending + alternation/alternations), in the rarity of syncretism (invariance), and in the clear tendency to restrict invariance (see §2.8).
¹⁰³ The case category has a special marking only for feminine singular nouns and adjectives (see §2.4). ¹⁰⁴ The perspective of a synchronic description does not coincide perfectly with that of a diachronic description or with that of a diatopic description. In old Romanian, and in modern conservative dialectal areas, instead of -Ø in the singular, phonetically non-null realizations occur, pronounced as asyllabic, whispered [u], such as: pom [u] ‘tree’, scaun[u] ‘chair’. Even in standard modern Romanian, there are contexts (before the enclitic article) in which the singular desinence, for the same nouns, is realized as vocalic [u] (pom-u-l, scaun-u-l).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
38 Cases of reduction in the number of plural markers do occur, and they go in two directions. (1) There are northern Daco-Romanian linguistic areas with a ‘hard’ pronunciation of consonants, where masculines realize the number opposition through consonant alternation alone (bărbat ‘man’ ~ bărbaţ, urs ‘bear’ ~ urş); in the same dialectal areas, in the case of nouns ending in the consonants ţ [ts] and ş [ʃ], the number opposition is neutralized (= cârnaţ ‘sausage’, călăraş ‘horseman’). (2) There is a tendency for modern literary Romanian to lose some alternations; thus the older plural forms burgheji ‘bourgeois’, chineji ‘Chinamen’, engleji ‘Englishmen’ featured the alternation z [z] ~ j [ʒ] until a late date,¹⁰⁵ but modern standard Romanian has lost this alternation. When this happens, the plural information is provided solely by the desinence. So single marking (on the inflexion and, more rarely, on the root) is possible, but double marking (on the inflexion and on the root) is much more typical of Romanian. The selection of plural endings is generally unpredictable. Here only masculine and feminine plurals will be discussed, while plurals in nouns of the genus alternans class is discussed separately, in §§2.3, 2.4. Variation in the inflexional marking of plurals of nouns from this class also displays a high degree of unpredictability.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.2.2 The masculine Masculines have only one plural inflexional morpheme, -i (see (24)), regardless of the nature of the corresponding singular ending: Ø (pomØ ‘tree’, ursØ ‘bear’), vocalic -[u] (codru ‘forest’, socru ‘father-in-law’), semivocalic -u (bou̯ ‘ox’, leu̯ ‘lion’), -e (frate ‘brother’, perete ‘wall’)—or, more rarely, the vocalic ending -ă [ә], an ending characteristic of feminine nouns but that occasionally occurs in masculine animate nouns such as popă ‘priest’, tată ‘father’. The plural marking can be realized just with an ending (see (25a)) or with both an ending and an alternation, which may be consonantal, as in (25b), vocalic, as in (25c), or both, as in (25d). (24) pomØ ‘tree’ ~ pomi [pomj], codru ‘forest’ ~ codri [ˈkodri], dumnezeu̯ ‘god’ ~ dumnezei [dumneˈzei]̯ , perete ‘wall’ ~ pereţi [peˈretsj], popă ‘priest’ ~ popi [popj], tată ‘father’ ~ taţi [tatsj] (25) a b c d
leu ‘lion’ ~ lei, elev ‘pupil’ ~ elevi părinte ‘parent’ ~ părinţi, urs ‘bear’ ~ urşi, viţel ‘calf ’ ~ viţei cumătru ‘godfather of one’s child’ ~ cumetri, păr ‘pear tree’ ~ peri sfânt ‘saint’~ sfinţi
¹⁰⁵ For the competition between chinezi ‘Chinamen’ ~ chineji, burghezi ‘bourgeois’ ~ burgheji, in the first half of the twentieth century, see Pană Dindelegan (2015b: 442).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
39
Depending on the nature of the end of the root, the inflexional ending -i has different allomorphic realizations. For the oldest stage of the language that is known to us, this ending presents special problems of interpretation because, no matter how it is pronounced (as a syllabic, non-syllabic (whispered), or semivocalic formation), it is represented by several Cyrillic graphemes whose value can be hard to interpret. When the root ends in a consonant + liquid/vibrant, the ending is realized as vocalic -[i] (see (26a)), thus preserving the etymological pronunciation—which occurs, under the same phonological conditions, in modern Romanian (see (26a)) and in old Romanian (see (26b)); and, under certain phonological conditions, it also occurs in Aromanian (see (26c);¹⁰⁶ also Caragiu Marioţeanu 1968: 80). The singular inflexional allomorph corresponding to plural vocalic -[i] is always vocalic -[u], as we see in (27)—at any stage of the language. (26) a aştri ‘stars’, codri ‘forests’, cuscri ‘fathers of one’s children’s spouses’, socri ‘parents-in-law’ b aspri ‘coins’ ‘fiastri ‘stepsons’, fugli ‘prisoners’¹⁰⁷ c Aro. aspri ‘coins’, codri ‘forests’, cuscri, hilandri ‘adolescents’, hil’eaştri ‘step sons’ (27) a codru ‘forest’, cuscru ‘father of one’s child’s spouse’, socru ‘father-in-law’ b ORo. codru ‘forest’,¹⁰⁸ fuglu ‘prisoner’¹⁰⁹
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
This pattern also holds for adjectives: in the context of a root ending in muta cum liquida, the masculine adjective realizes a syllabic -[i] in the plural, as in (28a), and a syllabic -[u] in the singular, as in (28b); syllabic realizations are common to modern and old Romanian. (28) a mândri ‘proud.’, negri ‘black.’, albaştri ‘blue.’ b mândru ‘proud.’, negru ‘black.’, albastru ‘blue.’ If the root ends in a consonant, as in (29), its phonetic realization is -[j] (asyllabic, whispered), a pronunciation that, in its extent and its importance within the morphology, is characteristic of Romanian ((29a);¹¹⁰ see also Meyer-Lübke 1890: 273). This pattern also occurs with masculine plural adjectives (see (29b)).
¹⁰⁶ In Aromanian, the pronunciation as syllabic [i] (or syllabic [ɨ] after [ʦ], [ʣ]) also occurs in other contexts besides the muta cum liquida, being general after CC clusters, regardless of the phonological quality of the consonants (şerki ‘serpents’, pulńi ‘fists’, munţî ‘mountains’; see Caragiu Marioţeanu 1968: 76–7). ¹⁰⁷ DÎ II; Prav. 1581; CV. ¹⁰⁸ CT. ¹⁰⁹ CV. ¹¹⁰ The tendency for devocalization of final -i (including the singular final -u) is also encountered in other Romance languages; in French, both final -i, and -u have disappeared (but in the wider context of general deletion of unstressed final vowels, except for -a); in Raeto-Romance and northern Italian variants, the evolution is similar to that of Romanian (Sala 1998: 153).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
40 (29) a ani [anj] ‘years’, obraji [oˈbraʒj] ‘cheeks’, pereţi [peˈretsj] ‘walls’, popi [popj] ‘priests’ b buni [bunj] ‘good’, frumoşi [fruˈmoʃ j] ‘beautiful’, proaspeţi [ˈpro̯aspetsj] ‘fresh’ The change in the phonological status of Latin syllabic -i to a non-syllabic (whispered) sound is ancient; it also occurs in old Romanian and in Aromanian ((30);¹¹¹ see also Caragiu Marioţeanu 1968: 75). (30) a ORo. bărbaţi [bәrˈbatsj] ‘men’, fraţi [fratsj] ‘brothers’, îngeri [ˈɨnʤerj]¹¹² ‘angels’, viermi [vie̯ rmj]¹¹³ ‘worms’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b Aro. armâńi ‘Aromanians’, cal’i ‘horses’, ficiori ‘sons’, fraţi ‘brothers’, lépuri ‘rabbits’, with the asyllabic pronunciation of the ending [j] In modern standard Romanian, the asyllabic realization of i in the plural corresponds to a singular noun or adjective ending in Ø (bărbat ‘man’, înger ‘angel’, bun ‘good’, frumos ‘beautiful’), or to a noun or adjective with the ending -e (perete ‘wall’, frate ‘brother’, vierme ‘worm’, mare ‘great, big’, verde ‘green’), or to a noun with the ending -ă (tată ‘father’, popă ‘priest’); in some present-day varieties, this plural corresponds to the singular asyllabic (whispered) ending -[u], or even to syllabic -[u].¹¹⁴ In old Romanian, the graphic variants with final -u (realised as б, ю in Cyrillic) and without final -u are both present in the singular forms.¹¹⁵ In old Romanian, the realization as non-syllabic -i also occurs when the singular noun is derived with the suffixes -tor and -ar, which had either a soft and rounded pronunciation (-toriu [ˈtoriu̯ ], -ariu [ˈariu̯ ]) or a soft pronunciation alone (-tori [torj], -ari [arj]). The two pronunciations constitute successive stages in the phonologically regular evolution of the Latin finals -, -, followed by a third stage, in which the softening is lost (ORo. purtătoriu and purtători vs MRo. purtător ‘bearer’; ORo. tâlhariu and tâlhari vs MRo. tâlhar ‘thief ’). In the evolution of the pronunciation of the two suffixes, there was also a stage at which the plural and the singular were syncretic (= curvari ‘whoremongers’ ((31a–b); see further §§2.8, 7.3).
¹¹¹ See footnote 106, on the different position of Aromanian in comparison to Daco-Romanian, in that there are fewer contexts with non-syllabic -[j] than in Daco-Romanian. ¹¹² CV. ¹¹³ DÎ XIV. ¹¹⁴ Daco-Romanian varieties still conserve the final -u, pronounced either as asyllabic u [ụ], or as syllabic u [u]; see maps 10–11 in (Rusu 1984: 213) and Puşcariu (1994); see also Neagoe & Mărgărit (2006). ¹¹⁵ The process of deletion of Latin final -u is slow and difficult to date. For Rosetti (1986: 649–52), this final -u, marked in more than one way in old texts written in Cyrillic, had disappeared from the language much earlier than the sixteenth century, probably in the thirteenth. Its presence in some present-day Daco-Romanian variants is, in his opinion, a relatively recent innovation. Most scholars (among them, Avram 1964; Vasiliu & Ionescu Ruxăndoiu 1986: 63–5) believe that final -u, inherited from Latin u, was realized phonetically up to the first half of the eighteenth century, and that its inconsistent graphic marking is explained by the decline of this pronunciation. For nouns of the type genunchi ‘knee’, rărunchi ‘kidney’, rinichi ‘kidney’, unchi ‘uncle’, the academic orthography at the beginning of the twentieth century (Pană Dindelegan 2015b: 432–3) indicates the preservation in writing, with a morphological role (of distinguishing the singular from the plural) of final -u, but that it is no longer pronounced.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
41
(31) a ORo. celu fecioru curvari.¹¹⁶ ‘that whoremongering son’ b ORo. nu sântu ca alalţi oameni, răpitori, nederepţi, curvari.¹¹⁷ ‘I am not like other people, stealing, unjust, whoremongers’ In modern dialectal texts, the pronunciation [rju], or [rj] continues to be attested in Moldova, in the suffixes -ar, -er, -tor (Lăzărescu 1984: 212–13). After roots ending in -ţ [ʦ] and -ş [ʃ], we find not -i, but Ø. This is a consequence of the tendency to consonant hardening, a phenomenon specific to northern varieties. This realization is strictly phonological and characterizes both the northern varieties of modern Romanian ((32a); Lăzărescu 1984: 218) and old Romanian (for this, see (32b)). (32) a MRo., Mld. = cârnaţ ‘sausage’, cucoş ‘rooster’, moş ‘old man’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b ORo. călăraş şi pedestraş den neamţi horsemen and footsoldiers from Germans şi den unguri¹¹⁸ and from Hungarians ‘German and Hungarian horsemen and footsoldiers’ When a root ends in one of the velar consonants [k] or [g], the plural ending -i is incorporated into the affricates [ʧ], [ʤ] (on the status of affricates, see Maiden 1996: 173–4);¹¹⁹ in this situation, the distinction between singular and plural is exclusively realized through consonant alternation ([k] ~ [ʧ] and [g] ~ [ʤ], respectively) ((33a); see also Maiden 2016c: 705). In sixteenth-century texts such as (33b), affricates had this status, already present in ‘common Romanian’ (Brâncuş 2002: 55). This pattern also occurs with masculine adjectives that have the same phonological characteristics; see (33c). (33) a bunic ‘grandfather’ ~ bunici [bunitʃ]; drug ‘bar’ ~ drugi [drudʒ] b ORo. drac ‘devil’ ~ draci;¹²⁰ herţeg ‘duke’ ~ herţegi¹²¹ c posac ‘surly’ ~ posaci [posatʃ]; drag ‘dear’ ~ dragi [draʤ] If the root ends in a vowel, as in (34), the plural ending is realized as -[i]̯ (semivowel); this realization can be found in both stages of the language (for modern Romanian, see (34a); for old Romanian, see (34b)). In the same phonological conditions, the phenomenon also occurs in Aromanian ((34c); Caragiu Marioţeanu 1968: 84). The pattern with a semivowel is also found with the plural of masculine adjectives, both in modern and in old Romanian, as in (35). The plural realization as a
¹¹⁶ CC². ¹¹⁷ CC². ¹¹⁸ DÎ XXXII. ¹¹⁹ Masculine nouns ending in a palatal plosive, chi [c] (ochi ‘eye’, rărunchi ‘kidney’, unchi ‘uncle’) or ghi [ ɟ] will be analysed separately (§2.8), as invariable forms. ¹²⁰ CC². ¹²¹ DÎ XXXIV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
42 semivowel corresponds to the singular ending -u realized as a semivowel, which is illustrated in (36). (34) a boi [boi]̯ oxen b farisei Pharisees c Aro.
lei [lei]̯ lions
ulii [ˈulii]̯ hawks
fii¹²² sons
boi ̯ zmei ̯ oxen dragons
(35) . greu̯ ‘heavy’ ~ grei [grei]̯ ; . rău̯ ‘bad’ ~ răi [rәi]̯
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(36) bou [bou̯] ox
fariseu [fariseu̯] Pharisee
fiu [fiu̯] son
iudeu [judeu̯] Jew
uliu¹²³ hawk
The ending -i, the sole ending of masculine plural nouns, is inherited from Latin and is often thought to derive exclusively from the plural of second-declension masculine nouns ( > Ro. lupi ‘wolves’). This -i has extended to all masculine nouns, no matter their origin: inherited second-declension nouns (lup-i ‘wolves’, an-i ‘years’), third-declension nouns (the type frate ‘brother’ ~ fraţi, munte ‘mountain’ ~ munţi, vierme ‘worm’ ~ viermi), or first-declension nouns (the type tată ‘father’ ~ taţi). It has also extended across the whole etymological spectrum: OSl. pinten, -i ‘spur’, sfetnic, -i ‘advisor’, veac ‘century’ ~ ve(a)ci; Hun. fuglu, -i ‘prisoner’, hiclean ~ hicleani ‘cunning’, tâlhar, -i ‘thief ’; Tk. cioban, -i ‘shepherd’, ursuz, -i ‘sullen’, zevzec, -i ‘crazy’; Gr. arhanghel, -i ‘archangel’ (through a Slavonic intermediary), patriarh ‘patriarch’ ~ patriarşi). A different hypothesis, formulated in Maiden (1996: 178; see, more recently, Maiden 2016c: 700 and the bibliography there), claims that this -i has two sources, which reflect both the nominative plural in - of Latin second-declension nouns and a regular phonological development of the third-declension plural in -, continued as -i (with the intermediate form *-ei)̯ in Romanian and in many Italo-Romance dialects, including standard Italian (e.g. > *ˈdentei>̯ It. denti, Ro. dinţi ‘teeth’). This phonological hypothesis is consistent with the explanation for the feminine plural ending -i (see §2.2.3) and in turn explains, partly, the ending -i in the verb (e.g. vezi < ‘you see.2’; vedeţi < ‘you see.2’; for the verb, see §6.3.1). The idea of a direct (phonological) origin in the Latin - leads to a new hypothesis, according to which all Romance languages have a ‘sigmatic’ plural system at their historical base (Maiden 2016c: 698), the traditional distinction between the ‘western’ (consonantal)
¹²² CV. ¹²³ Note that, for the plural ulii ['ulii]̯ , the corresponding singular form has a rising diphthong (uliu ['uli̯u] ‘hawk’).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
43
and the ‘eastern’ (vocalic) groups being a later Romance phenomenon caused by sound change. Under the pressure of the inflexional system of masculine nouns, many very recent loans, which initially behave as invariant nouns (§2.8), are made to conform to the old inflexional patterns. Moreover, the ending -i, attached to the plural form, triggers consonant alternation following the pattern of existing nouns; see the behaviour of recent loans: [d] ~ [z] (bodyguard ‘bodyguard’~ bodyguarzi, steward ‘steward’ ~ stewarzi); [t] ~ [ts] (byte ‘byte’ ~ byţi, digit ‘digit’ ~ digiţi, racket ‘racketeer’ ~ rackeţi); [s] ~ [ʃ] (pampers ‘nappy’ ~ pamperşi) (Pană Dindelegan 2009: 5–6). These loans create a new inflexional pattern, consisting of the ending correlation -o (unstressed) ~ -i (non-syllabic or syllabic): flamingo ~ flamingi ‘flamingo’ [fla’mindʒ], picolo ~ picoli ‘waiter’ [’pikolj], paparazzo ~ paparazzi ‘paparazzo’ [papa ˈratsi]. This pattern shows a change in the phonological conditions under which syllabic [i] is realized. In some of these examples, it is realized independently of the context muta cum liquida, an obligatory context for the old regular patterns (compare the recent noun paparazzi, with a syllabic -i [papaˈratsi], with older nouns cuscri ‘fathers of spouse’s child’, aştri ‘stars’). Unlike the singular, which allows for the introduction of a new ending -o (flamingo, picolo, paparazzo), the plural shows a strong tendency to reject the neologistic ending -s. The ending -s is attested, in writing, in many recent borrowed nouns that are used especially in the plural: bluejeans ‘jeans’, snacks ‘snacks’, sneakers ‘sneakers’, sticks ‘sticks’ (Stoichiţoiu Ichim 2007, 2008; Pană Dindelegan 2009: 11 and references therein). The ending -s is not recognized as an ending by speakers, so that either the old ending -i (skinheads-/i ‘skinheads’; Avram 1997; Stoichiţoiu Ichim 2006b) or the ending -uri for ambigeneric nouns is attached to it (comics-uri ‘comics’, sticks-uri ‘sticks’). The effect is one of total ‘Romanianization’ of neologistic nouns, as proven by the fact that the resulting forms participate in consonant alternations (bluejeans, bluejeanşi ‘jeans’).
2.2.3 The feminine: the nature and inventory of plural endings Feminine nouns have a greater range of plural endings than do masculines; a strictly synchronic segmentation, based on the singular form, allows for the following segmentation of plural endings in modern Romanian: -e (cas-e ‘houses’); -i (with the nonsyllabic realizations -i (flori [florj] ‘flowers’) and semivocalic -i (bogăţii [bogәˈtsii̯] ‘richnesses’)); -le (zile ‘days’, turturele ‘turtle doves’, for which two ways of segmenting have been proposed; see §2.1.4); -uri (lips-uri ‘shortages’, vrem-uri ‘times’). There are four singular endings that correspond to the plural forms, namely -ă (casă ‘house’), -e (floar-e ‘flower’, bogăţi-e ‘wealth’), Ø (zi-Ø ‘day’, turturea-Ø ‘turtle dove’),¹²⁴ -ă (lips-ă ‘shortage’), or -e (vrem-e ‘time’).
¹²⁴ From a strictly synchronic perspective, a noun such as stea ‘star’ ~ stele allows two types of segmentation for the singular: ste-a or steaØ (Guţu Romalo 1968: 57; see also §2.1.4). The advantage of the type steaØ is that it brings together both the pattern stea, măsea and the pattern zi, basma.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
44 In some modern varieties of Romanian (e.g. the Moldovan dialect; Lăzărescu 1984: 218), the number opposition is neutralized in feminine nouns in -ă with a plural in -e because, as a result of regular local sound changes, both endings come to be realized as -â ([ɨ]) (e.g. = casâ ‘house(s)’, faşâ ‘bandage(s)’, raţâ ‘duck(s)’). In feminine nouns, just as in masculines, the plural marking can be realized either through the ending alone, as in (37a), or through the ending together with and an alternation—which can be consonantal, as in (37b), vocalic, as in (37c), or both consonantal and vocalic, as in (37d). Few alternations are specific to the noun and, within this group, few are specific to the feminine; thus stressed [a] ~ [ә], which does not occur in adjectives (§2.1.2), is specific to feminine nouns only (ţară ‘country’ ~ ţări, cămaşă ‘shirt’ ~ cămăşi). (37) a casă ‘house’ ~ case; coroană ‘crown’ ~ coroane, vreme ‘time’~ vremuri b [k] ~ [tʃ] (biserică ‘church’ ~ biserici); [g] ~ [ʤ] (glugă ‘hood’ ~ glugi) c [o̯a] ~ [o] (floare ‘flower’ ~ flori); [a] ~ [e] (masă ‘table’ ~ mese); [a] ~ [ә] (ţară ‘country’~ ţări)
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
d [o̯a] ~ [o] + [st] ~ [ʃt] (oaste ‘army’ ~ oşti); [a] ~ [ә] + [l] ~ Ø (cale ‘way’ ~ căi) The desinence -i is partially predictable, being selected by the whole class of feminine nouns that have the singular ending -e. Whether -i is realized as the nonsyllabic [j] or as the semivowel [i]̯ depends on the phonological characteristics of the root-final sound: in a root with a consonantal ending (C) or (CC), the desinence is realized as a non-syllabic -i (floare ‘flower’ ~ flori [florj], carte ‘book’ ~ cărţi [kәrtsj]); in a root with the vocalic ending -i or -e (e.g. in feminine nouns that end in the singular in the hiatus i-e, e-e), the desinence is realized as a semivocalic -i ( albie [ˈalbiie̯ ] ‘river bed’ ~ albii [ˈalbii]̯ , idee [iˈdee] ‘idea’ ~ idei [iˈdei]̯ ). Both realizations—as nonsyllabic -i and as semivocalic -i—have a long history in Romanian; see (38a–b). (38) a carte ‘book’ ~ cărţi; foamete ‘hunger’ ~ foameţi; puteare ‘power’ ~ puteri¹²⁵ b bucurie ‘joy’ ~ bucurii;¹²⁶ corabie ‘ship’ ~ corabii¹²⁷ In some old texts where final consonants have a hard pronunciation, final -i disappears, so that the singular vs plural distinction is realized through the -e vs Ø endings and through the consonantal alternation [t] ~ [ʦ], as seen in (39). (39) peceţ..¹²⁸ ‘seals’; bunătăţ..¹²⁹ ‘good deeds’ The selection of -e or -i is unpredictable, except for feminine nouns in -e in the singular (see the examples in (38)). Clear signs of unpredictability are the possibility of the two endings occurring under the same phonological conditions, as in (40);
¹²⁵ CT.
¹²⁶ CSXIV.
¹²⁷ CT.
¹²⁸ DÎ VI.
¹²⁹ PA.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
45
situations of free variation between the two endings (see the free variation in old Romanian in (41a–k)); and the shift to a different desinential pattern during transition from one language stage to another, as we witness in (42a–d). (40) coastă. ‘rib’ ~ coaste. [ˈko̯as-te] vs poartă. ‘gate’ ~ porţi. [portsj] (41) a beseade¹³⁰/besedzi¹³¹ ‘talks’ b colibe¹³²/colibi¹³³ ‘huts’ c haine/hăini¹³⁴ ‘clothes’ d e f g h i j k
lacrăme¹³⁵/lacrămi¹³⁶ ‘tears’ l(e)afe/lefi ‘salaries’ lingure¹³⁷/linguri¹³⁸ năpaste/năpăşti,¹³⁹ năpasti¹⁴⁰ ‘misfortune’ rădăcine¹⁴¹/rădăcini¹⁴² ‘roots’ sarcine/sarcini¹⁴³ ‘load’ scârbe¹⁴⁴/scârbi¹⁴⁵ ‘disgust’ tre(a)be,¹⁴⁶ triabe¹⁴⁷/trebi¹⁴⁸ ‘works’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(42) a ORo. boale ‘illnesses’; greşale ‘mistakes’; groape ‘holes’; nunte¹⁴⁹ ‘weddings’; omide¹⁵⁰ ‘caterpillars’; porunce¹⁵¹ ‘orders’; prăjine¹⁵² ‘poles’; rane¹⁵³ ‘wounds’; roate¹⁵⁴ ‘wheels’; săgete¹⁵⁵ ‘arrows’; talpe¹⁵⁶ ‘soles’; derivatives with the suffix -eală: greşale¹⁵⁷ ‘mistakes’, porânceale¹⁵⁸ ‘orders’, tocmeale ‘bargainings’¹⁵⁹ vs b MRo. boli ‘illnesses’, greşeli ‘mistakes’, gropi ‘holes’, nunţi ‘weddings’, porunci ‘orders’, prăjini ‘poles’, răni ‘wounds’, roți ‘wheels’, tălpi ‘soles’; greşeli ‘mistakes’, porunceli ‘orders’, tocmeli ‘bargainings’ c ORo. pietri ‘stones’¹⁶⁰ vs d MRo. pietre ‘stones’ Note that the change in ending type has generally gone from -e to -i (see (42a–b)); much more rarely, it has gone in the opposite direction, too (see (42c–d)), and this has led to an even lower degree of predictability in the selection of the plural ending. The unpredictability of the two feminine plural endings has been noted throughout the evolution of Romanian (for the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, see Nedelcu 2015: 39 and Pană Dindelegan 2015b: 415–19). Modern Romanian displays the same unpredictability (Pană Dindelegan 2009: 13–15); yet
¹³⁰ ¹³⁷ ¹⁴³ ¹⁵⁰ ¹⁵⁶
CC¹. ¹³¹ PO. ¹³² DVS. ¹³³ CC². ¹³⁴ FD. ¹³⁵ CT. ¹³⁶ CV. DÎ XXIX, LXXII. ¹³⁸ PO. ¹³⁹ CT. ¹⁴⁰ CV. ¹⁴¹ CazV. ¹⁴² CDicț. CTd. ¹⁴⁴ CT. ¹⁴⁵ CV. ¹⁴⁶ DÎ XCII. ¹⁴⁷ Cron. ¹⁴⁸ CLM. ¹⁴⁹ CT. ¹⁵¹ CC¹. ¹⁵² PO. ¹⁵³ CT. ¹⁵⁴ PO. ¹⁵⁵ CSV.1590–1602. CSI.1601–19 ¹⁵⁹ CT. ¹⁶⁰ A general form in CT., CC¹, CC², PO. PO. ¹⁵⁷ CT. ¹⁵⁸ CSXII.1608.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
46 the selection of one or the other ending for the formation of the feminine plural is associated with a differentiation by stylistic registers (literary vs popular). The literary language prefers the ending -e (Brâncuş 1985); this explains why the majority of recent feminine loans have entered the class of -e plurals. The change of pattern from -ă ~ -e to -ă ~ -i has taken place only for nouns that have long been established in the language (see the following free variants in DOOM²: căpşune or căpşuni ‘strawberries’, cireşe or cireşi ‘cherries’, coarde or corzi ‘strings’, coperte or coperţi ‘covers’, râpe or râpi ‘abysses’) and, exceptionally, for loans ( remarce or remarci ‘remarks’).¹⁶¹ Different endings may express different lexical meanings; thus the paired plural forms of bucată, coadă, coardă, plasă show lexical differentiation (bucate ‘foods’ vs bucăţi ‘parts’; coade ‘pony tails’ vs cozi ‘queues’; coarde ‘strings’ vs corzi ‘tensed ropes’; plase ‘fishing nets’ vs plăşi, a denomination of old administrative regions). In the three inflexional patterns păsărea ‘bird’ ~ păsărele, păsărică ‘bird’ ~ păsărele, zi ‘day’ ~ zile ‘days’, the ending -(l)e has caused debate over its segmentation: is the segment l to be analysed as part of the desinence (zi-le, păsăre-le) or as part of of the root (zil-e, păsărel-e) (see further §2.1.4)?¹⁶² One of the reasons for separating off the ending -e is the special tendency for -e in any feminine noun where it occurs to be replaced by -i in non-standard Romanian. As proof of this, normative works recommend -e, and condemn the following -i forms: măhălăli ‘neighbourhoods’ (Lambrior 1892); băsmăli ‘scarves’, hărăbăli ‘rack waggons’, bădănăli ‘mason’s brushes’ (Tiktin [1883] 1945: 52); basmăli ‘scarves’, haimanăli ‘loafers’, hărăbăli ‘carts’, măntăli ‘cloak’ (Iordan 1943: 66). For the whole argument, see §2.1.4. The ending -(l)e is predictable, being obligatorily selected by feminines whose singular root ends in a stressed final vowel (zi ‘day’, basmá ‘scarf ’, casmá ‘spade’), or in the rising diphthong -e̯a (bucăţe̯á ‘little piece’, cure̯á ‘belt’, turture̯á ‘turtle dove’) (43). The inflexional pattern -e̯a ~ -(el)e is long established in the language, being attested in the earliest Romanian texts (see (43b)). The ending -le, with the realizations -[le], -[li], depending on variety, also occurs in Aromanian for the same type of phonological conditioning of feminine nouns (see (43c); Caragiu Marioţeanu 1968: 81, 1975: 234). (43) a zile ‘days’, basmale ‘scarves’, stele ‘stars’ b ORo. bucăţea¹⁶³ ‘piece’ ~ bucăţeale;¹⁶⁴ curea¹⁶⁵ ‘belt’ ~ cureale;¹⁶⁶ mieluşea¹⁶⁷ ‘lamb’ ~ mieluşeale;¹⁶⁸ scăndurea¹⁶⁹ ‘little plank’ ~ scândureale;¹⁷⁰ stea ‘star’ ~ steale¹⁷¹ c Aro. căţale ‘bitches’; dzâle/dzăle ‘days’; mârdzale ‘beads’; steale ‘stars’ (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1968: 73)
¹⁶¹ Although there are no clear rules delimiting the two patterns, there are some phonological preferences: neological nouns ending in -(t)ură, such as: stagiatură ‘internship’, tastatură ‘keyboard’ or those ending in -că, -gă, such as: geacă ‘coat’ ~ geci, robotică ‘robotics’ ~ robotici, enter the -ă ~ -i pattern. ¹⁶² A similar phenomenon occurs with the ambigeneric plural in -uri, with the same alternative solutions and with the same arguments for these solutions (see Maiden 2016a, 2016f). ¹⁶³ PO. ¹⁶⁴ DVS. ¹⁶⁵ CT. ¹⁶⁶ DVS. ¹⁶⁷ DVS. ¹⁶⁸ DVS. ¹⁶⁹ CT. ¹⁷⁰ CV. ¹⁷¹ CT.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
47
The feminine pattern with the plural in -(l)e also occurs in adjectives. In both historical periods, the class of underived adjectives, inherited as such (the type grea ‘heavy’ ~ grele (44a)), is distinguished from the forms obtained through suffixation of the diminutive suffix -ea to the adjectival base (the type tinerea ‘young’ ~ tinereale (44b)). (44) a grea ‘hard’ ~ greale;¹⁷² mişea¹⁷³ ‘rascally’ ~ mişeale;¹⁷⁴ rea ‘bad’ ~ reale¹⁷⁵
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b puţinea¹⁷⁶ ‘little’ ~ puţineale;¹⁷⁷ tinerea¹⁷⁸ ‘young’ ~ tinereale¹⁷⁹ This pattern was long represented in four etymological categories: inherited nouns (e.g. curea ‘belt’, căţea ‘bitch’, mărgea ‘bead’, măsea ‘molar’, rândunea ‘swallow’, smicea ‘branch’, stea ‘star’, turturea ‘turtle dove’, ulcea ‘pot’, vâlcea ‘valley’, vergea ‘rod’, viţea ‘calf ’); suffixed internal creations derived with the diminutival suffix -ea (e.g. albăstrea ‘forget-me-not’, cărticea ‘little book’, găurea ‘little hole’, lingurea ‘little spoon’, mieluşea ‘little lamb’); neological formations of Turkish and modern Greek origin (e.g. basma ‘scarf ’, belea ‘trouble’, bidinea ‘brush’, cafenea ‘café’, cazma ‘spade’, cherestea ‘timber’, chiftea ‘meat ball’, cişmea ‘fountain’, ciulama (a kind of dish), duşumea ‘flooring’); and neological formations derived from French (e.g. bezea ‘kiss’, ghilimea ‘quotation mark’, livrea ‘livery’, pansea ‘pansy’, pavea ‘pavement stone’, pijama ‘pyjamas’, (old) soarea ‘soirée’, şosea ‘highway’). In present-day Romanian, the nominal inflexional pattern -Ø ~ -(l)e has considerably diminished in productivity, as is demonstrated by the absence of neologisms (loans or internal creations) after this pattern. Internal systemic explanations have been proposed for this loss of productivity. They all invoke the inflexional ‘disadvantages’ of the pattern (Pană Dindelegan 2015b: 423), namely the awkward syncretism of the ending -le, which, within feminine inflexion, marks both non-definite plurals (lalele ‘tulips’, măsele ‘molars’) and definite plurals (casele ‘the houses’, porţile ‘the gates’); and the fact that stress in the singular falls on the final vowel, an unusual occurrence in Romanian nominal morphology.¹⁸⁰ One should also mention that the proliferation of non-diminutive -ea has probably obscured the diminutive value of singular -ea in nouns where it is a true diminutive suffix, for example bucăţea ‘little piece’, mieluşea ‘little lamb’, păsărea ‘little bird’ (Maiden 1999).¹⁸¹ As for the pattern păsărea ~ păsărele vs păsărică ~ păsărele, except for cases in which -ea is not a diminutive ending (e.g. curea ‘belt’, zăbrea ‘railing’), nouns in -ea have the particularity of forming two paradigms each, one regular, -ea ~ -le, the other irregular and suppletive, -ică ~ -le (see also Maiden 1999, 2014b: 39). The irregular paradigm is formed of a singular with the diminutive suffix -ică, of Slavonic origin, which replaced the older diminutival suffix -ea (< -), a singular associated with the surviving
¹⁷² CC². ¹⁷³ DVS. ¹⁷⁴ DVS. ¹⁷⁵ CC¹. ¹⁷⁶ CC². ¹⁷⁷ PO. ¹⁷⁸ DVS. ¹⁷⁹ DVS. ¹⁸⁰ It is only present in some loans, which have entered the genus alternans class (alibí ‘alibi’, atú ‘advantage, ace’, boleró ‘bolero’, chimonó ‘kimono’). ¹⁸¹ For the diminutive suffix -ea, see the discussion in §7.2.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
48 plural -ele of the base noun (see further §7.2). An irregular paradigm with suppletive endings is already found in old Romanian: (bucăţea + -ică >) bucăţică ~ bucăţeale, ORo. bucăţâcă.¹⁸² ~ bucăţeale.;¹⁸³ păsărică.¹⁸⁴ ~ păsăreale..¹⁸⁵ The combination of three forms (mieluşea¹⁸⁶ ‘little lamb’ ~ mieluşică¹⁸⁷ ~ mieluşeale;¹⁸⁸ nepoţea ‘little niece’ ~ nepoţică¹⁸⁹ ~ nepoţeale; păsărea¹⁹⁰ ~ păsărică ~ păsăreale) and two paradigms (mieluşea ~ mieluşeale or mieluşică ~ mieluşeale) has been attested since the sixteenth century and is still alive today. In DOOM² 2005, the paradigms floricea or floricică ‘little flower’ ~ floricele, mărgea or mărgică ‘bead’ ~ mărgele, pietricică or pietricea ‘little stone’ ~ pietricele, purcea or purcică ‘sow’ ~ purcele, surcea or surcică ‘sliver’ ~ surcele, turturea or turturică ‘turtle dove’ ~ turturele, viţea or viţică ‘calf ’ ~ viţele are accepted as free variants. The same type of variation occurs in adjectives: . măricică or măricea ‘biggish’ ~ . măricele. As a result of the loss of the diminutive value of the suffix -ea and, implicitly, of its productivity, the regular pattern (păsărea ~ păsărele), too, has ceased to be productive in modern Romanian, surviving only in formations that already existed in the language. There is a third, regularized pattern -ică ~ ici (păsărică ~ păsărici, turturică ~ turturici): the new singular form in -ică takes a regular plural in -ici, on the model of, say, brânzică ‘cheese.’ ~ brânzici. Nouns belonging to the pattern -Ø ~ - (l)e have developed a singular variant formed with the diphthong -uă -[wә], which may appear throughout this class of nouns ((45a); e.g. nouns inherited from Latin such as ziuă ‘day’, cureauă ‘belt’, neauă ‘snow’, vâlceauă ‘valley’, and newer nouns such as salteauă ‘mattress’, sandauă ‘sandal’).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(45) a ORo. nepoţeaoa¹⁹¹ ‘little niece’; zio¹⁹² ‘day’ b Aro. căţao/căţauă ‘bitch’, curauă ‘belt’, măseauă ‘molar’, mârdzeauă ‘bead’, neao ‘snow’, steao/steauă ‘star’; arauă ‘bad..’, greauă ‘heavy..’ (Papahagi 1974) These extended singular forms have a controversial history,¹⁹³ each one being interpreted either as an etymological variant (in Sala 1998: 152) or as a secondary variant created on the basis of the definite form (ziua ‘the day’ > ziuă ‘day’; cureaua ‘the belt’ > cureauă ‘belt’). The phenomenon has been interpreted as indicative of the continuous strengthening of the first declension (in -ă) within the Romanian inflexional class system (Brâncuş 2005). The forms with the diphthong -[wә] are still attested in various dialects (see Rusu 1984, map 67). They occur in Aromanian, where this is the only means to form the non-definite singular of feminine nouns and adjectives with plurals in -le ((45b): see Caragiu Marioţeanu 1968: 81, 83, 99; in Papahagi 1974 these forms are given as base forms. In modern Romanian, the extended version in -uă is preserved in
¹⁸² CDicț. ¹⁸³ DVS. ¹⁸⁴ CDicț. ¹⁸⁵ Mărg. ¹⁸⁶ DVS. ¹⁸⁷ CDicț. ¹⁸⁸ DVS. ¹⁸⁹ ISBD (1740). ¹⁹⁰ CDicț. ¹⁹¹ DVS. ¹⁹² CT. ¹⁹³ Note that they are very like, but different from, the regular forms with the singular definite article (e.g. ziua ‘the day’, măseaua ‘the molar’. See also §4.2 for the morphology of the definite article.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
49
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
some fixed expressions: se crapă de ziuă ‘day breaks’, de cu ziuă ‘from dawn’, până-n ziuă ‘until daybreak’, spre ziuă ‘near daybreak’. In feminine nouns the ending -uri characterizes only a small class (see the list in Maiden 2015: 44–5)—unlike in genus alternans nouns, where its presence is regular and attested from the earliest texts (see §2.3). In this small class, -uri occurs (Avram 2003–4) sometimes in free variation with -e or -i (trebi ~ treburi ‘works’, lefi ~ lefuri ‘salaries’, lipse ~ lipsuri ‘shortages’), but this is rare. More frequently, it introduces a difference of meaning from the singular, adding some new denotation (e.g., for a word meaning x, ‘kinds, varieties of x’, as in alămuri ‘brass objects, brassware’, cărnuri ‘types of meat’, cerneluri ‘types of ink’, făinuri ‘types of flour’, ierburi ‘grasses’, mătăsuri ‘kinds of silk’). Note that -uri typically attaches to mass nouns, which, being by definition uncountable, are normally singularia tantum. Where there is free variation ( trebi ~ treburi ‘works’), -uri functions exclusively as a grammatical formative (an ending). Where there is difference in meaning ( dulceaţă ~ dulceţuri ‘types of fruit preserve, jams’), -uri performs two functions: as the marker for plural in a small class of feminine nouns, it carries a grammatical meaning; at the same time it carries a lexical meaning, as a suffix that converts mass nouns into countable nouns and specializes for classification (it indicates ‘kinds, varieties of a certain matter’; see Maiden 2014b: 41). In Aromanian, feminine plural nouns in -uri do not necessarily present such semantic differences from the singular (see Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975: 236; also the list of feminine nouns in -uri in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian, in Maiden 2014b: 41–2, 2015: 46–7). The opposition ‘grammatical’ in (46) vs ‘grammatical’ + ‘lexical’ in (47) is already present in old Romanian.¹⁹⁴ However, the strictly grammatical function is rare in the old language and the additional, lexical function occurs late, its first attestation dating from 1620 (Frâncu 1982b: 199). (46) a creangure, creanguri¹⁹⁵ vs crange¹⁹⁶ (crăngi) ‘branches’ b nălucure¹⁹⁷ vs năluce¹⁹⁸ ‘illusions’ c povăruri¹⁹⁹ vs povări²⁰⁰ ‘burdens’ d ţăruri²⁰¹ vs ţări²⁰² ‘countries’ e treapture²⁰³ vs treapte²⁰⁴ ‘steps’ (47) cărnuri²⁰⁵ ‘types of meat’, dulceţuri²⁰⁶ ‘types of jam’, erburi²⁰⁷ ‘types of herb’, mătăsuri²⁰⁸ ‘types of silk’, sălături²⁰⁹ ‘salads’, zoiuri²¹⁰ ‘dishwater’, unsoruri²¹¹ ‘oils’ ¹⁹⁴ To the examples in (46) should be added plural mânuri ‘hands’. Gheţie & Mareş (1974: 223–4) (see also Coteanu 1971: 1426) recognize the possibility that, in the sixteenth century, plural mânuri occurred in northern Transylvania. The form is still attested in Maramureş, in Transylvania (Vulpe 1984: 332; Marin & Marinescu 1984: 372; Marin et al. 2017: 37), but also in Bucovina (ALRII), and some points in Moldova. In Transylvania we also have attested (in 1702, PPr.) the plural variant mânuri, beside mâni. ¹⁹⁵ PO. ¹⁹⁶ CDicț. ¹⁹⁷ Ev. ¹⁹⁸ Cron. ¹⁹⁹ CDicț. ²⁰⁰ CDicț. ²⁰¹ CDicț. ²⁰² CDicț. ²⁰³ CC². ²⁰⁴ PO. ²⁰⁵ A. ²⁰⁶ CBuc. ²⁰⁷ Cron. ²⁰⁸ CDicț. ²⁰⁹ CDicț. ²¹⁰ CDicț. ²¹¹ CDicț.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
50 Note that -uri in feminine nouns is often associated with alternations in the root ( iarbă ~ ierburi ‘grass’; mâncare ~ mâncăruri ‘food’; treabă ~ treburi ‘work’), feminine nouns being clearly differentiated from ambigenerics (in the case of ambigeneric nouns, the ending -uri is not associated with alternations).²¹² Historically, in the case of feminine nouns, this was a two-stage process (Avram 2005: 116): the ending -i is attached; root alternations also occur (iarbă ~ ierbi ‘grass’; mâncare ~ mâncări ‘food’; treabă ~ trebi ‘work’); and the ending -i is replaced by -uri, using the base with an already alternating root (ierbi > ierburi ‘grasses’, măncări > mâncăruri ‘foods’). This is an additional sign that -uri lacks the bimorphemic status that it had in ambigeneric nouns (§2.1.4): it functions as a single, non-segmentable unit. There are various hypotheses regarding the origin of the feminine plural endings. The traditional solution for -e, in Italian as well as in Romanian (Maiden 1996: 149), is to interpret the -e of the feminine plural as being inherited directly from the Latin firstdeclension nominative plural - (Lat. > Ro. mese ‘tables’, Lat. > Ro. inime ‘hearts’). This is the solution adopted by Romanian linguists. The ‘phonological’ solution (Maiden 1996: 151–4, 2016c: 700) interprets -e as a purely phonological development of the Latin plural -, a form extended from the accusative of firstdeclension feminine nouns (for the phonological arguments, see Maiden 1996: 149, 154–5). In this way the explanation of the origin of the plural is extended both to masculine nouns in -i and to feminine nouns in -e and in -i (more on this to follow). In all these cases, the vocalic ending is a regular phonological development of a Latin plural ending in -s—in this case, - (- > *-ai ̯ > -e). As for the feminine plural -i, the ‘phonological’ hypothesis (Maiden 1996: 166, 178; 2016c: 700) analyses it as the direct phonological continuant of Latin -, that is, the plural ending of the third declension. This analysis not only is phonologically well motivated but also provides a unitary analysis of the plural endings: consider the feminine > *ˈpɛllei ̯ >* ˈpjelli > Ro. piei ‘skins’, as well as the masculine > Ro. dinţi ‘teeth’ (see Maiden 2016c: 699). The ending -(l)e is the result of a normal phonological evolution: Latin firstdeclension nouns ending in -lla in the singular evolved into forms such as stea ‘star’ ~ stele (< ~ ) or măsea ‘molar’ ~ măsele (< ~ ) (Graur 1961). According to some (e.g. Sala 1998: 119), with the phonological loss of singular -ll-, the reanalysis of the plural form became possible, allowing for the segmentation of -le as an ending. According to Maiden’s hypothesis (see §2.1.4), the ending -le, predictable as the mark of a feminine plural type, can be segmented into the component -l-, which belongs to the root, and -e, a frequent ending of the plural feminine. In the series of arguments adduced in support of this interpretation (§2.1.4), we should mention the existence of forms derived with a suffix
²¹² In some varieties (Moldova, Maramureș), very isolated variants such as zarzavat ~ zarzavături ‘vegetable’ occur.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
51
that regularly has the component -l- in its structure (stea ~ steluţă ‘star ~ little star’, nuia ~ nuieluşă ‘wand ~ little wand’, pijama ~ pijămăluţă ‘pyjamas ~ little pyjamas’). Originally the ending -uri did not occur at all in feminine nouns. It is an extension from the plural of nouns in the genus alternans class and often comes with a special, lexical function, as a derivational suffix (see §2.4.2). As we have seen, the ending -uri in feminine plurals is rare and late, while in genus alternans nouns we encounter it very frequently from the sixteenth century on—and even from earlier dates in Romanian words attested in Slavonic texts (Strungaru 1976).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.2.4 Final considerations on number endings i. Nouns and adjectives have two plural endings: -i, the most widespread one, which occurs with both the masculine and the feminine, and -e, which occurs with the feminine and with ambigenerics, as a feminine type of ending. The other endings, -(ur)i and -(l)e, found in genus alternans and feminine nouns respectively, may be internally segmented, so that the same plural endings -i and -e can be recognized in them. ii. Recently in contemporary Romanian, the introduction of a vocalic ending has been allowed in the singular masculine of some loans; one example is the ending -o ( picolo ‘waiter’ ~ picoli, paparazzo ‘paparazzo’ ~ paparazzi). But such cases are very few; the type is so poorly represented that is has virtually no functional yield. Interestingly, during the same period, the loan plural ending -s has not been adopted. iii. Strong marking of the plural is characteristic of Romanian (double and even triple marking, with one ending and root allomorphy). There is no other Romance language whose root allomorphy is so extensive, this being, with a few exceptions,²¹³ a general feature of the language. iv. With very few exceptions (feminines in -e such as carte ‘book’ ~ cărţi, albie ‘river bed’ ~ albii, and the plurals of feminine nouns with a stressed vocalic root such as zi ‘day’ ~ zile, cafea ‘coffee’ ~ cafele), the gender classes with several endings in the plural are characterized by unpredictability in the selection of the plural ending. This unpredictability is a ‘strong’ characteristic of Romanian (Maiden 2011c: 166). As a consequence, throughout the history of this language, plural endings have raised problems of competition and productivity. For feminine nouns, the competition is between -e and -i ²¹³ Some examples of archaic forms are: mânz ‘foal’ ~ mănzi (PO; DÎ IX); grumaz ‘neck’ ~ grumazi (Bert.); evanghelist ‘Evangelist’ ~ evanghelisti (CCat.; Ev.), năpaste ‘calamity’ ~ năpasti (CV), gol ‘empty’ ~ goli (CV; CazV; DPar.), sătul ‘satiated’ ~ sătuli (DÎ XVII), variants with and without root alternation in old Romanian. Among neological forms are those derived via the neological suffix -ez, which in the second part of the twentieth century lost their alternation, being used nowadays with the form chinezi ‘Chinamen’, francezi ‘Frenchmen’, englezi ‘Englishmen’, or neological forms ending in -l (consuli ‘consuls’, corpusculi ‘corpuscles’, crocodili ‘crocodiles’, generali ‘generals’, moguli ‘moguls’, noduli ‘nodules’, stimuli ‘stimuli’, şacali ‘jackals’), whose root remains invariant.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
52
v.
vi.
vii.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
viii.
ix.
( şcoale ~ şcoli ‘schools’, cireşe ~ cireşi ‘cherries’) and, more recently, between -e (or -i) and -uri ( lipse ~ lipsuri ‘shortages’, vremi ~ vremuri ‘times’).²¹⁴ Throughout the history of Romanian, a characteristic of nouns has been the instability of the partitions between inflexional classes established by plural endings: there are frequent transitions from one to the other. If one adds the fact that partitions determined by gender are ‘mobile’, there being frequent transitions from one gender to the other, one has to conclude that the general characteristic of inflexional classes and subclasses is instability.²¹⁵ In situations of competition, Romanian also has the capacity to use variation in the ending as a means of lexical and stylistic diversification; thus the two plurals bucate ‘dishes, victuals’ and bucăţi ‘pieces’ that correspond to the singular bucată have completely different meanings. Some of the endings have a quite special history: -uri, in passing from ambigeneric to feminine nouns, acquires a new lexical function, that of a derivational suffix, giving rise to two homonyms. This intertwining of morphology with lexical differentiation is a specific feature of Romanian. The plural ending -i triggers the palatalization of the final consonant, generating root allomorphy regardless of the gender of the word or of its nominal or adjectival nature. The phenomenon is already general in the earliest texts, and the most recent neologisms, with few exceptions, follow the same allomorphy rules: [t] ~ [ts] ( racket ‘racketeeer’ ~ rackeţi); [g] ~ [ʤ] (blug ‘pair of jeans’ ~ blugi ‘jeans’); [s] ~ [ʃ] ( pampers ~ pamperşi ‘nappies’); [d] ~ [z] ( steward ~ stewarzi); [st] ~ [ʃt] ( hardist ‘hard disk specialist’ ~ hardişti). The palatalization (or affrication) of the final consonant, originally a strictly phonological event, acquires a very important role, marking out Romanian as a language that indicates the plural both in the ending and in the root. There is a tight relationship between plural endings and root allomorphy (see also §§1.5, 2.5). Both -i and -e trigger alternations, but -i triggers more alternations than -e (compare case, groape, in -e, with the alternative forms căşi ‘houses’, gropi ‘holes’, in -i). This also explains the spread of -i in popular, colloquial Romanian. The ending -e, without having the same power to produce allomorphy as -i, produces alternations in ambigeneric nouns, but not in feminines (. boală ‘illness’ ~ . boale, . baltă ‘puddle’ ~ . balte, but . biberon ‘baby’s bottle’ ~ . biberoane, . protocol ‘protocol’ ~ . protocoale). The plural ending -uri does not trigger changes in the root of ambigeneric nouns (compare . mormânt ‘grave’ ~ . mormânturi with . morminte ‘graves’, . folos ‘use’ ~ . folosuri with
²¹⁴ The competition between -e and -uri also occurs in the genus alternans (see §2.3). ²¹⁵ That is, ‘instability’ in terms of the inventory of words belonging to a class, not of the classes as such, which maintain their stability.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
53
. foloase ‘uses’); but it is associated with root alternations in feminines (e.g. carne ‘meat’ ~ cărnuri; mâncare ‘food’ ~ mâncăruri, where the -uri ending has been attached to the plural root of earlier plurals cărni, mâncări).
2.3 The morphological history of the Romanian genus alternans (or ‘neuter’)
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.3.1 Characteristics of the genus alternans All branches of Daco-Romance display a phenomenon of which Romanian has become, quite literally, a textbook example (e.g. Corbett 1991: 150–2). It concerns a class of nouns traditionally said to belong to the ‘neuter’ gender, whose inflexional morphology undoubtedly has its origins in the inflexional morphology of the Latin neuter. This is not the place to get into the vexed question of whether Romanian has a third gender, the neuter, in addition to the two established ones—the masculine and the feminine (see Maiden 2016e for an overview of the history of this frequently contentious issue and for arguments as to why the three-gender analysis is misleading).²¹⁶ Here we shall generally refer to these nouns as being characterized by genus alternans or ‘alternating gender’ (see Igartua 2006: 58 on this term and its origins). It is an extremely large and productive class of nouns that select exclusively masculine adjectival and pronominal agreement in the singular, but exclusively feminine adjectival and pronominal agreement in the plural. In modern standard Romanian the situation can be illustrated through contrast with clearly masculine and clearly feminine nouns. In Table 2.1, băiat ‘boy’ and stâlp ‘pillar’ are examples of masculine nouns selecting masculine agreement in both the singular and the plural of the adjectives and pronouns. The feminine nouns fată ‘girl’ and casă ‘house’ behave in the same way, selecting only feminine agreement in both singular and plural: Table 2.1 Masculine and feminine nouns in Romanian
Acest băiat este înalt şi el. this.. boy is tall.. and .3. ‘this boy is tall too.’ Aceşti băieţi sunt înalţi şi ei. these.. boys are tall.. and .3. ‘these boys are tall too.’ Acest stâlp este înalt şi el. this.. pillar is tall.. and .3. ‘this pillar is tall too.’ Aceşti stâlpi sunt înalţi şi ei. these.. pillars are tall.. and .3. ‘these pillars are tall too.’
Această fată este înaltă şi ea. this.. girl is tall.. and .3. ‘this girl is tall too.’ Aceste fete sunt înalte şi ele. these.. girls are tall.. and .3. ‘these girls are tall too.’ Această casă este înaltă şi ea. this.. house is tall.. and .3. ‘this house is high too.’ Aceste case sunt înalte şi ele. these.. houses are tall.. and .3. ‘these houses are high too.’
²¹⁶ See also Loporcaro (2018: 92–109) for new arguments in favour of the three gender analysis. These should be carefully compared against the details of the case made by Maiden (2016e), however.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
54 By contrast, genus alternans (so-called neuter) nouns select masculine agreement in the singular but feminine agreement in the plural (Table 2.2) Table 2.2 The Romanian genus alternans/neuter Acest scaun este înalt şi el. this.. chair is high.. and .3. ‘this chair is high too.’ Acest zid este înalt şi el. this.. wall is high.. and .3. ‘this wall is high too.’ Acest tavan este înalt şi el. this.. ceiling is high.. and .3. ‘this ceiling is high too.’ Acest raft este înalt şi el. this.. shelf is high.. and .3. ‘this shelf is high too.’
Aceste scaune sunt înalte şi ele. these.. chairs are high.. and .3. ‘these chairs are high too.’ Aceste ziduri sunt înalte şi ele. these.. walls are high.. and .3. ‘these walls are high too.’ Aceste tavane sunt înalte şi ele. these.. ceilings are high.. and .3. ‘these ceilings are high too.’ Aceste rafturi sunt înalte şi ele. these.. shelves are high.. and .3. ‘these shelves are high too.’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
The genus alternans is robustly attested from the earliest texts; indeed it is part of the common inheritance of all four branches of Daco-Romance. Here are some examples from sixteenth-century texts: (48) a Nebune, într- această noapte sufletul tău mad. in this night soul... your.. den tine from you ‘Madman, this night your soul will leave you.’ b Nu grijireţi sufletele voastre ce vor not care souls... your.. what they.will ‘Have no care about what your souls will eat.’
ieşi-va go.out will
mânca²¹⁷ eat
(49) Deci cum puseşi întru inema ta acesta lucru?²¹⁸ so how you.put in heart your this.. thing ‘So how did you put this thing in your heart?’ (50) Şi de and of grijeşti you.care
²¹⁷ CT.
aceastea voi să te sfătuiesc să te these.. I.want you I.counsel yourself de bune lucrure, să stai pentru ceia ce-au of good.. things, you.stand for those.. who have
²¹⁸ CPr.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
55
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
crezut Domnului. Acealea sânt bune şi cu folos believed to.lord those.. are good.. and with use oamenilor to.men²¹⁹ ‘And on this I want to counsel you that you care for good things, and stand for those who have believed in the Lord. These are good (things) and useful to men.’ ‘Inanimacy’ has always been a necessary condition for membership of the genus alternans.²²⁰ Some genus alternans nouns that apparently designate living beings do so only indirectly, in that their immediate reference is to a class or type (. dobitoc ~ . dobitoace ‘(head of) cattle’, . rumegător ~ . rumegătoare ‘rodent’, . popor ~ . popoare ‘people’, . norod ~ . noroade ‘people’; see, e.g. Rizescu 1966: 56). Cases such as the (relatively recent) neologisms planton ‘soldier on duty’ or star ‘(film) star’ are essentially metonymic, referring to persons in terms of their role, duty, or status.²²¹ Inanimacy is clearly not a sufficient condition for a noun to belong to genus alternans, because about two-thirds of inanimate nouns in modern Romanian do not do so (cf. Iordan et al. 1967: 75). Inanimacy is too broad to characterize this class; plant names seem always to have been systematically excluded from it²²² (e.g. trandafir.. ‘rose’ ~ trandafiri.., stejar.. ‘oak’ ~ stejari.., măr.. ‘apple tree’ ~ meri.., prun.. ‘plum tree’ ~ pruni.., mesteacăn.. ‘birch’ ~ mesteceni.., bujor.. ‘peony’ ~ bujori.., cactus.. ‘cactus’ ~ cactuși.., trifoi.. ‘clover’ ~ trifoi. .). This means that Romanian genus alternans nouns are more accurately described as ‘non-mortal’, or possibly ‘abiotic’, rather than as ‘inanimate’.²²³ Also wholly excluded from the genus alternans (see Perkowski & Vrabie 1986: 59) are names of units of currency (e.g. dolar.. ~ dolari.., franc.. ~ franci.. șiling.. ‘shilling’ ~ șilingi..). This treatment of nouns of this kind appears to have been constant throughout the history of the language (cf. Lupu 2006, where 90% of such words are masculine and almost all the remainder feminine).²²⁴
²¹⁹ CPr. Example (50) also demonstrates the use of feminine plural pronouns (aceastea/acealea ‘these/those (things)’, ‘all this/that’, ‘the foregoing’) as ‘default’ plural forms with inanimate reference, even in the absence of an explicit noun referent, a characteristic continued into the modern language. ²²⁰ However, so great was the association with loanwords in the late seventeenth century (see below) that even the general restriction of ambigeneric plurals to inanimates was sometimes overridden: elefanturi ‘elephants’, CDicţ.; leoparduri ‘leopards’, DVS; țentaurisuri ‘centaurs’, CDicţ.). ²²¹ Diaconescu (1969: 36–7) mentions Transylvanian varieties where some nouns (of Hungarian origin) denoting persons may be ‘neuter’: tist ~ tisturi ‘type of military rank, officer’, feștig ~ feștiguri ‘dyer’, pec ~ pecuri ‘baker’. Whatever their explanation, they are extremely marginal. ²²² See also Croitor & Giurgea (2009: 32n15); Bateman & Polinsky (2010: 57, 69, 72); Perkowski & Vrabie (1986: 58). ²²³ See Maiden (2016e: 120n12) for arguments why the apparently ‘animate’ . macrou ‘mackerel’ ~ . macrouri (a loan from French maquereau) might be considered ‘inanimate’; also the discussion in Croitor (2015b: 490–4). ²²⁴ Lupu lists three ambigenerics in this class: drahm ‘drachma’ ~ drahme, sabaş ‘money given as bribe’ ~ sabașe, scud ‘scudo’ ~ scuduri, all of fairly limited use (alongside the established . drahmă and the much more frequent . solzi). Sabaș does not seem to be exactly the name of a unit of currency. There is also old Romanian argint ~ arginture, but here the sense of the plural seems to be ‘pieces of silver’: e.g. Codicele Bratul, treizeci de arginture ‘thirty pieces of silver’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
56
2.3.2 The correlation between endings and genus alternans membership, in synchrony and diachrony The agreement behaviour of genus alternans nouns is almost always systematically predictable from the morphological structure of singular and plural forms of the relevant nouns. In fact, given appropriate knowledge of morphological structure, it is possible to predict, virtually without fail, which Romanian nouns will display genus alternans. Some of these considerations are reflected in the Table 2.3. Table 2.3 Modern Romanian²²⁵ genus alternans, masculine, and feminine compared . scaun ‘chair’ cadru ‘frame’ cot ‘elbow’ raft ‘shelf ’ tavan ‘ceiling’ lucru ‘thing’ sat ‘village’ grai [grai]̯ ‘dialect’
. scaune cadre coate rafturi tavane lucruri sate graiuri
stâlp ‘pillar’ băiat ‘boy’ codru ‘wood’ bou [bou̯] ‘ox’ soare ‘sun’ şarpe ‘snake’ popă ‘priest’ frate ‘brother’
stâlpi băieţi codri boi sori şerpi popi frați
cină ‘dinner’ fată ‘girl’ româncă ‘Romanian’ rană ‘wound’ ţigancă ‘gypsy’ lopată ‘shovel’ floare ‘flower’ vulpe ‘fox’
cine fete românce răni ţigănci lopeţi flori vulpi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
It emerges from Table 2.3 that: (i) Genus alternans nouns end only in consonants (or glides), or in -u, in the singular. This property is shared with most masculine singular nouns, but it distinguishes singular genus alternans and masculine nouns from singular feminine nouns. (ii) Genus alternans nouns end (almost) exclusively in -e or -uri in the plural. They share final -e with many feminine plural nouns; this ending distinguishes both of them from plural masculines, which never show -e. Final -uri is very nearly unique to genus alternans nouns, and is uniquely associated with feminine gender. (iii) It is impossible to tell, from the form of the singular alone, whether a noun belongs to the genus alternans class. But membership of this class can be immediately determined paradigmatically, by taking into account the plural. (iv) It is impossible to predict, from the singular of an inanimate noun ending in a final consonant (including glides) or -u, whether it forms its plural in -i or in one of the genus alternans endings (-e or -uri). (v) It is impossible to predict whether the plural of a genus alternans noun will be in -e or in -uri. (vi) A final consonant (or a glide) or -u in the singular is an unambiguous predictor of masculine agreement in the singular. ²²⁵ The principal morphological difference with old Romanian is simply that in the latter masculine singulars which today end in a consonant or glide could still display final -u (e.g. scaunu, satu, graiu).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
57
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(vii) Final -e in the singular is an ambiguous predictor of gender, being associated both with masculine and with feminine agreement. (viii) Final -e or -uri in the plural are unambiguous predictors of feminine agreement. (ix) Final -i in the plural is an ambiguous predictor of gender, being associated both with masculine agreement and with feminine agreement. Note that it is generally not possible in Romanian to predict the plural form of a noun on the basis of its singular form (see points iv and v). In fact, the only prediction that one can confidently make is that, if a singular noun is grammatically masculine and has an animate referent, then its plural ending must be -i. Whether a genus alternans noun forms its plural in -e (a common feminine plural ending in nouns and adjectives alike) or in -uri (an ending limited to nouns and, historically, just to genus alternans ones) has never been easy to predict, and there has been considerable historical vacillation between these endings. The ending -uri, which originates in the relatively small class of Latin nouns of the type ~ , has spread massively through the lexicon, competing with -e. Indeed, timp ~ timpuri may be the only Romanian noun in -uri to have a direct Latin antecedent in -.²²⁶ There is a phonological constraint on -uri, and one detectable since the earliest written records, namely that it can appear only in nouns that bear the stress on the final syllable of the root; in short, one cannot in principle have a genus alternans plural in -uri if the result would be a proparoxytone. For example, capăt ‘end’ has a plural capete [ˈkapete], but **capături [ˈkapәturʲ] should be impossible (although this rule is beginning to break down in the modern language; cf. §2.7.1). In a few cases, this principle leads to a shift of stress in the plural in order to accommodate plural -uri: thus words such as zero [ˈzero] ‘zero’ or radio [ˈradio] ‘radio’ have plurals zerouri, radiouri, but these are pronounced [zeˈrourʲ], [radiˈourʲ]. Nonetheless, one encounters at least one direct violation of the principle in the learnèd sinus [ˈsinus] ~ sinusuri [ˈsinusurʲ] ‘sinus’. Outside this (almost) absolute phonological constraint, there is no general principle for the distribution of -e as opposed to -uri, and one often finds phonologically similar words with different plural endings: e.g. veşmânt ‘vestment’ ~ veşminte vs pământ ‘land’ ~ pământuri;²²⁷ modern Romanian ac ‘needle’ ~ ace, arc ‘arch, spring’ ~ arcuri. Throughout the history of the language, there has been a tendency to prefer -uri in loanwords. This is manifest as early as the seventeenth century, when there begins to be a major influx of neologisms: e.g. casteluri ‘castles’, cfartiluri ‘quartiles’, eclipsuri or eclipsisuri ‘eclipses’, gabineturi ‘cabinets’, influsuri ‘influxes’, progresuri ‘progress’, reghimenturi ‘regiments’, tractaturi²²⁸ ‘treatises’.
²²⁶ Another possible candidate is corp ~ corpuri ‘body’ (Lat. ~ ), but this is probably of learnèd origin. ²²⁷ DÎ LXII, XVI. ²²⁸ FN.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
58 A reason for the preference for -uri may be that, unlike -e (cf. §1.5), it is not associated with alternation in the root. The ending -uri is also the preferred one in cases of creation of nouns from other parts of speech, for example from adverbs or pronouns: (51) dedesubturi ‘lower parts’ < de desubt ‘underneath’ deapoiurile pământului ‘leftovers of the land’ < de apoi ‘afterward’ nontrurile meale ‘my innards’ < înăuntru ‘within’ alsăurile persoanelor (‘specifics of people’ < al său ‘his’)²²⁹ Despite these preferences, the overall position remains one of unpredictability, as is shown by the competition between endings that can be observed throughout the history of Romanian. Thus, in the old language, one encounters
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(52) belciugure vs belciuge²³⁰ ‘abundance’ boaceturi vs boacete²³¹ ‘keenings’ giurământuri vs giurămente²³² ‘oaths’ mădulariuri²³³ vs mădulare²³⁴ ‘limbs’ mărgăritariuri²³⁵ vs mărgăritare²³⁶ ‘pearls’ mormânturi vs morminte²³⁷ ‘tombs’ oraşuri²³⁸ vs oraşe²³⁹ ‘towns’ spicuri²⁴⁰ vs spice²⁴¹ ‘ears of corn’ tuneture vs tunete²⁴² ‘thunderclaps’ This competition continued unabated in subsequent centuries (for the nineteenth century, see Nedelcu 2015: 41–2; for the twentieth, Pană Dindelegan 2015b: 427–8) and is still in force today (DOOM² 2005 accepts the following forms in free variation: amalgame/amalgamuri ‘amalgams’, antete/anteturi ‘letterheads’, cerdace/cerdacuri ‘verandahs’, hamacuri/hamace ‘hammocks’; chipie/chipiuri ‘peaked caps’, crucifixe/ crucifixuri ‘crucifixes’, debuşeuri/debuşee ‘outlets’, esofage/esofaguri ‘oesophagi’, itemuri/iteme ‘items’, jersee/jerseuri ‘jerseys’, maratonuri/maratoane ‘marathons’, mieloame/mielomuri ‘myelomas’, modemuri/modeme ‘modems’, nivele/niveluri ‘levels’, piedestaluri/piedestale ‘pedestals’, sloganuri/slogane ‘slogans’). Variants may also be lexicalized (e.g. rapoarte ‘reports’ vs raporturi ‘relations’). Neologisms show some propensity for phonological preference, -e tending to be used after -er. This is exemplified by the loanwords bannere ‘banners’, blistere ‘blisters’, containere ‘containers’, CD-playere ‘CD-players’, flippere ‘pin ball machines’, mastere ‘masters’ degrees’, pickhammere ‘pneumatic drills’, postere ‘posters’, printere ‘printers’, scanere ‘scanners’, servere ‘servers’, trailere ‘trailers’, vouchere ‘vouchers’. The ending -e is also preferred in neologisms involving substantivized adjectives and past participles: e.g. antivirale ²²⁹ DPar. ²³⁵ CDicț. ²⁴¹ CDicț.
²³⁰ PO. ²³⁶ Mărg. ²⁴² PO.
²³¹ DVS. ²³⁷ Ev.
²³² CazV. ²³⁸ CDicț.
²³³ CDicț. ²³⁹ CDicț.
²³⁴ Mărg. ²⁴⁰ CDicț.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
59
‘antivirals’, autocolante ‘self adhesives’, blindate ‘armoured cars’, contraceptive ‘contraceptives’, deodorante ‘deodorants’, diacritice ‘diacritics’. The general points (vi)–(ix) mean that genus alternans nouns contain unambiguous inflexional indicators of gender in the singular and in the plural alike.²⁴³ In short, with genus alternans nouns speakers must know both the form of the singular and that of the plural; and the different agreement behaviour in the singular and in the plural is a strict function of these forms. It is a diachronically stable characteristic of genus alternans nouns that the morphological structure of both the singular and the plural contains an unambiguous predictor of gender. Insofar as there are exceptions, they involve the singular and almost never the plural; hence the feminine gender in the plural is entirely predictable. In the singular, the robust correlation between gender and inflexional form has existed from the very beginnings of the genus alternans. The historical origin of this type is in Latin neuter nouns of the second declension, which are characterized in nominative and accusative singular by -(), and in the plural by - (the latter ending being characteristic of all neuters, regardless of inflexion class): e.g. Lat. () ‘arm’ ~ . > . braț ~ . brațe; and nouns of this kind are the model for the spread of the genus alternans type. The formal identity between the neuter plural ending -a and the characteristic feminine (singular) ending -a favours reanalysis of the plural forms as feminine, which in turn attracts feminine plural agreement (see further Maiden 2011c: 172–3, 2016e for the mechanisms involved). Romanian, apparently at an early stage in its history, replaced the plural *-a by -e, which is characteristically and uniquely associated with feminine agreement in the plural. Throughout the attested history of Romanian and other Daco-Romance varieties, genus alternans has been consistently limited, almost without exception, to nouns originally in final -u (which was subsequently deleted to various extents and left bare lexical roots, e.g. osu ‘bone’ > os, călcâiu ‘heel’ > călcâi).²⁴⁴ Accounts of the rise of genus alternans in Romance languages tend to focus on why original neuter plurals were assigned feminine agreement, correctly invoking the formal identity between neuter plural - and the singular ending -() of the (overwhelmingly feminine) first declension: see, for example, Rothe (1957: 74); Väänänen (1963: 110–11); Lausberg ²⁴³ The strict correlation between form and agreement in the Romanian genus alternans is not remarked on until surprisingly late in the descriptive literature, finding its first full articulation in Bateman & Polinsky (2010); for further comments for and against their arguments, see Maiden (2016e) and Loporcaro (2018: 100–4). Especially important in the analysis of contemporary Romanian has been the work of Corbett (1991: 150–2, 2012: 168–9), which crucially involves recognizing the distinction between controller and target genders. While the class of morphosyntactically agreeing elements can be exhaustively divided into masculine and feminine (the target genders), it remains necessary to recognize a class of nouns distinct from those which select exclusively masculine, or exclusively feminine, gender. Corbett, reflecting Hockett’s (1958: 231) definition of genders as ‘classes of nouns reflected in the behavior of associated words’, identifies this class as a third, controller, gender. It is argued in Maiden (2016e) that Corbett’s analysis may be superfluous for Romanian in the light of the continued dependency of agreement on morphological form. ²⁴⁴ It is precisely the strong association of final -u with masculine gender which favoured, in old Romanian, the replacement of three feminine nouns exceptionally in -u (soru ‘sister’, noru ‘daughter-in-law’, mânu ‘hand’ replaced by soră, noră, mână), leaving final -u uniquely associated with masculine. Note that the type soru (or its continuant sor), seems only to survive today in lexicalized expressions with a following clitic possessive, of the type sor(u)-mea.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
60 (1966: §608); Maiden (1997: 71; 2011c: 172–3); Herman (2000: 65). For Romanian, Philippide (2011: 433, writing in the 1920s) is unique in observing that genus alternans arose not only because the neuter plural - was homophonous with the firstdeclension feminine singular, but also because the second-declension neuter singular (nominative and accusative) ending -() was identical with the second-declension (accusative) singular masculine ending. In fact genus alternans arises and persists just where the plural desinence is identical to a characteristic marker of the feminine and the singular desinence is a characteristic marker of non-feminines (cf. also Schön 1971: 113). The role of the form of the singular in the history of the genus alternans, as much as the role of the corresponding plural form, is reflected in the fact that originally neuter nouns ending in anything other than -() virtually never participate in genus alternans. Since all Latin neuter plurals, regardless of declension, ended in - in the nominative (and accusative), we might expect that any noun with an original neuter plural ending - should in principle have been analysable as having a feminine plural, and thereby liable to display genus alternans. This, significantly, is not true. Neuter nouns of the third declension, a class whose early Romance continuants carried no unambiguous markers of gender (see e.g. Maiden 2011c: 168–9), almost never show genus alternans. Many such nouns in Latin ended in - or in a consonant, and -e shows some analogical extension among originally consonant-final neuter nouns in early Romance (N ‘sea’ > Ro. (F) mare; N ‘salt’ > Ro. (F) sare). But final -e was equally characteristic of feminine and masculine nouns, and precisely because of the lack of morphological gender indication there have often been shifts of gender in such words (e.g. (F) ‘wall’ > Ro. (M) perete; (M) ‘bread’ > Ro. (F) pâine). In short, the continuants of Latin third-declension nouns emerge as gender-ambiguous in the singular: accordingly, genus alternans virtually never occurs in nouns originally belonging to the third declension. There are two kinds of exception. One involves the reflex of the third-declension neuter ‘name’, to be discussed shortly, and the second involves third-declension nouns whose final syllable, in the singular, happened to contain the vowel [u]. Third-declension neuter nouns whose final syllable in the singular contains [u] are licensed to participate in the genus alternans precisely because their singular sounds as if it contains the distinctively masculine singular ending -u (especially given deletion of final consonants). One such case is . ~ . ‘head’ > *ˈkapu ~ *ˈkapita. Here is the bare lexical root of the noun, of which - is a phonologically explicable allomorph in the plural. The singular is reanalysed as containing a root kap- + ending -u, while kapit- is continued as the allomorph of the plural root (a type of allomorphy unique to this word), yielding in modern Romanian cap ~ capete.²⁴⁵ Here are some examples from the sixteenth century:
²⁴⁵ The variant cap - capuri has the specific meaning of ‘cape’, ‘promontory’. Capăt - capete ‘extremity, end’, involves a re-formation of the singular on the basis of plural capete.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
61
(53) Înmulțiră-se mai vrătos de perii capului multiplied.themselves more greatly than hairs.the head.the... mieu mine.. ‘They became more numerous than the hairs of my head.’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(54) tu frănseși capetele zmeiloru într’apă²⁴⁶ thou brokest heads.the.. dragons.of.the in water ‘You smashed the heads of the dragons in the water.’ But by far the most significant example of this kind of reanalysis of third-declension neuter nouns is the type . ~ . ‘time’ or . ~ . ‘body’, where - is not in origin an inflexional ending at all, but merely the final portion of a word form that comprises a bare lexical root. Nouns of this kind in Latin were²⁴⁷ ‘time’ ~ ; ‘breast’ ~ ; ‘body’ ~ ; ‘back’ ~ ; ‘beast’ ~ ; ‘pledge’ ~ ; ‘shore’ ~ ; ‘cold’ ~ ; ‘dung’ ~ ; ‘ornament’ ~ . In the plural, the forms -, -, and so on are phonologically explicable allomorphs of the roots , , and so on. In Romance, such forms were subject to a resegmentation whereby the part - or - was taken to be the lexical root, with the inflexional ending -u in the singular, while in the plural -ora was reanalysed as a new kind of plural desinence.²⁴⁸ The enormously productive old Romanian ending -ure and its modern continuant -uri have their origin in the string - in the plural of third-declension nouns of the type ~ , which was restricted in Latin to a small handful of nouns. In the plural, throughout the history of Daco-Romance, genus alternans nouns have only had forms that unambiguously select feminine agreement. Normally, this means that they must have one of the two endings, -e or -uri; and this is consistently borne out by the documented or reconstructible history. In the rare cases where the plural endings of genus alternans nouns do become ambiguous as to gender, we consistently find that there are other, ‘compensatory’ indicators of feminine gender, and they are unambiguously so. The truth of this statement is demonstrated by the behaviour of genus alternans nouns in the face of changes that potentially compromise the gender -transparency of the endings. In non-genus alternans feminine nouns, there has been a strong tendency, at least since the sixteenth century, to replace the plural ending -e by -i, presumably by analogy with other plurals in -i, particularly those of feminines in singular -e (because in this category the plural is overwhelmingly in -i; see e.g. Iordan ²⁴⁶ PS. ²⁴⁷ We also have ‘work’ ~ , ‘side’ ~ , ‘kind’ ~ , and a few others of this kind, showing what is in fact the etymologically expected reflex of the penultimate vowel in the plural. This pattern seems not to survive in Romance. ²⁴⁸ See Schön (1971: 7n12; 67n105); Wilkinson (1985–91: 7, 107); Maiden (2011c: 172). Maiden (2016a) argues for a more nuanced view of the -ure/-uri formative in Romanian, adducing historical evidence that -ur- was sometimes analysed as part of the lexical root even within the history of Romanian.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
62 1938: 10–17, 32–5, 40–2). Hundreds of feminine nouns that originally formed the plural in -e show -i instead nowadays (e.g. roată. roate. > roată. roţi. ‘wheel’; aripă. aripe. > aripă. aripi. ‘wing’, gură. gure. > gură. guri. ‘mouth’, bucată. bucate. > bucată. bucăţi. ‘piece’, coadă. coade. > coadă. cozi. ‘tail’). But neither in standard Romanian nor in any dialect is there any sign of genus alternans -e being replaced by -i unless the selection of the feminine in the plural is independently licensed by some other morphological factor. The major example of an independent morphological licensing of this sort is -ure, whose final -e undergoes systematic, exceptionless replacement by -i: timp ~ timpure, etc. > timp ~ timpuri, and so on. In the sixteenth century -ure and -uri were in free variation even in the same text (e.g. locure vs locuri;²⁴⁹ lucrure vs lucruri),²⁵⁰ -uri being predominant both in original and in translated texts. By the mid-eighteenth century -ure was an archaism (see Frâncu 1997b: 120–1, 1997c: 324). While final -i is ambiguous as to gender, it cannot show any ambiguity when it combines with a preceding inflexional formative -ur-, for Romanian nouns that display this formative only in the plural all select the feminine, too, in the plural—they have never done otherwise.²⁵¹ Mainly in eastern Romania, the genus alternans words buzunar ‘pocket’ and mădular ‘limb, member’ (standard Romanian plurals buzunare and mădulare) have the forms buzunări and mădulări as their plurals, still preserving the gender alternation. This phenomenon is also attested (NALRRMold.Buc. maps 74 and 37) in the plural of stomac ‘stomach’ at Fălciu (stoˈmag.. ~ stoˈmәʒʲ) and at Dumbrăveni for dispinˈsar.. ‘dispensary’ ~ dispinˈsәrʲ... Marin (2010) cites examples from Muntenian dialects: coşar.. ‘shelter for cattle’ ~ coşări.., crăcan.. ‘forked piece of wood’ ~ crăcăni.., trăgaci.. ‘chain linking shaft to axle’ ~ trăgăci... In the standard language, there is mucar.. ‘snuffer’ ~ mucări... The crucial detail here is that the alternation between singular stressed [a] and plural stressed [ә] that we see in these nouns before the plural desinence -i is a morphological characteristic found uniquely in the plurals of Romanian feminine nouns (cf. §2.5.2) such as țară ‘country’ ~ țări; carte ‘book’ ~ cărți (see e.g. Maiden 1997).²⁵² Complementarily, should -i a replace genus alternans plural -e in the absence of any other clear marker of gender in the plural, then the change entails loss of the genus alternans and a shift to the gender of the singular form—the masculine (see Diaconescu 1969: 34). Such changes are rare, but not unknown; a few examples are ²⁴⁹ DÎ XII, VI. ²⁵⁰ CC¹. ²⁵¹ Masculines such as nasture ‘button’ ~ nasturi, strugure ‘grape’ ~ struguri, picur ‘drop’ ~ picuri, do not contradict this claim because there is no alternation between a plural with -ur- and a singular without it. The morphological history of picur (and probably also of strugure: see Marin 2009: 224) is instructive in this respect: its origin is the genus alternans noun pic ~ picuri. The element -ur- seems to have been reanalysed as part of the lexical root, and accordingly introduced into the singular. But this change has the effect of making the noun wholly masculine. ²⁵² This phenomenon usually only affects the stressed syllable immediately preceding final -i, and it is for this reason that we do not find this alternation with plurals in -uri, given that the stressed vowel does not immediately precede -i: e.g. Ro. pat ‘bed’ ~ paturi not pat ~ **pături. In Maramureș (ALRRMaramureș map 448), we find the type . zarzaˈvat . zarzaˈvәturʲ ‘vegetable’ in some localities, and this phenomenon recurs in MeglenoRomanian (Atanasov 2002: 197, 207) in loanwords from Turkish ending in stressed -ˈa in the singular: e.g. . kәsәˈba ‘town’ ~ . kәsәˈbәur.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
63
the older genunchiu.. ‘knee’ ~ genunche.., obraz.. ‘cheek’ ~ obraze.., umăr.. ‘shoulder’ ~ umere.. > genunchi ~ genunchi., obraz.. ~ obraji.., umăr.. ~ umeri... Sporadic replacements of plural -e by -i in genus alternans nouns in the dialects of southern Romania likewise trigger a passage to the masculine. Thus, amid numerous attestations of genus alternans nouns such as urcior.. ‘stye’ ~ urcioare.. in Oltenia, we find at Bumbești Jiu (NALROlt. map 38) the masculine plural doi urciori ([doi ̯ urˈʧorʲ]) ‘two.. styes’. For . ocol (roughly) ‘place in which a millstone is set’ ~ . ocoale, we find at Cerneți the plural u̯oˈkolʲi (NALROlt. plate 129), with a masculine plural enclitic definite article. In the Buzău area (Ionică et al. 2009), amnar.. ‘flint steel, steel arm for striking flint to produce a spark’ ~ amnare.. has the (rare) plural amnarii, again displaying a masculine plural definite article; see also Marin (2013: 194–5).²⁵³ Further evidence that genus alternans plurals select the feminine simply on the basis of their morphological form and that there is an intimate link between form and gender in these words comes from the treatment of neologisms. The word caro [kaˈro] ‘diamond (at cards)’ < Fr. carreau is masculine but has feminine plural carale (alongside carouri); there is also masculine singular atu [aˈtu] ‘ace’ < Fr. atout, with feminine plural atale (nowadays usually atuuri) and masculine singular manto [manˈto] ‘coat’ < Fr. manteau, with feminine plural mantale (nowadays mantouri) (see also Diaconescu 1969: 28–9). These nouns have developed a characteristic otherwise uniquely associated with the plural of feminine nouns, namely that those ending in a stressed vowel (almost always -a) in the singular form their plurals in -(a)le. That these stress-final nouns should be assigned an allomorph otherwise uniquely distinctive of the morphology of plurals of feminine nouns is clear morphological evidence that their feminine gender is inherently linked with their form in the plural. Historical counterexamples to the strict correlation between the form of the singular or plural and the occurrence of genus alternans are in fact remarkably few, and particularly so if we restrict the discussion to the plural. There are perhaps a score of gender-ambiguous genus alternans nouns in -e in the singular, most of them marginal in the lexicon. The most prominent and common example is . nume ‘name’ ~ . nume (and its derivatives, e.g. pronume ‘pronoun’). Quite how this plural nume arose is unclear, but the older language had . nume ~ . numere (regular reflexes of Latin ~ ), as well as the innovatory plural nume: (55) Spuniu numele tău I.say name... your.. ‘I say your name.’ (56) dziseră numerele sale pe pămăntu²⁵⁴ they.said names... his.. on earth ‘They said his names on earth.’ ²⁵³ For the status of other genus alternans plurals in -i in southern Romania, notably as described by Marin (2010), see the discussion in Maiden (2016e). ²⁵⁴ PS.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
64 (57) Doamne, şi dracii se cuceresc noao de Lord even demons.the self conquer to.us by numele tău²⁵⁵ name.. your.. ‘Lord, even the demons are conquered for us by your name.’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(58) Bucuraţi-vă că numele voastre scrise sânt rejoice that names... your.. written.. are ceriu heaven ‘Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.’²⁵⁶
la at
This same noun is also an exceptional example of genus alternans in old ItaloRomance (cf. Formentin & Loporcaro 2012: 228; Gardani 2013: 347; 578–9), where it is occasionally accompanied by a series of phonologically similar, originally thirddeclension neuter nouns, such as the reflexes of ‘seed’ ~ , ‘light’ ~ ‘light’, ‘river’ ~ . The inclusion of words of this type alongside ~ in the genus alternans class is most probably due to their strong and distinctive prosodic resemblance to third-declension words of the ~ type—reinforced, in the case of Romanian, by rhotacism of intervocalic /n/ ( > numere). Romanian also has pântece.. ~ pântece.. ‘belly’, from Latin masculine : no matter how this example is to be explained, we should note that the ‘anomaly’ in respect of gender selection is often removed by assigning the singular an analogical zero (masculine) desinence, pântec (see Coteanu 1969e: 38). The nouns dulce.. ‘sweet (stuff)’ ~ dulciuri.. ‘sweets, sweetmeats’, sânge.. ‘blood’ ~ sângiuri.. ‘murders’, zece.. ‘ten’ ~ zeciuri.. ‘full marks (at school)’, ‘tens (at cards)’, lapte.. ‘milk’ ~ lăpturi.. ‘milkings’ all have semantically idiosyncratic plurals, which suggests that they may be ‘lexical plurals’, existing independently in the lexicon alongside apparently corresponding singulars (see §2.2.3 for the extension of the ending -uri to feminine mass nouns, where the plural tends to relate to ‘kinds of ’). Finally,²⁵⁷ there are a few nouns such as torace.. ‘thorax’ ~ torace.., codice.. ‘codex’ ~ codice.., laringe.. ‘larynx’ ~ laringe.. (Perkowski & Vrabie 1986: 65), all recent and learnèd loans of relatively restricted circulation. Even in those cases of genus alternans nouns where gender is not formally predictable from the singular, it will be predictable from the plural, which contains the distinctively feminine ending -e. Historical cases of endings other than -ure/-uri and -e in the genus alternans plural are strikingly rare. Densusianu (1938: 164) finds in sixteenth-century texts six nouns in which the genus alternans plural -e is sometimes replaced by -i, yet feminine agreement is detectably preserved. The examples most frequently encountered are the plurals of
²⁵⁵ CT. ²⁵⁶ CT. ²⁵⁷ For the special case of . foarfece ‘scissor(s)’ ~ . foarfece, see, e.g. Maiden (2016c: 706).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
65
tremuru ‘trembling’ and the related cutremuru ‘quaking’, which show tremuri/cutremuri instead of tremure/cutremure: (59) Şi eu întru neputinţă şi în cutremuri also I in powerlessness and in earthquakes fui²⁵⁸ was ‘I too was powerless and amid many earthquakes.’
multe many..
It is no coincidence that the final sound sequence in the plural form (cu)tremure is homophonous with that of the genus alternans plural ending -ure. Since the latter is subject to introduction of final -i, as we have seen, -ure in (cu)tremure seems to have undergone the same reanalysis. The analysis of the final -ure in (cu)tremure as a genus alternans feminine plural ending may also have been favoured by the very frequent occurrence of these two words in the plural: that frequency to some degree overshadowed the fact that the singular also contained -ur. Indeed, virtually all the words that Densusianu lists have high-frequency plurals: the next most common example is suspin ‘sigh’ ~ suspine, which sometimes displays a feminine plural form suspini. Both plurals may sometimes appear in the same text:
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(60) suspinile ceale greale²⁵⁹ sighs.the.. the.. heavy.. ‘the heavy sighs’ (61) suspini negrăite²⁶⁰ sighs unspoken.. ‘unuttered sighs’ (62) greale suspini heavy.. sighs
netăcute suspine²⁶¹ unsilenced.. sighs
Next on Densusianu’s list are blăstemi ‘curses’ (for blăsteme) and puroi ‘putrefaction(s)’ (for puroaie). Densusianu further cites single examples of genitive plurals from two other nouns: cimpoiloru for cimpoaieloru ‘bagpipes’, and bucinilor for bucinelor ‘trumpets’. Whatever the status of these plurals, they are highly restricted lexically, and exceptional even in the texts and period in which they occur. Most of them (26 out of 35 tokens) appear in texts printed by one person, Coresi. Nor are forms of this type attested after the sixteenth century, so their status is ephemeral. A large, systematic class of apparent counterexamples to the claim that genus alternans is a strict function of unambiguous inflexional marking is constituted by words in singular unstressed -iu and plural -ii. Examples are studiu.. ‘study’ ~ studii,
²⁵⁸ CPr.
²⁵⁹ NÎnv.
²⁶⁰ CPr.
²⁶¹ DPar.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
66 privilegiu . ‘privilege’ ~ privilegii.., mediu.. ‘milieu’ ~ medii...²⁶² These are all recent loans from Latin, Italian, or French dating from the eighteenth century at the earliest and tend to belong to what was, at least originally, a learnèd vocabulary (cf. also Iordan 1956: 286; Iordan et al. 1967: 88 for possible Russian influence; Pană Dindelegan 2015b: 430–1).²⁶³ Occasionally this pattern has been extended to other loanwords, which did not show the corresponding pattern in the source language: thus Fr. fauteuil > Ro. fotoliu.. ‘armchair’ ~ fotolii... It is possible, on the basis of this pattern, that, in substandard usage, the plural -i has replaced -e in genus alternans words originally in -[ˈiu] ~ -[ˈie], such as burghiu.. ‘drill’ ~ burghii.. (for burghie), and sicriu.. ‘coffin’ ~ sicrii.. (for sicrie) (cf. Loporcaro 2018: 108; see also ALRII map 561, for south-western Romania). These are not, in fact, counterexamples to the claim that gender remains morphologically predictable from the plural, if we bear in mind that genus alternans comprises only inanimate nouns. All the nouns involved are inanimate (or rather abiotic: the masculines condroniu ‘field cow-wheat; Melampyrum arvense’ ~ condronii and rodiu ‘pomegranate tree’ ~ rodii remind us that plant names are excluded from genus alternans), and it has been true throughout the recorded history of Romanian that inanimate nouns in root-final -i- [i] are feminine in the plural (e.g. spovedanie ‘confession’ ~ spovedanii, corabie ‘boat’ ~ corăbii, prăvălie ‘shop’ ~ prăvălii, ie ‘linen blouse’ ~ ii). There is apparently only one exception, and the noun involved is recent and is part of a rarefied technical vocabulary rather than used in everyday usage. This is . hidroniu ‘hydronium, hydrated hydrogen ion’ ~ . hidronii.²⁶⁴ Once again, the presence of the gender-ambiguous plural -i in genus alternans nouns turns out to be crucially licensed by a morphological property of the root—a property that guarantees feminine agreement. We should comment here on a modern loanword: seminar.. ‘seminar’ ~ seminarii.. (although DOOM² recommends seminar ~ seminare). Also common in non-standard usage are comentar ‘commentary’ ~ comentarii and servici ‘service, job’ ~ servicii. One possibility is that the historically underlying form of the singular was seminariu [semi’narju], and that the final [ju] was deleted for purely phonological reasons: note also the continued coexistence of both contrar and contrariu ‘contrary’, obligator and obligatoriu ‘obligatory’,²⁶⁵ perhaps reflecting the same change. Another possible explanation is that the singular seminar reflects French séminaire while the plural reflects Latin . No matter how these forms are to be explained, we should note the ease with which this novel alternation type has been accepted in the language.
²⁶² Initially, such plurals coexisted with expected forms in -ie (e.g. studie ‘studies’, privilegie ‘privileges’), which Tiktin ([1883] 1945: 54) regards as ‘mistaken’. These nouns often also had alternative plurals in -uri (e.g. privilegiuri ‘privileges’): cf. Puşcariu (1974: 413). ²⁶³ Pană Dindelegan (2015b: 430) takes the view that the change from -ie to -ii could have a phonetic explanation in the environment of preceding i. Maiden (2014a: 37–8) believes that such plurals are modelled on corresponding Italian plurals in -ii. ²⁶⁴ This word belongs to a series of names of particles in chemistry and physics which generally have masculine plurals: . electron ~ . electroni, . ion ~ . ioni, . atom ~ . atomi, . boson ~ . bosoni. ²⁶⁵ In these cases, there are two corresponding plurals: e.g. contrari or contrarii.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
67
Real gender unpredictability in genus alternans nouns could come from outside the morphological system: a potential source is phonological neutralization, as a result of sound change, of endings previously distinct for gender. No sound change with the required effects happens to have occurred in the history of Romanian, and this holds for most dialects as well. There are cases of phonological neutralization of the distinction between unstressed final [i] vs [e], but they are rare and lexically sporadic, because a complex series of phonological conditions needs to be met for this change to have the required morphological neutralizing effect.²⁶⁶ It is necessary, first, that the continuant of historically underlying final *-i should have been preserved as a full vowel [i] rather than as asyllabic [ʲ], as is usually the case: this phenomenon occurs after muta cum liquida (consonant + [l] or [r]) in Daco-Romance generally. It also occurs after the affricates [ʦ] or [ʣ] (particularly when these are preceded by a consonant), mainly in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian. Second, there needs to have been neutralizing raising of final [e] to [i], a phenomenon characteristic of eastern Romanian dialects, of many varieties of Aromanian, and of Megleno-Romanian. A further detail in (northern) Aromanian varieties is that the resultant [i] may also become [ɨ] (or [ә]) when preceded by [ʦ] or [ʣ]. The morphologically neutralizing effects of raising of final -e to -i may be seen from ALRMunteniaDobrogea questions 890 and 618, for Andreiașu de Jos and Gura Teghii: kәˈpәstru.. ~ kәˈpestri.. = Ro. căpăstru.. ~ căpestre.. ‘halter’; ˈsokru.. ~ ˈsokri.. = Ro. socru.. ~ socri.. ‘father-in-law’. In ALRII maps 875 and 890, for the localities Larga, Pipirig, Călugără Mare, Somova, Furcenii Vechi, we find ˈtimbru. ‘postage stamp’ ~ ˈtimbri. (cf. Romanian timbru.. ~ timbre..), and miˈnistru.. ‘minister’ ~ miˈniʃtri.. (corresponding to Ro. ministru.. ~ miniștri..). In Aromanian (see Capidan 1906; 1932) we have, for example, ˈdinti.. ‘tooth’ ~ ˈdintsә.. and ˈmunti.. ‘mountain’ ~ ˈmuntsә.., sots.. ‘friend, husband’ ~ ˈsotsә.. and brats.. ‘arm’ ~ ˈbratsә.., mats.. ‘intestine’ ~ ˈmatsә.. (cf. Romanian dinte.. ~ dinți.., munte.. ~ munți., braț.. ~ brațe. ., maț.. ~ mațe..). In principle, nothing about the plurals ˈtimbri, or ˈbratsә and ˈmatsә, allows an unambiguous prediction of gender, yet there is no evidence that they have lost genus alternans. Such cases—in which the unambiguous inflexional signalling of gender becomes compromised for extramorphological reasons—may mark the beginnings of the true emergence of a ‘third gender’, or ‘neuter’, which exists independently of any morphological cues and belonging to which is thereby arbitrary. Another source of opacification of morphological cues to gender selection is detected in a group of nouns that we might describe as ‘recent exotica’ and that show genus alternans.²⁶⁷ These have entered the language in the last century or so
²⁶⁶ Cf. Lăzărescu (1984: 212); Capidan (1906: 197; 1925: 113–14; 141; 1932: 231; 248–50; 263; 373–4); Atanasov (2002: 205–6); ALDMI maps 33, 72, 182, 256, 582. ²⁶⁷ Another source of morphological opacity in recent innovations is to be found in (pesudo-)verb + noun compounds (cf. Grossmann 2012: 155; 156) such as the genus alternans compounds un împinge-tavă ‘self-service restaurant’ (lit. ‘push-tray’) ~ două împinge-tavă, un portchei ‘keyring’ (lit. ‘carry-keys’) ~ două portchei, un parascântei ‘spark-guard’ (lit. ‘stop-sparks’) ~ două parascântei, but masculine un portochelari ‘spectacle case’ ~ doi portochelari, un zgârie-nori ‘skyscraper’ ~ doi zgârie-nori. Such compounds in Romanian are masculine in the singular but systematically select in the plural the gender of their nominal element (e.g. un avion ‘aeroplane’ ~
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
68 and, crucially, have a quite ‘un-Romanian’ form: that is, they lack any recognizable Romanian inflexional ending in the singular, where they display final -o,²⁶⁸ -i [i], or stressed -u (Table 2.4). Table 2.4 Genus alternans in exotic, invariant, words . un mango un cappuccino un tiramisu un kiwi
. două mango două cappuccino două tiramisu două kiwi
‘one.. ~ two.. mango(s)’ ‘one.. ~ two.. cappuccino(s)’ ‘one.. ~ two.. tiramisù(s)’ ‘one.. ~ two.. kiwi fruit(s)’
That these nouns take genus alternans in the absence of morphological marking of gender is not evidence that Romanian has had a ‘neuter’ gender independent of morphological cues as to gender alternation. What it reveals is, quite simply, a ‘default’ strategy in Romanian whereby the gender to which inanimates are assigned in the plural is the feminine. This reflects the fact that over 90% of Romanian inanimate nouns show plural agreement in the feminine. For example, Bujor (1955) reports that 11.6% of inanimate nouns are masculine, 59.93% feminine, and 28.41% ‘neuter’ (cf. also Iordan et al. 1967: 75; Dimitriu 1999: 123). The default status of feminine is equally apparent in pronouns with unspecified plural non-mortal referents—and compare also the earlier example (50), from old Romanian).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(63) Le știe pe them..= he.knows . . . ‘He knows everything.’
toate. all..
(64) Îi știe pe toți. them..= he.knows . . . all.. ‘He knows them all.’ (human referents) The same ‘default’ strategy is reflected in the fact that coordinated singular inanimate nouns automatically select feminine plural, and that this tendency exists even when these nouns have corresponding masculine plurals (such as munte ~ munți and codru ~ codri in 66: (65) Untul butter...
și and
zahărul sugar...
au fost mâncate/**mâncați. have been eaten../**eaten..
două avioane, un portavion ‘aircraft carrier’ ~ două portavioane, un nor ‘cloud’ ~ doi nori, un zgârie-nori ‘skyscraper’ (lit. ‘scratch clouds’) ~ doi zgârie-nori. The alternating gender of such compounds lacking morphological clues to gender in the plural simply follows from speakers’ independent knowledge of the gender of that nominal element: tavă ‘tray’, chei ‘keys’, scântei ‘sparks’ are feminine, while nori ‘clouds’, ochelari ‘spectacles’ are masculine. ²⁶⁸ Apart from the fact that final -o is also encountered in vocatives: see §2.9.1.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
. (66) Muntele și mountain... and
codrul wood..
69
sunt frumoase/frumoși. are beautiful../beautiful..
In short, genus alternans nouns such as mango reflect a default agreement strategy with respect to gender assignment for plural inanimate nouns, but the recent emergence of such cases in the language clearly compromises the strict association of gender alternation with morphological clues. If there are signs of a weakening of the link between form and gender in DacoRomance, there is one variety where, while the morphological identity of the endings remains uncompromised, genus alternans itself is disappearing. In southern IstroRomanian dialects, while the plural endings -e and -ure persist, orginal genus alternans nouns tended to be reanalysed as masculine by younger speakers in the 1970s (Petrovici 1967: 120). In the northern Istro-Romanian of Žejane, however, genus alternans has been lost, and all such plurals are now masculine (see Kovačec 1966: 64; Petrovici 1967; Hurren 1999: 157) (Table 2.5). Table 2.5 Loss of genus alternans in Istro-Romanian
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
. kuˈʦit mer ˈkuvetu vәrh bәt ˈʒɑʒetu
. doj kuˈʦite doj ˈmere doj ˈkuvete ˈʧeʃʧi doj ˈvәrhure ˈbәture tonz tots ˈʒɑʒete әs groʃ
‘knife ~ two.. knives’ ‘apple ~ two.. apples’ ‘elbow ~ two.. elbows’ ‘mountain ~ these.. two.. mountains’ ‘stick ~ round.. sticks’ ‘finger ~ all.. fingers are fat..’
The semantic range of the lexemes that show the relevant inflexional forms has also been broadened to include some animate nouns. Table 2.6 shows animate masculines with plural the endings -ure or -e. Table 2.6 Plural -ure in Istro-Romanian animates . lup preft krɑʎ urs ɣospoˈdɑr ˈtsesɑr
. ˈlupure ˈprefture ˈkrɑʎure ˈursure ɣospoˈdɑre ˈtsesɑre
‘wolf ’ ‘priest’ ‘king’ ‘bear’ ‘master’ ‘emperor’
Among Daco-Romance varieties, Žejane Istro-Romanian is unique in having lost genus alternans, although it still retains the inflexional morphology associated with this class. Petrovici (1967: 120) explains the loss by appealing to the absence of ambigeneric nouns in Croatian, with which Istro-Romanian is closely in contact (all speakers of Istro-Romanian also speak Croatian). Kovačec (1966: 63–4) suggests that what is involved is also a kind of morphological ‘calque’ on Croatian, such that nouns with
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
70 the disyllabic plural ending -ure correspond to Croatian masculine nouns with the disyllabic plural ending -ovi, while nouns that show plural in -e correspond to Croatian masculine forms in the monosyllabic plural ending -i (e.g. lup ‘wolf ’ ~ ˈlupure = Croatian vuk ~ vukovi; ɣospoˈdɑr ‘master’ ~ ɣospoˈdɑre = Croatian gospodar ~ gospodari). The fact that the relevant inflexions in Croatian are encountered both in animate and in inanimate nouns may also help to explain the extension of the IstroRomanian endings into animate nouns. In Žejane, there is one remnant of the genus alternans feminine agreement in the plural: nouns showing the plural inflexions -e or -ure select the (enclitic) definite article -le, a form of the article otherwise exclusively restricted to feminine plurals (e.g. Petrovici 1967: 120), even though in every other respect the relevant plurals show masculine agreement patterns. Here are a few examples: ɑvuˈko̯ɑtu ‘lawyer...’ ~ ɑvuˈko̯ɑtsii ̯ ‘lawyers...’, ˈko̯ɑprɑ ‘goat...’ ~ˈko̯ɑprele ‘goats...’, ˈfu̯oku ‘fire...’ ~ ˈfu̯okurle ‘fires... ‘, ˈlupu ‘wolf...’ ~ ˈlupurle ‘wolves...’ (data from MALGI).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.3.3 Genus alternans nouns in plural -ă In addition to -e and -uri/-ure, a frequent old Romanian ending of genus alternans nouns in the plural is -ă. There is a word with this ending in the modern standard language, too: ou ~ ouă ‘egg’; and the type seems to be universally represented across Daco-Romanian. In old Romanian and well into the nineteenth century, in texts from all across Romania,²⁶⁹ we find genus alternans plurals where -ă has replaced -e when the ending is immediately preceded by [r]. Here are some well attested examples, which remain widely represented in many modern western and northern varieties outside Muntenia, Dobrogea, and southern Oltenia: car ‘cart’~ cară, covor ‘carpet’~ covoară, fier ‘iron’ ~ fiară, hotar ‘boundary’~ hotară, izvor ‘spring’ ~ izvoară, odor ‘jewel’~ odoară, păhar ‘glass’ ~ păhară, pridvor ‘verandah’ ~ pridvoară, topor ‘axe’ ~ topoară, zăvor ‘bolt’ ~ zăvoară. The distribution of this type throughout Romanian in the earliest texts may be seen in Table 2.7. It has sometimes been suggested that plural -ă continues Latin neuter plural -. There is no reason to assume that this happened in the case of ouă, although it is not impossible, simply because plural *-a seems to have been universally replaced by -e in Daco-Romance, and this *-e would then have been regularly subject to centralization after a labial (cf. > *ˈplowe > plouă ‘it rains’; > *ˈnowe > nouă ‘nine’); see also Brâncuş (2007b: 9–10). Chivu (2010), following Densuşianu (1938: 162–3), has proposed that the -a did survive in cară ‘carts’ (< *ˈkarra; cf. old Italian le carra)²⁷⁰ and ²⁶⁹ See e.g. Gheţie & Mareş (1974: 225–6) and Chivu (2010) for the geographical extent of the phenomenon in the sixteenth century and today. In the early period it covers most of Romania with some exceptions in northern areas. ²⁷⁰ Chivu (2010) mentions the existence of carră in some varieties of Aromanian. But this word is singular, not plural, and is apparently a loan from Albanian (see Papahagi 1974, s.v. carră and k’eră).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
71
Table 2.7 Plural -ră in early Romanian texts
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
text DÎ CPr. CC¹ CC² PO Ev. VCaz.1643 NT SVI.~1670 DVS DPar. BB Cdicţ.
hotară/e 5–Ø 1–Ø 1–Ø 3–Ø 7–Ø 7–Ø 5–2 12 – 1 4–2 5–1 9–Ø 156 – 1 2–Ø
izvoară/e 2–1 1–Ø Ø–1 2–Ø 1–Ø 6–Ø 5–Ø 5–Ø 7–Ø 8–Ø 5–Ø 30 – 1 2–1
păhară/e Ø Ø Ø 1–Ø 1–Ø Ø Ø 4–1 Ø Ø–1 1–Ø 9–Ø 6–Ø
cară/e 1–Ø Ø Ø Ø 16 – Ø Ø Ø 2–Ø Ø Ø 4–Ø 18 – 1 4–Ø
zăvoară/e Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø 2–Ø 1–Ø 126 – Ø 1–Ø
fiară ‘irons’ (< ), and that the existence of such forms facilitated the morphological spread of the -ă plural to other words in root-final -r as well (covor, hotar, izvor, pahar, pridvor, topor, zăvor). The difficulty with this line of explanation is that it is not clear why the desinence -ă should have survived, particularly in words with root-final [r], rather than being scattered more widely across the lexicon (cf. Italian plurals in -a such as ossa ‘bones’, braccia ‘arms’, labbra ‘lips’); or why just these two words should have been able to exercise such a powerful effect on other lexemes in root-final -r, especially if we bear in mind that one of them, fiară (also present in Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian), is the plural of a mass noun, fier ‘iron’, and consequently has an ‘irregular’ semantic relation to the corresponding singular: fiară generally means ‘iron tackle’, ‘trap’. In fact there are phonological grounds to think that fiară could preserve the Latin plural -a: the stressed vowel /ja/ is consistent with a historically underlying final -a; had the original desinence been -e, we should expect a plural **fiere (compare the historically regular alternations in . fiartă, . fierte ‘boiled’; 3. pierde ‘loses’, 3. piardă ‘lose’, etc.). If the -a in this word really does continue the Latin neuter plural ending, as it may, its survival may be due precisely to the fact that the word had become a ‘lexical plural’, in the sense of Acquaviva (2008), standing in a broadly derivational relationship to its apparent singular, and precisely this characteristic makes it a rather implausible model for an innovation in inflexional morphology. The consensus (Iordan 1935: 8; Diaconescu 1970: 149; Fischer 1985: 82n2; Brâncuş 2002: 59) is that the remaining examples in -ră have a phonological explanation, which involves centralization of front vowels when immediately preceded by an historically ‘intense’ [r] (see §1.5). Centralization is notably absent in words where single [r] is known to be historically underlying. Thus from old Romanian: (67) izvoarăle şi springs.the.. and
²⁷¹ CC².
iazerele²⁷¹ lakes...
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
72
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(68) untură râncedă cu care ung carăle, grease rancid with which. they.grease carts..., de cară²⁷² of carts. ‘rancid grease with which they grease carts, cart grease’
unsoare grease
Appeal to regular sound change therefore gives a plausible explanation to plurals such as cară ‘carts’ < *ˈkarre or fiară ‘irons’ < *ˈfje̯arre (Densusianu 1938: 262–3), without having to invoke the preservation of the Latin plural ending - (e.g. ). It is widely accepted, also, that many words with this kind of plural (e.g. those listed above; see also Uriţescu 2007: 231; 233 for examples from Banat) and borrowed from Slavic languages (e.g. izvor, pridvor, topor), or sometimes from Hungarian (e.g. hotar, pahar), were originally pronounced with an intense rhotic, so that their plurals in -ă also admit the phonological explanation. An important argument in support of this view is that verbs derived from some of these nouns, such as hotărî ‘decide’, or izvorî ‘spring forth’, also show phonological centralization of the fourth conjugation’s thematic front vowel [i] (see §6.2.6). Not all the -ră plurals can be explained in terms of their phonological history, for many such cases are clearly a matter of analogical extension, being based on that class of nouns in root-final -[r] in which this ending arose phonologically. Across northern and western Romania (see Rusu 1984: 894, map 52), often with great differences in geographic distribution according to lexeme, there are nouns in a plural ending -ră for which no historically underlying **[rr] can be plausibly postulated. Perhaps surprisingly,²⁷³ in Oltenia for example even the neologism tractor may have the plural tractoară, while Romance cuptor ‘oven’ has plural cuptoară (see also Rusu 1971: 158). One of the nouns that most commonly display the plural ending -ră cross-dialectally is măr ~ meră ‘apple’ (compare standard Romanian măr ~ mere), ultimately from Latin . Uriţescu (2007), relying on a close analysis of dialects of northern Banat, is surely correct to characterize the phenomenon as commencing in an originally phonological change conditioned by [rr], whose conditioning environment was subsequently neutralized by the loss of the distinction between [rr] and [r]; the centralized desinence thereafter becomes ‘lexicalized’, and its distribution is analogically extended to other words with plural in -e (see also Maiden 2014b: 41–2). Another piece of evidence that supports the phonological view is the fact that the phenomenon is not limited to genus alternans or originally neuter nouns, or indeed to nouns. In the relevant phonological environment, it can also affect feminine adjectives and nouns. To begin with adjectives, the data from the linguistic atlases (e.g. NALROltenia maps 140 and 229) for . murdare ‘dirty’ or negre ‘black’ never show -ă anywhere in Romania. Uriţescu (2007: 231n1) points out an isolated case,
²⁷² CDicț. ²⁷³ As another example of the productivity of this type in terms of clearly modern origin, consider the plural televizoară ‘televisions’, cited by Uriţescu (2007: 231).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
73
namely . ˈkjo̯arә, from the adjective chior ‘one-eyed’ (< Tk. kör), in Cliciova (point 88) in Banat; and we notice an equally isolated counterpart to it—alongside the expected ˈkjo̯are—at Rucăr (point 677) in Muntenia. In many localities of Moldova, northern Transylvania, Maramureş, Crişana, Banat, and Oltenia, the feminine plural of amar ‘bitter’ appears as aˈmarә rather than the expected amare.²⁷⁴ There are grounds to believe that both adjectives originally contained the conditioning environment for centralization: both have derivative verbs of the fourth conjugation, a class characterized historically by the thematic vowel [i] (§6.2.6). Fourth-conjugation verbs where the root ends in a centralizing consonant show the corresponding effects on the thematic vowel. Now the verbs derived from chior and amar are respectively a chiorî ‘to blind in one eye’ and a amărî ‘to embitter’, which clearly shows that these roots had a phonological centralizing final segments. Feminine nouns almost never take the plural in -ră. The exceptions stand out. There are four lexemes from sixteenth-century texts cited by Densusianu (1938: 153) that he and, after him, Rosetti (1986: 490) simply attributed to the analogical influence of the neuters: cămărăle ‘store-rooms’ (hapax legomenon, i.e. one occurrence), cioarăle ‘crows’ (hapax), comoară(le) ‘treasures’ (seven occurrences), oacărăle/ocărăle ‘white sheep with black patches’ (two occurrences). None of these words is inherited from Latin, at least not directly: cămără and comoară appear to have a common origin in Latin , but are probably taken into Romanian via Greek and Slavic respectively, while the other two words are of uncertain provenance (see e.g. Ciorănescu 1958–66, s.vv.; also Brâncuş 1983: 144–5). It is entirely possible that Romanian speakers originally pronounced the rhotic sound of these words as [rr]; and, if so, the appearance of final -ă has a purely phonological origin, as a variant of -e (see e.g. Uriţescu 2007: 230 for plural cioară,²⁷⁵ and also plural gheară²⁷⁶ ‘claws’ in northern Banat). As Densusianu (1938: 121) points out,²⁷⁷ there is sporadic attestation of wordinternal [rr] (or rather of the spelling rr) for expected [r] in words that appear to be mostly loanwords (e.g. părrăsi, vorrovi for părăsi ‘leave’, vorovi ‘speak’), notably in Psaltirea Hurmuzaki, although on his view the [rr] ‘appears to have been introduced arbitrarily by the copyist’.²⁷⁸ Sala (1976: 77) argues, however, that these spellings represent a phonological reality. All in all, we can say that these feminine nouns with a plural ending -ră probably have a phonological explanation, that this kind of plural is attributable to historical phonological causes, and that, as an effect of such causes, it was analogically extended to other words in root-final -[r].²⁷⁹
²⁷⁴ See ALRII map 209 ‘cireşe amare’ ‘bitter cherries’. ²⁷⁵ See also Rosetti (1986: 247). ²⁷⁶ See also Brâncuş (1983: 61). ²⁷⁷ See also Ivănescu (1980: 208). ²⁷⁸ See also Rosetti (1986: 757). ²⁷⁹ The fact that, today, dialects of southern Romania do not generally show the -ră plural type, although it was amply attested there in texts from before the mid seventeenth century, does not seem to be an argument against the hypothesis of a phonological origin, since the relevant phonological processes may be presumed to have operated across the Daco-Romanian domain. Rather, the retreat of this type in the south may simply be analogically modelled on the more common ending -e.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
74
2.4 Inflexional case marking of nouns and adjectives
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.4.1 Introduction Unlike number, which is marked on most nouns and adjectives,²⁸⁰ inflexional case is marked only in the genitive–dative²⁸¹ singular of feminine nouns and adjectives²⁸² (o casă frumoasă ‘a house...- beautiful...-’ ~ unei case frumoase ‘a...- house...- beautiful...-’). Like the masculine and like the genus alternans, the feminine paradigm has two word forms, but they have an ‘asymmetrical’ distribution in the paradigm (Maiden 2014b: 37) in that they do not simply express the difference between singular and plural.²⁸³ This reflects the general syncretism of feminines whereby the genitive–dative singular is identical to the nominative–accusative and to the genitive–dative plural (see §2.4.2.1). Just like number, case is realized syncretically and cumulatively: one and the same desinence expresses gender, number, and case. In unei case frumoase ‘a...- house...- beautiful...-’, the ending -e marks the three values simultaneously, both in the noun and in the adjective. In definite forms, the article functions as an enclitic inflexional marker, doubling the information encoded in the case marker and adding its own. Thus, in the examples casei frumoase ‘house....- beautiful...-’ and frumoasei²⁸⁴ case ‘beautiful....- house.-..’, the article -i attached to the ending -e marks cumulatively number, case, and definiteness. Within Romance, Romanian is the only language that has both inflexional marking and analytic (prepositional) marking. The former involves just an inflexional desinence when the noun is indefinite, and a desinence plus article when the noun is definite. Depending on the context, inflexional and analytic marking may be in complementary distribution or in free variation, and may display differences of stylistic register (see §2.4.4). Apart from the two types of markers, Romanian has also developed special types of proclitic marking: (1) the genitive proclitic marker . al/. a/. ai/. ale (see §2.4.3.3), which co-occurs with the inflexional marking under certain distributional constraints (această carte a elevei ‘this book al.. schoolgirl....’); (2) the proclitic marker lu/lui, which occurs with human referents²⁸⁵ and marks the singular genitive–dative (cartea lui Ion ‘book. lui. Ion’, dau lui Ion ‘I.give lui. Ion’; see §2.4.3.2). ²⁸⁰ Nouns which do not express number distinctions (mass and abstract nouns) are far less numerous than the others. ²⁸¹ Following the Latin tradition of case-labelling (‘nominative’, ‘accusative’, ‘genitive’, ‘dative’), we will use the labels ‘-’ vs ‘-’ for Romanian, although ‘nominative’ is inflexionally distinguished from ‘accusative’, and ‘genitive’ from ‘dative’, only to a very limited extent in Romanian (in the pronominal system); we will also preserve the syntactic interpretation of each case. For the ‘genitive-dative’, we also use the phrase ‘oblique case’. For ‘-’ vs ‘-’, there are other terminological proposals as well, i.e. adverbal vs adnominal (Maiden 2015: 35). ²⁸² Pronouns have a special situation, because they display case distinctions both in the singular and plural, masculine and feminine (see §3.5). ²⁸³ See the graphic representation of the paradigm ‘cells’ in Maiden (2015: 35), where the non-aligned distribution of feminine nouns is compared with masculines and genus alternans. ²⁸⁴ The adjective can host the article only when placed before the noun. ²⁸⁵ For the relationship to humanness, characteristic of Romanian, see the discussion in §2.1.3.1.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
75
2.4.2 Inflexional case marking Although it shows very limited case inflexion, Romanian is more conservative than other Romance languages, in that it preserves a special form for the genitive–dative singular of feminine nouns and adjectives, a form distinct from that of the nominative– accusative singular. 2.4.2.1 Syncretism in feminine nouns Quite distinctively within Romance, Romanian shows syncretism between the form of the genitive–dative singular and that of the plural, which is characteristic of feminine nouns and differentiates them from masculine and from genus alternans nouns. Any inflexional regular type of feminine noun (i ~ iv), or irregular type of feminine noun (v ~ vi), shows syncretism:
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(i) the type (o) casă ‘a.. house.-’ ~ (unei) case ‘a.- house.-.’ ~ (nişte) case ‘(some) house.’ (ii) the type (o) floare ‘a.. flower-’ ~ (unei) flori –‘a...- -.’– (nişte) flori– ‘(some)flower.’ (iii) the type (o) vale ‘a.. valley-’ ~ (unei) văi –‘a...- valley-.’~ (nişte) văi ‘(some) valley.’ (iv) the type (o) zi ‘a.. day...-’ ~ (unei) zile– ‘a...- day.-.’ ~ (nişte) zile ‘(some) day.’ (v) the type (o) soră ‘a.. sister.-’ ~ (unei) surori ~ ‘a...- sister..’ ~ (nişte) surori ‘(some) sister.’ (vi) the type (o) turturică ‘a.. turtle.dove.-’ ~ (unei) turturele ‘a...- turtle.dove.-.’ ~ nişte turturele ‘(some) turtle.dove.’ Adjectives in the feminine behave in the same way, regardless of inflexional type: (i) the type (o casă) frumoasă ‘(a . . . house.-) beautiful...-’ ~ (unei case) frumoase ‘(a...- house.-) beautiful...-’ ~ (nişte case) frumoase ‘(some houses) beautiful..’ (ii) the type (o stradă) lungă ‘(a street.-) long...-’ ~ (unei străzi) lungi ‘(a...- street.-) long...-’ ~ (nişte străzi) lungi ‘(some streets) beautiful..’ (iii) the type (o casă) mare ‘(a house.-) big...-’ ~ (unei case) mari ~ ‘(a...- house.-) big...-’ ~ (nişte case) mari ‘(some houses) big..’ (iv) the type (o casă) părintească ‘(a house.-) parent...-’ ~ (unei case) părinteşti ‘(a...- house.-) parent...-’ ~ (nişte case) părinteşti ‘(some houses) parent..’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
76 (v) the type (o casă) roşie ‘(a house...-) red...-’ ~ (unei case) roşii ‘(a...- house...-) red...-’ ~ (nişte case) roşii ‘(some houses) red.. There are a few nouns that violate the rule of feminine syncretism. One of these is the three-form inflexional type (o) iarbă ‘(a..) herb, grass...-’ ~ (unei) ierbi ‘a...- herb...-’ ~ (nişte) ierburi ‘(some) herbs..’. This is only an apparent violation, in that the plural form in -uri, which may qualify as a ‘lexical plural’, is semantically distinct from the singular form and may be regarded as morphologically independent of it (§2.2.3; see also Maiden 2014b: 41; 2015: 45). In the first part of the old period, when these ‘lexical plurals’ had not emerged yet (the first attestation dates from 1620: Frâncu 1982b; Frâncu 2009: 29) or had not been extended, the syncretism typical of feminine nouns is still observed, as (69a) and (69b) show: (69) a florile ierbiei²⁸⁶ ~ flowers. grass.... ~
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b spânzurarea hang..
cărnii²⁸⁸ meat....
cu erbi²⁸⁷ with grass. ~ cărnile²⁸⁹ ~ meat..
Some other nouns that violate the rule of feminine syncretism are of the singulare tantum type, which includes mass nouns (linte ‘lentils’, fasole ‘beans’, mazăre ‘peas’) and abstract nouns (lene ‘laziness’, sete ‘thirst’, cinste ‘honour’, pace ‘peace’), for which the genitive–dative singular form without definite article is generally avoided ((?gustul acestei mazăre ‘taste. this... peas.’, ?graţie acestei cinste ‘thanks.to this... honour.’). Insofar as these forms are used (with the definite article), they display a different kind of syncretism: the same form serves both as nominative–accusative and as genitive–dative singular. display a syncretism different from the prototypical feminine one, i.e. genitive–dative singular. In old Romanian, where the ‘pluralization’ of abstract nouns is frequent (see Pană Dindelegan 2017), there are inflexionally distinct plural forms, with prototypical inflexional forms ending in -i, alongside defective forms. The same variation is found in the genitive–dative singular, as shown in (70a–c), where there are invariant examples—(70a), (70b): cinste(i) ‘honour.-()’—as well as variable examples where the feminine syncretism is observed—(70c): cinsti honour... (70) a unii dulceţi şi some.- sweetness.- and cinste²⁹⁰ honour.-. ‘to some sweetness and honour’
²⁸⁶ CPr.
²⁸⁷ CC².
²⁸⁸ CDicț.
²⁸⁹ A.
unii some.-
²⁹⁰ CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
77
b mărirea aceştii cinste²⁹¹ glorifying. this... honour ‘the glorifying of this honour’ c te aleasă Dumnedzău şi te thee chose God and thee spodobi aceştiia cinsti²⁹² considered.worthy this.- honour.- ‘God chose you and considered you worthy of this honour.’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Feminine nouns in -ie also violate the typical pattern of feminine syncretism when in hiatus with the definite form²⁹³ (familiei ‘family..-’ ~ familii(le) ‘family. ()’). The genitive–dative singular form with the definite article (familie-i) includes a form that is syncretic with the nominative–accusative singular familie. There are numerous vacillations in the history of this subclass of nouns. On the one hand, at earlier stages there were invariant contexts (-. = -. (71a), (71b))— a situation different from that of modern Romanian, where the variable forms (unei) corăbii, (acestei) evanghelii are generalized. On the other hand, we also encounter in the old language spellings and pronunciations such as familiii ‘family.-..’, viii ‘vineyard.-..’, which were present until recently in the language, and these point to the generally found feminine syncretism. At the beginning of the twentieth century, grammarians acknowledged such pronunciations by marking them with three is (see Pană Dindelegan 2015b: 421). (71) a pornirea unii corabie²⁹⁴ setting.out. a.gen ship..=-. ‘the setting out of a ship’ b aceştii evanghelie²⁹⁵ this.- gospel.-. =-. ‘of this gospel’ Note that types most relevant with respect to the violation of the feminine pattern share the ending -i or -ie, and thus belong to the third declension (see Maiden 2015: 41). Anthroponyms ending in -că and -gă, used only in the singular, develop a different paradigm from the other feminine nouns (see the discussion in §2.1.3): Olga ~ - Olgăi, Anca ~ - Ancăi. The pattern was much wider in the old language, where it included other subclasses alongside feminine anthroponyms: personal common feminine nouns, as in (72a) and (72b); non-personal animate feminine nouns, as in (72c) and (72d); and non-animate feminine nouns, as in (72e) and (72f). ²⁹¹ Mărg. ²⁹² FN. ²⁹³ In the absence of the definite article, nouns in this class respect the rule characteristic of feminine nouns (o familie ‘a.- family.-’ ~ unei familii ‘a...- family.-’ ~ niște familii ‘some families.---.’). ²⁹⁴ CC². ²⁹⁵ CC¹.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
78 However, between old and modern Romanian, the pattern has manifested variant realizations, showing a tendency towards the prototypical feminine syncretism of (73a) and (73b). (72) a să hie dată slugăi tale²⁹⁶ be..3 given.. servant.. your. ‘to be given to your servant’ b în locul maicăi instead mother.. ‘instead of my mother’
mele²⁹⁷ my.
c piiatră scumpă în furma stone expensive in form. ‘an expensive ant-shaped stone’
furnicăi²⁹⁸ ant..
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
d puiul năpârcăi²⁹⁹ cub. viper.. ‘the viper’s offspring’ e roatele teleagăi³⁰⁰ wheels. cart.. ‘the wheels of the cart’ f deasupra cuşcăi³⁰¹ above cage.. ‘above the cage’ (73) a pomenirea preacuvioasei mention.. too-pure... noastre³⁰² our ‘mentioning our Virgin mother’
maicii mother..
b sănătatea slugiei³⁰³ health. servant.. ‘the servant’s health’ This type of syncretism in feminines has a long history: it has been present since the earliest Romanian texts, both in nouns (as in (74a) and (74b)) and in adjectives (as in (75a) and (75b)).
²⁹⁶ Cron. ³⁰¹ Sind.
²⁹⁷ A. ³⁰² DVS.
²⁹⁸ CDicț. ³⁰³ CC².
²⁹⁹ Cron.
³⁰⁰ CDicț.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
79
(74) a de învăţături sufleteşti of teaching.. spiritual.. ‘of spiritual teachings’ b sfârşitulu dumnezeeştiei învăţături³⁰⁴ godly... teaching... end. ‘the end of the godly teaching’ (75) a inimilor omeneşti heart....- human.. ‘of the human hearts’ b denaintea mâniei omeneşti³⁰⁵ before anger... human... ‘before human anger’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
In the opinion of most scholars (Densusianu 1938: 165–6; Rosetti 1986: 131), this pattern appeared originally in first-declension nouns (and adjectives), which had inherited the -. = . syncretism from Latin; and it was then analogically extended to almost all feminine nouns. But other views have also been proposed: (i) the Balkan solution (Sandfeld 1930: 187; Salvi 2011: 321), according to which the distinct form for genitive–dative feminine singular is a Balkan feature in Romanian, as indicated by its presence, with some differences, in Bulgarian, Modern Greek, and Albanian; (ii) the influence of the Slavonic adstrate (Stati 1959), a solution that invokes a similar syncretism found in Slavonic; Stati further points to the absence of this syncretism in Dacian and Lower Moesian inscriptions, where the genitive– dative singular form is often identical to the nominative singular form, and he suggests that the phenomenon was not inherited from Latin; (iii) the ‘internal’ solution (Stoica 2018b: 386–7; see Maiden 2015: 39–40 for bibliography and comments), which acknowledges the loss of case distinctions, including that of the feminine singular distinction in ‘common Romanian’ (româna comună, străromâna), and the subsequent reconstruction of the genitive–dative form under the influence of the enclitic article. The process went through the stages illustrated by the example of casă-ľei > casă-ei > caseei³⁰⁶ > case-i > casei ‘house..-’, where -e emerges from the assimilation of -ă (see Stoica 2018b: 386–7; cf. alternation type V6 in §1.5). To corroborate this solution, one may appeal to the almost total absence of this syncretism in trans-Danubian dialects (Maiden 2014b: 42; 2015: 39); the few exceptions involve first-declension feminine nouns (Capidan 1932: 392; Caragiu Marioțeanu 1968: 87), which in fact coexist with forms without case inflexion (Maiden 2015: 39). ³⁰⁴ CC². ³⁰⁵ CazV. ³⁰⁶ Note that the stage case-ei, in which the article is clearly separated, was often attested in the sixteenth
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
80
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
The internal solution, which is mainly based on the phonological assimilation hypothesis, seems to be contradicted by several types of feminine noun (Coteanu 1969e: 45–6) where assimilation could not apply: feminine nouns such as (unei) stele ‘a..- star.-’, (unei) mărgele ‘(a..-) bead.-’, which show l in the genitive–dative singular and in the plural, despite its absence in nominative–accusative singular stea, mărgea; or third-declension feminine nouns in -i, such as (unei) nopţi ‘(a..-) night.gen-’, (unei) punţi ‘(a..-) footbridge.-’; or irregular nouns such as (unei) surori ‘(a..-) sister.-’, (unei) nurori ‘(a..-) daughter. in.law.-’. Yet such cases can apparently be explained analogically, through the formal identity between genitive–dative singular and the plural in nouns of the casă type. After an initial stage with only one case form in the singular, the creation of the new inflexional feminine pattern, with two forms in the singular, begins with the first declension—the casă type. This is also suggested by the fact that nouns that violate the rule of feminine syncretism do not belong to the first declension. Since the earliest stage of the language, feminine syncretism has been so strong that any modification in the form of the plural has been automatically introduced into the genitive–dative singular and vice versa (Maiden 2014b: 38). Thus the transition from the old plural desinence -e to -i automatically triggers the same process in the genitive– dative singular form, which, as in the plural (cf. (76a–d)), manifests itself in variation between two desinences (see (77)). As the occurrence of the plural desinence -i often triggers the allomorphy of the stem, as in (76b) and (76c), the same allomorphy also applies to the genitive–dative singular (groape(i) ~ gropi(ei) ‘pit.-’ (see (77a)). Note that the stressed vowel alternation a ~ ă, which had not yet been generalized in the sixteenth century (Brâncuş 2007a), presents the same variant behaviour both in the plural and in the singular genitive–dative (see (77b). (76) a colibe³⁰⁷/colibi³⁰⁸ hut.-. b groape³⁰⁹/gropi³¹⁰ pit.-. c haine/hăini³¹¹ clothes.-. d rădăcine³¹²/rădăcini³¹³ root.-. (77) a (uşa) groapei³¹⁴/ door... pit.. gropiei³¹⁵ pit.. ‘(the door) of the pit’ / ³⁰⁷ DVS. ³¹⁴ CC¹.
³⁰⁸ CC². ³¹⁵ CazV.
³⁰⁹ CC¹.
(pre through
uşea) door.
‘(through the door) of the pit’ ³¹⁰ CazV.
³¹¹ FD.
³¹² CazV.
³¹³ CDicț.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
81
b cu nărociţii cetaţiei³¹⁶ / zidirea with lucky.. fortress.. building cetăţiei³¹⁷ fortress.. ‘with the lucky people of the fortress’/‘the building of the fortress’ The force of syncretism is manifest even in defectiveness: feminine nouns defective in the plural (such as the mass noun nea ‘snow’; see Maiden 2014b: 39) have not developed a genitive–dative singular form. The feminine syncretism has the same force in the inflexion of feminine adjectives, so that the same archaic plural form (e.g. (78a)) will also occur in the genitive–dative singular (e.g. (78b)), and its replacement with a new inflexional form (e.g. (78c)) will trigger the occurrence of the same form in the genitive–dative singular (e.g. (78d)). (78) a multe chipuri de credinţe şi de many types of beliefs.. and of noao³¹⁸ new.. ‘many sorts of new beliefs and teachings’
învăţături teachings..
b a Legii vechi ca şi a ceştii noao³¹⁹ al.. law.. old. like al.. this... new... ‘of the old Law as of the new one’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
c MRo. (nişte) învăţături noi (some) teachings.. new.. ‘(some) new teachings’ d MRo. (unei) învăţături noi a.- teaching...- new...- ‘(of a) new teaching’ 2.4.2.2 Feminine inflexional endings in oblique cases As an effect of the prototypical feminine syncretism, the inventory of desinences for the genitive–dative singular is identical to that of the plural. As in the case of the feminine plural, the desinences are -e and -i; -e is selected by feminine nouns ended in -ă in the.-. (casă ‘house.-’ ~ (unei) case ‘(a.-) house.-’, fată ‘girl.-’ ~ (unei) fete ‘(a.-) girl.-’), whereas -i is selected both by nouns ending in -ă (poartă ‘gate.-’ ~ (unei) porţi ‘(a.-) gate.-’, uşă ‘door.-’ ~ (unei) uşi ‘(a.-) door.- ‘) and in -e in the -. (carte ‘book.-’ ~ (unei) cărţi ‘(a.-) book.-’, familie ‘family.-’ ~ (unei)
³¹⁶ CV.
³¹⁷ PO.
³¹⁸ CC².
³¹⁹ NT.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
82 familii ‘(a.-) family.-’); -i is realized either as an asyllabic -i in porți [porʦj] or as a semivowel in familii [faˈmilii]̯ . As in the case of the plural, the ending -le, selected by feminine nouns stressed on the ending of the stem (zi ‘day.-’ ~ (unei) zile ‘(a.-)day.-’, stea ‘star.-’ ~ (unei) stele ‘(a.-) star.-’, basma ‘kerchief ’ ~ (unei) basmale ‘(a.-)kerchief.-’) allows them to be segmented in two different ways, displaying what may be analysed as either an irregular stem (zil-e, stel-e, basmal-e) or an irregular desinence (see §2.1.4). The same happens with irregular nouns such as soră ‘sister.-’ ~ (unei) surori ‘(a.-)sister.-’, noră ‘sister.in.law.-’ ~ (unei) nurori ‘(a.-) sister.in.law.-’, which allow two types of segmentation: either sor-ă vs suror-i, nor-ă vs nuror-i, with an irregular stem and a regular inflexional ending realized as asyllabic -i ([suˈrorj]); or sur-ori, nur-ori, with the irregular ending -ori. The enclitic definite article is attached to the form that bears the desinence ((unei) case ‘(a.-) house.-’! casei ‘house..-’, (unei) zile ‘(a.-) day.- !zilei ‘day..-’, (unei) flori [florj] ‘(a.-) flower.-’ ! florii [ˈflori] ‘flower..-’), which, when the desinence is -i, attracts a phonetic modification (see the form florii ‘flower..-’, in which asyllabic -i becomes syllabic). There are two characteristics that distinguish old Romanian from modern standard Romanian. The first is the form of the enclitic article in genitive–dative singular, which, in old Romanian, and especially in sixteenth-century texts, was -ei and was clearly separated from the rest of the inflexional forms; see apeei³²⁰ ‘water..-’; crăireei³²¹ ‘kingdom..-’; foameei ‘hunger..-’; fireei ‘nature..-’; jărtveei ‘sacrifice..-’; legiei ‘law..-’;³²² măsuriei³²³ ‘measure..-’; suptsuareei³²⁴ ‘armpit..-’; zileei ‘day..-’.³²⁵ Personal masculine nouns with a feminine-like ending, be they proper, as in (79a), or common, as in (79b), as well as adjectives with an enclitic article (see (80a), (80b)) behave the same way. (79) a Lucăei³²⁶ Ducăei³²⁷ Luca.- Duca.- b popeei³²⁸ vlădicăei³²⁹ priest..- bishop..- (80) a a creştineştiei toată tocmeala al.. Christianity.. all agreement. ‘the agreement of all Christianity’ b păzirea dumnezeeştiei obey.. godly.... ‘obeying the godly teaching’
³²⁰ CC¹. ³²⁷ MC.
³²¹ DÎ XCV. ³²⁸ CC¹.
învăţătură³³⁰ teaching.=-
³²² CC². ³²³ FD. ³²⁹ CT. ³³⁰ CC².
³²⁴ CP¹.
³²⁵ CC².
³²⁶ CP¹.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
83
The second feature is the great variation of oblique forms in the singular, as a result of attaching the article either to the variant plural form, which ends in -e or -i (scripture ‘scripture’~ scripturi (81)), or to the syncretic nominative–accusative singular form (muiere ‘woman’, dzuo ‘day’: see (82a), (82b). The tendency for the unification or fusion of the form (Frâncu 2009: 36–7) and for the phonetic fusion of the article with the desinence, yielding the variations -eei vs -ei in (83a) and -iei vs -ei vs -ii in (83b), is apparent from the earliest phase of the language. (81) scriptureei³³¹ vs scripturiei scripture..- (82) a muiereei vs muieriei³³² woman..- b dzuoei³³³ vs zileei³³⁴ day..- (83) a slaveei vs slavei glory..-
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b morţiei³³⁵ vs morţei vs morţii³³⁶ death..- Feminine nouns that directly continue the Latin genitive forms are rare. These are genitives preserved in names of the days of the week: () ‘(day) of Mars’ > marţi ‘Tuesday’; () > miercuri ‘Wednesday’; () > joi ‘Thursday’; () ‘(day) of Venus’> vineri ‘Friday’; () ‘(day) of the moon’ > luni ‘Monday’, the last-mentioned one being an analogical construction based on the other forms in -i (Ciorănescu 2002: 478; Maiden 2015: 37); through ellipsis, these forms lose their etymological relation to the genitive and they come to be used in any position. 2.4.2.3 The function of agreement in genitive–dative singular marking In a genitive–dative nominal phrase, all the constituents of the phrase should be marked for genitive–dative singular via agreement. The agreement rule, which is characteristic of modern standard Romanian (see (84)), has been active since old Romanian, as shown by (85a) and (85b): (84) premierea [acestei lucrări remarcabile] award.. this... work. remarkable... ‘the awarding of a prize to this remarkable work’
³³¹ CC².
³³² CC¹.
³³³ PO.
³³⁴ CC².
³³⁵ CC².
³³⁶ CTd.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
84 (85) a năravulu [jărtveei habit. sacrifice.. ‘the habit of our sacrifice’
noastre]) our.
b mărturii [nespuseei şi dumnezeeştiei testimony. unspoken....- and godly...- tocmeale]³³⁷ agreement.- ‘testimonies of the unspoken and godly agreement’ In old Romanian this restriction is frequently violated, as only the first constituent, as in (86b), or first two constituents, as in (86a), bear the genitive–dative singular marking. Non-standard modern Romanian shows the same tendency. (86) a scris-am aceasta a noast carte written-I.have this al.. our.. book [sventei dumnezeieşti mănăstire]³³⁸ holy.... godly.. monastery.=. ‘ wrote this book for the holy church of God’ b fiindu învăţaţi [cinstei ceaia being taught.. honour.. cel...= . buna]³³⁹ good..= . ‘as we were taught in the good honour’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.4.3 Between enclitic–inflexional and proclitic marking 2.4.3.1 Introduction Romanian has created two special proclitic markers: lui/lu, for both genitive and dative singular, and al/a/ai/ale, for the genitive singular and plural. Although to a large extent these forms fall within the domain of syntax,³⁴⁰ they will also be discussed here by reason of their correlations with the inflexional features. 2.4.3.2 Oblique marking by proclitic lui From the earliest records, alongside the enclitic inflexional marking, oblique cases have also had a proclitic type of marking, realized by proclisis of the definite article lui/lu.³⁴¹ In the sixteenth century, both types of marking—enclitic, as in (87a), (87c), (87f), and proclitic, as in (87b), (87d), (87e)—were present in texts. Since the sixteenth century, there has been evidence that lui has grammaticalized as an oblique case marker. ³³⁷ CC². ³³⁸ DÎ XXXIX. ³³⁹ CC². ³⁴⁰ See the analysis in Stan (2013c: 264–5, 2016b: 315–17). ³⁴¹ For some scholars, the difference between lui and lu is strictly phonetic (a result of syntactic phonetics: lui Ion > lu Ion), whereas others acknowledge that there is also an etymological difference (see comments and bibliographical references in Stan 2013c: 265).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
85
For example, it is attached to nouns that select an enclitic article other than -lui; thus masculine nouns ending in the vowel -a take -ei in the genitive, as in (87f), not -lui, as in (87e). (87) a fata popei Radului³⁴² daughter. priest.. Radu-lui. ‘the priest Radu’s daughter’ vs b zilele lui Alexandru vodă³⁴³ days. lui. Alexandru voivode ‘the days of Voivode Alexandru’ c cu numele Dumnezeului with name. God-lui. ‘in the name of our God’ vs
nostru³⁴⁴ our
d besearicei lui Dumnezeu³⁴⁵ church.. lui. God ‘of God’s church’ e tocmala lui Toma agreement. lui. Thomas ‘apostle Thomas’ agreement’
apostol³⁴⁶ apostle
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
vs f dumeneca Tomeei³⁴⁷ Sunday. Thomas-ei. ‘St. Thomas’ Sunday’ In Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian, too, the genitive–dative lui marking occurs alongside inflexional marking, just as in Daco-Romanian, a fact which demonstrates the antiquity of the phenomenon. But, unlike in Daco-Romanian, where this construction is linked to the [+personal] parameter, in Megleno-Romanian and IstroRomanian the proclitic lui is not linked to a specific lexical class of nouns; it occurs instead with personal names, be they proper, as in (88a) and (88b), or not, as in (88c) and (88d), with common (or non-personal) nouns, be they animate, as in (88e) and (88f) or non-animate, as in (88g) and (88h). Genitive -lui is used both in the singular and plural (Atanasov 2002: 213). (88) a MeRo. una mǫră a lu Riza (Atanasov 2002: 198) a.. wind.mill al.. lu. Riza ‘a windmill of Riza’s’
³⁴² DÎ LV.
³⁴³ DÎ IV.
³⁴⁴ CC¹.
³⁴⁵ CC².
³⁴⁶ CazV.
³⁴⁷ CPrav.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
86 b IRo.
uşa lu Petru (Cantemir 1959) door.DEF lu. Peter ‘Peter’s door’
c MeRo. rămasnica lu fičoru (Saramandu 2013) fiancée.DEF lu. son ‘the son’s fiancée’ fiľu lu jardineru (Pușcariu 1906) son. lu. gardener ‘the gardener’s son’ e MeRo. cręsta lu cucotu (Saramandu 2013) crest. lu. rooster ‘the rooster’s crest’ f IRo. limba lu bovu (Neiescu 2016) tongue lu. ox ‘the ox’s tongue’ g MeRo. blăsnirea lu soarli (Saramandu 2013) rise. lu. sun. ‘the sunrise’ h IRo. limba lu clopotu (Neiescu 2016) tongue lu. bell ‘the bell’s clapper’
d IRo.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Aromanian does not use the proclitic ‘genitive -lui/lu-’ (Capidan 1932: 397). In modern Romanian, usage rules differ according to register. In the standard register, lui occurs in the following situations: (i) when it precedes personal masculine proper names (lui Ion, lui Marin, lui Toma); (ii) when it has extended to invariant proper names of persons in the feminine (lui Carmen, lui Lili, lui Cati); (iii) when it precedes a kinship name with a unique referent, sometimes accompanied by a possessive clitic (lui tata ‘lui father.’ lui nenea ‘lui uncle.’, lui taică-su ‘lui father-his’, lui frate-său ‘lui brother-his’); (iv) when it precedes the name of a month (lui martie ‘lui March’, lui iunie ‘lui June’), month names being invariant; (v) when it accompanies occasional metalinguistic uses of prepositions and other invariant words as nominal entities (e.g. absenţa lui „pe” ‘absence. lui pe’ ‘the absence of [the preposition] pe’, repetarea lui „de” ‘repetition lui de’ ‘the repetition of [the preposition] de’). Points (i)–(iii), which share the feature [+personal], show that the proclitic case marker lui has an additional value as a personal marker (see especially §2.1.3.1; also Pană Dindelegan 2016b). Point (v) indicates the association of the proclitic case
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
87
marker lui with a metalinguistic substantivization. The personal character of proclitic lui has been clear since the earliest Daco-Romanian texts, because there it never accompanies a non-animate noun (the type uşa **lui biserica ‘door. lui church.’). In this respect, Daco-Romanian is clearly different from trans-Danubian dialects. In non-standard modern Romanian, there is a clear tendency to extend the proclitic case marker lui to other classes of nouns (even to certain types of pronouns), if the noun/pronoun is [+personal], as we can see in (vi)–(viii). Thus it may be extended to
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(vi) anthroponymic feminine nouns (lui Maria, lui Ioana); (vii) [+human] common masculine and feminine nouns (lu’ băiatu ăsta ‘lu’ boy. this..’, lu’ fata asta ‘lu’ girl. this..’); (viii) personal pronominal forms (lu’ dânsa ‘lu’ her.-’, lu’ asta ‘lu’ this...’). 2.4.3.3 Genitive mixed marking: inflexional + proclitic al In the genitive, the proclitic marker al is an innovation specific to Romanian, and is characterized by proclisis (in relation to the genitive constituent), variability (it agrees in gender and number with the nominal head of the genitive), polyfunctionality (genitive and definiteness marking), and co-occurrence with other genitive markers, either inflexional (copil al vecinului/al vecinei ‘child al neighbour..../al neighbour....’) or proclitic (copil al lui Ion ‘child al lui. John’). Unlike the proclitic lui/lu, which can function on its own as a case marker, al cannot occur alone as a genitive marker (cartea lui Ion ‘book.’, but cartea **a Ion ‘book. al.. Ion’). For the origin and history of polyfunctional al, one may read the discussion here (§4.3) and in Stan (2013c: 265, 2016b: 315; and see also Giurgea 2012, 2013b). The polyfunctionality of al has been manifest since the earliest records of Romanian: alongside the function of proclitic genitive marker, (which it acquires when cooccurring with another genitive marker), al also has a determiner/article function (see §4.3). It is only in contexts such as (89a) and (89b), where it co-occurs with a bare NP head (with a ‘property’ reading), that the genitive al functions exclusively as an analytic genitive marker. (89) a au venit marele Petru, împărat al has come great... Peter emperor al Moscului³⁴⁸ Moscow. ‘Peter the Great has come, the great emperor of Moscow.’ b Ion este cetăţean al României Ion is citizen al Romania. ‘Ion is a citizen of Romania.’
³⁴⁸ NL.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
88 In modern standard Romanian, al is subject to rules of inflexional agreement—that is, agreement in gender and number with the nominal head of the genitive constituent, as in (90)—and to syntactic rules triggered by the ‘adjacency constraint’ (adjacency vs non-adjacency to the head; postposition vs anteposition to the head) and by enclitic articulation features of the head. Thus al is excluded if the definite article would otherwise appear immediately to its left; and, if both the definite article and al are present, then they will not be adjacent (see (91b), (91e)); al is placed immediately before the head (see (91g)); and al appears if it is immediately preceded either by a noun without the definite article (see (91a)) or by a word belonging to some other morphological class than the nominal (see (91c–f)). (90) a băiat al vecinilor boy.. al.. neighbours.. vecinilor neighbours..
vs
fată a girl.. al..
b băieţi ai vecinilor boys.. al.. neighbours.. vecinilor neighbours..
vs
fete ale girls.. al..
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(91) a (acest/fiecare) copil al vecinului, doi copii (this/each) child al neighbour.. two children ai vecinului, Ion al Mariei al.. neighbour.. Ion al Maria. b caietul notebook..
nou de istorie al new of history al
c acesta this doi two
vecinului, neighbour.. vecinului neighbour..
d profesor teacher
al al ai al..
iniţiator initiator
al al..
g ale turnurilor al.. towers..
câţiva ai vecinului, several.. al.. neighbour..
concursului competition..
e plecarea mamei departure... mother.. f el este/ rămâne al he is /remains al
elevului pupil..
şi and
a al..
tatei father..
vecinului neighbour.. umbre shadows
These rules for using al, both inflexional and syntactic, were not yet established in old Romanian (see Stan 2016b: 316–17). What has been obligatory since old Romanian
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
89
is the occurrence of al in genitive contexts, which means that it has a clear function as a genitive marker.
2.4.4 Analytic (prepositional) markers of oblique cases 2.4.4.1 Introduction Since the earliest records, (prepositional) analytic marking has coexisted with inflexional marking; the two operated sometimes in complementary distribution, at other times together, with stylistic differences. In all historical periods, inflexional marking was predominant. But in old Romanian prepositional markers were more frequent than in modern Romanian, although inflexional markers were preferred. While analytic, prepositional case marking belongs properly to syntax (see Stan 2016b: 315–22; Nicula Paraschiv & Pană Dindelegan 2016: 153–5), we discuss it here in order to provide a full overview of case marking. 2.4.4.2 The genitive relationship The genitive markers are the prepositions a, de, and la. In modern Romanian the selection of a is obligatory when the first (or the sole) constituent of the phrase is invariable for case marking (e.g. cardinal numerals, pre-posed invariable adjectives, invariable degree markers, invariable pronouns; see (92a–d)); and it is optional when there is, in the first position, a quantifier of variable case marking, as in (93a–c).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(92) a plecarea [a doi copii] departure. a two children ‘the departure of two children’ b plecarea [a asemenea oameni] departure. a such people ‘the departure of such people’ c plecarea [a foarte mulţi oameni] departure. a very many people ‘the departure of very many people’ d urmările [a (ceea) ce s-a întâmplat] consequences a what has happened .3= ‘the consequences of what has happened’ (93) a plecarea [a câţiva colegi] /plecarea [câtorva departure. a several.. colleagues/departure. several. colegi] colleagues ‘the departure of several colleagues’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
90 b plecarea [a mulţi colegi]/plecarea [multor colegi] departure. a many colleagues/departure. many. colleagues ‘the departure of many colleagues’ c contra [a câţi colegi au against a how.many colleagues have contra [câtor colegi against how.many. colleagues have ‘against all the colleagues who have left’
plecat] / left au plecat] left
In old Romanian, the marker a was used in a larger number of contexts than in modern Romanian: apart from structures with a quantifier or an invariant (indeclinable) constituent in the first position (see e.g. (94a–b)), a could also occur in situations such as (95a) and (95b), where these conditions were not met, regardless of the structure of the noun phrase. (94) a denaintea părintelui episcupului Teofil şi before father.. bishop.. Teofil and mulţi boiari]³⁴⁹ many boyars ‘in front of the bishop Theophil and many boyars’
[a a
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b vătămare [a nișcare oameni]³⁵⁰ hurting a some people ‘hurting of some people’ c probăluirea [a feali de feali de lucruri]³⁵¹ trying. a sort of sort of things ‘the trial of different sorts of things’ (95) a să
vor prinde de poala will catch of lap. .. 3 [a bărbat iudeu]³⁵² a man Jewish ‘they will take refuge in the lap of a Jewish man’
b batgiocuriri [[a fete fecioare] şi mockeries a girls virgin.. and înţelepte]]³⁵³ wise.. ‘mocking of virgins and wise women’
³⁴⁹ DÎ X.
³⁵⁰ ŞT.
³⁵¹ CDicț.
³⁵² DPar.
[a a
³⁵³ NL.
fămei women
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
91
In modern Romanian, de is selected (1) in constructions with a verbal noun or adjective where it introduces the non-definite complement of a noun or adjective, as in (96a) and (96b); (2) when the noun preceded by de participates in a membership relationship, which differs from prototypical possession constructions by the fact that the possessor noun does not bear the determiner, as in (96c) and (96d); and (3) when the bare nominal preceded by de has a ‘property’ reading (96e). The structures given in (96a–e) are not a perfect equivalent of the inflexional genitive, being non-definite, whereas the inflexional genitive is definite. The inflexional genitive and constructions such as those in (96a–e) occur in complementary distribution with respect to definiteness. (96) a căderea masivă falling. massive b soluţii solutions
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
zăpadă] snow
aducătoare [de bringing. de
c uşă [de door de d mijloc middle e copil child
[de de
[de de [de de
mare profit] great profit
biserică] church codru] forest ministru/de profesor] minister/de teacher
In old Romanian de had a much wider distribution: it could occur with a nondefinite NP (see (97a–c)), as in modern Romanian, but also with a definite NP (see (98a–e))—a type of construction that is now obsolete. Examples of de with a definite NP can be found throughout the old period and in all types of texts. This construction is occasionally encountered in the nineteenth century as well (Nedelcu 2015: 55–6), but at that stage it was calqued on French, as in (98e). (97) a ca oile în mijloc de like sheep in middle de ‘like sheep among wolves’
lupi³⁵⁴ wolves
b deasupra de hălăşteu³⁵⁵ above de pond ‘above the pond’ c Macrei, vătavul de păhărnicei³⁵⁶ Macrei bailiff. de cupbearers ‘Macrei, the cupbearers’ bailiff ’
³⁵⁴ CC¹.
³⁵⁵ DÎ V.
³⁵⁶ NL.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
92 (98) a stătu în mijloc de ucenicii stood in middle de disciples. ‘he stood in the midst of his disciples’ b pre mijloc de casa on middle de house. ‘in the middle of my house’
lui³⁵⁷ his
mea³⁵⁸ my
c neguţătorii şi mişeii de iasta ţară şi traders. and poor.. de this country and de aceaia ţară³⁵⁹ de that country ‘the traders and the poor of this country and of that country’ d păzitori de featele împărăteşti³⁶⁰ guarding.() de daughters. kingly ‘those who guard the king’s daughters’ e bugetul [de veniturile şi cheltuielile şcoalelor budget de incomes. and spendings. schools.. publice]³⁶¹ public.. ‘the budget for the incomes and expenses of public schools’ In modern Romanian, the selection of la occurs regardless of the structure of the NP, in the sense that la is not sensitive to definiteness, as (99a) and (99b) indicate; it occurs only in a non-standard register.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(99)
a din cauza [la fata asta] because la. girl. this ‘because of this girl’ b urmările [la medicament] consequences. la. medicine ‘the effects of the medicine’
In old Romanian, one does not come across la in this construction until the end of the seventeenth century (for the earliest attestations, see the Transylvanian examples (100a–d), which are from CDicţ). The syntactic variety of the construction (with determined and non-determined nominal heads, invariant and variable (pro)nominals, nominals preceded by quantifiers or not), coupled with its high frequency (fifteen occurrences), suggests that this is not an accidental phenomenon but a common construction, characteristic of the author’s style and of the region as well.
³⁵⁷ CC¹. ³⁶¹ Doc.Ec.
³⁵⁸ CP¹.
³⁵⁹ SB (beginning of seventeenth century).
³⁶⁰ CDicț.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
. (100)
a numele [la trei names. la. three ‘three persons’ names’
93
oameni] people.
b feciorii [la doi fraţi] sons. la. two brothers ‘two brothers’ sons’ c nume [la câţiva filosofi] names la. several.. philosophers ‘several philosophers’ names’ d groapă împrejur [la cetăţi şi pit around la. fortresses and oraşuri]³⁶² cities ‘moat around the fortresses and cities’
la la.
2.4.4.3 The dative relationship The markers of the dative relationship are the prepositions a, la, către. As a dative marker, a occurs in old Romanian (101a–g) and survives until late in the eighteenth century, as examples (101f) and (101g) testify. Unlike a with the genitive, a with the dative has been completely eliminated from modern Romanian.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(101)
a cuvine-se [a bârbat înţelept]³⁶³ is.proper a man wise ‘it is proper for a wise man’ b se giudece [a judge..3 a ‘to judge the poor’
seracu]³⁶⁴ poor
c să o dăm [a ...3 give..1 a ‘that we give it to people’
oamini]³⁶⁵ people
d nice va agiuta părinte [a fecior], nice fecior either will help father a son nor son [a părinte], nice maica [a fată]³⁶⁶ a daughter a father not mother. ‘neither will father help son nor will son help father or mother help daughter’ e nu va putea [a doi domni] să slujascâ³⁶⁷) not will be.able a two rulers serve..3 ‘he will not be able to give service to two rulers’
³⁶² CDicț.
³⁶³ CT.
³⁶⁴ PS.
³⁶⁵ PO.
³⁶⁶ LDIII.
³⁶⁷ CazV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
94 f au datu cuvântu Ştefan vodă he.has given word Ștefan Voivode oastea]³⁶⁸ army. ‘Voivode Ștefan ordered to all the army . . . ’ g i-au
făcut cinste ( . . . ) he.has made honour ..3= ş-[a toată boierimea]³⁶⁹ and- a. all boyars. ‘He honoured him and all the boyars’
[a toată a all
şi also
lui, him.
In both modern and old Romanian, la features in this construction regardless of the structure of the NP and of definiteness constraints. Example (102) shows how, in both, la is and was selected before a non-determined NP (see (102b), (102d)), before an indefinite determined NP (see (102e)), and before a definite determined NP (see (102a), (102c). And, in both, la is and was mandatory when the first (or the only) constituent of an NP is invariable in case marking, as in (102b).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(102)
a Scriem dumitale birău de Bistriţî şi we.write you. mayor of Bistrița and [la toţi giuraţii den oraş]³⁷⁰ la all.. jurymen. from city ‘We are writing to you the mayor of Bistrița and to all the jurymen of the city.’ b ş-au dat [la şeapte and=they.have given la seven ‘and they gave to seven synods’
săboară]³⁷¹ synods
c au porâncit [la cuscru-său]³⁷² he.has ordered la father-in-law.her] ‘he ordered her father-in-law’ d să închine ţara [la turci], iar nu surrender..3 country. la Turks but not [la alte neamuri]³⁷³ la other peoples ‘that he surrender the country to the Turks, not to other nations’ e [La un om] ce înţelege bine puţinele cuvinte la a man who understands well few words îi trebuiesc³⁷⁴ ..3 are necessary ‘To a man who understands well few words are needed.’
³⁶⁸ ULM.
³⁶⁹ NL.
³⁷⁰ SB.XVII.
³⁷¹ VRC.
³⁷² Sind.
³⁷³ NL.
³⁷⁴ Bert.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
95
Both in old and in modern Romanian, la is predominantly selected by give and by verbs of direction and destination (e.g. a trimite ‘send’, a pârî ‘tell on someone, accuse’), and is avoided in contexts with experiencer or possessive datives. In modern familiar and colloquial registers, there is a clear tendency towards the extension of the analytic marker la regardless of the head type, and thus with experiencer datives as well (see (103a) and (103b)). (103)
a Nu-i place [la copilul meu] not=..3 pleases la child. my scoale devreme (non-standard) get.up..3 early ‘My child does not like getting up early.’
să se ...3
b Nu-i prieşte [la copilul not=..3 suits la child. meu] soarele (non-standard) my sun. ‘The sun is not good for my child.’ In old Romanian, the analytic construction with cătră occurs simultaneously with the inflexional one (see (104b)), being generally selected by verba declarandi (see (104a)). In modern Romanian, use of the marker cătră/către (‘to, towards’, often with the form cătă) was limited to the Transylvanian region (Urițescu 1984: 303; Vulpe 1984: 332; Marin & Marinescu 1984: 379).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(104)
a ai grăitu [cătră părintele you.have spoken to father. ‘you told our father’
nostru] our
b celora ce aduseră răslăbitulu [cătră those. who brought weakened.... to bunulu vraciu şi mântuitoriului nostru]³⁷⁵ good.. wizard. and saviour.. our ‘to those who brought the weakened one to the good healer and our saviour’ 2.4.4.4 Origins, evolution, frequency All prepositions that function as analytic markers of oblique cases originate in Latin (a < ; de < ; la < ; către < ). What distinguishes them is that some were inherited with this value (which explains the fact that they share the same function with their counterparts in other Romance languages: see de with the genitive
³⁷⁵ CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
96 and a with the genitive–dative),³⁷⁶ whereas others developed their function through an internal grammaticalization process, which presupposed the conversion of certain lexical values into a new, grammatical one (of case markers). The second class includes the prepositions la (lit. ‘to, at’) and către (lit. ‘towards’), which originally expressed the values of direction or destination and still preserve them. Thus, it is not accidental that they appear as grammaticalized dative markers in the context of verbs of direction (a trimite la ‘send to’, a pârî la ‘report (someone) to’), verbs of giving (a da la ‘give to’), verba dicendi (a zice către, a spune către ‘say/tell to’), which require an addressee or a recipient and enter into variant constructions either with the inflexional dative or with directional prepositions. The process of grammaticalization has been under way since old Romanian and has manifested itself via coordination of the prepositional construction with an inflexional dative (e.g. (102a) and (104b)) and via doubling of the prepositional construction, by resumption or anticipation, with a pronominal clitic in the dative (e.g. (103a) and (103b)). For prepositions with a more recent grammatical history (la, către), the process of grammaticalization is ongoing; thus they rarely occur in the context of non-directional verbs. As for prepositions whose grammaticalization has started in old Romanian (a, de), lexical uses are scarce both in old and in modern Romanian. If we consider the dative marker la, there is a tendency to use it with the genitive as well; this is an effect of the old . . syncretism in feminines characteristic of Romanian. Such a tendency explains the relatively late date of our evidence for the use of the marker la for the genitive (end of the seventeenth century). In non-standard modern Romanian there is a clear and ongoing process of extending la to the genitive.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.5 Analogical levelling and creation of alternation 2.5.1 Levelling and creation of number alternations in nouns Overall, Romanian nominal morphology is highly retentive of inherited patterns of allomorphy in the lexical root. There is very little ‘levelling out’ of alternation and a good deal of analogical creation of allomorphy where none would be predicted on historical grounds, as a result of sound change. Levelling of vocalic and consonantal alternations between singular and plural is unusual,³⁷⁷ but levelling in favour of the plural alternant is sometimes detectable in nouns with ‘unmarked’ plurals (i.e. nouns whose referents are likely to be mentioned more often in the plural than the singular: see Tiersma 1982). Modern Romanian viespe ( viespi) is not the expected reflex of Latin , from which we should expect *ˈvje̯aspә >ˈvjaspә (a form still attested in Moldova). But it is not clear whether
³⁷⁶ Ciorănescu (2002: 15) considers that using a as - marker is a Latin feature, supported by examples such as Lat. membra ad duos fratres (cf. Ro. ‘membrele a doi fraţi’ ‘the limbs of two brothers’). ³⁷⁷ Various occasional or dialectal examples of this kind are examined in Byck & Graur (1967).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
97
the stressed vowel of the singular viespe is taken from the plural, or whether replacement of the ending -ă by -e has entailed closure of the original diphthong to [e] (cf. §1.5). The word pui ‘chick’ ( pui), a type found throughout Daco-Romance, could well continue the plural ( > *ˈpuʎi > pui), rather than singular , which would have been expected to yield *pul; but singular pui is traditionally ascribed to an (unattested) Latin adjectival form *pulleus.³⁷⁸ Continuants of Latin imparisyllabic nouns, such as . ‘head’ ~ ., . ‘guest’ ~ ., or the class of plurals in -uri (continuing the Latin type . ‘time’ ~ .) sometimes present an originally plural allomorph in the singular. Thus, on the basis of the plural capete, there emerges a singular capăt with the meaning ‘end, extremity’, alongside cap ‘head’; and the plural oaspeți yields a singular oaspete³⁷⁹ (also oaspăt) beside the older oaspe. A possible early example involving the - type, whose original singular is not conserved in Daco-Romance, is a reflex of . ‘side’ ~ ., yielding Romanian latură. ‘side’ ~ laturi.. An original ram. ‘branch’ ~ ramuri. has produced the feminine noun ramură. ~ ramuri.; and a possible original strug. ‘grape’ (regional) ~ struguri. may have generated the modern masculine strugure. ~ struguri. (see Marin 2009: 224 for the claim that strug is the historically underlying singular form). It is not unusual to see historically invariant roots acquiring allomorphy for number, on the model of nouns where such alternation is the result of sound change, and particularly nouns with ‘unmarked’ plurals (in the sense just described). Nouns in inherited root-final -[ʧ] may acquire singulars in [k], on the model of the type porc. [pork] ‘pig’ ~ porci. [porʧ]. Thus older copaci(u). ‘tree’ ~ copaci. (cf. MeglenoRomanian kuˈpaʧ) and melci. ‘snail’ ~ melci. (of problematic etymology, but the older singular form seems to have been melci(u)) are in the modern standard language copac ~ copaci and melc ~ melci. Modern berbec ‘wether’ ~ berbeci does not show the historically predictable development of Latin (namely berbece) in the singular, although the latter variant is also attested. While ‘flea’ ~ , and ‘mouse’ ~ yield the predicted purice ~ purici and șoarece ~ șoareci in the standard language, singulars such as șo(a)rec, puric are widespread dialectally. The word for ‘scissors’ behaves erratically, the reflex of Latin singular appearing in various forms—as a masculine singular, foarfece, sometimes reanalysed as a feminine plural, foarfece, which coexists with singular foarfece—or giving rise to a novel feminine, foarfecă in the singular, foarfeci in the plural; and these are nowadays the prescribed forms (cf. also Wild 1983, map 434, for MeglenoRomanian). The very frequent alternation type presented for example by frate [ˈfrate] ‘brother’ ~ frați [fraʦʲ] affects words that originally had [ʦ] in the singular: thus modern cârnat ‘sausage’ ~ cârnați, apparently from *carnaceus ‘meaty’, would be expected to show a singular form cârnaț, which is indeed attested. Singular castravete ‘cucumber’ ~ plural castraveți corresponds to a Slavonic singular form
³⁷⁸ See also Maiden (2016c: 705–6) for some examples from Istro-Romanian. ³⁷⁹ This form could also continue the Latin accusative singular form ; oaspe is from nominative .
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
98 krastaˈveʦ (cf. Megleno-Romanian [kәstrәˈveʦ]), while the singular of știulete. ‘corn cob’ ~ știuleți. corresponds to Slavonic singular forms such as Bulgarian стулец [stuleʦ].
2.5.2 Novel allomorphy in feminine nouns: the type stradă ~ străzi An unusual development is the emergence, in Romanian, of a type of root allomorphy exclusively limited to the lexical roots of nouns, and specifically feminine nouns. Like other cases of root allomorphy in the language, this type has its source in sound change, but there is something unusual about it: no other originally phonological pattern of alternation in nominal morphology shows restriction to a particular word class, as this one does. There are certainly no other alternation types that appear in nouns but not in adjectives and in feminine nouns but not in masculine ones. The following is true of nearly all Romanian feminine nouns: if a nominative– accusative singular case form contains stressed [a] in the lexical root and the genitive–dative singular case form, together with the plural, has the ending -i—and only under these conditions—the genitive–dative singular and both case forms of the plural will contain ă ([ә]) (see Table 2.8). Table 2.8 The a ~ ă alternation in feminine nouns and its absence in feminine adjectives Feminine nouns -
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
-
țară ‘land’ țări
țări pradă ‘prey’ prăzi mare ‘sea’ țări prăzi prăzi mări
mări stradă ‘street’ străzi cale ‘way’ căi mări străzi străzi căi căi
Feminine adjectives - -
largă ‘broad’ largi mare ‘big’ largi largi mari
mari dragă ‘dear’ dragi mari dragi dragi
In Daco-Romanian, the a ~ ă alternation does not occur in adjectives (again, see Table 2.8).³⁸⁰ It is also absent from the noun vacă ~ vaci ‘cow’,³⁸¹ and occurs only sporadically in nouns where stressed [a] is separated from the ending -i by one or more syllables (one does find pásăre ‘bird’ ~ pắsări, flácără ‘flame’ ~ flắcări, but the type lácrimă ‘tear’ ~ lácrimi, áripă ‘wing’ ~ áripi, márgine ‘edge’ ~ márgini is more widespread). That the alternation is strictly linked to the presence of final -i in ³⁸⁰ Călare ‘on horseback’ is an exception, in that it has plural călări in the plural not only in the feminine but also in the masculine (see ALRII map 1799). Călare is usually used as an adverb. Its use as an adjective is rare, and it is possible that the plural form is somehow influenced by the word’s resemblance to the class of (feminine) ‘long infinitives’ in -are (see §6.5.1), with plurals in -ări. Indeed, călare also exists as a noun (plural călări). For other apparently adjectival, but arguably substantival, examples, see Maiden (1997: 30). Note also the old Romanian . cutare ‘such’ ~ . cutări (§3.4.3). ³⁸¹ A further exception is the neologism remarcă ‘remark’ ~ remarci < Fr. remarque (but cf. marcă ‘mark’ ~ mărci < Fr. marque). Variant plurals remarce or remărci are attested (Scriban 1939).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
99
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
nouns is clearly visible in dialects where the range of feminines in inflexional -i is wider than in standard Romanian (see Iordan et al. 1967: 84; Rusu 1971: 46–8; Nedelcu 2015: 48; Pană Dindelegan 2015b: 416); dialectal casă ‘house’ ~ căși (for standard casă ~ case) is a case in point. In Aromanian not only nouns show this alternation but also some adjectives—and the noun meaning ‘cow’, too. By contrast, in Istro-Romanian the phenomenon appears to be altogether absent (see Maiden 1997: 25n1). The explanation of the origin of this alternation is fairly widely accepted (see Tiktin 1883: 249; Densusianu 1938: 158–9; Rothe 1957: 72; Sala 1976: 193; Ivănescu 1980: 408–9; Maiden 1997).³⁸² The alternation is the cumulative product of alternation types V3(b) (see §1.5), such that original *[e] is diphthongized as [e̯a], except in the environment of following high vowels, where [e] is retained; this alternation may in turn be subject to a centralization produced by preceding non-palatal affricates or by a fortis [r]: thus old Romanian țeară.-. ‘country’ ~ țeri.-.+-.+-., and preadă.. ‘prey’ ~ prezi.-.+-.+-., will have yielded the modern forms țară.-. ‘country’ ~ țări.-.+-.+-., and pradă.-. ‘prey’ ~ prăzi.-.+-.+-.. As is argued in more detail in Maiden (1997), the range of lexemes that originally presented the necessary phonological environment to produce this alternation was very small: indeed the two nouns țară and pradă may be the only nouns in Romanian in which this alternation is a direct effect of sound change. In all other nouns that show it, the alternation seems to be the product of an analogical change that is based on that very small core of words in which it was phonologically caused and that pervades even loanwords such as stradă ‘street’ ~ străzi (ultimately from Italian) or gară ‘railway station’ ~ gări (from French). As suggested in Maiden (1997: 37), the resistance of vaci ‘cows’ to the innovation may be due to the fact that this word tends to occur much more frequently in the plural than in the singular.
2.6 The patterning of case and number marking: feminine nouns We have seen that the main locus of inflexional case marking in Romanian is constituted by determiners (articles and demonstratives) and pronouns (§§2.1, 2.2, 2.4). With the exception of the vast majority of feminine singulars, nouns and adjectives are invariant with respect to case. The possible origins of the inflexional case distinctions in the feminine singular are reviewed in §2.4, and the focus here is the paradigmatic distribution and historical development of inflexional alternation in feminines. The inflexional paradigm of Romanian nouns generally comprises just two word forms: in the majority of instances (masculine and genus alternans nouns; masculine adjectives), the two forms distinguish number (singular vs plural): examples in this category are cal () ‘horse’, zid (genus alternans) ‘wall’, os (genus alternans) ³⁸² Lombard (1954–5, vol. 1: 215) is a dissenting voice.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
100 Table 2.9 Two word forms aligned with number in Romanian nouns and adjectives - - - -
cal mire
cai miri
zid soare
ziduri sori
os om
oase oameni
‘bone’, mire () ‘bridegroom’, soare () ‘sun’, om () ‘human being’ (Table 2.9). In feminines, however, the distribution of the two forms is not aligned with any coherent set of features, since one word form is associated with nominative–accusative singular and the other with genitive–dative singular + nominative–accusative/genitive–dative plural. Thus feminine nouns such as casă ‘house’, coadă ‘tail’, mare ‘sea’, rândunică ‘swallow’, soră ‘sister’ inflect as in Table 2.10. Table 2.10 The two word forms in Romanian feminines, aligned neither with number nor with case
sg nom-acc casă gen-dat
pl case
sg nom-acc rândunică gen-dat Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
sg coadă
pl
sg mare
cozi pl rândunele
sg soră
pl mări
pl surori
Tables 2.9 and 2.10 show that the nature of the morphological distinction between the two forms may vary unpredictably from lexeme to lexeme: the types represented by casă, coadă, or mare in Table 2.10 are very widespread; the alternation patterns shown by rândunică and soră are idiosyncratic and restricted. What matters here is how those alternant forms are distributed. Synchronically, the distribution of the two word forms in feminines is arbitrary and cannot be attributed to any functional (or phonological) motivation. The categories ‘plural + nominative–accusative singular’ do not form a natural class. It might be thought that the distribution is a diagrammatic representation of markedness relationships: given that ‘singular’ is the unmarked value for number and ‘genitive–dative’ is (presumably) the unmarked value for case, the distribution yields one form for the unmarked value of both parameters and another for the rest. What we observe certainly seems more ‘natural’ than, say, a conceivable ‘chiastic’ distribution in which the same form were distinctively shared by the least marked combination (nominative–accusative singular) and the most marked one (genitive– dative plural). But appeal to markedness is obviously inadequate: it would be even less marked to align the two forms either with number or with case—as happens in the rest
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
101
of the system of noun and adjective morphology—and we have no explanation for why the genitive–dative singular should be opposed to the rest of the paradigm, rather than the maximally marked combination (nominative–accusative plural) being opposed to the less marked remainder. In reality, what we see in feminine nouns and adjectives is a historical accident, namely the now arbitrary effect of a situation that, in the remote past, had a well-motivated explanation (see §2.4). For the broader theoretical significance of the facts presented here, one may consult Maiden (2015) and the discussion of ‘morphomic’ structures in §6.6. What is remarkable about the distributional pattern found in feminines is that, although it is unnatural both generally and locally (since all other nouns and adjectives in Romanian simply distinguish between the singular and the plural), it is diachronically ‘coherent’: changes affecting any one of the genitive-dative singular and nominstive-accusative and genitive-dative plural cells equally and identically affect all the others (there is just one significant class of exceptions, to which we return in due course). In standard Romanian and across the Daco-Romance dialects, for example, the feminine plural inflexional ending -e has tended to be analogically replaced by -i (§2.2.3). In no case, however, are the plural forms ever differentiated from the nominative–accusative singular forms in this respect (see e.g. gură.-. ~ gure.-.+-.+-. ‘mouth’ > gură.-. ~ guri.-.+-. +-., roată.-. ~ roate.-.+-.+-. ‘wheel’ > roată.. ~ roţi.-.+-.+-.). The word soră ‘sister’ < also seems to have had an originally invariant singular soru (the survival of dialectal forms such as adnominal soru-ti ‘your sister’ beside surori in the plural corroborates this hypothesis). Two things have happened to this word, both of which preserve the integrity of the general paradigmatic distributional pattern of feminines: the ending -ori of the plural has been extended into the genitive–dative singular, leaving the nominative-accusative singular untouched; the second, probably later, change is that the anomalous (and characteristically masculine) ending -u of the nominative–accusative singular has been replaced by a typically feminine ending -ă, but this change of inflexion class has had no repercussions on the genitive–dative singular form or on the plural forms. A negative example of the morphological integrity of the genitive–dative singular and the plural cells of feminines is provided by the (regional and archaic) word nea ‘snow’, which according to most grammars and dictionaries is ‘defective’ in all cells except the nominative–accusative singular. A similar sensitivity to the pattern of distribution of alternation in feminines arises in the history of feminine diminutive suffixes (see Maiden 1999; this volume §7.2). The Romanian reflex of the Latin feminine suffix -, namely -ea, tends to be replaced by a different feminine diminutive suffix, -ică. This substitution is normally limited, however, to the nominative–accusative singular, leading to a suppletive distribution such that -ică in that cell alternates with -ele (the adnominal and plural allomorph of -ea) in the genitive–dative singular and in the plural. Thus, for example, the older rândunea.-. ‘swallow’ ~ rândunele.-. +-.+-. has been replaced by rândunică.-. ~ rândunele.-. +-.+-..
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
102 This integrity of the distributional pattern of allomorphy in feminine nouns is notably broken in just one case. At issue is the series of feminine nouns with plurals in -uri (described in more detail in §2.2.3), where older regular plurals identical to the adnominal singular (e.g. ierbi, cărni, ceţi, gheţi, mâncări, otrăvi, vremi, blane, lefe, trebe; cf. Frâncu 1982b, 1997b: 118–19) have been replaced by forms in -uri. These nouns usually have distinct forms respectively for the nominative–accusative singular, the genitive–dative singular, and the plural, and thereby constitute exceptions to the generalization that the inflexional paradigm of Romanian nouns comprises only two word forms. Some examples are given in Table 2.11.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 2.11 Some Romanian feminine nouns with three word forms -. aramă ‘brass’ blană ‘fur’ carne ‘meat’ ceartă ‘dispute’ ceaţă ‘fog’ cerneală ‘ink’ dulceaţă ‘jam’ făină ‘flour’ gheaţă ‘ice’ greaţă ‘revulsion’ iarbă ‘grass’ lână ‘wool’ leafă ‘pay’ lipsă ‘lack’ marfă ‘merchandise’ mătase ‘silk’ otravă ‘poison’ pastramă ‘pastrame’ treabă ‘businesss’ verdeaţă ‘vegetation’ zeamă ‘gravy’ bunătate ‘goodness’ fineţe ‘fineness’ mâncare ‘food’ onoare ‘honour’ sare ‘salt’ vreme ‘time’
-. arame blăni cărni cerţi/certe ceţi cerneli dulceţi făini gheţi greţi ierbi lâni lefi lipse mărfi mătăsi otrăvi pastrami trebi verdeţi zemi bunătăţi fineţi mâncări onori sari vremi
-=-. arămuri blănuri cărnuri certuri ceţuri cerneluri dulceţuri făinuri gheţuri greţuri ierburi lânuri lefuri lipsuri mărfuri mătăsuri otrăvuri pastrămuri treburi verdeţuri zemuri bunătăţuri fineţuri mâncăruri onoruri săruri vremuri
As this list (which is almost exhaustive) shows, nearly all the words affected are mass nouns. Since mass nouns cannot, by their nature, have a plural interpretation (which of course presupposes countability), the morphological plural of such nouns must involve a semantic distinction from the singular. The plural forms of these nouns are often best glossed as referring to different sorts or varieties of the entity designated by the corresponding singulars forms (cf. Frâncu 1997b: 119). More generally, such plurals may involve an irregular semantic relationship with their singular. The plural of rămășiță ‘remainder’, rămăşiţuri, which was common in the eighteenth century,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
103
designated not ‘sorts of remaining things’ but apparently a collectivity: ‘(mortal) remains’. Frâncu (1982b) observes that twentieth-century incursions of the ending -uri into nouns that lack mass value, such as legiuri ‘laws’ or grădinuri ‘gardens’, have a slangy, ephemeral nature. In reality, feminine nouns in -uri may show characteristics often associated with what Acquaviva (2008: 107–8) calls ‘lexical plurals’: inherently plural nouns, which constitute separate lexical entries from the corresponding singular forms and tend to stand in a derivational rather than inflexional relation to them. A kind of negative support for the notion that the rise of feminines with three word forms in Romanian is confined to cases where there is a semantic difference between singular and plural emerges from comparisons with Aromanian and MeglenoRomanian.³⁸³ There feminine nouns do not inflect for case; hence the two forms that constitute the entire paradigm of a feminine noun simply express the singular and the plural respectively (Table 2.12). Table 2.12 Alignment of the two word Istro-Romanian where three-word forms with number in Aromanian
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
- ˈfe̯atɨ ‘girl’ ˈfe̯ati ˈko̯adɨ ‘tail’ ˈkoʣ muˈʎari ‘woman’ muˈʎerʲ ˈsorә ‘sister’ suˈrәrʲ -
There has been considerable analogical extension of the ending -uri to feminine nouns in these dialects as well, but the striking difference from Romanian is that the introduction of -uri is much more widespread in the lexicon, and not subject to semantic restrictions. This seems to be possible precisely because the result does not violate the otherwise general rule that nouns have only two forms and that the distinction they express is one of number (Tables 2.13, 2.14). Table 2.13 -urʲ plurals in Aromanian (Kruševo, Macedonia) aˈmakse ˈgʲole hәˈire ˈhane ˈjarbә ˈkale ˈkas ˈkʲefe ˈluminә ˈmasә ˈne̯ao
aˈmәksurʲ ˈgʲolurʲ hәˈirurʲ/hәˈirʲ ˈhәnurʲ ˈjerburʲ ˈkәʎurʲ ˈkәsurʲ/ˈkase ˈkʲefurʲ ˈluminurʲ ˈmәsurʲ ˈneurʲ
‘carriage’ ‘lake’ ‘profit’ ‘inn’ ‘grass’ ‘road’ ‘house’ ‘party’ ‘light’ ‘table’ ‘snow’
ˈpade ˈʃkʲepe ˈstrungә ˈtsәtsә ˈʧinә ˈuʃә ˈvale urˈnekʲe urˈsiʧe vәsiˈlii ̯
ˈpәdurʲ ˈʃkʲepurʲ ˈstrungurʲ ˈtsәtsurʲ ˈʧinurʲ ˈuʃurʲ ˈvәʎurʲ/ˈvәʎʲ urˈnekʲurʲ urˈsiʧurʲ vәsiˈliiu̯ rʲ
‘valley with meadow’ ‘scarf ’ ‘sort gate’ ‘breast’ ‘dinner’ ‘door’ ‘valley’ ‘model’ ‘cub’ ‘kingdom’
³⁸³ For an interpretation of a handful of instances in the northern dialect of Istro-Romanian where threeword-form feminines do arise (e.g. ˈvɑka.-. ‘cow’ ~ ˈvɑke.-. ~ vɑʧ.-./-.), see Maiden (2015: 48).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
104 Table 2.14 -ur plurals in Megleno-Romanian ˈbaɲә ˈbafʧә ˈfo̯ali ˈjarbә ˈkali ˈlɔnә
ˈbәɲur ˈbәfʧur ˈfoʎur/ˈfoʎ ˈjerbur ˈkәʎur ˈlɔnur
‘bath’ ‘garden’ ‘bellows’ ‘grass’ ‘road’ ‘wool’
ˈmanʤә ˈnari ˈvali ˈviɲә ˈvreami mәˈtasi
ˈmanʤur ˈnɔrur/nɔr ˈvәʎur ˈviɲur ˈvremur mәˈtәsur
‘food’ ‘nose’ ‘valley’ ‘vine’ ‘time’ ‘silk’
In short, in Daco-Romance generally, the constraint that noun paradigms are made up of no more than two forms—together with the fact that the distribution in feminines is not clearly aligned either with number or with case—is very strong, both synchronically and diachronically, and can be violated only where there is lack of perfect semantic identity between singular and plural.
2.7 Idiosyncratic irregularities
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.7.1 Idiosyncratic remnants of Latin imparisyllabics Many Latin third-declension lexemes showed root allomorphy between the nominative singular (together with the neuter accusative singular) on the one hand and the rest of the paradigm on the other. Typical of this class were differences in the number of syllables and differences of stress and of segmental content. This type survives sporadically in Romanian, one prominent set of examples being genus alternans nouns of the type piept ‘breast’ ~ piepturi (< ~ ), as discussed in §2.3. A handful of other imparisyllabic nouns inherited from Latin continue to show irregular inflexion. There is om ‘human being’ ~ oameni, cap ‘head’ ~ capete, sor(u)/soră ‘sister’ ~ surori, nor(u)/noră ‘daughter-in-law’ ~ surori, jude ‘judge’ ~ judeci, nume ‘name’ ~ numere, and old Romanian mamă/ mumă ‘mother’ ~ mămâni/mumâni; tată ‘father’ ~ tătâni; frate ‘brother’ ~ frățâni/frățini. All these nouns show irregular inflexion, whether we analyse them in the traditional manner of Romanian linguistics, as having a special desinence in the plural ([enj], [ete], [orj], [(e)ʧ], [(e)re]), or whether we speak of irregular allomorphy of the lexical root. Over time, some of these forms have been subject to analogical levelling (the singular usually being remodelled on the plural, but sometimes the reverse). At one extreme there is the type om ‘human being’ ~ oameni (< ~ ), which has retained its irregular character through time and space, at the other nume ‘name’ ~ nume, which, although originally imparisyllabic ( ~ ), has lost its irregular character at an early date, becoming invariant.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
105
In general, Romanian nouns and adjectives appear to be derived from the Latin accusative, but the masculine and feminine imparisyllabic singulars continue Latin nominative singular forms (e.g. ´ > om; ´ > soru/soră), there being no trace in Romanian, at any period, of continuants of, say, the accusatives ó or ´ ); anyway, in Latin neuter imparisyllabics (as in all neuters) the accusative is morphologically identical to the nominative (e.g. = . ~ = . ). Not all the nouns that preserve the Latin nominative singular of the imparisyllabic declension necessarily continue to be imparisyllabic in Romanian, the plural form apparently having been remodelled on the singular, thereby producing a regular paradigm (e.g. . ´ ~ . ´ ). Most, but not all (e.g. ORo. nume ‘name’ ~ numere) the nouns preserving this irregularity are [+human] and of high frequency, for example kinship terms.³⁸⁴ Om ~ oameni is the most stable noun of this type, both in diachrony and across the Daco-Romance varieties. These forms are recorded in the oldest texts (e.g. un om ~ oaminii).³⁸⁵ Some old texts show a tendency to eliminate the historically regular vowel alternation in favour of the singular vowel (e.g. omini).³⁸⁶ In the Istro-Romanian of Žejane, om is also assigned to the regular class of nouns that form their in plural -ure, which yields om ~ ˈomure, but only in the sense of ‘husband, man’³⁸⁷ (in this dialect the plural in -ure may characterize animate nouns and show masculine agreement). Otherwise in this variety of Istro-Romanian the same noun has ˈomir (intervocalic [n] is regularly rhotacized). In the Daco-Romanian dialect of the Oaș area, om in the sense of ‘husband, man’ has produced an occasional analogical feminine oamă ‘wife, woman’ ( oame); (see also DLR, s.v. oamă). The irregular plural of nume ‘name’, numere,³⁸⁸ is almost general in northern texts until the mid-seventeenth century. Numere continues (the change of [n] to [r] is here a matter of consonantal dissimilation).³⁸⁹ In sixteenth-century southern texts, the irregular plural was eliminated in favour of a form identical to that of the singular, namely nume (e.g. multe nume are³⁹⁰ ‘it has many names’): this entails the emergence of a new type of genus alternans plural, namely one in which the plural is identical to the singular (pronume ‘pronoun’ and prenume ‘forename’ follow the model of nume). From the mid-seventeenth century on, the irregular plural numere, preserved in the north, begins to be challenged by the invariant plural nume (e.g. numele acelora sămt scrise³⁹¹ ‘their names are written’).³⁹² While Daco-Romanian has acquired the invariant form nume, in Megleno-Romanian the number opposition in this word is marked as ˈnumi ~ ˈnumiti, by analogy with kap ‘head’ ~ ˈkapiti (Atanasov 1984: 511). The inflexional morphology of jude ‘judge’ is also diachronically unstable, being rivalled by morphologically regular alternatives or by the word’s tendency to level its ³⁸⁴ For survival of nominative forms, see for example Smith (2011: 281–9). ³⁸⁵ DÎ I. ³⁸⁶ DÎ LXXX, LXXXV. ³⁸⁷ Kovačec (1984: 562). ³⁸⁸ PH, CV. ³⁸⁹ One might suspect the effect of northern rhotacism of intervocalic [n], were it not for the fact that numere occurs in northern texts at a period when rhotacism is no longer observed. ³⁹⁰ CC². ³⁹¹ CazV. ³⁹² For the marginal singular form număr in the sense ‘name’ (distinct from număr ‘number’), possibly analogically remodelled on the plural numere, see also Pușcariu (1936–8: 407).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
106 root allomorphy in favour of either the plural or the singular. Old Romanian jude had plural judeci, reflecting Latin . ~ . In the meaning ‘lord, leader’, (gi)/jude, (gi)/judeci is well attested in the sixteenth century, but alternative lexemes with regular inflexion begin to appear alongside it: Vietorilor, amu, întru Ierusalim şi judecii lor³⁹³ ‘those coming to Jerusalem and their judges’ vs viitori în Ierusalim şi judeaţele lor³⁹⁴ ‘those coming to Jerusalem and their judges’. In the sense ‘judge’,³⁹⁵ the word has a rival form (gi)/judecător(iu) with the agentive suffix -tor(iu), but there is also a rarer rival form județ (< ). Both of these have regular morphology: giudéci, năroadele toate³⁹⁶ ‘judges, all peoples’ vs boieri și toți judecătorii pământului³⁹⁷ ‘boyars and all the judges of the earth’. In the old language this noun is also subject to analogical levelling: a singular judec or judece begins to be analogically created from the plural judeci, or a plural (gi)/juzi is created on the basis of singular jude (e.g. la giudzi de țigani³⁹⁸ ‘to judges of gypsies’). The regularized singular appears first when the noun is used in the sense ‘free peasant’, especially in documents from the Țara Românească; the regularized singular appears first in contexts where the name means ‘chief, leader’, although it could still also have the sense of ‘judge’ or ‘mayor’, this form remaining in use until late in part of Transylvania (see Pop 1931–3: 68; see also DA s.v. jude). Both judec ~ judeci and jude ~ juzi show regular inflexional patterns. Modern dictionaries give juzi as the plural of jude in all senses. In old Romanian cap ‘head’ has a plural capete for all the senses associated with it (‘head’, ‘extremity’, ‘end’, ‘chief ’, ‘chapter’), while (standard) modern Romanian presents both a regular and an irregular plural for this word: cei ce-ş tunseră capetele³⁹⁹ ‘those who shaved their heads’; fieri cu arepi şi cu [ . . . ] trei capete⁴⁰⁰ ‘beasts with wings and three heads’; Den capetele pământului cătră tine chemaiu⁴⁰¹ ‘I called out to you from the ends of the earth’; doo capete a lanțurilor⁴⁰² ‘two ends of the chains’; nu avea războaie cu striinii, ce numai cu capetele legiei creştineşti⁴⁰³ ‘he had no quarrel with foreigners, but ony with the heads of the Christian legion’; cum grăiaşte şi Sfăntul Pavel apostol cătră corinteani, 14 capete⁴⁰⁴ ‘as the apostle St Paul says to the Corinthians, 14 chapters’. The first modification involves remodelling the singular on the basis of the plural, namely capăt from capete, and the form occurs in the senses ‘extremity, edge’ and ‘start’ or ‘finish’, and also ‘chapter’ (although neither cap nor capăt become established in the language in this last sense, which is calqued on Sl. glavă): adecă capăt sau sfârşit⁴⁰⁵ ‘that is the end or the finish’, dintr-un capăt pînă la alt capăt ‘from one end to the other end’,⁴⁰⁶ în capătul aceştii ţări⁴⁰⁷ ‘at the end of this land’; În al patrule capăt aceştii cărţulie⁴⁰⁸ ‘in the fourth chapter of this document’. Singular capăt ~ capete has become very well established in the language. In the modern spoken variety, especially in colloquial registers, we find a new tendency, not accepted as standard, to regularize the plural in the form capături (e.g. capăturile lungi ale tentaculelor ‘the long ends of the tentacles’, capăturile periferice ale nervului ‘the ³⁹³ ³⁹⁶ ⁴⁰² ⁴⁰⁸
CB. DPV. PO. VRC.
³⁹⁴ CPr. ³⁹⁷ BB. ⁴⁰³ MC.
³⁹⁵ The form in this sense is attested until late in Transylvania (DA, s.v. jude). ³⁹⁹ CV. ⁴⁰⁰ CTd. ⁴⁰¹ CP¹. ³⁹⁸ DRH.A.XXIII. ⁴⁰⁴ CT. ⁴⁰⁵ DPV. ⁴⁰⁶ CII.~1705. ⁴⁰⁷ CII.~1705.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
107
peripheral ends of the nerve’). This shows not only regularization of the plural (by assigning it to the -uri class), but also the differentiation of the plural forms of two words that have acquired separate representations in the mental lexicon. The old period also sees the appearance of the regular plural form capuri⁴⁰⁹ (un şarpe cu capuri multe ‘a serpent with many heads’). Modern plural capuri corresponds to singular cap, borrowed from Fr. cap in the sense ‘cape, headland’. In the modern spoken variety, capuri may also be, as in the old language, the plural of cap ‘head of an animal’ (e.g. capurile de pui ‘head(s) of young [of animals]’; again, the morphological difference is correlated with the semantic distinction [+/-human], capete being associated with humans and capuri with non-human referents, just as in the old language. Dialectally (especially Transylvania and Bucovina), plural capuri can have both human and non-human reference (neamurile [ . . . ] cu capurile descoperite ‘peoples with their heads uncovered’, Marian 1892: 272; DA, s.v. cap). In Istro-Romanian we find, likewise, a tendency for analogical levelling in the plural, which results in ˈkɒpure (Kovačec 1984: 559). Another kind of regular plural of cap, namely the masculine plural form capi, becomes established later in the history of the language (it is attested in the nineteenth century) with the meaning ‘chiefs, leaders’. This is unlike all other manifestations of cap in that it is not genus alternans, having human reference. Oaspe ‘guest’ ~ oaspeți (< ~ ) is another inherited imparisyllabic that retains its irregular character throughout the old period: nu se cade să-i vie oaspe la casa lui⁴¹⁰ ‘it is not fitting that a guest should come to his house’; Du-te acasă şi adu calulu să ducemu cestu oaspe⁴¹¹ ‘Go home and bring a horse so that we may bring this guest’; să fie, [ . . . ] întreg de minte, iubitoriu de oaspeţi şi învăţătoriu⁴¹² ‘that he be of sound mind and a lover of guests and studious’. As with other imparisyllabics, there has been a tendency to level the singular on the model of the plural. The resulting singular oaspete has then replaced oaspe: să aştepţi iarăş oaspetele acela că va veni⁴¹³ ‘await again the guest who will come’. The modern singular form has the ending -e, being possibly influenced by the ending of oaspe. We also find a singular oaspet (BudaiDeleanu 1818, s.v. oaspet)/oaspăt (Lesnea 1943: 130) (for the vocalic alterations, see type V1 in §1.5). In addition, there is oaspeț ~ oaspeți (e.g. veni oaspeţul şi robi pre împăratul⁴¹⁴ ‘the guest came and enslaved the king’, vs primiră pre oaspeţi⁴¹⁵ ‘they received the guests’). Oaspe(te) does not morphologically indicate gender, and speakers have resorted to various strategies to do so, by selecting feminine determiners (oaspetea, see Scriban 1939 s.v. oaspete) or by creating either a plural oaspete (and thereby making the feminine plural identical to the singular oaspete: see DA/DLR s.v. oaspe) or a singular oaspeță (Tiktin 1911, s.v.). A similar strategy was adopted in Aromanian, in . ˈo̯aspitә, ˈo̯aspite. This is more likely to be an analogical creation than a reflex of a Latin feminine *hospita, as suggested by Papahagi (Papahagi 1974, s.v. oaspe). The least stable imparisyllabics turn out to be sor(ă) ‘sister’ ~ surori and nor(ă) ‘daughter-in-law’ ~ nurori. There is far more morphological variation in these words ⁴⁰⁹ CDicț. ⁴¹⁴ Mărg.
⁴¹⁰ CPrav. ⁴¹⁵ Mărg.
⁴¹¹ CSIX.
⁴¹² CPr.
⁴¹³ CazV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
108 diachronically and dialectally than in the standard language. From the point of view of their development, these two nouns are irregular at three levels: they have an atypical ending in the singular; their plural presents what may be viewed either as an atypical desinence or an atypical root allomorph; and they show stress alternation. The singular ending tends to be replaced by characteristically feminine endings in -ă (soru/sor, noru/nor > soră, noră),⁴¹⁶ and the plural ending tends to be replaced by normal endings for feminine plurals and by the corresponding extension of the monosyllabic roots of the singular, whence sori or sore, nori or nore. The direction of such regularization also depends on whether speakers have analysed the plural as comprising an irregular root allomorph followed by a regular ending -i (suror-i, nuror-i); in this case the we may find a nominative–accusative singular suroră, nuroră, refashioned on the model of suror-i and nuror-i. Throughout the old period the most frequent forms were sor(u) ~ surori, nor(u) ~ nurori,⁴¹⁷ the first to be modified being the form in -u (rivalled by forms that drop -u), which came to be limited to contexts where it was combined with the possessive affix. The forms in -u survived especially in combination with the possessive affix, a context in which they began to be rivalled by the the type sor in the early decades of the seventeenth century. To this day, the combination soru-mea coexists with the type sanctioned by the literary norm (sora mea) and with the type sormea, as attested by the linguistic atlases. The atlases also show a preference for the type soru-mea in the western half of Muntenia and in Oltenia, Banat, and Crișana (north of Crișul Repede). While found in Moldova, this type is secondary to sor-mea and to ˈsorәme̯a/ˈsorɨme̯a. The forms with the characteristically feminine ending -ă began to appear more frequently towards the end of the eighteenth century (although attested earlier, they are in a minority by comparison with sor and nor). From the seventeenth century on we find the type suror(ă) (e.g. au dat suroră-me Mariei ‘they gave to my sister Maria’, from a document of 1728: see Buletinul Comisiei istorice a României 1915), created by analogy with the plural and the genitive–dative singular; suroră-me occurs instead of surori-mea, where surori- is felt as a plural. This type is attested in the nineteenth century in Muntenian writers (e.g. suror in Heliade Rădulescu 1939: 390) and is not unknown in Moldovan writers either (it occurs e.g. in 1859, in the letters of Alecsandri: ţeara vecină şi suroră ‘a neighbouring and sister land’); it survives to this day in southern Daco-Romanian varieties, albeit only occasionally (e.g. in Oltenia). Not only did the singular acquire a desinence characteristic of feminines or modify its root under the influence of the plural, but the irregular plural forms were transformed by analogy with the singular. The results of this analogical levelling are plurals of the type sore and nore, sori and nori, which are not associated with any one specific dialect area. The same tendency is observable in colloquial registers of the spoken language. The norms of the literary language require for soră in the sense of ‘nursing sister, nurse’ a hybrid type of inflexion, where the plural is still irregular surori but the
⁴¹⁶ The unexpected vowel of nor(u), noră (< Latin ˘), is probably due to the analogical influence of ‘sister’. Malkiel (1992), has a rather different view, principally invoking the influence of ‘mother-in-law’. ⁴¹⁷ For other, less frequent variants, see Uță Bărbulescu and Zamfir (2018: 907–30).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
109
genitive–dative singular is sorei (see DOOM², s.v soră₂). The tendency in the spoken language is to regularize not only the plural but also the genitive–dative singular, regardless of the sense of the word.
2.7.2 Imparisyllabics of the type mamă ~ mămâni
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
There is one other feminine imparisyllabic, namely mamă/mumă ‘mother’ ~ mămâni/mumâni, and it comes from the (late) Latin type mamma ~ mammanes (cf. Meyer-Lübke 1895: §18, 1900: 188–9; Jud 1907; Maiden 2016c: 704).⁴¹⁸ As is characteristic of feminine nouns and adjectives, the plural form mămâni/mumâni is also that of the genitive–dative singular (examples 105–8): (105)
Că alalte mumâni, mai nainte până nu nascu, nu se cade mumă a se zice loru⁴¹⁹ ‘That other mothers, one should not call them “mother” until they give birth.’
(106)
pieptul mumânilor sale⁴²⁰ ‘their mothers’ breast’
(107)
în pântecele mumâni-sa⁴²¹ ‘in his mother’s belly’
(108)
după aceaia mumâniei sale deade⁴²² ‘after that he gave to his mother’
What is remarkable is that, in the old language, tată ‘father’ ~ tătâni, from the (late) Latin type tata ~ tatanes, follows the same inflexional pattern as mamă/ mumă, thereby constituting an almost unique case of a masculine noun that inflects in the manner of a feminine, by marking the genitive–dative case in the singular by means of the form that is also found in the plural: (109)
Scriu voao, feţi, că cunoscutu Tatăl. Scriu voao, tătâni, că cunoscutu dintru întâiul.⁴²³ ‘I write to you, children, for you knew the Father. I write to you, fathers, for you knew him first.’
(110)
Şi cînd aceasta tătâni-său şi fraţilor ară fi spus, certă-l pre el tată-său ceasta dzicând⁴²⁴ ‘And when he said this to his father and brothers, his father scolded him, saying this’
⁴¹⁸ For the various modern Romanian morphological continuants of these nouns, and their historical phonological variants, see for example Densusianu (1938: 31f., 113, 135, 148). ⁴¹⁹ CC². ⁴²⁰ Ev. ⁴²¹ CC². ⁴²² CC. ⁴²³ CB. ⁴²⁴ PO.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
110 The singular tătâni cannot plausibly derive from a late Latin singular case form tatani(s), because tătâni as a distinctive masculine singular genitive–dative case form would be completely isolated: there is simply no other example of the preservation of genitive or dative masculine singular case morphology in nouns or adjectives anywhere in the Daco-Romance linguistic area. Rather, given the semantic parallelism between ‘mother’ and ‘father’, the phonological similarity between them, and the fact that tată has an ending overwhelmingly characteristic of feminine rather than masculine nouns, it is plausible that tată has been attracted analogically into the ‘feminine’ inflexional pattern of mamă. There is a parallel for this development in the behaviour of masculine popă ‘priest’, which has the plural popi and (at least as a definite noun) the genitive–dative popii, showing a characteristically feminine form of the definite article (cf. ..- floarea ‘the flower’, ..- florii ‘of/to the flower’, flori ‘flowers’). There is other evidence in Romanian for isolated morphological idiosyncrasies being analogically disseminated among kinship terms (cf. the type noră ~ nurori modelled on soră ~ surori, and other morphosyntactic peculiarities of kinship terms discussed in §8.3.1). There is one other masculine kinship term in -âni that behaves in the same way, namely frate ‘brother’. This noun sometimes took a plural form frățini (or frățâni), but it also showed frățini (or frățâni) in the genitive–dative singular. As Coteanu (1969e: 34) suggests, the morphology of the word is probably modelled on that of mumă ~ mumâni, and perhaps especially on that of tată ~ tătâni (see also Rosetti 1986: 487). However, frățini evinces two morphological details that are extremely significant for the general thesis that the -âni genitive–dative form originated as a plural, on the model provided by feminine nouns generally, and does not continue a Latin genitive or dative singular form.⁴²⁵ First, wherever and whenever frățini or frățâni is attested, it shows the root allomorph [frәʦ]-, with the affricate, and absolutely never **[frәt]-. Bogrea (1926: 898) also notes the dialectal forms bărbățâne(-mieu) ‘(my) husband’ and cumnățâne(-mieu) ‘(my) brother-in-law’, from northern Moldova; again, these display the affricate root-final consonant. Second, unlike the relevant forms of the words for ‘mother’ and ‘father’, which always contain -ân-, the form for ‘brother’ may contain instead -[in]- (e.g. frățini, as well as frățâni); indeed, we find exclusively frățini in the earliest texts. Now, the oldest and most widespread Daco-Romance word for ‘brother’ is represented by the standard Romanian frate, plural frați [fraʦj], where the affricate in the plural is a phonologically regular outcome for dentals before high front vowels, as we find in *'frati (cf. ~ > *'dente ~ 'denti > dinte ‘tooth’ ~ dinți ‘teeth’). Crucially, in the morphology of frate, the affricate is specific to the plural; the same applies to the forms bărbățâne ‘man, husband’ and cumnățâne ‘brother-in-law’, where the corresponding basic forms are singular bărbat, cumnat and plural bărbați, cumnați. The stressed vowel [i], instead of [ɨ], in frățini has a clear phonological explanation, the palatal element of plural frați [fraʦj] being phonologically ⁴²⁵ The insight that frățâni is formed on the plural frați is also found in Candrea & Densusianu (1907–14 s.v. frate); Scurtu (1966: 117); and Pușcariu (1994: 268).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
111
incompatible with an immediately following [ɨ]. The regular Romanian development of Romance *[an] is -ân- ([ɨn]), as illustrated by > *paˈganu > păgân ‘pagan’, > *kanˈtandu > cântând ‘singing’. However (see Rothe 1957: 17), when * [an] is preceded by a high front vowel or glide, the outcome is -in- ([in]), as in > *kreˈstjanu > *kreˈstjɨnu > creștin ‘Christian’, > *veˈglandu > *veˈgʎɨndә > *veˈgjɨndә > veghind ‘waking’. The emergence of frățin- is consistent with this form being built not merely on the plural root allomorph, but on the entire inflected word form of the plural, namely palatalized frați ([fraʦj]): the combination of this form with the suffix -ɨn- therefore inevitably yields frățin-. The evidence from old Romanian shows singular frățini exclusively as a genitive–dative, in alternation with frate in the nominative–accusative singular (111–12): (111)
iară soru-mea cu fratele muierii meale nici într-un chip, nice feciorul frăținimieu sau fata, cătră însurarea nepoților să nu-i ameastece⁴²⁶ ‘and my sister with the brother of my wife in any way, nor the son of my brother or his daughter let him join in matrimony with his nephews’
(112)
Împărățiia lu Iraclon, frățini-său⁴²⁷ ‘The kingdom of Iraclon, (of) his brother’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
There remains, however, a difficulty for the argument that the genitive–dative in -ân- (-in-) has its origins in plural forms: occasionally in early texts (e.g. Densusianu 1938: 146–7; Rosetti 1986: 487), and almost universally in modern dialects where the -ân- forms persist, the singular ends in -e (mămâne, tătâne, frățâne).⁴²⁸ Here are some early attestations: (113)
Blâstămat iaste înaintea lui D[u]mn[e]dzău carele-ş face ruşine tătâne-său şi măne-sa.⁴²⁹ ‘Cursed is he before God who brings shame to his father and to his mother.’
(114)
Însuşi tremese îngerul său şi luo-me de la oile tătânelui mieu, şi unse-me cu untura ungerea sa.⁴³⁰ ‘He himself sent his angel and he took me from my father’s sheep, and he annointed me with his ointment.’
(115)
alte semenții a mâne-sa și a tătâne-său⁴³¹ ‘other seeds of his mother and of his father’
⁴²⁶ Prav. 1640. ⁴²⁷ MC. ⁴²⁸ See e.g. ALRRMunteniaDobrogea maps 119, 120, 125; ALRTransilvania plate 14; NALROltenia plate 13. Despite Rothe’s implication to the contrary (Rothe 1957: 67), there is no clear evidence for any occurrence of singular -âni in modern Romanian. ⁴²⁹ PA. ⁴³⁰ PS. ⁴³¹ Prav.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
112
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
The ending -e is actually every bit as problematic for the view that it continues Latin genitive or dative forms as it is for the alternative view, that the singular forms in -ânoriginate in plural forms. Whether the origin is, say, plural tatanes or genitive–dative singular tatanĭs/tatanī, the expected outcome should still be tătâni:⁴³² as argued in Maiden (1996), the reflexes of -ĭ, -ī, and - should all regularly merge as *-i. Maiden (2019b)⁴³³ reviews two possible explanations, namely that the -âne singular forms are actually remnants of old accusative forms in -, or that feminine singular genitive–dative -âne reflects a reanalysis of the ending as containing the common derivational suffix -ân-, whose feminine genitive–dative and plural is -âne. Whatever the answer may be, the modern singular forms in -âne could simply be an original (Latin accusative) singular ending. Most importantly, the singular in -âne, however it may be explained, does not contradict the claim that old Romanian singular genitive– dative forms in -âni are in origin plural forms and that a masculine singular form of a word meaning ‘brother’ is evidence that Romanian feminine genitive–dative singular forms originated as (case-invariant) plurals. What frățini (in particular) reveals unambiguously is that such a form was created as a plural; indeed, the element -âni seems to have been grafted on to the original plural form frați. The conclusion that singular frățini is in origin a plural in turn lends weight to the view that tătâni and mumâni, on which frățini seems to be modelled, are themselves originally plurals, and to the further insight that mumâni, almost literally the mother of these other forms, is one example of a development that is postulated for feminine nouns generally (see §2.4.2.1): namely that the modern syncretism, among feminines, between the genitive–dative singular and the plural is an effect of the analogical introduction of plural forms into the singular, a process in turn modelled on those feminine nouns and adjectives where that syncretism came about as an accidental effect of sound change.
2.7.3 The type ferăstrău ~ ferăstraie There is a class of Romanian genus alternans nouns, overwhelmingly of Hungarian origin⁴³⁴ and typically regional, which designate tools or instruments. These nouns have a special pattern of alternation: singular -ău vs plural in -aie—as for example in ferăstrău ‘saw’ ~ ferăstraie or hârdău ‘wooden pail’ ~ hârdaie. The singular -ău renders Hungarian -ö/-ó (e.g. fürésztö,⁴³⁵ hordó), possibly via a stage *[ou] > *[әu] (cf. Philippide 2011: 324). Historically and to this day, in most dialects except the ones spoken in Muntenia and Dobrogea, the plural of these words ends in -auă (cf. ALRII map 553), where final -ă reflects the process described in §1.5: original final feminine
⁴³² Pace Rosetti (1986: 131). ⁴³³ Maiden also argues that there is no good evidence, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, that the modern singulars in -âne have specifically genitive–dative function. ⁴³⁴ In some cases, only the ending may be of Hungarian origin: e.g. in regional crăcălău a two-pronged object for suspending a bucket, the initial element is Romanian crac ‘leg’. See also Graur (1968: 148–9). ⁴³⁵ But this word is not directly attested in Hungarian. Cf. Sala (2006: 40–1).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
113
-[e] preceded by a labial glide becomes [ә] (cf. *ˈo̯awe ‘eggs’ > ouă). The modern plural ending -e is analogically restored on the basis of other genus alternans nouns in plural -e (the i [j] of -aie has a purely phonological explanation, in hiatus). The problem, rather, is the stressed a of the plural: why ferăstrauă (ferăstraie) rather than ferăstrăuă (ferăstrăie)—although the latter type really does occur in some varieties?⁴³⁶ However, this alternation displays a striking phonological parallel to the alternations (discussed in §1.5) between the mid-vowels [e] and [o] and their diphthongized alternants, respectively [ea] and [oa], whose nucleus is the maximally open vowel [a]. Like the back-mid and front-mid vowels, the central-mid vowel [ә] in -ău also has a maximally open alternant in [a], and that alternant has the same phonotactic distribution, occurring originally before unstressed [e] and [ә] (cf. ou < ˈowu ‘egg’ ~ ORo. oaoă < ˈowe, ferăstrău ~ ferăstrauă, des < ˈdesu ‘thick’ ~ deasă < ˈdesa). An [ә] ~ [a] alternation also differentiates masculine second- and third-person possessive adjectives from their feminine counterparts: . tău . ta (< *ˈtou, *ˈtoa), . său . sa (< *ˈsou, *ˈsoa). While the exact details remain problematic, a phonological origin for the alternation -ău ~ -auă/-aie involving the opening of mid-vowels immediately before non-high unstressed vowels seems plausible. One can further consult Tiktin (1888: 234) and Philippide (2011: 447).⁴³⁷ An interesting variant of the -ău ~ -aie type is pârău ‘stream, brook’ ~ pâraie. This word has acquired an alternative (and today fairly general) form pârâu. However, this change is limited to the singular and the plural pâraie has remained unaffected. Consequently, this word now has a unique pattern of number alternation ( pârâu ~ pâraie). The word shares an origin with Albanian përrua and happens to be close to the native Romanian word râu ‘river’ (< Latin ) not only semantically but also phonologically, in that the final syllable of pârău (-[rәu̯]) differs from it in only one degree of vowel height: [rɨu̯]. This fact has favoured a folk-etymological replacement of the final syllable of pârău by râu (cf. Rosetti 1986: 252); yet this replacement generally occurs only in the singular. The phonologically less similar plural, pâraie, usually remains unaffected (the plural of the word for ‘river’ is râuri, and a corresponding plural pârâuri ‘streams’, while attested, is rare). The result is a kind of suppletion, and the fact that it can occur, and even persist, is indicative of a system that is characterized by often unpredictable plural forms, and is therefore tolerant of idiosyncratic innovations.
2.7.4 The type grâu ~ grâne Finally, the type grâu ‘grain, wheat’ ~ grâne ‘sowings of wheat, wheatfields’ continues Latin ‘grain, wheat’ ~ . The same alternation is observable, albeit less commonly, in frâu ‘rein’ ~ frâne < ~ , and sometimes in brâu ‘belt’ ⁴³⁶ See ALRII map 553, e.g. points 682, 531, 537. ⁴³⁷ But see also the editors’ note to Philippide (2011: 447).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
114 ~ brâne (of uncertain etymology); but it is restricted to just these three nouns. All of them have alternative, and more frequent, regular plurals grâie, frâie, brâie, apparently modelled on the singular.⁴³⁸ The explanation for this alternation type is unclear. Given the strong phonological resemblance between the three words, a phonologically motivated explanation seems plausible, but no thoroughly convincing account of the facts currently exists (see Sala 1976: 234–5 for a review of the phonological and morphological explanations attempted so far).
2.8 The history of morphologically invariant forms 2.8.1 Introduction Despite the fact that Romanian shows a very strong preference for distinguishing the singular from the plural (with the tendency to mark this distinction both in the inflexional ending and by root allomorphy: see §§1.5, 2.2), there is a small class of invariant nouns that, except when they bear the suffixed definite article,⁴³⁹ display one and the same form in the singular and the plural, and in both grammatical cases.⁴⁴⁰ This also applies to a small class of adjectives, which, in addition to showing invariance with respect to number and case, are also gender-invariant.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
2.8.2 Inventory of invariant nouns according to gender Overall, there are few invariant nouns, and they are recorded both in the current and in the old language. Different explanations have been proposed for the existence of this class in the old as opposed to the modern language. When it comes to gender, invariance is distributed as follows in modern Romanian: i. The class of invariant masculine nouns consists of two phonologically differentiated subclasses: (1) nouns ending in the palatal consonants chi [c] and ghi [ɉ] and in the prepalatal consonant ci [ʧ]—a group that includes nouns formed with the suffix -aci. A few examples of nouns of this general type are genunchi ‘knee(s)’ [ʤeˈnunc], ochi ‘eye(s)’ [oc], rărunchi ‘kidney(s)’ [rәˈrunc], rinichi ⁴³⁸ The vowel i ([j]) has a purely phonological explanation in hiatus between [a] and [e]. These words also have occasional plurals grâuri, frâuri, brâuri. ⁴³⁹ As a result of the inflexional function of the enclitic article and of the distinct forms it displays (see §4.2), syncretism is partially solved in the case of articled forms ( pui ‘chicken’, but puiul ~ .. ‘chicken... ’ ≠ puii ~ .. ‘chicken...’; .. trecătoare ‘gorge’, but trecătoarea ~ .. ‘gorge...’ ≠ trecătoarele ~ .. ‘gorge...’. There are also forms which, even after attaching the definite article, remain sycretic, with an ambiguous grammatical interpretation (cf. pântece ~ /./. ‘stomach’; pântecele ‘stomach.’ ~ /../..); this is a consequence of homophony between a masculine singular allomorph of the definite article, -le, and plural -le. ⁴⁴⁰ Only singular feminine nouns have two different case forms, marked by specific endings (see §2.4).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
115
‘kidney(s)’ [riˈnic], unchi ‘uncle(s)’ [unc], arici ‘hedgehog(s)’ [aˈriʧ], cârmaci ‘steersman/-men’ [kɨrˈmaʧ], vraci ‘doctor(s), wizard(s)’ [vraʧ]); (2) nouns ending in a falling diphthong with the semivowel -i ̯ (e.g. ardei ‘pepper(s)’, tei ‘lime tree(s)’, pui ‘chicken(s)’, poliţai ‘police’)—a group that includes nouns formed with the augmentative sex-marking suffix -oi (e.g. muscoi ‘big fly’, broscoi ‘big frog’). Other members of the class of invariant masculines are nouns ending in -ache [ˈace]—including cases where this suffix has hypocoristic–diminutive value (e.g. cuţulache ‘little dog’)—and a monosyllabic noun that ends in ̯ asyllabic -i: puşti ‘lad’ [puʃti]). ii. The class of invariant feminine nouns contains: (1) nouns ending in the agentive suffix -toare⁴⁴¹ [to̯are] (the type cititoare ‘reader’, învăţătoare ‘primary school teacher’)—a group that includes generic nouns (vieţuitoare ‘living creature’)—or in the neological suffix -oare, in only partially analysable formations (e.g. posesoare ‘owner, possessor’, regizoare ‘stage director’); (2) old formations with the augmentative and sex-marking suffix -oaie [o̯aje] (căsoaie ‘big house(s)’, doftoroaie ‘doctor(s)’), but also several non-derived nouns (ghionoaie ‘woodpecker(s)’);⁴⁴² (3) old and new formations in -ce [ʧe] belonging to scientific terminology, such as cicatrice ‘scar(s)’, elice ‘propeller(s)’, matrice ‘matrix/matrices’, rectrice ‘rectrix/rectrices’; some of these are variants of regular forms (e.g. DOOM² registers two forms in alică/alice⁴⁴³ ‘propeller’~ alice ‘propellers’; cicatrice ‘scar’ ~ cicatrice/cicatrici). iii. Genus alternans nouns contain a very limited number of invariant nouns: nume ‘name(s)’ and words derived from it such as prenume ‘first name(s)’, pronume ‘pronoun(s)’, renume ‘renown’; and formations in -ce [ʧe] and -ge [ʤe], some of them old (pântece ‘abdomen’), others neologisms belonging to medical terminology (faringe ‘pharynx’, laringe ‘larynx’, meninge ‘meninx’, torace ‘thorax’). iv. Some invariants belong to the class of ‘common gender’ nouns with a human referent that function both as feminines and as masculines, according to the gender of the referent (Avram 2005: 64). Generally these formations belong to the familiar and popular register and have affective overtones. Most of them end either in a stressed or unstressed vowel that is generally characteristic of feminine nouns (e.g. haplea ‘glutton’, pepelea ‘smart, funny fellow given to mocking people’, prâslea ‘last-born child’) or in the suffix -ilă (e.g. surzilă ‘deaf person’, zăpăcilă ‘muddle-head’), or else they are compound formations
⁴⁴¹ Only formations in -oare and -toare as suffixes denoting a human are invariable. Otherwise, e.g. strânsoare ‘grip’, vânătoare ‘hunting’, strecurătoare ‘strainer’ ~ strânsori, vânători, strecurători, they are variable. ⁴⁴² Feminine nouns in -oaie are only invariable if -oaie is a suffix (cf. foaie ‘sheet.’ ~ foi ‘sheet.’, oaie ‘sheep.’ ~ oi ‘sheep.’). ⁴⁴³ The sign [/] indicates a relation of free variation.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
116 (e.g. gură-cască ‘gawper’, gură-spartă ‘chatterbox’, papă-lapte ‘milksop’: un/o papă-lapte ‘a./a.’, acestui/acestei/acestor papă-lapte, ‘this../this.../these .=. milksop(s)’).
2.8.3 Typology, causes, and history of invariant forms The class of invariant nouns, albeit not numerous, is recorded since the earliest Romanian texts. The causes of the emergence of syncretic paradigms are quite diverse. 2.8.3.1 The etymological and/or phonological type To begin with masculine nouns, the type genu(n)chi ‘knee(s)’, ochi ‘eye(s)’, rărunchi ‘kidney(s), depth(s), inside’, rinichi ‘kidney(s)’, unchi ‘uncle(s)’ has a Latin origin and, by common phonetic evolution, developed forms that are syncretic between singular and plural in modern Romanian (genu(n)chi [ʤeˈnuc] -[torj]; for a finer-grained analysis, see §7.3.2). In the current Daco-Romanian regional varieties of northern Bulgaria (Neagoe & Mărgărit 2006: LXIX), and also in wide areas of Daco-Romanian except eastern Wallachia and Dobrogea (ALRII IV), the two archaic pronunciations are still in use. (120)
a ca
cestu
mitariu
b ca cestu like this c celu fecioru
mitari customs-officer curvariu
d celu fecioru curvari⁴⁵⁸ that son adulterer ‘that adulterous son’
⁴⁵³ Bert. ⁴⁵⁴ MC. ⁴⁵⁵ CT. ⁴⁵⁶ MC. ⁴⁵⁷ For the characteristics of these suffixes and of the derivatives in which they occur, see §7.3.
⁴⁵⁸ CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
119
In modern standard Romanian, the series represented by curvari and învățători, with a palatalized r, loses final palatalization in the singular (-[torj] > -[tor]). The ultimate effect of this phenomenon is to produce the typical pattern of variation between singular and plural ( grădinar ‘gardener’ ~ grădinari, învăţător ‘teacher’ ~ învăţători). The invariant masculine type călăraş ‘horseman/-men’ is limited to certain areas of Daco-Romanian. It is characterized by the hard pronunciation of root-finals ţ- [ʦ] and ş- [ʃ], such that, instead of the asyllabic plural ending -i [j], there is a zero ending. In the case of masculine nouns as in (121a–b), the morphological effect is neutralization of the singular–plural opposition. In the case of feminine nouns as in (121c), in the absence of the plural ending -i, there emerges in effect a new inflexional class, with zero ending in the plural: pecete ‘seal’ ~ peceţ ‘seals’. The phenomenon is old both for masculine and for feminine nouns and is preserved in current northern regional varieties (Puşcariu 1994: maps 18, 19). (121)
a 2000 de călăraş 2000 of horsemen b călăraş şi pedestraş den neamţi şi horsemen and footsoldiers from Germans and unguri Hungarians ‘German and Hungarian horsemen and footsoldiers’
den from
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
c în loc de peceţ pusu-n-am degetele⁴⁵⁹ instead of seals put=we.have fingers. ‘We have placed our fingers instead of seals.’ Coming to invariant genus alternans nouns, the type pântece ‘belly/bellies’, foarfece ‘scissors’, spate ‘back’, cleşte ‘tongs’ occurs as invariant in the old language, as seen in (122a–b). (122)
a pântecele belly. b pântece bellies
plin⁴⁶⁰ full.. flămânde⁴⁶¹ hungry..
The erratic morphological behaviour of these nouns may owe something to the fact that they denote entities that can be viewed as inherently comprising two or more parts (perhaps the intestines, in the case of pântece). This may lead to a predisposition to analyse what is, etymologically, a singular ending -e as a (feminine) plural, or an
⁴⁵⁹ DÎ XXXII, VI.
⁴⁶⁰ CC¹.
⁴⁶¹ Ev.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
120 original plural -e as a singular (in the case of spate, whose etymon is Latin feminine ). Under such conditions, -e may appear both as a singular and as a (feminine) plural ending—or, indeed, novel singulars such as foarfecă may emerge. In the case of pântece, the analogical singular form pântec in (123c) and the plural form pânteci in (123a–b) have been created since the period of the old language; in the case of foarfece ‘scissors’, the regular feminine paradigm, with singular foarfecă⁴⁶² and plural foarfeci,⁴⁶³ has been recorded since the end of the seventeenth century. (123)
a ispitescu inimile şi pântecii⁴⁶⁴ they.tempt heart... and belly.. ‘they tempt the heart and the bellies’ b cei cu pânteci sătui⁴⁶⁵ those with bellies. full.. ‘those with full bellies’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
c meargerea pântecului, curgerea stomach.. running. going. pântecului⁴⁶⁶ stomach... ‘the going of the stomach, the running of the stomach’ In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, syncretic forms are predominant: for example, in Coresi, Cartea cu învăţătură (1581), there is only one occurrence of the remodelled plural form pântecii, as against eighteen occurrences of the etymological forms; in Cronograf tradus din greceşte de Pătraşco Danovici (1689), there are twentyfour occurrences of the invariable form pântece and only one of the variable form pântec. These variations were present in the language until modern Romanian: in the singular, DOOM² recommends the free variants pântec/pântece,⁴⁶⁷ whereas in the plural pântece is recommended. As for clește ‘tongs’, the variant forms are present until late: in the modifications recommended by DOOM², as compared with DOOM¹, the noun changes from having the variant plural forms clești/clește, of which one is a genus alternans form, to being a masculine noun with a regular paradigm: clește ~ clești. For spate ‘back’, as also for other genus alternans nouns with the ending -e, old texts display invariance, as in (124).
⁴⁶² CDicț. ⁴⁶³ CDicț., Cron. ⁴⁶⁴ CC². ⁴⁶⁵ Ev. ⁴⁶⁶ CDicț. ⁴⁶⁷ The variant forms registered in DOOM² and the normative changes between DOOM¹ and DOOM² show that speakers themselves hesitate about the right form.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
. (124)
121
a osul ( . . . ) spatelui⁴⁶⁸ back... bone. ‘the bone of the back’ b cu spatele ghibos⁴⁶⁹ with back.. hunched.. ‘with hunched back’ c în spatele in backs. ‘behind us’
noastre⁴⁷⁰ our..
d pentru acoperirea spatelor⁴⁷¹ for covering. backs. ‘for covering backs’ The invariant genus alternans type nume ‘name’ has a unique development in Romanian. In the earliest texts from the sixteenth century, in the plural, both the inherited irregular paradigm ( nume(le) ~ numere(le): see (125a–b)), discussed in §2.7.1, and the new invariant form (nume(le) (for which see (125c)) were in use. (125)
a de cuvente şi de numere şi de of words and of names and of ‘of words and of names and of your law’
leagea voastră⁴⁷² law. your
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b usebite numerele săstavelor⁴⁷³ different.. names... elements.. ‘the different names of the elements’ c a doisprăzece apostoli numele lă to twelve apostles names... ..3 sântu acestea⁴⁷⁴ are these. ‘these are the names of twelve apostles’ Since the sixteenth century, the irregular etymological paradigm nume(le) ~ numere (le) has been very rare. Its unique situation within the system and,⁴⁷⁵ probably, homophony with the plural form of the noun număr ‘number’ ( număr ~ numere) explains why it was eliminated from use. In the seventeenth century, the form numere occurs only as the plural of the form număr. Note that, given an irregular paradigm (nume ~ numere) and total syncretism (nume), irregularity gives way to invariance. There are varieties of the language that avoid this invariability, selecting a second plural ending (Marin et al. 1998: 92 show that nume becomes numuri).⁴⁷⁶ ⁴⁶⁸ CDicț. ⁴⁶⁹ CDicț. ⁴⁷⁰ CP¹. ⁴⁷¹ CDicț. ⁴⁷² CVs. ⁴⁷³ CLRV (1581). ⁴⁷⁴ CC². ⁴⁷⁵ See further §2.7.1. ⁴⁷⁶ Megleno-Romanian is interesting in this respect, since it preserves an irregular paradigm numi ~ numiti (after the pattern MeRo. capu ‘head’ ~ capiti; Atanasov 2002: 206).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
122 There are various types of number-invariant feminines. The type mânu(le) ‘hands’ is one of the few examples that testify to the preservation of forms of the Latin fourth declension in Romanian (see §2.5.1; Coteanu 1971). The singular mânu, which displays number syncretism, has a very limited use (see PO; see also (126a–b)),⁴⁷⁷ having been replaced, since the sixteenth century, by the analogical mână (see (126c–d); Frâncu 2009: 26), which bears a characteristically feminine singular ending, unlike -u, which was overwhelmingly characteristic of masculines. The plural mânu in (126e) and (126f) is more frequent than the singular. The irregular paradigm mână/mânu(le) was preferred over the syncretism and was long in use, until the plural was replaced by an analogical form, first mâne, then mâni, and, much later, by the diphthongized form mâini. There are areas in the north of Romania that have the plural ending -uri—mânuri (Coteanu 1971: 1426; Gheţie & Mareş 1974: 222–3; see also note 194). (126)
a cu evangheliia în mânu şi cetind⁴⁷⁸ with gospel. in hand and reading ‘with the gospel in his hand and reading’ b în mânu-mi dând plata⁴⁷⁹ in hand=..1 giving payment. ‘into my hand giving payment’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
c inelul în mână iaste semnul creştinătăţiei⁴⁸⁰ sign. Christianity. ring. in hand is ‘the ring on the hand is a sign of Christianity’ d ţie în mână au dat⁴⁸¹ you. in hand they.have given ‘they have given into your hand’ e au plămădit cu mânu-ş cinstite⁴⁸² they.have created with hands=...3 honest.. ‘they have created with their honest hands’ f facerea creation.
mânuloru-ţ hands..=..2
svinte⁴⁸³ holy..
The number-invariant feminine type bătrâne(a)ţe ‘old age’, tinere(a)ţe ‘youth’, blânde(a)ţe ‘kindness’ is composed of nominal formations derived with the abstract suffix -e(a)țe,⁴⁸⁴ of Latin origin ( [eʎi], which evolves in all Daco-Romance varieties as a ⁵ For differential object marking across Romance, see e.g. Ledgeway (2011: 470–1).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
142 monosyllable, regardless of whether the palatal lateral is preserved). Beside 1 eu [jeu̯]⁶ < , there is the secondary form io [jo], preserved to this day in all trans-Danubian dialects and at popular and colloquial levels.⁷ In old Romanian, the datives 1 mie, 2 ție, 1 nouă, and 2 vouă display variants that reflect various stages in their evolution. Mie and ție continue Lat. ĭĭ, ĭĭ but show the analogical influence of the final vowel of ĭĭ (ĭ > -e) on the reflex of ĭĭ and the influence of contracted forms *mi and *ti on the stressed vowels of both. The Romanian reflexes have preserved the disyllabic structure (['mi.je], ['ʦi.je]). Marginal variants attested from the sixteenth century are miia⁸ or țiia,⁹ and they are explained as reflecting a contamination between mie and unuia ‘to one’ (Rosetti 1986: 498) or as resulting from the affixation of -a on the type acesta, celora (Lombard 1972). Most probably, miia and țiia are primarily due to phonetic factors. Beside the primary forms ['mi.je], ['ʦi.je], the variants ['mi.ja], ['ʦi.ja] are attested especially in the north. There the sequence [ja] generally developed as [je] or, most probably, as [jɛ], so miia and țiia could be the result of hypercorrection in this area.¹⁰ From the first- and second-person singular forms, [a] extended to the third person, both in the singular and in the plural. These forms are still in use in Moldovan dialects (ALRII map 1846; ALM map 463), alongside the usual literary ones, which are without final [a]. In the plural, the forms that are present in the earliest texts are the very low frequency no(au)ă,¹¹ voauă¹² and noao,¹³ voao,¹⁴ the dominant forms showing diphthongization of stressed [o] and assimilation of the final vowel [we] > [wә] > [o]).¹⁵ Noao and voao are in a clear majority at the end of the old period. Why the type nouă, vouă is eventually preferred over noao, voao cannot be fully explained phonologically, and some appeal must be made to morphology. These forms may have originated in areas where the ending -o was perceived as extraneous to the system of inflexional desinences (the same form is found in the old feminine of the adjective nou ‘new’, namely noao, with the aberrant feminine ending -o rather than -ă), and may have spread from there to phonologically similar words. The unstressed form vă may also have influenced the emergence of vouă. The first- and second-person singular accusative forms mine and tine are distinct from those of the nominative, Romanian preserving the case distinction as in Latin but also distinguishing tonic from clitic pronouns. These two forms have variously been interpreted as resulting either from an innovation that goes back to Latin, with the affixation of -ne¹⁶ (originally an interrogative particle, but see also Operstein 2012)¹⁷ to the accusative forms and , or from an analogical creation based on Romanian cine ‘who’.¹⁸ ⁶ Although now monosyllabic, this form may originally have been bisyllabic. ⁷ For the question whether io is weakly stressed, see Lombard (1972: 192). ⁸ DÎ CI. ⁹ Hasdeu (1983: 314). ¹⁰ The form is attested in Banat, see Dimitrescu (1978: 257). ¹¹ DPar. ¹² Mystirio; BB. ¹³ CT. ¹⁴ PS. ¹⁵ The same development is shown by ‘nine’ and ‘two’ (> *ˈdoe) and by the feminine singular and plural forms of ‘new’. ¹⁶ See further Fruyt (2011: 751–6). ¹⁷ See e.g. Bourciez (1930: 221); Iliescu & Macarie (1969b: 68); Fischer (1985: 103). ¹⁸ Meyer-Lübke (1895: 102); Candrea & Adamescu (1926–31: 345); Iordan & Manoliu (1965: 167); Rosetti (1986: 136).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
143
The stressed forms are recorded not only in Daco-Romanian, but also in the trans-Danubian varieties that, with the exception of Aromanian,¹⁹ maintain the nominative–accusative opposition. A similar formative exists for example in Greek and Albanian varieties.²⁰ Tonic mine, tine (and reflexive sine) are likely to be old formations with the formative -ne, and not late analogical creations. The presence of similar forms in some varieties of Sardinian and in central and southern Italy²¹ suggests a Romance origin. For the old period, mene and tene are attested (e.g. in CV and PO) and are differentiated only by the additional syllable from clitic me, te. Closure of [e] to [i] in pre-nasal position—attested in sixteenth-century texts, although to different degrees according to region—entails additional marking of the distinction between tonic and clitic forms.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.1.4 The clitic forms Unlike tonic pronouns, modern Romanian clitics have reduced forms and are subject to rules of obligatory contraction, to fixed positions, and to an inability to appear in the same positions as full noun phrases (e.g. they cannot appear in the subject position: see §3.2). The pan-Romance stressed vs clitic opposition implies differentiation of the Latin pronouns in stressed and unstressed positions,²² the unstressed variants having become attached to their host, be it syntactic (the verb) or phonological. In sixteenth-century texts clitics may be attached to any phonologically possible host, such as a conjunction (Și-mi fu ‘And it was to me’, an adverb (acieși-lu tremișu²³ ‘hither I sent him’, or another pronoun (tu-lu ascultă²⁴ ‘you heed him’). They do not yet have a fixed position in relation to the verb, as can be seen from născuiu-me²⁵ ‘I was born’ (modern mă născui) ~ me iudeii prinseră²⁶ ‘the Jews caught me’, scoate-me-voiu²⁷ ‘I will remove myself ’²⁸ (modern mă voi scoate) ~ nu mă voiu arăta ‘I will not show myself ’, te lasă de ceartă ‘leave off strife’²⁹ (modern lasă-te de ceartă), se ivind³⁰ ‘rising up’ (modern ivindu-se). As their dependence on the verbal host increases, clitics admit climbing and begin to be subject to restrictions on their position in relation to the verb (e.g. proclisis becomes impossible with the gerund). Clitics also begin to behave as indices, in that they ‘double’ an overt noun phrase, a structure that is completely grammaticalized in modern Romanian.³¹ The effect is that the NP object and the clitic agree in (person,) number and gender, which makes the clitics rather like indices (clitic doubling depends
¹⁹ Aromanian has accusative forms in subject position. ²⁰ See Poghirc (1962: 491). ²¹ See further, e.g., Wagner (1938: 113–14), Rohlfs (1966: 468–9), Mensching & Remberger (2016: 278); Cappellaro (2016: 730). ²² For more on the history of this distinction, see Bossong (1998: 769–87); Schøsler & Strudsholm (2013: 52–7). ²³ CV. ²⁴ CC². ²⁵ CV. ²⁶ CV. ²⁷ PH. ²⁸ This verb + clitic + auxiliary configuration still exists dialectally, in Crișana and Maramureș (Urițescu 1984: 309; Vulpe 1984: 337). ²⁹ CC². ³⁰ CC¹. ³¹ For more on clitic doubling in Romance and its theoretical status, see e.g. Roberts (2016: 798–801).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
144 on animacy and specificity but also on left dislocation, which allows the doubling of an inanimate object). Unlike the stressed forms, the clitics present various syncretisms that were already present in old Romanian for case, number, and gender (see §3.2). Although they have only dative and accusative forms, they neutralize case in the plural. A similar situation occurs in Aromanian,³² while in Istro-Romanian the case opposition is neutralized in the first- and second-person plural, and in the third person there is syncretism between dative singular in the masculine and in the feminine, accusative singular in the masculine, and accusative plural in the masculine. In Megleno-Romanian, case is neutralized in the first- and second-person plural, but not in the third person, where there is gender syncretism in the dative singular and in the dative plural; and in the dialect of Țărnareca gender is neutralized in the accusative singular while case and number are neutralized between the dative singular and the accusative plural in the masculine [әʎ]. Likewise, Daco-Romanian clitics neutralize gender oppositions in many cells of the paradigm (in both singular and plural in the dative). Asyllabic iand syllabic îi are present both in the accusative singular and in the dative plural. Romanian has a series of syllabic clitics with a limited distribution, in that they appear only in proclitic position and are debarred from clitic clusters. They have forms with the prosthetic vowel î- in 3.. îl, in 1. îmi, 2. îți, 3./. îi (and the dative reflexive third-person pronoun își).³³ This type is rare in the sixteenth century, appearing only in a few texts (e.g. Apostol 1566: nu îm pare rău ‘it does not seem bad to me’; FT 1571–5: 2v: carile îl credem ‘that we believe’), from Banat– Hunedoara, Țara Românească, south-eastern Transylvania, and Moldova. The prosthetic forms become established only in the second half of the seventeenth century,³⁴ when they are attested in texts from all regions of Daco-Romanian. The prosthetic forms appear in clitics that have undergone desyllabification as a consequence of the devocalization of their original final vowel. In initial position, lu, mi, ți, and i were syllabic, but their occurrence in enclitic position or second position favoured the devocalization of final [i] and the deletion of final [u]. In non-final position in clitic clusters, the forms in [i] remained syllabic. At the same time, devocalization affected the final vowels of hosts that bore those clitics, and the complete reduction of final [u] further restricted the potential for attaching clitics. When the clitics occurred in the context of verb + clitic + auxiliary (‘have’) or clitic + auxiliary + verb, they became subject to other phonological constraints and underwent contraction as a result of diaeresis or elision (see §3.2), forming a single syllable with the auxiliary ‘have’ (characterized by initial a-) or with the auxiliary ‘want’ (characterized by initial o-). As proclisis establishes itself and clitics are allowed in initial position (a very rare occurrence at the time of the earliest attestations), a need to repair clitics eroded by
³² Moreover, Aromanian has no distinct dative forms in the clitic cluster. ³³ The prosthetic vowel also appears in short forms of the verb fi ‘be’ (3. îi, 1/3. îs). ³⁴ This means that this innovation cannot have been much earlier than the sixteenth century (but see Lombard 1979: 5–9; Rizescu 1964: 752–3).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
145
devocalization asserts itself. This means that the appearance of prosthetic forms is conditioned on two sides, both by phonological factors and by syntactic factors. The prosthetic forms (with a mid or high initial central vowel) are attested throughout the trans-Danubian varieties, indicating a similar but independent development: one would have expected more numerous occurrences of this type in the earliest texts if such forms had been present in proto-Daco-Romance. The central prosthetic vowel is, conceivably, a sandhi effect,³⁵ which involves a new resyllabification of a preceding back vowel that was in the process of becoming devocalized. (Petrovici 1952: 145–6 shows that, in the areas where rounded consonants appear in word-final position, there is a labialization of the central vowel.) But this same vowel is also an effect of the fact that a clitic could not be freely attached to just any kind of vowel-final host.
3.2 Morphological characteristics of clitics and combinations of clitics
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.2.1 Overview Romanian pronominal clitics have dative and accusative case forms. All clitics, whether syllabic or asyllabic, are unstressed and are grouped with a host, with which they form a single prosodic word. In standard Romanian they are limited to verbs and certain interjections (e.g. uite-l! ‘there he is’, iat-o! ‘there she is’). They can be encliticized to nouns and adjectives (especially propriu ‘own’), or appear with prepositions that take the genitive–dative case,³⁶ but such occurrences are rare. Clitics further show fixed word order in relation to their host, from which they can be separated only by other clitics and a few semi-adverbs: l-am văzut ‘I have seen him’, am văzut-o ‘I have seen her’, să o (mai/tot) văd ‘that I see her again/still’, ți-ar da ‘he would give you’ ~ da-ți-ar ‘would that he gave you’, văzând-o ‘seeing her’). Sometimes they select a particular allomorph of the verb (e.g. fierbi! ‘boil!’ ~ fierbe-l! ‘boil it’, văzând ‘seeing’ ~ văzându-l ‘seeing it’: see further §6.3.4). On the role of enclitic pronouns in determining stress shifts in the verb, see §6.2.2.
3.2.2 Syllabic versus asyllabic clitics Accusative and dative clitics can each be either asyllabic or syllabic. The feminine thirdperson singular clitic o is virtually always syllabic (in special, imprecative, inverted forms of the conditional, it is realized as [o̯] or [w]: mânca-o-ar [mɨŋ'kao̯ar]/ [mɨŋ'kawar] ‘(would that) he would eat her’). Asyllabic clitics may be consonantal (3.. l-, -l), glides (3./.. i-, -i [j]), or comprise a consonant + glide. ³⁵ Papahagi (1937: 17) offers various explanations, all of a phonosyntactic nature. ³⁶ See further Nicolae (2013c: 343–7) for the possessive use of clitics.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
146 Dative clitics combined in pronominal clusters with accusative clitics (see §3.2.3) are generally differentiated from those occurring outside clusters. The syllabic vs non-syllabic status of clitics is not straightforwardly correlated with proclisis and enclisis. In Daco-Romanian this status is dependent on several conditions: in addition to the position of the clitic in the verbal cluster and its adjacency to function words (auxiliaries) or lexical verbs, whether the clitic is syllabic or not will depend on the phonetic context (which means not only presence or absence of an onset in the auxiliary, but also, say, whether it begins with the vowel [a] or [o]),³⁷ on specific phonological constraints, and also on register (the spoken language is more permissive about phonetic cliticization than the literary language). Originally, all clitics were syllabic (see §3.1). Deletion of final unstressed [u] and devocalization of final unstressed [i], together with increase in the incidence of preverbal clitic positions,³⁸ led to the appearance of a series of forms whose syllabicity is provided by the development of prosthetic vowels (1. îmi [ɨmʲ], 2. îți [ɨʦʲ], 3./3.. îi [ɨi ̯], 3.. îl [ɨl]).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.2.3 Paradigmatic gaps Daco-Romanian has distinct accusative and dative clitics, but no nominative clitics— so no subject clitics.³⁹ Nor does it have locative or partitive clitics. Object clitics exhibit gender morphology only in the third person. Romanian distinguishes itself from other Romance languages by displaying case morphology in first- and second-person singular clitics.⁴⁰ In contemporary Romanian, in written and literary registers, accusative clitics are syllabic in two contexts: preverbally, if the initial syllable of the following lexical or auxiliary verb has an onset,⁴¹ and in enclitic position, when the verb is in the gerund or in the imperative, provided that the clitic ends in a full vowel.⁴² (For pronominal clitic groups, see §3.2.4.) In Daco-Romanian, the gender opposition is expressed in the third person and entails phonetically conditioned root allomorphy (.. îl ~ .. o) in the singular and in the plural (.. îi ~ .. le), both in syllabic and in asyllabic
³⁷ In the spoken language, contraction—whether involving elision or synaeresis—also occurs when the clitic is followed by a verb beginning in [a]: e.g. mă aduce [maˈduʧe] ‘he takes me’, te așteaptă [te̯aˈʃte̯aptә] ‘he awaits you’. Contraction is possible with other initial vowels, but characteristic of popular registers: e.g. m-omoară ‘he kills me’, mă interesează [mәntereˈse̯azә] ‘it interests me’, te enervează [tenerˈve̯azә] ‘it annoys you’). ³⁸ Already in the sixteenth century, three different types of clitic placement were operative in Romanian: postverbal, second-position, and pre-verbal (Nicolae & Niculescu 2016: 53–67). ³⁹ For a general discussion from a wider Romance perspective, see e.g. Pescarini (2016: 743). See also Mavrogiorgos & Ledgeway (2019) for particular circumstances in Aromanian in which the internal argument and subject of the verb ‘be’ may be cross-referenced by a morphologically accusative clitic. ⁴⁰ For other observations, see Maiden (2016d: 104–5); Pescarini (2016: 743). ⁴¹ In the spoken language, the syllabic realization of some clitics depends on the preceding constituent’s having a consonantal coda (Ion îl vede ‘Ion sees him’ ~ Ion nu-l vede ‘Ion doesn’t see him’). ⁴² In accusative clitics, the closed front value can be realized only as a glide (văzându-i [vәˈzɨndui ̯] ‘seeing them’).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
147
clitics ( -l, l- ~ -o, i-, -i ~ le-, -le). In the old phase of the language, the features of gender and number were also carried by the nominal inflexional endings . -u (lu), . -i (îi), . -e (le), but not in .. o. The final vowel of the clitic shows considerable instability in the first person and throughout the plural. In old Romanian the first-person singular form me (< Lat. ) is attested (CV; Prav. 1581), but generally becomes mă. This form is well documented from the sixteenth century on, but generalizes only after 1600. The continuant of Latin 1 was initially nă (nă uspătă⁴³ ‘he hosts us’); later it changed analogically to ne, probably on the model of other clitic plural forms in -e, notably plural le. Feminine third-person plural le also has a variant lă, on the analogy of nă and vă (which produces a complete series of plural forms in -ă in some areas). In the second person, the singular te alternates with the plural vă, these suppletive forms continuing Lat. and . Regionally, second-person plural vă is analogically influenced by te, ne, le, yielding ve (DLR, s.v. voi). The consonantal asyllabic clitics may appear in onset position (1 m-, 3. l-, 2 v- and third-person reflexive s-) if the host is vowel-initial, but only -l is admitted in coda position (văzându-l ‘seeing him’ ~ văzându-mă ‘seeing me’, ducându-se ‘taking himself ’). The masculine third-person singular clitic (-)l(-) is the reflex of Latin unstressed, and the original Romanian form was lu. The use of the allomorph l-/-l begins to become fixed already in the sixteenth century (l-au dusu⁴⁴ ‘they took him’, să-l pedepseşti ‘may you punish him’).⁴⁵ In the modern language, the allomorphs m- and v- are reflexes of syllabic mă and vă used before a word that begins with [a] or [o] (auxiliaries, and in spoken language any verb): m-a văzut ‘he has seen me’, v-a văzut ‘he has seen you’, s-ar duce ‘he would bring himself ’, s-or duce ‘they will bring themselves’. In old Romanian the relation between contracted and uncontracted forms differs from clitic to clitic: the allomorph v- is already established in the sixteenth century; me, where preserved, undergoes synaeresis (me-au aflatu⁴⁶ ‘they have found me’); and where mă is conserved it is subject to contraction (m-au tremes⁴⁷ ‘they have sent me’). Contraction with synaeresis is wholly marginal after 1600 and limited to the northern, especially the ‘rhotacizing’ area. However, se originally had two asyllabic realizations throughout the old period: contraction with synaeresis (se-au ivitu⁴⁸ ‘they have risen’), and contraction with elision, after centralization se > să (s-au însurat⁴⁹ ‘they have married’). The third-person masculine plural clitic undergoes synaeresis and is realized as a glide before a vowel-initial auxiliary (e.g. i-am văzut ‘I have seen them’, i-ar certa ‘he would scold them’, i-oi certa ‘I’ll scold them’) and after a vowel when enclitic (e.g. văzându-i ‘seeing them’ or imperative ceartă-i ‘scold them’).⁵⁰ This asyllabic i is already present in the sixteenth century. The clitics te and ne are contracted and asyllabic before vowel-initial auxiliaries.
⁴³ CV. ⁴⁴ CV. ⁴⁵ DÎ XXXII. ⁴⁶ CV. ⁴⁷ CT. ⁴⁸ CV. ⁴⁹ DÎ LXXXIX. ⁵⁰ In spoken Romanian, there are more contexts in which the clitic is enclitic and realized as a glide (e.g. nu-i ceartă ‘he doesn’t scold them’, să-i certe ‘let him scold them’).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
148
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
All dative singular syllabic clitics (e.g. îmi, îți, îi) show a prosthetic vowel, and final [j]. In the old language we generally have mi, ți, and i instead, with either a final vowel or a vowel in the process of devocalization. The two series are in free variation until the midseventeenth century (i va plăcea ‘it will please him’, i pare bine⁵¹ ‘it seems good to him’ vs îi va învia şi sus în cer îi va duce⁵² ‘he will revive them and will bring them to heaven’). Unlike the accusatives, dative syllabic clitics show gender syncretism even in the third person: /3 îi < /3 , /3 lor < 3 (replacing 3 ). Number differences are expressed suppletively, continuing Latin forms: 1 îmi < ~ 1 ne < , 2 îți < ~ 2 vă < . In the modern standard language, the plural dative clitics ne, vă are homophonous with the accusative plurals, while le is homophonous with the feminine plural accusative clitics. This syncretism seems to reflect a reduction of the Latin dative , to nos, vos, which coincide with the accusative nos, uos and share their subsequent development, thus yielding nă and vă. The syncretism between the accusative and the dative le has been explained as deriving either from the dative plural and the masculine accusative plural , or from and the feminine accusative plural .⁵³ In old Romanian, the oldest first-person plural form (dative and accusative) was nă (nă închirămu genruchiele⁵⁴ ‘we bend our knees’). In the thirdperson plural, alongside le there is also lă⁵⁵ (lă mărrturisiia împărăţiia lu Dumnedzeu⁵⁶ ‘he gave the witness to them of the kingdom of God’), which is analogically modelled on nă and vă. In old Romanian, these syncretistic plural forms were nă, vă, lă. Both intraparadigmatic forces (whereby third-person accusative forms influence firstperson accusative forms) and interparadigmatic forces (whereby the accusative series influences the dative series and vice versa) may be taken to be at work. Asyllabic plural dative clitics are subject to the same constraints as accusative ne- and -ne, v- and -vă, leand -le.⁵⁷
3.2.4 Pronominal clitic clusters The order of pronominal clitic clusters is consistently dative + accusative even in the earliest stages of the language,⁵⁸ in proclitic and enclitic position alike (mi le dă ‘he gives me them’; dă-mi-le! ‘give me them’). Not all the logically possible combinations of clitics exist.⁵⁹ Romanian does not permit a second- or third-person dative followed by
⁵¹ DÎ XXXII, XLVIII. ⁵² FT. ⁵³ See Dimitrescu (1978: 260). ⁵⁴ CV. ⁵⁵ The form lă has been related to Latin accusative plural (see Dimitrescu 1978: 260). Such a hypothesis is hard to accept. ⁵⁶ CV. ⁵⁷ See further Rosetti (1955); Ulivi (1975: 107–12); Chițoran (2002: 203–22). ⁵⁸ The order accusative + dative is attested, but wholly marginal in the old period, being recorded in enclitic position in imperatives. Cf. Bonami and Boyé (2007: 292) for French; for other observations, see Pescarini (2016: 753). ⁵⁹ See, among others, Farkas & Kazazis (1980); Monachesi (1998: 103–4). Farkas & Kazazis propose two topicality hierarchies to explain these gaps: ethical > goal > theme and I person > II person > III person.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
149
a first-person singular accusative,⁶⁰ and the same constraint applies to first-person plural clitics. There are also constraints against an accusative plural as a second clitic (e.g. 1.+2. mi te dă ‘he gives you to me’ but 1.+2. **mi vă dă ‘he gives you to me’). This may be due in part to the fact that in the second-person plural the distinction between dative and accusative is neutralized and vă is therefore insufficiently marked.⁶¹ One will find a good overview of the permitted combinations of clitics in Daco-Romanian in Vasilescu (2013: 392–4). These combinations show great diachronic stability,⁶² but the form of the dative clitics that participate in these combinations does not. The syllabic series deviates from normal dative forms in two respects. Instead of ne, ve, le we encounter ni, vi, li (e.g. ni le dă ‘he gives them to us’ ~ ne dă ‘he gives us’); thanks to the resyllabification of the cluster, the vowel [i] is not subject to devocalization and the clitic, being syllabic, does not acquire prosthetic [ɨ] (e.g. mi le dă ‘he gives them to me’ ~ îmi dă ‘he gives me’). Until the mid-seventeenth century, a sequence of two pronouns does not undergo a context-driven alternation. Whether or not the clitic is in a pronominal cluster, the same dative forms are selected (ne se pare⁶³ ‘it seems to us’, nu ne se iviră ‘they did not rise against us’, vă se pare⁶⁴ ‘it seems to you’, nu vă se va scădea ‘it will not be discounted for you’, le se cade ‘it behoves them’).⁶⁵ It is possible that, in some contexts where ne, vă, and le were followed by le or se, there was dissimilation of the vowel, and in some areas the i reflects general closure of unstressed e. The forms ni, vi are attested at the beginning of the old period especially in those areas: ni să cuvine⁶⁶ ‘it behoves us’, li se legă⁶⁷ ‘it attached itself to them’. It is highly probable that ni, vi, and li are analogically remodelled on the type mi, ți and so on—a process possibly aided by a tendency to distinguish the dative forms from the syncretisic accusatives (nă/ne, vă). Asyllabic dative clitics in clusters present an asymmetry: the forms ne-, v-, and leare selected in combination with 3. o, but ni-, vi-, li- before 3. i. This might be due to the morphosyntactic make-up of the cluster (combinations of the type țe-o are also recorded).⁶⁸ It is possibly significant that i, like most other clitics, was originally consonant-initial (ʎi), whereas o was vowel-initial from an early date in DacoRomance; compare the cliticized gerunds, where final -u is retained before consonant-initial clitics and clitic -i (văzându-l ‘seeing him’, văzându-i ‘seeing them’), but not before clitic o (văzând-o ‘seeing her’).
⁶⁰ For this constraint (the ‘Me-First PCC’), see Nevins (2007: 297); Roberts (2016: 790). Some speakers seem to accept the combinations 3.+1. or 1. (see Rîpeanu Reinheimer et al. 2013: 259). Nevins and Săvescu (2010), and also Săvescu (2007, 2009), discuss a possible asymmetry between constraints in proclitic and enclitic position and present as acceptable combinations such as dându-ți-mă ‘giving me to you’ or ia-ți-mă ‘take me for yourself ’ (see further Rîpeanu Reinheimer et al. 2013: 259–60). If these are acceptable, it is only for some speakers. ⁶¹ But see Pescarini (2016: 755). ⁶² The combinations 2.+1/1. (rugămu-ţi-ne ‘we pray to you’, CL.1570), 3.+1., 3. +2. (i vă bucuraţi ‘rejoice to him’, CP¹), 1.+2. (să mi vă arătați ‘show yourselves to me’, DPar.) are translated in early texts and especially in enclisis, which conforms to the idea that some combinations are acceptable in postverbal position, a tendency that has been observed in the modern language (Săvescu Ciucivara 2011). ⁶³ CT. ⁶⁴ CT. ⁶⁵ CPr. ⁶⁶ Prav. 1581. ⁶⁷ CTd. ⁶⁸ Croitor (2015c: 124).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
150
3.3 Emergence of morphological markers of distance/respect in pronouns 3.3.1 Overview Romanian has perhaps the most complex pronominal address system of any Romance language (see e.g. Reinheimer & Tasmowski 2005: 149; Vasilescu 2008: 212, 2013: 402; Zafiu 2013b: 282), not only with respect to the range of forms that grammatically encode aspects of the relation between communicating participants, but also in terms of the shifting historical development of those forms. Some tend to become specialized in marked contexts, ironically expressing distance, while others are obsolete but artificially kept alive in grammars. Romanian has even an honorific first-person form, which was already considered archaic in the nineteenth century and is purely ironic today, as well as a set of completely grammaticalized third-person deference markers. The pronominal address system in Romanian is generally described as ‘gradient’, having three or even four levels of politeness (Niculescu 1965: 43; Hobjilă 2003: 114–15; Reinheimer & Tasmowski 2005: 149; Vasilescu 2013: 403). This characterization is valid for the modern system, although one should exercise caution when applying it to the spoken language; but it does not extend to an older stage of the language, before 1780, which went from a system without politeness distinctions to one with binary distinctions. A ternary system emerged only later.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.3.2 Absence of politeness distinctions Data from the earliest Romanian texts and the comparative evidence of modern transDanubian dialects (e.g. Caragiu 1975: 137; Maiden 2016d: 105) reveal that the late Latin stage at which voi (and related second-person plural forms) was used not only as a plural⁶⁹ but also as a polite singular was not maintained in Daco-Romance. Initially, quite simply, tu was used for a single addressee and voi for more than one, and this situation persists in trans-Danubian dialects to this day (see (1)): (1) Bane Mihalcio şi tu, vistiiar Stoico, Ban. Mihalcea. and you.2 treasurer Stoica. dau-vă în ştire . . .70 I.give=you.2 in knowledge ‘O Ban Mihalcea and thou, o treasurer Stoica, I inform you.’ In Daco-Romanian, the T/V distinction is an innovation that postdates the separation of the four major branches of Daco-Romance. It involves grammaticalization of a noun ⁶⁹ For this type of development, see also Brown & Gilman (1960: 254); Ashdowne (2016: 900). ⁷⁰ DÎ XXXI.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. /
151
phrase comprising domni(i)a ‘lordship’, followed by possessive ta ‘thy’ for a single addressee and by the possessive voastră ‘your’ for a plurality of addressees. This phrase was an honorific expression, which then grammaticalized as a bound form of address. A ‘no politeness distinction’ phase is not typologically unusual, occurring as it does elsewhere in Romance (e.g. in the southern Italo-Romance varieties of Abruzzo and in southern Marche, southern Umbria, southern Puglia, parts of northern Calabria, and Campania: see Rohlfs 1968: 181; Niculescu 1974: 58–63; Renzi 1997: 113; Ledgeway 2015b: 105; Ashdowne 2016: 899–900) and well beyond (see Helmbrecht 2013).
3.3.3 Binary politeness distinctions At least until the eighteenth century, Romanian presents a simple binary system, as we find in other Romance languages, the T/V distinction being created via the grammaticalized honorific domni(i)a ta⁷¹ in the singular and domniile voastre in competition with domni(i)a voastră in the plural. The honorific phrase shows signs of grammaticalization from the sixteenth century onwards: the order of elements becomes fixed, the adjective no longer being able to precede the noun in this context (a possibility otherwise available in the grammar). No material can be intercalated between noun and possessive. The construction selects second-, not third-person clitics and shows second-, not third-person agreement on the verb, too, as we can see from (2) and (3):
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(2) domniele-voastre să vă păziți lordships-your .2pl= protect.2PL ‘May your lordships protect yourselves.’ (3) să știi domniia-ta know.2 lordship.thy may thy lordship know Finally, while the head noun domni(i)a with the possessive ta/voastră is feminine in gender, the phrase shows agreement according to the sex of the addressee (4): (4) domni(i)a ta ești înțelept72 lordship thy.. art wise.. thy lordship is wise In the sixteenth century the grammaticalization of deferential pronouns is incomplete, in that analysable forms with a transparent internal structure that marks case
⁷¹ For other Romance grammaticalization of honorifics, see e.g. Rohlfs (1968: 183); Penny (1991: 124); Bentivoglio (2003: 178–9); Ashdowne (2016: 901). ⁷² DÎ I.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
152 and number, as in (5), remain in use alongside forms where the noun displays various kinds of contraction of the final vowel of the noun, as in (6): (5) - domniia-ta domniele-voastre73
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(6) - domniii-tale domnilor-voastre74 Towards the end of the sixteenth century the opaque forms begin to encroach on the analysable forms. Thus the phonological structure of the noun gets modified and the compound presents a different stress pattern from that of the original noun phrase. This change begins in the singular, where the case distinction may be marked only on the possessive (- domneta vs - domnetale), or additionally in the root allomorph of the noun (- domneata⁷⁵/ dumneata⁷⁶ vs - domnitale⁷⁷/ dumnitale,⁷⁸ which is typical of the north; - dumneata⁷⁹ vs - dumitale,⁸⁰ which is typical of the south). The plural forms remodel their root on that of the singular, gradually abandoning their number marking; this process starts with the nominative–accusative. The form domniile-voastre (with multiple plural marking) is replaced by domni(i)a-voastră ([+plural] being expressed only through the possessive and through number agreement on the verb), and subsequently by the opaque form dumneavoastră (still with verb agreement in the plural). In the nominative–accusative, plural forms where the noun shows multiple plural marking are in use by the end of the sixteenth century: forms such as domniile-voastre vie with domniavoastră even within the same document.⁸¹ In the sixteenth century, opaque nominative–accusative forms have analysable genitive–dative counterparts. In the same document a mixed paradigm of this kind is attested in the plural, where an opaque nominative–accusative has an analysable, or partly analysable, genitive–dative (e.g. - domneavoastră vs - domnilor-voastre, but also the analysable domniilor-voastre).⁸² The late sixteenth century also sees the emergence of (hybrid) invariable forms for case; but the analysable forms, with internal case inflexion, remain more frequent: --- domniia-voastră,⁸³ --- domnievoastră, but also - domnilor-voastre.⁸⁴ In the plural, nominative–accusative forms tend to become opaque, they acquire the root of the singular and they mark the plural only on the possessive,
⁷³ That this form is plural may be inferred from the fact that (a) elsewhere in the text domnii-ta is used as a singular and (b) its use as a plural is not documented elsewhere until the eighteenth century. ⁷⁴ DÎ I, LXXIX, XVIII. ⁷⁵ DÎ XXXII, L. ⁷⁶ DIR.B.IV 1622. ⁷⁷ DÎ CII. ⁷⁸ DIR.B.IV 1622. ⁷⁹ DÎ CXV. ⁸⁰ For the nature of the root allomorphy in dumitale, dumisale, see Ivănescu (1980: 487). ⁸¹ DÎ XXV, LXXXII. ⁸² DÎ CII, CIII, LXXXII. ⁸³ DÎ XXV; DRH.BXXI. ⁸⁴ DÎ XVIII.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. /
153
while analysable genitive–dative forms survive longer, maintaining their case marking and their internal number marking. Analysable forms are still listed in nineteenthcentury grammars (Cipariu [1869] 1992: 188; Tiktin 1891: 97). Distinctive genitive– dative case forms derived from analysable forms with internal inflexion still survive in north-eastern Crișana, Oaș, Maramureș, Bucovina, northern Moldova, and northern Transylvania (Sălaj-Năsăud), where we find dumilor-voastre (Marin & Marinescu 1984: 373; ALRII map 1661; Marin & Tiugan 1987; Marin et al. 2017). Sixteenth-century documents reveal two contexts in which deferential marking appears in the third person. One is that of ‘proxy requests’,⁸⁵ where the addressee, as an intermediary, is asked to relay the message to a third person regardless of whether that person is present or absent. The other context presupposes an initial situation in which a person is addressed using deference markers, which are then carried over into reported speech (as happens in documents of sale or purchase). The third-person forms, like those of the second person, originate as honorifics, comprising domni(i)a ‘lordship’ and the possessive (sa) or the genitive of the personal pronoun (lui., ei.F, lor.). The honorific group, which became grammaticalized in the sixteenth century, behaves as a functional equivalent of the pronoun, with characteristics that reveal its special status—such as the fact that the feminine singular clitic o is never attested in association with domniia lui in spite of the feminine gender of the head noun, or that modifying adjectives agree for gender with the sex of the referents rather than with the grammatical gender of the head noun, as can be seen in (7):
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(7) domniia-lui este sănătos și lordship.his is healthy.. and ‘his lordship is healthy and happy’
vesel86 happy..
Just like the second-person forms, the third-person forms present analysable variants, which may be structurally closer to the honorifics from which they derive (a); or may be hybrid, intermediate, forms (b); or may actually be opaque (c): (a) - . domniia-lui/- domniii-lui; domniia-sa /- domniii-sale (b) - . domnielui//- dumnilui (c) - . domnealui/- dumnealui; domnesa/- dumisale⁸⁷ Plural and feminine forms are not attested until the beginning of the seventeenth century. This may be partly because in the sixteenth century the form was initially
⁸⁵ Leech (2014: 19): ‘A proxy speech act is actually a request for the hearer to perform another speech act, such as thanking [ . . . ] on behalf of the speaker. And yet here, the real transaction of politeness is between the speaker and the third person(s), rather than between the speaker and the addressee.’ ⁸⁶ DÎ XXV. ⁸⁷ DÎ XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXVI, XXXI, XXXVI, XLVIII, LXXXVIII, LXXXIX (LXXXII, XVIII, XXXVI, XXXI, XXXVI, XLVIII, CX, XIII), C, XCIV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
154 applied to the sole lord (who was, obviously, male), only gradually being extended to others with a superior position in the social hierarchy. The possibility of combining the head noun with the possessive adjective as well as with the genitive of the personal pronoun can give rise to a situation of ‘overabundance’ (see Thornton 2011), where different pronominal forms coexist without functional distinction. Initially, however, there was a regional distinction of the two patterns, forms with the possessive appearing particularly in the north and those with the genitive personal pronoun being preferred in the south.⁸⁸ In the seventeenth century, the forms with the possessive adjective begin to be replaced by the variant with the genitive form of the pronoun, but this only in the nominative–accusative.⁸⁹ The resultant overabundance leads to the rise of suppletion in northern texts, which survives unchanged until the end of the old Romanian period. From the seventeenth century, third-person deferentials generally show the paradigm in Table 3.1 in northern texts. Table 3.1 Third-person deferentials in northern texts
-
dumnealui.M
dumnealor dumneasa (in retreat after mid-seventeenth century)
dumneaei.F
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
-
dumisale.M/F
dumi(i)lor-sale
dumnealor (very rare)
Until close to the middle of the seventeenth century southern texts show cooccurrent forms belonging to different paradigms, an older one preserving the case opposition marked by pronominal inflexion, while a newer one displays extensive case syncretism in both singular and plural forms (Table 3.2). Table 3.2 Third-person deferentials in southern texts - -
dumnealui.M dumneaei.F dumnilui.M
---
dumnealui.M dumneaei.F
- -
dumnealor.M/F dumni(ie)lor.M/F(rare)
---
dumnealor.M/F
The paradigm with generalized case syncretism tends to become established in the south by the seventeenth century, while the paradigm that distinguishes the nominative–accusative from the genitive–dative becomes less and less frequent, disappearing completely in the eighteenth century. The form dumnilui seems to be the ⁸⁸ See Uță Bărbulescu (2014: 317–18).
⁸⁹ See Uță Bărbulescu (2017: 447–61).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. /
155
result of a contraction domniei lui > dumniii lui > dumnilui. From the sixteenth century, we see grammaticalization of a construction comprising domni(i)a and the first-person singular possessive (lit. ‘my lordship’ = ‘I’)—in opposition to the ordinary first-person singular pronoun eu—as a marker of authority in official contexts such as letters sent from the seigneurial chancery: (8) să-mi dați în știre domniii meale ...1. give.2. in knowledge lordship... my... ‘inform me’ (9) Scriș eu, călugărița Mariia90 wrote.1. I nun.the Maria ‘I, the nun Maria, wrote’ From the second half of the seventeenth century, this structure is used more in documents emanating from private individuals than in chancellery documents. The honorific first-person pronoun selects the corresponding first-person clitic, as in (10), and agrees in gender with the sex of the subject, as in (11): (10) dumnia mea m-am lordship my me...1-have ‘I (your lord) have had mercy.’
milostivit91 had.mercy
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(11) sengur domnia mea m-am milostivit92 alone.. lordship my me...1-have had.mercy ‘I (your lord) alone have had mercy.’ It also undergoes phonological reduction and univerbation (e.g. domnea-mea/dumneamea),⁹³ although throughout the oldest period of the language these forms were less frequent than the analysable forms and never managed to establish themselves. In the genitive–dative, this honorific keeps its internal inflexion (e.g. domniii meale), but reduced forms modelled on the deferential second- or third-person forms are attested in seventeenth-century documents (see e.g. domni-meale).⁹⁴ The first-person honorific is not, however, completely grammaticalized, as can be seen from agreement with the verb. Until the end of the old Romanian period, we find first-person singular agreement (e.g. vă grăescu domnia mea,⁹⁵ lit. ‘my lordship, I, speak to you’); third-person singular agreement (e.g. Dă domnia mea⁹⁶ lit. ‘my lordship gives’); first-person singular agreement (e.g. scriem domnia mea⁹⁷ lit. ‘my lordship we.write’). The last mentioned type follows the appearance of the so-called plurale maiestatis in the documents (cf. the ‘royal “we”’). ⁹⁰ DÎ XXX, 16 ian. 1600; VIII, 12 aprilie 1591–1600. ⁹¹ DIR.B III. ⁹² DRH.BXXXIV. ⁹³ DIR.B II, 1613; DIR.B.III, 1618. ⁹⁴ DIR.B III, 1681. ⁹⁵ DIR.B II, 1611. ⁹⁶ DIR.B II, 1613. ⁹⁷ DRH.BXXXI.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
156
3.3.4 Plural for singular Despite the view, expressed in grammars of Romanian (see, e.g., Vasilescu 2013: 403), that the use of the plural for the singular (or with reference to a single entity) is a nineteenth-century phenomenon influenced by French, old Romanian documents tell a different story. Until 1780 there were two contexts in which plural personal pronouns (and forms in agreement with them) showed the values [+authority] and [+deference]. The first was the plurale maiestatis just mentioned, while the second was a ‘plural of reverence’—reverence, that is, towards the addressee. The use of a plural form to refer to oneself begins to be attested in Romanian sixteenth-century documents, but there are earlier records in Latin and Slavonic documents drawn up by scribes in the seigneurial chancelleries of the Romanian countries.⁹⁸ In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the lord refers to himself as nos in Latin documents and as in Slavonic documents (cf. DRH.A, I, May 1384 vs June 1400). In Romanian chancellery documents of the sixteenth century, first-person singular forms appear alongside first-person plurals, as we see for example in 12: (12) dau-vă în știre pentru omul [ . . . ] ce-au trimis la noi99 ‘I inform you regarding the man that they have sent to us’ [i.e. ‘to me’]
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
The plurale maiestatis is not much used in sixteenth-century official documents but is a normal occurrence in ecclesiastical juridical texts, where it connotes judicial authority.¹⁰⁰ Yet from the beginning of the seventeenth century the plurale maiestatis is used in the intitulation of official documents, as we see in (13): (13) Noi, Io Costandin Șărban Voevod [ . . . ] dăm această We, Io C. Ș. V. we.give this carte101 document ‘We, Io Costandin Șărban Voivod, give this document.’ As this strategy becomes established, we find that plural verb agreement extends to the honorific domni(i)a mea. Furthermore, in the seventeenth century the plurale maiestatis may appear where any judicial or religious authority is implicit, a usage that becomes established in the next century (see (14)): (14) smerenia noastră [ . . . ] humility our ‘I humbly inform’
dăm știre102 we.give knowledge
⁹⁸ For the history of the phenomenon in Latin, see e.g. Freedman (2007: 2); and Pinkster (2015: 1120). ⁹⁹ DÎ XXXI, 26. ¹⁰⁰ Chivu (2000: 55). ¹⁰¹ ISD IV, 1657. ¹⁰² DRH.B XXII.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. /
157
Until the eighteenth century the system retained its binary character; but documents from Transylvania and Bucovina show a tendency to develop a new kind of deferential opposition, by introducing plural forms for a single addressee. For example, in a letter from the magistrate of Sibiu to the governor of Transylvania,¹⁰³ the honorifics excelențiia voastră ‘your. excellency’ and măriia voastră ‘your. greatness’ select the second-person plural clitic vă and plural agreement on the verb, while măriilor voastre ‘your greatnesses’, is the form used in addressing more than one person. This development might be due to the weakening of the deferential value of the existing forms, but the influence of Latin models in the area from which the relevant documents come should not be discounted as a factor.¹⁰⁴
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.3.5 Dânsul Spoken registers of modern Romanian tend to operate a threefold distinction among third-person forms: el, ea; dânsul, dânsa; and domnia sa. Grammars, however, indicate a system with four degrees of politeness (see e.g. Hobjilă 2003: 114–15; Vasilescu 2008: 212). Dânsul is a Romanian creation,¹⁰⁵ originating as a prepositional phrase that has grammaticalized as a personal pronoun and, from the nineteenth century, has acquired the further value [+deference]. That dânsul is a late creation can be seen from sixteenth-century spellings, which are still close to the original structure since they comprise the preposition de + the pronoun însu(l)¹⁰⁶ (e.g. ).¹⁰⁷ The form dânsul emerged after 1600. The grammaticalization of the group ¹⁰⁸—in which the prepositional element could be obligatorily selected by the verb, or lexical, or functional (as a byphrase in a passive construction)—went through many stages that culminated in the opacification of the preposition in some contexts: E muiarea temea-se şi tremura, ştia că fu ¹⁰⁹ ‘And the woman was fearful and trembling, she knew it was her’. The new forms, contracted and fused, began to be integrated into other prepositional phrases (de la ¹¹⁰ ‘from him’), usually with de (de dinsul noi perimu¹¹¹ ‘by him we perish’). In the sixteenth century the resulting pronoun appeared only in prepositional phrases that took the accusative, a fact that probably reflects the origin of the pronominal form. Throughout the old Romanian period, dânsul was simply a pronoun. It was not strictly equivalent to third-person el, in that it was subject to syntactic restrictions that persisted until the end of the period: dânsul appeared as complement of various prepositions, while canonical personal pronouns occurred as verb complements or
¹⁰³ ADSB nr. 8, 1760. ¹⁰⁴ The plural of reverence is attested in Latin (see Pinkster 2015: 1120). ¹⁰⁵ For other hypotheses, see e.g. Meyer-Lübke (1895: 597–8); Pușcariu (1906: no. 870); Iordan (1956: 372). For a Romanian origin, see, inter alia, Candrea & Densusianu (1907–14); Byck (1951: 21); Ciorănescu (1958–66); Dimitrescu (1978: 261–8); Rosetti (1986: 136); Niculescu & Roceric (1999: 144–5); Pețan (2001: 432). ¹⁰⁶ Compare the parallel existence of other series that fuse a preposition with the pronoun îns(ul) and do not become established in the language: sprinsul ‘towards him’ (CB), prinsu ‘through him’ (PH). ¹⁰⁷ PH. ¹⁰⁸ For other types of grammaticalization, see Sornicola (2009: 121–8). ¹⁰⁹ CT. ¹¹⁰ PH. ¹¹¹ DÎ XVIII.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
158 adjuncts, although they could also be complements of prepositions. In old Romanian, dânsul was used especially in the context [+human];¹¹² this usage remained unchanged until the end of the eighteenth century, as can be seen from documents from Țara Românească (of eighty-two occurrences in DAR, I, seventy-one are in the [+human] context). In documents from the same period from Moldova the situation is similar. The distribution found in eighteenth-century documents contrasts with the modern situation, where dânsul has joined the ranks of the deferential pronouns, especially in the varieties spoken in southern Romania and in the dialects of the Republic of Moldova.¹¹³ This transformation begins in the nineteenth century and in the south, most probably in response to the weakening of the deferential value of dumnealui (which acquires ironic overtones: see Niculescu & Roceric 1999: 144–74).
3.4 Gender and number in pronouns 3.4.1 Overview
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
In Romanian, pronouns constitute a closed class of forms with a special type of inflexional paradigm, which marks gender, number, case, and, in some cases, also person. Whether inherited from Latin or created later in the history of the language, the pronouns display great morphological, syntactic, and semantic heterogeneity: a few features are presence or absence of person marking, defectiveness, variable or invariable forms, marking of grammatical oppositions by suppletion, desinences, and phonological alternation or internal inflexion or analytic marking or free variation between synthetic and analytic marking.
3.4.2 Morphological heterogeneity and preservation versus reduction of gender oppositions The only pronominal subclass for which the gender distinction is marked throughout the paradigm in spite of deviations in diachrony and in the modern spoken language is that of the intensifying pronoun (însumi, etc.).¹¹⁴ This pronoun, which was present in the language from the earliest texts and is therefore internal to its history,¹¹⁵ shows alternations for gender, number, and case. The first element, îns-, presents the common endings for gender and number (-u.., -ă.., -i.., -e..), while a clitic reflexive marks the person and the number: însumi eu ‘I myself...’ ~ Marta [ . . . ] zise: [ . . . ] lăsatu-m-au însămi ‘Martha said: they have left me..’ (referential agreement); Tu de ¹¹² See also Sornicola (2012: 353), to which we may add that dânsul seems to be more than a referential anaphor, because in many contexts it seems to refer to the most prominent or salient element in the discourse. ¹¹³ Lăzărescu (1984: 221). ¹¹⁴ See Vasilescu (2008: 218–22, 2013: 404–46); Zafiu (2013c: 287–93). ¹¹⁵ It is formed on the pronoun însu ( omulu ăstu, with centralization of the front vowel after a labial. But Candrea & Adamescu (1926–31: 102) and Rosetti (1986: 138) invoke centralization of the front vowel as a result of its unstressed position, while feminines in a- allegedly result from a development of the type casa iastă ‘this house’ (with regular historical diphthongization of the initial e-: see §1.5) > casa astă. The analogy of the compound forms of the demonstratives has also been invoked (Procopovici 1928: 335). Giurgea (2013b: 136) proposes aiestu(u) > aest(u) > aăst(u) > ăstu and aistă > a(i) stă > astă, the feminine being attested earlier than the masculine, whence the difference in the root vowel. The evidence of the old texts and of ALRII maps 1697, 1698, 1702, 1705¹⁴³ lends weight to the idea that these forms emerge from aiest(u). The atlases also show that the most widespread forms have the alternation a- ~ ă-, marking the gender distinction (feminines tend to maintain a-; - ăstor(a) is gender-invariant, while feminine genitive–dative singular ăstei(a) may be due to the influence of ăstor(a)). The earliest attested forms show a- for both genders (see e.g. Giurgea 2013b: 175). Masculine ăst is only attested from the eighteenth century on.¹⁴⁴ If we assume that masculine ast(u) is due to the influence of feminine asta/astă, then we would have to admit that the original masculine form was ăst(u). Ast(u) and ăst(u) might have coexisted in the old period, the latter becoming established in the singular because its vowel distinguishes it from the feminine. The distal demonstratives behave in parallel fashion (ăla ~ ala),¹⁴⁵ and in most dialects are in free variation. In Oltenia they tend to assume different values, constituting a ternary deictic system (ăsta ~ ala ~ ăla).¹⁴⁶ (For the ‘neutral’, anaphoric use of morphologically feminine pronominal forms, see Pană Dindelegan 2016a: 611–18.)
¹⁴⁰ See Croitor (2015c: 144). ¹⁴¹ Frâncu (1997b: 128). ¹⁴² PH, PO. ¹⁴³ The maps indicate a southern area (Muntenia, Oltenia, Banat, southern Transylvania) with ăst(a)/ăl(a) and a northern area (Moldova, Maramureș, western Carpathians, and northern Transylvania) with a(i)est(a)/acel(a). The dialects spoken north of the Crișul Negru form an intermediate area between the two. ¹⁴⁴ But see Ivănescu (1944–5: 304). ¹⁴⁵ Forms with and without the alternation are found in Muntenia, Banat, in dialects north of the Crișul Negru, and in northern Transylvania up towards Năsăud. ¹⁴⁶ Dimitrescu (1959a: 490); Ionașcu (1960: 73–86).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
162
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.4.3 Number In the first- and second-person pronouns, number is expressed suppletively (eu ‘I’ ~ noi ‘we’, tu ‘thou’ ~ voi ‘you’.), continuing the Latin suppletive ( ~ , ~ ). In other pronouns, number is expressed through desinences, which are also found in general nominal inflexion. These desinences are accompanied by morphophonological alternations in the root, cumulatively expressing number, gender, and case (as in the nominal inflexion). Especially in the standard language, the desinence -i tends to be associated with the masculine plural:¹⁴⁷ cât.. ‘so much’ (old câtu) ~ câţi.., câtă../câte.., alt.. (altu in the oldest texts)~ alți.., altă.. ~ alte.., acest..(but old acestu) ~ acești.., această..~ aceste.. (aceaste, in old Romanian). If the ending -i does appear in the feminine plural, it is accompanied by the root alternation [a] ~ [ә] (in early modern Romanian the indefinite cutare has number-variant forms (cutare ‘such’ ~ cutari./. and cutări..). In Oltenia we find gender syncretism in the nominative–accusative plural, as [ˈәʃtja] or [ˈәʃte̯a], both originally masculine forms, mirror the gender syncretism characteristic of the genitive–dative plural ăstora (Brâncuș 1962: 253).¹⁴⁸ In the trans-Danubian varieties as in some Daco-Romanian dialects where final unstressed -e is raised to -i, the feminines have a secondary -i in the plural. However, the masculine -i is usually subject to devocalization (see the alternation type V4(a) in §1.5) and triggers consonantal alternation, while the feminine -i does not: ARo. aˈistu.. ‘this’ ~ aˈiʃti or a ˈiʃtj.. ~ aˈistә.. ~ aˈisti.., ARo. kɨt.. ‘as many’ ~ kɨts.. ~ ˈkɨtә.. ~ ˈkɨti.., Moldovan tot.. ‘all’ ~ toți.. ~ toatî..¹⁴⁹ ~ toati...¹⁵⁰ The genitive–dative plurals of those pronouns that incorporate the definite article either have special inflexional endings or have the same endings that one finds generally in nouns bearing the definite article. While -.. unui has unora, dânsul has dânșilor, the former being very old in the language while the latter appears at the start of the nineteenth century; and, unlike unora, which neutralizes the gender distinction, . dânșilor is distinct from . dânselor. The old Romanian indefinites have one paradigm that is closer in form to their etymological origins (un(u)..¹⁵¹ ‘one’, uni..,¹⁵² une..¹⁵³) and survives until late (this paradigm could have pronominal as well as adjectival value), and another one that incorporates the definite article¹⁵⁴ unul.., una.., unii.., unele... The genitive–dative forms show special endings (unui.., unii.., replaced by unei..), while in the plural the gender distinction is neutralized (unor./), as happens with many other pronouns. Used
¹⁴⁷ See also Maiden (1996: 151). ¹⁴⁸ This form ăștia might have been influenced, at least in part, by the analogical extension of plural i- in feminines. ¹⁴⁹ ITM (mid-eighteenth century). ¹⁵⁰ DAR II (1724). ¹⁵¹ CT. ¹⁵² CN. ¹⁵³ Apostol. ¹⁵⁴ In modern Romanian the distribution is strict, the forms with the article being used exclusively as pronouns.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
163
pronominally, the indefinites maintain these genitive–dative forms by adding a final -a (see §4.7.2). The paradigm of dânsul (see §3.3.5) behaves quite differently.¹⁵⁵ Throughout the old period, dânsul could not appear as grammatical subject. Moreover, it was defective in the genitive–dative until the early decades of the nineteenth century, when singular and plural genitive–dative forms started to appear. These were modelled not on other pronouns, but on the inflexional pattern of nouns bearing the article. Gender and case distinctions are preserved in singular and plural alike: dânsul.. ~ dânsului...-, dânsa.. ~ dânsei...-, dânșii.. ~ dânșilor...-, dânsele.. ~ dânselor...-. Number is marked by the inflexion of one of the elements of the compound or both (cf. însuși ~ înșiși, însăși ~ înseși, același ~ aceiași, or celălalt ~ ceilalți). For the intensifier însuși, the feminine plural înseși is rivalled at the beginning of the modern era by însele, which is transparent for gender and number (însele most probably appears in contexts such as ele înseși ‘they.. themselves’ > ele însele, casele înseși ‘the houses.. themselves’ > casele însele, through the spread of an element often associated with feminine plural, namely -le). Yet we also find a reduction in marking grammatical categories through the elimination of the inflexion of the first element (e.g. the type celalt.. ‘the other’, celaltă.., celalți.., celalte..).
3.5 Case marking in pronouns
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.5.1 Overview Case marking in pronouns varies according to the type of pronoun: some may distinguish the direct object from the genitive–dative, others may show defectiveness, while case syncretism may follow patterns also found in ordinary nominal inflexion, or may be of a kind that is specific to the pronominal system. Note that pronouns agree with their antecedents in gender and number, but never in case.
3.5.2 Defective paradigms The personal pronouns proper (i.e. those of the first and second person) have the richest inflexion¹⁵⁶ and are the only type that distinguishes the nominative from the accusative, namely in the stressed forms eu ‘I’ ~ mine ‘me’, tu ‘thou’ ~ tine ‘thee’ of the singular. As in Latin, the first- and second-person pronouns lack distinctive genitive forms, possession being marked by a possessive form. The position is the same ¹⁵⁵ Although the form incorporating the definite article is attested throughout Daco-Romanian, articleless forms are still in use in an area comprising Bucovina and both banks of the river Dniester (ALM maps 456 and 457). ¹⁵⁶ We are talking here about stressed pronouns. For the clitics, see §3.2.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
164 in trans-Danubian varieties, but there we encounter further case syncretisms.¹⁵⁷ The reflexive pronoun is defective: it has neither a nominative (in this it is like Latin) nor a genitive. Insofar as the Latin genitives of the first and second person of the personal pronoun and of the reflexive pronoun were a secondary, marginal, and stylistically marked expression of possession,¹⁵⁸ the Romanian patterns of defectiveness reflect the Latin situation. Elsewhere in the pronominal system, original paradigmatic gaps have tended to be filled. The series îns(ul), dins(ul), dânsul appeared in the role of direct object only at the end of the old period, most usually after a preposition.¹⁵⁹ Subsequently¹⁶⁰ dânsul came to be used as a nominative, but later, from the nineteenth century on,¹⁶¹ it acquired genitive–dative forms¹⁶² modelled on nouns accompanied by the definite article.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.5.3 ‘Overabundance’ and suppletion The pronoun in old Daco-Romanian has various alternative forms in the third person, variously continuing the Latin and .¹⁶³ The -derived forms are those whose root is characterized, today or originally, by l (e.g. modern el) and the -derived forms are those characterized, today or originally, by s (e.g. îns). In the old phase of the language, this ‘overabundance’ (Thornton 2011) of forms occurred only in the accusative, and only when the pronoun had the function of complement after a preposition taking the accusative (see §§3.3 and 3.4 for îns(ul)/dinsul/dânsul).¹⁶⁴ A comparison between three sixteenth-century texts—Codicele Bratul and Coresi’s Apostolul from the south and Codicele Voronețean from the north—reveals that reflexes of and of both appear in prepositional phrases, but îns(ul) cannot function as a direct object unless preceded by a preposition and becomes available as a direct object only after the generalization of direct object marking with the preposition p(r)e. Dins(ul) and dânsul are subject to the same syntactic constraints throughout the old phase (see §3.3), also occurring after the direct object marker p(r)e. In DacoRomanian, an ‘overabundance’ of forms survived along these lines until the nineteenth century, when dânsul, having a complete paradigm, began (initially in the south) to be associated with the value [+reverence]. The use of dânsul has by no means lost its vitality or function in the modern standard language, where it occupies a place on scale of respect marking: el ~ dânsul and domnia sa. In Moldovan dialect, dânsul and însul appear especially in the accusative and after prepositions with the accusative (but, unlike in the old language, dânsul prevails, being used for inanimates).¹⁶⁵
¹⁵⁷ See e.g. Capidan (1925: 152); Saramandu (1984: 442); Kovačec (1984: 570). ¹⁵⁸ See e.g. Baldi & Nuti (2010: 326). ¹⁵⁹ See also Nicula Paraschiv (2016: 123–43). ¹⁶⁰ Unambiguous use of dânsul as a subject is not attested until the nineteenth century. ¹⁶¹ See also Croitor (2015c: 129). ¹⁶² See also §3.4. ¹⁶³ For a comparative Romance perspective, see Cappellaro (2016: 722–41). ¹⁶⁴ In old Romanian, the continuant of appears in prepositional phrases, either uncontracted (e.g. sprens(ul) ‘towards him’, pre-ns(ul) ‘on him’), or contracted (sprins(ul), prins(ul)). ¹⁶⁵ Lăzărescu (1984: 220–1).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
165
In the trans-Danubian varieties there is overabundance in the third-person pronoun, not only in the accusative (as in old and pre-modern Romanian) but also in the nominative (these forms are syncretic in Aromanian), for all the values—that is, both in number (singular, plural) and in gender (masculine, feminine). The reflex of in Romanian and in trans-Danubian varieties (the Aromanian paradigm is . nisw/nәsw, . ˈnɨsә/ˈnәsә, . niʃ/nәʃ, . ˈnɨsi/ˈnәse) may have originated in a prepositional phrase that gradually became grammaticalized (< );¹⁶⁶ this type of grammaticalization is also found in old Romanian, where we find forms of the type cu-nus(ul), curusul. It may be that this coexistence of forms initially appeared in the accusative, then extended to the nominative. Indeed in the fărșerot dialect of Aromanian, the original accusative form is generalized throughout the paradigm of the pronoun (1 ˈmini and 2 ˈtini).¹⁶⁷ The paradigm of the Aromanian thirdperson pronoun is suppletive, as in old Romanian (in the genitive–dative only continuants of are attested: . a lui ̯, . a ʎei ̯, /. a lorw). In fărșerot, overabundance is manifest in three variant forms of the singular and plural of the third person, through the integration of the distal demonstrative aˈtselw into the paradigm of the personal pronoun (this replicates the path of the grammaticalization of the Latin from demonstrative to personal pronoun).¹⁶⁸ The pronoun aˈtselw is unlike the other two in having distinct genitive–dative forms in both singular and plural and in further distinguishing masculine and feminine in the singular.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.5.4 Suppletive and other modes of case distinction Case oppositions in pronouns may be marked suppletively,¹⁶⁹ suppletion being sometimes inherited from Latin (e.g. 1. eu < , 1. mine < (ne), 1. mie < ) and sometimes mainly phonologically caused (3..- ei < ~ 3..- lor < ). Suppletion is found mostly in the personal pronouns and more rarely elsewhere (but see relative–interrogative - cine ‘who’ ~ cui). Non-personal pronouns (variable for case) mark case via inflexional endings, usually accompanied by phonologically caused allomorphy (e.g. - care ‘which, who’ ~ -.. cărui(a), -.. cărei(a), - fiecare ~ -.. fiecărui(a), -.. fiecărei(a)). While considered specific markers of pronominal inflexion,¹⁷⁰ -ui, -ei, and -or also appear in the inflexional morphology of the definite and indefinite determiners (as explained in §4.4). They originate in vulgar Latin genitive–dative markers of the type . -(a)ei(us), . -ui(us), and
¹⁶⁶ In other Romance varieties, comitative structures comprising preposition + pronoun have become pronouns. Sometimes the comitative value has been lost and the pronoun appears after other prepositions (Rohlfs 1968: 139–40; Fernández-Soriano 1999: 1219; Quiles Casas 2004; Pittau 2005: 77; Loporcaro 2008: 213–14; Salvi 2011: 323). ¹⁶⁷ In the first-person singular, [jo(w)], originally a nominative form, may appear in prepositional phrases ([la jo] ‘to me’): Saramandu (1984: 442). ¹⁶⁸ Nevaci (2013: 262). ¹⁶⁹ See also Maiden (2011c: 159). ¹⁷⁰ Vasilescu (2008: 186–7).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
166 /. -orum.¹⁷¹ Romanian inherits genitive–dative case markers—a more widespread phenomenon in earlier stages of the Romance languages (see e.g. Lardon & Thomine 2009: 127; Salvi 2011: 323). Unlike the modern language, the old language displayed a different stress pattern and a less transparent feminine singular ending in these pronouns. In Latin, the accent fell on the genitive–dative inflexional endings. Romanian inherited this pattern; the proof lies in how stress is consistently noted in old texts from different places and areas, in certain vowel alternations, and especially in the stress pattern of the genitive–dative forms in trans-Danubian dialects and in some Daco-Romanian dialects. The alternation [a] ~ [ә] is consistent with an originally alternating pattern in which, in the genitive–dative, the stress fell on the ending (see §1.5 for vocalic alternation pattern V1). The trans-Danubian dialects (demonstratives Aro. aiˈstui ̯, aiˈstorw, aʧiˈlui ̯, aʧiˈlorw;¹⁷² MeRo. ʧiˈluja, ʧiˈlora)¹⁷³ still retain this stress on the inflexional ending. The same phenomenon is still found today in Banat (in the genitive–dative of demonstratives)¹⁷⁴ and in Moldova and northern Transylvania¹⁷⁵ (in the genitive–dative of the relative–interrogative care). Thus, in the old period and still in some modern varieties, case is additonally indicated by the position of stress, and stress is subsequently levelled by analogy with the nominative–accusative form. In distal and proximal demonstratives, in the indefinites unul and altul, and in the relative–interrogative care together with the forms derived from it (e.g. oarecare, fiecare), old Romanian had a feminine singular form in the genitive–dative that was, until quite recently, different from the from the form found today (see Table 3.3; for a possible explanation, see §3.4).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 3.3 Old Romanian feminine forms in the genitive–dative O R (a)ceştii(a) ‘this’ (a)ceii(a) ‘that’ unii(a) ‘one’ alţii(a) ‘other’ cării(a) ‘who, which’
M R (a)cestei(a) (a)celei(a) unei(a) altei(a) cărei(a)
The old Romanian endings (originally stressed, as the original spellings and comparative evidence from modern trans-Danubian dialects indicate) can be explained phonologically, as continuants of the vulgar Latin genitive–dative feminine singular *-ɛi, with diphthongization of the stressed [ɛ] to [je] and with resulting (and expected) modifications, triggered by *[j], of the preceding consonants. The stressed vowel [i] in these endings reflects a closure of [ej], which is attested elsewhere in old Romanian ¹⁷¹ For views on the the origins and development of these vulgar Latin forms, see e.g. Diez (1838: 83); MeyerLübke (1895: 100); Grandgent (1907: §390); Väänänen (1967: 130); Tekavčić (1980); Herman (2000: 68); Loporcaro 2002: 57). ¹⁷² See Saramandu (1984: 444). ¹⁷³ See Atanasov (1984: 517). ¹⁷⁴ Neagoe (1984: 260). ¹⁷⁵ Dimitrescu (1978: 283).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
167
(e.g. trei ‘three’ > trii; miei ‘my’.. > mii), albeit with much less regularity than in the feminine pronouns.
3.5.5 Types of inflexion and case syncretisms Romanian pronouns display various types of case syncretism. First- and secondperson pronouns are of a mixed type, combining a three-case distinction in the singular and a two-case distinction in the plural. Daco-Romanian has special accusative forms in the first and second persons of the singular (mine, tine).¹⁷⁶ Another pattern of syncretism replicates the one found generally in the determinerless nominal system, such that masculines and plural feminines do not distinguish case at all, while singular feminines do. Thus one gets case-invariant . însumi ‘myself ’ ~ . înșine ‘ourselves’, . însuți ‘thyself ’ ~ . înșivă ‘yourselves’, and corresponding . însene ‘ourselves’, . însevă ‘yourselves’, but -.. însămi ‘myself ’ ~ -.. însemi, -.. însăți ‘thyself ’ ~ -.. înseți. This pattern is extremely unstable, because it involves internal inflexion, special desinences, and atypical syncretisms. The most stable type shares characteristics with the morphology of the definite article, in which forms that are vary in gender and number also vary in case (- ~ -), both in the singular and in the plural (see Table 3.4).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 3.4 Type of inflexion with variable forms for gender, number, and case - -
. acesta ‘this’ celălalt ‘the other (one)’ unul¹⁷⁷ ‘one’ acestuia celuilalt unuia
. aceștia ceilalți unii acestora celorlalți unora
. aceasta cealaltă una acesteia celeilalte uneia
. acestea celelalte unele acestora celorlate unora
This type was productive diachronically, as may be seen from the creation of a complete paradigm for the relative care in old Romanian (§3.5) and for the pronoun dânsul in modern Romanian (see §3.4), together with genitive–dative forms for the quantifier tot. Even if not all these distinctions have survived, the case opposition has been maintained in care and in the plural of tot (. toți, . toate ~ -. tuturor).
¹⁷⁶ For direct object marking via the preposition pe, see Pană Dindelegan (2013d); for the wider Romance perspective, see Ledgeway (2011: 435). ¹⁷⁷ The indefinite pronominal adjectives (un ‘one’, alt ‘other’, vreun ‘some’) and the negative adjective and pronoun niciun(ul) ‘none’ present the same case syncretisms.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
168
3.5.6 Multiple marking In substandard spoken Romanian, the compound (and adjective) pronoun (and adjective) celălalt ‘the other one’, which is formed from cel + al + alt ‘other’ (§§4.5.7, 2.4.3.3), has multiple marking of the genitive–dative case: celorlaltor, but also celuilaltui, celeilaltei. Gender and number information are also expressed word-finally: masculine . celuilaltØ ~ . celorlalți, . celeilalte ~ . celorlalte (the feminine singular additionally marking case, as is the general pattern in feminine). Through the spread of case desinences or through multiple case marking, speakers have adapted the compound pronoun to regular patterns of inflexion, so that (case) desinences tend to appear in final position.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.5.7 Synthetic versus analytic structures in genitive–dative case marking Romanian stands out among Romance languages by having case oppositions not just in the personal pronoun but in other pronominal types as well.¹⁷⁸ There are two situations, of different historical, dialectal, and stylistic scope, in which we find analytic, prepositional constructions instead of synthetic case forms. One situation is that of pronouns that are defective in genitive–dative case marking; the other is the tendency to replace synthetic with analytic constructions in the spoken language and in popular usage. In the modern standard language, analytic constructions (which consist of the preposition a + the pronoun in the accusative instead of the genitive, and the preposition la + the pronoun in the accusative for instead of the dative) are allowed when the paradigm lacks a genitive–dative form (e.g. contrar a tot ‘against everything’, contrar a ce se spune ‘contrary to what one says’). In some pronouns, synthetic and analytic structures are in free variation (drepturile tuturor oamenilor/drepturile a toți oamenii ‘the rights of all people’), so that the plurals align with the analytic marking of the corresponding singulars. Both constructions are allowed for the negative pronoun nimeni ‘nobody’, as for instance in nu am dat nimănui nimic and nu am dat la nimeni nimic ‘I gave nobody anything’. The analytic structure has existed since old Romanian. At that stage various prepositions could be used to mark the genitive–dative case forms: a,¹⁷⁹ de,¹⁸⁰ la¹⁸¹ for the genitive and a, la, for the dative:¹⁸² pre mijloc de mulți¹⁸³ ‘in the midst of many’, se iviră a mulţi ‘they rose up to many’,¹⁸⁴ Arătatu-s-au la toţi cu blândeţe şi cu milă¹⁸⁵ ‘They showed themselves to all with gentleness and mercy’. Analytic case marking may occur in personal pronouns proper (cuvente bune şi frumoase ce ne-ai scris dumneata la noi¹⁸⁶ lit. ‘good and fine words which you have ¹⁷⁸ See e.g. Lardon & Thomine (2009); Egerland & Cardinaletti (2010: 405); and Salvi (2011: 322–3). ¹⁷⁹ From Lat. (see also Gaeng 1977: 106; Iliescu [1965] 2008: 65). ¹⁸⁰ De (< Lat. ) appeared in various constructions with a nominal (see Stan 2016b: 320), but much more rarely with a pronoun. ¹⁸¹ La most probably comes from Lat. + (Iliescu [1965] 2008: 3268). ¹⁸² For further discussion, see Pană Dindelegan (2013a). ¹⁸³ PS. ¹⁸⁴ CT. ¹⁸⁵ NL.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
169
written.us to us’). In the history of the language, these two different strategies have acquired their own selectional rules. Thus in the standard language the prepositions a and la select case-invariant pronominal forms, a being particularly specialized for the genitive and la for the dative. Matters are quite different in substandard spoken Romanian, where the preposition la tends to become generalized as a genitive–dative marker. Even in pronouns where synthetic forms would be expected in the relevant contexts, analytic constructions are preferred over the synthetic genitive (le-a dat cadouri la ăia ‘he gave presents to those ones’ rather than le-a dat cadouri ălora). In modern Romanian, however, la for the dative is accepted even in educated usage up to a point (e.g. la nimeni ‘to nobody’). Analytic marking occurs in various Romanian dialects (e.g. Lăzărescu 1984: 229; Marin & Marinescu 1984: 379). Analytic or mixed structures are attested in the transDanubian dialects: thus Aromanian genitive–dative relatives show only the analytic structure a ˈkari ‘to whom’.¹⁸⁷ We see this in Istro-Romanian (a ˈtotile ‘to (them) all’)¹⁸⁸ or in Megleno-Romanian, where synthetic forms are less used than analytic forms (see Atanasov 1984: 517).
3.6 Relative and interrogative pronouns
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.6.1 Inventory, distribution, usage Relatives and interrogatives are pronouns and pronominal adjectives that, depending on the context, function either as wh-questions or as wh-relatives—that is, sentence connectors that link two clauses and place the second one in a subordinate position. This class has the following members: care (‘which’), cine (‘who’), ce (‘what’), câţi (‘how many’), which function as both relatives and interrogatives, as (15a–d) illustrate; al câtelea (‘which one’), which functions only as an interrogative (see (15e)); ceea ce (‘what’, ‘that which’), cel ce (‘who’), de (popular ‘that’), which function only as relatives, as in (15f–h). Some indefinite pronouns also function as relatives (for this, see (15i–k) and §3.7). (15) a cartea pe care am citit-o book. which I.have read.=...3 ‘the book which I read’ (relative) a0 Care dintre voi a reuşit which from you. ..3 succeeded ‘Which of you succeeded first?’ (interrogative) b Cine se scoală de dimineaţă who ...3 wakens of morning ‘One who wakes up early goes far.’ (relative)
¹⁸⁷ Saramandu (1984: 445).
¹⁸⁸ Kovačec (1984: 571).
primul? first. departe far
ajunge arrives
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
170 b0 Cine a reuşit primul? who has succeeded first. ‘Who succeeded first?’ (interrogative) c Ce mi-ai cumpărat nu mă interesează not me interests what .1=you.have bought ‘What you bought me does not interest me’ (relative) (carte) mi-ai cumpărat? c0 Ce what (book) .1=you.have bought ‘What book did you buy me?’ (interrogative) d Voi angaja câţi îmi permite legea I.will employ as.many to.me permits law ‘I will employ as many as the law allows me to.’ (relative) d0 Câţi au reuşit la examen? how.many have succeeded at exam. ‘How many succeeded in the exam?’ (interrogative) e Al câtelea a terminat cursa? what(ordinal) has finished the.race ‘In which place did he finish the race?’ (interrogative) f Ceea ce mă supără este nepăsarea colegilor that which me bothers is indifference colleagues.of.the ‘What bothers me is my colleagues’ indifference’ (relative)
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
g Numai cel ce încearcă are şanse de reuşită only the.one that tries has chances of success ‘Only he who tries has a chance of success’ (relative) h (pop.)
nevasta de mi-am luat wife. that ..1=I.have taken ‘the wife I chose for myself ’ (relative)
i Oricine va fi întrebat va răspunde ca noi anybody will be asked will reply like us. ‘Anybody who is asked will answer like us.’ (relative and indefinite) j Cumpără orice pofteşte he.buys anything he.fancies ‘He buys anything he fancies.’ (relative and indefinite) k Poate cumpăra oricâte vrea. he.can buy however.many he.wants ‘He can buy as many as he wants.’ (relative and indefinite) The relatives and interrogatives inventoried in (15) are classified into different subgroups according to several criteria.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
171
i. With respect to the relation between relatives and interrogatives, some of these forms can be now one, now the other (care ‘which(?)’, cine ‘who(?)’, ce ‘what(?)’, câţi (‘how many?’, ‘as many as’); others can be relatives only (ceea ce, cel ce (‘what’), (popular) de (‘that’)); and al câtelea ‘which one [in numerical order]?’ is solely an ordinal interrogative. ii. We can distinguish simple relatives (care ‘which, who’, cine ‘who’, ce ‘which, who’, câţi ‘as many as’), compound relatives (ceea ce ‘that. which, what’, cel. ce ‘the one who/which’), and compound indefinites, with ori- ‘any’ (oricare ‘any’, oricine ‘anybody’, orice ‘anything’, oricâţi¹⁸⁹ ‘however many’). The interpretation of ceea ce and cel ce as syntacticall non-analysable (and thus noncompound) structures is based on their degree of grammaticalization. Note that, although ceea is formally a feminine, ceea ce no longer triggers feminine agreement (Ceea ce m-a învăţat este interesant.¹⁹⁰/ **interesantă. ‘What she taught me is interesting’) and the syntagm cannot be separated by a preposition (despre ceea ce se vorbeşte ‘what one talks about’, literally ‘about that which one talks’, not **ceea despre ce se vorbeşte ‘that about which one talks’).¹⁹¹ iii. For the relation between relatives and indefinites, we may distinguish forms that function solely as relatives (most belong in this category, but not the compounds with ori- ‘any’) and forms that function both as relatives and as indefinites. The compounds with ori- ‘any’ function differently in different contexts, either only as indefinites, as in (16a–c), or as indefinites and relatives simultaneously, as in (16d–f).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(16) a Mănâncă orice. he.eats anything ‘He eats anything.’ (+indefinite, –relative) b Vine oricine. comes anybody ‘Anybody comes’ (+indefinite, –relative) c Pot să lipsească oricâţi. may.3 lack..3 however.many. ‘As many as you like /Any number can be absent’ (+indefinite, –relative) d Mănâncă orice găseşte. he.eats whatever he.finds ‘He eats whatever he finds.’ (+indefinite, +relative)
¹⁸⁹ For compounds with ori-, see §3.7.5.4. ¹⁹⁰ Ceea ce behaves like other pronouns with feminine form and neutral value, which do not trigger feminine agreement (such as Asta. este imposibil. ‘This is impossible’); see also Pană Dindelegan (2016a: 611–16). ¹⁹¹ Only ceea ce is usually considered a compound form, while cel ce is considered to be analysable, being formed from the demonstrative cel ‘the one (which/who)’ + the relative ce ‘that, which, who’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
172 e Vine oricine vrea. coms whoever wants ‘Anybody who wants comes.’ (+indefinite, +relative) f Pot să lipsească oricâţi doresc. may.3 lack.3 however.many wish ‘As many as wish may be absent’ (+indefinite, +relative) iv. For the pronoun–adjective relation, we may distinguish forms that function only pronominally, such as cine ‘who’, oricine ‘anybody’, ceea ce ‘that which’ (or ‘she/the one who’), cel ce ‘(he/the one) who’, and forms that function only as pronouns and as adjectives, as in (17)—for example care ‘which’, ce ‘what’, câţi ‘how many’, al câtelea ‘which one (in order)’, and the compounds with ori-, with the exception of oricine ‘anybody’: (17) a Care (elev) va ajunge primul va primi. which (pupil) will arrive first will receive premiul prize. ‘Whichever pupil arrives first will get the prize.’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b Mănânc ce (mâncare) mi se I.eat what (food) ..1 ...3 ‘I eat whatever food is prepared for me.’
pregăteşte. prepares
c Ministerul stabileşte câţi (sportivi) vor. the.ministry decides how.many sportsmen will participa la olimpiadă participate at Olympics ‘The ministry decides how many sportsmen will participate in the Olympics.’ d Al câtelea (răspuns) a which (ordinal) (answer) has ‘Which answer was the winner?’
fost câştigător? been winner
e Oricare (elev) va participa va primi un premiu. any (pupil) will participate will get an award ‘Any pupil who participates will get an award.’ v. There are forms specified as [+human] (cine,¹⁹² ‘who’ oricine ‘anyone’, cel ce ‘he who’), forms specified as [-human] (ceea ce ‘that which, what’, orice ‘anything’), and forms insensitive to this distinction (care ‘which, who’, câţi ‘as many as’, al câtelea, a câta. ‘which one (in order)?’, oricare ‘any’, oricâţi ‘however many’, ce ‘which, that’—as we see in (18).
¹⁹² For a different behaviour of cine in old Romanian, see §3.6.3.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
173
(18) a studenţiii carei au reuşit the.students who have succeeded ‘the students who have succeeded’ [+human] b cărţilei carei s-au cumpărat the.books which ...3=have bought ‘the books that were bought’ [-human] c câţii elevii au reuşit as.many pupils have succeeded ‘as many pupils as succeeded’ [+human] d câţii banii s-au cheltuit as.may monies ...3=have spent ‘as much money as was spent’ [-human] studenti a fost ales? e Al câteleai which [ordinal] student has been chosen —Al doilea. the second ‘Which student was chosen?—The second.’ [+human]
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
f Al câteleai răspunsi a fost ales? which [ordinal] answer has been chosen —Al doilea. the second ‘Which answer was chosen?—The second’ [-human] If the compound pronoun orice is [-human], the corresponding adjective is insensitive to this feature, as in (19a–b). The relative–interrogative ce ‘what, that, which’ is used preferentially for non-human referents, as in (5c–d), but in some contexts has [+human] reference, as happens in (19e–f). (19) a Cumpără oricei cartei doreşte. he.buys any book he.wishes ‘He buys any book he wishes.’ b Premiază oricei studenti are rezultate bune. he.awards any student has results good. ‘He awards any student who has good results.’ cărţii ai cumpărat? c Cei what books you.have bought ‘What books did you buy?’ d Cumpără cei cărţii găseşte. he.buys what books he.finds ‘He buys whatever books he finds.’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
174 e Cei studenţii au refuzat să vină? what students have refused come..3 ‘What students refused to come?’ cei încalcă legile f Sunt parlamentarii are parliamentarians that break the.laws ‘There are parliamentarians that break the law.’ vi. According to the type of reference and the way the relative pronouns establish this reference, we can distinguish relative pronouns that function as anaphorics in relation to an antecedent in the previous clause, as we see in (20), and relative pronouns that function as variables and obtain their reference contextually, as in (21a–b). The relative cine, which does not accept an antecedent in the previous clause (see (21a)), and also all interrogatives (see (21b)), belong to this latter class, but other relatives can also function as variables in some contexts (see (21c)). (20) a întrebareai cei ţi-am pus question.the that ..2. I.have put ‘the question that I put to you’ carei au venit b copiiii children.the which have come ‘the children who came’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(21) a Cine are rezultate proaste pierde bursa who has. results bad. loses scholarship.the ‘Someone who /Whoever has bad results loses the scholarship.’ b Care dintre voi a întârziat? which from you. has tarried ‘Which of you was late?’ c Lucrează ce//orice i se cere he.works what//anything ..3 ...3 =asks ‘He performs whatever is required of him.’ vii. The relative pronoun de has special status and is non-standard in modern Romanian. Various register labels have been attached to it, from ‘popular’ (Guțu Romalo 1969) to ‘regional, Wallachian’. Vulpe ([1980] 2006: 154) draws up a dialectal map for de, indicating that it is used in Crişana, Banat, Oltenia, Wallachia, the south of Transylvania, Valea Bistriţei, and Bistriţa Năsăud (hence not in Moldova), and this leads her to conclude that de is generally ‘popular’ (vernacular).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
175
3.6.2 Inflexional properties
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
The relative–interrogatives are a subclass of non-personal pronouns, some of which are totally or partially inflected, with variant morphological forms (care, cine, câţi, cel ce), while others are invariant (ce, ceea ce, (popular) de). Inflexional forms vary totally or partially, by gender (cât ‘how many’: câţi...- vs câte...-; care ‘which’; căruia...- vs căreia...-), by number (cât ‘how many’: câtă...- vs câte...-; care ‘which’: căruia...-, căreia...- vs cărora./..) and by case (cine ‘who’: cine..- vs cui..-; care ‘which’: care./.. vs căruia...-, căreia...-, cărora./..-). The forms that are partially inflected have supplementary syncretism; see care ‘which’, with .=. syncretism for and in modern Romanian (omul care ‘the person which’ vs femeia care ‘the woman which’), as well as = (omul care ‘the person who’ vs oamenii care ‘the people who’). With respect to case inflexion, variable relative–interrogatives follow the general pronominal pattern (see §3.5), having distinct forms for -. (care..- vs căruia..-; cine..- vs cui..-) and for -. (care..- vs cărora..-; câţi..- vs câtor..-), and showing the case endings -ui for ..- (cui, cărui(a)), -ei for ..- (cărei(a)) and -or for .= ..- (căror(a), câtor).¹⁹³ The genitive form is accompanied by the preposed marker al (with its inflexional variants: al, a, ai, ale), just like the noun. The presence or absence of this marker depends on whether the genitive is preposed or postposed in relation to the head noun (compare (22a) with (22b)) and immediately adjacent to it or separated from it (compare (22c) with (22d)). (22) a filmul despre premiera căruia am vorbit film.the about premiere.the which. I.have spoken ‘the film about the premiere of which I spoke’ b filmul despre a cărui premieră am vorbit film.the about al. which. premiere I.have spoken ‘the film about whose premiere I spoke’ c Cerem demisia cui a greşit. we.demand resignation.the who. has erred ‘We demand the resignation of whoever made the mistake.’ d Cerem demisia imediată a cui a greşit. we.demand resignation.the immediate al. who. has erred ‘We demand the immediate resignation of whoever made the mistake.’
¹⁹³ On Romanian pronominal inflexion, see also Salvi (2011: 323–34).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
176 The genitive–dative forms receive the final element -a, which does not exist in noun inflexion but is found with other pronouns (see unui ~ unuia, altui ~ altuia)¹⁹⁴ and distinguishes between adjective and pronoun (see cărui vs căruia in (23a) and (23b)). (23) a Cărui student i s-a dat bursă? which. student ..3 ...3=has given scholarship ‘To which student did they give a scholarship?’ (interrogative adjective) b Căruia dintre ei i s-a which. from them ..3 ...3=has dat bursă? given scholarship ‘To which of them did they give a scholarship?’ (interrogative pronoun) Analytic (prepositional) forms can be used for -, just as they can with the noun; they are obligatory for invariable pronouns (see (24a)), but optional for variable pronouns (compare (24b)):¹⁹⁵ (24) a urmările a ce/a ceea ce s-a votat consequences.the a what/a what ...3=has voted ‘the consequences of what was voted for’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b răspunsurile a câţi studenţi/ câtor studenţi answers.the a as.many students as.many.. students au venit la examen have come to exam ‘the answers of as many students as came to the exam’ In modern standard Romanian,¹⁹⁶ care and cine take the prepositional marker pe for the direct object (in the accusative case), regardless of [+human] or [-human] reference; care in modern Romanian is [+/-human], as in (25a) and (25b); cine has only [+human] referents, as (25c) shows. (25) a elevul pe care l-am ajutat pupil.the which ..3.=I.have helped ‘the pupil I helped’ b cărţile pe care le-am cumpărat books.the which ..3.=I.have bought ‘the books I bought’
¹⁹⁴ For the -a found with other pronominal forms, see §3.7. ¹⁹⁵ For the analytic marking of oblique cases of the noun, see §2.4.3. ¹⁹⁶ In non-standard modern Romanian, the marker pe is often absent (see Pană Dindelegan 2015a: 172).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
177
c N-am ales pe cine trebuia not=I.have chosen whom was.necessary ‘I didn’t choose the right person.’ For the general inflexion of relative–interrogatives in modern Romanian, see Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 inflexion of relative–interrogatives
- - - - -
-
- -
care cine cât
cărui(a) cui –
care cine câtă
cărei(a) cui –
care – câţi
care – câte
căror(a) – câtor(a)/a câte
al câtelea ce ceea ce cel ce
– a ce a ceea ce celui ce
a câta ce ceea ce –
– a ce a ceea ce celei ce
– ce – cei ce
căror(a) – câtor(a)/a câţi – – – celor ce
– ce – cele ce
– – – celor ce
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.6.3 Origins, history, and special uses in old Romanian The origin of Romanian relative–interrogatives lies in Latin, as for other Romance languages (Salvi 2011: 324): care < , ce < , cine < *ˈkwene (< *kwen < ), cât < ; ceea ce, cel ce, and de arise in Romanian, the first two by compounding, from a distal demonstrative + a relative, and the last, from a conjunctional de. The emergence of the compound forms with a demonstrative has been explained by its inflexional and phonetic ‘weakness’ (it is invariable and it is too short). The inventory of relative–interrogative forms can also be found in trans-Danubian varieties; Aro. (a)care, (a)cari, acui, acuri ‘which, of which’; ţini ‘who’; ţe, ţi ‘what’ (Capidan 1932: 427); câtu, -ţ, -tâ, -tă, aţea ţi ‘what’ (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1997); MeRo. cári (Atanasov 2002: 221). There are few differences in use between modern and old Romanian, and these particularly involve frequency, form (presence or absence of the final augmentative element), stress, and distribution. Most significant is the inflexional difference in care ‘which’ (see point ix here). i. A major difference in distribution concerns cine ‘who’. In old Romanian, this form can be used as an anaphor, with an antecedent, as in (26a–c), or it can be used as an adjective, as in (26d). It also admits plural contexts, as we can see in (26a), (26c), and (26e)—unlike modern Romanian, where it cannot be used as an anaphor or as an adjective, and the contextual restriction [singular] has emerged.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
178 (26) a şi toţi viiii cinei cred întru mine nu and all alive.the who believe in me not muri în veaci197 die in ages ‘and all the living men who believe in me will never die’
vor will
voi sfinţeaşte198 b eu-s Domnuli cinei pre I=am Lord.the who you consecrates ‘I am the Lord who consecrates you’ cinei am199 c Iară alalte rudei and other relatives whom I.have ‘And other relatives whom I have’ d Cine om ce teame-se de Domnul who man that fears=...3 of Lord.the lui în calea ce va200 to.him in way.the that goes ‘The man who fears God puts a law in his way’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
e Toţi cine vor bea de apa all who will drink of water.the ‘all who will drink of this water’
leage pune law puts
aceasta201 this
ii. Major differences in frequency are found between care and ce, rival forms, which in old Romanian are distinguished by the high frequency of ce (see the quantitative data in Iliescu 1956: 26); the dominance of ce is enhanced by compounds containing it (cel ce, ceea ce) (in CV, for instance, there are 216 occurrences of cel ce, but only forty-eight of ce and six of care: see Iliescu 1956: 26). iii. The relative de, the equivalent of old Romanian ce and care (as shown in (27)), was much more frequent in old than in modern Romanian (see also Pană Dindelegan 2014). (27) a easte nebuniia de o are omul is the.madness that ... has the.man pururi şi easte nebuniia de prinde omul always and is madness.the which catches man.the la luni nooa202 at moons new ‘it is the madness that man always has and it is the madness that man always catches at full moon’
¹⁹⁷ CC¹.
¹⁹⁸ PO.
¹⁹⁹ DÎ VIII.
²⁰⁰ CP¹.
²⁰¹ CC¹.
²⁰² FD.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. b era o fată de o chema was a girl that ... called ‘there was a girl who was called Aginta’
179
Aginta203 Aginta
c acolo-s râure de foc de ( . . . ) neacă toate locurele there=are rivers of fire that drown all places.the şi câmpii; ( . . . ), acolo-s fulgere și tunete and fields.the there=are thunderbolts and thunderclaps slobozite de draci de spar pre păcătoși204 loosed by devils that scare sinners ‘There there are rivers of fire that drown every place and field; ( . . . ) there there are thunderbolts and thunderclaps loosed by devils which scare the sinners’ The structures with de să are specific to the old language and were preceded by an indefinite or a negative ((28a–d); see also Pană Dindelegan 2014). We also find structures with a deleted relative, as in (28c) and (28d), where să assumes the function of the relative (see also Gheorghe 2016: 485). This type of structure is preserved in contemporary popular language.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(28) a în ceastă lume să nu aibi nemică de in this world not have..2 nothing that să-ţi fie mai drag şi mai scump decât Dumnezeu205 =..2 be more dear and more precious than God ‘and have nothing in this world dearer and more precious to you than God’ b şi nu va fi nimea de and not will be nobody that ‘and nobody shall scare you’
să spare voi206 scare you
c şi nu se afla nime să-l and not ...3 found nobody =..3 poată încălca207 can..3 override ‘and there was nobody who could override it’ d Ştii pre cineva să fie c aceasta you.know somebody be..3 like this 208 întru oamenii noştri? in people our ‘Do you know anybody who is like this among our people?’ iv. The oblique case forms of care underwent a stress shift. The stress, on the final syllable in Romanian (cărúi, căréi, cărór), was inherited from Latin but gradually shifted onto the root, probably under the influence of cáre;²⁰⁹ archaic stress on ²⁰³ FD. ²⁰⁴ Ev. ²⁰⁵ CC¹. ²⁰⁶ CC². ²⁰⁷ MC. ²⁰⁸ AOD. ²⁰⁹ Yet the vowel of cáre does not replace the originally unstressed ă (cắrui, and not **cárui); cf. the stressrelated alternation type V1 (in §1.5).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
180 the inflexional ending persists in Moldova and northern Transylvania (Dimitrescu 1978: 283). v. Forms with the final element -și (-șu, -ș), especially after cine ‘who’, were frequent in old Romanian (see examples in (29a–b)), but are not preserved in the modern standard language. (29) a şi cineşu ispiteaşte sineşu, de a lui and who tempts self from al his pohitire e trasu şi prilăstitu210 lust is drawn and seduced ‘and he who tempts himself, by his own lust is drawn and seduced’ b şi cineşi se va ţinea den feciorii and who ...3= will descend from sons. să le fie moşie211 ..3 be estate ‘and those who will descend from his sons, let the estate be theirs’
lui, his
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
vi. The use of the forms cine(şu) and cui(ş) with indefinite meaning, as we saw in (30a) and (30b), is archaic. There was a tendency for these forms to specialize for indefinite use (for instance, the twenty occurrences of the relative cui in the first 300 pages of CC² have only this form, while the indefinite cui (six occurrences) always has the augmentative deictic element -şu (cuişu). But the relative care is also frequently used as an indefinite, as in (30c) and (30d). (30) a Atunce va fi cineş cu lucrul then will be who with work.the ‘Then somebody will be with his work.’
lui212 his
b să dea cuişu după lucrulu lui213 give..3 somebody. after work.the his ‘should give to somebody according to his work’ c împărţiia tuturora căruia de ce-i he.shared all. who. of what=..3 lipsiia was.lacking ‘He gave to everybody according to their want.’ d au început a-şi prinde caii, they.have begun to=...3 catch horses.the să fugă carei încotro or putè214 run each. whither they.will be.able ‘they began to catch their horses, and to run wherever they could’ ²¹⁰ CC².
²¹¹ DÎ XXXIII.
²¹² CC¹.
²¹³ CC².
²¹⁴ NL.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
181
vii. The structures in which the relative care, cine are invariable with respect to case are frequent (31a–c); sometimes they are replaced by invariable pronouns, as in (31d); both types are still present in non-standard modern Romanian. (31) a Cine-i va fi ruşine de whom=..3 will be shame of ‘he who will be ashamed of me’ b Cine i-e frică whom. ..3=is fear ‘he who is afraid of God’
mine215 me
de Dumnezeu216 of God
c o pasăre care-i iaste a bird which=..3 is ‘a bird whose name is goldfinch’
numele stâgleţ217 name.the goldfinch
d Pentru hainele ce iaste îmbrăcat for clothes.the which is dressed ‘for the clothes the monk is dressed in’
călugărul218 monk.the
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
viii. There is frequent variation in the use of the final formative -a (see also §4.7.2), since the rules for this usage were not fixed in old Romanian (see (32)). In general, -a is more frequent in old than in standard modern Romanian, especially in the case of the compound cel ce (cela ce, ceia ce, ce(a)lea ce, ce(a)ea ce). (32) a Căror răspunse cum că n-au putut whom.. answers that not=have been.able pentru necredinţa lor219 for disbelief.the their ‘to whom he answered that he could not for their lack of faith’ b căruia trup să cheamă că which. body ...3 calls that cort220 tent ‘to which body it is like a tent’
iaste is
c cu inima cărui se va lega221 with heart.the whom. ...3 will tie ‘with whose heart he will be tied’ d să ungă trupul căruia nu se anoint.3 body.the whom. not ...3 cuveniia222 behoved ‘to anoint the body of one for whom it was not fitting’ ²¹⁵ CC². ²²⁰ CÎ.
²¹⁶ CC². ²²¹ CC².
²¹⁷ CDicț. ²²² CC¹.
²¹⁸ PA.
²¹⁹ CC¹.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
182 ix. The relative care has a richer inflexion in old than in modern Romanian. This is due to the use of forms combined with the definite article (see 33a–d, and compare usage in Italian, French, and Spanish: Iliescu 1956: 27). These forms differentiate between the nominative–accusative masculine singular (carele), the nominative– accusative feminine singular (carea), the nominative–accusative masculine plural (carii), and the nominative–accusative feminine plural (carele). The archaic form of masculine plural takes not only the article, but a different inflexional ending cari (note the variation carii/carei). Forms with the definite article were used alongside those without it throughout the old period and were still present in grammars and in language at the end of the nineteenth century (Croitor 2015c: 165); but from that point on they began to be gradually abandoned, the invariant form care being used for all gender and number combinations (elevul.. care ‘the (male) pupil who’, eleva.. care ‘the (female) pupil who’, elevii.. care, elevele.. care). (33) a carele se va scula să ia which... ...3 will rise take..3 ocina de la frate-miu land.the from brother=my ‘the one who will rise and take the land from my brother’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b mulţi oameni buni ( . . . ) carii îşi many people good.. who... ...3 vor pune mai jos iscăliturile223 will put more low signatures.the ‘many good people who will put their signatures below’ c Nu eu, ce dulceaţa lu Dumnezeu not I but sweetness... lui. God carea e întru mine me which... is in ‘not I, but God’s sweetness that is inside me’ noao224 d toate sfintele scripturi carele..-s all holy... scriptures.. which...=are new.. ‘all the holy scriptures which are new’
3.7 Indefinites 3.7.1 Overview Romanian does inherit from Latin some indefinite pronouns and pronominal adjectives (un ‘a’, alt ‘(an)other’, nimeni ‘nobody’, etc.), but it has also constructed an extensive series of its own by compounding interrogative or relative forms with a ²²³ DÎ XIV, XII.
²²⁴ CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
183
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
fairly wide range of indefinite markers, largely of verbal origin (and particularly from the reflexes of the verb *voˈlere ‘want’, Niculescu 1965: 39). Indefinite markers (Haspelmath 1997) form entire series by creating compounds (they use all the available interrogative and relative pronouns in doing so), but these forms prove fairly unstable, many of their lexical components having become obsolete in modern Romanian. Romanian indefinites employ the word for a unit (the number ‘one’), continuing the situation in Latin, and also include a good many compounds formed with interrogative or relative pronouns, but not (unlike e.g. Fr. personne, Ger. man) with generic nouns meaning ‘person’ or ‘man’. The productivity of the interrogative type was specific to Latin (Haspelmath 1997: 26). It is also a characteristic of Slavonic languages. Pronominal forms tend to become formally differentiated from adjectives (determiners, adjectival quantifiers) in the course of history. Pronouns get differentiated through elements of various origins, such as the enclitic article or the formative -a. Most indefinites formally mark the nominative–accusative vs genitive–dative distinction through specific desinences (-ui, -ii/ei, -or, shared with other pronouns and articles). Romanian shows a proclivity for creating ‘supercompounds’ by stringing together several indefinite markers (e.g. oarecâţiva < oare + câţi + va ‘some few’) or indefinite forms that already have a complex structure (altcineva ‘someone else’ < alt ‘other’ + cine ‘who’ + va), to which may be added the word-final formatives -şi, -le, -le + -a. Unlexicalized collocations are very numerous. It remained possible until a late date to dissociate elements of those compounds that retain an analysable structure (cu niciunul ‘with none’ ~ nici cu unul ‘nor with one’; în oarece lit. ‘in anything’ ~ oare în ce lit. ‘any in what’).
3.7.2 Unul and its compounds (niciunul, vreunul) 3.7.2.1 Unul, una The generic indefinite derived from ‘one’ functions as an indefinite adjective, which tends to be grammaticalized as an indefinite article, and as a pronoun, which is differentiated through the suffixation of the definite article in the nominative– accusative forms. The resulting paradigms are, however, incomplete and hybrid, and variable over time: (a) the pronoun has a mixed inflexional morphology, the nominative–accusative form taking the article while the genitive–dative has specific endings without the article; (b) in the sixteenth century the pronoun did not necessarily take the article; (c) the adjective comes to take the article obligatorily in the nominative–accusative plural after a period of variation, and the process reaches completion only in the twentieth century. Grammaticalization as an indefinite article affects only the singular and the genitive–dative forms of the plural. For the plural, the deciding factor in grammaticalization was probably the role of the form in case marking (see §4.4). Densusianu (1938: 118) offers phonological arguments for the thesis that un, o already had special status as an article in the earliest Romanian texts.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
184 He points out that, while in the sixteenth century the pronoun displayed rhotacized variants (i.e. variants in which [n] becomes [r], as in urul,²²⁵ unrul,²²⁶ ura), the adjective had the forms un, o, which means that it became an article before the advent of rhotacism. In trans-Danubian dialects, the indefinite article/adjective has, in the nominative–accusative feminine singular, the forms ună (MeRo.; Atanasov 1984: 518) and unî (Aro.; Saramandu 1984: 447), a type also sporadically attested north of the Danube (for the nineteenth century ună, see Croitor 2015c: 151). It is assumed that this was the form in proto-Romanian (Coteanu 1969f: 236). The feminine form probably arose through the deletion of intervocalic [n] (atypical, but encountered in some other words) as a result of synaeresis and vocalic assimilation: ună > *uă > ŭo > o (Dimitrescu 1978: 239). This happened in the adjective, where the indefinite is unaccented and part of a stress group whose head is the following noun. Nominative–accusative plural forms of the adjective are rare in the sixteenth century; the forms with the desinences -i, -e are used with decreasing frequency in the following centuries and disappear in modern Romanian, which prefers the forms with article, identical with the pronouns ( unii, unele).²²⁷In the nominative– accusative the pronoun has, as its suffix, the definite article, with exactly the same patterns of allomorphy as those shown by the article in combination with a noun, so that the pronoun has a structure similar to that of a noun with suffixed definite article; but in the genitive–dative it retains the pronominal form. In Romanian linguistics there is a distinction between inflexion of the nominal type, which occurs with the help of the article, and inflexion of the pronominal type, which occurs in the absence of the article but has its own specific endings (Philippide 2011: 445). The article and the formative -a are fused cumulatively in uni(i)a—a nineteenthcentury regional form of the masculine in the nominative–accusative plural (Croitor 2015c: 152). This form was probably influenced by the genitive–dative form unora or by other pronouns (e.g. the demonstrative (a)ceiia). Unul used in the adjectival sense ‘sole, only’ has nominal inflexion (marked by the article) in the genitive–dative as well. This usage is still attested in the sixteenth century, but subsequently lost: numele aceluia unrului²²⁸ ‘the name of that sole one’; omeniia unului născut²²⁹ ‘the kindness of one born’; a unului-născut²³⁰ ‘of the sole born’. The genitive–dative has pronominal inflexion with different endings in each gender in the singular ( -ui, -ii) and/or with endings common to both genders in the plural; these are followed by the final formative -a. The genitive–dative forms are considered to have emerged analogically in proto-Romanian, on the model of other pronouns (Coteanu 1969b: 236). In this way, unui is due to the generalization of the pronominal ending -ui (cf. cui, lui), but -ii may preserve the Latin declension of the indefinite ( , ī).²³¹
²²⁵ PH, CV. ²²⁶ PH. ²²⁷ Unele also has the regional phonological variant unile. ²²⁸ PH. ²²⁹ CC.² ²³⁰ CL. ²³¹ Ernout & Meillet (2001, s.v. ) show that in popular Latin genitive–dative uni, unae had generalized.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
185
The genitive–dative singular forms unii (adjective, determiner) and uniia (pronominal) are general in the sixteenth century (Densusianu 1938: 177), but from the eighteenth century on they give way to unei (adjective) and uneia (pronoun). The replacement of -ii by -ei occurs in other pronouns as well and can be explained as a result of the influence of the definite article. Forms with the ending -ii are the only ones used in BB 1688 (unii piei ‘of a skin’, uniia ‘of one’,²³² unii părţi ‘of a part’, unii porţi ‘of a gate’, unii împărăţii ‘of a kingdom’) and in GCond 1762 (a unii Domnii ‘of a Lordship’). However, in Bert 1774 we find only unei (two occurrences: unei slujnice ‘of a servant girl’, unei vecine ‘of a neighbourwoman’).The process of replacement was not complete in the nineteenth century (Croitor 2015c: 151); Diaconovici Loga’s ([1822] 1973: 81) grammar records it with the variant unei/unii. Today only -ei is accepted. Aromanian has -éi (Saramandu 1984: 447). In the sixteenth century, the form of the adjective obligatorily preceding the noun differs for the most part from that of the pronominal form: the singular lacks the article and has the contracted form o (un vs unul, o vs una). In the genitive–dative singular and plural the distinction depends, as it does in other pronouns, on the absence or presence of the formative -a: . unuia/unui, . uniia/unii, unora/unor (aratăse unora ‘she shows herself to some’ vs ca unor fricoşi ‘as to some fearful people’).²³³ In the nineteenth century, pronominal genitive–dative forms are sometimes used without -a (e.g. unui ca aceluia ‘to one like that’ in Croitor 2015c: 152).The difference is not expressed either in the non-marked form of the pronoun or in the marked form of the adjective. In the oldest surviving texts, the pronoun sometimes takes the formative derived from the article, especially in the nominative–accusative. In some fixed structures, especially reciprocals, the articleless form is most commonly encountered: un cu alaltu ‘one with the other’, un cu alalt ‘one with the other’, un cătră alalt ‘one to the other’.²³⁴ Yet there is free variation, and the same structures may also contain the form with the article: urul cătră alaltu ‘one to the other’, urul alaltu ‘one another’, urul alăltului ‘one to the other’, urul dereptu alaltu ‘one as the other’, urul alăltui²³⁵ ‘one to the other’. The feminine singular is found only exceptionally in the contracted form specific to the adjective and the article: întru o de-acelea vremi²³⁶ ‘in one of those times’ (see Densusianu 1938: 388). Pronominal forms without the article appear sporadically in the plural as well: uni,²³⁷ une (une ca ceastea ‘some like these’) (see Frâncu 1997b: 129).²³⁸ This variation suggests that at an earlier stage the pronoun and the adjective were not formally differentiated, just as we have seen in the case of demonstratives (§4.5). The adjectival form which is identical with that of the pronoun comprises the article (una carne²³⁹ ‘one flesh’, una faţă²⁴⁰ ‘a face’, unul cărtulariu²⁴¹ ‘one scholar’: see Densusianu 1938: 388; Stan 2013e: 47; Stan 2016a: 299) or the formative -a (unora oameni ‘of some people’).²⁴² ²³² CIst. ²³³ CC². ²³⁴ Prav. 1581. ²³⁸ Prav. 1581. ²³⁹ CP 1570. ²⁴⁰ Ev.
²³⁵ CV. ²⁴¹ CT.
²³⁶ CP 1570. ²⁴² CP 1570.
²³⁷ A.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
186 The differentiation between adjective and pronoun probably continued until it was effaced in the nominative–accusative plural; this happened when the form with the article was extended to the adjective as well. In the oldest texts, une, the feminine plural form without the article, is fairly frequent. After 1640, une was more frequent in Moldova, both in its pronominal and in its adjectival functions, without any other constraints (Frâncu 1997c: 331; cf. Frâncu 2009: 70, 287). Adjectival une survived as part of the adverb uneori²⁴³ ‘sometimes’ (cf. DLR) and persisted until a late date; it appears in the eighteenth century in Antim (une cuvinte ‘some words’; Chirilă 2013: 205) and in Cantemir (une sentenţii ‘some sentences’, une hotare ‘some borders’, une tâmplări ‘some occurrences’, une pricini ‘some causes’, une izvoară ‘some springs’),²⁴⁴ and even in the nineteenth century (une locuri ‘some places’; Croitor 2015c: 151). Table 3.6 Indefinite pronouns and adjectives A. The indefinite adjective and pronoun un(ul) in the sixteenth century adjective
- - - -
pronoun
un; (rare) unul unui uni unor
o; (rare) una unii une unor
unul; (rare) un unuia unii; uni unora
una; (rare) o uniia unele; une unora
B. The indefinite adjective and pronoun un în modern standard Romanian adjective
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
- - - -
pronoun
un unui unii unor
o unei unele unor
unul unuia unii unora
una uneia unele unora
Table 3.6 illustrates the difference between the pronoun and the adjective (in the shaded cells). In the genitive–dative, differentiation through -a is clearly marked from the time of the earliest texts until the present. In the nominative–accusative, this differentiation extends, gradually and tentatively, through the suffixation of the article to the pronoun; it becomes obligatory in the singular, but is annulled in the plural through extension of the form with article to the adjectives. 3.7.2.2 Niciunul, niciuna The negative/determiner adjective and pronoun made up of the negative adverb nici (older nice, neci, nece < ) and the indefinite unul shows a lower degree of fusion or lexicalization. This situation continues into the nineteenth century (see Croitor 2015c: 163) and, indeed, into the present, despite the recent ruling that it should be written as one word (DOOM²). The construction with nici (a constituent negator) may ²⁴³ CazV.
²⁴⁴ CII. ~1705.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
187
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
occur before a prepositional group rather than before the nominal head: nece de unul să se vindece ‘let it not be healed of even one’, nici întru un chip ‘not in any way’;²⁴⁵ dulău prost şi nice de o treabă²⁴⁶ ‘a stupid hound and of not of any use’. This possibility still exists in Romanian, even if the Academy frowns upon it; prepositions (nici într-un caz ‘in no case’) or focalizing adverbs (chiar ‘even’, măcar ‘at least’: nici măcar unul ‘not even one’) may be intercalated. The variant form of the adverb most frequently encountered in the sixteenth century was nece/nici, followed by nice, then neci. The forms of the indefinite unul are described in §3.7.2.1, showing the partial and variable specialization of pronominal vs adjectival forms. The adjective, like the pronoun, may comprise the enclitic article (nece ura vină ‘no guilt’; nece urulu cuvântu ‘not a word’).²⁴⁷ 3.7.2.3 Vreunul, vreuna The form vreun ‘some’ has been claimed to derive from a compound made up of Lat. > un and the adverb , used as a focalizer (REW 9224; Ciorănescu 1958–66); its Aromanian counterpart is vârnu, Megleno-Romanian vrin (cf. It. veruno: Rohlfs 1968: 214; Ramat 1997). The first element of the compound, (vre-), resembles the indefinite markers formed from a vrea ‘want’ (vare-, veri-; see §3.7.5.4). If this is not a matter of a common origin,²⁴⁸ it could perhaps have contributed to the ‘free-choice’ semantics of vreun (which appears in predominantly negative or interrogative contexts). In any case, it has been shown that the ‘free-choice’ meaning can also develop from compounds with focalizers, as can even the meaning of negative pronoun, something that we see happen in Italian (Jäger 2010). Vreun, vreo is a fused compound, as shown not only by its spelling as one word (this is insignificant in the old texts) but also by its phonological variants, which are still current today: vrun, vro, already attested in the sixteenth century,²⁴⁹ even vun, vo (by dissimilation; vo is attested in a source from 1603, see DLR), and, with devoicing of the initial consonant, freun (from 1633, see DLR), frun, fro; fun, fo (in modern nonstandard and regional Romanian, see DLR). Vreun, vreo/vreunul, vreuna faithfully replicate the inflexion of un, o/unul, una (e.g. vreun pământ ‘some land’; vreo treabă ‘some business’; vreunui dobitoc ‘of/to some beast’;²⁵⁰ vreunii deregătorii²⁵¹ ‘of some official function’), with all the variants indicated above. The feminine singular adjectival form vreo acquires the adverbial meaning of an approximator, and is invariable: ca vreo 10 zile²⁵² ‘as about 10 days’.
3.7.3 Altul, alta The indefinite alt comes from Lat. ( ) ‘the other’. Its morphology is similar to that of un: in alt, too, the adjectival forms are differentiated from the pronominal forms, but here the specialization emerges gradually, with much hesitation.
²⁴⁵ CC². ²⁴⁶ Prav. 1646. ²⁴⁷ CV. ²⁴⁸ The hypothesis of an etymology + has generally been rejected. ²⁵⁰ Prav. 1646. ²⁵¹ CC². ²⁵² BB.
²⁴⁹ PO.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
188 The pronoun has the same type of mixed inflexion as un, its nominative–accusative forms having a suffixed enclitic article, while the genitive–dative forms have specific endings ( -ui, -ii) and a common ending in the plural (-or), without the article but with the formative -a. This pronoun differs from unul in that it lacks a form with the article in the nominative–accusative plural in the adjectival use (alţi oameni ‘other people’ vs unii oameni ‘some people’). Thus in modern Romanian altul, the pronoun, is entirely differentiated from the adjective (see Table 3.7, where the differentiated forms are marked by shading). Table 3.7 Indefinite adjectives and pronouns A. The indefinite adjective and pronoun alt(ul) in the sixteenth century adjective
- - - -
pronoun
alt altui alţi altor
altă alţii, altii alte altor
altul, (rare) alt altuia alţii, (rare) alţi altora
alta, (rare) altă alţiia altele, (rare) alte altora
B. The indefinite adjective and pronoun alt(ul) in modern standard Romanian adjective
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
- - - -
pronoun
f
alt altui alţi altor
altă altei alte altor
altul altuia alţii altora
alta alteia altele altora
Genitive–dative singular alţii(a)²⁵³ (Densusianu 1938: 191; Rosetti 1986: 500; Frâncu 2009: 70) is general in the sixteenth century and is sporadically preserved after 1640 (SA 1683; cf. Frâncu 2009: 287). Nineteenth-century grammars record it as a variant for the adjective altei/alţii, but they cite only alţiia as a pronoun (Diaconovici Loga [1822] 1973: 79). Today only altei(a) is accepted. The adjectival form is obligatorily placed before the noun, and in the sixteenth century it is generally distinct from the pronominal form. The distinction is neutralized either by the unmarked form of the pronoun (Dumnezeu le poate da altă²⁵⁴ ‘God may give them another’; se cugeţi alte²⁵⁵ ‘consider other things’; cf. Frâncu 2009: 69), or (rarely) by the marked form of the adjective; the lack of differentiation probably represents the earliest phase (as for un). The unmarked pronominal form appears most often in reciprocal structures with unul: altul may lose either its article, in the nominative–accusative—unul de alt²⁵⁶ ‘one of another’; una cu altă²⁵⁷ ‘one with
²⁵³ PH, PO, CM. 1567–8, etc.
²⁵⁴ CC¹.
²⁵⁵ CSXV.
²⁵⁶ MC.
²⁵⁷ Prav. 1581.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
189
another’; unii cătră alţi²⁵⁸ ‘some to others’—or it may lose the formative -a in the genitive–dative: să-ş priiască unul altui²⁵⁹ ‘may they be agreeable to each other’. Pronominal alt(ul) and altă/alta are frequently used with an abstract and ‘neutral’ reference (de alta vă dămu în ştire²⁶⁰ ‘we inform you of another thing’; nu pentr-alt, numai²⁶¹ ‘for nothing else, except’). Altul enters into stable combinations with other indefinites, producing a series of compounds (altcineva ‘someone else’, altceva ‘something else’) and the apparently surprising co-occurrence of a definite marker with an indefinite one: un altul ‘another one’.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.7.4 Nimeni, nimic The negative pronouns are in part inherited from Latin— nimeni/nime ‘nobody’ and nimic ‘nothing’—and in part Romanian compounds with the adverb nici ‘nor, not even’. The compound niciunul/niciuna (with both human and non-human reference: see §3.7.2.2) is the most frequent and resistant one, while the series in which nici combines with an interrogative–relative is unstable and unproductive (see §3.7.5.6). Nimeni ‘nobody’ (< ), which has always been exclusively pronominal, has a rival in the old texts in nime, which is considered to be formed on the Latin nominative pronoun or, more probably, to be a shortening of nimeni (Candrea & Adamescu 1926–31). In the sixteenth century, nime is more frequent than nimeni (Densusianu 1938: 65; Gheţie & Mareş 1974) but then goes into gradual decline, while surviving regionally to the present day; modern standard Romanian opts exclusively for nimeni. Nimeni has many phonological variants, attributed to phenomena of assimilation and dissimilation (these lead particularly to an unstable relation between forms in e and in i) and to analogy with other pronouns and with the definite article. There are old phonological variants, some surviving regionally to this day: nemeni, nimene, nimini, nimine. We shall refer to all of these (and to forms subject to rhotacism of intervocalic [n]) as nimeni, and to the range of unstable phonological variants nimi, neme (DLR) as nime. The final formative -a produces a series of variants both from nimeni (niminea)²⁶² and from nime (nimea).²⁶³ Other variants are produced by the final formative -le (identical to the definite article)—nimenile²⁶⁴ (nimerile),²⁶⁵ nimele (1596, in DLR)— and by the compound form -lea—niminilea,²⁶⁶ nimenilea.²⁶⁷ The modern standard language admits only nimeni, but nimenea and nime are in popular usage, as is regional nima (Banat, Oltenia). Nimeni/nime has a genitive–dative in -ui, to which the final formatives -le, -e, -a may be added. The form nimănui (or nimunui, DLR, Croitor 2015c: 162; or remodelled on
²⁵⁸ CSXV. ²⁵⁹ CazV. ²⁶³ CC¹; CC²; CT; Prav. 1652. ²⁶⁷ CSXIV; Prav. 1652; BB.
²⁶⁰ DÎ XVIII. ²⁶⁴ Prav. 1652.
²⁶¹ VRC. ²⁶² PO; Prav. 1652. ²⁶⁵ Prav. 1581. ²⁶⁶ CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
190 the nominative–accusative as nimenui), has variants that could at first sight be ascribed to rhotacism (nimărui,²⁶⁸ nemărui,²⁶⁹ nemurui, in DLR), but its survival until the nineteenth century (nimărui, numărui; Croitor 2015c: 162–3) confirms the hypothesis of Candrea & Adamescu (1926–31) according to which this form reflects the analogical influence of the genitive–dative form of the relative care ~ cărui. The variants with -l(nimului DLR, nimelui, nimălui), which are indicated in many nineteenth-century grammars (Costinescu 1979; cf. Croitor 2015c: 162–3), suggest the influence of the definite article. There are also variants with final -a—nimănuia (nemunuia;²⁷⁰ nemănuia,²⁷¹ nimuluia; Costinescu 1979, etc.)—and with -lea—nimănuilea (nimuluilea, 1686, in DLR). The structure of the genitive–dative variants of the pronouns nime/nimeni may be described in terms of different morphological segmentations (by root or by analogical ending), which link some variants to the nominative–accusative nimeni, others to nime. The variants that we consider morphological may also be described as simple phonological variants that result from assimilation or dissimilation (Table 3.8).
Table 3.8 Morphological and phonological variants of nimeni
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
morphological variants nimăn/ui nime/rui nime/lui
phonological variants nimenui, nimunui . . . nimărui, nemărui, nemurui . . . nimului, nimălui . . .
+ -a, -le, -lea
Modern Romanian nimic ‘nothing’ shows loss of the final –ă of nimică/nemică (< + ); nemică and its assimilatory variant nimică are general in the old texts. It may take final -a in variants that have continued to be current until today (nemica) and are still in popular usage (nimica). The pronoun is invariable. In the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries it served mainly as an adverbial intensifier of negation (‘at all’)— nemică să vă sfiiţi²⁷² ‘do not hesitate at all’. More rarely, it could function as an (adjectival) determinant, with the form nimică . . . : nemică lucru să nu faci²⁷³ ‘do no thing’. From its ambiguous occurrences with transitive verbs it was reanalysed as a pronoun, a status it already had in the sixteenth century. Its occurrence as a noun is early, both in the form interpreted as a feminine owing to its final -ă (ca o nemică ‘like a nothing’)²⁷⁴ and in the genus alternans type . un nimic, . nimicuri. The form in -ă allows diminutive formation with an affective or pragmatically attenuating value (nimicuţă, nimicuţa). The regional variants are nic, nică, nica.
²⁶⁸ CV.
²⁶⁹ CSXV.
²⁷⁰ CP 1570.
²⁷¹ CC².
²⁷² CC².
²⁷³ PO.
²⁷⁴ CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
191
3.7.5 Compounds with interrogative–relative elements
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3.7.5.1 Overview The relative pronoun (see §3.6) may function as an indefinite in subordinate clauses. The coalescence of a relative pronoun and the enclitic formative -ş(i) (Zafiu 2012) was frequent in the sixteenth century, and it generated some lexicalized indefinites (cineşi, careşi), but these gradually disappeared from usage. An indefiniteness marker (Haspelmath 1997: 129–56)is most commonly of the type ‘dunno’ (‘I don’t know’), ‘want’, ‘may it be’, and ‘no matter’. The ‘dunno’ type is probably already structurally opaque in the oldest Romanian; the ‘want’ type is the richest, with parallel prefixed (oare-/vare-, ori-/veri-) and suffixed (-va) series. The ‘may it be’ type, illustrated by the prefixation of fie- (the third-person present subjunctive of a fi ‘be’), is more recent. These series map on to the ‘ontological’ categories of interrogative pronouns and adverbs (person–thing; partitive–quantitative; place– time–mood), but show gaps at different historical periods, because of preferences in usage. Alongside the fundamental markers (ori-, oare-, fie-, -va), there frequently appear additional, semantically empty elements of obscure origin, which nevertheless participate quite often in compound formation: şi [ʃi]/[ʃʲ], te, şte. The elements ori/veri, oare/vare, fie have independent functions too, as adverbs and conjunctions with modal–disjunctive values; oare is also an interrogative particle. Prefixes predominate in Romanian indefinite marking; in Latin and Romance languages, the ‘want’ type is suffixed to the wh-pronominal form (e.g. Lat. , , ; Cat. qualsevol; Sp. cualquiera; It. qualsivoglia; Pt. qualquer). In Romanian, only the series in -va displays postposition of the ‘want’ element. 3.7.5.2 The formative -şi There is debate as to whether non-syllabic formative -şi, pronounced [ʃ ʲ] or often -ș [ʃ], comes from the adverb ‘thus’ or from the clitic dative reflexive și (< ). This formative is enclitic on pronouns and adverbs and seems to indicate focalization or co-referentiality (Zafiu 2012). Yet it also corresponds to the model of compounds with a focalizer or an additive particle (Haspelmath 1997; Jäger 2010) that is found in Latin (indefinites in -). From the sixteenth century until a sporadic attestation in the nineteenth, there has existed at least one lexicalized indefinite, from cine + -şi: this is cineş(i) (cuiş(i) in the -).²⁷⁵ Its meaning is ‘each (one)’ and it is a universal distributive in all its occurrences (e.g. CC¹, CC², BB; cf. DA). The compound from care, careş,²⁷⁶ careaş,²⁷⁷ careleş²⁷⁸ and so on is less frequent and does not appear to have a fixed, contextindependent, meaning. An obscure compound is cinescu ‘each (one)’ (DA, Densusianu 1938: 193; Rosetti 1986: 500), attested only in the sixteenth century (with rhotacism in CV; in PO the form is cineşicu, with some controversial readings). It has a variant with the formative ²⁷⁵ CC²; CSxv.
²⁷⁶ BB.
²⁷⁷ DVS.
²⁷⁸ DVS.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
192
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
-şi: cinescuşi. As for its etymology, the various explanations are a remodelling from *cineşce < cineşi + ce (DA, DELR), other analogical modifications (e.g. from - cineşcui), or the creation of a compound with cu (the last two both considered by Rosetti 1986: 500). The formative -şi further appears at the end of some indefinites derived from a relative + indefinite marker: cinevaş(i) ‘someone’, oareceş(i)²⁷⁹ ‘whatever’. It can also be inside them, placed after the indefinite marker: oareşicine ‘whoever’, fieşicine ‘whoever’, and so on. 3.7.5.3 Indefinites neşte, neştine, nescare/nescai, neşchit The series neşte, neştine ‘some’ comes from relative–interrogatives, but the form of these compounds is no longer transparent, which may be a sign that it is older than the series with a vrea or a fi. The indefinite element seems to come from a ‘dunno’ type of structure: Latin ‘I do not know’. In modern standard Romanian all the elements of the series have been lost, except nişte, which is being grammaticalized as an indefinite plural and partitive article (see §4.4). Similar forms also exist in transDanubian dialects. Neştine ‘someone’ (< or + *quene; Densusianu 1938: 193–4), with - nescui, functions as a pronoun, and only rarely as an adjective (Dinică 2012). Although very frequent in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it is gradually superseded by cineva, at first in the southern dialects (Frâncu 2009: 73). It still survived in the first half of the nineteenth century. Nescare ‘some’ (< ), with its variants nescari and nescai (also niscare, niscari, niscai),²⁸⁰ does not display the inflexional morphology of care, being invariant and adjectival. The variants of nescare/ nescai may be formed with -va (to be discussed in what follows)—nescareva, niscaiva— and also with final -şi—niscaivaşi—without attendant semantic change. Niscaiva survives in popular usage in modern Romanian, as a synonym of nişte. Neşchit (or nișchit) ‘a little’ (< ) is a quantifier, as in neşchite zile²⁸¹ ‘some/a few days’, which has disappeared from modern Romanian; its Aromanian equivalent is niscântu, and in Megleno-Romanian niscăn (Rosetti 1986: 139). Neşte (< ), with its variant nişte, which is standard in modern Romanian, is only a determiner, not a pronoun. Neşte is invariable and can be used as a genitive–dative if preceded by the particle a: [ziseră târgarilor şi] a neşte bărbaţi²⁸² ‘[they said to the traders and] to some men’. The evolution of this series and its survival only in Romanian among Romance languages may be due to the existence of a formally and semantically similar set of forms in Old Church Slavonic and in other Slavonic languages: neşte strongly resembles old Bulgarian nečto and old Serbian nešto ‘something’, which have been explained as resulting either from the same type of process, namely grammaticalization of an ²⁷⁹ CPr.; CIst. 1700–50. ²⁸⁰ Also neşcare (Densusianu 1938: 195), where s > ş, probably under the influence of other members of the series. ²⁸¹ PO. ²⁸² CPr.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
193
‘I don’t know what’ sequence, or from the creation of a compound out of the negative particle and the indefinite–interrogative, with a semantic development towards indefiniteness in ‘normal’ (positive declarative) contexts (Jäger 2010). 3.7.5.4 Series with the indefinite marker from forms of the verb a vrea The indefinite marker oare/vare derives from *voare < *ˈvole ‘wants’ (see Philippide [1927] 2015: 625, 2011: 445; Lombard 1938). Oare reflects the fall of the initial consonant, which is encountered in other forms of the verb *voˈlere ‘want’ (1 voi > oi), and vare reflects the reduction of the diphthong oa to a (Arvinte 2007: 300). Thus modified, both forms lose their connexion with a vrea (whose third-person singular present was va, both in lexical and in auxiliary uses of the verb; see also §6.7.3). This compound may initially have belonged to the ‘free choice’ type of indefinites (as expected from the meaning of a vrea, ‘want’), but in the earliest texts it already had a specific interpretation, as in contemporary Romanian: cineva ‘somebody’ (not ‘everybody’). The series is well represented in the oldest layers of the language: there are 403 occurrences in the CETRV texts. The distancing from the paradigm of the source verb, the semantic modification, and the high frequency of these compounds may suggest that the series oare-/vare- is older than others from *voˈlere. However, since they have an analysable structure, the compounds can be decomposed in certain constructions:
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(34) să strice oamenilor oare în ce harm..3 men. ever in what ‘to harm people in whatsoever manner s/he can’
chip poate283 way he.can
Among these compounds, oarecine ‘someone; whatever (person)’, oarece, oarecare ‘some(thing); whatever’, and oarecât²⁸⁴ ‘somewhat, however much’ are adjectives and determiners; oarecum ‘however’, oareunde ‘somewhere; wherever’, oarecând²⁸⁵ ‘sometimes; whenever’, oarecât ‘however much’, and oareîncătruo²⁸⁶ ‘in some direction; in whatever direction, whithersoever’ are adverbs. The form oarecine was used adjectivally (in postposition), although the relative–interrogative cine cannot be used in this way: un om oarecine²⁸⁷ ‘some man; any man’, un preut oarecine ‘some priest; any priest’.²⁸⁸ The pronoun oarecine has - oarecui. The pronoun and adjective oarece, which is invariable, is compatible both with the singular and with the plural (oarece tărie ‘some strength’, oarece valure ‘some waves’).²⁸⁹ Oarecare functions both as an adjective and as a pronoun. As a preposed adjective or determiner, it generally has the same form in the nominative–accusative: oarecare om ‘some man’, oarecare curvie²⁹⁰ ‘some whoring’, oarecare sfinţi²⁹¹ ‘some saints’, oarecare ierbi ‘some herbs’. But there is a rare variant oarecari in the masculine plural (oarecari preoţi²⁹² ‘some priests’). As a pronoun, it has the forms of the relative, plus the article: ²⁸³ CC¹. ²⁸⁴ PO. ²⁸⁸ Prav. 1646; CazV.
²⁸⁵ PH. ²⁸⁶ PO. ²⁸⁷ CC²; CazV; Prav. 1646. ²⁸⁹ Prav. 1646. ²⁹⁰ Prav. 1640. ²⁹¹ CC². ²⁹² Prav. 1640.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
194 - . oarecarele, . oarecarea, . oarecarii, . oarecarele; - . oarecărui(a), . oarecării(a), /. oarecăror(a). The postposed adjective still had the form with article throughout the fifteenth century down to the eighteenth: un vătah oarecarele²⁹³ ‘some leader’; un plugariu oarecarele ‘some ploughman’.²⁹⁴ The series in vare has far fewer occurrences in the old texts (thirty-six in CETRV); nonetheless its elements have early attestations: varecine ‘someone’,²⁹⁵ varece²⁹⁶ ‘something’, varecare²⁹⁷ ‘some’; (varecarele in CPr.), varecât²⁹⁸ ‘in some measure’, vareunde²⁹⁹ ‘somewhere’. The same text sometimes contains both variants (oarecine and varecine in CC²). The element vare is generally separable:
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(35) a vare de ce te veri atinge300 ‘whatever you want to touch on’ b vare în ce mână va sosi301 ‘whatever hand it will arrive’ c vare cu ce cinste302 ‘with whatever honour’ These series have variants with the formative -ş(i)—oareşcare, oareşcum, and so on—that survive in non-standard registers. The adverb oarecum and the preposed pronominal adjectives oarecare and oarece, with or without un, have survived in modern standard Romanian, where we find phrases such as (un) oarecare om ‘some man’, ‘whatever man’, (o) oarece nesiguranţă ‘some uncertainty’; oarecare is postposed to confer a qualifying sense (un om oarecare ‘an ordinary man’). Variants in vare- have completely gone out of use. Compounds in ori- form a complete series, but one that is more recent and survives intact in modern Romanian. The series contains the pronoun oricine ‘anybody’; the pronouns and determiners orice ‘anything’, oricare ‘anyone’, oricât/ă ‘any amount of ’; and the adverbs oriunde ‘anywhere’, oricând ‘any time’, oricum ‘anyhow’, oricât ‘however much’. The link between the indefinite elements ori and veri is less clear than that between oare and vare, but the forms were probably felt by speakers to be linked, and the variation between them is similar. Philippide ([1927] 2015: 625, 2011: 445) derives ori from *ˈvoles (‘you want’), and veri from (‘you want’). Veri is the current form of the lexical verb and of the auxiliary, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Both ori and veri are disjunctive markers in the old language; in modern Romanian only ori survives. The marker ori has final asyllabic i, often deleted in the compound: orcine ‘anyone’, orce ‘anything’, and so on. The meaning of the series, which belongs to the ‘free choice’ type of indefinites, is different from that of compounds in oare-. The ori series is rare in the sixteenth century in documents, but not in literary texts (Frâncu 2009: 72). At the beginning of the eighteenth century it appears in Prav. 1640 (one oricine, eleven orice, one oricarii). The veri series has no attestation in CETRV, but is present in the seventeenth century, for example in BB: verice ‘whatever’, vericât ‘however much’, veriunde ‘wherever’.
²⁹³ CT. ²⁹⁴ Prav. 1652. ²⁹⁸ CC¹; CC². ²⁹⁹ CC²; Ev.
²⁹⁵ CC²; CPr.; Ev. 1642. ³⁰⁰ CTd. ³⁰¹ PO.
²⁹⁶ CC²; CPr. ³⁰² CC¹.
²⁹⁷ PO; Ev.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
195
The inflexional morphology of the pronouns and adjectives is that of their relative–interrogative components: - oricine ‘anyone’ has - oricui; - oricare ‘anyone’, ‘any’ has - oricărui(a), oricării(a), oricăror(a), and so on. Initially oricare has variable forms in the nominative–accusative, thanks to the inflexion of the article (e.g. oricarele),³⁰³ then gradually becomes invariable, as does care itself. As in the other relative pronouns, indefinites, and demonstratives, the genitive–dative feminine singular form has the ending -ii (oricării(a)), which survives into the nineteenth century. The analogical ending -ei (oricărei(a)) gradually becomes established. There is frequent separation of the elements of the compound through the intercalation of other words, and this continues into the nineteeth century: (36) a ori al cui lucru304 ‘of any thing’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b veri în ce loc305 ‘in any place’ This series has variants with the formative -şi- ([ʃi]) after the first element: orişicine, orişice, and so on. Such variants are preserved in modern Romanian at the boundary between the standard language and colloquial usage. The marker -va, too, comes from the verb a vrea, more specifically from the thirdperson singular present form va (< *ˈvole). The difference between the two outcomes of *ˈvole—the markers va and oare/vare—may reflect different stages in the formation of the indefinites: oare/vare is older, while va emerged later, from constructions with the verb a vrea. Both forms are also distinguished by their syntactic behaviour (-va is enclitic, oare-/vare- proclitic) and by the meaning of the compound: the oare- series is ‘free choice’, while the -va series has indefinite specific referents. In modern Romanian this series includes the pronouns cineva and careva ‘someone’; the pronouns and determiners ceva ‘something’, câtva ‘some, a certain amount of ’; and the adverbs cumva ‘somehow’, undeva ‘somewhere’, cândva ‘somewhen’, câtva ‘to some extent’. However, cineva and ceva are represented in the sixteenth century (CC²; PO), but careva and câtva appear later. Other changes are the abandonment of an adverb, which was in any case rare (încotrova ‘in some direction’), and the modern tendency to use ceva as a quantitative/partitive adjective (ceva brânză ‘some cheese’, ceva bani ‘some money’). Careva has no internal inflexion in modern Romanian, but this was possible in the nineteenth century (careleva, careava, in Lexiconul de la Buda 1825). In câtva, however, the relative continues to vary in number, gender, and case: - . câtăva, . câţiva, . câteva, - /. câtorva. The marker -va may be encliticized onto other indefinite forms (niscaiva, discussed earlier), and even onto forms that already have a transparent proclitic marker, with resultant double marking, as in oarecâţiva cazaci³⁰⁶ ‘some few cossacks’; but the chronology of these forms ³⁰³ DÎ X.
³⁰⁴ Ev.
³⁰⁵ Ev.
³⁰⁶ CM.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
196 cannot be established with any precision (oarecâţi + va or oare + câţiva). The asyllabic formative -ş(i) appears only at the end of a compound: carevaşi (DA). In the old texts there is another, more autonomous, indefinite element, săva, comprising the conditional conjunction să and the third-person singular present form of the verb a vrea (Densusianu 1938: 289). Săva functions mostly as a disjunctive conjunction (as do oare and ori), but it also appears before the relative–interrogative forms: săva ce dobitoc³⁰⁷ ‘some beast’. 3.7.5.5 The series in fieThe marker fie-, prefixed to relative–interrogative forms, originates as the third-person present subjunctive of the verb a fi ‘to be’. This structure has equivalents in other Romance languages (Fr. qui que ce soit, quoi que ce soit etc.; It. qualsiasi, chicchessia, checchessia; Pt. seja quem for). The continued identity with the verb form fie means that the structure remains analysable and separable as late as the nineteenth century: (37) sfădeaşte hie pre cini308 ‘he berates everyone’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
In parallel, there is (incomplete) grammaticalization of fie as a disjunctive conjunction. The series has a universal distributive sense. It includes the compounds fiecine, fiece,³⁰⁹ fiecare³¹⁰ ‘each one’, fiecât, -ă, -ţi, -te ‘each as much’, fiecum ‘in each way’, fiecând ‘each time’, fieunde ‘in each place’, fieîncotro ‘in each direction’, of which modern Romanian retains only the elements fiecare (pronoun and determiner) and fiece (a determiner in formal, arhchaizing, styles). The series has variants with asyllabic -şi- (fieş(i)cine, fieşcare,³¹¹ etc.), and also with -şte- (fieştecine,³¹² fieştecare(le),³¹³ fieştece, etc., and -te- —fi(e)tecare(le),³¹⁴ fi(e)tecine,³¹⁵ fi(e)tece, etc.). The element fiete was also originally separable. (38) a nu e departe de fiete de carele de noi316 ‘it is not far from each of us’ b fu dusă fiete pren carele de ei317 ‘she was taken through each of them’ 3.7.5.6 The series in niciThe adverb nici, which forms a compound with the indefinite unul (discussed earlier), combines particularly with relative–interrogative adverbs, forming the negative adverbs nicicând ‘never’, niciunde ‘nowhere’, nicicât ‘in no way, to no degree’; in the older language, and regionally until a late date, there were also compounds of nici with relative– interrogative pronouns and pronominal adjectives, although these were rarely used and had a lesser degree of fusion: nicicare (nice care cuvânt³¹⁸ ‘no word’, DLR), nicicât, -ă (DLR). ³⁰⁷ PO. ³¹¹ NT. ³¹⁸ DVS.
³⁰⁸ MI. In this example hie is a dialectal variant of fie. ³⁰⁹ Prav. 1581; BB. ³¹² AD. ³¹³ BB; AD. ³¹⁴ NT; Ev. ³¹⁵ CH. ³¹⁶ NT.
³¹⁰ NT. ³¹⁷ NT.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
197
3.7.5.7 The series in măcar The word măcar (macar, macară, etc.), from Gr. μακάρι ‘God grant! let it be!’ (DLR, s.v.), was used in the old language and still is, in Transylvania, as a component of ‘free choice’ indefinite pronominal and adverbial phrases, in concessive contexts: măcar(ă) ce, măcar(ă) unde/cum/când/care,³¹⁹ etc. (DLR, s.v.): în măcar ce groapă ‘in whatever grave’ (1806, DLR); m-a cere măcar care ‘someone (or other) will seek my hand’ (1892, DLR); o mâncat măcar care cât o vrut ‘whoever ate as much as he wanted’ (ALRII, DLR). Măcar alone, but especially in association with a focalizer or a syntactic connector, operates as a concessive connector, meaning ‘even though’. In other contexts it can be used as a restrictive, meaning ‘at least’, or as a disjunctive marker măcar . . . măcar, meaning ‘either . . . or’. 3.7.5.8 New series In modern Romanian, the role of indefinite marker is played by sequences that are being grammaticalized and form complete series. These fall into two classes: (a) sequences of the ‘dunno’ type—nu ştiu cine ‘dunno who, someone’, cine ştie cine ‘who knows who?, someone (or other)’, Dumnezeu/naiba ştie cine ‘God/the devil knows who, someone (or other)’; and (b) sequences of the ‘no matter’ type—indiferent cine (lit. ‘indifferently who’). The newer forms illustrate the same possibilities for dissociation (which preserve earlier stages of the syntactic evolution) as the older ones: (39) a vorbeşte cu nu ştiu cine; vorbeşte nu ştiu cu cine ‘she talks to dunno who’; ‘she talks dunno to who’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b ales de indiferent cine/ales indiferent de cine ‘chosen by no matter who/chosen no matter by whom’
3.7.6 The quantifiers tot ‘all’, atât ‘so much, that much’, mult ‘much’, puţin ‘little’ Morphologically, the quantifiers lack a genitive–dative singular, instead of which we find analytic constructions (naintea a toată curtea³²⁰ ‘before all the court’). There are also hybrid constructions in which the preposition (or the invariable genitive marker) a is followed by the invariable tot and by the noun in the genitive: sfârşitul a tot trupului³²¹ ‘the end of all the body’. The quantifier tot (< ) ‘all’ inflects for gender and number like an adjective (. tot, . toată, . toţi, . toate) and has a genitive–dative plural with a typically pronominal ending (tuturor, with reduplication, is a form of tutor, preserved in PH; see Densusianu 1938: 192); tutulor (CPr. and contemporary dialects) is modified by analogy with the article (cf. nimului, discussed here earlier). In the plural, the pronoun has a form with the suffixed article—toţii, toatele—and one with the formative -a in the genitive–dative (tuturora), but forms
³¹⁹ CDicţ.
³²⁰ MC.
³²¹ PO.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
198
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
identical to those of the adjectival quantifier are more frequent. Tot may be preposed or postposed to the substantive, which obligatorily carries the definite article: toţi oamenii/oamenii toţi ‘all the people’. In old texts, and regionally to this day, the indefinite has a universal, generic sense in singular noun phrases (tot omul creştin³²² ‘any Christian person, all Christians’). In modern standard Romanian the singular means only ‘the whole (of)’ and occurs only with collective nouns (tot oraşul ‘the whole town’). The quantifier atât (< + ) ‘this much’, ‘so much’ has adjectival number and gender inflexion (. atât, . atâtă, . atâţi, . atâte), and has a genitive–dative form only in the plural (/. atâtor). It always precedes the noun, which does not take the article (atâţi oameni ‘so many people’), acting as a determiner. The formative -a gives the preferred pronominal form in the singular for the non-specific sense (atâta), and in the plural it differentiates the pronoun from the determiner in the genitive–dative (atâtora vs atâtor). The quantifiers mult ‘much’ (< ) and puţin ‘little, not much’ (of debated etymology) have similar adjectival paradigms: . mult, . multă, . mulţi, . multe, -. multor / . puţin, . puţină, . puţini, . puţine, -. puţinor. They may precede or follow the noun without article (mulţi oameni/ oameni mulţi). The formative -a distinguished the pronouns from the adjective in the genitive–dative plural: multora, puţinora. Mult has a purely adjectival use as well. When mult precedes the noun, it takes the article and thus all the latter’s inflexional endings: - multul timp ‘the much time’, - multului timp ‘of the much time’; mulţii ani ‘the many years’, mulţilor ani ‘of the many years’ (see Pană Dindelegan 2003b). Other quantifiers have only adjectival inflexion (destul ‘enough’, puţintel, niţel ‘a bit’, etc.).
3.7.7 Atare, cutare, acătare Other indefinites are atare ‘such’ (probably from prothetic a + ),³²³ cutare ‘such’ (< () + , an etymology not accepted by Procopovici (1921), who suggests * + > *quotalis, by haplology), and acătare. For the problematic etymology of this last, see Procopovici (1921); Rosetti (1986: 500); DELR, DA. Atare ‘such (and such)’ is an invariable word predominantly used as a preposed determiner: atare pământ ‘such land’, atare vreame ‘such time’, atare bărbaţi ‘such men’, atare vase³²⁴ ‘such pots’. An analogical plural atari was formed at some point. Cutare is invariable too, and functions as a preposed determiner in the old texts (cutare preot ‘such a priest’, cutare dzi³²⁵ ‘such a day’); there is also a variant with a suffixed article (cutarele). Acătare—invariable in old texts and a preposed determiner (acătare om ‘such a person’, acătare ispită³²⁶ ‘such temptation’; acătare ceasuri ‘such ³²² CazV. ³²³ For Procopovici (1921), from + : according to Procopovici, *actare has yielded acătare, whence atare. ³²⁴ PO. ³²⁵ PA. ³²⁶ CC¹.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
199
hours’³²⁷)—has gone out of usage, apparently surviving in one single construction (mai acătării ‘more appropriate’), which might, however, have a different origin according to DA.
3.7.8 Anume, anumit
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
From the sixteenth to the nineteenth century (see Stan 2010a), the invariable anume (< preposition a + nume ‘name’) was merely an identificational, focalizing, and reprising adverb—that is, an adverb of the ‘namely’ type, which returns and explains. The form anume also occurs in an indefinite compound with determiner—un/o anume ‘a certain N’ (or un/o . . . anume, with anume postposed). It expresses an ‘identifiable indefinite’ (Farkas 2013: 227) but, when postposed, anume emphasizes the property of identificability. In the nineteenth century we find a variant with article: anumele ponturi ‘certain points’ (Croitor 2015c: 161). Anume is the source of the indefinite adjective anumit, which is modelled on German bestimmt. It is used in the singular as an adjective, with an indefinite determiner (un anumit X ‘a certain X’), and in the plural as a determiner (anumiţi oameni ‘certain people’). The genitive–dative plural can be combined with unii (unor anumiţi oameni lit. ‘of some certain people’), but not so the nominative–accusative plural. So unor functions only as a genitive–dative marker. Anumit, -ă has followed the pronominal inflexional pattern in the plural, where it functions alone as an indefinite determiner: the genitive–dative is anumitor. In the singular, the adjective may also be postposed: un om anumit ‘a certain person’.
3.7.9 Compounds formed from indefinites and non-lexicalized collocations Indefinites often appear in multiple combinations, some of which are quite stable. The series altcineva or (the rare) altcareva ‘someone else’, altceva ‘something else’, altundeva ‘somewhere else’, altcumva ‘some other way’, (the rare) altcândva ‘some other time’—forms that are equivalent with altul ‘another one’, alt ‘another’—has become established. Alt forms incipient compounds with other indefinites, for example nemica altă ‘nothing else’, altă nemica,³²⁸ nemica alta,³²⁹ alt nime³³⁰ ‘nobody else’. Combinations of the type un(ul) + indefinite are frequent: urul cinrescuşi³³¹ ‘someone’, unul fieştecarele³³² ‘each one’, un alt ‘another’, un anumit ‘a certain’, un oarecare ‘some (or other)’, and so on. Other combinations are alţi mulţi³³³ ‘many others’, tot cine ‘whosoever’, tot oarece ‘whatsoever’.³³⁴
³²⁷ SA. ³³³ CIst.
³²⁸ CC². ³³⁴ PO.
³²⁹ CC²; CPr.; Ev.
³³⁰ VRC.
³³¹ CV.
³³² BB.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
200
3.8 The form alde The invariable particle alde, probably made up of al (< ) + preposition de (DA; Giurgea 2012) is a definite and partitive predeterminer that has developed in non-standard registers as an evaluative and comparative particle (‘the likes of X’, ‘of X’s ilk’), and as an attenuator (Zafiu 2009). Old attestations are rare, but they show the old inflexion for number in the pronominal element of the eventual compound, in the form ăl ~ ăi. (40) la cei cu ălde Azariia în cuptoriu335 ‘with those of the likes of Azaria în the oven’ (41) depreună cu aceştea fură prinş ăl de Nicostrat, Clavdie, Castor, Tivurtie336 ‘together with these were captured the likes of N., C., C., T.’ (42) ăi de Achindin, Pigasie şi Anempodist fură aruncaţi într-o groapă337 ‘the likes of A., P., and A were thrown into a hole’ (43) Mavrichie şi cu ăi de dînsul 70 de măcenici338 ‘M. with 70 martyrs of his kind’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Alde takes an accusative complement: alde tine ‘your kind’. It frequently has the form de-alde. Regionally (in Muntenian dialects; Mărgărit 2001), alde Ion takes a plural verb, as the referent is the group ‘Ion and his family’; more generally it takes the singular, as a pragmatic marker of minimalization, e.g. alde Ion a venit (‘that insignificant fellow Ion has come’).
³³⁵ DPar.
³³⁶ DVS.
³³⁷ DVS.
³³⁸ DVS.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
4 Determiners and the deictic system 4.1 Introduction The Romanian system of determiners has complications of a kind not found in the other Romance languages. The enclitic definite article and the freestanding indefinite article are attested from the first Romanian texts (§§4.2, 4.4). The grammaticalization of the genitive or possessive marker al, which formally (and etymologically) incorporates the enclitic definite article, was under way in old Romanian (§4.3), while the freestanding definite article cel displayed a dual grammar in the earliest sixteenthcentury texts, its separation from the corresponding demonstrative having taken place in the seventeenth century (§4.5.6). Prenominal demonstratives also function as determiners, while postnominal demonstratives and demonstrative pronouns belong to the deictic system (§4.5), alongside spatial and temporal adverbials (§4.6) (for a discourse-pragmatic approach to the Romanian deictic system, see Ionescu Ruxăndoiu 1999: 84–106; Hobjilă 2003; Gorăscu 2008). The system of determiners also includes expressions of otherness (alt om ‘another man’, celă lalt om ‘the other man’, see also 3.7.3) and of identity (același om ‘the same man’; see in detail Nicolae 2013a).¹
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
4.2 Historical morphology of the definite article from Latin
ndelegan, Oana Ut 85.003.0004
The emergence of articles reflects a major structural and typological change in the transition from Latin to Romance languages. In most of the latter, including Romanian, the definite article originates in , whereas is the source of the definite article in Sardinian and in some Catalan varieties (Ledgeway 2012, 2017; Adams 2013: 506–12). The Romanian definite article was a fully grammaticalized element in the earliest Romanian writings, where it already possessed the two main functions that it preserves to the present day, of definite determiner and inflexional marker. The crucial characteristic of the Romanian definite article is that it is an inflexional suffix (Guțu Romalo 1967: 226; Lombard 1974: 2; Ortmann & Popescu 2000; Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea 2006; Cornilescu & Nicolae 2011a; Stan 2013b: 286; ¹ Although in most traditional grammars the alternative determiner celă lalt and the identity determiner același are included in the class of demonstratives, they do not encode the specific demonstrative dimension of proximity–distality. They have, however, etymologically demonstrative forms: același < acela + -și, celă lalt < cel(a) + alalt. In old Romanian, the parts of the alternative determiner celă lalt were not yet fused: aceasta alaltă , cesta alalt, cestalalt – in CC²) (Densusianu 1938: 188; Stan 2016a: 302–3).
The Oxford History of Romanian Morphology. Martin Maiden, Adina Dragomirescu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Oana Ut a̦ ̆ Bărbulescu, and a̦ ̆ Bărbulescu,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
202 Nicolae 2013d, 2015b; Ledgeway 2017). This indicates that definiteness is a morphosyntactic feature in Romanian—so that nouns and adjectives may inflect for definiteness. The data from old Romanian suggest that the definite article could have been a second-position clitic at a certain point (Renzi 1993). Building on recent work— mainly by Cornilescu & Nicolae (2011a), Nicolae (2013d, 2015b), and Ledgeway (2017)—and applying the criteria proposed by Zwicky & Pullum (1983) for distinguishing affixes from clitics, one reaches the view that the suffixal nature of the definite article in Romanian is supported by many arguments and data.
4.2.1 Forms and allomorphy The definite article has different forms, depending on gender, number, and case, as shown in Table 4.1. For genus alternans nouns (cf. §2.3), the masculine forms of the article are used in the singular and the feminine ones in the plural. Variation in case is a specific feature of Romanian (Stan 2013b: 285, 2015: 55). Table 4.1 The forms of the definite article Masculine
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
- -
-l, -le -lui [lui ̯]
Feminine -i -lor
-a -i [i ̯]
-le -lor
Variation in the shape of the article, depending on the form of the masculine singular noun, is a feature that supports the suffixal nature of the definite article (Cornilescu & Nicolae 2011a: 207): while -l represents the definite inflexion for most masculine nouns, as we can see from (1a) and (1b), -le occurs only when the noun ends in -e, as in (1c) (Stan 2013b: 286). For masculine nouns ending in consonants, the inflexional ending u exemplified in (1a) is inserted for phonological reasons, whereas for masculine nouns ending in muta cum liquida the inflexional u is also present in the non-definite form. (1) a pomtree ‘tree’
pom-u-l tree-....- ‘the tree’
b codr-ucodr-u-l forest-.. forest-....- ‘forest’ ‘the forest’ c câin-e câin-e-le dog-.. dog-....- ‘dog’ ‘the dog’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
203
The feminine singular definite article -a in (2a) changes its form as well, becoming -[wa], when it attaches to feminine nouns ending in stressed vowels, as happens in (2b) and (2c). When combining with nouns with a stem that ends in unstressed i, the definite article is realized as -[ja], as in (2d): (2) a cas-ă [ˈkasә]- cas-a [ˈkasa] house.. house..- ‘house’ ‘the house’ b pijam-a [piʒaˈma] pyjamas.. stea [ste̯a] star..
pijama-ua [piʒaˈmawa] pyjamas..- stea-ua [ˈste̯awa] star..-
c zi [zi] zi-ua [ziˈwa] day.. day..- d famili-e famili-a [faˈmilija] family.. family..- In old Romanian, the definite article -l had the form -lu/-lŭ (3). The final u/ŭ was already a diacritic devoid of phonological value in the first attested Romanian writings (Rosetti 1986: 639–60; Frâncu 2009: 42; Stan 2016a: 289). (3) a svat-u-lu2 advice....-
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b duh-u-lu3 spirit....-
4.2.2 Origin The Romanian definite article has its origin in the unstressed Latin demonstrative ⁴ (Graur 1929c; Coteanu 1969e: 100–4, 1969c: 229; Dimitrescu 1974: 68; Stan 2016a: 288), which, while progressively losing its deictic force, first became a clitic and then an inflexional affix, observing the cline of grammaticalization (lexical item > clitic > affix). The grammaticalization of the definite article is subsequent to the simplification of the nominal declension, a fact that explains the double role of the definite article, as marker of definiteness and as case marker. In proto-Romanian the definite article most probably had the forms shown in Table 4.2; they can be explained as emerging from different late Latin forms of the demonstrative (Coteanu 1969b: 230–4; Dimitrescu 1974: 68–73). The forms -l’i
² PH. ³ CV. ⁴ In a stressed position, was the source of the personal pronoun el ‘he’ (Dimitrescu 1974: 68; see also §3.1).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
204 and -l’ei were preserved only in historical dialects (Caragiu Marioțeanu et al. 1977: 182, 204, 219). Table 4.2 The reconstructed forms of the definite article in proto-Romanian - -
. -lu < -, -le <
. -l’i [lji] <
-lui [lui ̯] < , -lu < /
-lor(u) <
. -a < (e̯a < ) -l’ei [ljei ̯] <
. -le < -lor(u) <
4.2.3 The position of the definite article and its host 4.2.3.1 Enclisis Enclisis of the definite article—which provides another argument in favour of suffixal status—has been explained in different ways (Stan 2013b: 286). The enclitic article emerged in Romanian from Latin structures such as - (lit. ‘man that good’), where the demonstrative was initially associated with the adjective and afterwards reanalysed as a clitic hosted by the noun (- ) (see Graur 1929c; Coteanu 1969e: 96–7; Dimitrescu 1974: 82–7; Rosetti 1986: 160; Philippide 2011: 460). (ii) The enclitic article is a Thraco-Dacian feature, as suggested by comparison with Albanian (Ivănescu 2000: 143–4; Brâncuș 2002: 56). (iii) The enclitic position of the article is a Balkan phenomenon, since it is attested not only in Albanian but also in Bulgarian (Sandfeld 1930: 170; Feuillet 1986: 72–5; Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea 2006).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(i)
The status of the definite article as a case marker also explains its position: it follows the same ordering as Latin case markers, and it is often seen as compensating for the loss of case inflexion (Manoliu 2011: 491; Stan 2015: 56, 2016a: 290). In contrast to other Romance languages, Romanian developed in a geographical area where languages belonging to different families (Slavonic, Greek, Germanic, Finno-Ugric) preserved case inflexion (Manoliu 2011: 492). 4.2.3.2 Proclisis Most probably, the enclisis of the definite article dates from the final period of protoRomanian (Dimitrescu 1974: 84). Proclitic forms etymologically related to the definite article, as illustrated in (4), were still employed in old Romanian. They precede proper names, as in (4b–d), or common names that refer to unique persons, as in (4f), or to the months of the year, as in (4g)—a feature that shows that their main value was to mark case, not definiteness. The variation of position suggests that in old Romanian
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
205
the definite article still preserved some clitic features. The hypothesis that it had this kind of double nature is also supported by the co-occurrence of enclitic and proclitic case markers that are etymologically related to the definite article, as we see in (4d) and (4e). (4) a fata popei Radului5 daughter. priest.. Radu-lui. ‘the daughter of priest Radu’ b lui Arbănaș lui Arbănaș.() ‘to Arbănaș’ c voia lu Dumnedzeu will lu God.() ‘God’s will’
vs
Arbănașului6 Arbănaș-lui.
vs
dereptatea Dumnedzeului7 justice. God-lui. ‘God’s justice’
d Cartea a lu Eremiei prorocul.8 book. al.. lu Jeremiah. prophet. ‘the gospel of the prophet Jeremiah’ e pre urma lui Ieremiei on trace. lui Ieremia. ‘following prince Ieremia’
vodă9 prince
vs cânți împăratului nostru11 f spuse lu împăratu10 say..3 lu emperor.() sing..2 emperor.. our ‘he said to the emperor’ / ‘sing to our emperor’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
g în ceastă lună a in this.. month al.. ‘this August’
lu avgust12 lu August
In modern Romanian, masculine forms etymologically related to the definite article are preserved as genitive–dative case markers (the standard form lui and the non-standard form lu) (see §§2.4.3.2, 2.1.3.1). Lui/lu has reached a complete stage of grammaticalization since old Romanian—namely since the sixteenth century, when it lost its masculine feature and started combining with feminine nouns (5) (Diaconescu 1970: 228; Stan 2013e: 29). (5) a lu muerii13 a lu wife.. ‘of the wife’ Lu is also used as an invariable case marker for the dative in Megleno-Romanian, which is illustrated in (6a), and for the genitive–dative in Istro-Romanian, which can be seen in (6b) (Caragiu Marioțeanu et al. 1977: 204, 220). In Aromanian, the variable ⁵ DÎ LV. ¹² DÎ XVIII.
⁶ DÎ XII. ⁷ CV. ¹³ DÎ XXVIII.
⁸ PO.
⁹ CLM.
¹⁰ CV.
¹¹ PH.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
206 proclitic case marker is . al, . ali, with the regular prosthesis of a- (Coteanu 1969b: 235; Caragiu Marioțeanu et al. 1977: 182), as in (6c); similar forms have been attested in certain conservative Daco-Romanian varieties (Coteanu 1969e: 118) (6d). (6) a lu frátili; ‘to the brother’ b lu lúpu; ‘of/to the wolf ’
lu cása ‘to the house’ lu fé̜ta ‘to/of the girls’
c alu tata; ali/ale dadî/dádi ‘of/to my father’ ‘of/to my mother’ d Ioan a li Pătru ‘Ioan of Pătru’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Proclitic lui has the same origin as enclitic lui, namely *illui (Dimitrescu 1974: 69), whereas for lu two etymological hypotheses are available: either it originated in , which first became lui and then, in specific syntactic contexts (Densusianu 1938: 172), lu, or it derives from *illo (Coteanu 1969e: 123, 1969b: 235; Rosetti 1986: 134). In old Romanian lu was more frequent than lui (Coteanu 1969e: 117; see §2.4.3.2). With common nouns, lu is attested in the area of Banat, as in the forms in (7) given by Coteanu (1969e: 11), but it is encountered further afield as well (see Vulpe 1973: 363, 368 for Muntenia; Şandru 1935: 141, 1936: 138, 1938: 19 for Hunedoara, Bihor, and Năsăud; and Marin 2015: 22 for south-eastern Ukraine). (7) a vâr(v)u lu casă top lu house ‘the top of the house’ b ficații lu om livers lu man ‘people’s innards’ In old Romanian, alongside the masculine genitive–dative case marker, a feminine proclitic case marker ei/ii/i/îi/ă i was occasionally used (Densusianu 1938: 175; Coteanu 1969e: 115; Frâncu 2009: 43; Pană Dindelegan 2015e, 2016b). The precise development of these forms is not entirely clear, but they are all derived from the Latin dative or from the late Latin *illei. This marker is used with feminine proper names and with possessive adjectives, as in (8) (Densusianu 1938: 175; Dimitrescu 1974: 90), and it never precedes common names (Pană Dindelegan 2016b: 77). (8) a lui Tămaș și fetei ii Mărie14 lui Tămas and daughter..- ii Maria ‘to Tămaș and to Maria’s daughter’ ¹⁴ DÎ CXIII.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
207
b fata ii Oţeonoaie15 daughter. ii Oțeonoaia ‘Oțenoaia’s daugher’ c de lucrul ii Venus16 vs of work. ii Venus ‘of the work of Venus’ d cătră bereca svinte to church. holy ‘to your holy church’
jârtva lui Venus17 sacrifice lui Venus ‘Venus’ sacrifice’
a al..
e a ei voastre credință [ . . . ] al.. ei your faith ‘your faith will be found’
ei tale18 ei your afla-se-va19 find.out=.=..3
4.2.3.3 Position in the nominal phrase In modern Romanian, the definite article constantly occurs on the first [+N]/nominal constituent of the phrase, namely on a noun, as in (9a) or on a prenominal adjective, as in (9b), a feature that Renzi (1993: 308) regarded as a possible indication of secondposition clitic status. However, other constituents such as degree words can precede the host of the definite article, so that the latter does not always occur in the second position of the nominal phrase, as we can see in (9c) and (9d) (Cornilescu & Nicolae 2011a: 207; Nicolae 2015b: 28).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(9) a copilul frumos child. beautiful b frumosul copil beautiful. child ‘the beautiful child’ c atât de frumosul copil so of beautiful. child ‘the extremely beautiful child’ d foarte frumosul copil very beautiful. child ‘the very beautiful child’ In coordination, the definite article attaches to both conjuncts, a fact that also supports its suffixal nature, such repetition being unexpected in a clitic (Cornilescu & Nicolae 2011a: 207; Nicolae 2015b: 28; Ledgeway 2017: 241):
¹⁵ CDicț.
¹⁶ CDicț.
¹⁷ CDicț.
¹⁸ PH.
¹⁹ CV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
208 (10) frumosul și inteligentul copil beautiful. and intelligent. child ‘the beautiful and intelligent child’ Unlike modern Romanian, the old language has a low definite article that is attested from the first records down to the eighteenth century. This means that the definite article can occur not only on the first noun or adjective of the nominal phrase but also on a syntactically ‘lower’ noun, as in (11a–b) (Cornilescu & Nicolae 2011a; Stan 2016a: 295). The noun hosting the definite article is rarely preceded by a numeral, as in (11c–d); in this structure modern Romanian uses cel rather than the definite article. (11) a ca iubiţi fraţilor noştri20 as beloved.. brothers.. our ‘as to our beloved brothers’ b după lină căldura soarelui21 after gentle.. heat. sun.. ‘after the gentle heat of the sun’ c zeace cuvintele sale22 ten words. his ‘his ten commandments’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
d acea zi a doa venirei that day al.. second return.... ‘the day of the second return of Christ’
a lu al.. lu
Hristos23 Christ
The suffixal status of the definite article in modern Romanian is supported by a high degree of selectivity: the article can attach only to nouns and adjectives. By contrast, in old Romanian the definite article in its capacity as a clitic also combined with cardinal numerals, as in (12a), and with adverbials, as in (12b) (Nicolae 2015b: 28–9; Stan 2016a: 297; Ledgeway 2017: 234; Pană Dindelegan 2018: 12–13), as this was the normal way of licensing nominal ellipsis; in this function, it was gradually replaced by cel (see §4.5.7). In modern Romanian it preserved only its role as a substantivization marker (Dragomirescu & Nicolae 2016). (12) a ai doii24 al.. second. ‘the second ones’ b apoii;25 then. ‘the last ones’
²⁰ DÎ XVIII. ²¹ CLM. ²⁵ CC¹. ²⁶ CazV.
de-aproapele nostru26 of=close. our ‘our neighbour’
²² CCat.
²³ CC¹.
²⁴ Prav. 1581.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
209
4.2.4 Morphophonological changes The definite article can attach to the noun without producing morphophonological changes, as in (12) (Stan 2013b: 287–9). (13) codru-l forest..- fet-e-le daughters..
nume-le fet-e-i name..- daughter...-
However, in other cases many mophophonological idiosyncrasies are visible, phenomena that are also specific to affixal elements (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 504; Stan 2013b: 287–9; Nicolae 2015b: 31; Ledgeway 2017: 231–38):
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
i. The definite article is agglutinated to the end of masculine singular words in the nominative–accusative, represented in (14a), and of feminine singular genitive–dative forms, represented in (14b) (Lombard 1974: 24; Adams 2013: 460). The inflexional ending [j] merges with the syncretic definite article [i] (.=..-=..-) and, although they are orthographically distinct, they are phonologically spelled out syncretically by the vowel [i]. (14) a frați [fratsj] > frații [ˈfratsi]; pomi [pomj] > brothers brothers. trees j b țară [ˈʦarә], țări [ʦәr ] > country.- country.- lume [ˈlume] lumi [lumj] world.- world.-
pomii [ˈpomi] trees. țării [ˈʦәri]; country..- lumii [ˈlumi] world..-
In old Romanian, especially in the sixteenth century, for feminine singular nouns such as those in (15a–b) and for masculine nouns ending in -ă such as those in (15c–d), the definite article in the genitive–dative attached to the desinences -e and -i, without merging with them (Coteanu 1969e: 132; Rosetti 1986: 489; Stan 2016a: 289–91; see §2.4.2.2). This suggests that, in the old language, the definite article was still treated by speakers as a clitic, at least in feminine nouns (Rosetti 1986: 489). (15) a a lumiei27 al.. word...
²⁷ PH.
(cf. MRo: lumii [ˈlumi])
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
210 b a morției28 al.. death.. c popeei29 priest. d dumeneca Sunday
(cf. MRo: morții [ˈmorʦi])
(cf. MRo: popii [ˈpopi]) Tomeei30 (cf. MRo: Tomii [ˈtomi]) Toma..
ii. For feminine nouns ending in -ă [ә], the definite article replaces the inflexional ending, becoming the only indicator of the morphological features of the noun, as we see in (16a). Given the situation of feminine nouns in the genitive–dative just discussed, this suggests that there was an intermediate stage in which the definite article followed the inflexion, as in (16b) (Dimitrescu 1974: 71). (16) a cas-ă ! house.. fat-ă ! daughter.. b *cas-ă-a house....
cas-a house.(.) fat-a daughter.(.) *fat-ă-a daughter...
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
iii. For certain masculine and genus alternans nouns, the definite article is accompanied by phonological alteration of the final vowel: the singular inflexional ending [w] becomes [u], as in (17a) and (17b), the inflexional ending [urj] becomes [uri], as in (16c) and (16d), and the feminine singular inflexion [e] becomes [e̯], as in (16e) and (16f): !
leul [ˈleul] lion.
b birou [biˈrou̯] desk
!
biroul [biˈroul] biroului [biˈroului ̯] desk. desk..-
c visuri [ˈvisurj] dreams
!
visurile [ˈvisurile] dreams.
d cărnuri [ˈkәrnurj] meat.
!
cărnurile [ˈkәrnurile] meat..
e floare [ˈflo̯are] flower
!
floarea [ˈflo̯are̯a] flower.
f pâine [ˈpɨi ̯ne] bread
!
pâinea [ˈpɨi ̯ne̯a] bread.
(17) a leu [leu̯] lion
²⁸ FT.
²⁹ CPr.
³⁰ CPr.
leului [ˈleului ̯] lion..-
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
211
iv. The suffixation of the definite article produces changes in the syllable structure of nouns with stems ending in a vowel: (18) a butoi [bu.ˈtoi ̯] barrel
!
butoiul [bu. ˈto.jul] barrel.
b pai [pai ̯] straw
!
paiul [ˈpa.jul] straw.
v. Definite affixation can also produce stress shifts for genus alternans nouns ending in unstressed o (see (19)). The same change takes place with the plural inflexion -uri (see §2.3.2). (19) a radio [ˈradio] radio b zero [ˈzero] zero
!
radioul [radiˈoul] radio.
!
zeroul [zeˈroul] zero.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
A phenomenon attested since the earliest Romanian writings is the loss of -l in the masculine, as we see in (20a) (Densusianu 1938: 168–9; Vasiliu & Ionescu Ruxăndoiu 1986: 145); this loss probably reflects pronunciation, but it has also been explained as a feature of the method of writing (Rosetti 1986: 494). The absence of -l was constant throughout the history of Romanian (Nicolae 2012: 112). Today -l is usually unpronounced, except in very formal speech (Stan 2013b: 289; Sánchez Miret 2017). When l is dropped, the inflexional u alone marks definiteness, as in (20b–c). The fact that a bona fide inflexional marker expresses definiteness suggests that u and l have the same nature: they are inflexional affixes (Stan 2013b: 289; Ledgeway 2017: 234). (20) a în scaunu pierzătoriu31 in chair. loss. ‘in the sinner’s chair’ c băiat băiatul boy boy. d leu [leu̯] leul [ˈle.ul] lion lion.
băiatu’ boy. leu [ˈle.u] lion.
Several explanations have been offered for the loss of the final article -l. Most probably -l was lost before words starting in consonants, through a normal tendency to simplify consonant clusters (Avram 1959; Dimitrescu 1974: 78). Morphological reasons could also have played a role: Graur (1955: 20–1) suggests that -l was lost after the transformation of -l’i (lupili ‘wolfs’) into -i (lupii), in order to re-establish the parallelism between definite and indefinite forms, in the singular and the plural (see (21)). As ³¹ PH.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
212 for present-day Romanian, Sánchez Miret (2017: 365) concludes that dropping the final -l is a stylistically constrained phenomenon: it is dropped in the colloquial register even by educated speakers. (21) lupu [lupw] ~ lupi [lupj] vs lupu [ˈlupu] ~ lupii [ˈlupi] wolf wolves wolf. wolves.
4.2.5 Polydefinite structures The existence of polydefinite structures, in which the definite article appears more than once, is a strong argument for the affixal status of the definite article, since the phenomenon can be interpreted as syntactic agreement in definiteness (Croitor 2008a; Stan 2013b; Ledgeway 2017: 241–2). In modern Romanian, a limited number of polydefinite constructions are available (Nicolae 2013e: 318). These are the double definiteness construction, with an enclitic definite article and an adjectival article, exemplified in (22a), the determiner spreading structure, specific to the spoken language, in which the definite article is realized more than once in the nominal phrase, as can be seen in (22b), and a polydefinite postnominal demonstrative structure of spoken Romanian in which definiteness is expressed twice, as in (22c).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(22) a omul cel bun man. cel good ‘the good man’ b săracul omul ăla/meu poor. man. that/my ‘that/my poor man’ c omul ăla bunul man. that good. ‘that good man’ In old Romanian, polydefiniteness was more productive as definiteness and case agreement, in that the definite article was expressed more than once in the nominal phrase, as in (23) (Densusianu 1938: 170; 387–8; Croitor 2008a; Frâncu 2009: 44; Cornilescu & Nicolae 2011a: 201–2). Definiteness agreement was more frequent in translations than in original documents; it was also more frequent in the southern area (Stan 2016a: 291). The genitive–dative and the plural favoured polydefiniteness (Croitor 2008a). Polydefiniteness became restricted after the eighteenth century (Stan 2016d: 304) but was still residually attested in the nineteenth (Nicolae 2012: 117).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. (23) a păntru sufletul răposatului jupanului for soul. late.. master.. ‘for the soul of the late master Preda’
213
Predei32 Preda.
b moaştiile a sfintei prepodobnei al.. saint. beautifully.adorned. relics. Paraschevei33 Parascheva. ‘the relics of the holy, beautifully adorned, Parascheva’
4.2.6 Idiosyncrasies and irregularities The affixal nature of the definite article is also supported by the fact that it displays arbitrary gaps and exceptions, as well as semantic idiosyncrasies. In contrast to other Romance languages, in which the combination of the definite article with any type of noun is free or unrestricted, in Romanian a number of nouns fail to combine with it, as we see in (24) (Ledgeway 2017: 235–6). This incompatibility seems to be arbitrary, and is even more surprising because the Romanian definite article is a current means of substantivization for all kinds of structures, as in (25) (Pană Dindelegan 2003b). (24) a dingo **dingo-ul euro dingo dingo. euro vs
radio, radio
**euro-ul avocado **avocado-ul euro. avocado avocado.
radioul radio.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b ianuarie **ianuarieul **ianuaria martie **martieul **martia January January.. January.. March March.. March.. (25) a ș-ul, ‘the (letter) ș’
do-ul, ‘the (note) do’
pe-ul, ‘the (preposition) pe’
doiul ‘the (bus, etc.) two’
b așa ceva-ul, orice-ul like.this something. anything. ‘something like this’ ‘anything’ The ending -e is common to both feminine and masculine nouns (câine dog., carte book.). For a series of masculine nouns with this ending, the fact, illustrated in (26a), that the feminine article -a is selected instead of the masculine article -le is unexpected. For masculine nouns ending in -ă , the article selected has the feminine form -a, as in (26b). But the noun tată ‘father’ is an exception: it takes both endings, as we see in (25c) (Nedelcu 2013a: 277–8; Ledgeway 2017: 237).
³² DÎ LVI.
³³ CLM.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
214 (26) a bade uncle
badea uncle.()
**badele uncle.()
b papă papa pope pope.
bulibașă gipsy.leader
c tată tata father father.()
tatăl father.()
bulibașa gipsy.leader.
The names of the first five days of the week are feminine nouns (see (27a)). With the exception of joi [ʒoi ̯] ‘Thursday’, they all end, rather unexpectedly, in an asyllabic -i [j], an inflexion specific to masculine nouns in the plural. These nouns combine with the feminine definite article -a, yelding the forms in (27b) instead of the expected forms in (27c) (Giurgea 2013a: 841; Ledgeway 2017: 237). (27) a luni [lunj] Monday
marți [martsj] Tuesday
miercuri [ˈmjerkurj] Wednesday
vineri [ˈvinerj] Friday
b lunea [ˈlune̯a] marțea [ˈmartse̯a] miercurea [ˈmjerkure̯a] vinerea [ˈvinere̯a] Monday. Tuesday. Wednesday. Friday.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
c **lunia [ˈlunja] **marția [ˈmartsja] **miercuria [ˈmjerkurja] **vineria [ˈvinerja] Unexpectedly from a semantic point of view, the definite article is part of certain proper names. The feminine form -a is part of most of Romanian feminine names, as in (28a). A non-definite form can be reconstructed, as in (28b). The masculine article -l used to attach to proper names in old Romanian, as in (28c) (Densusianu 1938: 173; Coteanu 1969e: 117; Stan 2013b: 290; Pană Dindelegan 2016: 74), until the nineteenth century (Nicolae 2012: 118). It has been preserved in certain names of cities, where it functions as case marker, as in (28d) (Stan 2013b: 290). (28) a Ana, Ioana, Gabriela, Maria b aceeași same.. c popa Radul, priest Radu. ‘the priest Radu’ Stanciul Stanciu. d București, Bucharest
³⁴ DÎ VIIIb, XVI, , .
Marie Maria popa Radu, priest Radu Neacșul34 Neacșu. Bucureștiul, Bucharest.
străzile Bucureștiului streets. Bucharest..
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
215
Being part of indefinite pronouns is another unexpected type of behaviour for a definite article (see (29a); Cornilescu & Nicolae 2011b). The definite article is also a means of distinguishing between the prepositional and the adverbial uses of some lexical items (see (29b); Guțu Romalo 1967: 234) and part of the genitive marker al (see §4.3). The genitival al is homophonous with the marker al that precedes ordinal numerals; moreover, numeral ordinals also contain the sequence -le, as illustrated in (29c), and, in old Romanian, -l, which we see in (29d) and which is considered to have the same etymology as the definite article (see §7.14.3). (29) a unul one.(.) altul other.(.) b împotrivă against.()
una one.(.) alta other.(.)
unii one.(.) alții other.(.)
împotriva against.()
în jur in around.()
unele one.(.) altele other.(.) în jurul in around.()
c al patru-le-a al fourth.-a d al patrul al fourth. In certain cases, the definite article has become part of the internal structure of nouns via a lexicalization process illustrated in (30) (Ledgeway 2017: 238).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(30) Domnul dracul naiba God. devil.(.) devil. A specific feature of Romanian is that the definite article is dropped after prepositions that assign accusative (see (31a)), if there is no other modifier (see (31b)), although the prepositions cu (in some of its usages), ca and de-a are exempt from this rule (see (31c)). The result is a semantically odd combination, since nouns preceded by prepostions can have a definite reading, as the English translation of the examples in (31a) suggests (Ciobanu & Nedelcu 2008: 615–16; Pană Dindelegan 2015a: 90–1). (31) a în parc, in parc ‘in the/a park’ b în parcul mare, in parc. big ‘in the big park’ c Merge cu goes with
lângă casă next.to house ‘next to the/a house’ lângă casa mea next.to house. my ‘next to my house’
mașina. Merge car. walks
ca like
rața. duck.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
216 Se . ‘He goes by car.’
joacă de-a plays at ‘He walks like a duck.’
doctorul. doctor. ‘He plays doctor.’
This rule was not established in old Romanian, where nouns preceded by a preposition could take the definite article, as in (32a), or nouns preceded by a preposition and followed by modifiers could lack the definite article, as in (32b) (Stan 2013e: 27, 2016a: 298). (32) a să ungă pre mortul35 smear dead. ‘to smear the dead man’ b în dzi cănd făcu Domnedzeu ceriul şi in day when made God heaven. and ‘on the day when God created the heaven and the earth’
pământul36 earth.
4.3 Al in diachrony
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Al is a genitive case marker used in the contexts described in §2.4.3.2. It inflects for gender and number (see Table 4.3), agreeing with the head that governs the genitive (gând in (33a)) and always co-occurring with the genitive inflexion on the noun and with the definite article.³⁷ It precedes possessive adjectives, agreeing in gender and number with their governing head, as in (33b). It is an obligatory proclitic formative of ordinal numerals, having only singular forms and showing gender inflexion, as in (33c); in old Romanian, it also had plural forms (see §7.14.3). (33) a un gând al a thought al.. ‘a thought of the girl’
fetei girl..
b niște gânduri ale mele some thoughts al.. my ‘some thoughts of mine’ c al doilea, al.. second. ‘the second one’
a al..
doua second.
³⁵ CC¹. ³⁶ PO. ³⁷ The same formative appears in the alternative deteminer alalt ‘the other’—used in old Romanian and in present-day dialects—and in the definite and partitive determiner alde, which accompanies proper names and kinship nouns (see §3.8) (Zafiu 2009; Giurgea 2013b: 116–17).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
217
In the first two usages mentioned above, al also shows case inflexion: according to the rules of the standard language, only the plural form of the genitive–dative case is accepted, whereas the singular forms alui for the masculine and alei for the feminine are attested in non-standard language, and only rarely. In non-standard language, especially in the northern area, the invariant form a (which is identical with the functional preposition a) is used for both genders and numbers. As for the historical dialects of Romanian, only Aromanian lacks the al-series, a fact that led Coteanu (1969e: 137) to date the emergence of al after the proto-Romanian period, between the twelfth and the fourteenth centuries. Table 4.3 The forms of al
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
- -
. al -
. ai alor
. a -
. ale alor
Al is etymologically related to the definite article. There are two hypotheses for its origin (Coteanu 1969g: 250; Manoliu Manea 1971: 239; see a detailed discussion in Giurgea 2013a: 111). One derives it from + : . al < + alu < ; . ai < + ; . a < + ; . ale < + ; /. alor < (Dimitrescu 1974: 79; Vasiliu & Ionescu Ruxăndoiu 1986: 151–2; Sala 2006: 129; Cornilescu & Nicolae 2009, 2012). The other hypothesis derives it from (Giurgea 2013b): in this analysis, in an unattested stage of Romanian, al functioned as a strong definite determiner, and the proclitic case markers lui and ei (see §4.2.3.2) were its genitive–dative forms (Giurgea 2013b: 157). In sixteenth-century texts, the invariant a was used especially in north-eastern Transylvania, in the Banat–Hunedoara area, and in the north of Moldova, whereas in the other areas in the south the variable series al, a, ai, ale was employed (Gheție 1975: 161; Frâncu 2009: 46). Densusianu (1938: 169) points to the almost systematic use of the variable forms in Coresi’s printings (which is specific for the southern area), as opposed to the high frequency of invariant a in a northern text such as PO. This is taken to yield an argument for interpreting the invariant form a as a genuine form, at least in certain areas. However, in the northern varieties where invariant a is very frequently used as a genitive marker, as we see in (34a), the variable series is employed before possessive adjectives and ordinal numerals, as in (34b) and (34c), even when the feminine a would have been required, as in (32d). This suggests that at an older stage of the language al was variable everywhere, the invariant form being an innovation that first emerged before nouns and pronouns, while possessives and numerals preserved the variable form of al for a longer period (Frâncu 2009: 46). A context such as (34a) is also relevant for the possible influence of the phonological context on the loss of l before a pronoun with initial l (al lui > a lui) (Dimitrescu 1974: 80). The attestation of invariant
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
218 a in PH also supports the thesis of an influence of the phonological context, as in (35a), and of the preservation of the variable forms before possessive adjectives, as in (35b). (34) a Acește trei ficiori a lui these three sons al.. lui. ‘these three sons of Noah’ b unui fecior al a. son al.. ‘to a son of yours’ c den al doilea from al.. second ‘from the second year’
tău your an year
d pănă la al dzeacea until at al.. tenth. ‘until the tenth month’39 (35) a a al.. a al..
lună [MRo. a] month
lui, a lu Dumnedzău, his al.. lui. God lor their
b al său, al.. his
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Noe38 [MRo. ai] Noah
al tău, al al.. your al..
miu my40
Nevertheless, following the first etymological hypothesis, it is also possible that in certain areas the fusion between a (< ) and the descendants of did not take place, so that the preposition a introduced the genitive and the dative (Vasiliu & Ionescu Ruxăndoiu 1986: 152; Cornilescu & Nicolae 2009: 658–9). In this case, invariant a is the genuine preposition a. The area in which invariant a is used today is greater than it was in old Romanian (Gheție 1975: 161). Dialectal data show that the area in which the genitive and possessive al is invariant does not overlap with the area in which the ordinal numeral formative is invariant. If we compare maps 1665, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1671, 1672, and 1673 from ALRII, which contain possessive adjectives and genitive forms of the personal pronouns, with maps 1785 and 1787, which contain the ordinal numerals al doilea, a doua ‘the second’, al treilea, a treia ‘the third’, the latter also show al in Moldova (points 192, 514, 536, 551, 520, 605), where invariant a is employed in the genitive and the possessive. The only area where a is used in all three functions is central Transylvania. In the south, variable forms are preferred, but there are differences; for example, point 987 in Dobrogea takes the invariant a for possessives and
³⁸ PO.
³⁹ PO.
⁴⁰ PH.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
219
genitives, but al for the masculine form of the ordinal numeral. The data from old Romanian, alongside present-day dialectal data, indicate that, although the three uses of al have the same origin, speakers have constantly made at least one distinction— between the genitive and the possessive marker on the one hand and the ordinal numeral formative on the other.
4.4 Morphological history of the indefinite article The Romanian indefinite article originates in , ‘one’, like its Romance counterparts. The morphology and the history of the indefinite article overlaps with those of the indefinite pronouns and adjectives (see §3.7.2), and the article itself is syncretic with the cardinal numeral ‘one’. A specific feature of the Romanian indefinite article is that it is completely grammaticalized only for the singular and for the genitive–dative plural. In the nominative–accusative singular, the form niște is employed. This form originates in ‘I know not what’ and, from the old Romanian period (when it was also recorded as nește), it was on its way to being grammaticalized as an indefinite article, as in (36a), and as a partitive article, as in (36b) (see §3.7.5.3). (36) a un om, a person
niște oameni some people
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b Bea niște apă. drinks some water ‘He drinks some water.’ The indefinite article has specific forms for both genders and inflects for number and case (see Table 4.4). For the genitive–dative, the endings -ei, -ui, and -or, specific to the pronominal inflexion, are employed (Coteanu 1969b: 236; Stan 2013b, 2016a: 298–9). Table 4.4 The indefinite article in modern Romanian - -
. un unui
. niște unor
. o unei
. niște unor
In old Romanian, in the areas with rhotacism of intervocalic [n], the phonological change n > r applied only to indefinite pronouns and numerals (urul, ura), whereas the weak forms—the indefinite article and the unstressed numeral—are attested only without rhotacism (un, o) (Densusianu 1938: 117–18; Dimitrescu 1974: 81). In IstroRomanian, the singular forms un and ur are both found, and the plural form is uri (Kovačec 1971: 112; Sârbu & Frățilă 1998: 22). While for un the evolution from is straightforward, the form o has been explained as emerging from uă < ună < (Densusianu 1938: 118). The intermediate feminine form ună was preserved in
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
220 Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian (Coteanu 1969c: 236), while in Istro-Romanian the phonological process reached the same stage as in Daco-Romanian (o). The reduced masculine form u, probably a nasal vowel written υ, is attested in sixteenthcentury texts (e.g. u leu ‘a lion’, u ostrovu⁴¹ ‘an island’). Sporadically, in old Romanian, formal confusion occurs between indefinite articles and indefinite pronouns (Stan 2013e: 35; see (37a)). The status of the plural form unii was ambiguous; in contexts such as (37b) it can be interpreted either as an indefinite quantifier or as an indefinite article (corresponding to niște in modern Romanian). (37) a urul a
graiu42 word
b era unii cărtulari aciia şezând43 were a.. scholars here staying ‘certain scholars were staying here’
4.5 Demonstratives as determiners, deictic adjectives, and pronouns
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
4.5.1 Introduction The standard modern Romanian demonstrative system is based on the proximity distinction: proximal acesta ‘this’ vs distal acela ‘that’. The Latin tripartite distinction ‘near speaker’—‘near addressee’—‘neither’ (——) is lost in Romanian. Romanian demonstratives inflect for gender, number, and case. There is also a formal distinction marked by the final particle -a (see also §4.7.2): prenominal demonstrative determiners display the weak form, without -a, whereas deictic postnominal demonstratives and pronouns have a strong form, with -a (see Vasilescu 2008: 241–52; Nicolae 2013a, 2019: 3).
4.5.2 Proximal demonstratives In modern standard Romanian, the set of proximal demonstratives has two members, acest(a) and ă sta. Acest(a) ( ˈboulu a melw, ˈboiʎi a mej ‘my oxen’ > ˈboiʎi a meʎ, cf. a ˈtselu bou̯ ‘that ox’ and a’tseʎ boi ̯ ‘those oxen’. Similar forms are recorded in Megleno-Romanian, but only in the masculine plural, where we encounter meʎ and tәʎ, beside mjei ̯ and tɔi ̯.¹² Megleno-Romanian possessives are generally prenominal; and in that position do not co-occur with the definite article. Although the situation of Megleno-Romanian is slightly different from that of Aromanian, there is clearly analogical levelling on the model of other pronominal plural forms (e.g. ʦeʎ ˈsokri ‘those in-laws’), and not merely of the feminines in the possessive paradigm. In Megleno-Romanian, too, spreading may have occurred when the possessives were in postnominal position (as they may also be). In that position, possessives are adjacent to the definite article, realized as (i)ʎ, (ә)ʎ(ә), or ii ̯. The remodelled form does not spread to the singular, as it does in Aromanian and in the Megleno-Romanian of Țărnareca. The appearance of the forms a meʎ and a tәʎ in Istro-Romanian has an equally complicated history: here possessives are also placed in prenominal position and are not combined with forms that bear the suffixed definite article. This precludes spreading from the noun to the possessive. Spreading of the marker [ʎ], which expresses the value masculine plural, is due to the analogy of the pattern found in nominal inflexion (e.g. . viˈʦe ‘calf ’ ~ . viˈʦeʎ, whence . a me(v) ~ . a meʎ) and to that of the plural forms of feminine possessives, as well as to the plural forms of other pronominal classes (intensifiers, distal demonstratives, relatives) with the ending -ʎ(i). In Aromanian and Istro-Romanian, case oppositions appear in the paradigm of possessives, both in number (singular and plural) and in gender (masculine and feminine). The masculine singular genitive–dative ending is stressed -ui for singular and plural possessors (a tәˈui ̯ ‘thy’ a vostˈrui ̯ ‘your’), and stressed -ei in the feminine singular (a tәˈei ̯, a vustrˈei ̯) and -or in the plural for both genders (a tәˈorw, a nostˈrorw) (see Capidan 1932: 413–18). These are analogical creations modelled on other pronouns (demonstrative, personal). Capidan (1925: 152) also notes a genitive–dative form among the new Aromanian possessive type a melw, namely a miˈluj. Distinct case forms are present in Istro-Romanian and marked by the same forms as found in the paradigm or demonstratives and relatives,¹³ which confirms the processes of analogical levelling in pronouns and pronominal adjectives (see Kovačec 1971: 111, 117). In first- and second-person plural possessive forms, the number opposition is expressed in masculines throughout Daco-Romance only via desinences and their accompanying consonant alternations (cf. §1.5): 1.. nostru ~ 1.. noștri, 2.. vostru ~ 2.. voștri, Aro. a ˈnost(r)u ~ a ˈnoʃt(r)i, a ˈvost(r)u ~ a ˈvoʃt(r)i, MeRo. ˈnostru ~ ˈnoʃtri, ˈvostru ~ ˈvoʃtri, IRo. a ˈnostru ~ a ˈnoɕci (a ˈnoʃci), a ˈvostru ~ ¹² See also Atanasov (1984: 517).
¹³ For all the forms, see Kovačec (1984: 570–1).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
252 a ˈvoɕci (a ˈvoʃci). In Megleno-Romanian, this consonantal alternation is also found in the feminine plural (. ˈno̯astrә ~ . ˈno̯aʃtri, . ˈvo̯astrә ~ . ˈvo̯aʃtri), alongside forms without the consonantal alternation (ˈno̯astri, ˈvo̯astri).¹⁴ This reflects the analogical influence of the masculine plural consonant; the final -i in the feminine plural reflects a local closure of final unstressed [e] to [i], and could not have triggered the consonantal alternation. The same tendency is observable in the Daco-Romanian dialect of Banat: there the feminine plural forms have the same root allomorph as the masculine plural (ALRII map 1672), which means that the number opposition is marked not only in the endings but in the root allomorphs. Root allomorphy is more pronounced in varieties where the consonantal cluster has been reduced, leading to palatalization of the root-final dental (see the forms from Istro-Romanian referred to earlier, or various areas of Banat in ALRII map 1672).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
5.2.2 Stressed third-person forms The third-person forms are those most subject to modification. In Latin, , a derivative of the reflexive pronoun (de Vaan 2008: 549; Mari 2016: 47), appears both in reflexive uses and with an emphatic function—a ‘contrast function’ according to Bertocchi (1989: 451–2). Everywhere else, the genitive forms of demonstratives could be used with the possessive function. In sixteenth-century Romanian, the continuants of express both singular and plural possessors (‘his/her/its/their’).¹⁵ The Romanian forms reflect a remodelled *seus, most probably analogically modelled on meus (see *teus above), so that analogical remodelling based on the first-person singular has affected not only the second person in the singular, but also the third person. Istro-Romanian . a sev ~ . a se reflect the late analogical influence of the first-person singular form (which equally affects the second-person singular). The paradigm of possessives is characterized by multiplicity of forms, including the genitive forms of the personal pronoun. The sixteenth-century distribution of the two series is almost exactly that of Latin: in cases of co-referentiality, the descendant of the Latin possessive adjective tends to be used, and the genitive of the personal pronoun is used in other contexts: thus bogații întru îmbletele sale veștedzescu ‘the richi, in theiri wanderings, become rotten’ vs Nu vorovireți că sufletul lui între elu iaste¹⁶ ‘Do not speak, for his soul is in him’. However, there are numerous cases where syntactic factors no longer control the selection of the two series, as semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic factors are relevant.¹⁷ In the sixteenth century an asymmetry was already emerging in the plural, in that lor, the genitive–dative form of the personal pronoun, began to appear in co-referential ¹⁴ See also Atanasov (1984: 517). ¹⁵ The phenomenon persists in Ibero-Romance and, historically and dialectally, in Italo-Romance (Mari 2016: 62). ¹⁶ CV. ¹⁷ See Nicolae (2016b: 337–9).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
. :
253
contexts (mainly in southern Romania, although the replacement was not general even here), possibly because the possessive adjective from Latin covered ‘his/her/its’ as well as ‘their’, while the rest of the possessive system clearly makes distinctions according to number. Thus we get, from the north, ochii săi păijiniră¹⁸ ‘their eyes became cobwebbed’, and from the south ochii lor—păinjiniţi¹⁹ ‘their cobwebbed eyes’. From the mid-seventeenth century on, the possessive adjective used for plural possessors begins to withdraw to the north as well, leaving in its place the genitive lor. Thus, for example, in Cazania lui Varlaam, both forms may be used to express co-referentiality: toţi să veseliră, căci că înţeleaseră izbăvirea lor ‘all rejoiced, for they understood their [own] salvation’, but Ce ei [ . . . ] cu ochii săi vedea ciudesele²⁰ ‘they with their own eyes saw the miracles’. In eighteenth-century documents from almost all regions (the same situation is encountered in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian), lor prevails, and this leads to suppletion in the form that designates the singular—a single possessor. Istro-Romanian, however, preserves the distinction between using the possessive adjective in co-referential contexts and using the genitive of the personal pronoun elsewhere. Owing to third-person forms that designate a single possessor, the coexistence of the possessive adjective (său, etc.) with the genitive of the personal pronoun (lui, ei) persists, but the tendency to replace the former with the latter even in cases of coreference is already present in the sixteenth century, especially in texts from the south;²¹ one can compare, for example, dentru codrul svântu al său²² ‘from his [own] holy wood’ and dem pădure sfăntă a sa²³ ‘from his [own] holy forest’ with den măgura sfăntă a lui²⁴ ‘from his [own] holy wood’—and, in later versions, den muntele cel sfint al lui²⁵ ‘from his [own] holy mount’, den muntele cel sfânt al lui ‘from his [own] holy mount’, but den muntele său cel sfânt ‘from his [own] holy mount’.²⁶ The preference for the genitive of the personal pronoun gets constantly stronger throughout the old period.²⁷ In the nineteenth century the possessive adjectives regain ground, probably on the model of Latin, French, German, and Russian.²⁸ In Romanian, stylistic factors increasingly come to bear on the selection of these forms. The genitive forms of the personal pronoun are preferred in the spoken language, in colloquial and popular registers,²⁹ while in academic styles the possessive adjective proper is preferred.³⁰ In non-academic literature the choice varies from author to author and no longer depends on syntactic, stylistic, or semantic variables. Trans-Danubian dialects present two diametrically opposed pictures. In one, the overabundance of pronouns is completely reduced, as in spoken Daco-Romanian, and only the genitive forms of the personal pronoun are used in the third person
¹⁸ CV. ¹⁹ CPr. ²⁰ CazV. ²¹ See also Berea (1961: 319–31) and Frâncu (1997b: 128). ²² PH. ²³ PS. ²⁴ CP 1570. ²⁵ BB. ²⁶ Both from manuscripts of the second half of the seventeenth century that contain versions of translations of the Bible, respectively ‘versiunea Milescu revizuită’ and ‘versiunea Daniil Panoneanul’. ²⁷ Frâncu (1997c: 330). ²⁸ Iordan (1954: 397); Croitor (2015c: 138–9). ²⁹ Iliescu (1995: 162–72); see also D. Niculescu (2003). ³⁰ Further observations can be found in Manea (2015: 496).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
254 (Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian).³¹ In the other, the overabundance is maintained, with preservation of the syntactic constraints on the selection of the two forms (Istro-Romanian).³² Third-person forms are the most unstable ones across the possessive and display other peculiarities not found elsewhere in the paradigm. In Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, and Istro-Romanian, the original genitive forms of the personal pronouns mark the gender of the possessor (lui ~ ei, ARo. a lui ̯ ~ a ʎei ̯, IRo. a lui ̯ ~ a ʎei ̯). In the plural, this opposition is neutralized everwhere, including in Megleno-Romanian (lor, ARo. a lorw, MeRo. lor, IRo. a lor); in fact in Megleno-Romanian gender neutralization also occurs in the singular, where the masculine was generalized—probably under the influence of the parallel phenomenon in the plural.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
5.2.3 Possessive affixes Besides the possessive adjectives, Romanian has possessive affixes that express strong possession. These affixes are limited to kinship terms that appear as bare nouns (i.e. without the article). They are for the most part singulars, although in old Romanian plural possessives could be used in the same way (e.g. sănătatea domnu-nostru Niculei vodă³³ ‘the health of our lord, Niculei vodă’; la mâna cumnatu-mieu ‘at my brother-inlaw’s hand’). The use of the possessive affix with kinship terms is well represented from the sixteenth century on and survives in popular and colloquial registers until today³⁴ (e.g. de pre soru-mea³⁵ ‘from my sister’, să fac pre fiiu-tău craiu³⁶ ‘that I make thy son king’, cu tată-său³⁷ ‘with his father’). The possessive affixes are also attested in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian. The construction ‘kinship term + possessive affix’ is the result of early suffixation of the possessives, which were attached to the indefinite form of the noun (i.e. the form without suffixed definite article) at a time when the singular ending of some nouns such as sor(u) ‘sister’, nor(u)³⁸ ‘daughter-in-law’, văr ‘(male) cousin’, cumnat ‘brotherin-law’, bărbat ‘husband’, unchi ‘uncle’ was still -u. From the first attestations, these constructions show signs of grammaticalization, in that the possessives act as determiners and the noun phrase is no longer compatible with other determiners (one does not find **acest frate-su ‘this brother [of] his’, **o noru-sa ‘a daughter-in-law [of] his’).³⁹ In modern colloquial Romanian the grammaticalization process seems complete: the affixal possessive has become bleached to the point where it is merely a definite determiner and can take a genitival argument (e.g. sor-sa lu Ioana lit. ‘her sister
³¹ See e.g. Saramandu (1984: 443); Atanasov (1984: 517). ³² Among others, see Kovačec (1984: 570). ³³ DÎ XXV. ³⁴ For an interpretation, see e.g. Niculescu (2008: 130–6). For similar developments in Italo-Romance, see e.g. Giusti (2010); Salvi (2011: 37); and Ledgeway (2011: 417). ³⁵ GB. ³⁶ DÎ XXXII. ³⁷ Prav. 1581. ³⁸ Uță Bărbulescu and Zamfir (2018: 907–30). ³⁹ See further Ledgeway (2011: 417) for the broader comparative Romance perspective.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
. :
255
of Ioana’, ‘Ioana’s sister’). This was sometimes possible in old Romanian (e.g. păcatul mânre-sa lui⁴⁰ lit. ‘the sin of his mother of him’, ‘his mother’s sin’). The affixation of possessives and the grammaticalization of the resultant combination made for further modification, both of the endings of the nominal and of its root. This may involve loss of the ending of the nominal (fiu-miu ‘my son’ > fi-miu), loss of the ending and subsequent modification of the root (frate-su ‘his brother’ > frat-su > frac-su; bărbatu-su ‘her husband’ > bărbac-su), reduction of the root (fiică-mea ‘my daughter’ > fi-mea, probably on the analogy of fi-miu ‘my son’), insertion of vowel after loss of the old ending (cumnatu-su ‘his brother-in-law’ > cumnat-su > cumnată-su, with a vowel normally associated with feminines). These modifications led to the appearance of some endings or root allomorphs that neutralized gender oppositions, so that only the possessive adjective has marks for gender: fi-mea ‘my daughter’ ~ fimiu ‘my son’, fie-mea ‘my daughter’ ~ fie-miu ‘my son’, cumnată-su ‘his brother-inlaw’ ~ cumnată-sa ‘his sister-in-law’. The tendency to mark gender only on the possessive is already apparent in old Romanian (stăpână-său ‘his master’).⁴¹ Old Romanian already shows a tendency to reduce (and thereby formally differentiate) the affixal possessives, which can no longer bear stress and form a single prosodic word with the noun. The earliest reductions are attested in the first-person singular, where we find miu alongside mieu (probably as a consequence of loss of stress). Miu seems to specialized to agglutination with the preceding noun, and mieu is preferred as a possessive adjective (e.g. tată-miu ‘my father’, moşu-miu ‘my grandfather’ vs feciorul mïeu ‘my son’).⁴² The process of reduction of the forms of affixal possessives gradually affects the entire series of masculines. Masculine singular tău ‘thy’ and său ‘his/her’ are more stable diachronically, but their reduction is attested from the seventeenth century: văru-su⁴³ ‘his cousin’, cumnată-su⁴⁴ ‘his brother-in-law’, frate-su⁴⁵ ‘his brother’, onchisu⁴⁶ ‘his uncle’. The reduced forms -tu and -su have been interpreted as direct reflexes of Latin and (Stoica 2018a: 418, 420; also Coteanu 1969h: 246–7). This would mean that Romanian has had both reduced and full forms throughout the paradigm, from a very early period. Yet in this case -tu and -su should be present in sixteenth-century texts, which in fact have only -tău and -său; and the distribution of the latter two should be different from that of stressed possessives, but it is not clear that this is true in old Romanian (where -tău and -său are used as affixal possessives). The presence of affixal -tu and -su in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian may be due to reduction of the agglutinated forms, and not necessarily to the conservation of classical and . In spoken Romanian (as in Aromanian and MeglenoRomanian), the affixal possessives distinguish gender (. -miu ~ . -mea, . -tu ~ . -ta, . -su ~ . -sa), but are defective in the plural. In colloquial and popular usage, the final unstressed vowel [u], which indicates masculine, may be
⁴⁰ PH. ⁴¹ Prav. 1780. ⁴² Prav. 1581. ⁴⁵ DRH.B XXIV. ⁴⁶ DRH.B XXXVI.
⁴³ DRH.B XXII.
⁴⁴ DRH.B XXII.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
256 subject to other phenomena such as opening to [o] (e.g. tac-to ‘your dad’, văr-so ‘his cousin’, frate-mio ‘my brother’; for dialectal forms see ALRII map 1674). Kinship terms with affixal possessives have behaved distinctively since the sixteenth century.⁴⁷ They may have been case-invariant—and this holds both for the noun and for the affixal possessive: înaintea tătuşu-tău⁴⁸ ‘in front of his father’, feciorul soru-sa⁴⁹ ‘the child of his sister’. These constructions display a high degree of morphological unity, as can be seen from their restricted morphological autonomy: neither constituent shows any genitive–dative marking in contexts that would otherwise require it. Thus, to express the genitive relationship (i.e. possessor or complement), it is sufficient for the affixal possessive construction to be adjacent to the head noun. This construction persists dialectally even today (e.g. ALRII map 1593 zestrea surorii mele ‘the dowry of my sister’). The case-invariable construction is present in some points in Crișana, Transylvania, and Muntenia (e.g. point 812 ˈzɛstre̯a ˈsorume̯a), but almost always as a second choice to case-marked constructions. In Romanian, two kinds of constructions are preferred over the invariable ones. In one, the feminine possessive affix, but not the noun, inflects for case (e.g. vară-mii ‘my cousin’s’, soacră-mii ‘my mother-in-law’s’), showing complete morphological fusion of the possessive adjectives with the noun—in the sense that only the final element inflects, being perceived as the genitive of a noun in -ea with suffixed definite article, realized as -ii ([ij]) in old Romanian but as [i] in most varieties of modern Romanian (soru-mea ‘my sister’ ~ soru-mii ‘my sister’s’; cf. lumea ‘the world’ ~ lumii ‘of/to the world’). Note that the affixal possessive (-mii, -tii, -sii) has genitive–dative forms different from those of the possessive adjective (mele, tale, sale). The strategy is old and already attested in documents from the beginning of the seventeenth century. Alternatively, the constructions with the affixal possessive are preceded by analytic case markers (lu soru-mea ‘of my sister’, see ALRM maps 1335 and 1336; but also lu taică-miu ‘my father’s’, lu fi-miu ‘of my son’, am dat la vară-mea ‘I gave to my sister’). This, too, is a late development. The tendency, then, has been to distinguish the genitive–dative forms and to remove the widespread case syncretism. The methods used, synthetic or analytic, are not new and are attested since old Romanian. In the sixteenth century⁵⁰ there were hybrid forms alongside the invariable ones. In those forms the noun bears genitive–dative case marking, while the possessive remains invariant: fata sorori-mea⁵¹ ‘the daughter of my sister’, şase feciori ai surori-me Melintiei⁵² ‘six sons of my sister Melinta’. Double marking—on both the noun and the affix—is possible. In spoken Romanian there is double marking in addition to the strategies mentioned above. Thus, in casa nevesti-mii ‘the house of my wife’, nevesti cannot be analysed other than as a case of ⁴⁷ For other observations on the morphosyntactic behaviour of kinship terms, see Densusianu (1938: 384–5); Șovar (2010: 173–9, 2012: 245–56); and Pană Dindelegan (2016b: 79–81). For parallels outside Romance, see Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001: 966) and Lødrup (2014: 41).While Romanian does not have strategies for distinguishing alienable from inalienable possession, it shows sensitivity to the marking of the latter by morphosyntactically distinguishing kinship terms. ⁴⁸ Prav. 1581. ⁴⁹ PO. ⁵⁰ See further Diaconescu (1970: 240–5); Frâncu (2009: 269). ⁵¹ Prav. 1581. ⁵² CS VI.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
. :
257
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
double marking: the nominative–accusative is nevastă, so the original form must have been neveste-mii, which later became nevesti-mii. In colloquial speech, the structures with a possessive affix present a special vocative ending on the affix (e.g. sor-meo ‘o my sister’). In Aromanian, possessive affixes mark distinct cases in the singular, in all three persons (2 tu ~ tui ̯, 3 su ~ sui ̯, 3 sa ~ sai ̯, etc.). These are unlikely to continue the Latin genitives , , , , and so on; they most probably arose from the reduction of the strong forms, initially in the masculine (a tәuj in unstressed position > tui̯), an effect which then spread to the feminine. Thus, if masculine -tu ~ -tui ̯, then also feminine -ta ~ -tai ̯ (the strong form being a tәei ̯, we may assume that the analogy with the masculine introduced -tai ̯ instead of **-tәi ̯ or **-tei ̯).
ndelegan, Oana Ut 5.003.0006
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
6 The verb
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.1 A brief overview of the structure of the Romanian verb The Romanian verb has largely preserved the Latin inflexional class distinctions, while developing further subclasses (see §§6.2.4–6.2.6). The morphological categories of mood, tense, person, and number are generally differentiated (with relatively little syncretism) via endings, the position of stress, and root allomorphy. The morphological type is predominantly fusional, with cumulative expression of multiple features (e.g. person and number). Allomorphy in the root presents many stable and autonomous patterns (see §6.6). The Latin aspect distinction (perfective ~ imperfective) largely loses its inflexional morphological marking but is expressed in old Romanian by a complex and coherent system of periphrases. In modern Romanian, aspectual values are fused with the marking of temporal values (in the morphological opposition between imperfect and perfect). The TAM (tense, aspect, and mood) system of modern Romanian contains an equal number of synthetic forms, all inherited from Latin, and analytic forms, the latter comprising the auxiliaries ‘be’, ‘have’, and ‘want’, all of Latin origin as well. In Daco-Romanian, one synthetic set of forms (with future/conditional value) that was still used in the sixteenth century was then lost; and so were several partially grammaticalized analytic forms that originally marked the imperfective ~ perfective distinction. Romanian has four non-finite verb forms: the infinitive, the gerund, the past participle, and the supine. The supine, generally claimed to exist just in Daco-Romanian (but see §6.5.3), is a particularly unusual development in the Romance context. The trans-Danubian dialects show divergent developments, some of them conservative (e.g. preservation of the synthetic conditional, in some varieties, and frequent use of the preterite, in others), others innovatory, particularly as a consequence of language contact (e.g. periphrases using auxiliary ‘want’ and past tenses in Aromanian, or aspect marking by affixation in Istro-Romanian). The four inflexion classes inherited from Latin have remained distinct and are characterized by differences in thematic vowel (mainly [a/e/i]), in the position of the stress, which falls either on the root or on the ending, and in patterns of syncretism (see §6.2). The similarities between the continuants of the Latin second and third conjugations (which share the thematic vowel [e]) did not lead to their complete merger in Romanian, as happened in some Romance languages, because of differences in the distribution of stress among forms of the infinitive and of the first- and second-person plural present, namely root stress in the third conjugation vs stress on the endings
The Oxford History of Romanian Morphology. Martin Maiden, Adina Dragomirescu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Oana Ut a̦ ̆ Bărbulescu, and ̦ă Bărbulescu,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
259
in the second (see §6.2). The similarities between these two conjugations have favoured the slippage of verbs from one conjugation to the other, usually from the second to the third. Some of these changes have become established in the standard language, others—more recent ones—are considered non-standard. In the first conjugation, Romanian has developed a major subclass with the ‘augment’ -ez, and in the fourth conjugation it has developed a majority subclass with the augment -esc. Today the -ez class is the most productive one in the higher registers of the language, but the fourth-conjugation -esc class remains productive especially in non-standard registers (Sa´nchez Miret 2006). The fourth conjugation has yielded a new, ‘fifth’ conjugation, which emerged as a result of historical phonological processes, but still preserved from the fourth the subdivision into a class with ‘augments’ and one without (§6.2.4). Descriptions of modern Romanian (e.g. Nedelcu 2013b: 18–23) further distinguish a subclass of fourth-conjugation verbs characterized by number syncretism in the third person and comprising verbs whose root ends in -r- or in -Vi (§6.2.6).¹ In particular, some verbs oscillate between different classes and subclasses, so that the relative productivity of those classes changes. In Romanian as in other Romance languages, the first conjugation (especially reinforced by massive borrowings of learnèd forms in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) is the most productive. But Romanian has a distinctive characteristic: the fourth conjugation in thematic [i], which was at one time the most productive class, has maintained a fairly high degree of productivity. Very many high-frequency verbs of Slavonic origin belong to it (a citi ‘read’, a iubi ‘love’, a sluji ‘serve’, a ispiti ‘tempt’, etc.), and it is also the preferred class for loans from Hungarian (especially those with the suffix -ui) and from Modern Greek. The fourth conjugation is still the most productive one in trans-Danubian dialects. The TAM system contains some elements from Latin and presents consistent resemblances with the other Romance languages. Romanian continues the realis–irrealis opposition in the distinction between indicative and subjunctive, also developing other irrealis moods—the conditional and a partially grammaticalized ‘presumptive’ structure, which corresponds to the epistemic future of other Romance languages. The subjunctive is less inflexionally distinct from the present indicative than it is in other Romance languages, usually being distinct just in the third person. Modern Romanian expresses tense through the forms of the indicative, some associated with aspectual values and others with modal values. The old language strongly marked aspectual distinctions through continuative, perfective, and supercompound periphrases, few traces of which have remained (mainly regionally). The subjunctive, the conditional, and the infinitive have perfect forms, and these render aspectual and temporal values, namely perfectivity and anteriority.
¹ If one takes these into account along with other subdivisions (different stems in the preterite or past participle), modern Romanian can be said to have between nine and twelve conjugation subclasses (eleven according to Pană Dindelegan 2008b; ten or twelve according to Nedelcu 2013b).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
260 The synthetic finite forms of the verb are inherited from Latin. The present indicative, the (present) subjunctive, the imperative, the imperfecct indicative, the preterite, and the pluperfect indicative (in Latin, an imperfect subjunctive) have all survived in modern standard Romanian. Sixteenth-century Romanian also preserved a future/conditional derived from the fusion of the perfect subjunctive with the future perfect indicative, and this type survives in Aromanian and Istro-Romanian (Maiden 2018a: 49). Regionally, some synthetic forms (especially the preterite or the pluperfect) have fallen out of use. The periphrastic constructions have varied considerably over time: some, which at one stage were partially grammaticalized, have fallen out of use. Modern standard Romanian has periphrastic forms for the perfect (constructed with auxiliary ‘have’), for the future (constructed with ‘want’ and ‘have’, and also with an invariable particle derived from the verb ‘want’), for the conditional (constructed with an auxiliary probably derived from the verb ‘want’), and for the future perfect, the perfect subjunctive, the perfect conditional, and the perfect infinitive (constructed with auxiliary ‘be’). The language of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries also had various future and conditional structures that used the same auxiliaries, and in particular a rich temporal– aspectual system where the auxiliary ‘be’ featured in all its moods and tenses, including the past participle (perfective) and the gerund (imperfective). The compound forms of the auxiliary produced in this case supercompound forms. Remnants of this system at the general level are the future anterior (a tense called in Romanian viitor anterior, ‘anterior future’, as in other Romance languages, e.g. It. futuro anteriore, Fr. futur ante´rieur), the perfect subjunctive, the perfect conditional, the perfect infinitive, the regional supercompound perfect, the (today very rare) future, subjunctive, and conditional forms with the gerund (specialized for epistemic and evidential values). The desinential marking of person and number has been affected not only by the results of regular sound change but also by analogical changes: these created variants that have not been adequately explained. Romanian has some endings that are common to several tenses and moods (-m in the first-person plural, -u/Ø in the first-person singular). The formative -ră, originally a third-person plural preterite ending, becomes a general marker of plural in the verb. Non-finite forms have undergone some particular morphological changes, such as the ‘feminization’ of the participle (see §6.5.5) or the emergence of the gerund ending -alui in Aromanian.
6.2 Inflexion classes and their origins 6.2.1 The four inherited classes: their origins and characteristics Almost every Romanian verb belongs to one of four major inflexion classes (conjugations) inherited from Latin.² Table 6.1 illustrates continuities with the Latin inflexion ² For the wider Romance background, see e.g. Maiden (2011c: 201–14, 2016b: 508–12). For more illustrations of the correlations between Latin and Romanian conjugation classes, see Philippide (2011: 485–6).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
261
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.1 Latin and Romanian conjugation classes
class distinctions for some representative parts of the paradigm. The forms that continue to show these distinctions are separated by a solid line. Two of these classes, the first and the fourth conjugations, have in turn developed major subdivisions in Romanian, as we shall see in §6.2.4. The conjugation class of a Romance and Latin verb is primarily a function of its ‘thematic vowel’—a referentially empty formative that appears in certain parts of the inflexional paradigm, being located after the lexical root and before the person and number marker. The vowel is [a] in the first conjugation, [e] (continuing Latin ̄) in the second, [e] (continuing Latin unstressed ˘ and ǐ) in the third, and [i] (continuing Latin ī) in the fourth. A verb’s belonging in a given inflexion class is arbitrary, although in Daco-Romance neologisms always enter the first or the fourth conjugation. In fact each conjugation has not one thematic vowel, but an array of vowels associated with it. In Latin, the first conjugation, in [a], displayed [e] in the present subjunctive, while all other conjugations formed the present subjunctive with [a]. This pattern is inherited intact in Romanian in the subjunctive, albeit only in the third person (see §6.3.3). The first-conjugation thematic [a] was regularly reduced to [ә] when unstressed (see §1.5).³ The Latin third-person singular present indicative endings - (e.g. second-conjugation ) and - (e.g. third- and fourth-conjugation , ) regularly merge as -e (vede, vende, ³ The stressed preterite ending -ă ([ˈә]) in the third-person singular and the stressed present ending -ăm ([ˈәm]) in the first-person plural unexpectedly display the vowel ă. No fully satisfactory explanation has been proposed for these developments.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
262 doarme), contrasting with -ă in the first conjugation ( > cântă). Third-person plural indicative forms of the Latin third and fourth conjugations ended in -, which was preserved as -u in Romanian and subsequently deleted: , () > vând(u), dorm(u). This ending was also extended analogically to the second conjugation, replacing - ( > văd(u)). Consequently, third-person plural present forms that do not belong to the first conjugation end in -(u), while third-person plural present forms of the first conjugation end in -ă ( > cântă). In reality, Latin conjugation class distinctions were systematically present only in imperfective verb forms—which continue in modern Romanian in the infinitive, the gerund, the present, the subjunctive, and the imperfect; but they were often invisible in perfective forms—which continue in Romanian in the preterite, the pluperfect, and the old synthetic conditional—and in the past participle and the supine. Most Latin firstand fourth-conjugation verbs displayed respectively thematic [a] and [i] in the nonimperfective forms as well, and this is continued in Romanian (see Table 6.2). Table 6.2 Conjugation class distinctions in non-imperfective verb-forms Latin
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
1... 3... 1... 3... 1... 3.../
1 () ()
Romanian 4 () ()
1 cântai cântă cântase cântasem (cântaru (cântare cântat
4 auzii auzi auzise auzisem auziru) auzire) auzit
Other verbs (mainly those of the second and third conjugations) were characterized in most of their Latin perfective forms by the postradical vowel (with a variant ), which emerges in Romanian as [e]. However, in Romanian this [e] is restricted to all and only those forms that have distinctive perfective root allomorphs. The nature of these allomorphs is discussed in more detail in §6.4.2; Table 6.3 gives some examples and shows their correlation with thematic [e]. Table 6.3 Reflexes of Latin i/e in perfective forms Latin 1... 3... 1... 3... 1... 3.../
2 ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
Romanian 3 ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
2 (ORo. răma´și răma´se rămăse´sem rămăse´se (ORo. răma´seru (răma´sere răma´s
3 scrı´și) scrı´se scrise´sem scrise´se scrı´seru) scrı´sere) scris
In effect, verbs of the second and third conjugation that preserve the special perfective root allomorph acquire a thematic vowel [e] in the reflexes of Latin
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
263
perfective forms. This vowel was not originally present in the first-person singular, and this is still the case in trans-Danubian dialects and in some Daco-Romanian varieties. However, in modern Romanian the vowel [e] has been analogically introduced into the first-person singular preterite as well. Possibly on the model of the second-person singular preterite, where the stress always falls on [e] for historical phonological reasons (´ > scrise´și, ´ > rămăse´și), and possibly also under the influence of all other first-person singular preterites, the stress in these remodelled forms also falls on the [e]: rămăse´i, scrise´i. The remaining second- and third-conjugation verbs, namely those that did not have, or have lost, a special root allomorph, have in effect acquired a novel thematic vowel: (stressed) [u] (see Table 6.4).⁴ Table 6.4 Thematic u in Romanian
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Latin 1... 3... 1... 3... 1... 3.../
2 ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
1... 3... 1... 3... 1... 3.../
3 ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
Romanian 3 ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
2 ținu´i ținu´ ținu´se ținu´sem (ORo. ținu´ru (ORo. ținu´re ținu´t
3 crezu´i crezu´ crezu´se crezu´sem crezu´ru) crezu´re) crezu´t
old Romanian fe´ci fea´ce fecea´sem fecea´se fea´ceru fea´cere fa´ptu
modern Romanian făcu´i făcu´ făcu´sem făcu´se făcu´t
A further correlate of conjugation is stress. In third-conjugation verbs in Latin, as a consequence of the automatic nature of the phonological rules that govern it, the stress fell on the lexical root in the singular, in third-person forms of the present and of the imperative, and in the infinitive. Other forms of the verb were generally ‘arrhizotonic’: that is to say that stress did not fall on the root.⁵ This characteristic stress pattern of the third conjugation is inherited by various Romance languages (e.g. Romanian, Italian, French, Catalan) in the infinitive; only in Daco-Romance is it systematically retained also in the first- and second-person plural of the present, and hence in the subjunctive, too (see Table 6.5).
⁴ The shift in stress presumably reflects the location of this stress on the thematic vowel in the corresponding forms of the first and fourth conjugations. That the past participle of the relevant verbs generally ends in stressed -ˈutu may have been a contributing factor (Theodorescu 1978: 306–7). ⁵ For exceptions in relation to certain present perfective/preterite forms and past participles, see §§6.4.2, 6.5.2.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
264 Table 6.5 Retention of root stress in third conjugation infinitives and first- and secondperson plural presents Latin
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
1.. 2.. 3.. 1.. 2.. 3..
2 ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
Romanian 3 ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
2 vedea´ văd vezi ve´de vede´m vede´ți văd
3 cre´de cred crezi crede cre´dem cre´deți cred
More can be read in §6.2.2 on the distinction between the second conjugation and the third with respect to stress. Two major areas of neutralization of the distinctions between conjugations in the transition from Latin to Romanian are the gerund and the imperfect indicative. The Latin gerund of second-conjugation verbs was no different from that of thirdconjugation verbs: both were in - (, ).⁶ The first conjugation, with thematic [a], had gerunds in - (), while the fourth, with thematic [i], had gerunds in - (). The situation gets further simplified: in all Daco-Romance varieties, the first-conjugation ending (- > -ând(u): > cântând(u)) has taken over the second- and third-conjugation gerunds (văzând(u), crezând(u)).⁷ Only the fourth conjugation displays its characteristic thematic vowel in the gerund: the ending is -ind (auzind, dormind, etc.). But it is not possible to determine, on the available evidence, whether the fourth-conjugation forms represent an analogical generalization of the thematic vowel [i] to the gerund, or simply a phonologically regular development of the inherited -. The ending -ind(u) is a perfectly possible phonological development of -˘ (see ˘ > timp(u) ‘time’, ˘ > dinte ‘tooth’).⁸ In either case, it is clear that the fourth conjugation has retained its distinctive identity in the gerund, and this is consistent with the status of the fourth conjugation as perhaps the most productive inflexion class of the verb in old Romanian (see §6.2.3). As in the gerund, in the imperfect indicative, too, the distinction between the second and the third conjugations was neutralized in Latin (e.g. , ). This neutralization carries over into Romanian (vedea, credea, etc.). The first conjugation retains [a] ( > cânta). The Latin fourth conjugation was characterized by -- (), but comparative evidence (e.g. Italian dormiva) suggests that at an early date thematic [i] was generalized as the vowel of the imperfect indicative in the fourth conjugation. At any rate, old Romanian consistently shows [i] in the fourth ⁶ See §6.5.4 for the reason why Latin gerund forms are cited in the ablative case. ⁷ It is also found in ‘fifth’-conjugation verbs (e.g. urând), where an original thematic vowel [i] has undergone a phonologically caused centralization (see §6.2.4). ⁸ Assuming a development *-jendo > *-jindu > -indu; see §6.5.4.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
265
conjugation—dormi(i)a, iubi(i)a—and under conditions of phonological centralization after [r] (see type ‘V5’ in §1.5) we have the type pogorâia, amărâia. This pattern is continued in Istro-Romanian (see Kovačec 1971: 149): 1 luˈkrɑja 2/3 veˈdɛja faˈʦɛja 4 avˈzija.⁹ In old Romanian the -i(i)a ending in the fourth conjugation seems to be firmly in place until well into the eighteenth century (see Densusianu 1938: 213; Frâncu 1997b: 137, 1997c: 337). In general, modern Romanian—like many of its dialects, Aromanian (Saramandu 1984: 454; Nevaci 2006: 81–2), and MeglenoRomanian (see Atanasov 2002: 240)—has neutralized the distinction between the second and the third conjugations on the one hand and the fourth on the other, and it has done so by generalizing -ea, as in modern Romanian dormea, iubea. Nonetheless, traces of the older situation can sometimes be detected, for example the type auʣɨ̯ˈjam ‘I was hearing’ in parts of Maramureș (ALRII map 1974).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.2.2 The distinction between the ‘second’ and the ‘third’ conjugations in diachrony The Romanian second and third conjugations are both ‘closed’, unproductive classes made up almost exclusively of lexemes that were inherited from their Latin counterparts.¹⁰ The second conjugation numbers around twenty verbs:¹¹ avea ‘have’ < ´, cădea ‘fall’ < *kaˈdere, durea ‘hurt’ < ´, încăpea ‘fit’ < *(in)kaˈpere, plăcea ‘please’ < ´, părea ‘seem’ < ´, putea ‘be able’ < *poˈtere, ședea ‘sit’ < ´, tăcea ‘be silent’ < ´, vedea ‘see’ < ´, zăcea ‘lie’ < ´.¹² The third conjugation has 117 verbs, or 260 if we count forms derived by prefixation (see e.g. Brâncuș 1976: 487, 490), and some of these are very frequent and basic, for example fa´ce ‘do’ < ´ , du´ce ‘lead’ < ´ , me´rge ‘go’ < ´, pu´ne ‘pute’ < ó, zı´ce ‘say’ < ´. There is actually no consistent formal distinction between these two classes in Romanian, save in respect of stress. Latin third-conjugation verbs carried the stress on the lexical root in the infinitive (they were ‘rhizotonic’) and on the first- and secondperson singular present in the indicative. Second-conjugation verbs carried the stress on the ending in the same forms. Romanian, like most Romance languages (but not Portuguese and Spanish), preserves the stress distinction between the second and the third conjugation in the infinitive; but, unlike them (cf. Maiden 2011c: 204), also retains this distinction in the first- and second-person plural present, as shown in Table 6.6.¹³ ⁹ Indeed, Pușcariu (1926: 179) suggests that the yod found in all Istro-Romanian imperfects originates in the fourth conjugation, presumably as a glide in hiatus between the thematic vowel and the ending, and then spreads analogically to the other conjugations. ¹⁰ Allowing for some early and largely pan-Romance shifts between the two classes: for example Latin seconddeclension ´ ‘answer’, ´ ‘burn’, ´ ‘twist’, ´ ‘laugh’ generally shift to the third conjugation (cf. Ro. răspu´nde, a´rde, toa´rce, râ´de), while ´ ‘fall’ shifts to the second (cf. Ro. cădea´). ¹¹ One might include here vrea ‘want’ < *voˈlere, which, being monosyllabic in both the infinitive and the firstand second-person plural present, has to be left out of discussions of the stress shift. ¹² The diphthong ea´ in the short form of the second-conjugation infinitive has a phonological explanation internal to Romanian (see §1.5). The ‘long’ form of the infinitive is today vede´re, etc. ¹³ This includes the second-person plural imperative.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
266 Table 6.6 Distinctions of stress between the second and third conjugation in infinitives and present tenses second conjugation 1.. 2.. 3.. 1.. 2.. 3.. 1.. 2.. 3.. 1.. 2.. 3..
Latin ́ ‘lie’ ´ ´ ´ ́ ́ ´ ́ ‘see’ ´ ´ ´ ́ ́ ´
third conjugation Romanian zăcea´ za´c za´ci za´ce zăce´m zăce´ți za´c vedea´ văd ve´zi ve´de vede´m vede´ți văd
Latin ´ ‘say’ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ‘sell’ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
Romanian zı´ce zı´c zı´ci zı´ce zı´cem zı´ceți zı´c vı´nde vând vı´nzi vı´nde vı´ndem vı´ndeți vând
In this respect, the history of standard Romanian is substantially one of continuity, the minority second-conjugation type robustly keeping its second-conjugation identity. In the modern language there are, however, three cases of shift from the second to the third conjugation, so that the stress falls on the root in the infinitive and in the firstand second-persons plural present. Two of these are cases of very high-frequency verbs, namely ‘hold’ and ‘stay’. These are shown in Table 6.7.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.7 Shifts between the second and third conjugation second conjugation 1.. 2..
Latin ́ ‘hold’ ́ ‘stay’ ́ ‘fill’ ́ ́ ́ ́ ́ ́
third conjugation old Romanian ținea´ (ră)mânea´ împlea´ ține´m (ră)mâne´m împle´m ține´ți (ră)mâne´ți împle´ți
modern Romanian țı´ne rămâ´ne u´mple țı´nem rămâ´nem u´mplem țı´neți rămâ´neți u´mpleți
While other shifts are not accepted by prescriptive grammars, plăcea´ ‘please’, and sometimes părea´ ‘seem’ and încăpea´ ‘fit’, are frequently treated as belonging to the third conjugation (pla´ce, pa´re, înca´pe) in everyday speech.¹⁴ Further examples of such shifts in the infinitive in Muntenia and Oltenia can be found in Marin (1991: 46).
¹⁴ See Pană Dindelegan (1987: 64) and Nedelcu (2013b: 20).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
267
In the wider context of Daco-Romanian dialects, the shift from the second to the third conjugation shown by these verbs is aberrant. Overwhelmingly, and indeed cross-dialectally,¹⁵ second-conjugation verbs retain second-conjugation membership to this day, while in the sixteenth and seventeenth century there was still no evidence of the infinitives țı´ne, rămâ´ne, u´mple¹⁶ (with one isolated seventeenth-century example, namely rămắne),¹⁷ and almost none of first- and second-person plural forms of these verbs stressed on the root (but more on this later). In standard Romanian there is no evidence for the opposite change, of third-conjugation verbs shifting to the second conjugation in the infinitive (again, the position is rather different in the first- and second-person plural present, to be discussed later). On the one hand, this is unsurprising, since third-conjugation verbs greatly outnumber second-conjugation verbs. On the other hand, if we widen our perspective beyond the confines of the second and third conjugation, it is the case that the overwhelming majority of Romanian verbs have arrhizotonic infinitives (e.g. cânta´, dormı´), so shifts to arrhizotony in the infinitives of the third conjugation might be expected—and in fact do occur in some dialects. Marin (1991: 46) observes that in central Muntenia and western Oltenia¹⁸ any third-conjugation infinitive may display an alternative second-conjugation form (e.g. ardea´, plângea´, vindea´ for a´rde ‘burn’, plâ´nge ‘weep’, vı´nde ‘sell’).¹⁹ In standard Romanian, the movement of certain verbs from the second to the third conjugation generally affects equally the infinitive and the first- and second-person plural present. In Daco-Romance overall, however, the relation of mutual implication between rhizotonic infinitives and rhizotonic first- and second-person plural in the third conjugation tends to be weakened, so that, while the infinitive may remain rhizotonic, the two verb forms in the present tense tend to become arrhizotonic (as has also happened, for example, in the history of Italian). This tendency is marginally represented, in spoken standard Romanian,²⁰ in second-person plural imperatives with an enclitic pronoun, where the stress frequently shifts onto the ending: thus spu´neți ‘say’, but spune´ți-mi ‘say to me’. The history of these stress shifts in the first and second persons of plural forms is often hard to trace in detail, not least because written records do not normally indicate the position of the stress (see Bidian 1976: 68; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 98); but modern Daco-Romanian dialects display such shifts quite widely, albeit by no means systematically. For example, while du´ce ‘lead’ (< ´) seems to be rhizotonic in all Romanian dialects (see ALRII map 2124), there are a number of localities, notably in the south-east and the north-west,²¹ where this verb is ¹⁵ Compare ALRII maps 2126, 2127 for the modern distribution of infinitives of the type ținea´, rămânea´. ¹⁶ For extensive documentation, see Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 98–111). ¹⁷ See Zamfir (2005: 106). ¹⁸ See also Conțiu (1971: 165) for Oltenia. ¹⁹ In Aromanian, in second- and third-conjugation long infinitives and in the correspoding first- and secondperson plural present forms, there is considerable oscillation in both directions (see Nevaci 2006: 20–2): e.g. long infinitive țânea´ri or țâ´niri ‘hold’; 2. țâne´ț or țâ´niț; long infinitive fa´țiri or fățea´ri ‘do’; 2. fa´țiț or fățe´ț. ²⁰ And occasionally in the literary language: see Pană Dindelegan (1987: 65–6). ²¹ For similar phenomena, see ALRII map 1920, points 876 Balș (Oltenia), 886 Izbiceni (Oltenia), 334 Moftinul Mic (Maramureș), 325 Voivozi (Crișana), 219 Prândul-Burgăului (Cluj), 316 Sânnicolaul Român (Crișana), 310 Roșia (Crișana), 836 Peștișani (Oltenia), 386 Marginea (Suceava). See also ALRII maps 1923 trimitem, 1925 ucidem, 1927 vindem, 1930 zicem, ziceți, 1934 mergem, 1949 batem, bateți, 2116 (nu) zic.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
268 arrhizotonic in the first- and second-person plural present (duce´m, duce´ți). More examples of the asymmetry between rhizotonic infinitives and arrhizotonic first- and second-person plural present can be found in Conțiu (1971: 161–2, 164), who cites cases such as râ´de ‘laugh’, 1/2. râde´m, râde´ți; ce´re ‘ask’, 1/2. cere´m, cere´ți in Oltenia. In Istro-Romanian the distinction between the second and the third conjugations is maintained only in the infinitive, the first- and second-person plural present having apparently become systematically arrhizotonic (e.g. ˈfɑʦe ‘do’, 1/2. faˈʦen, faˈʦeʦ; ˈpʎɛrde ‘lose’, 1/2. pʎerˈden, pʎerˈdeʦ; see also Pușcariu 1926: 169, 175, 187–8). The opposite development—the introduction of rhizotony into the first- and second-person plural present, independently of the infinitive—seems very rare, although it is interesting to note that, in the transition of ținea´ and rămânea´ to the third conjugation, the earliest attestations of rhizotony in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries come from the first- and second-person plural present rather than from the infinitive (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 101, 104, 106). Overall, the tenuous morphological distinction between the second and the third conjugations inherited from Latin is well preserved in the infinitive, but the implicational relationship of root stress between infinitive and second- and third-person plural present is much more fragile in the dialects. There one tends to find that, while the infinitive remains rhizotonic, the arrhizotonic type prevails in the corresponding firstand second-person plurals, as happens in a number of other Romance languages.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.2.3 Historical productivity of the classes Romanian differs significantly from other Romance languages in that it has two historically productive inflexion classes. Whereas in most Romance varieties the first conjugation (historically, in thematic [a]) is overwhelmingly the class to which lexical neologisms are assigned, in old Romanian both the first and the fourth conjugation were productive, the latter prevailing over the former (see Iordan 1935: 50–64). Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 143–94) cites numerous examples of derived and neologistic verbs that oscillate between these two classes. Thus, from the noun adevăr ‘truth’, we have both a adevăra and a adeveri ‘to confirm’ in the early seventeenth century. By the late seventeenth century a substantial shift to the first conjugation occurred in Muntenia and western dialects, at least in the finite forms of the verb. In modern Romanian the first conjugation is largely prevalent. The tussle for neologisms between the first and the fourth conjugation continues into the nineteenth century (see the evidence in Pană Dindelegan 1987: 57–8 for pairs such as a preferi ‘prefer’ and a prefera, or a rezolvi ‘resolve’ and a rezolva). Occasionally, original variation results in lexical differentiation, as in modern a absolvi ‘graduate’ and a absolva ‘absolve’, a disolvi ‘dissolve (a substance)’ and a disolva ‘dissolve (an institution, meeting)’. Pană Dindelegan (1987: 70) observes that, since the nineteenth century, neologisms have gone predominantly to the first conjugation, the fourth being in a state of ‘stagnation’ where it received only a series of neologistic verbs in -ui (e.g. a distribui ‘distribute’, a atribui ‘attribute’, a constitui ‘constitute’, a prăfui ‘make dusty’).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
269
6.2.4 The emergence of new inflexional subclasses and their causes The first and the fourth conjugations in Romanian show, each, a major bifurcation into two subclasses that is unprecedented in Latin but emergent, in various ways, in other Romance languages as well. These subclasses are characterized by the presence or absence of what we call ‘augments’: referentially empty morphological elements that occur, systematically and obligatorily, in certain parts of the paradigm of certain verbs, to the ‘right’ of the lexical root and to the ‘left’ of the inflexional ending. The overwhelming majority of fourth-conjugation verbs show the augment -esc- (allomorphs -eșt- and -easc-); around a half of first conjugation verbs show the augment -ez- (allomorph -eaz-). In fourth- and first-conjugation verbs alike, the augment is found, in the present tense and the subjunctive, in all the forms of the singular and of the third person, and also in the second-person singular imperative (Table 6.8).
Table 6.8 Romanian fourth and first conjugation ‘augments’ Fourth-conjugation verb without augment: a dormi ‘sleep’ 1 2 3 1 2 3
dorm dormi doarme dormim dormiți dorm
dormi dormiți
dorm dormi doarmă dormim dormiți doarmă
dormeam dormeai dormea dormeam dormeați dormeau
dormii dormiși dormi dormirăm dormirăți dormiră
dormisem dormiseși dormise dormiserăm dormiserăți dormiseră
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Fourth-conjugation verbs with augment: a tuşi ‘cough’ (augment underlined) 1 2 3 1 2 3
tuşesc tuşești tuşește tuşim tuşiți tuşesc
tuşește tuşiți
tuşesc tuşești tuşească tuşim tuşiți tuşească
tuşeam tuşeai tuşea tuşeam tuşeați tuşeau
tuşii tuşiși tuşi tuşirăm tuşirăți tuşiră
tuşisem tuşiseși tuşise tuşiserăm tuşiserăți tuşiseră
cântam cântai cânta cântam cântați cântau
cântai cântași cântă cântarăm cântarăți cântără
cântasem cântaseși cântase cântaserăm cântaserăți cântaseră
First-conjugation verb without augment a cânta ‘sing’ 1 2 3 1 2 3
cânt cânți cântă cântăm cântați cântă
cântă cântați
cânt cânți cânte cântăm cântați cânte
First-conjugation verb with augment a lucra ‘work’ (augment underlined) 1 2 3 1 2 3
lucrez lucrezi lucrează lucrăm lucrați lucrează
lucrează lucrați
lucrez lucrezi lucreze lucrăm lucrați lucreze
lucram lucrai lucra lucram lucrați lucrau
lucrai lucrași lucră lucrarăm lucrarăți lucrără
lucrasem lucraseși lucrase lucraserăm lucraserăți lucraseră
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
270 These augments recur in the other branches of Daco-Romance (Table 6.9); an exception is modern Istro-Romanian, which retains the fourth-conjugation augment but has completely lost that of the first conjugation. Table 6.9 The augment in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian Aromanian
1 luˈkreʣu ‘work’ luˈkramu 1 alˈɟesku ‘whiten’ alˈɟamu
2 luˈkreʣ luˈkre̯aʣɨ luˈkrai ̯ 2 alˈɟeʃtɨ alˈɟaʃti alˈɟai
3 luˈkre̯aʣɨ
1 luˈkrәmu
luˈkra
luˈkramu
3 alˈɟaʃti
1 alˈɟimu
alˈɟa
alˈɟamu
2 luˈkraʦ luˈkraʦ luˈkraʦ 2 alˈɟiʦ alˈɟiʦ alˈɟaʦ
3 luˈkre̯aʣɨ luˈkra 3 alˈɟesku alˈɟa
Megleno-Romanian
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
1 2 3 1 әnvistiˈzez ‘dream’ әnvistiˈzez әnvistiˈze̯azә әnvistiˈzәm әnvistiˈze̯azә әnvistiˈzam әnvistiˈzai ̯ әnvistiˈza әnvistiˈzam
2 3 әnvistiˈzaʦ әnvistiˈze̯azә әnvistiˈzaʦ әnvistiˈzaʦ әnvistiˈzau̯
1 kupiˈres ‘cover’
2 kupiˈriʦ kupiˈriʦ kupiˈre̯aʦ
kupiˈre̯am
2 kupiˈreʃ kupiˈre̯a kupiˈre̯ai ̯
3 kupiˈre̯aʃti
1 kupiˈrim
kupiˈre̯a
kupiˈre̯am
3 kupiˈres kupiˈre̯au̯
The fourth-conjugation augment recurs in many other Romance languages (in virtually all of Italo-Romance, and in Ladin, Friulian, Romansh, Gallo-Romance, Catalan). Romanian happens to be, however, the only standard Romance language to show the first-conjugation augment, which also exists, in the same paradigmatic distribution, in southern Basilicata (Italy), Corsican, Ladin, Istrian, Dalmatian, and Daco-Romance (cf. Mourin 1980). Pană Dindelegan (1987: 76; 86) calculates that, out of 818 Romanian verbs that are part of the inherited lexicon, 351 take the firstconjugation augment, while the vast majority of recent neologisms (2,065 out of 2,466) possess it. By contrast, the fourth-conjugation augment is present in the inherited vocabulary in a ratio of 10 : 1 (among 1,810 items), while in neologisms, while still predominant (174 vs 45), it is more likely to be absent. The class of fourthconjugation verbs without augment is restricted to a dozen or so basic and very frequent verbs, mainly inherited from Latin, whose counterparts in other Romance languages (e.g. Italian) often lack the augment as well (e.g. auzi ‘hear’, fugi ‘run’, simți ‘feel’, minți ‘lie’, ieși ‘go out’, muri ‘die’, dormi ‘sleep’, puți ‘stink’, sări ‘jump’, veni ‘come’, acoperi ‘cover’). The origins of fourth-conjugation augments are complex, but lie in the early history of Romance rather than specifically in that of Daco-Romance.²² Briefly, some Latin ²² For a survey and further bibliographical references, see Maiden (2003). An extremely useful overview is provided by Meul (2013).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
271
verbs displayed a derivational affix --, which was restricted to aspectually imperfective forms and was often described as ‘inchoative’, although its real value seems to have been ingressive (e.g. ‘it flowers’ vs ‘it’s coming into bloom’). Meul (2013: 58) concludes that this affix appears to have ‘fulfilled a dynamic/energetic (as opposed to stative) function, which involves an internal change that can be oriented towards an inherent endpoint [ . . . ] or not [ . . . ]’. In addition, there was a difference of class between the verbs that exhibited the ingressive suffix—all of them verbs of the third conjugation, with infinitive in -˘ —and the verbs they derived from—verbs mainly of the second conjugation, with infinitive in -̄, and some of the fourth conjugation, with infinitive in -̄.²³ In the -- verbs, the thematic vowel of the base verb preceded the affix --; it is this sequence of thematic vowel and derivational affix that forms the basis of the Romance augment (Table 6.10). In Romanian, as in some Italo-Romance varieties, Catalan, and Gascon, the augment takes the form *[esk], showing the thematic vowel of the second and third conjugations, even though this [esk] is limited to verbs of the fourth conjugation. As for the reasons why, in Romance, the augment ultimately became associated with verbs of the fourth conjugation, these are discussed in Maiden (2003) and Meul (2013). Table 6.10 -- affix in Latin
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
base verb ̄ ̄ ‘be in bloom’ 2 ̄ ‘sleep’ 4
derived verb in -̄ ̄ ‘come into bloom’ 3 ̄ ‘drift off to sleep’ 3
The origins of the first-conjugation augment are simpler.²⁴ They lie in the Greek derivational affix -ιζ- (> proto-Romance *-edj-/*-edz-),²⁵ which had semantic characteristics such as durative–iterative, factitive–instrumental, imitative, and stative (Meul 2013: 71–2). It is only in a few Romance languages (Romanian and dialects of northeastern and southern Italy, Ladin, and Romansh) that we find the restricted paradigmatic distribution. These are all varieties in which the first-conjugation augment also has that distribution, and the parallel is surely not a coincidence. It seems very likely that this augment was at some point reanalysed as a first-conjugation counterpart to the fourth conjugation augment, which it came to resemble in terms of paradigmatic distribution (see Maiden 2003: 23–5). There is actually little else to be said, from a strictly morphological point of view, about the history of the augment over the past five centuries. Its paradigmatic ²³ Derivation from the first conjugation was much rarer. Third-conjugation ingressives existed, but did not usually have non-ingressive counterparts. The ingressive affix was regularly reanalysed in Romance, and perhaps already in Latin, as part of the lexical root: e.g. ‘grow’, ‘know’ > It. crescere, conoscere, Fr. croître, connaître. ²⁴ For a comprehensive survey of its development and distribution, see Meul (2013: 141–202). ²⁵ Väänänen (1963: §§95 and 193); Lausberg (1966: §801); Rohlfs (1968: 244–5); Tekavčić (1980: 239–40); Zamboni (1980–1); Meul (2009: 310–11, 2013: 70–2).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
272 distribution is robustly attested in all modern Daco-Romance varieties and is firmly established in the earliest historical records. The major trends of diachronic and diatopic variation concern the lexical distribution of the augments, but do not admit clear generalizations. In some cases, modern dialectal variation (e.g. the difference between Transylvania and parts of Bucovina, with the unaugmented type lucră ‘he works’ vs the augmented lucrează, found elsewhere in Romania), is observable from the earliest records. Some old Romanian verbs that generally lacked the augment (e.g. a cerceta ‘research’) have it systematically today (see e.g. Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 296–334 for an extensive documentation). Neologisms that today have or lack the augment may have shown the opposite situation, or some variation, in the nineteenth century (e.g. iritează ‘irritates’ vs modern irită, but sugeră ‘suggests’ vs modern sugerează, or interesă/interesează ‘interests’ vs modern interesează, probă/probează ‘tries’ vs modern probează). Some lexemes show (and showed in earlier centuries) variation without difference of meaning (e.g. decernă/decernează ‘awards’; evaporă/evaporează ‘evaporates’), while earlier variants have sometimes become associated with distinct meanings (e.g. acordă ‘accords, bestows’ vs acordează ‘tunes’, ordonă ‘orders’ vs ordonează ‘tidies’, manifestă ‘manifests’ vs manifestează ‘goes on a demonstration’, marcă ‘scores [in sport]’ vs marchează ‘marks’; see Pană Dindelegan 1987: 81–3). Pană Dindelegan (1987: 80) notes a modern tendency to prefer augmentless forms in first-conjugation verbs whose only finite form is the third-person singular— for example rezultă ‘it turns out’, necesită ‘it is necessary’, înseamnă ‘it means’. The overwhelming predominance of the augment among fourth-conjugation verbs is ancient. Overall it is robustly maintained; sometimes the augment intrudes even into verbs that belong to the ancient, inherited stock of augmentless verbs (e.g. minte/ mințește ‘lies’, simte/simțește ‘feels’: Pană Dindelegan 1987: 83–4). In modern Romanian, verbs of all fourth conjugations that have monosyllabic roots (apart from the inherited core of unaugmented verbs discussed here) take the augment, as do all verbs that derive transparently from nouns or adjectives (e.g. unește ‘unites’ < unu ‘one’, îngălbenește ‘turns yellow’ < galben ‘yellow’, ocolește ‘goes round’ < ocol ‘bend, diversion’; see, again, Pană Dindelegan 1987: 88). Some verbs that in old Romanian systematically had the augment (Nedelcu 2013b: 21–2) lack it today (e.g. a pipăi ‘feel with one’s fingertips’, a slobozi ‘free’, a împărți ‘share’; others tend to lose it: e.g. cheltuiește/cheltuie ‘spends’, dezvăluiește/dezvăluie ‘reveals’). An interesting case is that of a trebui ‘be necessary’,²⁶ which in modern Romanian has an aberrant distribution of the augment, such that the latter is absent in the present but present in the subjunctive²⁷ (3 trebuie vs 3 să trebuiască). In the earliest texts, this verb systematically shows the augment (e.g. 3. trebuiește, 3. trebuiesc, 3 trebuiască), the spread of the unaugmented forms commencing in Muntenia (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 353–6). Augmented and unaugmented variants ²⁶ The finite forms of this verb are limited to the third person. ²⁷ The other exception is a ghici ‘to guess’, which may lack the augment just in the singular imperative: e.g. 2. ghicești, but 2. ghici (or ghicește). This could reflect the unusually high frequency of this verb as an imperative.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
273
persisted in the present tense into the nineteenth century. The former tended to be used when the verb had a grammatical subject (e.g. when used in passive or predicative constructions: ele trebuiesc trezite ‘they need (to be) awakened’; hotărârea trebuiește înscrisă ‘the decision needs (to be) noted down’), while the unaugmented trebuie was preferred in impersonal constructions (e.g. trebuie să avem curaj ‘it is necessary that we have courage’). This distinction survived to some extent into the early twentieth century (see Pană Dindelegan 1987: 89–92).
6.2.5 Phonologically induced neutralization of conjugation class distinctions, and resultant changes of conjugation class It is a fact with notable consequences for the morphological evolution of the conjugation of the verb in Romanian that the distinctions between the first conjugation and the other conjugations, taken together, were sometimes subject to the neutralizing effect of regular sound changes. The vowel ă—which functions mainly as a variant of the thematic vowel of the first conjugation, but also as the marker of third-person subjunctive in non-first conjugation verbs—is regularly replaced by e when preceded by a palatal consonant or by a palatal glide, and this leads to the neutralization of certain differences between the first conjugation and the rest (see the alternation type ‘V6’ in §1.5). Examples are given in Table 6.11.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.11 Phonological neutralization of first vs non-first conjugation morphology
cânta ‘sing’ vinde ‘sell’
3.. cântă vinde
2. cântă vinde
3 cânte vândă
tăia ‘cut’ scrie ‘write’
3.. taie scrie
2. taie scrie
3 taie scrie
The same fronting effect determines a complete neutralization of distinctions between conjugations in the gerund: as a result of fronting, the ending of first-, second-, and third-conjugation gerunds, -ând (cântând, văzând, vânzând), becomes identical with the ending of fourth-conjugation gerunds, -ind (cf. 1 tăind, 3 scriind with 4 dormind ‘sleeping’). In a few cases, the ambiguities created by this kind of neutralization determined the wholesale transfer of a verb to another conjugation. Reflexes of the third-conjugation ‘live’ (old Romanian a vie ‘live’ and a învie ‘come to life’) shifted to the first conjugation, as we see in the modern Romanian a învia: the substantial passage of these verbs to the first conjugation, illustrated in Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 128–37), was already achieved in the seventeenth century. They may display the first-conjugation augment (e.g. înviadză). The same process applies to reflexes of a scrie
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
274 ‘write’. While this verb retains its third-conjugation structure in modern standard Romanian, one finds the first-conjugation infinitive a scria in some contemporary western varieties (notably in Banat)—and there is evidence that it was there as early as in the seventeenth century (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 137–41).²⁸ A less perspicuous source of conjugational neutralization in the standard language is the historical treatment of front vowels after the labial glide [w] (see Morariu 1925: 77). In the third-person subjunctive, the verbs a ploua ‘rain’ and a se oua ‘lay an egg’ (reflexive) do not have the ending -e expected in the first conjugation, but the ending -ă, which is identical to the one found in the indicative: 3.. plouă, se ouă vs 3 să plouă, să se ouă. The verb a ploua has a rather complex history, however. Its Latin ancestor belonged to the third conjugation (), and in most other Romance languages the word inherited from it remains in that class. (Romanian dialectal plointe ‘rainy weather’ is a remnant of a Latin present participle .) In Romanian the verb underwent the treatment of inflexional -e described above, so 3. > *ˈplowe would regularly have yielded the modern form plouă, and 3. > *ploˈwea would regularly have yielded ploua. This is to say that the present and the imperfect of this impersonal verb, which by its nature cannot have plural or second-person forms, gave the appearance of bearing the characteristic marks of the first conjugation. This could well be what determined its complete transfer to the first conjugation, apparently at an early stage in the history of the language (see ploua, plouat, plouase, etc.).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.2.6 On the genesis of new conjugation classes Daco-Romance is unusual among Romance languages in that it acquired novel thematic vowels. In many cases their origin is unremarkable: they arose as a result of the phonetic interaction between inherited thematic vowels and root-final segments. But their original phonological motivation is lost, so that a verb’s belonging in one of the new classes becomes unpredictable. As mentioned earlier, Romanian (together with other Daco-Romanian dialects, but not with the trans-Danubian varieties) developed what we may term a ‘fifth conjugation’, which is characterized by the thematic vowel [ɨ] (spelled â or î in modern Romanian).²⁹ Historically, this class is simply a variant or subclass of the fourth conjugation: in this subclass the thematic vowel i [i], together with all other front vowels that come immediately after the root, has undergone a phonological process of centralization triggered by the preceding consonant. In standard Romanian, this conditioning environment was a rhotic. More specifically, it appears that what triggered centralization was a historically underlying ‘intense’ rhotic: *[rr] ( e.g. *orˈrire > urî ‘hate’; see Morariu 1925: 68–9, Densusianu 1938: 23, 37, Rothe
²⁸ Remarkably, one also finds in the sixteenth-century Palia de la Orăștie some first-conjugation forms, replete with augment, of this very verb (e.g. scriiadză). See Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 137–8). ²⁹ As explained in §1.5, these two different spellings represent one and the same sound.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
275
1957: 20, 108–9, Schulte 2005, Renwick 2014: 51–2).³⁰ The subsequent loss of distinction between intense and simple rhotics means that the conditioning environment for centralization after rhotics is lost, some verbs in root-final [r] showing the centralized vowel and others not (see Pană Dindelegan 1987: 71). In Table 6.12 we see the (almost) exact phonological parallels between fourth-conjugation and fifth-conjugation verbs: in the latter, the centralized vowels correspond systematically to the front vowels of fourth-conjugation verbs. Just as the fourth conjugation subdivides into verbs with an augment (the majority) and verbs without one, so it is with the fifth conjugation, where the e of the augment predictably becomes centralized as ă. The examples in this table Table 6.12 Parallels between fourth and fifth conjugation verbs
4 sări sărind sărit
înflori înflorind înflorit
5 omorî omorând omorât
urî urând urât
sar sari sare sărim săriţi sar
înfloresc înfloreşti înfloreşte înflorim înfloriţi înfloresc
omor omori omoară omorâm omorâţi omoară
urăsc urăşti urăşte urâm urâţi urăsc
sar sari sare sărim săriţi sară
înfloresc înfloreşti înflorească înflorim înfloriţi înflorească
omor omori omoare omorâm omorâţi omoare
urăsc urăşti urască urâm urâţi urască
sării sărişi sări sărirăm sărirăţi săriră
înflorii înflorişi înflori înflorirăm înflorirăţi înfloriră
omorâi omorâşi omorî omorârăm omorârăţi omorâră
urâi urâşi urî urârăm urârăţi urâră
sărisem săriseşi sărise săriserăm săriserăţi săriseră
înflorisem înfloriseşi înflorise înfloriserăm înfloriserăţi înfloriseră
omorâsem omorâseşi omorâse omorâserăm omorâserăţi omorâseră
urâsem urâseşi urâse urâserăm urâserăţi urâseră
1 2 3 1 2 3
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
³⁰ The effects of centralization may be much more extensive in dialects, but they can be explained in strictly phonological terms. Thus very many verbs that in the literary language present the thematic vowel [i], or the thematic vowel [e] after a sibilant ([s], [ʃ]) or after affricates ([ʦ], [ʣ]), show [ɨ] and [ә] in various dialects. Cf. ALRII maps 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
276 are from the fourth-conjugation verbs a sări ‘jump’ and a înflori ‘blossom’ (with augment) and the fifth-conjugation verbs a omorî ‘kill’ and a urî ‘hate’ (with augment): In fact nearly all fifth-conjugation verbs contain roots borrowed from Slavonic (e.g. a omorî) and sometimes from Hungarian (e.g. a hotărî ‘decide’), which apparently were originally characterized by ‘intense’ or ‘vibrant’ sonorants (Schulte 2005). Fifthconjugation verbs that lack the augment (e.g. a coborî ‘descend’, a (d)oborî ‘fell, knock down’) show an interesting deviation from the predicted distribution of centralized vowels. Compare the third-person singular present and the third-person singular and plural subjunctive of a omorî in Table 6.11 with the corresponding forms of a sări. In a omorî, as in other augmentless fifth-conjugation verbs, we unexpectedly find the vowel -ă in the third-person plural present (omoară vs sar), and in the third-person subjunctive we find not -ă but -e—surprisingly, since it does not show centralization (coboare vs sară). The augmentless fifth-conjugation verbs have undergone a fundamental morphological change, in which a part of the paradigm has shifted to the first conjugation. The historical ‘pivot’ of this change appears to have been the third-person singular present, where centralization causes the ending -e to become -ă. Now this ending of the third person in the present is otherwise distinctive only of first-conjugation verbs. Other characteristics of the first conjugation are the third-person subjunctive in -e, both in the singular and in the plural (e.g. să cânte ‘sing’), and the third-person plural present in -ă, which is identical with the third-person singular present (e.g. cântă ‘he sings/they sing’).³¹ The augmentless fifth-conjugation verbs acquire exactly these characteristics (e.g. să omoare ‘let him/them kill’; el/ei omoară ‘he/they kill’). Note, however, that until the late seventeenth century the present subjunctive still preserved the expected ending -e (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 211, 213).³² A particularly telling detail in this respect is the singular imperative. As explained in §6.3.4, singular imperatives of intransitive nonfirst-conjugation verbs end, characteristically, in -i [ʲ] (e.g. sari [sarʲ] ‘jump!’). In the case of a coborî ‘descend’, we should therefore predict imperative **cobori: what we actually find is coboară—a clear sign of transition to the first conjugation, since only there do imperatives, transitive and intransitive alike, end in -ă.³³ What is, however, remarkable about this analogical transfer to the third conjugation is that it is only detectable in the singular and in the third-person forms of the present, subjunctive, and imperative. So its domain is exactly the ‘N-pattern’ of paradigmatic distribution to be described in §6.6.3: the result is heteroclisis—a process whereby a subpart of the paradigm (defined as the ‘N-pattern’) is transferred to the first conjugation, while the rest of the paradigm simply displays phonologically centralized reflexes of the original fourth-conjugation morphology (see Maiden 2009b).
³¹ Examples of third-person plural present forms lacking -ă are attested in the 1648 New Testament, and also more widely (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 213). ³² As Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 212n13) notes, this same asymmetry, with the etymologically predicted forms preserved in the subjunctive, is widely attested in dialects (notably in Banat, Crișana, and Maramureș). ³³ Note also the imperative pogoară, attested twice in a mid-seventeenth-century text, for the verb a pogorî, a variant (and older) form of a coborî. See Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 214). For thoughts on the rather unexpected development of a pogorî in the seventeenth century, where -e becomes well established in the subjunctive but less so in the third-person plural present indicative, see Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 216–17).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
277
In Istro-Romanian we encounter a striking new kind of thematic vowel (or thematic diphthong), namely [ɛi ̯] (see Kovačec 1971: 145, 1984: 574). Most significantly, this thematic vowel not only has exactly the same paradigmatic distribution as thematic [i] but behaves exactly like verbs in thematic [i], namely it displays the fourth-conjugation augment in the relevant parts of the paradigm. It alternates with the augment. In IstroRomanian, the augment of fourth-conjugation verbs has the forms -ˈes, -ˈeʃ, -ˈɛ, . . . -ˈes. Compare, for example, the verb koˈsi ‘reap’, a regular fourth-conjugation verb with augment, with koˈpɛi ̯ ‘dig’, which shows the innovatory thematic vowel (Table 6.13).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.13 The thematic vowels [i] and [ɛi ̯] in Istro-Romanian
koˈsi koˈsit koˈsinda
1 koˈses koˈsii ̯am koˈsir
koˈpɛi ̯ koˈpɛi ̯tu koˈpɛi ̯nda
1 koˈpes koˈpɛi ̯am koˈpɛi ̯r
2 koˈseʃ koˈsii ̯ai ̯ koˈsiri
3 koˈsɛ koˈsii ̯a koˈsire
1 koˈsim koˈsii ̯an koˈsirem
2 koˈsits koˈsii ̯ats koˈsirets
3 koˈses koˈsii ̯a koˈsiru
2 koˈpeʃ koˈpɛi ̯ai ̯ koˈpɛi ̯ri
3 koˈpɛ koˈpɛi ̯a koˈpɛi ̯re
1 koˈpɛi ̯m koˈpɛi ̯an koˈpɛi ̯rem
2 koˈpɛi ̯ts koˈpɛi ̯ats koˈpɛi ̯rets
3 koˈpes koˈpɛi ̯a koˈpɛi ̯ru
There have been various attempts to explain the origins of this novel thematic element (see Puşcariu 1926: 170–1). It is characteristic exclusively of loan words, and always corresponds to a thematic vowel [a] in the conjugational system of the source language (see e.g. Croatian igrati ‘play’ > iˈgrɛi ̯, It. cambiare ‘change’ > gamˈbjɛi ̯). Maiden (2017) argues that [ɛi ̯] arises from the combination between the thematic [a] in the source language and the thematic [i] in Istro-Romanian. (The fourth conjugation is the most productive in Istro-Romanian; and it is also the one that receives the majority of neologisms.) The resulting diphthong, *[ai], then undergoes, Maiden suggests, a purely phonological raising and fronting of [a] that produces [ɛi ̯]. Thus an infinitive such as kuˈhɛi ̯ ‘boil’, from Croatian kuhati, was borrowed as *kuha + ˈi. Likewise, -a in combination with -esk would have yielded *kuhaˈes(k).³⁴ Finally, a marginal yet noteworthy phenomenon in Daco-Romanian concerns an innovation in the paradigmatic distribution of thematic vowels, observable in those verbs of the second and third conjugations whose preterite, pluperfect, and synthetic conditional (and past participle) contain the thematic vowel [u]. Occasionally, this [u] shows a tendency to penetrate other parts of the paradigm, replacing the expected thematic [e]. Standard Romanian uses an archaic form of the analytic conditional as an ³⁴ See also Maiden (2017) for the suggestion that a further thematic vocalic element [ui] in the Istro-Romanian of Žejane arose from the combination of loanwords bearing the Slavonic iterative marker [u] with the thematic vowel [i] of the fourth conjugation.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
278 imprecation: the verb a bate ‘beat’, instead of showing the expected infinitive bate, takes a peculiar form, bătu [bәˈtu], and thus we get expressions such as bătu-te-ar sfinții ‘may the saints beat you’ rather than bate te-ar sfinții (compare the normal conditional te-ar bate ‘they would beat you’ and, say, the 3. bătu). On the possible origins of this construction, one may consult Onu (1965). The tendency to replace the expected stressed thematic [e] with [u] is more widely encountered in western dialects (notably of Banat and southern Crișana; see Maiden 2009b: 69–70, 80).³⁵ An example is the verb corresponding to the standard Romanian a coase ‘sew’ (1. coasem, 2. coaseți, cosând; 3. cusu, cusut) in the Banat dialect of Munar, for example (NALRBanat point 65: ku̯oˈsu, 1. ku̯oˈsum, 2. ku̯oˈsuʦ, ku̯oˈsund; 3. kuˈsu, ku̯oˈsut).
6.3 The inflexional paradigm of the verb 6.3.1 The inflexional marking of person and number
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
The Latin first-person singular present indicative ending - was regularly continued in Daco-Romance as -u, a vowel that has, in turn, undergone extensive deletion but survives in certain phonologically defined environments.³⁶ In Romanian, these environments are an immediately preceding vowel or a muta cum liquida cluster (i.e. [Cr] and [Cl]). Table 6.14 also gives examples from Aromanian, where final -u generally survives, albeit to different degrees according to phonological environment (and subdialect).
Table 6.14 Reflexes of first-person singular -o Latin
modern Romanian cânt ‘I sing’ aflu ‘I find’ vând ‘I sell’ beau ‘I drink’ umplu ‘I fill’ știu ‘I know’ aud ‘I hear’ dorm ‘I sleep’
Aromanian ˈkɨntu ˈaflu ˈvindu be̯au̯ ˈumplu ʃtiu̯ ˈavdu dormʷ
Since -u (> -Ø) is also the Daco-Romance ending of third-person plural present indicative in non-first-conjugation verbs, there is some syncretism in the present tense of these verbs between the first-person singular and third-person plural ³⁵ See also Flora (1969: 416) for examples from a bate, a face, or a coase in Banat dialects of Serbia. ³⁶ And in some Daco-Romanian dialects (Țara Oașului, much of Transylvania, western Muntenia, southern Moldova and southern Dobrogea: cf. Orza 1976: 208–9).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
279
(Romanian 3. = 1. vând, umplu, dorm).³⁷ One should bear in mind that, where first-person singular final -u is dropped, the form of the verb may comprise just the bare root of the verb (cânt, dorm, etc.). In first-conjugation verbs, the first-person singular present is the only form to lack any kind of overt ending; in other verbs, this characteristic is shared with the third-person plural present. In Latin, the ending - was the first-person singular desinence of the future perfect, too (, , etc.), and it appears to be continued in the DacoRomance synthetic conditional, which seems to derive from the Latin future perfect (see Gamillscheg 1912: 99–100 and Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 323; also Table 6.15).³⁸ Table 6.15 First-person singular synthetic conditional Latin
old Romanian ultaru ‘forget’ mearseru ‘go’ intraru ‘enter’ dederu ‘give’
Latin
Istro-Romanian kәnˈtar ‘sing’ avˈzir ‘hear’ plәnˈser ‘weep’ faˈkur ‘do’
More surprising is that -u (> -Ø) is also the ending of the first-person singular preterite. Historically, this appears to hold throughout Daco-Romance, although the phonetic erosion of -u in modern varieties means that these forms now end in -i, continuing the Latin first-person singular ending -̄ (̄ ‘I said’, ̄ ‘I wrote’, ̄ ‘I made’, ̄ ‘I sang’, ̄ ‘I heard’, etc.). In some dialects (e.g. MeglenoRomanian and Aromanian), final -u is preserved after certain types of consonant cluster (Table 6.16).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.16 First-person singular preterite Latin ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄
old Romanian cântaiu (cântai) auziiu (auzii) zișu (ziș) plânșu (plânș) feciu (feci)
modern Romanian cântai auzii zisei plânsei făcui
Megleno-Romanian (Uma) kәnˈtai ̯ uˈzɔi ̯ ziʃ ˈplɨnʃu feʃ
The earliest Romanian texts generally show final -u as the first-person singular ending (e.g. zișu, scrișu, feciu, cântaiu, auziiu). Its absence simply reflects general erosion of final unstressed -u.³⁹ It survives to this day in many Romanian dialects, especially north-western (see ALRII maps 1977, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1991). ³⁷ But see §6.6.4 for ‘iotacized’ first-person singular present forms, which are distinct from the third-person plural. ³⁸ For the view that it is an analogical extension, just as in the preterite, see also Caragiu Marioțeanu (1969: 271n4). It is true that one sometimes encounters first-person singular synthetic conditionals in -e, but these forms are a minority and could reflect the influence of third-person forms (3/ cântare). See also Rothe (1957: 94n1). ³⁹ However, for the puzzlingly complex history of the withdrawal of -u in first-person singular preterites, see Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 2: 78–80).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
280 In some Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian varieties where final -u is retained after various kinds of consonant cluster, it still surfaces quite regularly in certain preterites. Thus Megleno-Romanian has 1 ˈtunʃu ‘I sheared’, 3 ˈtunsi, 1 ˈplɨnʃu ‘I wept’ 3 ˈplɨnsi (Uma); 1 ˈfripʃu ‘I fried’, 3 ˈfripʦi (Țărnareca) ( > > >
cânta vedea făcea dormia
> > > >
modern Romanian cântam vedeam făceam dormeam
> > > >
cântase văzuse fecese dormise
> > > >
modern Romanian cântasem văzusem făcusem dormisem
First-person singular -m is also found in the continuants of the synthetic conditional in Aromanian (Nevaci 2006: 143–4), but not in other Daco-Romance varieties (e.g. 1./. aflarimu ‘find’, putearimu ‘can’, aduțearimu ‘bring’). The only other Romanian verb form that acquires the unexpected -m is the first-person singular present of the verb a avea: am. This form is found throughout Daco-Romance since our earliest records and corresponds historically to the Latin —whose regular reflex is old Romanian aibu, although this form is attested only in the first-person singular subjunctive (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 55). In sixteenth-century Romanian the first-person singular forms of the imperfect and pluperfect indicative were identical with the third-person forms of the respective tenses, both in the singular and in the third-person plural, so that cânta and cântase meant, respectively, ‘I/he/they was/were singing’ and ‘I/he/they had sung’. The spread of 1 -m in the imperfect seems to begin in Muntenian texts and to continue in Moldova and Transylvania in the second half of the seventeenth century; in the pluperfect, -m seems to appear only at the end of that century (Frâncu 1971a: 180–1, 1997c: 337, 339). The introduction of -m into the firstperson singular creates formal identity with the first-person plural, which is, historically, in -m (< -). In the verb ‘have’, the first-person singular form am is identical ⁴⁶ But see Marin et al. (1998: 108) on a modern remnant of the m-less first-person singular imperfect in Plăiuț, in the Transcarpathian region. ⁴⁷ There seem to be no records of the imperfect in the sixteenth century, and just one of the pluperfect (vândusem), at the very end of the century (Frâncu 1997b: 138).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
282 with the first-person plural of the auxiliary (am făcut ‘I/we have done’)—but not with that of the lexical verb (am/avem o carte ‘I/we have a book’). The origins of this first-person singular -m are problematic. Since am ‘I have’ is found throughout Daco-Romance from the earliest records, it is presumably the oldest example of a first-person singular in -m. In the absence of language contact, or of any clear indication that substrate languages influenced Romanian verb desinences, the notion that am may reflect such an influence—that it may come from an Illyrian substrate (Meyer-Lübke 1895: 301; Philippide 2011: 535)—seems most unlikely (cf. Rosetti 1986: 146). However that may be, Meyer-Lübke (1895: 300–1), Densusianu (1938: 213), and Rothe (1957: 91) attribute the appearance of first-person singular -m in the imperfect to the pattern offered by (auxiliary) 1/ am. A more widely held view (Tiktin 1905: 106; Rosetti 1986: 146; Philippide 2011: 494) invokes the analogical influence of the first-person plural form in -m(u) to explain first-person singular -m. It is true that, as Rosetti mentions, the replacement of first-person singular by firstperson plural forms is attested in some French varieties and, sporadically, even in seventeenth-century Romanian texts; but it remains a puzzle that this development is restricted to the present of a avea and to the imperfect and pluperfect. Any argument that the change of first-person singular forms such as canta, cântase could have been motivated by an avoidance of homonymic clash with forms of the third person seems wrong, or at least highly implausible, given that this change produces homonymy too—with a different form, namely the first-person plural; besides, homonymy between the first person (in the singular) and the third person (in the plural) is generally well tolerated, for example in the present tense. The notion that the model of am, where the singular of the lexical verb is identical with the plural of the auxiliary verb, might have promoted the generalization of first-person plurals such as cântam and cântasem as first-person singulars in the respective paradigms does not seem wholly fantastic, especially if one bears in mind the high frequency in old Romanian of structures in which the auxiliary verb was enclitic on the verb: such structures created a high degree of formal similarity with the endings of the imperfect (see also Pușcariu 1943: 56). Thus Table 6.19.⁴⁸ Table 6.19 Similarities between imperfect endings and verb-forms with encliticized auxiliaries in old Romanian
1 cântat-am văzut-am cânta vedea
2 cântat-ai văzut-ai cântai vedeai
3 cântat-a văzut-a cânta vedea
cântat-am văzut-am cântam vedeam
2 cântat-ați văzut-ați cântați vedeați
3 cântat-au văzut-au cânta vedea
This suggestion accounts less well for the appearance of -m in the pluperfect (and in the Aromanian conditional), but it is possible that the imperfect in -m was the model. ⁴⁸ We address the rise of final -u in the third-person plural imperfect later on in this chapter.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
283
A powerful argument that am is the origin of the imperfect ending -m comes from Istro-Romanian (although, curiously, Frâncu 1971a: 185 refuses to allow the same argument for Daco-Romanian). In southern varieties of Istro-Romanian, word-final -m in the first-person plural developed into -n, while the first-person singular of the verb ‘have’ is am. Since the ending of the first-person singular imperfect is -m, not -n, it seems clear that am, and not the first-person plural, must be the source of the innovation. One should also note that some Aromanian varieties have h'im (identical with the first-person plural) instead of h'iu ‘I am’ (Capidan 1932: 488). A relatively recent development in Megleno-Romanian is that first-person singular forms in syllabic -u have acquired an optional final -m (e.g. aflum ‘I find’, antrum ‘I enter’, for aflu, antru). This phenomenon occurs particularly in the varieties of Lunḑiń and Oșiń (Capidan 1925: 158–9; Atanasov 2002: 237) and is usually attributed to contact with Macedonian,⁴⁹ where -m is a marker of first-person singular in the present tense.⁵⁰ A parallel development affects second-person singular forms in the syllabic ending -i that acquire the Macedonian ending -ʃ (e.g. afliș, antriș for afli, antri). Practically everywhere, the first-person plural ending is the regular phonetic continuant of the Latin -. There is little else to say about it: it is the consistent marker of the first-person plural across Daco-Romance, in all tenses and moods (e.g. > cântăm, > ORo. auzisemu, MRo. auziserăm, > vindeam, > ORo. feaceremu, etc.). But a problem arises with the ending -n (or -no after consonant clusters), which we find in IstroRomanian in the imperfect (Kovačec 1971: 149), or even in all tenses and moods, in the southern variety described by Pușcariu (1926: 185–6: ruˈgɑn ‘we ask’, ruˈgɒi ̯an, ruˈgɒrno, etc.). The phenomenon seems recent; there are ample attestations of the expected -m, as Pușcariu (1926: 106) shows. Pușcariu offers two hypotheses: analogical extension, to all verbs, of a phonetic dissimilation before words that begin in a labial; or assimilation before a postposed first-person plural subject pronoun noi. Of the two, the second hypothesis seems far more likely. Perhaps even more so is the possibility of analogical interference between first-person plural pronouns (noi and the clitic ne) and the first-person plural verb ending, a phenomenon also witnessed in some Ibero-Romance varieties, for example (Tuten et al. 2016: 397). First-person plural forms of first-conjugation verbs present an anomaly in the present tense. In the other conjugations, these forms show the thematic vowel immediately before final -m (e.g. a vinde ‘to sell’ 1. vindem; a dormi ‘to sleep’ 1. dormim). The situation in the first conjugation is different. In a verb like cânta ‘sing’, where one should expect **cântam (< ), one finds in fact cântăm—almost without exception throughout Daco-Romance (see Zagaevschi 1999 for occasional dialectal survivals of the expected -am, especially in Bessarabia and Transnistria). This
⁴⁹ See, however, Friedman (2009) for a reevaluation of the evidence. Friedman suggests that internal analogical factors have played an important role. ⁵⁰ Note also sam, the first-person singular present indicative of the verb ‘be’, which may be wholly borrowed from Macedonian (Capidan 1925: 173).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
284 anomalous development has yet to be satisfactorily explained (for a review of arguments, see Sala 1976: 192). As for the second-person singular, with the exception of imperatives in -ă, -e, or -o (to be discussed in §6.3.4), all the Daco-Romance forms end in -i. In most cases, this vowel has a purely phonological origin, at least if we follow Maiden (1996). According to him, Latin word-final -s generally yielded -i (or -i̯) (e.g. > trei ‘three’, ()() > apoi ‘then’, > dai ‘give’.2., > stai ‘stand’.2., > știi ‘know’.2.) and unstressed -̄, -ĭ, and -̄ yielded *-ei ̯, *-ii ̯, then *-i (e.g. ̄ > vezi ‘see’.2., ĭ > vinzi ‘sell’.2., ̄ > dormi ‘sleep’.2.). The expected reflex of Latin - is *-ai ̯ > -e. The fact that, for example, first-conjugation second-person singulars such as yield forms such as cânți ‘sing’.2. rather than **cânte appears to be due to the analogical pressure of -i in almost all other second-person singular forms of the verb. The preterite and the pluperfect present anomalous developments. In Latin, the second-person singular of the present perfective (the ancestor of the Romanian preterite) ends in -, whose expected reflex in Romanian is -ști (thus > acești ‘these’). Yet what actually occurs, from the earliest attestations and in all dialects, is -și: > *kanˈtasti > cântași; > *aˈvusti > avuși; > *dikˈsesti > ziseși; > *dorˈmisti > dormiși. In the pluperfect, which derives from the Latin pluperfect subjunctive, one would expect to find the very forms that actually turn up in the preterite—for example, > *kanˈtasei ̯ > *kanˈtasi > **cântași. One finds forms such as > cântaseși, > avuseși, > ziseseși, or > dormiseși in the modern standard Romanian preterite, and the variants cântasei, avusei, zisesei, and dormisei in most Romanian dialects. Also, ALRII map 2017 (see also Avram 1973) shows that most of the dialects that preserve the synthetic pluperfect have in fact -ei (or its variant -ăi). The type cânta´seși is mainly limited to south-eastern Romania (central and eastern central Muntenia and most of Dobrogea; see Marin 1991: 56, 58). The origins of these developments are frankly obscure and, as Avram (1973: 490n20) observes, there is a dearth of historical material, particularly where the second-person singular pluperfect is concerned. Avram inclines to the view that -ei is the more archaic form, which would mean that -și (just like -ră) was analogically extended from the preterite (cf. Caragiu Marioțeanu 1969: 266). Another view (see also Șiadbei 1930: 335; Densusianu 1938: 221; Maiden 2009a) is that, since -și is the expected outcome in the pluperfect, it is the pluperfect ending that has been introduced into the preterite, not the other way round. Maiden (2009a) tentatively reconstructs the following development:⁵¹ (i) original pluperfect in -și (cântași) (ii) analogical introduction of -și into the preterite (cântași) ⁵¹ In some Aromanian varieties -ș extends into the synthetic conditional (see Capidan 1932: 471–2; Caragiu Marioțeanu 1968: 126).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
285
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(iiia) analogical introduction of -se-, the formative characteristic of all other forms of the pluperfect (e.g. 3 cântaseră, 1 cântase(ră)m), into the secondperson singular pluperfect as well (whence cântaseși)⁵² (iiib) subsequent (or simultaneous?) analogical introduction of -i, characteristic of most other second-person singular endings (whence cântasei). In modern standard Romanian and predominantly throughout the history of DacoRomance, the ending for the second-person plural is -ți, in all tenses and moods. This (as argued, for example, in Maiden 1996) is simply the phonologically regular reflex of Latin -, via *-tes > *-tei ̯ > *-ti > -ți (cf. () > marți ‘Tuesday’). In Latin, - was the ending of all second-person plural verb forms other than imperatives (in -), and it is continued in Daco-Romance: > cântați ‘sing’.2.; > vindeați ‘sell’.2.; > auzise(ra)ți ‘hear’.2.. There are two points of interest in this story. One is the replacement of imperative - by -ți (see Maiden 1996: 168); but far more problematic is the other—the origin of a secondperson plural ending -t(u). This ending appears in sixteenth-century texts in the preterite, in the pluperfect, and in the old synthetic conditional (see e.g. Morariu 1925: 29). It is still found in parts of the western Carpathians, Crișana, and Muntenia (see e.g. Donovetsky 2010: 181, 193). It is, however, totally unexpected, given the corresponding Latin forms (e.g. 2. ; 2.. ; 2.. ). There have been various attempts to account for the anomalous development as a result of some influence—for example the influence of the past participle in the preterite (the -tu forms were indeed identical with the masculine singular forms of the past participle in many regular verbs: cântatu 2. cântatu, vândutu 2. vândutu, auzitu 2. auzitu),⁵³ or the analogical influence of the first-person plural (e.g. 1. cântamu, zisemu, yielding analogical 2. cântatu, zisetu).⁵⁴ Maiden (2007: 307) makes some critical remarks on these approaches: it is not clear why a form identical with the past participle would not then appear in all the verbs (why, for example, 2. zisetu and not **zisu, on the analogy of past participle zisu), and why the form of the first-person plural should exercise an analogical influence just in those tenses and not elswehere (why do we not have, for example, 2. **zicetu, on the basis of 1. zicemu?). In old Romanian, -t(u) was already established in the preterite, pluperfect, and synthetic conditional (e.g. căutat⁵⁵ ‘you sought’, ziset⁵⁶ ‘you said’, întoarset⁵⁷ ‘you returned’; grăiset⁵⁸ ‘you had spoken’, ceruset⁵⁹ ‘you had asked’; căutaret⁶⁰ ‘you would seek’, sfârşiretu⁶¹ ‘you would finish’). The comparative dialectological evidence clearly suggests that -tu originated in the preterite alone. Aromanian consistently has -t in the preterite, while in the synthetic conditional we find -t or -ț ⁵² Some Moldovan dialects have the pluperfect ending -aș (e.g. uitaș ALM map 511, points 195, 206, 155), which Melnik (1977: 117) attributes to the influence of the preterite. But the forms with this ending could equally be original pluperfect forms. ⁵³ See Șiadbei (1930). ⁵⁴ See Densusianu (1938: 221); Rothe (1957: 92); Rosetti (1986: 143). ⁵⁵ CC². ⁵⁶ CPr; PO. ⁵⁷ CC². ⁵⁸ PO. ⁵⁹ PO. ⁶⁰ CPr. ⁶¹ CV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
286 according to dialect (Capidan 1932: 471–73; Caragiu Marioțeanu 1968: 126n27). Istro-Romanian has lost the preterite and the pluperfect subparadigms, conserving only the synthetic conditional; but here we consistently find only -ts. In the Romanian dialects that conserve the preterite and the pluperfect, -t(u) is found either in both tense forms or only in the preterite (see Maiden 2007: 308). The second alternative is represented in Valea Caselor (pt 333 of ALRRTransilvania) in the western Carpathians or at Almaș in Crișana (pt 117 of NALRCrișana) (Table 6.20). Table 6.20 Distribution of second-person plural -t(u) in some dialects
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Valea Caselor preterite kumpәˈrarәt ‘buy’ aˈvurәt ‘have’ stәˈturәt ‘stand’ koˈsirәt ‘mow’
pluperfect kumpәˈraseʦ avuˈseseʦ stәˈtuseʦ koˈsiseʦ
Almaș preterite luˈat ‘take’ aˈvut stәˈtut tuˈʃɨt ‘cough’
pluperfect luˈasәʦ avuˈsәsәʦ stәˈtusәʦ tuˈʃɨsәʦ
The observed distribution of the -t(u) ending indicates that it originated in the preterite and from there spread analogically to other tense forms. Once again, as with -și and -ră, the paradigmatic domain of this extension seems to be bounded by the class of originally perfective verb forms (see also §6.6.2). If -t(u) did originate in the preterite, we may get a little closer to a possible explanation of its origins, one that involves a partial return to the idea that the analogical influence of the first-person plural has some role. As we stated earlier, appeal to the influence of that form alone will not account for the restriction of the phenomenon to the preterite. Such a limitation might, however, become explicable if we bear in mind the phonetically regular (but unattested) reflex of third-person plural perfect -, namely **-ru. From, say, 1 ´, 2 ´, 3 ´ we should have expected zı´semu, **ziˈseʃti, **ˈziseru. Note that the predicted ending of the second-person plural is already somewhat anomalous by virtue of its sibilant (< - not just -), and therefore perhaps especially liable to analogical adjustment. If the third-person plural ending was originally -**ru, as the evidence of Latin and many other Romance languages predicts (this will be discussed below in our treatment of third-person plural morphology), then it is conceivable that speakers reanalysed the person and number structure of preterite plurals as *-V + consonant + u—hence the novel ending *-Vtu. This leaves the awkward question of why **-ru was ever replaced by -ră (on which more to come); but it is at least significant that -ră itself led subsequently to the re-formation of the first- and second-person plural preterite (zisem, ziset, ziseră > ziserăm, ziserăți, ziseră). That is, it seems possible that a distinctive ending in the the third-person plural preterite could also have influenced other plural forms at a much earlier stage. The Latin third-person singular ending - was deleted in the early history of most Romance varieties, including Daco-Romance. There is nothing identifiable in DacoRomance as a distinctive third-person singular marker, and surviving third-person singular forms are generally the expected continuants of the Latin forms, minus the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
287
final -: > cântă; > scrie; > cânte; > scrie; > audă; > cânta; > scria; > auzea; > cântă; > scrise; > auzi; > cântase; > scrisese; > auzise.⁶² The only survivor of the third-person singular final - (with paragogic vowel) is este ‘is’ (< Lat. ). The reflex of Lat. ‘(s)he knows’ would be expected to be 3. ști, and this form is widely attested in northern dialects in the sixteenth century and survives to this day in north-western dialects (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 203–6). Elsewhere we have știe (as in modern standard Romanian), which shows analogical extension of the the non-first-conjugation thirdperson singular present desinence -e. Matters are more complicated in the third-person plural. Here too, the characteristic Latin marker of the third-person plural, -, is deleted, leaving for the most part the expected results: > cântă; > scriu; > cânte; > scrie; > audă; > OR. cânta; > OR. scria; > OR. auzea; > cântară; > scriseră; > auziră; > OR. cântase; > OR. scrisese; > OR. auzise. Only one of these forms requires particular comment: the predicted ending of the third-person plural preterite is **-ru, not -ră, yet the latter is found universally across Daco-Romance. Its origin is problematic: phonologically it corresponds to a reflex of the Latin pluperfect indicative, , , and so on, but the Latin pluperfect indicative does not otherwise survive into Daco-Romance. Whether the third-person plural in -ră continues the Latin pluperfect is therefore unclear,⁶³ but seems unlikely, since -- was found in all the persons of the Latin pluperfect indicative. Precisely because originally this -ră is found only in the third-person plural preterite (as is still the case in Aromanian and MeglenoRomanian: see Capidan 1925: 163, 1932: 455–6; Teaha 1961: 99; Bidian 1973: 222; Atanasov 2002: 240–3), it assumes the character of a third-person plural marker. Later on (in §6.6.2) we shall see, however, that this unique association with the category third-person plural does not endure in Daco-Romanian, where -ră extends to firstand second-person plural forms of the preterite, although there is no evidence for this extension until well into the seventeenth century (see Frâncu 1971a, 1971b, and 1982a; Neagoe 1973). As any comparison with the third-person singular and the first-person singular forms described earlier will show, a considerable amount of syncretism arose. There is complete syncretism between third-person singular and third-person plural in the present indicative of first-conjugation verbs, in all the subjunctives, in the old Romanian imperfect, in the old Romanian pluperfect, and in the old Romanian synthetic conditional. There is also syncretism between the third-person plural and the first-person singular in the present of non-first-conjugation verbs. From our earliest records, the third-person plurals of the verbs a da ‘give’ and a sta ‘stand’ in the present tense are dau and stau rather than the historically predicted da ⁶² The old synthetic conditional develops as in > cântare.
⁶³ See Șiadbei (1930: 337).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
288 (< ) and sta (< ). We also have, for a lua ‘take’, third-person plural present iau rather than the predicted ia (< ), and third-person plural present lau (< ) for the now rare a la ‘wash (one’s head)’. The forms in -u also appear in Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian, but the historically expected da, la and so on do appear in Aromanian. The origin of these forms in -au seems to lie in other monosyllabic third-person plural present forms such as beau (< ), and perhaps particularly au (< *abunt < ). In Istro-Romanian, the third-person plural ending -u has been generalized to most verb forms, including the present tense of most first-conjugation verbs, with the systematic exception of the imperfect tense (see Kovačec 1971: 137–43, 146–53). This spread of -u to the third-person plural present in the first conjugation has occurred in some Daco-Romanian dialects of Bucovina and Transnistria as well (see Marin et al. 2000: 80). In modern standard Romanian and in many modern Daco-Romanian dialects, the syncretism in the imperfect between third-person singular and third-person plural has disappeared as a consequence of the introduction of a third-person plural marker, -u: 3. cânta ‘sang’, era ‘was’, 3. cânta, era > 3. cânta ‘sang’, era ‘was’, 3. cântau, erau. Gheție & Teodorescu (1965a, 1965b, 1966a, 1966b) as well as Ștefan (1978) demonstrate that the phenomenon probably originated in Banat, perhaps in the late sixteenth century, and may have followed the model of the auxiliary forms of the verb ‘have’, which show close parallels with the endings of the imperfect,⁶⁴ possibly assisted by present tense forms in -au such as dau, stau. Subsequently, but sporadically, the ending spread into other parts of Romania. The phenomenon was also introduced into central and southern Moldova, Transylvania, and eastern Dobrogea, while much of Muntenia remained unaffected. The first literary attestation dates from 1794, but the phenomenon is not present in non-literary texts from Moldova, Transylvania, and Wallachia written between 1780 and 1840. According to Gheție & Teodorescu (1966a: 188–9), the extension of -u to the plural occurred in order to differentiate it from the singular (Gheție & Teodorescu 1965a: 86, 1965b: 184), although it must be observed that no such differentiation occurs, for example, in the present of regular thirdconjugation verbs. The ending -ră, while clearly associated with the third-person plural, is structurally anomalous. It is the only unique marker of the third person in the system (its only ‘rival’ is the -u just mentioned, but -u is also found in some first-person singulars, as we have seen). From the seventeenth century onward, the domain of -ră begins to change in Daco-Romanian, as -ră moves to extend in two directions:⁶⁵ into the first- and second-person plural on the one hand, and into the pluperfect on the other. Initially the extension to the pluperfect affected only the third-person plural; the earliest attestations date from the late seventeenth century and are in this restricted form. The phenomenon did not become widespread until the second half of the eighteenth century. Despite this initial restriction, it seems that the extension to the pluperfect ⁶⁴ See Gheție & Teodorescu (1965b: 190–1). ⁶⁵ In what follows we draw very heavily on a very detailed study of this phenomenon by Frâncu (1982a).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
289
occurred only in areas that maintained the preterite intact and where, in addition, -ră had already entered the first- and second-person plural of the preterite. Only in the first half of the nineteenth century do we find evidence of the extension of -ră to the first- and second-person plural forms of the pluperfect, in texts from Muntenia and Oltenia.⁶⁶ Third-person plural pluperfect -ră gains ground throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. In the dialects of modern Oltenia (e.g. NALROltenia map 1023), -ră is generally still absent from the pluperfect. The south-west of this region has -ră, if at all, only in the third-person plural, while some varieties, notably in the northeast of Oltenia, have -ră throughout the pluperfect plural. In the rare cases where the pluperfect -ră is found in the linguistic atlases for Transylvania, Crișana, and Banat, it is almost entirely limited to the third-person plural. The extension of -ră from the preterite to other tense forms is effectively limited to the pluperfect: this is to say that, as with -și and -tu already discussed, the extension of this ending is restricted to the class of verb forms that continue the Latin perfective (see §6.6.2). Exceptions exist, but they are rare (for very sporadic examples of extension into the third-person plural imperfect, see Maiden 2009a: 292). Neagoe (1973: 134) gives examples from the third-person plural subjunctive in Plătărești (Ialomița), and Graur (1935: 180; 1968: 247–8) reports pre-First World War examples of plural -ră in the third-person plural, in the present, and in the subjunctive in Bucharest (see Maiden 2009a: 292). A recent development, in spoken Daco-Romanian, is the use of the ending -ră on the past participle in auxiliary and past participle constructions, where the grammatical subject is plural.⁶⁷ Frâncu (1982a: 288) detects the first occurrence of this type of construction in the writings of a priest from Banat in the eighteenth century. The phenomenon becomes common, mostly in the usage of uneducated writers, in Oltenia and Muntenia in the first half of the nineteenth century (e.g. s-au amestecatără ‘they have mixed’, au spartără ușili casii ‘they have broken the doors of the house’). Neagoe (1973: 134) reports, for Plătărești, an informant who specifies ‘la unul singur am tușit, și la mai mulți am tușitără’ ‘for just one person [we say] “I have coughed”, and for several “we have coughed”’). See also Donovetsky (2009: 197).
6.3.2 Inflexional marking of tense: present, imperfect, preterite, pluperfect, and synthetic conditional Early Daco-Romance appears to have possessed five synthetic tense forms: the present (which includes the subjunctive),⁶⁸ the imperfect, the preterite, the pluperfect, and the conditional. Of these, only the present tense forms survive today in all the dialects. The imperfect survives almost everywhere, but is recessive in Istro-Romanian, having apparently disappeared in its northern variety (Žejane), possibly because the ⁶⁶ See also Pană Dindelegan (1987: 45–7). ⁶⁷ See also Pană Dindelegan (1987: 47–9). ⁶⁸ We consider elsewhere (§§6.3.3, 6.3.4) the synthetic forms of the subjunctive and those of the imperative. While the forms of the subjunctive derive from the Latin present subjunctive, the subjunctive itself is arguably tenseless in Daco-Romance.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
290 Istro-Romanian verb has acquired new ways of marking the imperfective aspect in all the tenses (see Pușcariu 1926: 178–9, 257; Hurren 1969: 88–90, 1999: 97–8; Kovačec 1984: 576), and these made the inherited imperfect redundant. The synthetic forms of the pluperfect, which continue the Latin pluperfect subjunctive, have disappeared in Maramureş, in most of Transylvania (except in the south-east and parts of the Western Carpathians), in Crişana, in Banat, as well as in Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Aromanian. The preterite is generally absent in Moldova, in Transylvania (except Ţara Haţegului and the Western Carpathians), in Maramureş (but there there are occasional survivals), and in Dobrogea (see, e.g. ALRII maps 1977–96, 2017–20). In modern standard Romanian the preterite is an archaic or archaizing literary form, not in active use in any register. In Istro-Romanian it is extinct. The synthetic conditional has disappeared everywhere except in Aromanian and Istro-Romanian. The present, the imperfect, the pluperfect, and, marginally, the preterite survive in modern Romanian. To reveal the extent to which there is overt inflexional marking of tense, it will be helpful to start by setting out the modern synthetic paradigms for tense with a few examples, from the verbs a purta ‘wear’, a vedea ‘see’, a zice ‘say’, a muri ‘die’ (Table 6.21).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.21 Modern synthetic tense paradigms of some sample verbs
1 port purta´m purta´i purta´sem văd vedea´m văzu´i văzu´sem zic zicea´m zise´i zise´sem mor murea´m murı´i murı´sem
2 porți purta´i purta´și purta´seși vezi vedea´i văzu´și văzu´seși zici zicea´i zise´și zise´seși mori murea´i murı´și murı´seși
3 poa´rtă purta´ purtắ purta´se ve´de vedea´ văzu´ văzu´se zı´ce zicea´ zı´se zise´se moa´re murea´ murı´ murı´se
1 purtắm purta´m purta´răm purta´serăm vede´m vedea´m văzu´răm văzu´serăm zı´cem zicea´m zı´serăm zise´serăm murı´m murea´m murı´răm murı´serăm
2 purta´ți purta´ți purta´răți purta´serăți vede´ți vedea´ți văzu´răți văzu´serăți zı´ceți zicea´ți zı´serăți zise´serăți murı´ți murea´ți murı´răți murı´serăți
3 poa´rtă purta´u purta´ră purta´seră văd vedea´u văzu´ră văzu´seră zic zicea´u zı´seră zise´seră mor murea´u murı´ră murı´seră
The fusional nature of Romanian morphology means that it is difficult to isolate unambiguous tense-marking formatives. The present tense effectively lacks any isolatable element that is unique to it or marks no other tense. Certain types of root allomorphy, however, are mainly or exclusively characteristic of the present. What marks out the present from nearly all other Romanian finite forms of the verb is rhizotony—apart from the present, only the imperative and certain forms of the preterite (see §6.4.2) show it—and the associated presence of root allomorphs, found in the singular and in the third person of the present tense, as shown by the examples
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
291
of a purta and a muri.⁶⁹ The nature and distribution of rhizotony of this kind is discussed in §6.6.3. In third-conjugation verbs rhizotony is found throughout the present tense (§6.2), in the infinitive, and frequently also in the preterite, as shown in what follows. Overall, the forms of the present tense are regular and predictable outcomes of their Latin ancestors (Table 6.22). Table 6.22 Reflexes of Latin present tense 1 ó port ´ zic
2 ó porți ´ zici
3 ó poa´rtă ´ zı´ce
1 ´ purtắm ´ zı´cem
2 ´ purta´ți ´ zı´ceți
3 ó poa´rtă ´ zic
The imperfect tense generally continues the forms of the Latin imperfect indicative for the first, second, and third conjugations. The modern standard Romanian reflexes are of a kind found generally in Daco-Romance, and largely reflect regular effects of sound change, including deletion of Latin intervocalic -- (Table 6.23). Table 6.23 Imperfect indicative reflexes of Latin imperfect indicatives 1 2
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
3
1 ´ cânta´m ´ vedea´m ´ zicea´m
2 ´ cânta´i ´ vedea´i ´ zicea´i
3 ´ cânta´ ´ vedea´ ´ zicea´
1 ´ cânta´m ´ vedea´m ´ zicea´m
2 ´ cânta´ți ´ vedea´ți ´ zicea´ți
3 ´ cânta´u ´ vedea´u ´ zicea´u
In effect, the imperfect comprises the lexical root + stressed thematic vowel a or ea + person and number endings. (For the probable origins of 1 -m and 3 -u in the imperfect, see §6.3.1.) In modern standard Romanian, fourth-conjugation verbs (e.g. dormea´m, murea´m) share the thematic vowel of the second and third conjugations. This represents a replacement of an earlier, distinctive fourth-conjugation type dormi(i)am, which continued a proto-Romance *dorˈmi(v)a rather than the Latin ´. The relevant developments are considered in more detail in the discussion of conjugation classes in §6.2.1. Istro-Romanian is slightly different, in that the imperfect is marked there by a stressed formative—namely -ˈɑj- (first conjugation), -ˈɛj- (second and third conjugations), -ˈij(fourth conjugation)—followed by unstressed -am -ai̯ -a -an -aʦ -a. Table 6.24 gives examples.
⁶⁹ We may include here the augment (discussed in §6.2.4), which is unique to the same subset of forms of the present tense and to the imperative.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
292 Table 6.24 Istro-Romanian imperfect morphology
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
1 2/3 4
1 luˈkrɒjam ‘worked’ faˈʦɛjam ‘did’ avˈzijam ‘heard’
2 luˈkrɒjai ̯ faˈʦɛjai ̯ avˈzijai ̯
3 luˈkrɒja faˈʦɛja avˈzija
1 luˈkrɒjan faˈʦɛjan avˈzijan
2 luˈkrɒjaʦ faˈʦɛjaʦ avˈzijaʦ
3 luˈkrɒja faˈʦɛja avˈzija
Pușcariu (1926: 179) plausibly assumes that the Istro-Romanian fourth-conjugation represents the regular phonological development of proto-Romance fourth-conjugation forms (e.g. *auˈdiva > *auˈdia > *auˈdija) and that the glide of the fourth conjugation was then analogically extended to other verbs. The verbs ‘be’ (a fi), ‘give’ (a da), ‘stand’ (a sta), and ‘want’ (a vrea) are special cases. The Latin antecedent of the imperfect indicative of the verb ‘be’ was strikingly different from all other imperfect indicatives: it had a suppletive root (-, shared with the future indicative, the latter being extinct in Daco-Romance) and was rhizotonic in the singular and in the third-person plural: 1 ´, 2 ´, 3 ´, 3 ´ vs 1 ´, 2 ´. Daco-Romance preserves this suppletive root intact almost everywhere, but the paradigm is arrhizotonic, and in that respect it aligns with all other imperfects. The pattern found in modern standard Romanian is also very widespread among the dialects: 1 era´m, 2 era´i, 3 era´, 1 era´m, 2 era´ți, 3 era´u. The endings are in fact those of first-conjugation verbs, and the transition to firstconjugation morphology was no doubt facilitated by the presence of the stressed vowel [a], a characteristic thematic vowel of that conjugation in the first and second persons of the plural (see first-conjugation 1/2. cânta´m, cânta´ți ‘sang’). Mainly in Oltenia (cf. ALRII maps 2159–61), but also in some parts of the Western Carpathians (Neagoe 1992: 162), in southern Banat, apparently in fărșerot dialects of Aromanian (Capidan 1932: 485), and in Megleno-Romanian (Ivănescu 1980: 310; 463), the imperfect of this verb sometimes displays non-first-conjugation morphology (of the type erea´m, erea´i, erea´, erea´m, erea´ți, erea´u, etc.). This latter development is perhaps unsurprising, given that elsewhere the verb ‘be’ tends to display inflexional morphology otherwise associated with non-first-conjugation verbs (cf. standard Romanian present tense 3 este, 1 suntem, 2 sunteți; fi; .1 fui). The main exceptions to these patterns occur in Istro-Romanian (Pușcariu 1926: 1960) and in some varieties of Aromanian (Capidan 1932: 484–5). In the former, the root of the imperfect of ‘be’ has been replaced by that found in the present (subjunctive) and infinitive, namely fi, which is followed by local non-first-conjugation imperfect endings (e.g. 1. fiˈʲɛʲa). Concerning Aromanian, Capidan reports the survival in southern dialects of the stressed root ˈe̯arin the singular and in the third-person plural. The diphthong [e̯a] is formed only under stress (see §1.5), and Capidan lists examples from other dialects that, while arrhizotonic, still preserve this root allomorph, showing that the root was once stressed.⁷⁰ ⁷⁰ These include the first- and second-person plural e̯aˈramu, e̯aˈraʦ, forms whose diphthong suggests that, originally, the stress fell on the root throughout the whole paradigm of the imperfect (cf. Spanish e´ramos, e´rais). Similar developments are observable in dialects of south-eastern Ukraine and in the south of Moldova and of Bessarabia (see Marin et al. 2016: 117). Marin et al. attribute the phenomenon to the analogical influence of 3. iaste.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
293
The imperfects of sta and da (< , ) historically continue Latin , in the forms dam, stam. These regular outcomes are widely attested across the Daco-Romance dialects (Maramureș, most of Transylvania, Oltenia, Muntenia, some varieties of Aromanian), but other dialects, for instance modern standard Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, and some varieties of Aromanian, have forms in which the root of the preterite and pluperfect (cf. 3. dădu, stătu; 3. dăduse, stătuse) has entered the imperfect (see also §6.4.2).⁷¹ This explains the standard Romanian forms in Table 6.25. Table 6.25 The imperfect of da and sta
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
1 dădea´m stătea´m
2 dădea´i stătea´i
3 dădea´ stătea´
1 dădea´m stătea´m
2 dădea´ți stătea´ți
3 dădea´u stătea´u
There is almost no other case of an originally perfective root penetrating the imperfect indicative in the Romance languages (see Maiden 2018a: 70–1). Maiden (2009a: 283–9) proposes a possible (partial) motivation for this unusual change. He suggests that, since the roots dăd- and stăt- deviate from the normal phonological shape of special preterite roots and are accompanied in the preterite and pluperfect not by the usual thematic vowel associated with such roots, but by [u], they are somehow free to be extended analogically into parts of the paradigm not otherwise associated with preterite roots. However the phenomenon is to be explained, it is not observed in the written language before the seventeenth century (Frâncu 1977: 80–2). After that is spreads rapidly. The preterite is a relatively direct continuation of the Latin present perfective. Table 6.26 provides examples. Table 6.26 Preterite as continuant of Latin present perfective forms Lat.. Ro. Lat.. Ro.
1 ´ purta´i ´ zise´i
2 ´ purta´și ´ zise´și
3 ´ purtắ ´ zı´se
1 ´ purta´răm ´ zı´serăm
2 ´ purta´răți ´ zı´serăți
3 ´ purta´ră ´ zı´seră
There is no uniquely identifiable marker of the Romanian preterite. Virtually the only distinction between preterites and pluperfects in the modern language is the presence of the formative -se- in the latter. Both comprise a common, and sometimes distinctive root allomorph, a thematic vowel, and a nearly identical set of person and number endings. Historically there was distinctive and cumulative marking of the
⁷¹ Cf. ALRII maps 2202 and 2205; also Capidan (1932: 454).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
294 preterite through person and number endings, in that the third-person plural ending -ră and the second-person plural ending -tu (which is extinct in the standard language) were found only in the preterite—and some scholars believe the second-person singular ending -și to have originated there as well. The fate of these endings and their generalization to other tense forms (and to all the plurals within those tenses) is discussed in §6.6.2. Among first-person singular endings, the -i that continues the Latin - remains unique to the preterite. The stressed third-person singular ending -ă of first-conjugation verbs is uniquely associated with the preterite. There is much of interest to be said with respect to the special root allomorph found in many preterite verb forms, mainly of the third conjugation, but, again, this allomorph is not unique to the preterite; it is shared by the pluperfect in modern Romanian, and its origin and paradigmatic distribution are discussed in §6.6.2. In regions, mainly Crișana and Banat, where the synthetic pluperfect has died out but the preterite survives, the special root allomorph may indeed come to constitute a distinctive tense marker by default. Among non-present tense forms, some preterites do have a distinctive characteristic in modern Daco-Romanian and Aromanian varieties: they display root stress.⁷² At issue are those preterites, mainly of the third conjugation, that display the special perfective root allomorph described in §6.4.2.⁷³ In Latin, for purely phonological reasons, stress fell on the root of such verbs in all their forms, save those of the second person. This pattern is well preserved in old Romanian and in many modern dialects; but rhizotony was extended to the second-person plural, probably under the influence of the other plural forms of the preterite. Rhizotony in old Romanian can be illustrated with particular clarity in the verb a face ‘to do’, where the position of the stress can be identified, among other factors, through the presence of the diphthong ea in the root (see §1.5). No old Romanian text seems to present a full paradigm for this verb: in what follows, the examples of first- and third-person forms come from Psaltirea Hurmuzaki, that of the second-person singular from Psaltirea Voronețeană, and that of the secondperson plural from Codex Sturdzanus. The position of the stress in the second-person singular form is inferred from the absence of an accented diphthong ea in the root. This ancient pattern also survives, for example, in Megleno-Romanian (Atanasov 2002: 242) (Table 6.27).
Table 6.27 Rhizotony in the old Romanian and Megleno-Romanian preterites . . . .
1 ´ fe´ciu fe̯aʃ
2 ´ fece´și fәˈseʃ
3 ´ fea´ce ˈfe̯asi
1 ´ fea´cem(u) ˈfe̯asim
2 ´ fea´cet(u) ˈfe̯asiʦ
3 ´ fea´ceră ˈfe̯asira
⁷² But at least some forms of the old synthetic conditional were rhizotonic. ⁷³ The preterite roots dăd- and stăt- of da ‘give’ and sta ‘stand’ behave differently, being always arrhizotonic.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
295
We have here a pattern that, with the exception of the second-person singular (cf. Theodorescu 1978: 307), neatly demarcates the preterite tense. One might expect this alignment to be made ‘perfect’ by introduction of rhizotony into the second-person singular as well. In fact this never happens systematically; what one most commonly finds today is that rhizotony is restricted in these preterites to the third person, and especially to the third person of the singular. One Daco-Romance variety, Aromanian, indeed shows a tendency (cf. Capidan 1932: 462–3; Nevaci 2006: 101) to generalize rhizotony to all and only the forms of the preterite, including the second-person singular, producing 1 feʧu, 2 ˈfe̯aʦiʃʲ, 3 ˈfe̯aʦi, 1 ˈfe̯aʦimu, 2 ˈfe̯aʦitu, 3 ˈfe̯aʦirɨ.⁷⁴ In the history of Daco-Romanian there are occasional illustrations of the same tendency—for example, in some sixteenth-century texts from southern Romania and from the Banat-Hunedoara area (Frâncu 1984: 428, 433); but the overall trend is actually in the opposite direction. Virtually all modern Daco-Romanian dialects have arrhizotonic first-person singular preterites, so that (say) ziși(u) has become zise´i, apparently on the model of second-person singular zise´și. This development dates from at least the seventeenth century in southern Romania and becomes the predominant type by the first half of the nineteenth century (Frâncu 1984: 428). The rhizotonic first-person singular forms survive only in a few places in Banat (e.g. Șandru 1937: 132). Most modern dialects also have arrhizotonic second-person forms, and there is a strong tendency (including in the modern literary language: see Avram 1978) to make third-person plural forms arrhizotonic as well. Hence the preterite paradigm of a spune ‘say’ at Valea Lungă-Cricov (ALRII point 762; maps 1988–1990): 1 spuˈsei ̯, 2 spuˈseʃʲ, 3 ˈspuse, 1 spuˈserәm, 2 spuˈserәt, 3 spuˈserә. The most commonly observed distribution pattern for rhizotony in modern preterites is, then, not the whole of the preterite, but the third-person preterite, and especially the third-person singular. Arrhizotony remains practically unknown in the third-person singular preterite of verbs displaying special root allomorphs that continue the Latin perfective.⁷⁵ The Romanian synthetic pluperfect derives from the Latin pluperfect subjunctive. It survives only in Daco-Romanian, being extinct in all trans-Danubian dialects. Even within the Daco-Romanian area, it is today extinct in Maramureș, in Transylvania (apart from the south-east and some localities in the Western Carpathians), in Crișana, and in Banat. The set of person and number endings associated with it is discussed in §6.3.1. Historically, pluperfect forms share the special root allomorph with the preterite and the old synthetic conditional. In modern standard Romanian and in many Romanian dialects, given the extinction of the old conditional and the extreme desuetude of the preterite, the pluperfect is in some cases the last redoubt of the special root allomorph, and we may say therefore that many verbs in modern Romanian have a special, distinctively pluperfect root allomorph. For example, for the verbs coace ‘bake’, copt, 1. copse´i, 1. copse´sem, fi ‘be’, fost, 1. fu´i, 1. ⁷⁴ Frâncu (1985, 2009: 106) believes that second-person singular forms such as ziseşi, duseşi had variable stress and that this is reflected in the modern coexistence of arrhizotonic and rhizotonic forms in Aromanian. ⁷⁵ In a few dialects of northern Banat and western Transylvania, the preterite has become wholly arrhizotonic, even in the third-person singular. See NALRBanat maps 612 and 613.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
296 fu´sem, modern standard spoken Romanian has the root cops-, fus- only in the pluperfect. But what distinguishes all Romanian synthetic pluperfects from other verb forms is the presence of the formative -se- after the thematic vowel (note that in Romanian -se- is unstressed throughout the paradigm, unlike its Latin antecedent --). Thus, Table 6.28. Table 6.28 Origins of the Romanian pluperfect
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
1 ´ ´ ´ ī cânta´sem văzu´sem scrise´sem dormı´sem
2 ´ ´ ´ ī cânta´seși văzu´seși scrise´seși dormı´seși
3 ´ ´ ´ ī cânta´se văzu´se scrise´se dormı´se
1 ´ ´ ´ ī´ cânta´serăm văzu´serăm scrise´serăm dormı´serăm
2 ´ ´ ´ ī´ cânta´serăți văzu´serăți scrise´serăți dormı´serăți
3 ´ ´ ´ ī cânta´seră văzu´seră scrise´seră dormı´seră
The synthetic conditional is probably an amalgam between forms of the Latin perfect subjunctive and forms of the future perfect.⁷⁶ It survives in sixteenth-century Romanian and in modern Istro-Romanian and Aromanian. It is difficult to reconstruct complete paradigms from old Romanian, but we may cite some of the following forms, which all come from Psalitrea Șcheiană unless otherwise stated (note that the Romanian forms are not necessarily the direct phonological continuants of the Latin etyma given here): 1 mea´rseru ‘go’ < , ultare ‘forget’ < *obli'taro; 2 ascultari < , feaceri⁷⁷ ‘do’ < ; 3 avure ‘have’ < , rupsere ‘break’ < ; 1 ultaremu ‘forget’ < *oblitauerimus, de´deremu ‘give’ (Textele Măhăcene) < ; 2 plecaret ‘leave’ < ; 3 lăsare ‘leave’ < , vencure ‘win’ < . Some examples from Istro-Romanian (Kovačec 1971: 143; cf. also Pușcariu 1926: 180) are given in Table 6.29. Table 6.29 Istro-Romanian conditionals 1 afˈlɑr (< + ) ‘find’ faˈkur (< ) ‘do’ askunˈser (< ) ‘hide’ fur (< ) ‘be’
2 afˈlɑri faˈkuri askunˈseri ˈfuri
3 afˈlɑre faˈkure askunˈsere ˈfure
1 afˈlɑrem faˈkurem askunˈserem ˈfurem
2 afˈlɑreʦ faˈkureʦ askunˈsereʦ ˈfureʦ
3 afˈlɑru faˈkuru askunˈseru ˈfuru
⁷⁶ It is sometimes suggested (e.g. Morariu 1925: 38–9; Capidan 1932: 473; Papahagi 1974: 67; or Ivănescu 1980: 160) that in Aromanian the relevant forms continue the Latin imperfect subjunctive. The reason for this claim is that the Aromanian conditional usually lacks the ex-perfective root allomorph (e.g. 1. armânea´rim, 1. armașu corresponding to Latin , ). But there are remnants of the perfective root in some Aromanian conditional forms (e.g. 1. fu´rim or hea´rim, avu´rim or avea´rim corresponding to Latin , ), and there is absolutely no other evidence for the survival of the Latin imperfect subjunctive in Aromanian. On this issue, see Maiden (2004, 2018a: 77–9). ⁷⁷ CV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
297
In old Romanian, the conditional is a kind of future tense form characteristically confined to the protasis of those conditional sentences whose apodosis contained a verb in the future, in the imperative, or in the present (see Ivănescu 1980: 155–6; Zafiu 2016: 29–30). It expressed mainly a condition that needed to be fulfilled in order for some subsequent event to occur (cf. Capidan 1932: 471, 546–8 for Aromanian). Kovačec (1971: 142) describes this tense form as a ‘future-restrictive’ in IstroRomanian. Its person and number markings, often shared with the preterite or the pluperfect or both, are discussed in §6.3.1. It also shares with these tense forms a common root allomorph, as discussed in §6.3.1. Its characteristic and distinctive marker is -r- immediately after the thematic vowel and before the person and number endings. While we cannot always be confident about stress patterns in old Romanian, the conditional appears to have been generally arrhizotonic (the stress fell on the thematic vowel), except when it displayed the special perfective root allomorph: in those cases it was rhizotonic.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.3.3 Inflexional marking of indicative vs subjunctive Very little of the morphology of the Latin subjunctive survives in Romanian. The only tense form of the Latin subjunctive to persist as a subjunctive is the present;⁷⁸ and the only form of the Latin present subjunctive to survive is the third person. This means, in effect, that Romanian verbs have a distinctive morphological subjunctive only in the third person and that the subjunctive is tenseless, the same form being used regardless of any temporal reference. Moreover, there is complete number syncretism in the third person of the subjunctive, so that, overall, the verb paradigm has just one single form that is distinctively marked as subjunctive. In the first and second persons the subjunctive is simply not marked inflexionally at all, although subjunctives are almost always indicated by means of the particle să (< ), which precedes the verb. Rather, first- and second-person forms are identical to, and historically derived from, the forms of the present indicative, which almost completely eliminated the inherited present subjunctive long before the earliest records of Romanian. No trace survives in any Daco-Romance variety of the original first- and second-person plural present subjunctive forms,⁷⁹ their replacement by the corresponding forms of the present indicative apparently having occurred at a very early date in Daco-Romance history. Latin present subjunctives were characterized in the first conjugation by the vowel -e- and in the remaining three conjugations by the vowel -a-. This distinction is overwhelmingly preserved in Romanian third-person forms (Table 6.30).
⁷⁸ Latin subjunctive forms, but not their functions, also survive in the Romanian synthetic pluperfect, and perhaps also in the old synthetic conditional (§6.3.2). ⁷⁹ It is usually assumed, however, that the old first- and second-person plural present indicative forms of the verb ‘be’, sem(u) and seți, derive from the Latin present subjunctive , . See also the discussion on the old first-person plural imperative blem(u) in §6.3.4.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
298 Table 6.30 (Present) subjunctive forms
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Latin Latin Latin Latin
Romanian cântă cânte Romanian vede vadă Romanian zice zică Romanian doarme doarmă
cântă cânte văd vadă zic zică dorm doarmă
Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian have entirely neutralized the morphological distinction between present indicative and subjunctive in verbs of the first conjugation. Apparently they did this by generalizing the non-first-conjugation subjunctive ending -ә to the first conjugation⁸⁰ and thereby rendering the subjunctive forms identical with those of the first-conjugation indicative (which already ended in -ә). Thus we get Megleno-Romanian first-conjugation ˈarә ‘ploughs’ and ˈarә, but non-firstconjugation ˈfaʦi ‘does’ and ˈfakә, ˈdo̯armi ‘sleeps’ and ˈdo̯armә (Atanasov 2002: 249). Istro-Romanian, by contrast, has completely neutralized the distinction between indicative and subjunctive even in the third person, by generalizing the indicative forms in all cases (cf Kovačec 1971: 150).⁸¹ Two verbs, avea ‘have’ and fi ‘be’, are exceptions to several of the generalizations made here about the subjunctive. First, they have suppletive or near-suppletive subjunctive root allomorphs:⁸² third-person (să) aibă ‘have’ is the regular reflex of Latin (), and in modern Romanian this root form is found solely in the subjunctive (but cf. §6.5.4); and (să) fie ‘be3.’ probably derives regularly
⁸⁰ One should note, however, that the subjunctives sta ‘stand’ and da ‘give’ (Nevaci 2006) are identical with the corresponding forms of the indicative in Aromanian. This may support Capidan’s alternative view (Capidan 1925: 161, 1932: 448) that the subjunctive has simply been replaced by the indicative, but it is hard to see why this would happen only in the first conjugation. ⁸¹ See Pușcariu (1926: 176) for some fossilized remnants of old third-person subjunctives in Istro-Romanian. ⁸² All other root allomorphy associated with the subjunctive is the regular reflex of general phonological processes, such as 3.. crede vs 3 creadă. Note, however, that in some dialects aibă has provided the model for a new kind of third-person subjunctive root allomorph in -b, notably in the verb ‘be’, giving rise to forms such as fibă (see Capidan 1932: 448, Caragiu Marioțeanu 1968: 121, Nevaci 2006: 128 for the type hibă in Aromanian). On the basis of this form, -b is sometimes extended to other forms in final [i] or [j] (e.g. știbă for știe ‘know’), notably in north-eastern dialects (see Marin et al. 1998: 107).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
299
from Latin (),⁸³ which is the present subjunctive form of ‘become’ (this verb is also the source of infinitive fi and gerund fiind). Contrast these forms with the respective third-person present indicatives are au, and este sunt. Second, these special roots are (or were) found outside the third person. In the case of a avea, the root aib- is well attested in early texts for the first and second persons of the singular: (1) în loc de cât bine am nedejduit să aiub [ . . . ], acmu in place of how.much good I.have hoped I.have. now 84 atâta rău [ . . . ] am so.much bad I.have ‘instead of all the good I hoped to have, I now have as much evil’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(2) Să nu aibi tu înaintea mea alţi domnedzei striini!85 not have.2. you. before my other gods foreign ‘May you have no foreign gods beside me!’ The first-person singular să aibu (variant aiub) is consistently found in the sixteenth and the early seventeenth centuries, becoming rare in the latter half of the seventeenth. Although it is only ever found as a subjunctive, it appears to continue an original firstperson singular indicative form, because aibu is a regular reflex of the Latin indicative , but not of the subjunctive .⁸⁶ The second-person form aibi may continue the subjunctive directly, however.⁸⁷ The subjunctive aibi begins to be replaced by ai (the second-person singular present indicative form) from the first half of the seventeenth century (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 58). In modern Romanian, the first- and second-person singular forms of this verb in the subjunctive are also those of the present indicative (să am, să ai). The present subjunctive of fi ‘be’ has the root fi- throughout:⁸⁸ 1 fiu 2 fii 3 fie 1 fim 2 fiți 3 fie (cf. the modern standard present indicative 1 sunt 2 ești 3 e(ste) 1 suntem 2 sunteți 3 sunt). As with aibu, the first-person singular ending -u is not the one predicted from the Latin subjunctive ( should have given fie), but reflects the corresponding indicative form , which is not continued in ⁸³ We cannot, however, wholly rule out the possibility that this was originally an indicative form in the third person of the singular (cf. the first- and second-person plural forms mentioned further down) that continued the Latin indicative (cf. ‘(s)he knows’ > știe). ⁸⁴ CazV. ⁸⁵ PO. ⁸⁶ See also Streller (1904: 34) for the origins of aibu in the first-person singular indicative. ⁸⁷ See also Zamfir (2005: 55–6), who suggests, instead, that aibu and aibi represent analogical extensions from third-person aibă. Given that the overall tendency is to eliminate subjunctive forms from the first and the second persons on the basis of the indicative, it is perhaps more likely that aibu reflects an extension of the first-person singular indicative and that the presence of aib- there and in the third person favoured its retention in the secondperson singular. Pace Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 56n26), aibi is a possible reflex of (cf. Maiden 1996). Note that Capidan (1932: 490, 493) identifies as the source of the distinctive form of the second-person singular subjunctive ag’ĭ, also an imperative, found in the Aromanian of Siracu. ⁸⁸ This is true even of Istro-Romanian, which in all other verbs lacks subjunctive morphology completely (Pușcariu 1926: 196; Kovačec 1971: 150). However, Hurren (1999: 104) detects signs that even in the verb ‘be’ the distinctive subjunctive form is becoming restricted to the third person.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
300 Romanian as an indicative. Note that fim, fiți must also continue the Latin indicative , (rather than the subjunctive , ). A further distinctive property of the subjunctive of fi concerns its use as an auxiliary verb in the formation of perfectives in modern standard Romanian (e.g. indicative am făcut ‘I have done’ vs subjunctive să fi făcut; see §6.7.5). In this auxiliary use, unlike all other subjunctive forms, it is completely invariant where person and number are concerned, and it comprises simply the bare root fi (e.g. să fi făcut means any one of ‘I/you./he/we/ you./they have. done’). Loss of inflexional marking on the auxiliary seems to be a recent phenomenon: many Romanian dialects (e.g. in north-western Oltenia, parts of Banat, western Crișana, and the Western Carpathians) retain inflected forms. Invariance is apparently unattested in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; it is still rare in literary texts in the eighteenth century (cf. Frâncu 1970: 208–9, 1997b: 139, 1997c: 340–1). (3) să fii până acmu venit89 be.2. until now come ‘that you should have come by now’ (4) să fim noi iubit pre Dumnezeu90 be.1. we loved God ‘that we should have loved God’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(5) să-l fie otrăvit91 =.3.. be.3. poisoned ‘that he should have poisoned him’ Frâncu (1970: 210) finds that, in non-literary texts, the invariant forms begin to appear in the early eighteenth century, the inflected forms still being common in Muntenian texts well into the nineteenth century, especially in formal documents (and in these more than in private letters). The causes of the total person and number syncretism in the subjunctive auxiliary fi remain unclear. The notion that the phenomenon was motivated by some need to distinguish the perfective auxiliary ‘be’ from the passive auxiliary ‘be’ (cf. .. să fi făcut ‘that (s)he have done’ vs . să fie făcut ‘that it be done’) seems unlikely: Frâncu (1970: 214–17) demonstrates the rarity of the contexts in which any confusion could really arise. In any case, arguments from avoidance of homophony between the perfective and the passive find themselves jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, since the outcome is total homophony for person and number. While not ruling out the possibility of some contribution from the phenomenon of phonological reduction in the auxiliaries, Frâncu (1970: 224–6) invokes especially the influence of the infinitive form fi, on the grounds that the infinitive is used in various other kinds of verbal periphrasis. ⁸⁹ DÎ XCIII.
⁹⁰ CC¹.
⁹¹ NL.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
301
6.3.4 Inflexional marking of imperatives Romanian generally lacks dedicated, specialized morphological forms for the imperative. Apparently it has never had any specialized form for the first-person plural of the imperative, for which the subjunctive form is used, just as in Latin. But Latin did have dedicated forms for the second person of the imperative in the singular; usually these forms are similar to those of the second person of the indicative present, also in the singular, but differ from it mainly by not having a final -. In Romanian, by contrast, second-person singular imperatives are, for the most part, identical with forms of the present singular either of the second or of the third person (see Table 6.31).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.31 Syncretism patterns in second-person singular imperatives
The singular imperative’s identity of form, either with the second- or with the thirdperson singular present, can be explained historically mainly as the result of a neutralizing effect of the deletion of the final consonant in the Latin forms of the present indicative (see also Maiden 2006: 48). We return later to the particular factor that determines whether the imperative is identical with the second- or with the thirdperson singular of the present. In the singular, the second-person imperative of the verb ‘be’ is furnished by the subjunctive form fii, while an archaic remnant of the second-person singular subjunctive of avea ‘have’, aibi, is attested in the sixteenth century alongside ai—which is identical with the second-person singular present indicative (see Frâncu 1980b: 28; also Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 56–8): (6) Aibi liubov cu bucuria, şi cu răul have..2 love with joy, and with evil vrajbă!92 hate ‘Have love for joy and have hatred for evil!’
aibi have..2
The imperative ai gains ground throughout the seventeenth century, although aibi remains marginally in use until much later (Dragomirescu 2015b: 201–2) and is still attested dialectally today, for example at Sânnicolăul Român in Crișana.
⁹² FD.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
302 In the second-person plural, Latin distinguished between present tense forms in - and imperatives in - (e.g. ‘carry.2..’ vs ! ‘carry.2.’; ‘come...’ vs ! ‘come.2.’). Daco-Romance, in common with many other Romance languages (see Maiden 2016b: 502–3), replaced these imperatives with the second-person plural present indicative form; thus purtați < or veniți < are, to an equal degree, forms of the present and forms of the imperative. This situation is found throughout Daco-Romance, and from the earliest records (in the verb fi ‘be’, the imperative is provided by the subjunctive form fiți).⁹³ We come later to the special case of second-person plural negative imperatives. Latin had slightly abnormal second-person singular imperative forms for three very common third-conjugation verbs—abnormal in that they lacked the regular final -. The forms in question are ‘say’ (), ‘lead’ (; the same holds for its compounds, e.g. ‘bring’ for ), and ‘make’ (). These imperatives continue in Romanian as the monosyllabic du (and adu´), zi, and fă— which constitute special forms (compare them with the second- and third-person singular present indicative forms duci, duce; zici, zice; faci, face). They are present from the earliest texts and are found in all branches of Daco-Romance. What is, arguably, remarkable about them is how well they maintain their distinctiveness and resist potential analogical pressure, that is, pressure to make them similar to forms of the present tense (Densusianu 1938: 245–6 mentions some attestations of an imperative face in the sixteenth century; and see also Kovačec 1971: 144 for Istro-Romanian). In addition, we may note that the imperative adu (< ), predicted to bear the stress on the final vowel (as indeed it does in modern standard Romanian), is nonetheless commonly stressed on the initial syllable (a´du), a situation well attested already in the sixteenth century (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 390) and found extensively in dialects (see Lombard 1954–5, vol. 2: 1070–1, 1080; ALRII 2090). This means that a´du deviates even more from the present tense paradigm by having the stress on the first syllable (a´du vs 2 adu´ci, 3 adu´ce). Here the model of other, polysyllabic imperatives, which are never stressed on the final syllable, seems to have prevailed over the stress pattern of the rest of the paradigm of this verb. Historically, the ending -ă is expected only in first-conjugation forms originally ending in unstressed -a (e.g. > cântă ‘sing’). The fact that we have -ă also in the stressed monosyllabic imperatives dă ‘give’, fă ‘do’, lă ‘wash’, vă ‘go’ (< , , , )⁹⁴ is generally accepted to be due to an analogical extension of the unstressed imperative ending -ă.⁹⁵ Now, since the ending -ă already featured in the imperatives of these very commonly used verbs, speakers apparently extrapolated it to another basic and frequent non-first-conjugation verb: a veni ‘to come’. This yielded an imperative of
⁹³ Capidan (1932: 490) records a morphologically distinctive second-person plural form ag’itsĭ in the Aromanian of Siracu and sees its root as having been modelled on that of the second-person singular imperative ag’ĭ. ⁹⁴ In the sixteenth century we also find stă < ‘stand’ (today, stai). ⁹⁵ For some evidence that the influence of other imperatives rather than that of third-person present forms such as dă, stă is involved here, see Maiden (2006: 50).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
303
the form vină; the expected reflex of ̄ would have been **vini or **vii, but these are not attested anywhere. Vină occurs today across the northern half of Romania, northern Bucovina, and Bessarabia and underlies the form vino found in other Romanian varieties. A similarly anomalous development occurred with the imperative a´dă for adu´ ‘bring’. Adă is already attested in the sixteenth-century Palia de la Orăștie (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 388); its incidence is rarer than that of vină, but it is extensively found today in Transylvania, Maramureș, and Moldova (see ALR II, map 2090) as well as in Bucovina and Bessarabia (Marin et al. 2000: 113). Lombard (1954–5, vol. 2: 1071), Puşcariu (1975: 4), and Zamfir (2005: 388) plausibly attribute it to the analogy exerted by the imperative dă. If adu´ ‘bring’ has been more resistant to the appeal of this analogical model than vină ‘come’, this is probably because, unlike vină, adu´ would have been supported by the model of du, the imperative of duce. Besides, a´dă involves a shift of stress from adu´ (and see our previous discussion of the type a´du in this chapter). Some second-person singular imperatives end in -o. The most prominent example of this type (the sole example in modern standard Romanian) is vino ‘come’, which corresponds to Latin . We also encounter, occasionally, a´do instead of the expected adu´ ‘bring’ in literary texts of the first half of the seventeenth century (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 389). Both forms are extensively attested in texts throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 390–2); indeed, vino is in practice the only imperative that we have for this verb (there is also an apocopated form vin, which is found occasionally). In modern Daco-Romanian varieties the type vino characterizes the dialects spoken in the southern half of the country and the transDanubian dialects (see Pătruț 1963). In Istro-Romanian and in a few southern varieties there is also a´do, which corresponds to the standard adu. Now -o is not a phonologically possible reflex of any of the Latin second-person singular endings and it clearly has its origins in the vocative ending -o (see §2.9.1) for nouns in -ă (thus mamă ‘mother’, soră ‘sister’, popă ‘priest’ have the vocative mamo! soro! popo!). There is a close functional link between the imperative and the vocative, as both are forms that attempt to grab someone’s attention, interpellate, and the like; and a further factor favouring the use of vocative forms as imperatives may be the already existing, though accidental, homophony between the masculine vocative in -e and the imperative ending -e of many verbs (e.g. doamne ‘lord!’, ține ‘hold!’).⁹⁶ The emergence of vino and ado on the model of mamă ~ mamo seems to presuppose, then, earlier forms vină, adă. It is true that in sixteenth-century texts almost only vino occurs,⁹⁷ but this does not mean that vino must necessarily be older than vină (pace Lombard 1954–5, vol. 2: 576). It simply means that vino (like ado) was formed earlier, probably before the
⁹⁶ See Maiden (2006: 52–3) for other shared morphological properties of imperatives and vocatives in Romanian dialects. ⁹⁷ But see Gheție (1975: 218) and Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 388).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
304 sixteenth century, on the basis of vină (adă).⁹⁸ (For examples of such -o imperatives in old Romanian; see also §2.9.2.). A feature practically unknown among European languages⁹⁹ and rare among the world’s languages overall is the inflexional marking of transitivity. Yet such a feature does occur in modern Romanian, specifically in the second-person singular form of the imperative. In non-first-conjugation verbs,¹⁰⁰ if the verb is transitive, its imperative tends to end in -e and thus to be identical with the third-person singular form of the present indicative; and, if the verb is intransitive, it tends to end in -i and thus to be identical with the second-person singular form of the present indicative. Examples are mergi ‘go’, plângi ‘weep’, dormi ‘sleep’, fugi ‘run, flee’ vs prinde ‘catch’, trimite ‘send’; fourth conjugation simte ‘feel’, ascute ‘sharpen’. Some of these imperatives are variably in -i or -e according to their transitive or intransitive value: fierbi ‘boil!’ vs fierbe carnea ‘boil the meat!’. Some tend to take -e before clitics: crezi ‘believe’, but crede-mă ‘believe me’, adormi ‘go to sleep’ but adoarme-l ‘put him to sleep’; cazi ‘fall’ but cade-mi în brațe lit. ‘fall to me into arms’, ‘fall into my arms’. There are nonetheless two basically transitive verbs that always take -i in the imperative: vezi ‘see’ and auzi ‘hear’. On the other hand, fourth-conjugation verbs with augments (§6.2.4) always show -e in the imperative, even when they are intransitive (e.g. trăieşte ‘live’, zâmbeşte ‘smile’); and this situation was overwhelmingly found in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 379). Historically, -i is the expected ending only in fourthconjugation verbs, originally in -̄ (e.g. ̄ > dormi; ̄ > auzi), and -e is the expected ending only in second- or third-conjugation verbs, historically in -̄ or - (e.g. ̄ > umple, > vinde). The historical reasons for this general redistribution of the -i and -e endings according to transitivity are obscure. Graur (1968: 118–21) invokes an alleged tendency to raise and close unstressed final vowels vowels; this tendency favours -i over -e, but it was blocked before a consonant. Since the typical ‘blocking’ environment was a following clitic (cf. modern imperative crezi ‘believe’, crede-mă ‘believe me’), and since clitics were, typically, direct objects, -e was, on this account, analysed as the marker of a following direct object, and was therefore generalized to other transitive verbs. A possible explanation of a similar sort was proposed by Nielsen Whitehead (2012: 294–302). She offers various kinds of evidence from Italo-Romance and IberoRomance to the effect that, contrary to what has been almost universally assumed so far, Latin final -̄ has developed as Romance -i in absolute final position (i.e. before a pause); thus ̄, ̄, ̄ produced in Italian tardi ‘late’, lungi ‘far’, oggi ⁹⁸ One may wonder why the same analogy has not produced a similar change in first-conjugation secondperson singular imperatives in unstressed -ă (but see Maiden 2006: 52n27 for possible examples that precisely this has happened). Part of the explanation may be that vină and adă are already ‘estranged’ from the rest of their respective paradigms, since they are non-first-conjugation verbs that idiosyncratically display first-conjugation imperative endings. ⁹⁹ But see Trudgill (2012: 73–4, 105–6) for an interestingly similar behaviour in imperatives in the English dialect of Dorset. ¹⁰⁰ The inherently intransitive first-conjugation verb sta ‘stand’, whose imperative was originally sta or stă, also seems to have been affected by this tendency, because it has yielded the modern imperative stai. This form overlies an earlier one stăi, which seems to have originated in the south (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 89–90).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
305
‘today’. On this account, the final -̄ of the Latin second conjugation would have tended to yield *-i in prepausal position (e.g. ̄ > *ˈtaki). Since intransitive verbs tend to be prepausal while transitive ones tend not to be, because they are usually followed by an object complement, it is conceivable that a pattern arose in the Romanian second conjugation such that final -e was associated with transitivity and final -i with intransitivity. This pattern might then have been extended also to thirdconjugation verbs (all etymologically in -e) and to fourth-conjugation verbs (etymologically in -i). Significantly, certain intransitive imperatives historically in -̄ appear consistently to have -i already in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: ̄, ̄, ̄ > vedzi/vezi ‘see’, ședzi/șezi ‘sit’, rămâi/rămăni ‘stay’. Some characteristically intransitive verbs of the third conjugation also show only -i from the earliest records: , , > mergi ‘go’, plângi ‘weep’, cazi ‘fall’ (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 375, 377, 381).¹⁰¹ A development attested sporadically but quite extensively in dialects of southeastern Romania and Transylvania and apparently recorded for the first time in writing in the eighteenth century (Frâncu 1997c: 342) is ‘mesoclisis’, that is, the intercalation of the second-person plural object clitic within the imperative form. Thus, instead of the normal pu´neți-vă ‘put yourselves’, we find the type pu´ne-vă-ți. Less systematically, one also encounters in non-third-conjugation verbs what might be described as a ‘reduplication’ of the person and number ending. This phenomenon yields forms such as culcați-vă-ți for culcați-vă ‘lie down, go to bed’. It is fair to say that the origins of this problem are obscure: for example, Mării (1969a) favours the idea that it started as a reanalysis of future tense syntagms made up of an infinitive + object clitic + future auxiliary—such as duce-v-ăți ‘you will bring’—as present tense imperatives comprising an internal clitic pronoun. The relation between this type and culcațivă-ți remains, however, problematic.¹⁰² In common with most Italo-Romance varieties, the form used in Daco-Romance in negative second-person singular imperatives is that of the infinitive ( cânta, 2. . cănți ‘sing’, 2. cântă, 2.. nu cânta; merge, 2.. mergi ‘sell’, 2. mergi, 2.. nu merge).¹⁰³ However, in modern spoken Romanian and in various dialects, verbs with dedicated second-person singular imperative forms tend to use those forms in the imperative as well, so that one commonly hears nu zi ‘don’t say’, nu du ‘don’t take’, nu fă ‘don’t do’ instead of the standard nu zice, nu duce, nu face, with the infinitive form. Sporadic dialectal attestations of such phenomena can be found, for example, in ALRII (maps 2114, 2115, 2116; and there are also examples in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian: see Frâncu 1980b: 31–2). We have no textual attestations of such forms for these verbs until the
¹⁰¹ In the sixteenth century there was a considerable encroachment of -i on the expected -e in verbs of the second and third conjugation, and even in transitive ones (e.g. frânge or frângi ‘break’). There were also cases of -i for -e in first-conjugation verbs (e.g. învii ‘come alive’ for învie, from învia). See Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 374–6). ¹⁰² For an attempt to explain this, see Mării (1969a: 262–3). For a new interpretation, see Bourdin & Urițescu (to appear). ¹⁰³ Aromanian, however, uses the positive form in negative imperatives.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
306 late nineteenth century (cf. Frâncu 1980b), although some examples are found of the use of the positive imperative, in the sixteenth century for the verb ‘be’ and in the seventeenth century for the verb ‘have’ (nu fii as well as nu fi; and the rare nu aibi and n-ai, for nu avea). The types nu fii and n-ai are very frequent in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century texts, while the remainder remain much rarer. In modern Romanian as in the other branches of Daco-Romance, negation in the imperative follows the rule that, in the plural, the verb form is identical to the one without negation (2.. căntați ‘sing’, 2. cântați, 2.. nu cântați; 2.. mergeți ‘go’, 2. mergeți, 2.. nu mergeți). In sixteenthcentury Daco-Romanian texts, almost without exception, the form of the plural negative imperative consists of the ‘long’ infinitive in -re (§6.5.1) + the secondperson plural ending -ți (e.g. nu cântareți, nu mergereți). This type persists today quite extensively in Banat, western Oltenia, and Crișana (see Mării 1969b; Neagoe 1984: 264). Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 384) observes that in sixteenth-century DacoRomanian nu cântați begins to gain some ground against nu cântareți in texts from the south (Muntenia). Yet the type in -ți makes very little headway against -reți throughout the seventeenth century (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 385–7) and into the eighteenth,¹⁰⁴ beginning to recede notably in Muntenian and Moldovan texts during that century (Frâncu 1997c: 342). Despite the predominance of the type in -reți in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Romanian texts, the absence of this form in DacoRomance outside Romania suggests that the type in -ți is the original, inherited pattern. The emergence of negative imperatives such as nu cântareți is probably explained as analogically based on the second-person singular negative imperative, where the infinitive is used, as we have seen. In old Romanian, both the short and the long forms of the infinitive could be used in this context (short form nu cânta, nu zice or long form nu cântare, nu zicere). What we see in the type nu cântareți, nu zicereți is actually the extension of the ‘long’ form of the infinitive from the singular to the plural (notice that already in nu cânta – nu cântați and nu zice – nu ziceți there is identity between the stem of the plural and the short form of the singular infinitive). Old Romanian displays a small number of what is usually described as ‘defective’ verbs (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 395–6; Maiden 2006),¹⁰⁵ distinguished by the fact that they have only imperative forms. These are all verbs of motion and derive from verbs that originally possessed full paradigms at least for person, number, mood, and tense,¹⁰⁶ namely ‘go’, *pas'sare ‘pass, step, go’ (cf. It. passare, Fr. passer), and ‘walk’ (cf. It. andare, Fr. aller, where this verb has acquired the general ¹⁰⁴ Interestingly, Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 386) observes that in CazV (a homiliary prepared in Moldova by its metropolitan, in 1643) and in NT 1648 (the Belgrade New Testament published in Alba Iulia) the negative imperative type in -ți occurs especially in coordination with, and preceded by, negative imperatives in -reți. ¹⁰⁵ Here is another possible way of looking at them. These are verbs whose meaning has become inherently imperative, and therefore could only occur in the second person (including first-person plural forms that refer to the addressee). This would help somewhat to explain the slightly anomalous fact that some of these verbs do have first-person plural forms, although Romanian does not have dedicated first-person plural forms of the imperative. A first-person plural such as păsăm could come to mean ‘let us go’ only by virtue of the inherently imperative meaning of the verb. ¹⁰⁶ And usually for aspect. U, however, lacked perfective forms.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
307
sense ‘go’). U persists only in the second-person singular imperative vă ‘go’, which is found in the sixteenth-century Palia de la Orăștie (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 392), and still widely attested in Romanian dialects (especially of western Romania).¹⁰⁷ In the case of reflexes of , we need to note that this verb has developed, in parallel, a full infexional paradigm in the modern umbla ‘walk, go about’. The imperative forms of this verb that persisted in old Romanian were phonologically reduced (they lacked the initial syllable) and limited to the plural—mainly to the firstperson plural, blămu (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 396). Interestingly, the vowel e of the variant blem, attested in the seventeenth century, suggests the conservation of Latin subjunctive morphology (1.. ). The fact that the imperatives derived from lack plural counterparts,¹⁰⁸ while those derived from lack a singular form, is also suggestive, since this distribution is reminiscent of the pattern of alternation found in the verb ‘go’ in other Romance languages—for example Italian, where reflexes of occur only in the singular and third-person forms of the present and of the imperative, whereas reflexes of occupy the rest of the paradigm. Reflexes of *pasˈsare (2 pasă,¹⁰⁹ 2 păsați) persist through the seventeenth century, although 1 păsăm, already rare in the sixteenth, disappears (Densusianu 1938: 499; Chivu et al. 1997: 140–1; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 395–8). The second-person forms survive into some modern varieties (see Pop 1948: 408; Puşcariu 1975: 112). In Istro-Romanian, 2 pɑs and 2 paˈseʦ persist, and indeed function as the usual imperative forms of ˈmɛre ‘go’, so that this verb is effectively suppletive (see Pușcariu 1926: 192). Modern Daco-Romance dialects display a tendency for the second-person singular imperative of the basic verbs of motion (‘go’, ‘come’) to have suppletive forms borrowed from other languages.¹¹⁰ Thus in Megleno-Romanian, the inherited 2 imperative of viniri ‘come’, namely vinu, has all but disappeared in favour of jela, which is borrowed from Greek. In various dialects of the western Carpathians, 2 imperatives of the type ˈjure (cf. Weigand 1896a: 296 for Vidra de Sus; and see ALR II, map 2101, for pt 95, Gârda de Sus), seem to be of Hungarian origin. Borrowing, namely from Turkish, is also the source of the interjection haide, meaning roughly ‘come on’, ‘(let’s) get going’, ‘off we/you go’. That this interjection has also been analysed as a verbal imperative is shown by its optional adoption of the verbal inflexional endings seen in 1 haidem, 2 haideţi (cf. Lombard 1954–5, vol. 2: 1029–30; ALRII map 1426). The reanalysis of this interjection as a verb is, in fact, a Sprachbund (i.e. convergence) phenomenon observable also in Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian, and Serbian. The informant for ALRRTransilvania question 1952, point 364 (Mihai Viteazu), specifically states that the interjection hai, not vino, is used as the ¹⁰⁷ Some Transylvanian dialects have analogically created plural forms of this imperative: vaţi or vareţi (see DLR s.v. vă; Teaha 1961: 280). ¹⁰⁸ Blem/blăm also provided the basis for an innovatory 2 blemaţi/blămați in the seventeenth century (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 397). ¹⁰⁹ The final vowel of this form is sometimes aberrant, being absent or replaced by -i (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 377, 397). ¹¹⁰ For a wider discussion of modern dialect forms serving as special imperatives, see Maiden (2006).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
308 singular imperative for ‘come’, while at point 262 (Beclean) the informant comments that the singular haide and the plural haideţi are the preferred imperatives for this verb.
6.4 Allomorphy in the lexical root
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.4.1 Introduction Most forms of allomorphy found in the lexical root of the Romanian verb are the effects of the long-extinct sound changes described in §1.5. A recurrent pattern reflects the effects of alternating stress on vowels, such that the singular and the third-person present, imperative, and subjunctive—and, in third-conjugation verbs, all persons and numbers of the present, imperative, and the subjunctive (see types V1, V2, and V4 in §1.5)—have a different vowel in the root from the one found elsewhere in the paradigm. Another prominent pattern (see alternation type C1 in §1.5) is that produced by the historical palatalization and affrication of root-final velar consonants before front vowels, such that the velar is preserved in the the first-person singular of the present and of the subjunctive, in the third-person plural of the present, and in the third-person singular and plural of the subjunctive. Another major pattern, which is recessive in modern standard Romanian (but see alternation type C2 in §1.5) displays the effects of an original root-final yod in the first-person singular of the present and of the subjunctive and in the third-person singular and plural of the subjunctive. The fate of these three patterns will be discussed in considerable detail in §§6.6.3 and 6.6.4. We discuss now two other types of root allomorphy (§§6.4.2 and 6.4.3). One concerns what happened to the continuants of Latin perfective root allomorphs. The other concerns sporadic but prominent patterns of suppletion that display such extreme allomorphy that, synchronically at least, the form of the lexical root found in some parts of the paradigm gives the impression of being a different word from that found elsewhere in the paradigm.
6.4.2 The remnants of Latin perfective root morphology: ‘PYTA’ roots 6.4.2.1 Introduction A series of Romanian verbs, nearly all of them of the second or third conjugation,¹¹¹ show a distinctive kind of allomorphy in the lexical root that was originally associated with the perfective aspect in the Latin verb (see also §6.3.2). This formal distinction survived generally in the Romance languages, although the aspectual distinction that underpinned it in Latin is largely lost. As argued for example by Maiden (2011c: 174–9, 2018a: 44–8), this continuity is ‘morphomic’, in that any morphological change ¹¹¹ Graur (1968: 191–2) puts the figure for third-conjugation verbs that lack the PYTA root at twenty-seven out of ninety-five; cf. Theodorescu (1978: 307).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
309
affecting the original perfective root allomorph affects it wherever it occurs in the inflexional paradigm of the verb, despite the fact that the root’s paradigmatic distribution has become arbitrary and unmotivated. However, the range of lexemes in which these allomorphs are preserved has become restricted, since the original imperfective root has tended to replace the original perfective root. The distinctive perfective roots had the following paradigmatic distribution in old Romanian: preterite (which continues the Latin present perfective), pluperfect (from the Latin past perfect subjunctive), and synthetic conditional or future (an amalgamation of the Latin perfective present subjunctive and future perfective). The set of modal and temporal forms that preserve the Latin perfective root in Romance languages is labelled ‘PYTA’ by Maiden (2011c: 180, 2009a): this acronym stands for the Spanish phrase perfecto y tiempos afines (‘perfect and related tenses’) and is used in Spanish grammars for the set of forms that fall under this description. Modern standard Romanian preserves the pluperfect (which continues the Latin past perfective subjunctive) and, marginally, the preterite (which continues the Latin present perfective indicative). The perfective root, whether directly inherited or analogically modified, frequently appears also in the past participle, and analogical changes generally act in Romanian not just jointly on the preterite and pluperfect, but also on the past participle. No modern Daco-Romance variety preserves all three of the continuants of Latin perfective verb forms found in old Romanian (cf. §6.3.2). Istro-Romanian keeps only the conditional, and Megleno-Romanian only the preterite. Aromanian keeps the preterite and the conditional (but has largely generalized the imperfective root in the latter), while Daco-Romanian lost the synthetic conditional in the sixteenth century. We might therefore say that the survival of the perfective root in Romanian comes closer to having a semantic motivation (see Maiden 2018a: 80–1 for a discussion on this), given that some perfective value is arguably shared by the preterite, the pluperfect, and analytic structures that contain the past participle. 6.4.2.2 General characteristics of Romanian PYTA roots: stress, sigmatism, and thematic [e] Almost all Romanian PYTA roots have the following characteristics: (i) PYTA roots inherit from Latin the characteristic of being stressed in some cells of the inflexional paradigm,¹¹² most consistently in the third-person singular preterite, but also in the plural forms of the preterite. This fact is noteworthy because the PYTA preterite contains the only existing examples of rhizotonic finite verb forms outside the present tense, the subjunctive, and the imperative.
¹¹² Thus we observe within the PYTA roots the kind of regular vocalic alternation associated historically with stress alternation (see §1.5): e.g. 3. tra´se ‘he drew’ ~ 3. trăse´se; 3. coa´pse ‘he cooked’ ~ 3. copse´se.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
310 (ii) PYTA roots are ‘sigmatic’, that is to say that they end in -s. While this was a property of a great many perfective roots in Latin, in Romanian the sigmatic type has been extended to nearly all PYTA roots. Conversely, there are no cases of original sigmatic PYTA roots being replaced by non-sigmatic PYTA roots. (iii) PYTA roots are, nearly all, followed by a thematic vowel [e] (which continues a Latin or ). This may be considered a ‘conservative’ characteristic of these roots, since everywhere else (and in all other second- or third-conjugation verbs without the PYTA root) we see a generalization of a thematic [u], as discussed in §6.2.1. Many Romanian sigmatic roots are directly inherited from Latin third- or secondconjugation verbs (see Table 6.32).
Table 6.32 Inheritance of sigmatic PYTA roots from Latin
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Latin infinitive
perfect (3) ()
Romanian infinitive preterite (3) închide ‘close’ închise toarce ‘wring’ toarse roade ‘gnaw’ roase rade ‘shave’ rase râde ‘laugh’ râse pune ‘put’ puse mulge ‘milk’ mulse trimite ‘send’ trimise rămâne ‘stay’ rămase
A subclass of Romanian sigmatic PYTA roots ends in -[ps]- via regular phonetic development from root-final -- (-[ks]-) (cf. Sala 1976: 24), as shown in Table 6.33. Table 6.33 Romanian sigmatic roots in -[ps]infinitive
Latin perfect (3)
Romanian infinitive preterite (3) coace ‘bake’ coapse suge ‘suck’ supse înfige ‘thrust in’ înfipse frige ‘fry’ fripse
But the expected -[ps]- has often been replaced by a simple root-final -[s]- (see Table 6.34).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
311
Table 6.34 Replacement of expected -[ps]- by -[s]- in Romanian PYTA roots infinitive
Latin perfect (3)
Romanian infinitive preterite (3) ajunge ‘arrive’ ajunse zice ‘say’ zise duce ‘lead’ duse ORo. vie ‘live’ vise scrie ‘write’ scrise trage ‘pull’ trase unge ‘grease’ unse
Aromanian is more conservative in this respect, however, often displaying the expected cluster -[ps]-: ˈzipse ‘said’ < , ˈdupse ‘led’ < , ˈtrapse ‘drew’ < (see Capidan 1932: 459–60). Many originally non-sigmatic perfective roots become sigmatic in Romanian (see Table 6.35). Table 6.35 Novel sigmatic PYTA roots in Romanian Latin
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
infinitive
perfect (3)
Romanian infinitive preterite (3) rupe ‘tear’ rupse frânge ‘break’ frânse răspunde ‘answer’ răspunse ucide ‘kill’ ucise curge ‘flow’ curse tunde ‘shear’ tunse
The sigmatic type attracted neologisms. Thus a distruge (a nineteenth-century neologism based on Italian distruggere) developed 3. distruse (and distrus). We may add here a fierbe ‘to boil’, which in Latin was defective in the perfective (as well as in the past participle: see §6.5.2). In old Romanian, this verb developed a regular preterite in fierbu- (see Lombard 1954–5, vol. 2: 977–8); but it also acquired, analogically, a sigmatic PYTA root fiers- (fiiars-),¹¹³ alongside the past participle fiert. Some of the remodelled PYTA roots in Table 6.35 may reflect the analogical influence of inherited sigmatic past participles (Wahlgren 1920: 8; Fischer 1985: 123), for example > ucis, > curs, > tuns. The past participle probably plays a role in the creation of the preterite rupse: this verb has a regular past participle rupt (< ), and this form may have yielded rupse on the model of the pattern 3. coapse < ~ copt < . 6.4.2.3 The fate of non-sigmatic PYTA roots: a veni, a fi, a face, a da, a sta, a cere Other originally non-sigmatic perfective roots simply lost their distinctive perfective root forms at a very early date and were replaced by the original imperfective root (e.g. ̄ > văzu ‘saw’, > vându ‘sold’, > crescu ‘grew’). A veni ‘to come’
¹¹³ 3. fiiarse; PO.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
312 (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 141–6) was a fourth-conjugation verb with an inherited PYTA root, but the etymological distinction between the Latin imperfective root - and the (stressed) perfective root ̄- was phonologically neutralized, both becoming vin- (see Sala 1976: 205, 219). One effect was that the third-person singular preterite in (7a) and the third-person singular present in (7b) became homophonous: (7) a Atunce vine potopul [. . .] şi înmulţiră-se then came deluge. and multiplied ‘Then came the deluge and the waters multiplied.’
apele waters.
b nărodul vine la mine şi de la Domnedzeu sfat and from God counsel people. comes to me întreabă asks ‘The people come to me and ask counsel from God.’ The rhizotonic preterite forms were replaced by arrhizotonic ven-, which was followed by the thematic vowel [i] characteristic of fourth-conjugation verbs. In sixteenth-century texts, for example in Coresi’s Cartea cu învăţătură (CC²), the older PYTA forms coexist with newer non-PYTA forms (this happened most rapidly in the pluperfect, it seems):
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(8) a însuş vine şi se deade himself came.3. and . gave.3. ‘He himself came and gave himself up.’ b căzu şi veni şi fell.3. and came.3. and ‘He fell and came and bowed down.’
pre sine self
se închină . bowed.3.
(9) a amândoi goli aicea vinet both naked hither came.2. ‘You both came hither naked.’ b voi you
venit came.2.
cătră mine to me
(10) a vineră la mormânt came.3. to tomb ‘They came to the tomb.’ b veniră ucenicii, sculară came.3. disciples. raised.3. ‘The disciples came and raised him up.’
pre el. him
As for the few non-sigmatic roots that survive, or survived, into Daco-Romance, the most straightforward example is a fi ‘be’, whose root fu- continues the perfective root of the Latin verb (see Table 6.36).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
313
Table 6.36 The perfective root fuLatin Romanian
1 fui
2 fuși
3 fu
1 furăm
2 furăți
3 fură
Latin - (the perfective root of ‘make’) also persisted in old Romanian,¹¹⁴ and it survives in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian. In modern Romanian, however, this non-sigmatic PYTA root has been replaced by the non-PYTA (originally imperfective) root făc- and the thematic vowel has been correspondingly replaced by [u] (see Table 6.37). This process was already under way in the sixteenth century (see Guţu Romalo 1965; Frâncu 2009: 107). In the earliest surviving Romanian text, Psaltirea Hurmuzaki (PH), the reflexes of - are overwhelmingly predominant (97%); in Palia de la Orăstie (PO) they represent 48%, while in Coresi, Tâlcul evangheliilor (CC¹), which is an approximately contemporary text from the southern area, they are reduced to 18%. Table 6.37 The perfective root fec- in Daco-Romance preterites
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Latin old Romanian Aromanian Megleno-Romanian modern Romanian
1 feci(u) fe´ciu feş (fieş) făcu´i
2 feceși fea´ţiş făse´ş (făsieş) făcu´și
3 feace fea´ţi fea´si făcu´
1 feacem(u) fea´ţimu fea´sim făcu´răm
2 feacet(u) fea´ţitu fea´siţ făcu´răți
3 feaceră fea´ţirî¹¹⁵ fea´sira¹¹⁶ făcu´ră
Latin ‘give’ and ‘stand’ had perfective roots - and -. These verbs deviate from the usual characteristics of PYTA root morphology in that their roots (dăd- and stăt- in the modern language) are non-sigmatic and, in the modern standard language at least, they are always unstressed and followed by thematic [u] (Table 6.38). Table 6.38 PYTA roots in a da and a sta Latin modern Romanian Latin old Romanian modern Romanian
stătui dedi(u) dădui
stătuși dedeși dăduși
stătu deade dădu
stăturăm deadem dădurăm
stăturăți deadet dădurăți
¹¹⁴ Densusianu (1938: 244) also indicates the form fepse, attested in the sixteenth century. ¹¹⁵ Saramandu (1984: 456). ¹¹⁶ Atanasov (2002: 242). ¹¹⁷ Forms attested e.g. in PO; CV; CC²; and NT. Cf. Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 2: 115–18).
stătură deaderă¹¹⁷ dădură
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
314 A further peculiarity (discussed in §6.3.2) is that in modern standard Romanian the PYTA root of these verbs has been extended into the imperfect tense. The Latin , seem to have been replaced in early Romance by *stetui, *stetuisti. Here the original perfective root was preserved, but the postradical [u] was possibly modelled on the perfective forms of the verb ‘be’ (fui, etc.). From the earliest records of Romanian and throughout Daco-Romance, we have the type stătui, stătuși that is found in the modern standard language (Frâncu 1980a; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 119–22).¹¹⁸ Maiden (2009a: 285–6), however, advances arguments for the survival of the *stetuit type (> ˈstete), at least in the third person, in some Transylvanian dialects. In any case, unlike the PYTA root of a sta, the de(a)d- type was still predominant in the sixteenth century,¹¹⁹ and it is a type that persists in many dialects of Transylvania, Banat, and Muntenia (Beltechi 1994–5: 112) but was gradually replaced by the type dădui, dăduși (see Frâncu 1980a), under the analogical influence of stătui, stătuși.¹²⁰ Readers interested in dialectal variation in the PYTA roots of these two verbs and in the analogical influence of the verb a sta on the verb a da can find further discussion on these topics in Maiden (2009a: 283–6). In old Romanian the verb a cere ‘to ask’ (< ) displayed a clear distinction between its two root allomorphs: the imperfective cer- (from -) and the perfective cerş(i)-. The source of the latter is the Latin perfective root ̄- (analogically influenced in Romanian by the [r] of the imperfective root). PYTA forms such as 1. cerş(iu) or cerşui(u), 3. cerşusă, 2. cerşuret (and cerşiut or cerşut)¹²¹ have now been replaced by cer- (e.g. 1. cerui, 3. ceruse, cerut). The older forms with the PYTA root cerș- were, uncharacteristically for PYTA roots, arrhizotonic and accompanied by thematic [u] rather than [e]. This unusual morphological behaviour seems to reflect two further respects in which this PYTA root was historically aberrant: its ended in -[ʃ]- rather than -[s]-; and the inherited stress apparently did not fall on the root, ̄- originally producing cerșı´-. Indeed, the form cerși- has given rise in Romanian to a new fourth-conjugation verb a cerși ‘to beg’ (see Maiden 2018a: 68). 6.4.2.4 Other morphological effects of PYTA roots The PYTA roots, often in conjunction with the roots of the past participle, sometimes produce analogical effects outside the preterite, pluperfect, and past participle (see also §6.3.2). Old Romanian has a rumpe ‘break, tear’ (2. rumpeţi,¹²² 3. rumpea¹²³), which continues the Latin imperfective root allomorph -. The
¹¹⁸ In old Romanian (and still in some varieties of Aromanian) we also find the past participle stătut (from the Latin ), although today in the standard language the etymologically expected stat has prevailed. Stătut survives in modern Romanian only as an adjective meaning ‘stagnant’, ‘stale’ (e.g. of water). In contrast, the parallel form form a da, namely dădut, is very rare, modern, and wholly isolated (cf. Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 116). ¹¹⁹ The synthetic conditional, which did not survive the sixteenth century, is found only with the ded- root, e.g. 3 deadere PV; CP. ¹²⁰ For other dialectal analogical influences of the PYTA root of a sta on that of a da, see Maiden (2009a: 285–6). ¹²¹ Forms found in PH; PS; CPr; CT; NL. See Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 2: 146–51). ¹²² PO. ¹²³ CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
315
corresponding PYTA root was originally rup- (preterit 3 rupe,¹²⁴ 3 rupără, cf. Lombard 1954–5, vol. 2: 978), continuing Latin -. The fact that the modern language has a rupe, already recorded in the sixteenth century,¹²⁵ reflects the presence of rup- in the PYTA root (and of past participle rupt). The distinction between the non-PYTA and the PYTA root is nonetheless preserved via the introduction of a final -s into the former (cf. §6.4.2.2; Lombard 1954–5, vol. 2: 978). The Latin ‘run’ yielded in old Romanian the regular a cure; the inherited past participle was curs, and the (analogically created) PYTA root was curs-. The cure type survived sporadically into the nineteenth century and is still found in some western and northern dialects. The modern standard form a curge, which began to emerge in the seventeenth century, reflects the analogical influence of a verb such as a merge ‘go’ (< ‘dip in’), whose PYTA root and past partciple are, like that of a cure, also sigmatic (mers-; see Frâncu 1981). Interestingly, where the type a cure has survived, it is often a merge that is analogically changed, so that the non-PYTA root becomes mer- (e.g. a mere).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.4.3 Suppletion and other unusual forms of allomorphy: the verbs lua ‘take’, avea ‘want’, putea ‘be able’, vrea ‘want’, and fi ‘be’ There are various forms of allomorphy that need a special explanation. They range from types of alternation that arose from unusual or sporadic sound changes, or from complex chains of sound change peculiar to certain verbs, to patterns that reflect the analogical influence of other lexical verbs. The most extreme forms of allomorphy are a matter of suppletion: they display alternations that appear to be completely unrelated from a synchronic standpoint, and may indeed be completely unrelated etymologically. One of the most striking cases of suppletion in Romanian is, by and large, a cumulative result of a series of regular sound changes. This is the reflex of Latin ‘raise, lift’, which has yielded lua ‘take’ in modern Romanian. The root lu- occurs everywhere in the paradigm except in the singular and in the third-person forms of the present, the subjunctive, and the imperative, which have the allomorph ia- [ja] (and ie- [je]) (Table 6.39). Table 6.39 Suppletion in lua
lua [luˈa] luând [luˈɨnd] luat [luˈat] 1 iau [jau̯] iau [jau̯] luam [luˈam]
¹²⁴ CP.
2 iei [jei ̯] ia [ja] iei [jei ̯] luai [luˈai ̯]
¹²⁵ CC²; PH.
3 ia [ja]
1 luăm [luˈәm]
ia [ja] lua [luˈa]
luăm [luˈәm] luam [luˈam]
2 luați [luˈaʦi ̯] luați[luˈaʦi ̯] luați [luˈaʦi ̯] luați [luˈaʦi ̯]
3 iau [jau̯] ia [ja] luau [luˈau̯]
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
316 The allomorph lu- reflects historical backing and rounding of unstressed [e] in the environment of a following (and subsequently deleted) [v]. The alternant ia- [ja] (and ie- [je]) reflects the effects of regular diphthongization of a historically underlying stressed [ɛ]: e.g. 3. ˘ > *ˈlɛva > *ˈlje(v)a; the stressed diphthong *[je] is then subject to regular opening to *[je̯a] > [ja] before an original following non-high vowel.¹²⁶ The initial sequence *[lj] regularly yielded [ʎ], and then [j] in DacoRomanian (e.g. *lje̯a > *ʎe̯a > [ja]). An earlier phase, with initial [ʎ], is preserved in trans-Danubian dialects. For example, the Aromanian present tense forms are 1 ʎau̯, 2 ʎai ̯, 3 ʎa, 1 lom, 2 lo̯aʦj, 3 ʎau̯.¹²⁷ Some other alternations, while less extreme, are unique to particular verbs. The present and the subjunctive forms of avea ‘have’ are as shown in Table 6.40. Table 6.40 Suppletion in avea
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
1 am am
2 ai ai
3 are aibă
1 avem avem
2 aveți aveți
3 au aibă
The forms aibă and are are sui generis in Romanian inflexional morphology. The first has a straightforward phonological explanation as a reflex of Latin ´() >* ˈabja > aibă (cf. ´ > *ˈrobja > roaibă ‘russet.’);¹²⁸ the alternant av- is a regular reflex of the root - in Latin (1.. ´, 2.. ´, etc.), while the alternant a- reflects the deletion of intervocalic *[v] after stressed vowels ( > *ˈavi > ai; cf. > aˈveva > avea ‘had’). By contrast, the third-person singular present form are is extremely problematic and certainly has no phonological explanation. What is more, it exists only for the lexical verb, the corresponding form of the auxiliary verb being a (< ). It is tempting to relate this alternation between auxiliary and lexical verb to the fact that, in the history of the verb vrea ‘want’ (to be discussed next), a specialized third-person singular form va, used exclusively as a future tense auxiliary, emerged side by side with a lexicalized form vare, both being derived from a proto-Romance *ˈvole.¹²⁹ Thus, on the strength of the alternation between the auxiliary va and the lexical vare, one may imagine that an analogical pair comprising the auxiliary a and the lexical are appeared in the language at some point. Neat as this explanation seems, it is probably wrong. There is no evidence that an alternation between auxiliary va and lexical vare ever existed in synchrony, and the specialization of va as a purely auxiliary form is not established either in the earliest Romanian texts or in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian. By contrast, the type a ~ are is robustly found throughout Daco-Romance from the beginning. The alternative ¹²⁶ In fact the development *[je̯a] > [ja] would not be expected in the first-person singular. It seems likely that first-person singular forms, together with third-person plural present ones, are influenced by verbs such as da ‘give’ (1/3 dau). See, e.g. Rothe (1957: 120). ¹²⁷ See Boioc Apintei (2019) for evidence for the restoration of initial l- to present tense forms of this verb, partly as a result of regularizing analogy and partly as a result of the influence of third-person object clitics. ¹²⁸ Note also the old Romanian 1 aib(u) < . ¹²⁹ This is effectively what Meyer-Lübke (1895: 301) and Streller (1904: 38) suggest.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
317
thesis, proposed by Gamillscheg (1913: 129) and by Rosetti (1986: 147), that lexical are could come from the Latin subjunctive—either the imperfect ´ or the perfect ´—seems problematic on phonological grounds, let alone the discrepancy of tense and mood and problems of tense and mood (see Streller 1904: 37). Yet one has to note that the third-person (singular and plural) conditional auxiliary ar (old Romanian are) does seem to derive from a form such as ´, with retraction of the stress on to [a]. If this is really the origin of the lexical verb-form are, then the process by which an original form of the auxiliary verb ‘have’, found in the third-person singular and plural of the conditional, could have become established as the third-person singular and present form of the lexical verb¹³⁰ remains obscure, to say the least. In old Romanian and still in some western and northern modern Daco-Romanian dialects,¹³¹ and also for a brief period in the literary language (see Pană Dindelegan 1987: 18–19), the first-person singular of the verb a putea ‘be able’ (< *poˈtere) had (and has) the alternant poci- [poʧ]: (11) Creadeţi că pociu aceasta you.believe that I.can this ‘Do you believe that I can do this?’
să făc?132 I.do
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(12) că pînă atunce nemică nu poci that until then nothing not I.can ‘that until then I can do nothing’
face133 do
The explanation of this form, which is unique to the first-person singular present, is problematic. Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 419n), after Densusianu (1938: 35), favours the hypothesis of a development from a protoform *ˈpotjo (a type independently attested for other Romance languages). On this view, such a form has initially yielded *ˈpoʦu; and this, followed by a supposed clitic first-person singular pronoun *[jo], could have evolved to poʧ-. It must be said that no other first-person singular form in Romanian shows any phonological effects of a putative clitic *[jo]. The corresponding form in Istro-Romanian, namely pok, which alternates with pot- or put- elsewhere in the paradigm, is equally problematic and unique (see Pușcariu 1926: 173–4); one suspects, with Pușcariu, that *poʧ- is the historically underlying form and that it has been replaced by pok by analogy with verbs such as 1. fɒk ‘do’ vs 3. ˈfɒʧe.¹³⁴ Most forms of the verb a vrea ‘want’ are regular and unremarkable reflexes of protoRomance *voˈlere: *voˈlere > *vuˈrere > *ˈvrere > vrea(re); *voˈlutu > *vuˈrutu > ¹³⁰ In Istro-Romanian the ar- root is also found in the second-person singular and first- and second-person plural (see Pușcariu 1926: 194–4; Kovačec 1971: 150–1). ¹³¹ See e.g. Weigand (1896a: 238, 240) for Banat; Gregorian (1937: 147) for Clopotiva; and Dinu (1923–4: 114) for Oltenia. Also Melnik (1977: 90); Marin et al. (1998: 105); and Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 419, 423–4; 428). ¹³² CÎ. ¹³³ PO. ¹³⁴ This analogy is a curious one, since the result is a novel alternation [k] ~ [t], even though its basis is the alternation [k] ~ [ʧ] found in fɑk ~ ˈfɑʧe. The process seems to presuppose awareness that the ‘normal’ counterpart of [ʧ] in the first-person singular is [k] and a consequent replacement of the ‘aberrant’ alternant, regardless of the morphological novelty of the result.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
318 *ˈvrutu > vrut; 3. *ˈvolun > *ˈvoru > vor; old Romanian, and Aromanian 3. *voˈleva > *vurˈea > vrea. Nevertheless, in modern Romanian the present tense, the subjunctive, and the imperfect are the locus of some unusual forms of allomorphy, some created through sound change, some by borrowing forms from elsewhere in the paradigm, and some through lexical suppletion. The paradigm of the present tense of this verb in sixteenth-century Romanian (which is, substantially, the one still found in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian) is this: 1 voi(u), 2 veri (later vei), 3 va, 1 vom, 2 veți, 3 vor. The original set of forms survives in Romanian as future tense auxiliaries followed by an infinitive (e.g. voi cânta ‘I shall sing’, vei veni ‘you will come’, vom ști ‘we shall know’, etc.), and 3 va also survives in the set phrase va să zică ‘that is to say’. In modern standard Romanian the paradigm of the present tense of the lexical verb ‘want’, to which we return shortly, is 1 vreau, 2 vrei, 3 vrea, 1 vrem, 2 vreți, 3 vor. The first-person singular present voi(u) appears to be a regular reflex of a proto-Romance *ˈvojo (cf. It. voglio).¹³⁵ The second-person singular ve(r)i is generally held to continue the Latin second-person singular present subjunctive , and this is plausible on phonological grounds. The proto-Romance 2. *ˈvɔli, which clearly underlies, for example, It. vuoi, probably also existed in early DacoRomance, although it did not survive as a verb in the historical period. The modern conjunction ori ‘or’ appears to continue an original second-person verb form *vorʲ (It. vuoi also used to mean ‘or’). The expected reflex of 3. *ˈvole is *ˈvo̯are. Such a form lies at the origin of the modern discourse marker oare, which is used to reinforce questions (e.g. Oare vine? ‘Well, is s/he coming?’), and its now archaic variant vare (see also §§3.7.2.3, 3.7.5.1, 3.7.5.4). The verb form va seems to have been originally a fastspeech variant of *ˈvo̯are, although the exact phonological mechanism of its development is unclear (for [vo̯a] > [va], see Rosetti 1986: 148). Here as in 1 vom and 2 veți (as well as in 2 vei), the loss of the etymologically expected [r] (< [l]) is problematic. It may be a kind of phonological simplification of the syllable onset that occurred in fast speech; and it has sometimes been suggested that what is involved here is a kind of dissimilation that arose in the prehistorical period, when a vrea could be combined with infinitives in -re (e.g. *voare/*vreți cântare ‘he wants/you want to sing’). But this hypothesis fails to explain why [r] survives outside the present tense, and also in the third-person plural present. Given the loss of [r],¹³⁶ vom is relatively unproblematic: the expected—and indeed attested—development of a historically underlying *ˈvem(u) is văm [vәm], where the backing and rounding of the vowel that yielded vom may have been favoured by the surrounding labials. The modern singular forms of the lexical verb vrea (vreau, vrei, etc.) are surprising. The only verb in Romanian that shows this pattern naturally is bea ‘drink’ < , whose present singular forms 1. beau 2. bei 3. bea are phonologically ¹³⁵ As Capidan (1932: 496) argues, the Aromanian voi̯ (rather than **voʎ) suggests that the etymon is *’vojo rather than the form in *[ʎ] that underlies It. voglio. Capidan draws a comparison with proto-Romance *’ajo ‘I have’. ¹³⁶ There is some evidence that the expected reflex of proto-Romance *voˈlemu, namely vrem(u), also survived as an auxiliary. There are instances of vrem in the sixteenth century, and the Istro-Romanian first-person plural auxiliary rem (see Kovačec 1971: 151) presupposes such a form. See also Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 61–3).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
319
regular reflexes of 1.. 2.. 3.. ; yet this pattern does appear to be the model for the modern Romanian forms 1. vreau, 2. vrei, 3. vrea, while 1. bem, 2. beți are probably the basis of vrem, vreți, which replaced vom, veți (cf. Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 64). These modern forms seem to have originated in Transylvania and Moldova. The forms voiu and va occur in eighteenth-century literary language throughout Romania and survive in Muntenia until around 1880 (see Dragomirescu 2015b: 191).¹³⁷ The third-person subjunctive of this verb is also problematic. The modern language has vrea (cf. 3. bea ‘drink’), but Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 61; 67) suggests that the verb originally lacked a subjunctive and that the relevant functions were expressed, suppletively, by the verb voi ‘want, wish’ (a word of Slavonic origin, which also furnishes the modern imperfect, as we shall see later) or by other verbs indicating wish or desire. A different interpretation is possible: the (rare) forms that Zamfir identifies as belonging to the verb voi, namely a 3 voae in the second half of the seventeenth century and a curious 1 vóem a decade earlier, are actually direct reflexes of the proto-Romance subjunctive of *voˈlere, namely *ˈvoja (cf. It. voglia). Given that the verb voi usually takes an augment (3 voiască), the notion that the source is a subjunctive form of proto-Romance *voˈlere, rather than a reflex of a voi, gains ground. Atanasov (2002: 250) gives 1 voi, 2 ver, 3 ˈvo̯aibә, 1 vrem, 2 vreʦ, 3 ˈvo̯aibә as Megleno-Romanian forms of the present subjunctive. Here, if we take away the final -bә, which reflects the analogical influence of the verb ‘have’, the third-person forms suggest an original subjunctive form *ˈvo̯aje (< *ˈvoja). While the present and the subjunctive of the lexical verb have almost completely eliminated their inherited allomorphy, in modern standard Romanian the original and regular imperfect form vrea has been suppletively replaced by forms of the verb a voi. The standard language has imperfect 1 voiam, 2 voiai, 3 voia, 1 voiam, 2 voiați, 3 voiau—or, more commonly, a kind of blending of the two verbs, vrea and voi, in the form of 1 vroiam, 2 vroiai, 3 vroia, and so on.¹³⁸ The suppletive development is encountered only in the Daco-Romanian area and, until relatively recently, the etymologically expected forms (e.g. 3. vrea < *voˈleva) prevailed. The motivation for the emergence of the suppletive imperfect forms is unclear: forms such as the imperfect vrea are, perhaps, abnormal in that they deviate from the typical structure of an imperfect, which is at least disyllabic and contains a syllabic lexical root (as in voia). The replacement of the old imperfects da ‘gave’ and sta ‘stood’ by modern dădea, and stătea (discussed in §6.3.2) may have a similar explanation. The existence of 1. voi(u), whose root is, accidentally, identical with that of a voi, may of course have facilitated the incursion of a the verb voi into other forms of vrea. At any rate, there is a long history of coexistence and overlap between a vrea and a voi that ¹³⁷ The Istro-Romanian forms of the present tense of the lexical verb (1 ˈvres(k)u, 2 ˈvresi, 1 ˈvrɛse, 1 vreˈsɛn, 2 vreˈsɛʦ, 3 ˈvresu) are problematic. Pușcariu (1926: 199) argues that their origin lies in the thirdperson ˈvrɛ + complementizer se (= Ro. să) reanalysed as ˈvrɛse, which led to the analogical re-formation of other person and number forms. ¹³⁸ Such blending can occur in other forms of a voi as well (see Dragomirescu 2015b: 191).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
320 continues into the twentieth century (cf. Dragomirescu 2015b: 191–2; Pană Dindelegan 2015f: 591–2); and, in modern usage, these processes have crystallized in the suppletive replacement of imperfect forms such as vrea by v(r)oia. As in other Romance languages, the verb ‘be’ is a locus of extreme suppletion, much of it directly inherited from Latin. Thus, taking just third-person singular forms for exemplification, the Latin perfective root - is perpetuated in Ro. fu (< ), fuse (< ), and ORo. fure (< ). The Latin imperfect indicative root - continues in Ro. era [jeˈra] (< ). Throughout Daco-Romance, the forms of the infinitive, gerund, and subjunctive of this verb are supplied by reflexes of a different Latin verb, namely ‘become’ (Ro. a fi; fiind; 1 fiu, 2 fii, 3 fie, 1 fim, 2 fiți, 3 fie). The past participle fost is especially problematic. A connexion with the root fu- (found in the preterite and elsewhere) seems plausible, but otherwise the vowel [o] (rather than [u]) is unexpected,¹³⁹ and the ending -st is of a kind not found elsewhere in Romanian past participles. Gamillscheg (1913: 133) and Rosetti (1986: 148) invoke an influence from the Latin past participle of ‘put’, namely ó, via a form *ˈpostu (cf. It. posto). But nothing like *ˈpostu survives in Romanian (where the form corresponding to Latin is pus), and this hypothesis seems to have been put forward very much faute de mieux.¹⁴⁰ Within the present indicative, we also find suppletion along the lines of person and number, much of it inherited from Latin. We give in Table 6.41 the present indicative and subjunctive paradigm for Latin and for the four major branches of Daco-Romance (leaving aside the very considerable amount of dialectal variation).¹⁴¹
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.41 Present indicative and subjunctive of fi . . standard Romanian sunt [sɨnt] fie Aromanian ˈesku/hiu̯ hiu̯ Megleno-Romanian sam sɔm Istro-Romanian sɨm (Žejane) ˈfivu Latin
ești [jeʃtʲ] fii eʃtʲ/hii hii ̯ jeʃ jeʃ ɨʃ ˈfiji
este/e [ˈjeste]/[je] fie ˈe̯aste ˈhibә әi ̯ ˈijә je ˈfije
suntem [ˈsɨntem] fim him him im im smo fim
sunteți [ˈsɨnteʦj] fiți hiʦ hiʦ iʦ iʦ ste fiʦ
sunt [sɨnt] fie ˈsәntu/sun/su ˈhibә sa/sәn ˈijә ɨs ˈfivu
¹³⁹ But compare the Aromanian past participle ˈfut(ә). ¹⁴⁰ It also involves positing, as the basis of the analogy, the pattern 1. pușu - *ˈpostu : 1. fușu -? (= fost). But the postulated sigmatic type 1. fușu, as opposed to inherited fui, seems to be a relatively recent innovation in Daco-Romanian. ¹⁴¹ The Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian data are derived respectively from Capidan (1932, 1925) and Kovačec (1971). The examples given in Table 6.41 come nowhere near to presenting the full range of dialect variation.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
321
One regular outcome of both 1 and 3 is *su, preserved at least in the spoken language as îs or -s, found for example in spoken Romanian Eu-s gata ‘I’m ready’ or Îs prieteni ‘They’re friends’ (and cf. also Aromanian and Istro-Romanian plural su, ɨs). The form su is widespread in old Romanian, where it coexisted with sânt(u):¹⁴² (13) că nu sântu dumnedzei ceia ce su cu mârule fapţi143 for not are gods those that are with hands made ‘for they are not gods who are made by hand’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(14) că eu measeru-su şi for I poor-am and ‘for I am poor and weak’
mişel144 weak
Sunt apparently continues Latin . One should note, however, that it is generally pronounced sɨnt in spite of the now standardized Latinizing spelling with u (see Pana Dindelegan 2015f: 585),¹⁴⁵ and it seems quite plausible that it actually continues the Latin third-person present subjunctive (see our comments later on the first- and second-person plural forms semu and seți, which were also subjunctives to begin with).¹⁴⁶ The emergence of sunt as a first-person singular form appears to be due to the model of *su (just described), which presented syncretism between the first-person singular and the third-person plural form (cf. also the history of Italian 1.. sono, as described in Maiden 1995: 130–1). The first- and second-person plural forms suntem, sunteți are clearly modelled analogically on the third-person plural sunt. Suntem and sunteți overlie earlier forms sem(u), seți, general in old Romanian,¹⁴⁷ which continue the Latin first- and second-person plural present subjunctive forms , . These forms appear, in the sixteenth century, in texts that reflect Muntenian and Banat-Hunedoara dialects of the time (see Frâncu 1997b: 135, 1997c: 336). They were replaced by sântem, sânteți (later suntem, sunteți) in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (15) e lui toţi noi semu mărturie148 and to.him all we are witness ‘and we are all witness to him’
¹⁴² While there do not appear to be any distributional restrictions on the long form sânt(u), su never seems to occur in phrase-initial or phrase-final position in old Romanian. ¹⁴³ CV. ¹⁴⁴ PH. ¹⁴⁵ Forms such as 1 sum, which is sometimes found in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century texts, are deliberate Latinisms (see Dragomirescu 2015b: 217–18). ¹⁴⁶ Goția and Corcheș (2010: 146–7) claim that a phonological derivation from is also possible. The form sunt is attested in some Transylvanian dialects, and here Goția and Corcheș suggest the possibility of a deliberately Latinizing origin (147–8). This hypothesis may seem odd at first sight, since the attestations are dialectal, but it is not wholly implausible, given the strong Latinizing tendencies historically at work in Transylvania. ¹⁴⁷ Preserved, for example, in the Aromanian dialect of Siracu (Capidan 1932: 484). ¹⁴⁸ CB.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
322 (16) e noi oamerii lui semu și oi ‹pre› pășiurea and we men.the his are and sheep on pasture.the ‘and we his men are also sheep on his pasture’
lui¹⁴⁹ his
(17) e voi cine seți?¹⁵⁰ and you who are ‘and who are you?’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(18) Nu vă teamereți, feții miei, că seți not .2 fear. children my for you.are de păcatele voastre¹⁵¹ of sins. your ‘Fear not, my children, for you are forgiven your sins.’
iertați forgiven
The first-person singular ˈesku in Aromanian—a type also sporadically attested in Istro-Romanian and in Daco-Romanian dialects (see Pușcariu 1926: 197; Marin et al. 2016: 116–17)—is modelled on verbs in which a root-final [sk] in the first-person singular alternates with [ʃtʲ] in the second-person singular. The second-person singular ești (and similar forms in other Daco-Romance varieties) cannot continue Latin directly; it is clearly based on the third-person singular este, following the general alternation between third-person singular present forms in -e and second-person singular present forms in -i (e.g. 3. crește ~ 2. crești). The third-person singular este continues the Latin .¹⁵² The third-person singular e (also әi ̯, and ɨi ̯ in many Daco-Romanian dialects)¹⁵³ is a truncated reflex of the Latin (cf. It. è). The distributional difference between este and e is not easy to define; overall, the latter tends to be more common in spoken or informal discourse. The two forms are largely in free variation, except that the shorter form shows a characteristic of clitic auxiliary verbs: it combines with shorter forms of clitic pronouns such as mi, ți, i rather than îmi, îți, îi (see §3.2). Thus, just as the auxiliary form of the verb ‘have’, namely a, can combine only with the reduced form of clitic pronouns in the dative (îmi spune ‘she says to me’, but mi-a spus ‘she has said to me’), so e can combine only with the reduced forms; so îmi este foame (lit. ‘to.me is hunger’) ‘I am hungry’, but mi-e foame ‘I’m hungry’. We find continuants of the Latin (which is present in the subjunctive of the verb ‘be’ in Romanian) in parts of the present tense in Aromanian and MeglenoRomanian. Thus Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian present indicative forms 1/2 (h)im, (h)iʦ (cf. Ro. fim, fiți), and Aromanian 1. hiu̯ (especially in southern dialects), 2. hii ̯ (cf. Ro. fiu, fii). Perhaps surprisingly, the present of the verb ‘be’ is also a locus of suppletive borrowing from other (Slavonic) languages. Despite the apparent resemblance with the Latin form, the first-person singulars sɨm, sam in ¹⁴⁹ CV. ¹⁵⁰ CPr. ¹⁵¹ CC¹. ¹⁵² Old Romanian also has iaste, a form extinct by the nineteenth century. Este had become the norm in Muntenia in the seventeenth century (Dragomirescu 2015b: 218; Pană Dindelegan 2015f: 584–5). ¹⁵³ In Romanian, the enclitic e may become -i in some environments: cf. e așa ‘it is so’ with nu-i așa ‘it’s not so’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. -
323
Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian are loans, respectively from Croatian and Macedonian/Bulgarian (cf. Capidan 1925: 173; Pușcariu 1926: 197); Capidan also hypothesizes a Macedonian/Bulgarian origin for the Megleno-Romanian third-person plural form sa. Istro-Romanian 1 smo and 2 ste are Croatian forms. Finally, another curious feature in the morphology of this verb, and one that also affects the first-person singular and the first- and second-person plural forms of the present (see Orza 1975), is that, in certain dialects of Banat, forms that seem to have started as dative proclitics were effectively morphologized (i.e. reanalysed as component parts of the root)—hence 1 mis, 1 nis (also nisăm), 2 vis (also visăț) (see Zafiu 2019 for a review of the literature and of possible explanations). The phenomenon, attested since the early nineteenth century, apparently involves a fusion between the indirect object pronominal forms mi, ni, vi (see §3.2.4) and forms of the present of ‘be’ beginning with s-; and this fusion led to the typologically unusual inflexional marking of person and number to the ‘left’ of the root rather than to its ‘right’.
6.5 The morphological history of non-finite forms
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.5.1 The divergence and semantic specialization of long and short infinitives While most of the Romance languages display a single form for the verbal and nominal values of the infinitive (Fr. penser ‘to think’ vs le penser ‘thinking’, Sp. trabajar ‘to work’ vs el trabajar ‘working’; see Diaconescu 1977: 57), Romanian possesses both a long nominal form (with the ending -re) and a short verbal form (see Table 6.42). This divergence, with its consequent morphosyntactic and semantic specialization, is characteristic of Romanian and Istro-Romanian (Diaconescu 1977: 64; Stan 2003: 24). In Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian only the long infinitive is attested (Diaconescu 1977: 56; Atanasov 2002: 229) and, in Aromanian, the long infinitive has mostly a nominal value (Caragiu Marioțeanu 1975: 252). In modern Romanian, the suffix -re, inherited as a grammatical suffix, was reanalysed as a lexical suffix and became very productive (for a detailed discussion, see §§7.6.2.3–7.6.2.4). Table 6.42 The short and the long infinitives conjugation class I II III IV
verbal infinitive cânta´ vedea´ du´ce venı´ coborî ́
nominal infinitive cânta´re vede´re du´cere venire coborâ´re
In modern standard Romanian, the verbal infinitive, which has been replaced by the subjunctive or by the supine in many contexts, is almost always preceded by the complementizer a, as we see in (19a) and (19b); the exceptions are structures with
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
324 the modal verb a putea ‘be able’, such as (19c), and modal–existential constructions such as (19d) and (19e) (see Pană Dindelegan 2013c: 211–22). In old Romanian and in the dialectal present-day varieties, the bare infinitive is much more frequent and the patterns are more diverse. The infinitive is also a formative of many analytic forms (see §6.3.2). (19) a Începe a cânta starts a sing. ‘S/he starts to sing.’ b E ușor a înțelege is easy a understand. ‘It is easy to understand.’ c Poate citi. can read. ‘S/he can read.’ d N-are ce citi. not=has what read. ‘S/he has nothing to read.’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
e Nu-i ce mânca. not=is what eat. ‘There is nothing to eat.’ The nominal form came to take the feminine gender and sometimes inflects for number and case, as we see for instance in căutare (), căutări () ‘search’, or coborâre (), coborâri () ‘descent’ (see also Diaconescu 1977: 73). In old Romanian the long form, inherited from Latin, features the ending -re, preceded by a thematic vowel (see §6.2.1) and still has a verbal value, which sets it in competition with the short form—and sometimes the two are even used in coordination, as in (20c) (see Maiden 2016d: 112). The only context restricted to the short infinitive is the modal–existential construction (19d) (Nedelcu 2016: 233). The verbal usage of long infinitives declined gradually from the seventeenth century on (Densusianu 1938: 237–8; Frâncu 2009: 129; Nedelcu 2013b: 23). The long infinitive shows a ‘mixed category’ behaviour (Pană Dindelegan 2015g): it may combine with the suffixal definite article, as in (20b–c) and (21b–c), and take a genitive modifier, as in (20b), like a real noun, but it may also be preceded by complementizers ((de) a) and take accusative objects, like a verb, as we see in (21a) and (21c). (20) a stătu de-a grăi stop. of= a speak. ‘He stopped speaking.’ b când stătu de-a grăirea when stop. of= a speak-re.. ‘when he stopped speaking’
lui his
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. -
325
c Iară de-a mâncarea şi de-a bearea and of- a. eat-re. and of= a drink-re.. şi a ne îmbrăca noao and a us. dress. us. nu apără Domnul154 not forbids God ‘God does not forbid us to eat, drink, and dress ourselves.’ (21) a prilej a ținere oaste155 occasion a lead-re. army ‘an occasion to lead an army’ b nu e puteare de-a not is power of=a ‘It is impossible to say.’
spunerea say-re.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
c Că acmu e vreamea de-a priimirea that now is time. of=a receive-re. bunătatea156 kindness.. ‘That now is the time to receive kindness.’ The shortening of the form inherited from Latin has been explained either as a language-internal process (Byck 1967b; Diaconescu 1977) or as a result of Slavonic influence, given that Slavonic infinitives end in -i, like the fourth class of the Romanian verb (Beneș 1955; Petrucci 1999: 122–30). But the short infinitive is also attested in other Romance varieties such as Catalan, certain Italian dialects, and Occitan, Dalmatian, and Raeto-Romance varieties (Byck 1967b: 146; Rohlfs 1968: 359; Diaconescu 1977: 63). Byck (1967b: 147) and Diaconescu (1977: 67) provide arguments for the view that the dropping of final -re in Daco-Romance took place between the tenth and the thirteenth centuries. More specifically, the complete absence of short forms in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian suggests that the shortening took place in old Romanian after these two varieties separated from proto-Romanian, a process dated to the tenth century; and, conversely, the presence of the short infinitive in IstroRomanian suggests that it occurred before the separation of this historical dialect from old Romanian, most probably in the thirteenth century. According to Mării (2004), whose data come from fieldwork carried out by Sever Pop and Emil Petrovici, the verbal long infinitive still survives in certain northern Daco-Romanian varieties, namely the dialects spoken in Vadu Crișului, Ceica, Meziad, Ciumeghiu, Nojorid, Cămărzana, Sânicolaul Român, and Negrești Oaș.
¹⁵⁴ CC².
¹⁵⁵ CLM.
¹⁵⁶ CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
326 (22) a a început de-a sughițare s/he.has started of=a hiccup-re. ‘S/he started to hiccup.’ b are el de-a has he of=a ‘He has to go.’
se .
ducere go-re.
c nu-i bine a jocarea mult not=is good a dance-re.. much ‘It is not good to dance a lot.’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.5.2 The morphology of the past participle Romanian past participles preserve the structure of Latin past participles fairly faithfully. In first- and fourth-conjugation verbs, the type ‘stressed thematic vowel + t + desinence marking number and gender’ is preserved intact: ‘sung’ > cântat, ‘heard’ > auzit, ‘given’ > dat, ‘slept’ > dormit (but Latin irregular ‘come’ > venit). Second- and third-conjugation verbs in Latin generally had root stress, often accompanied by various idiosyncratic forms of root allomorphy. Verbs that, in the preterite and pluperfect, have acquired a regularized root and the stressed thematic vowel [u], have likewise developed past participles with regularized roots and past participles in stressed -ut (e.g. 1. ‘I made’, > 1. feci, fapt > 1. făcui, făcut; 1. , > 1. avui, avut, 1. , > 1. țesui, țesut). The replacement of fapt by făcut, which may have occurred before the regularization of finite forms (Guţu Romalo 1965), is in a 20% minority in the earliest surviving text, Psaltirea Hurmuzaki (PH), but comes close to 100% in Palia de la Orăștie (PO) and in Coresi, Tâlcul evangheliilor (CC¹). The two forms may even co-occur in close context: (23) mare păcat au fapt acest nărod, că domnedzei de great sin has done this people, for gods of 157 aur ş-au făcut lor gold ..have made to.them ‘This people has committed a great sin, for they have made for themselves golden gods.’ Latin second- and, particularly, third-conjugation rhizotonic past participles were frequently ‘sigmatic’, meaning that their roots ended in - (a property that the root of the past participle frequently shared with the PYTA root). This type is extensively preserved in Romanian (Table 6.43).
¹⁵⁷ PO.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. -
327
Table 6.43 Sigmatic past participles infinitive
Latin perfect (3)
past participle
infinitive
închide ‘close’ roade ‘gnaw’ râde ‘laugh’ trimite ‘send’ rămâne ‘stay’
Romanian preterite (3) închise roase râse trimise rămase
past participle închis ros râs trimis rămas
Romanian sees considerable generalization of the sigmatic type to other rhizotonic past participles (see Maiden 2013: 512), especially where the corresponding perfective root was already sigmatic in Latin (cf. §6.4.2.2): this kind of remodelling is considered characteristic of Danubian Latin (see Iliescu & Macarie 1969a: 103). It was, in any case, a very powerful phenomenon in Daco-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, MeglenoRomanian, and Istro-Romanian (Wahlgren 1920: 94–101). Some Latin rhizotonic participles in -- have been preserved, given the regular phonological development of -[kt]- to -[pt]-. Some of them had corresponding perfective roots in -- that regularly developed to -[ps]-, while others had final -. Root-final -[pt]in past participles is always distinct from the corresponding PYTA root (Table 6.44).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.44 Past participles in -[pt]infinitive
Latin perfect (3)
past participle
infinitive coace ‘bake’ suge ‘suck’ rupe ‘tear’ frige ‘roast’
Romanian preterite (3) coapse supse rupse fripse
past participle copt supt rupt fript
Înfipt ‘thrust into’ (= Lat. ) seems to have been influenced by the PYTA root (înfipse < ), or else it may reflect an earlier, analogical *infictum (Wahlgren 1920: 100). The reflex of Latin is, however, frânt ‘broken’, probably reflecting proto-Romance *ˈfranktu > *ˈfrantu. The past participles of a sparge ‘break’ and a fierbe ‘boil’ are spart and fiert, despite Latin sigmatic (while Lat. ‘boil’ had no past participle). Conceivably, semantic factors may have played a role in these verbs’ developing past participles in -t: spart is similar in meaning to rupt and frânt, and fiert to copt and fript.¹⁵⁸ Numerous past participles historically in - or - have been replaced by sigmatic forms (see Table 6.45), probably modelled on corresponding sigmatic PYTA roots (cf. §6.4.2.2). Some of these analogical changes had already taken place in Latin (Wahlgren 1920: 5–7). ¹⁵⁸ Note that **sparpt and **fierpt would be ruled out on phonological grounds.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
328 Table 6.45 Novel sigmatic past participles infinitive
Latin perfect (3)
past participle
infinitive ajunge‘arrive’ zice ‘say’ duce ‘lead’ mulge ‘milk’ scrie ‘write’ trage ‘pull’ unge ‘grease’
Romanian preterite (3) ajunse zise duse mulse scrise trase unse
past participle ajuns zis dus¹⁵⁹ muls scris tras uns
Other novel sigmatic past participles in Romanian are pus ‘put’ (= Lat. ) (cf. puse < Lat. ()) and nins ‘snowed’ (without a past participle in Latin; cf. ninse < Lat. ). Aromanian is more morphologically conservative when it comes to the past participle: it has forms such as alept ‘chosen’ (< ; cf. Rom. ales), adaptă ‘added’ (< ; cf. Ro. adaos), but also the analogical adapsă, umptă, or untă ‘greased’ (< )—see Capidan (1932: 478). In some cases in Romanian more archaic forms of the past participle have survived as lexically distinct nouns or adjectives, alongside analogically remodelled forms (Maiden 2009a, 2013: 517): e.g. înţelept ‘wise’ < ( înțeles), unt ‘butter’ < ( uns), d(e) rept ‘right, law’ (also a preposition meaning ‘as’) < ( d(e)res).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.5.3 The origins of the ‘supine’ and its relation to the past participle Romanian past participles—which function as tense formatives, as passive formatives, or as adjectives—and Romanian supines have always had the same morphological structure (see §6.2.1 for the forms specific to each conjugation), despite their large array of distinct functions (see §6.6.5). Moreover, both the participle and the supine appear to be direct descendants of their Latin counterparts (both contain the morphological ‘third stem’: see Maiden 2013). Where the Latin verbs were defective, analogical forms emerged in Romanian (see §6.6.5). The formal identity between the Romanian supine and the masculine singular of the past participle, which is the default form, strongly resembles the situation in Latin, where the supine in the accusative was homophonous with the accusative forms of the masculine (and neuter) singular of the past participle. In Romanian, however, the supine is always preceded by the complementizer de or by a preposition, yet this does not affect the issue of formal identity. The origin of the Romanian supine certainly remains a controversial issue (see Dragomirescu 2013b: 20–4; Nedelcu 2016: 249). Some have argued that the Romanian supine originates in the Romanian past participle and that it emerged in the language after the infinitive lost its verbal value ¹⁵⁹ This verb also provides the model for other, neologistic verbs in -duce, such as produce ‘produce’ (produse, produs), traduce ‘translate’ (traduse, tradus). See Iorgovici ([1799] 1979: 177–9).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. -
329
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(Densusianu 1938: 237–8; Caragiu Marioțeanu 1962; Rosetti 1986: 238; Ionescu Ruxăndoiu 1978: 289; Fischer 1985: 119; Vasiliu & Ionescu Ruxăndoiu 1986: 198; Brâncuș 2007b: 167). Others claim that the Romanian supine is a direct descendant of the Latin supine (Grandgent 1907: 48; Ernout & Thomas 1959: 262; Diaconescu 1971; Lombard 1974: 302; Bauer 2000: 250; Gherman 2007: 280). The hypothesis that the Romanian supine has its origins in the past participle is contradicted by the fact that there are many syntactic and semantic differences between the supine and the past participle (see Pană Dindelegan 2007a; Dragomirescu 2013b: 15–20, 93–5), and these differences have been visible since the earliest Romanian writings. Moreover, as certain present-day varieties show, there is a tendency to formally differentiate the past participle and the supine in certain villages of Transylvania and Maramureș, where the verb a fi ‘be’ has the past participle fost, fostă and the supine (de) fiut (Papahagi 1925a: 34; Todoran [1956] 1984: 111–13; Marin et al. 1998: 104; Avram [2005] 2007: 173; Maiden 2012: 25). Another argument against the continuity hypothesis is that, on the one hand, the supine was already very rare in Latin and, on the other, its distribution there was different from that attested in old Romanian. A more moderate conjecture, argued for in Dragomirescu (2013a, 2013b), is that the Romanian nominal supine was indeed inherited from Latin, while the verbal use of the supine is a later development. The Romanian nominal supine is characterized by its ability to take the definite article or other determiners, as in (24a), to have case inflexion, as in (24b), and, as part of that, to take de-complements in alternation with genitival complements, as in (24c), depending on the article. (24) a plânsul cry.. ‘the crying’
acest plâns this cry. ‘this crying’
b beneficiile plânsului benefits. cry... ‘the benefits of crying’ c plânsul copilului, cry.. child.. ‘the cry of a child’
un plâns de copil a cry. de child ‘a cry of a child’
By contrast, the Romanian verbal supine lacks all these features. It occurs in a large number of patterns (Pană Dindelegan 2013e: 235–44): as a noun modifier, as in (25a), after copula, as in (25b), after aspectual verbs, as in (25c), after modal verbs, as in (25d), or in impersonal and tough-constructions, as in (25e) and (25f). It can express purpose, as in (25g). It can function as an adjunct, reanalysed as superlative marker, as in (25h), sometimes with an adjectival head, as in (25i). It can be found in a hanging theme, as in (25j). or in an imperative-like structure, as in (25k). Its verbal nature is without doubt, as it assigns accusative case to the direct object (25b,c,d,j).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
330 (25) a apă de băut water de drink. ‘drinking water’ b Mașina este de tuns iarba de mow. grass.. machine. is ‘The machine is for mowing the grass.’ c S-a
pus pe citit romane start. on read. novels. ..3=/he.has ‘S/He started to read novels.’
d Are de făcut tema has de do. homework.. ‘He has to do his homework.’ e E de văzut dacă . . . is de see. if ‘It needs to be seen if . . . ’ f Căldura e greu de suportat heat. is hard de. endure. ‘The heat is hard to endure.’ g A plecat la pescuit s/he.has left at fish. ‘S/He has gone fishing.’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
h căldură de neimaginat heat de -imagine. ‘unimaginable heat’ i copil demn de lăudat child worthy de praise. ‘a praiseworthy child’ j De citit cartea, a de read. book.. s/he.has ‘As for reading the book, s/he read it’
citit-o read.=...3
h De terminat până mâine! de finish. until tomorrow ‘to be finished by tomorrow!’ In contrast to all this variety of patterns, the Latin supine is a noun that occurred only in the accusative and in the ablative; the accusative ended in -, the ablative in -. The accusative presented two distributional patterns. It could be used after verbs of motion, where it expressed a goal, as in (26a); or it appeared in fixed collocations where it carried the idea of destination or intention, as in (26b). Rarely, it would take a direct object (Bennett 1910: 453; Palmer [1954] 1977: 325). In the extant texts the ablative
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. -
331
(or dative) is less frequent than the accusative. In classical Latin it was used especially after the adjectives ‘beautiful’, ‘good’, ‘worthy’, ‘difficult’, ‘easy’, ‘useful’, as seen in (26c). (26) a ‘to go to sleep’ b (Ernout & Thomas 1959: 261) ‘to give for marrying’ c (Woodcock 1959: 112) ‘easy to do’ Here are the key arguments supporting the hypothesis that in Romanian the nominal supine is inherited from Latin, while the verbal supine is a language-internal development from old Romanian:
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(i)
In the sixteenth century the nominal supine was frequent, but its frequency gradually decreased while the long infinitive specialized as a noun (Dragomirescu 2013b: 85–95). (ii) The Latin-like accusative supine is not attested in the earliest Romanian writings at all; as for the Latin-like ablative supine, this is barely attested in sixteenth-century sources, but only in contexts such as in (27a), where there are no grammatical indicators of its verbal value. (iii) The only type with a notable number of occurrences in the earliest texts is the noun modifier supine of (27b). The other types and patterns of use emerged gradually, in a process that went on until the nineteenth century (Dragomirescu 2013b: 100–23). The only unambiguously verbal supine—the one taking a direct object, as we see in (27c)—is attested in texts no earlier than the end of the seventeenth century. This usage follows the same noun modifier pattern (with de) that we encountered in the earliest occurrences (see Dragomirescu 2013b: 123–8). (27) a măiestru la cioplit, la țesut și la cusut¹⁶⁰ expert at carve. at weave. and at sew. ‘an expert in carving, weaving, and sewing’ b carte de cununat¹⁶¹ document de marry. ‘a document of marriage’ c loc de tăiat pietri¹⁶² place de cut. stones ‘a place to cut stones’
¹⁶⁰ PO.
¹⁶¹ DÎ LXXVII.
¹⁶² CDicț.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
332 Another set of arguments comes from the trans-Danubian dialects. Since the dialectal separation took place most probably well before the fourteenth century, the hypothesis predicts that the trans-Danubian varieties will have an only nominal supine, or very few other types of supine. For Megleno-Romanian, Atanasov (2002: 235–6) mentions residual supine forms attested in collocations (din vrut, din nivru´t ‘whether willing or unwilling’, din niştiu´t ‘unknowingly’, du´pu spus ‘as has been said’), especially in the speech of older people; (28) exemplifies such forms. In all the examples listed by Atanasov, the supine is ambiguous between having a nominal and having a verbal interpretation, given that there is no supine with a direct object. For Istro-Romanian, Kovačec (1984: 574) mentions supine nouns such as aråtu ‘ploughing, ploughland’, bei̯u´tu ‘the drinking’, mâŋcåtu ‘the eating’, cosı´tu ‘the haymaking’, ântrebåtu ‘the asking’, copęi̯tu ‘the digging’, whereas Frățilă (2011: 6–7) recognizes the nominal suffix -at in words such as rugåt ‘prayer, request’ and sculat ‘resurrection’. Obviously all these nouns correspond to the Daco-Romanian nominal supine. Moreover, in IstroRomanian corpora, several patterns of use such as those in (29), which resemble those of the Romanian verbal supine, have been identified alongside patterns such as those in (30), which are not attested in Daco-Romanian, hence they are specific to IstroRomanian (Dragomirescu 2016a). These finds suggest that the Istro-Romanian supine developed along an independent path, distinct from that of Daco-Romanian.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(28) a mi duțḙ´am ăn cămpu di Săru´nă ..1 go..1 in plain of Thessaloniki la sițirat (in Atanasov 2002: 235) at mow. ‘I was going to the plain of Thessaloniki to mow’ (29) a fil’a de meritåt daughter de marry. ‘a daughter ready for marriage’ b Ie tåre de lucråt163 is hard de work. ‘It is hard to work.’ (30) a și poslujim de års164 and we.use de burn. ‘and we use them for heating’ b au un an de zile beiut they.have a year of days drunk platit165 pay. ‘They drank for a year without paying.’
¹⁶³ Sârbu & Frățilă (1998: 57, 63, 287).
far de without de
¹⁶⁴ Sârbu & Frățilă (1998: 256).
¹⁶⁵ Morariu (1928: 118).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. -
333
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.5.4 The gerund Like other Romance languages, Romanian preserves reflexes of the Latin gerund, which started as a kind of verbal noun (cf. Salvi 2011: 370; Pinkster 2015: 58). Comparative evidence (Rohlfs 1969: 19; Philippide 2011: 513–14) suggests that the Romance gerund originates in the ablative form of the Latin gerund ( , . , , . , , . , . ), which means broadly ‘while/by doing or being something’. In Romanian, the gerund is usually morphologically invariant,¹⁶⁶ and its original structure (root + stressed thematic vowel + ) is relatively well preserved. Two major observations arise, however, with respect to DacoRomance as a whole. There has been neutralization of the thematic vowel distinction in the first, second, and third conjugations; and the lexical root, while generally preserved intact, is subject to occasional, but quite erratic allomorphic deviations from the expected outcome, which makes the gerund a locus of sometimes surprising morphological irregularities. In addition, some dialectal varieties display unexpected developments of the ending of the gerund. Comparison of the modern standard Romanian gerunds of the four verbs inherited from the Latin , , , and illustrates the nature of the neutralization of thematic vowel distinctions: cântând ‘singing’, având ‘having’, vânzând ‘selling’, but dormind ‘sleeping’ (cf. cânta, avea, vinde, dormi). This basic distributional pattern is found throughout Daco-Romance (see e.g. Nevaci 2006: 173 for Aromanian; Kovačec 1971: 135 for Istro-Romanian) and involves an opposition between fourth-conjugation verbs in -ind and the remainder in -ând. The pattern is clearly visible in the earliest texts (e.g. kiemăndu ‘calling’, șezăndu ‘sitting’, zicăndu ‘saying’ vs murindu ‘dying’, iubindu ‘loving’, in PS). Apparent deviations from this distribution have regular historical phonological explanations (cf. the vocalic alternation types described in §1.5), which, again, are attested in our earliest records. Thus the verbs a tăia ‘cut’, a studia ‘study’, a veghea ‘wake’, a scrie ‘write’ have gerunds tăind, studiind, veghind, scriind, as a result of the historical rule that fronts â [ɨ] to i after [i] or [j]. Thematic â [ɨ] also occurs in lieu of [i] when preceded by centralizing consonants (see §6.2.4); this is demonstrated by the type coborând, coborî ‘descend’. Otherwise the ending -ând is the phonologically expected outcome only in the first conjugation (- > -ând: cf. > când
¹⁶⁶ We find morphological variants of the gerund when it is used adjectivally, and in consequence agrees in number and gender with the noun it modifies (e.g. valurile sunt spumegânde ‘waves.the.. are foaming..’). This use of the adjectival gerund appears in literary texts of the nineteenth century and seems to be modelled on French present participles (which have both gerund and adjectival functions). In a few cases, adjectival uses of the gerund persist in the modern language (e.g. tremurând ‘trembling’, șezând ‘seated’, crescând ‘growing’; see Nicula 2013: 246–7). Weigand (1892: 241) claimed that Istro-Romanian inflexionally distinguished masculine and feminine forms of the gerund, but this claim is very dubious (see Pușcariu 1926: 173).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
334 ‘when’), and its presence in second- and third-conjugation verbs must be a matter of early analogical extension. The expected reflex of Latin -ˇ is *-ind: in short, Latin ˇ raises to *[e], and subsequently to [i], before tautosyllabic nasals (see ˇ, ˇ > timp ‘time’, simte ‘feels’). All this means that there are two possible sources for the ending -ind in the fourth conjugation (cf. Iliescu & Macarie 1969a: 102). One is the Latin -ˇ (or possibly -ˇ: cf. Italian dormendo ‘sleeping’, sentendo ‘feeling’ for ˇ, ˇ, with loss of ). The other is an analogical extension of the thematic vowel [i], for which there are clear parallels in some other Romance languages (Pt. dormindo, Cat. dormint). This second development would in effect reinforce an opposition between -ând and -ind, which means in practice strengthening the opposition between the two major and most productive conjugations in Romanian, namely the first and the fourth. On the available evidence,¹⁶⁷ however, it seems impossible to decide which account may be the right one. It is perfectly possible, indeed, that both are correct, in that the phonological evolution of Latin to [i] would have fortuitously produced a vowel identical to the thematic vowel of the relevant verbs. Occasional gerund forms such as luund for luând and curund for curând (gerunds of a lua ‘take’, and a cure ‘run, flow’)¹⁶⁸ in old Romanian could be attributed to what Rothe (1957: 94, 101) describes as ‘harmony’ with the preceding root vowel. A gerund such as the one written împlundu ‘filling’ and found, for example, in Coresi’s Lucrul apostolesc possibly reflects the same principle (the modern root of this verb is pronounced umpl-). But there are also forms such as beundu ‘drinking’ or știundu ‘knowing’, cited by Morariu (1924: 24). The lexical root of the Latin gerund was that of the imperfective form of the verb. For the most part, this situation continues intact into Romanian, and the root of the gerund is therefore identical with that found in unstressed forms of the infinitive, present, or imperfect tense. A striking feature of non-first-conjugation verbs, however, is that the historically acquired iotacization in the first-person singular present and in the third person of the subjunctive (see §6.6.4) also tends to appear in the gerund, even where there was no historical morphological justification for it (e.g. văz ‘see’, vază, văzând < *ˈvedjo, *ˈvedja, *veˈdɛndo < , (), ). In general, verbs that acquired analogically iotacized roots in the present and in the subjunctive did so equally in the gerund (Table 6.46).¹⁶⁹
¹⁶⁷ Unfortunately the evidence from root allomorphy does not help us much in this case. The relevant roots show palatalized/affricated alternants in the gerund (simțind ‘feeling’, auzind ‘hearing’): these could just as well be phonologically regular reflexes of , , or cases of analogical extension of the allomorph regularly found before thematic [i] in the infinitive and elsewhere (e.g. simți, auzi). ¹⁶⁸ In modern Romanian, the original gerund curând survives as an adverb meaning ‘soon’; a cure has been replaced by a curge ( curgând). See also Nicula (2013: 252). ¹⁶⁹ By contrast, in modern Istro-Romanian there appear to be no iotacized gerunds (see Pușcariu 1926: 173; Kovačec 1971: 135).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. -
335
Table 6.46 Analogical iotacization in gerunds
1 crez ‘believe’ crez
2 crezi crezi
3 crede crează
1 credem credem
2 credeți credeți
3 cred crează
scoț ‘remove’ scoț
scoți scoți
scoate scoață
scoatem scoatem
scoateți scoateți
scot scoață
spui ‘say’ spui
spui spui
spune spuie
spunem spunem
spueți spueți
spun spuie
crezând
scoțând
spuind
The most likely explanation for the presence of counteretymological iotacized root allomorphs in these gerunds is simply the analogical model presented by dozens of verbs in which such a pattern is the regular result of sound change. In verbs with root-final velars, the palatalization of the velar before front vowels was clearly blocked in the gerund by the generalization of first-conjugation -ând. This made the root of the gerund identical with that of the first-person singular present and third-person subjunctive (Table 6.47).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.47 Velar alternants in gerunds
A number of fourth-conjugation verbs equally show the iotacized allomorph in the present, the subjunctive, and the gerund—again, for reasons that pertain ultimately to regular historical phonology (see §1.5; and Table 6.48). Table 6.48 Iotacization in fourth conjugation gerunds
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
336 There are also cases of analogical extension of root-final velar allomorphs into verbs where those allomorphs have no etymological justification. Here, again, the gerund is affected (Table 6.49; see Maiden 2011a: 69, 79).¹⁷⁰
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.49 Analogical velar alternants in gerunds
A particularly striking example is that of the analogical extension into the gerund of the allomorph of the third-person subjunctive (and, originally, of the first-person singular present) of the verb a avea ‘have’. The extension yielded aibând, found notably in the sixteenth-century Codicele voronețean (Frâncu 1997b: 141; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 57). This form is today wholly absent from Daco-Romanian. What is most interesting here is not the introduction of the iotacized (or velar) alternant into the gerund—for this conforms to existing general distributional patterns of allomorphy—but what has happened when, in recent centuries, these allomorphs have tended to be analogically eliminated from the relevant verbs. In this context, the gerund is often a notable morphological ‘outlier’, preserving the alternant that has been eliminated elsewhere. Thus, while we now have in standard Romanian the present and subjunctive forms văd, vadă ‘see’, cred, creadă ‘believe’, scot, scoată ‘remove’, ucid, ucidă ‘kill’, aud, audă ‘hear’, we still have the gerunds văzând, crezând, scoțând, and indeed ucigând. In the standard language, however, the iotacized forms are completely removed from the gerunds of verbs in root-final -n: spun, spună, spunând ‘say’. Across the Daco-Romanian dialects, root-final dentals are the main locus of retention of the iotacized form in the gerund, while other types of allomorph show greater resistance (see Maiden 2011a). In contrast, reflexes of ‘come’ show general elimination of the palatal alternant (the type viind is replaced by venind), particularly in Aromanian and in most dialects of the southern half of Romania (see also Rusu 1984: 375), even where this verb preserves the alternant in 1./ + 3 (e.g. the type viu, vie) and levelling in the gerund of this verb appears early in the written history of Romanian (see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 457, 467). Yet another type of behaviour is demonstrated by reflexes of ‘remain’, which quite frequently eliminate the ¹⁷⁰ An interesting case is the fourth-conjugation a fugi ‘flee, run’, whose regular and most widely attested gerund form is fugind [fuˈʤind]. However, since this verb has a root-final velar in the relevant parts of the present and subjunctive, the velar has frequently been analogically extended to the gerund as well; our records of this go back as early as the sixteenth century (Densusianu 1938: 238; Frâncu 1997c: 343), and there are frequent examples across modern Daco-Romanian dialects. What renders this development especially interesting is that the selection of the velar alternant automatically brings with it the replacement of the fourth-conjugation ending -ind with -ând. That is, we may come across the expected fugind [fuˈʤind] or the analogical fugând [fuˈgɨnd], but we will never find a **fughind [fuˈgind], with extension of the velar but retention of the thematic vowel. This effectively creates a form of gerund with an anomalous ending: a fugi is the only fourth-conjugation verb in thematic [i] to have a gerund in -ând. For the special theoretical significance of this development, see Maiden (2016g: 57–9).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
. -
337
iotacized alternant in favour not of the expected [n], but of some other alternant, such as rәmәˈsind, which apparently shows the preterite and past participle root in [s]. This happens in Muntenia (Maiden 2011a: 80). In a variety spoken in Moldova we encounter rәmәˈdɨnd (Melnik 1977: 142)—a form with parallels in Crișana, where rәmәˈzɨndu, rәmәˈsɨnd, as well as other developments, seem to reflect the influence of the preterite (for a more detailed account, see Maiden 2011a: 80). A much rarer alternation type was [r] ~ [j], whose phonological origin is described in §1.5. While the type ceiu, ceie, ceind is attested in old Romanian for the verb a cere ‘ask’ (< ), the alternant [j] rarely survives in the gerund in any modern variety (see Rusu 1984: 306; Saramandu 1992: 86; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 470): it is found mainly in a conservative cluster in Transylvania and in a few examples from Maramureș. Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 470, 486–7) points to sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury texts in which the reflex of QUAERERE actually shows the root of the preterite (see §6.4.2) in the gerund. In connexion with this, we should also mention the early nineteenth-century varieties of Aromanian spoken in Albania and described by Boiagi (1915), in which not only the root of the gerund but also its thematic vowel is often the one associated with the preterite (e.g. zisendu ‘saying’, fundu ‘being’, arupsendu ‘breaking’, avundu ‘having’, statundu ‘standing’; cf. 3. zise, fu, arupse, avu, statu and standard Romanian gerunds zicând, fiind, rupând, având, stând). In sum, the gerund appears to be a morphological outlier (cf. Graur 1968: 211), indeed an occasional locus of morphological eccentricity. It may preserve alternants that have otherwise been eliminated from the inflexional paradigm but that may still be retained in derivational morphology (see Maiden 2011a: 79 for forms such as ucigaș ‘murderer’ or văzător ‘seer, seeing’, which, with the gerund, still preserve the iotacized root). It may also be in the vanguard of some morphological changes. Outside standard Romanian, the gerund has acquired further morphological peculiarities. Aromanian and Istro-Romanian gerunds end in -a (see Caragiu Marioțeanu 1968: 122–3; Nevaci 2006: 175–6), and gerunds in -ă are sporadically attested in Daco-Romanian since the sixteenth century, for example in a late sixteenth-century document from Târgu-Jiu (neavândă ‘not having’, zicândă ‘saying’: see Hasdeu 1983: 111), and persist in various dialects, notably of eastern Muntenia. Indeed, there are places where the gerund acquires final elements also characteristic of adverbs: in Aromanian, for instance, it presents the optional additional affixes -alui (e.g. kɨnˈtɨndalui ‘singing’; see Nevaci 2006: 175–7) or -әra, -ura. Gerunds in -ure or -ură are also attested in Daco-Romanian (cf. Rosetti 1986: 354, for eigtheenth century examples). In Megleno-Romanian, where the gerund is very rare (see Atanasov 2002: 234–5), we find that it may have such endings as -әre̯a, -urle̯a, and even, in one place, -ˈe̯aki. The last one is a loan from Macedonian (see Capidan 1925: 170–1); the others also function as markers of sentence adverbials (e.g. Aro. afuˈriʃalui ‘stealthily’) and reflect the frequent adverbial use of gerunds (see Caragiu Marioțeanu 1969: 277).¹⁷¹ ¹⁷¹ See also Philippide (2011: 513), who analyses final -lui as a form of the definite article, and Bacinschi (1913), who relates it to the old Slavonic dative absolute construction.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
338
6.5.5 The morphological ‘feminization’ of non-finite forms The notion of ‘feminization’ of non-finite forms is not a traditional one in Romanian linguistics, but the facts that prompt this description deserve attention. They involve a striking, if diffuse, tendency within the historical morphology of Daco-Romance for non-finite forms (infinitives, past participles, gerunds, and perhaps supines) to acquire grammatically feminine characteristics. Gender is, of course, a morphosyntactic property of nouns that manifests itself in the morphological behaviour of the agreeing elements (mainly adjectives). In this respect, the only non-finite form that can be meaningfully said to have ‘become feminine’ in Romanian is the long infinitive, which, as described in §6.5.1, became established in modern Romanian as a verbal noun and selects feminine agreement across Daco-Romance. Thus, from the verb a cânta ‘to sing’, one gets (31):
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(31) această/**acest cântare this../this.. singing ‘this beautiful singing’
frumoasă/**frumos beautiful../beautiful..
This development is by far the most widespread form of feminization in DacoRomance; and it is prehistoric. Quite how it is to be explained remains unclear, beyond the general observation that, in Romanian as in other Romance languages, there is a tendency for abstract nouns to be feminine (and indeed nouns in -e are predominantly feminine according to Ivănescu 1980: 231). On the other hand, substantivized infinitives in other Romance languages display masculine gender (e.g. It. il parlare ‘speech, dialect’, Fr. le savoir ‘knowledge’)—so here Romanian parts company with them. With the possible exception of Aromanian supines, to which we return soon, there are no verb forms that can be said to have acquired the feminine gender in the full morphosyntactic sense. But there are, of course, clear inflexional correlates of gender. Thus the feminine forms of the Romanian past participle all show -ă in the singular and -e in the plural (. ales ‘chosen’, . aleși, . aleasă, . alese), and -ă [-ә] is a characteristic marker of the feminine singular all across Daco-Romance. Hence a word that ends in -ă has the typical morphological characteristic associated with the feminine gender. In standard Romanian, in analytic perfective verb constructions, which comprise an auxiliary (‘have’ or ‘be’) + past participle, the form of the past participle is invariant and is always that of the masculine singular. In this respect, Romanian follows other Romance languages in which the default form of the participle is that of the masculine singular, if no rule requires agreement with the subject or the object. In Romanian, this includes cases where the auxiliary is a form of the verb ‘be’, as much as with auxiliary ‘have’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. -
339
(32) Am ales cartea. I/we.have chosen.. book... ‘I/We have chosen the book.’ (33) Ar fi ales cartea. (S)he/they.would be chosen.. book... ‘(S)he/they would have chosen the book.’ (34) fără să fi ales cartea without be chosen.. book.the.. ‘without the girls having chosen the book’
fetele girls...
But, while the standard language conforms to the general Romance pattern of taking the masculine singular as the default, in many dialects of Romania an invariant but morphologically feminine past participle is selected in these constructions wherever the auxiliary is the verb fi ‘be’. The geographical area of these dialects is north-western and western Romania (especially Maramureș and Crișana, with the adjoining areas of Banat and Transylvania), and there are further manifestations of this phenomenon in Bessarabia, eastern Muntenia, and Dobrogea.¹⁷² The data in Table 6.50 are from Maramureș and Crișana.¹⁷³ We know that, in parts of Romania, the feminine form of the participle was systematically associated with the auxiliary ‘be’. So one may surmise that this is what underlies the situation we met in Table 6.50. The replacement of an original auxiliary
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.50 Selection of masculine and ‘feminine’ past participles in some Romanian dialects Perfect with auxiliary ‘have’ + masculine singular past participle of the verb ‘sing’, with zero ending (or -u) 1 2 Moftinul Mic am kɨnˈtat ai kɨnˈtat Groși am kɨnˈtatu ai kɨnˈtatu Roșia am kɨnˈtatu ai kɨnˈtatu
3 o kɨnˈtat o kɨnˈtatu o kɨnˈtatu
1 am kɨnˈtat am kɨnˈtatu am kɨnˈtatu
2 ats kɨnˈtat ats kɨnˈtatu as kɨnˈtatu
3 o kɨnˈtat o kɨnˈtatu o kɨnˈtatu
Perfect conditional (conditional of auxiliary hʲi ‘be’ + feminine singular past participle in -ә) Groși
1 2 3 1 2 3 aʃ hʲi kɨnˈtatә ai hʲi kɨnˈtatә ar hʲi kɨnˈtatә aŋ hʲi kɨnˈtatә ats hʲi kɨnˈtatә ar hʲi kɨnˈtatә
Perfect subjunctive (subjunctive marker sә or ʃi + present subjunctive of ‘be’ + feminine past participle in -ә) 1 2 3 1 2 3 Moftinul Mic hʲiu̯ kɨnˈtatә hʲii ̯ kɨnˈtatә hʲije kɨnˈtatә hʲim kɨnˈtatә hʲiʦ kɨnˈtatә hʲije kɨnˈtatә Roșia fi kɨnˈtatә fi kɨnˈtatә fi kɨnˈtatә fi kɨnˈtatә fi kɨnˈtatә fi kɨnˈtatә
¹⁷² See Orza (1980); Marin (1991); Urițescu (2007: 562). ¹⁷³ ALRII maps 1997–8 ‘I have sung’; map 2130 ‘(be) sung’ (passive); maps 2078–80 ‘I would have sung’; map 2069 ‘that I have sung’ (subjunctive).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
340
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
‘be’, which was accompanied by a singular past participle in the feminine, with the auxiliary ‘have’ triggered the generalization of the neighbouring form, the feminine singular, to all perfective periphrases. In Muntenia (Marin 1991: 61) and in some Romanian dialects in Hungary (Marin & Mărgărit 2005: xciii), one finds the feminine past participle also in periphrases with the auxiliary ‘have’. In Aromanian all perfective periphrases take the feminine singular form, which is characterized by the ending -ɨ (thus ai ̯ avˈʣɨtɨ lit. ‘you have heard..’, aˈve̯amu durˈɲitɨ ‘we had slept..’; see Nevaci 2006: 168–70). But ‘have’ is the only perfective auxiliary in Aromanian today, ‘be’ having disappeared. And, in addition to the feminine of past participles, there is evidence in this language that supines—or forms that may originally have been supines—acquired feminine morphology (i.e. final -ә or -ɨ; see Capidan 1932: 551 and Maiden 2013: 513), although the supine is morphologically masculine in most of DacoRomance. Indeed, Aromanian has a large number of verbal nouns that have the form of singular past participle feminines, and many of them correspond to supines elsewhere in Daco-Romance (see Nevaci 2006: 170–2). The final type of ‘feminized’ non-finite forms is that of the gerund. Derivatives of Latin gerunds in - ( > cântând, etc.) acquire the characteristically feminine endings -ă in many Daco-Romanian dialects (e.g. cântândă ‘singing’). The phenomenon is geographically sporadic, but quite often its areas of distribution overlap with those in which the feminine past participle appears in perfect tense periphrases (see Bacinschi 1913: 614; Rosetti 1937: 40–1; Marin 1991: 63 for Muntenia; Mocanu 1995: 153–5; Marin et al. 1998: 115 for southern Bessarabia). The following examples show both feminized past participles and feminized gerunds: (35) ˈdupә ʧe a fost fәˈkutә fokw (Munții Apuseni; Șandru 1936) after that he.has been made.. fire.. ‘after he had made fire’ (36) ˈokju a fost rɨˈzɨndә la jel (Munți Apuseni; Șandru 1936) eye... has.been laughing... to him ‘his eye was laughing’ (37) a mers jei ̯ kɨt o hʲi ˈmersә have gone.. they as.much.as they.will.be gone... ‘they have gone however far they have gone’ (Ialomița, GN) (38) ʧi ̯ ofi fәˈkɨndә ˈgjeʦi ʧoˈbanj what will be doing... poor... shepherds ‘what will the poor shepherds be doing’
(Ialomița, GN)
The rise of the apparently ‘feminine’ morphology in the past participle has received various kinds of explanation. The alleged influence of partially similar forms from Albanian (Bacinschi 1913; Sandfeld 1930; Ivănescu 1980: 348) can probably be
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. ‘’
341
disregarded on grounds of geographical discrepancy between the likely area of any Albanian influence and the area of the ‘feminized’ forms (Rosetti 1937; Orza 1980: 67–8). The hypothesis of a phonological origin in the shape of an ‘explosive’ pronunciation of the final dental (Rosetti 1937), a hypothesis that could also be used to explain the gerunds, can be disregarded because the phenomenon is not observed for any other final dentals (Mocanu 1995: 154; Urițescu 2007: 558).¹⁷⁴ In fact it is now generally accepted that the ‘feminized’ past participle is, indeed, simply the feminine form of the past participle. This conclusion is supported by the double fact that, in Romanian dialects, the feminine form is exclusively associated with auxiliary ‘be’ and, in old Romanian, verbs that take the auxiliary ‘be’ could agree with their grammatical subject, unlike verbs that take the auxiliary ‘have’ (see e.g. Densusianu 1938: 224–5, 230; Orza 1980: 69; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 209–10; Dragomirescu 2014: 41–3, 2016a: 261):¹⁷⁵ (39) fost au viată în curvie176 been has lived.. in whoredom ‘She had lived as a whore.’ (40) de n-ar fi luată lumea ploi și zăpăzi și vânture177 if not-would be taken. world... rains and snows and winds ‘if the world had not received rains and snows and winds’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
It is hard to say whether the feminization of the long infinitive, past participle, supine, and gerund, mainly found in dialects, is a manifestation of some deeper common factor that affects non-finite forms or whether we are dealing here with a resemblance that is ultimately coincidental. But the development is noteworthy and the phenomenon is unique to Daco-Romance.
6.6 The emergence of ‘morphomic’ patterns in the verb 6.6.1 Introduction The inflexional paradigm of the Romanian verb reveals recurrent patterns of distribution of allomorphy which are strikingly robust in diachrony, yet cannot plausibly be assigned to any coherent phonological, morphosyntactic, or morphosemantic conditioning in synchrony. In this respect, they may be regarded as ‘autonomously morphological’ or ‘morphomic’ (see Aronoff 1994; Maiden 2018a: 9–24) and they constitute a kind of abstract leitmotif of Romanian historical morphology. These patterns usually have a non-morphological historical origin, a typical scenario being ¹⁷⁴ For other approaches, see Pușcariu (1924–6: 1361); Orza (1980: 70). ¹⁷⁵ Note also the examples of feminine past participles in old Romanian impersonal passive constructions with ‘be’ (Dragomirescu 2016a: 269), a type apparently not continued in modern dialects. ¹⁷⁶ CC¹. ¹⁷⁷ CÎ.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
342 that sound change regularly affects certain parts of the paradigm, in which the relevant conditioning environment happens to be met; that environment then fades away, but the resultant pattern of alternation persists. A slightly less common occurrence is this: some pattern of alternation originally has a morphosyntactic or morphosemantic motivation, which is subsequently lost and, again, the resultant alternations remain in place. That paradigmatic alternations originally caused by non-morphological conditions can persist after those conditions have disappeared is unremarkable. What is of interest here is that the alternations so created not only maintain their paradigmatic distribution over the centuries despite the lack of any coherent, detectable motivation, but constitute abstract templates for the distribution of new kinds of alternant that may have no other connexion with the historically inherited alternants.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.6.2 Morphomic repercussions of Latin perfective morphology As shown in §6.4.2, Daco-Romance preserved reflexes of special Latin perfective root allomorphs, the PYTA root, in the preterite, the pluperfect, and the old synthetic conditional. While these sets of verb forms shared the property of expressing perfectivity in Latin, it is doubtful whether any clear common denominator can be attributed to their Daco-Romance continuants.¹⁷⁸ A striking feature in the history of Romanian (and of most of Daco-Romance)¹⁷⁹ is that this special root allomorph is stably retained diachronically. Indeed, so much is this the case that historians of Romanian habitually take the coherent development of the special roots for granted. Any morphological change affecting the root in any cell of any of the relevant tense forms occurs equally in all the others. For example, in the sixteenth century, the verb a face () still preserved the root fec- (< Lat. -) in the preterite, pluperfect, and conditional, while in modern Daco-Romanian this root has been evicted by the allomorph făc- (e.g. modern Romanian făcui, făcusem; see e.g. Frâncu 1997b: 137, 1997c: 338). All other analogical changes that affect distinctive roots, such as the generalization of rootfinal [s], or the changes that affect the root of and , are equally ‘symmetrical’ in their application (see e.g. Frâncu 1976: 60, 1980a: 309, 311, 312). The same applies to changes affecting the root cells in verbs that do not have a distinctive allomorph: on all available evidence, the analogical introduction of [z] from the present tense into certain forms of vedea ‘see’, crede ‘believe’, cădea ‘fall’—namely 1. văzui, 1. văzusem; 1. crezui, 1. crezusem; 1. căzui, 1. căzusem—occurs with perfect symmetry across the relevant cells. Moreover, the paradigmatic domain defined by the special root allomorphs also serves as a bounding domain for various morphological innovations. Romanian offers ¹⁷⁸ For a more detailed discussion of the possibility that these forms share distinctive meanings, see Maiden (2009a, 2018a: 82–3). ¹⁷⁹ There is a systematic exception in Aromanian, where the special root allomorph tends to be wholly eliminated from the synthetic conditional. For discussion of the possible motivation of this fact, see Maiden (2009a: 279–81, 2018a: 79).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. ‘’
343
an example of creation of a distinctive root in the preterite, pluperfect, and past participle or supine of coase ‘sew’. Both in the standard language (see Lombard 1954–5, vol. 1: 133), and in many dialects (see Maiden 2018a: 55–8), the root allomorph of arrhizotonic forms of this verb, namely cus- (in opposition to cos-), is restricted just to those cells. Thus standard Romanian has the forms we see in Table 6.51. Table 6.51 The root allomorph cus- (vs cos-/coas-) in Romanian coase ‘sew’
This pattern was detectable already in the old language:
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(41) la ţesut şi la cusut180 at weave. and at sew. ‘at weaving and sewing’ (42) Şi era săraci cît nu-ş putea and they.were poor as.much.as not.to-themselves they.could cumpăra mreaje noao, cea veache o cosea181 buy nets new, that old it they.sewed ‘And they were so poor that they could not afford a new net, and just patched up the old one.’ The presence of [u] in the root of this verb arises from regular and extensively attested phonetic raising of unstressed [o] (cf. §1.5, alternation type V2), and it is therefore at first sight surprising that the phenomenon does not equally occur in the unstressed root forms of the remaining parts of the paradigm. This blockage of expected raising is partly attributable to the fact that coase is a third-conjugation verb, and therefore rhizotonic throughout the present tense, throughout the subjunctive, and in the infinitive. Under the influence of their many arrhizotonic forms, most
¹⁸⁰ PO.
¹⁸¹ CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
344
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Romanian third-conjugation verbs containing a back mid vowel in the root (e.g. roade ‘gnaw’, toarce ‘spin’, coace ‘bake’, scoate ‘remove’) seem to be ‘protected’ from the expected raising when the root vowel is unstressed (e.g. 1. rose´sem, torse´sem, copse´sem, scose´sem). What differentiates coase from these other third-conjugation verbs is that it has less rhizotony: where the others also show rhizotony in the preterite and in the past participle and supine (.3 roa´se, toa´rse, coa´pse, scoa´se; / ros, tors, copt, scos), coase is rhizotonic only in the infinitive, in the present, and in the subjunctive. This difference probably leaves the arrhizotonic forms of coase more exposed to raising, but what is striking is that such raising is strictly confined to the preterite, the pluperfect, and the past participle and supine (all of which are arrhizotonic). In addition,¹⁸² the paradigmatic domain of the originally perfective root allomorphs serves as a limiting domain for the analogical extension of certain types of allmorphy that occur in person and number desinences. Each of these desinences can be shown to have started, historically, in just one of the perfective tenses, and in Daco-Romanian varieties they may subsequently extend to other tenses. Yet almost without exception they extend only to the other tenses in that domain—but to all of them and only to them. Thus the third-person plural desinence -ră was historically limited just to the preterite (see §6.3.1), and remains so limited in many varieties (cf. Capidan 1925: 163, 1932: 455–6; Teaha 1961: 99; Bidian 1973: 222; Atanasov 2002: 240–3). Initially, in the eighteenth century, -ră extended to all plural forms within the preterite (see Frâncu 1971a, 1971b, 1982a; Neagoe 1973). Later on it extended to other tenses (see Frâncu 1971a, 1971b; Bidian 1973; Neagoe 1973; Avram 1975; Pană Dindelegan 2015e: 565–6), as may be seen from modern Romanian (Table 6.52). Table 6.52 Distribution of -ră in modern standard Romanian
This propagation of -ră¹⁸³ usually stops with the pluperfect. The ending does occasionally go beyond this limit, appearing on the past participle in analytic perfect constructions whose subject is plural and, albeit much more rarely, in the imperfect (for a more detailed discussion, see Maiden 2009a: 292–5; also §6.3.1). Such further
¹⁸² See Maiden (2009b) for examples of the role of the same paradigmatic domain in conjugational heteroclisis—the passage of certain non-first-conjugation verbs to the first conjugation being blocked precisely in the preterite, pluperfect, and past participle—and in the dialectal distribution of syncretism. ¹⁸³ See especially Frâncu (1982a); also Pană Dindelegan (1987: 45–7) and Maiden (2009a: 291).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. ‘’
345
extensions are, however, sporadic and never become systematically established (see also Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 98n36). We find exactly the same distributional behaviour in the second-person singular ending -şi, which is restricted precisely to the preterite and pluperfect and is generally agreed by historians of Romanian to have originated in one of these tenses (see §6.3.1), then to have spread to the other. This extension is limited to the tenses that continue the Latin perfective in the relevant dialects. In Romania, this means just the pluperfect and the preterite, since the old conditional is extinct; but in Aromanian, where the preterite and the conditional survive, but not the pluperfect, we find conditional 2 -ş in some varieties (see Caragiu Marioţeanu 1968: 126). Similarly, the old second-person singular ending of the preterite, -t(u) (see §6.3.1), survives in some dialects, where it has often extended to other tenses, but the domain of such extensions is constituted by all and only the continuants of the Latin perfective verb forms. In Aromanian, where the preterite and the conditional survive (the pluperfect does not), either the ending -t remains restricted to the preterite, or it occurs only in the preterite and in the conditional (see Capidan 1932: 471–3; Caragiu Marioțeanu 1968: 126n27). In DacoRomanian dialects where both preterite and pluperfect tense forms survive, any surviving -t(u) ending appears in both, or just in the preterite (cf. Maiden 2009a, 2018a: 60–2).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.6.3 The ‘N-pattern’ The label ‘N-pattern’ was created by Maiden (2005) to designate the pattern of paradigmatic alternation created by the effects of stress alternation on vowels. As explained in §1.5, the paradigm of the Romanian verb is mainly arrhizotonic, but some cells in it are rhizotonic—that is to say that the accent falls on the lexical root. The rhizotonic cells are typically the singular and the third-person forms of the present, of the subjunctive, and of the imperative; and in third-conjugation verbs the infinitive and the first- and second-person plural forms of the present, of the subjunctive, and of the imperative are also rhizotonic. In early Romance and throughout the history of Romanian, the position of the stress itself, from being phonologically predictable in Latin, becomes morphologized in the verb, the distribution of the stress being crucially dependent on morphosyntactic specifications. Additionally, stress alternations generate certain alternations of vowel quality between unstressed and unstressed syllables: the range of vowel distinctions tends to be reduced in unstressed syllables and sometimes increased in stressed syllables, and these vocalic alternations were themselves morphologized at an early date. Some of these alternations are illustrated in §1.5, notably as types ‘V1’ and ‘V2’ (and see Table 6.53 here). It is essential to bear in mind that the root allomorph found in the first and second persons of the plural in the present, in the subjunctive, and in the imperative is usually the one also found everywhere else in the paradigm, these other environments being here represented just by the imperfect. Occasionally, stress alternation may produce other results, such as syllable deletion.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
346
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.53 Some examples of stress-related alternations in the verb
An example of an extreme effect of stress-related alternation may be seen in the verb a lua ‘take’, as illustrated in §6.4.3. There is sometimes an analogical extension of stress-related N-pattern alternations to verbs where such alternations would not be expected on historical phonological grounds. Thus, in some verbs where [u] was originally present throughout the paradigm regardless of stress, the [u] ~ [o] alternation has been analogically introduced, as for example in măsor ‘I measure’ < *menˈsuro ~ 1 măsurăm; as a result, these forms are morphologically estranged from the related noun măsură ‘measure’.¹⁸⁴ The verb înconjura ‘surround’, transparently related to jur ‘surroundings’, shows no vocalic alternation in standard Romanian, but in some dialects (e.g. in most of Oltenia; also in Maramureș, see Papahagi 1925b: lxvii) it, too, acquires the [u] ~ [o] alternation. An example of a rather more complex kind involves the occasional analogical influence of verbs with alternations of type V5 and V6 upon verbs with alternations of type V1 (with the a [a] ~ ă [ә] alternation; for this typology, again, see §1.5). Types V5 and V6 are found in verbs whose roots, historically, contained [e] and would have shown the alternation pattern V3b, but, as a result of the centralizing effects of preceding consonants, developed as in Table 6.54. The verbs illustrated come, respectively, from the Latin ‘crack’, showing the V5 alternation type, and from *espelˈlare < + + ‘wash’, showing the V6 type.
¹⁸⁴ See also ALRII maps 1897/8 and 1895; Graur (1968: 216).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. ‘’
347
Table 6.54 Some examples of centralization-related alternations in the verb
A widespread development in dialects is the analogical mapping of the pattern of vocalic allomorphy pattern found within the N-pattern cells of verbs of verbs of the type a crăpa and a spăla onto the N-pattern cells of verbs which historically would have had the V1 type of alternation (for details of the history and complex dialectal patterning of this phenomenon, see e.g. Morcov et al. 2015). The relevant effect is rarely observed in the standard language, but two such cases are a adăpa ‘to water’ and a înfășa ‘to swaddle’, with historically underlying [a] (cf. Lat. ‘to water’ and the noun ‘bandage’), but inflected in the modern language as in Table 6.55. Table 6.55 Analogical extensions of centralization-related alternations into verbs historically in [a]
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
1 2 3 1 2 3
adăp adăpi ada´pă adăpắm adăpa´ți ada´pă
adăp adăpi ada´pe adăpắm adăpa´ți ada´pe
ada´pă adăpa´ți
adăpa´m adăpa´i adăpa´ adăpa´m adăpați adăpa´u
înfăș înfe´și înfa´șă înfășắm înfășa´ți înfa´șă
înfăș înfe´și înfe´șe înfășắm înfășa´ți înfe´șe
înfa´șă înfășa´ți
înfășa´m înfășa´i înfășa´ înfășa´m înfășa´ți înfășa´u
Thus far we have seen the analogical extension of existing patterns of alternation only into the N-pattern cells of verbs where, on historical grounds, such extensions would not have been expected. Yet it is also the case that the morphologization of stress alternation and of associated vocalic alternation patterns has favoured the emergence of the N-pattern as a kind of template into which emergent new sources of allomorphy have been ‘slotted’. A prime example of this, present extensively in Italo-Romance and elsewhere (see Maiden 2003, 2018a: 175–92), involves the ‘augments’ found in many first-conjugation and most fourth-conjugation verbs, as discussed in detail in §6.2.4 (Table 6.56). As explained in §6.2.4, the fourth-conjugation augment was, in origin, a Latin derivational affix that marked ‘ingressive’ aspect. In Latin this affix had no distributional restrictions of person, number, or tense, although it did not occur in perfective verb forms (hence its absence from the Romanian preterite and pluperfect). The semantic distinction between the non-augmented forms and the augmented forms derived from them was subsequently lost (see Maiden 2003, 2018a: 1911), and this gave rise to a situation in which the augmented and the unaugmented series coexisted,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
348
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.56 Romanian first conjugation a lucra ‘work’ and fourth conjugation a tuși ‘cough’ with augments (augment underlined)
apparently as synonyms. The two sets were subsequently integrated into a single paradigm, according to the N-pattern. It is likely that the first-conjugation augment—which, originally, was a derivational affix too, and one completely without restrictions as to its paradigmatic distribution—followed the model of the fourthconjugation augment. The restricted distribution that the augments assume in Romanian and elsewhere replicates exactly the paradigmatic distribution of rhizotony and vocalic alternation. Moreover, the paradigmatic distribution of the augment is diachronically inviolable: as shown in §6.2.4, both according to dialect and diachronically, individual verbs vacillate between taking and not taking the augment but, if the augment is present in any one of the N-pattern cells, it is consistently present in all the others. Another way in which the N-pattern is manifest in the history of Romanian verbs is through heteroclisis—the phenomenon of one verb’s showing the inflexional morphology of more than one conjugation class, in different parts of its inflexional paradigm. As illustrated in §6.2.6, the effect of the centralization of front vowels after certain rootfinal consonants is to create, in some parts of the paradigm of originally fourthconjugation verbs (including in the third-person singular present), a thematic vowel identical with the one usually associated with the first conjugation. This effect, in turn, triggers the kind of analogical change whereby first-conjugation morphology is introduced into other cells of the paradigm, a set of cells whose limits are defined by the N-pattern.¹⁸⁵ A good example is coborî ‘descend’ (again, see §6.2.6); and in Table 6.57 this verb’s first-conjugation forms that resulted from analogy are underlined (the firstconjugation third-person singular present indicative ending is the result of sound
¹⁸⁵ For more extensive dialectal examples of this kind, see Maiden (2018a: 220–5).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. ‘’
349
Table 6.57 Heteroclisis in Romanian coborî
change, while no distinction between conjugation classes is made in first- and secondperson singular present and subjunctive). A small number of other verbs behave similarly in relation to their N-pattern cells, even though they were never subject to phonological centralization and are presumably analogically modelled on the coborî type (e.g. sprijini ‘support’, absolvi ‘graduate’, and in some varieties curăți ‘clean’, gâdili ‘tickle’; see Lombard 1954–5, vol. 2: 746–7; also Iordan 1935: 86, 87–8). For example, as shown in Table 6.58.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.58 Heteroclisis in Romanian sprijini
Yet another example of N-pattern replication involves the verb sughiţa ‘hiccup’ (< *subglutˈtjare), originally of the first conjugation, which in some varieties has undergone the partial influence of the semantically, phonologically, and etymologically related fourth-conjugation verb înghiţi ‘swallow’ (< ). The latter inflects as in Table 6.59. Table 6.59 Romanian înghiți
1 înghit or înghiţ înghit or înghiţ
2 înghiţi înghite
3 înghite
1 înghiţim
înghită or înghiţă
înghiţim
2 înghiţiţi înghiţiţi înghiţiţi
3 înghit înghită or înghiţă
For many speakers of modern Romanian, the verb înghiți has affected the previously regular first-conjugation verb sughiţa just in the N-pattern cells, as in Table 6.60 (see also Lombard 1954–5, vol. 1: 339 and Saramandu 1992: 87 for the dialectal distribution; also Maiden 2018a: 224).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
350 Table 6.60 Romanian sughița
Sughiţa has acquired not only part of the root of înghiţi—with its characteristic root-final [t] and the oscillation between [t] and [ʦ] in the first-person singular cell and in the third-person subjunctive cells characteristic of ‘iotacized’ non-firstconjugation verbs, as discussed in §6.6.4—but also non-first conjugation marking (-e, 3. -Ø, subjunctive -ă) in just those cells. The influence of înghiţi was such that sughița even acquired an unexpected second-person singular imperative. We saw in §6.3.4 that Romanian non-first-conjugation verbs characteristically take -i in the second-person singular imperative if they are intransitive, and -e if they are transitive. Now sughiţa ‘hiccup’ is inherently intransitive, while înghiţi ‘swallow’ is not. Insofar as sughiţa is an intransitive verb that has come to belong to the fourth conjugation in its second-person singular imperative cell, it ought to take -i in that cell. That the imperative is sughite in this case, with -e (reflecting the imperative of înghiţi), shows remodelling of înghiţi in the entire set of word forms belonging to the N-pattern cells.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.6.4 The fate of patterns of alternation originally produced by palatalization Romanian verbs show, in root-final consonants, patterns of alternation that reflect the effects of historical palatalization and affrication. The ultimate causes of these alternations are two historically separate phonological processes that produce, coincidentally, very similar, but not quite identical patterns. The first process, usually known as ‘iotacization’ (iotacizare), is a palatalization and affrication of various consonants (notably dentals, nasals, lateral, and sibilants) caused by an immediately following proto-Romance yod. The second, historically later process is a palatalization and affrication of velars caused by an immediately following front vowel. Both of these types of palatalization have been described in §1.5. Some examples of their paradigmatic effects are given in Table 6.61. Yod produces a distinctive alternant, shared by the first-person singular present, the third-person subjunctive, and sometimes also the gerund. The palatalization of velars produces an almost complementary distribution to that produced by yod: this time, the root-final consonant (the velar) is palatalized everywhere except in the first-person singular present, the third-person subjunctive, and the gerund, so that, again, a distinctive alternant appears in just those cells. The
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. ‘’
351
Table 6.61 Iotacization
difference, with regard to the effects of yod, is that the group of cells affected by palatalization of velars further includes the third-person plural present.¹⁸⁷ Regular examples of the pattern of alternation historically produced by the palatalization of velars before front vowels are shown in Table 6.62. Note that the non-palatalized alternant also occurs in the gerund of second- and third-conjugation verbs, where the ending is -ându, continuing the Latin (originally first-conjugation) -; the gerund of fourth-conjugation verbs, in -indu, (continuing Latin -) does not show the non-palatalized alternant.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.62 (Old) Romanian alternation pattern for velars before front vowels
¹⁸⁶ Many verbs that show an iotacized alternant in the gerund do so as the result of analogy. The historically underlying form *veˈdendo contained no yod. If we find an iotacized allomorph in Romanian, this is due to the analogical pressure of verbs in which yod was present in the gerund as well (e.g. *veˈnjendo > viindu), and of verbs with velar–palatal alternations where the velar alternant was shared between the first-person singular, the thirdperson subjunctive, and the gerund, for reasons of regular historical phonology. See Maiden (2011a). ¹⁸⁷ Maiden (2005, 2011b, 2018a: 84–91) labels cognate pattern in other Romance languages ‘L-pattern’ and ‘U-pattern’ because, in these other languages, the typical distribution is either ‘first-person singular present + present subjunctive’ (producing a distribution on paper that looks like the inverted letter ‘L’), or ‘first-person singular present + present subjunctive + third-person plural present indicative’ (producing a distribution on paper that looks like the letter ‘U’). Romanian, too, may be seen as participating in these patterns, except that, for the reasons explained in §6.3.3, the alternants have been lost from first- and second-person forms of the subjunctive (and the alternant also occurs in the gerund).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
352 A paradigmatic distribution embracing the first-person singular present and subjunctive and the third-person singular and plural of the subjunctive (or also the third-person plural present indicative, or the gerund) clearly has no coherent functional explanation, and may for that reason be considered morphomic (we address shortly the question of a possible phonological conditioning). What is striking about these patterns is their diachronic robustness, at least within the range of finite verb forms. As shown in greater detail, for example, in Maiden (2011a), analogical extensions of the alternation patterns due to the iotacization and palatalization of velars are remarkably ‘coherent’, in that an innovation in any one of the specified cells always spreads to all the others. There is wide analogical extension of iotacization patterns to verbs where it has no historical phonological justification: ca(d)z- ~ cad- ‘fall’; cre(d)z~ cred- ‘believe’; (s)pui- ~ (s)pun- ‘say’; pier(d)z- ~ pierd- ‘lose’; cei- ~ cer- ‘ask’; trimiţ~ trimit- ‘send’; vân(d)z- ~ vind- ‘sell’ (cf. Latin 1.. , , , , , , ). These wholly novel dental ~ affricate and nasal ~ palatal alternations are analogical extensions modelled on inherited [d] ~ [(d) z], [t] ~ [ʦ], and [n] ~ [j] patterns found in verbs where such alternations are historically motivated by phonology, but these analogies are invariably ‘coherent’, embracing all of the forms of the first-person present and subjunctive, the thirdperson subjunctive, and the gerund. For example, and for reasons that are not entirely clear, verbs that originally contained root-final velars *[k] or *[g] followed by yod never show the historically expected alternants, namely [ʦ] and [ʣ] respectively (see Rosetti 1986: 335, 340). Thus, while the regular phonological development is, say, > *ˈbrakju >*ˈbraʦu, Ro. braţ ‘arm’, *ˈfakja > ˈfaʦә, Ro. faţă ‘face’, > *ˈputju > ˈpuʦu, Ro. puţ ‘shaft, well’, in the verb these expected alternants are always replaced by velars: facu ‘do’ = , facă = (), făcând = ; placu ‘please’ = , placă = (); mulgu ‘milk’ = , mulgă = () (see Table 6.63). Table 6.63 Analogical velar-palatal alternation
The model for this analogical change is certainly provided by verbs such as zice, illustrated in Table 6.62, where the alternation is etymologically justified. The point of interest here is that the analogical influence in the relevant cells is total: at no stage in the history of Romanian, or in any dialect, do we ever see a situation in which the expected alternant has been replaced in some cells by the velar, but still persists in the others.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. ‘’
353
There are many other examples of the analogical extension of alternation patterns in the history of Romanian,¹⁸⁸ but they are, unfailingly, coherent, by which we mean that all the relevant cells are affected as one. The velar alternant is also likely to be extended to other verbs, where it has no etymological justification, and a common ‘pivot’ for such analogies seems to consist of verbs whose preterite, pluperfect, and past participle have root-final -s. This category contains verbs that may have velar–palatal alternations elsewhere in the paradigm (compare zice ‘say’, 1. zic, 3. zică, zicând, .3 zise, .3 zisese, zis; mulge ‘milk’, 1. mulg, 3. mulgă, mulgând, .3 mulse, .3 mulsese, muls). The root-final -s is also characteristic of many verbs in root-final dentals, for example ucide ‘kill’, 1. ucid, 3. ucidă, .3 ucise, .3 ucisese, ucis (see also §6.4.2). This seems to be the basis for the introduction of analogical velar alternants into the present, the subjunctive, and the gerund, developments commonly witnessed in the earlier history of the language, as shown in Table 6.64. Table 6.64 Analogically created velar–dental alternation
For example:
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(43) Că nu se ucide de pietri carele for not . kill.3. by stones who.. ‘For he who sins is not killed by stones.’ (44) Nu vă teameţi de ceia ce not ..2 fear of those that ‘Do not fear those who kill the body.’ (45) şi pre Lazar încă cugetară and Lazarus again they.thought ‘and they designed to kill Lazarus’
greşaşte sins
ucig kill.3.
trupul body.the
să ucigă189 they.kill.3.
What has appeared here is a pattern of alternation between a velar and a dental, which is without precedent in the history of the language, and it is striking that this innovation affects in equal measure all the cells specified for the velar alternant, as a
¹⁸⁸ See Lombard (1954–5, vol. 2: 1015–16, 1016–17, 1019, 1022–3); Graur (1968: 209–10); Orza (1979: 76); Calotă (1986: 279–80); Saramandu (1992: 87); Puşcariu (1994: 331–2); Saramandu (2005, map 23); Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 1: 261–7). For further exemplification, see also Maiden (2011a), especially for dialectal examples. ¹⁸⁹ CÎ.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
354 bloc. So, if the analogical change is quite novel in terms of the phonological result, it is nonetheless ‘traditional’ as well, as it faithfully preserves the integrity of the morphomic pattern. So far, we have observed the general coherence of the analogical extension of alternations originally created by yod and by palatalization. But these alternations are also subject to analogical levelling in favour of the non-iotacized or the nonpalatalized alternant; and such levelling is coherent as well, so that the integrity of the morphomic pattern is maintained. One type of alternation seems immune to levelling all across Daco-Romance: this is the type in which velars alternate with palatal affricates (or with their local reflexes). In contrast, the iotacizing alternations and the innovatory velar ~ dental alternations (already illustrated for the verb ucide) undergo extensive levelling. In trans-Danubian dialects the alternations originally caused by yod have been overwhelmingly eliminated, and where this happened they have disappeared completely from the verbs affected (see further Maiden 2011a, 2018b). The same is true of many modern dialects of Romania, and especially in the western parts.¹⁹⁰ In the modern standard language, iotacized (and velar ~ dental)¹⁹¹ alternations have disappeared from all cells of all verbs. The situation for the velar ~ palatal affricate alternants remains as presented in Table 6.51, which gives a good general picture of the current situation. Densusianu (1938: 207–8) and Rosetti (1986: 503) believe that these levellings in the standard language post-date the sixteenth century. Pop (1952: 233), and Iancu (1966) believe that they could have started earlier.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.65 Elimination of the effects of iotacization
1 văd ‘see’ văd (văzând) vin ‘come’ vin venind sar ‘jump’ sar sărind
2 vezi vezi
3 vede vadă
1 vedem vedem
2 vedeţi vedeţi
3 văd vadă
vii vii
vine vină
venim venim
veniţi veniţi
vin vină
sari sari
sare sară
sărim sărim
săriți săriți
sar sară
One possibility that should be considered is that the relative stability and coherence of these morphomic patterns through time could have a phonological explanation. There is, after all, a strong distributional correlation between alternants and the
¹⁹⁰ For a description of the ‘incoherent’ patterns of levelling found in some Daco-Romanian dialects and of their theoretical significance, see Maiden (2011a: 77). ¹⁹¹ The gerund sometimes lags behind (just as it tends to behave erratically in the analogical extension of the alternants): it retains the iotacized form in verbs with root-final dentals (e.g. 1. văd, 3 vadă, but văzând). Thus, while the velar alternant has been expelled from modern Romanian 1. ucid, 3 ucidă, it persists in the gerund ucigând. In general, the iotacized or velar alternant also persists in derivational morphology: thus ucigaș ‘assassin’, văzător ‘seeing, seer’. For a more detailed discussion, see Maiden (2011a: 81); also §6.5.4.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
. ‘’
355
frontness of the vowel of the immediately following desinence. The velar alternants occur just before the inflexional endings that contain a non-front vowel,¹⁹² and the iotacized alternants, too, are closely correlated with that environment (except for the third-person plural present). As argued in Maiden (2011a), it is quite possible that the robust diachronic coherence, across Daco-Romance, of the velar ~ palatal affricate alternation, precisely correlated as it is, historically, with the alternation between nonfront and front vowels in the immediately following inflexional endings, owes something to the phonological ‘naturalness’ of such an alternation: after all, a front vowel is a universally natural environment for the palatalization of velars. However, many other details concerning the coherent persistence of the alternations are not consistent with such a view. First and foremost, of course, there is nothing phonologically ‘natural’ about the relationship between the iotacized alternants and their phonological environment. Coherent levelling cannot be explained phonologically, because here an alternant is being extended to one set of cells from another set, which presents the opposite phonological environment. Morphology rather than phonology must be invoked, first of all because the iotacized alternants never occur in the third-person plural present, even though the ending originally contained a back vowel -u (in many modern varieties it is zero). Moreover, these alternants do not display the same systematic sensitivity to inflexional [u] in the preterite, pluperfect, and past participle as do the velar alternants. In each of the six Romanian verbs with [d] ~ [z] allomorphy and thematic vowel [u] in their preterite and past participle (vedea ‘see’, şedea ‘sit’, cădea ‘fall’, crede ‘believe’, pierde ‘lose’, vinde ‘sell’), [u] is a Romance innovation. If the alternant [z] were selected purely by a back vowel, we should expect [z] to occur in all these examples; but it only occurs in some of them (văzut, șezut, căzut vs pierdut, vândut). The same is true of verbs with the alternation [n] ~ [j] (and [r] ~ [j]): in those with [u] in the preterite and past participle, [j] never appears (e.g. older Romanian 1. ţiu ‘hold’ [ˈʦiʲu], 3 ţie [ˈʦiʲe], ţiind [ʦiʲˈind], 1. ţinui, ţinut). Another difficulty for a purely phonological account of the distribution of the alternants comes from the alternation [n] ~ [j] in the verbs mâna ‘drive (e.g. cattle)’ and amâna ‘postpone’. These are first-conjugation verbs, and therefore would not be historically expected to display the alternation at all. Yet, because they have a root—namely mân-—that happens to be homophonous with that of the verb râmâne ‘stay’, and because rămâne also regularly has the iotacized alternant mâi-, these two first-conjugation verbs have also acquired the root (a)mâi- in the same cells where it occurs for rămâne, as shown in Table 6.66. Table 6.66 Analogical influence of rămâne on (a)mâna
1 (a)mâi (a)mâi
2 (a)mâi (a)mâi
3 (a)mână (a)mâie
1 (a)mânăm (a)mânăm
2 (a)mânaţi (a)mânaţi
3 (a)mână (a)mâie
¹⁹² Note also that, wherever a back vowel is analogically introduced in the paradigm in place of an older front vowel, the change is automatically accompanied by a change from palatal affricate to velar. When old Romanian
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
356 Clearly here the alternation cannot be correlated with ‘non-front vowels’, but it is correlated with a morphologically specified set of cells. In short, it may be possible to argue that the phonological environment tends to ‘reinforce’ the diachronic maintenance of the alternation patterns in many verbs, but is a very long way indeed from wholly determining their distribution. (For further discussion of these issues, see Maiden 2018b.)
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.6.5 The supine and past participle as ‘morphome’ in diachrony The characteristic of morphomic structures is that they maintain a distinctive unity of form, which cannot be plausibly attributed to any phonological or functional determinant. Aronoff (1994) offers a classic example of this feature in English, in what he calls the ‘perfect participle’ (also known as ‘past participle’), an entity that varies in form unpredictably from verb to verb and occurs in disparate functional contexts, for example in the formation of perfective periphrases and in the formation of passives. It is an infallible truth about English morphology that whatever form occurs in the passive also occurs in the perfective periphrasis and vice versa, despite the irreconcilable disparity between the functions associated with each. The same observation holds for the Romance languages,¹⁹³ including Romanian. Yet, from the point of view of mapping multiple functions onto forms, the situation in Romanian is even more elaborate in that the same form serves not only in the perfect periphrasis and in the passive but is also found with unfailing predictability in the supine, which broadly functions as a verbal noun, in turn characterized by a wide range of contexts of use, as described in §6.5.2. To be more precise, the position in Romanian is as illustrated in Table 6.67. Exactly the same form is used in the perfective periphrasis, in the supine, and in passive constructions that have masculine singular agreements. In the passive, there is variation according to the gender of the grammatical subject, so that the inflexional ending, and in some cases the structure of the root, are different in the feminine and in the plural. Naturally, passive forms are not available for intransitive verbs. Some examples from the old language are: (46) Cu foc vor grăi, cu foc vor sufla, şi with fire they.will speak with fire they.will breathe and tot înaintea acelora lucrul nostru cunoscut va fi also before these.of work.the our know... will be ‘They will speak with fire, they will breathe fire, and also before them our works shall be known.’ 3. feace [ˈfe̯aʧe], 3. fecese [feˈʧese] are replaced by forms in thematic [u], the root-final consonant consistently become [k] (e.g. făcu [fәˈku], făcuse [fәˈkuse]. ¹⁹³ It is unusual, in fact, for the same morphomic phenomenon to occur in different language families. For the areal or distributional nature of this particular case, see Maiden (2018a: 252–3).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
. ‘’
357
Table 6.67 Identity of verb-form used in the supine and in perfect and passive periphrases
(47) Şi spune-voiu lor că nici dinioară and say.I.will to.them that nor some time voi you ‘And I will tell them that I have never known you.’
cunoscut-am know. -I.have
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(48) părea-le-se că departe se-au dus seemed-to-them-.. that far selves-they.have taken. ‘It seemed to them that they had gone far.’ (49) şi dus fu de îngeri în poala lu Avraam194 and taken... was by angels in lap. of Abraham ‘and he was taken by angels into the lap of Abraham’ This identity of form between the supine and the past participle across their diverse functions has been a historical constant in Romanian. Indeed, it may well have been inherited from Latin. As shown notably by Aronoff (1994), Latin verbs possessed a morphomic ‘third stem’, in addition to stem forms associated, respectively, with the imperfective and with the perfective aspect. The third stem, whose form could vary unpredictably according to the lexical verb, had a constant and inviolable paradigmatic distribution over the past participle, the supine, and the future participle. It further occurred in derivational morphology. As shown in §6.5.3, it is possible, but by no means certain, that the shared forms of the supine and of the past participle continue the respective forms of their assumed Latin ancestors, given that, in Romanian, the two have the same stem and that the Latin supine had a set of endings that were already
¹⁹⁴ CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
358 homophonous with those of the masculine (and neuter) singular forms of the past participle: all this would have led to the modern syncretism between the supine and the past participle in the masculine singular. This formal identity is attested throughout the history of all the varieties of Romanian. Examples are given in Table 6.68. Table 6.68 Past participle and supine in Latin and Romanian (analogically created forms underlined)
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
allege
As we see from this material, the past participle and the supine are not always direct phonological continuants of their Latin counterparts: all the forms underlined in Table 6.68 are analogical innovations of various kinds. Indeed, in some cases the relevant Latin verbs were defective in supine and in past participle, the relevant forms having been analogically created in Romance. Whether the Romanian supine continues the Latin supine is not the crucial point.¹⁹⁵ What is crucial is that the supine and the past participle have always embraced a heterogeneous array of functions while remaining reliably coherent in their morphological development.¹⁹⁶ Actually splits do occur, but they never map onto the distinction between past participle and supine, or onto any functional distinctions expressed by these forms. Rather, morphological innovations are likely to occur in such a way that the older forms still survive in the language, but they are adjectives or nouns that show clear semantic idiosyncrasies by comparison with the associated verb (Table 6.69). Here are some examples from the old language: (50) pre omul beat nu ascultă Dumnezeu person. drunk not listens God ‘God pays no heed to a drunk.’ ¹⁹⁵ For further discussion of the issues, see Maiden (2013), who also cites some extremely rare dialectal exceptions to the formal identity between past participle and supine in the verb fi ‘be’. ¹⁹⁶ See also Soare (2007: 385, 387).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
359
Table 6.69 Splits in Romanian past participles/supines infinitive bea ‘drink’ drege ‘straighten’ face ‘do’ geme ‘groan’ înţelege ‘understand’ muri ‘die’ naşte ‘give birth’ şedea ‘sit’ strânge ‘squeeze’ suna ‘sound’ toarce ‘twist’ trece ‘pass’ unge ‘smear’ vedea ‘see’
new past participle and supine băut dres făcut gemut înţeles¹⁹⁷ murit născut şezut strâns sunat tors trecut uns văzut
isolated older form beat ‘inebriated’ drept ‘right, law’ fapt ‘fact’, faptă ‘feat’ geamăt ‘groaning, groan’ înţelept ‘wise’ mort ‘dead’ nat ‘person, individual’ şes ‘plain, plane’ strâmt ‘narrow’ sunet ‘sound’ tort ‘hank of hemp’ treaptă ‘step’ unt ‘butter’ vis ‘dream’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(51) șau gândit că de va bea den puțul lu and he.has thought that if he.will drink from well. of sfînt Iacov patriarhul, den carele el au băut cu feciorii saint Jacob patriarch. from which he has drunk. with sons. lui his ‘and he thought that if he drank from the well of saint Jacob the patriarch, from which he drank with his sons’198 It is obvious that, while there is no fundamental impediment to their formal differentiation, supine and past participle always remain identical across the range of their functions, just so long as they are members of the paradigm of the same lexical verb.¹⁹⁹
6.7 The morphological history of auxiliary verbs 6.7.1 Overview Although they originate in lexical verbs, the main Romanian auxiliaries are largely different from the corresponding lexical verbs. The processes leading to this differentiation are not wholly similar: they are generally a matter of phonological reduction of the auxiliary, but sometimes a matter of analogical modification of the lexical verb. ¹⁹⁷ Also old Romanian înțelegut. ¹⁹⁸ CC¹. ¹⁹⁹ See Maiden (2013) for the fate of the Latin third stem in Romanian derivational morphology. While in Classical Latin the stem appeared in various types of derivational nouns, adjectives, and verbs, such coherence is not continued in the history of Romanian derivational morphology, precisely because the derived forms are almost always lexically idiosyncratic in comparison with the related verbs. Thus Latin ‘make’, , , agentive noun ‘maker’, verbal noun ‘deed, fact’ > face, vs făcut, făcut vs făcător vs fapt.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
360 The auxiliaries used in the perfect, future, and conditional distinguish person and number fairly clearly; but the third person, diachronically and regionally, shows greater instability, varying between syncretism and differentiation in the relation between singular and plural. The estrangement of the auxiliaries from the lexical verbs in which they originate entails interesting convergences: some forms, despite their different origins, become homophonous, so that the modal and the temporal meanings are conveyed by the periphrasis as a whole, depending on whether the auxiliary is combined with an infinitive or a participle, rather than by the auxiliary alone. For example, a second-person singular perfect ai făcut ‘you have done’ vs a second-person singular conditional ai face ‘you would do’ (the first and second persons of the plural also show homophony in these same tense and mood series or a thirdperson singular perfect or făcut ‘they have done’ vs a third-person singular future or face ‘they will do’ (in Banat).
6.7.2 Auxiliary have The sole auxiliary of the perfect indicative in Romanian originates in the verb ‘have’. The auxiliary forms are monosyllabic unstressed clitics (Maiden 2018a: 237); the paradigm contains forms identical with those of the corresponding lexical verb ‘have’ (first-person singular, second-person singular, third-person plural) and different, shorter forms (third-person singular, first-person plural, second-person plural; see Table 6.70). In the sixteenth century, the auxiliary forms were quite frequently postposed to the main verb.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Table 6.70 Diachronic and diatopic variation in the perfect auxiliary ‘have’ Lexical verb (sixteenth century to present) Auxiliary: sixteenth century Auxiliary: modern standard Romanian Auxiliary: modern regional varieties
1 am am am am
2 ai ai ai ai
3 are au a a/o
1 avem am am am
2 aveţi aţi aţi aţi
3 au au au a/o/or/ar
The differences between the auxiliary and the lexical verb for first- and secondperson plurals may be explained by syncope. The process of phonetic erosion and specialization of the auxiliary, which has relatively few parallels elsewhere in Romance (but see Maiden 2018a: 237), indicates that the perfect periphrasis is fairly ancient.²⁰⁰ The third-person singular, which is distinct from the lexical form are (see §6.7.2), raises the problem of the etymological connexion between its variants a and au. In the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, 3 au is almost general, showing syncretism with ²⁰⁰ Caragiu Marioţeanu (1969: 265) considers the forms of the auxiliary to be the natural outcome of sound change acting on the Latin etyma. In this account, the first- and second-person plural forms of the lexical verb have been analogically re-formed. See, however, the explanation given in §6.7.2.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
361
the third-person plural; and this form is recorded in the oldest grammars (Frâncu 2009: 310). Third-person singular a seems to be the natural continuant of the Latin (e.g. Meyer-Lübke 1895; Ivănescu 2000: 237), but the fact that it is virtually non-existent in the oldest texts has led to its being considered a later regional (Muntenian) innovation,²⁰¹ analogically remodelled on the plural au, on the basis of alternations such as 3. ia ‘takes’ ~ 3. iau, 3. bea ‘drinks’ ~ 3. beau (Gheţie 1973). Third-person singular a becomes normal in standard Romanian, largely owing to its being recommended in some influential nineteenth-century grammars (particularly Heliade Rădulescu [1828] 1980; see Dragomirescu 2015b: 204). Third-person singular au has been explained as an early extension from the thirdperson plural (Meyer-Lübke 1895: 301; Frâncu 1969), where au is etymological (< *habunt), or—implausibly, because only the form and not the temporal meaning is considered—from the Latin perfect indicative (Gheţie 1975: 170). On the basis of sixteenth- to eighteenth-century texts, the situation suggests a development where a (< ) was replaced analogically by au, which was generalized but then was in turn replaced, in the south, by the (analogical) 3 a—the modern standard form. An alternative to this complicated explanation is that a survived in regional pockets, subsequently gaining traction in the standard language because it differentiated the singular from the plural. Yet the differentiation is unstable: there are southern dialects (in Oltenia) that have the opposition a ~ au, but Muntenian dialects have generalized a in the plural as well, thereby re-creating the number syncretism (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 107). Third-person singular au survives in pockets to this day, in northern regional varieties, where 3 = 3 au has evolved phonologically to o (o mers ‘s/he has / they have gone’), a form attested from the beginning of the seventeenth century in Moldova (Gheţie 1975: 171). In Banat and in southern Crişana, the auxiliary has developed a plural or (or mers ‘they have gone’), probably modelled on the homophonous future auxiliary (o merge ‘he will go’ ~ or merge ‘they will go’) (see Meyer-Lübke 1895: 301; Gheţie & Teodorescu 1973). There are isolated attestations of or in the seventeenth century; it becomes more frequent after 1750 (Gheţie 1994: 126; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 113). Thus in modern regional Romanian, the singular and plural forms of the thirdperson auxiliary show syncretism—a ~ a (Muntenia), o ~ o (Moldova, Maramureş, parts of Transylvania)—and differentiated forms—a ~ au (Oltenia and areas where dialects are influenced by the standard), o ~ or (Banat, southern Crişana). Regionally, in areas of Transylvania and Banat, there is also third-person plural ar (Neagoe 1984: 263; Marin 1987), probably a contamination between a(u) and or (Weigand 1896a: 244). ²⁰¹ Third-person a is rare in early texts and is not specialized as a third person singular auxiliary. This form has been interpreted as an example of negligence in writing (Densusianu 1938: 222). In the sixteenth century it was not strictly associated with one area (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 98–114); but it is generally considered to be a Muntenian innovation, given the region where it has been found with increasing frequency since the seventeenth century and where it persists today.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
362 The Istro-Romanian forms are practically identical with those of Daco-Romanian: 1 am, 2 ai, 3 a(v), 1 am, 2 aţ, 3 a(v) (Kovačec 1971: 147).²⁰² In Aromanian, the forms of the auxiliary are those of the lexical verb (1 amu, 2 ai, 3 ari, 1 avemu, 2 aveţ, 3 au; Saramandu 1984: 457); in Megleno-Romanian, there are two sets of forms (Atanasov 2002: 243–4), differentiated according to whether the auxiliary is preverbal (2a) or postverbal (2b); the postverbal forms are identical with the old Romanian auxiliary, but with raising of the vowel in posttonic position; the preverbal forms are close to the lexical form, but differentiated by loss of the initial vowel in the first-and second-persons plurals (see Table 6.71). The preposed auxiliary is general, postposition being attested only in some areas, where it has specialized evidential (reportative) value (Atanasov 2002: 244). Table 6.71 Auxiliary ‘have’ in Megleno-Romanian preposed postposed
1 am -ăm
2 ai -ăi
3 a´ri -ău
1 vem -ăm
2 veţ -ăţ
3 au -ău
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
In the other periphrases in which it participates, auxiliary ‘have’ keeps forms identical with those of the lexical verb. Its present tense forms are used in late and relatively ungrammaticalized future periphrases of the type 1 am să fac ‘I have to/ will do’, 1 avem să facem (Zafiu 2013a: 39). The imperfect forms of ‘have’ are identical with those of the lexical verb in Daco-Romanian future in the past periphrases (aveam să fac ‘I had to/would do’) and in the Aromanian periphrastic pluperfect (aveam lucratâ ‘I had worked’).
6.7.3 Auxiliary want Already in the sixteenth century, present tense forms of the verb ‘want’ provide the future auxiliary, in combination with an infinitive. In old texts, the forms of the auxilary were not distinct from those of the lexical verb. The differentiation arose through a series of analogical changes that affect the forms of the lexical verb, while the auxiliary preserves the old forms (some etymological, others simplified; see Table 6.72). In the sixteenth century, the etymological forms (1 voi, 2 veri, 3 va, 1 vrem, 2 vreţi, 3 vor) and the simplified forms (2 vei, 1 vom, 2 veţi) coexisted, both as lexical and as auxiliary verbs. Variation in the auxiliary appears within the same text, and even within the same utterance (see also Zafiu 2016: 39–40):
²⁰² In Istro-Romanian (as in fărşerot Aromanian), the third-person plural form ar has also been recorded (Marin 1987).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
363
Table 6.72 Diachronic and diatopic variation in the future auxiliary ‘want’ modern standard lexical verb auxiliary and lexical verb in the sixteenth century auxiliary in modern standard auxiliary in modern regional varieties
1 vreau voi(u) voi oi
2 vrei veri/ vei vei ei/ăi/ îi/oi/i
3 vrea va va a /o
1 vrem vrem(u)/vem/ văm/vom vom om
2 vreţi vreţi/ veţi veţi eţi/ăţi/ îţi/oţi
3 vor vor(u) vor or
(52) a ce vrem bea? Sau: în ce ne vem îmbrăca?203 what we.will drink or in what us=we.will dress ‘what will we drink? Or: in what will we clothe ourselves?’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
b veţi afla [ . . . ], nu vreţi afla204 you.will find not you.will find ‘you will find, you will not find’ The auxiliary gradually settled on the series without r in the root (with the secondperson singular, first-person plural, and second-person plural aligned on the firstperson singular and the third-person singular), while the lexical verb, under the influence of the first- and second-person plural forms (but probably also of other parts of the paradigm), develops a series with r throughout the root, with the form vre(a)-, by the creation of 1 vreau, 2 vrei, 3 vrea. Only 3 vor remains unaffected by these modifications. Forms showing deletion of initial v-, characterized by the instability of the resultant initial vowel (oi, ei/ăi/oi, a/o, om, eţi/ăţi/oţi, or), begin to appear in the sixteenth century and become more numerous in the seventeenth (Gheţie & Mareş 1974: 252; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 295–301; Frâncu 2009: 311–12). These forms are described in the earliest grammars (Micu & Şincai 1780 [1980]), but are then excluded from the modern standard, being branded as popular. They are generally present in nonstandard Romanian in every area (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 295). There is also a tendency to associate these forms with an epistemic (evidential–inferential) value of the future: in colloquial registers, the periphrasis expressing supposition about the present (the ‘present presumptive’) has the future auxiliary without initial v- (o fi), while the periphrasis with the v- auxiliary (va fi) has purely future value. The third-person singular forms have the following regional distribution: a characterizes northern dialects, and o southern dialects; a is the direct result of loss of v-, and o has probably been influenced by other forms with etymological o: 1 oi, 1 om, 3 or (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 296).²⁰⁵
²⁰³ CC². ²⁰⁴ CC¹. ²⁰⁵ Ivănescu (2000: 418) attributes 3 o, which coexists with the predicted a (< va), to the phonological effect of the change of the labial consonant into a rounded glide (va > oa [wa]> o).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
364
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
In Istro-Romanian, which has a future of the type ‘want’ + infinitive, the modern forms of the auxiliary—1 voi, 2 ver, 3 va, 1 rem, 2 veţ, 3 vor (Kovačec 1971: 147)—presents unexpected asymmetries, particularly in the differential treatment of the first- and second-person plural: in the former, the initial consonant is lost; in the latter, there is loss of -r-. Auxiliary ‘want’ has the same forms in constructions where it is followed by a subjunctive rather than by an infinitive (the type voi să fac ‘I will do’, for voi face; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 219–31). Towards the end of the eighteenth century (according to Berea-Găgeanu 1979), this construction, used especially in the third-person singular, gives rise to a type of future with an invariable particle, similar to the future found in other Balkan languages (Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, see Mišeska Tomić 2004: 38–9). The third-person singular form va of the auxiliary in impersonal constructions (e.g. va să vie²⁰⁶ ‘he will come’), in its Muntenian variant, o (a in Moldova), becomes an invariable particle combined with the subjunctive (o să vină ‘he will come’; see Lombard 1954–5, vol. 2: 953; Ivănescu 2000: 418).²⁰⁷ This future periphrasis is peculiar to southern dialects (Marin 2005–7), but is very widespread in modern Romanian, being preferred in colloquial style. Nowadays there is a tendency to differentiate the singular from the plural in the third person via the form or (3 o să facă ‘he will do’, 3 or să facă), which is modelled on the auxilary used with the infinitive in the prototypical future (o face ‘he will do’, or face ‘they will do’). This construction, too, shows the divergent tendencies of creating or eliminating number syncretism in the third person. Similar forms are found in Aromanian, in the invariable va + subjunctive (va spot ‘I will be able (to)’; Caragiu Marioţeanu 1968: 109), and in Megleno-Romanian, in ăs < (v)ă + s(ă) + subjunctive (ăs neargă ‘he will go’; Atanasov 2002: 248).
6.7.4 Conditional auxiliaries The conditional auxiliary, the most controversial auxiliary where its origins are concerned, probably also comes from ‘want’, and specifically from its past tense forms. In the old language, short forms of the conditional auxiliary, which were dominant in all regions and texts (the series represented by 1 aş), coexisted with forms that were largely identical with those of the imperfect of the lexical verb a vrea (represented by first-person singular auxiliary vrea; see Table 6.73). Standard Romanian and the majority of modern regional variants use only forms from the aș series, which has changed very little since the sixteenth century—namely through the reduction of the only bisyllabic form, 3 are to ar, so that the whole series is now
²⁰⁶ CC¹. ²⁰⁷ Puşcariu (1931) explains va as deriving from , but this is unlikely, given the number of similar derivations from *voˈlere.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
365
Table 6.73 Diachronic and diatopic variation of the conditional auxiliary ‘want’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
imperfect of the lexical verb in standard Romanian (now rare) imperfect of the lexical verb and the auxiliary in the sixteenth century auxiliary in the Banat auxiliary in Istro-Romanian auxiliary: postposed aş in the sixteenth century auxiliary: preposed aş in the sixteenth century auxiliary in modern standard Romanian
1 2 vream vreai
3 vrea
1 vream
2 vreaţi
3 vreau
vrea
vrea
vrea
vreaţi
vrea
vreai
reaş reai rea ream reaţi rea ręš ręi rę ręm ręţ rę -(re)aş -(re)ai -(re)are/-(re)ară -(re)am -(re)aţi -(re)are/-(re)ară aş(u)
ai
are/ară
am
aţi
are/ară
aş
ai
ar
am
aţi
ar
made up of unstressed monosyllables. Istro-Romanian (Kovačec 1971: 148, 1984: 577; Philippide [1927] 2015: 194–201) and the Banat dialect (Neagoe 1984: 264) present intermediate forms (1 ręš or reaş). The aş series largely resembles forms of the ‘have’ auxiliary in the perfect periphrasis (2 ai, 1 am, 2 aţi) and those of the present of the lexical verb a avea (2 ai, 3 are); hence it has been argued that the source of the auxiliary is the reflex of Latin .²⁰⁸ A much more convincing hypothesis is that the auxiliary originates in a vrea < *voˈlere, specifically in the imperfect indicative of that verb (e.g. Weigand 1896b; Meyer-Lübke 1900: 356; Morariu 1924: 54–64; Philippide [1927] 2015: 203–4; Iordan 1928; Capidan 1932; Ivănescu 2000: 163), with possible influence from the preterite (Zafiu 2017). Romanian appears to have a followed a cross-linguistically typical path in the formation of the hypothetical conditional, which was to associate the morphological markers of the future with those of the past (see e.g. Fleischman 1982; James 1982; Bybee 1995; Iatridou 2000). As in other Romance languages, the Romanian conditional comes from a periphrasis with the value of future in the past, parallel to that of the simple future (and having the same auxiliary) (Iordan 1928: 197). The prototypical future periphrasis (with the auxiliary from the present tense of ‘want’ + infinitive) had a corresponding future in the past, with a past tense auxiliary form of ‘want’ + infinitive; the value of future in the past is added a hypothetical value. ²⁰⁸ Of those supporting the /a avea hypothesis (e.g. Rosetti 1932: 104; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 321–76; Popescu 2013: 202–4), some postulate, as the source of the auxiliary, forms of the pluperfect indicative and imperfect subjunctive (Tiktin 1904), of the present (Titova 1959), or of the perfect indicative (Elson 1992). A combination of paradigms has also been suggested: Frâncu (2009: 121–2) suggests that the auxiliary derives from the imperfect indicative of *voˈlere for the third person, both in the singular and in the plural, from the present of for the second-person singular, first-person plural, and second-person plural, and from the imperfect of volere or the imperfect indicative of for the first-person singular. The sugggested etymologies primarily take into account phonological form and a possible similarity with the conditional auxiliary of other Romance languages, but they are hard to accept from the point of view of the development of the temporal–modal values.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
366 In sixteenth-century Romanian, future forms of the type voi face ‘I will do’ and conditional forms of the type aș face ‘I would do’ were completely grammaticalized, because both of them had high frequency rates and were constructed with an infinitive without the preceding marker a (a feature specific to an older historical period). The construction recurs in a few series that are very close, both formally and semantically: short forms of the type aş in old Romanian and standard modern Romanian, long forms of the type vrea in old Romanian, intermediate forms without initial v- (reaş) in Istro-Romanian and the Banat. In the sixteenth century, the structure comprising the inifinitive and the auxiliary differs as to whether the segment -re- is present, which depends on the relative position of the two components. When preposed, the auxiliary has the forms (1 aş (dominant)/ aşu (PsH) /aşi;²⁰⁹ 2 ai; 3 = are (dominant)/ară (e.g. PH; CC²; PO); 1 am; 2 aţi). When postposed, in sequences written as a single word in the texts (e.g. vreareaş, vreareaţi, vreareară), the forms of the auxiliary are preceded by the segment -re-, which may be interpreted either as preserving the ending of the long infinitive (-re) or as preserving re-, which is the initial part of the auxiliary.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(53) s-aş grăi cu limbi, ce folos facereaş if=I.would speak with tongues what use do.1. ‘If I were to speak in tongues, what good would I do you?’
voao210 to.you
The main form of the auxiliary appears to have arisen through deletion of the initial segments of the verb (e.g. 1 am < ream < vream, 2 aţi < reaţi < vreaţi), probably after a structural reanalysis of the verb + auxiliary periphrasis. A sequence such as 2 fi-reai ‘you would be’ (verb + auxiliary) could have been reanalysed by speakers as including the long infinitive in -re (at a time when it was still used alongside the short form),²¹¹ and the consequent segmentation as fire-ai then influenced the preposed form of the auxiliary as well, producing, or at least accelerating, the process of shortening. The short forms 1 aş, 2 ai, 3 ară, 1 am, 2 aţi, 3 ară lost their connexion with the verb a vrea ‘to want’, a fact that reinforced their specialization as hypothetical markers. As the clear preference for anteposition of the auxiliaries becomes established, the contexts in -re- disappear;²¹² the old structure survives in modern Romanian only in conservative, fixed expressions of imprecation such as fir-ar ‘damn’. As observed by Weigand (1896a), the Banat²¹³ and Istro-Romanian auxiliary forms represent a link between the paradigm of the verb a vrea and the short forms of the
²⁰⁹ CV. ²¹⁰ CPr. ²¹¹ The current explanation is even more complicated, because it starts from the long infinitive in a sequence formed by the long infinitive and the postposed auxiliary; for example, in 2 *fire-(v)reai is allegedly the result of a haplology involving loss of the repeated syllable -re (Weigand 1896b; Meyer-Lübke 1900: 356; Morariu 1925: 57). ²¹² The segment -re- was obligatory when there was no pronominal clitic between the infinitive and the auxiliary, but it could not occur in the construction with the clitic: arde-l-ar ‘it would burn him’. ²¹³ The auxiliary forms reau putea, ream zice, etc., from Banat, are systematically used at the end of the eighteenth century in a work dedicated to the literary language (Iorgovici [1799] 1979: 137–47).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
367
auxiliary in other Romanian varieties: they show loss of initial v-, but retention of the segment -re-: reai fi (ręi) ‘you would be’, ręş volı´/vol’i-ręş ‘I would want’ (Philippide 1894; [1927] 2015). The conditional in aş raises additional etymological problems: 1 aş and 3 = 3 are/ară > ar would be hard to explain. In fact they correspond to the unmarked, homophonous forms of the imperfect of the lexical verb: 1 = 3 = 3 vrea (the desinentially marked form being 2 vreai, 1 vream, 2 vreaţi). The paradigm of the auxiliary (and its Istro-Romanian and Banat variants) could be explained, according to Zafiu (2017), as resulting from a contamination between the imperfect and the preterite paradigms of vrea—a situation comparable with what we find in Italian, where the conditional auxiliary comes from the Latin perfect, and especially in the Italian dialects mentioned by Meyer-Lübke (1895: 402)²¹⁴ and described by Rohlfs (1968: 344–5). At the formal level, the contamination could be explained by the need to mark the category of person, the imperfect having too much syncretism. However, the preterite paradigm of a vrea in the sixteenth century (1 vrui, 2 vruşi, 3 vru, 1 vrum, 2 vrut, 3 vrură; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 94) does not account for all the atypical forms of the auxiliary; one would have to assume, further, an analogical desinence in the first-person singular that produced a form vruş(i), homophonous with the modern second-person singular,²¹⁵ as well as an extension of the third-person plural ending -ră (vrură) to the third-person singular.²¹⁶ The third-person singular is the only form that gets modified over time, from the first attestations; ară, dominant in the sixteenth century, persisted in the seventeenth (e.g. in MI; Prav. 1652; SA; BB), together with are (e.g. in Prav. 1646; BB), but the two variants began to be replaced by ar, which had appeared sporadically even earlier, in the south (Gheţie 1994: 28). Towards the end of the eighteenth century the form ar was generalized, but are and ară are also registered in isolated examples, in Transylvania, even in the twentieth century (Papahagi 1925b: LXVIII). The phonological reduction may be explained by the tendency to generalize monosyllabism in the series (where are was the only exception). In sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Romanian there also existed a variety of conditional periphrasis (auxiliary + infinitive) in which the auxiliary was identical with the imperfect indicative of the verb a vrea (e.g. 1 vrea fi ‘I would be’). With respect to the aș-series, the vrea-series could be seen as preserving an intermediate stage in the grammaticalization process or as a later re-formation (Philippide 1894: 69;
²¹⁴ The pattern of mixing preterite and imperfect patterns, found in Italian dialects and described by MeyerLübke (1895: 402), is identical with the one we are assuming for Romanian, but the distribution is reversed, in that the first-person singular, the third-person singular, and the third-person plural come from the imperfect. ²¹⁵ The final -ş of aş has also been explained by analogy with the etymological first-person singular forms of some rhizotonic preterites (ziş(i) ‘I said’, duş(i) ‘I took’, merş(i) ‘I went’, etc.; see Frâncu 2009: 21). Other solutions have been proposed but are unconvincing. Thus Philippide (1894: 70) invokes the addition of the particle şi < , with a deictic and intensifying role; Rosetti (1986: 147) takes aş to derive from the pluperfect subjunctive of the Lat. (). ²¹⁶ For ară/are/ar, Frâncu (2009: 121–2) proposes: > *voare > vare > are.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
368 Ivănescu 2000: 355): this would suggest that speakers were aware of the lexical origin of the auxiliary.²¹⁷ In the sixteenth century, the periphrasis involving the imperfect of a vrea (1 vrea, 2 vreai, 3 vrea, 1 vream, 2 vreaţi, 3 vrea + face) was fairly frequent, the auxiliary tending to be preposed—se vrea întoarce ‘he would return’—but also being postposed: cădea-se-vrea²¹⁸ ‘he would fall’, afla-vă-vreaţi²¹⁹ ‘you would find yourselves’. In the old texts, this periphrasis had future in the past and (present) conditional value. It persisted in the following centuries, the auxilary being subject to modifications typical of the imperfect, such as the appearance of analogical endings that differentiated the first-person singular from the third-person singular and the third-person plural. In the nineteenth century the periphrasis was recorded in the grammar of Diaconovici Loga ([1822] 1973), from Banat, and was still attested in all regions, especially in Transylvania (Dragomirescu 2015b: 209). Today its use in Crişana and Maramureş has been confirmed (Pamfil & Dănilă 2009).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.7.5 Auxiliary be In the old language the verb ‘be’ was a very widely used auxiliary. It occurred with this function in periphrases containing a participle or a gerund; standard Romanian retained future perfect, conditional perfect, and perfect subjunctive periphrases of this kind. In the future and in the conditional, the verb ‘be’ is invariable: it takes the form of the infinitive fi. The only difference from the lexical verb in modern Romanian appears in the perfect subjunctive, where instead of the regular forms of the present subjunctive—fiu, fii, fie, fim, fiţi, fie—we have invariable fi for all persons and numbers. Variable forms of the auxiliary ‘be’ were almost general from the sixteenth century to eighteenth: 3 să fie zis²²⁰ ‘that he have said’, 1 să fim ispitit ‘that we have tempted’.²²¹ The loss of inflexion, sporadically attested earlier, became more frequent in the nineteenth century and was adopted late by grammarians (Frâncu 2010: 102–7; Dragomirescu 2015b: 209). The invariability of the auxiliary has been considered purely a matter of sound change (Lombard 1954–5, vol. 2: 729–32; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 410), but it is more likely to have occurred analogically, on the model of the future perfect and perfect conditional, in typical subordination contexts (Frâncu 2010: 107–19). A similar and equally late loss of inflexion affects the subjunctive auxiliary a fi in periphrases with the gerund (3 să nu fie având²²² ‘that he not have’ vs să fi fiind ‘that he be’ in modern Romanian), but these have almost completely fallen out of use.
²¹⁷ For those who would derive the auxiliary from , there is no connexion between the two series aş and vrea. ²¹⁸ CC². ²¹⁹ CPr. ²²⁰ CC². ²²¹ CH. ²²² Prav. 1646.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
369
6.8 Novel periphrastic constructions involving auxiliary verbs and non-finite verb forms
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.8.1 Introduction The novel periphrastic constructions found in modern standard Daco-Romanian are the analytic (or compound) perfect, the future and the future perfect, the present and perfect conditional, the perfect subjunctive, and the perfect infinitive. There are also three future, conditional, and subjunctive periphrases involving the gerund that are very rarely used and are sometimes described as belonging to the presumptive mood and, besides these, several colloquial future periphrases and, in regional varieties, some ‘supercompound’ forms (periphrases that also contain a periphrastic form of their auxiliary). Old Romanian had a far greater range of periphrases, such that, for any mood or tense form, a progressive counterpart (from ‘be’ + gerund) and a perfect counterpart (from ‘be’ + past participle) could be created. This principle could also apply recursively, producing ‘supercompound’ forms (‘be’ + past participle of ‘be’ + gerund of lexical verb; ‘be’ + past participle of ‘be’ + past participle of the lexical verb). The role played by the verb ‘want’ as future and conditional auxiliary and the asymmetry between constructions with the auxiliary ‘have’ and constructions with the auxiliary ‘be’ make the inventory of periphrases in Romanian atypical by Romance standards. In Daco-Romanian the auxiliary is ‘have’ in the analytic perfect indicative, but ‘be’ in all other perfects.²²³ Periphrases with ‘be’ have been considered to be inherited formations, even continuing Latin constructions (Frâncu 1983–4), or to be the result of Slavonic influence (Sandfeld 1930: 149; Manoliu 1959), or, in the case of progressives with the gerund, to be modelled on Greek in learnèd, religious, translations (Arvinte 2004: XLIV). But the idea that ‘be’ periphrases are artificial constructions occurring in translations influenced by the original language and restricted to learnèd registers is contradicted by the fact that they are fairly widespread in various types of early texts, be they translations or directly composed in Romanian, and also by the fact that some of them survive to this day in modern dialects. The periphrases show different degrees of grammaticalization. In identifying grammaticalization, features such as the possibility of reversing the order between auxiliary and lexical form or of intercalating material between them, which was the norm in old Romanian, or clitic climbing to the auxiliary, are not as important as the phonological reduction of the auxiliary (e.g. in the conditional with auxiliary ar, or in the appearance of the invariant auxiliary fi ‘be’ in the perfect subjunctive: see §§6.7.4, 6.7.5), the specialization of the forms of the auxiliary as distinct from those of the corresponding lexical verb (e.g. the analytic perfect and the voi + infinitive construction: see §§6.7.2,
²²³ Modern standard Romanian differentiates the auxiliary ‘have’, used in realis expressions, from the auxiliary ‘be’, used in irrealis (Ledgeway 2015a). In the old language, however, ‘be’ also existed in indicative periphrases, especially in the past tense (a fost mers ‘he had gone’), and some of these survive to this day in regional usage.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
370 6.7.3), the loss of participle agreement, and the semantically unanalysable, non-compositional nature of the construction. There is a good number of differences between Daco-Romanian and transDanubian dialects with respect to the periphrases. The trans-Danubian varieties have • an analytic perfect similar to that of Daco-Romanian (ARo. am avutâ ‘(I) have had’), but in a preliminary stage of grammaticalization, as a present perfect; • a pluperfect with the auxiliary ‘have’, modelled on the analytic perfect (imperfect of ‘have’ + past participle: ARo. aveam avutâ ‘(I) had had’); • future constructions with an invariable particle, which originates in present tense forms of the verb ‘want’, and să + subjunctive (ARo. va(i) s-amu ‘(I) will have’)— or even followed by să + different mood and tense forms (imperfect, analytic perfect,²²⁴ analytic pluperfect, synthetic conditional) or by these same structures but without să (va amu ‘(I) will have’). The analytic conditional is formed from the same constructions as the future, but with the invariable particle vrea(i) (from the imperfect of the verb ‘want’), or with the particle va, followed by să and past tense verb forms. The main difference from DacoRomanian lies in the absence of periphrases with the auxiliary ‘be’.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.8.2 The periphrastic perfect The periphrastic perfect is an innovation shared with other Romance languages, originating in Latin, and comprising an auxiliary + past participle. Romanian has generalized the verb ‘have’ as the perfect indicative auxiliary, with some partially specialized auxiliary forms.²²⁵ Following the prototypical path of grammaticalization of periphrastic perfects (Harris 1982), the periphrasis passed through several stages, from resultative perfect—or what is sometimes called ‘present relevance’ perfect, that is, a tense that captures the present result of an action in the past—to preterite, which expresses pure anteriority. Initially the synthetic perfect inherited from Latin had a double value: a temporal value, which it carried qua preterite, and an aspectual value, which it carried qua perfect. But subsequently the periphrastic perfect acquired the value of a perfect, while the synthetic perfect specialized as a preterite, and eventually the perfect extended its use to acquire the function of a preterite (on the whole development, see Haverling 2010: 343–4). The competition between the periphrastic perfect and the synthetic perfect led to the decline of the latter, which was entirely ²²⁴ In most descriptions of Aromanian (e.g. Caragiu Marioţeanu 1977: 188; Saramandu 1984: 458; Nevaci 2006: 124–41), all these periphrases are considered to be subjunctive forms when they are preceded by the subjunctive marker să, although they do not all have the distinctive inflexional marking of the subjunctive. ²²⁵ Constructions with ‘be’ representing possible remnants of ungrammaticalized perfect periphrases have been described by Dragomirescu & Nicolae (2013). Atanasov (1984: 528) cites some constructions from MeglenoRomanian that may be considered compound perfect periphrases with ‘be’, such as săm măncat ‘I have (lit. ‘am’) eaten’, and explains them as reflecting the influence of Slavonic (Macedonian).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
371
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
replaced by the former. From the sixteenth century to the present, the frequency of the periphrastic perfect has increased in Romanian, as has its use as a preterite.²²⁶ The process was already advanced in old Romanian, but there were still signs of use of the periphrastic perfect as a present relevance tense, in association with a verb in the present tense, and preferably in dialogues and commentaries (Zafiu 2016: 33–4). In the modern standard language, the periphrasis has been in the final stage of grammaticalization, as a form with a double value, perfect and preterite, and in north-eastern regional varieties the synthetic perfect variant has entirely disappeared from usage.²²⁷ In Aromanian the periphrastic perfect is less widespread, the synthetic form still being predominant. Aromanian seems to show an earlier phase of the grammaticalization process seen in Daco-Romanian, at which the periphrasis still has the value of a present perfect (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1977: 187–8). The Aromanian periphrastic perfect of the subjunctive differs from that of the indicative in the third-person subjunctive form of auxiliary ‘have’: s-aibă avutâ ‘that (s)he have had’ (Capidan 1932: 465). In Megleno-Romanian, the auxiliary is not morphologically differentiated from the lexical verb ‘have’ (see §6.7.2); in some areas there is also a construction with a short, postposed form of the auxiliary that, under Slavonic influence, has evidential, reportative meaning (Atanasov 1984: 528). Megleno-Romanian, too, has a perfect subjunctive with a specific form in the third person of the auxiliary (Atanasov 2002: 250): si/să aibă fat(ă) ‘that (s)he have done’. In Aromanian, in some Megleno-Romanian dialects, and in isolated outcrops in Daco-Romanian dialects, the participle form used in these periphrastic constructions is feminine (e.g. Banat am mearsă ‘I have gone’ (Uritescu 2007), Muntenia—am văzută ‘I have seen’, am vinită ‘I have come’ (Marin 1991; Donovetsky 2012: 188; see also §6.5.5).
6.8.3 The trans-Danubian pluperfect periphrasis Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian have a pluperfect periphrasis whose auxiliary is the imperfect tense of the verb ‘have’: ARo. avea avutâ ‘(s)he had had’; MeRo. vea vizut(ă) ‘(s)he had seen’ (Saramandu 1984: 457; Atanasov 1984: 529). These forms are regularly derived from the analytic perfect, by transposing the present tense auxiliary to the past tense—a pattern dominant in Romance languages. For old Romanian some scholars (Morariu 1924: 17; Frâncu 2009: 115) have identified apparent examples of this type, but these are very few in number and rather ambiguous, in that they may be interpreted as ungrammaticalized constructions comprising a lexical verb
²²⁶ Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 2: 17–37) describes the frequency relationship between the two types of perfect in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, observing that the differences are insignificant form the point of view of regional variation, but consistently associated with register. ²²⁷ Modern standard Romanian uses the preterite as a narrative and fictional tense, while dialects of Oltenia and western Muntenia use it as a hodiernal perfect.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
372 ‘have’ + complement.²²⁸ Zamfir (2005–7, vol. 2: 201) considers them to be accidental resemblances, not proper pluperfects, and Frâncu (2009: 115) supposes that they reflect the influence of speakers from areas to the south of the Danube on sixteenthcentury written language. In trans-Danubian dialects this periphrasis has been viewed as a probably Romance feature, but possibly also modelled on Greek structures (Sandfeld 1930: 106).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.8.4 Future periphrases There are several future periphrases and they show different degrees of grammaticalization, being based on modal constructions with the auxiliary ‘want’, which expresses volition, or ‘have’ which expresses necessity, combined with an infinitive or a subjunctive preceded by the marker să. The rival basic structures, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, are as follows: a vrea + bare infinitive (voi avea ‘(I) will have’); a vrea + să-subjunctive (voi să am ‘(I) will să have.’); a avea + a-infinitive (am a avea ‘(I) have to have’); a avea + să-subjunctive (am să am. ‘(I) have să have.’). Of these, modern standard Romanian retained the oldest and most stable type, namely ‘want’ + infinitive. In regional varieties this type has the reduced form of the auxiliary (see §6.7.3), for example o or a: o avea or a avea ‘(s)he will have’. In modern colloquial Romanian, the most widespread type is the newest one, with the invariable particle o + să + subjunctive: o să am ‘(I) will have’, rivalled by the less frequent am să am, with auxiliary am ‘I have’. ‘Want’ + infinitive was the most frequent future periphrasis in old Romanian, and it was probably grammaticalized before others (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1969: 268). That it is an old formation is shown by a few characteristics: it is constructed with the bare infinitive, that is, it was grammaticalized before the infinitive marker a become established (the ‘have’ + a type of infinitive is later), it predominates in all types of text and styles, and it was the basis of the formation of the future perfect and the conditional. This is also the future type found in Istro-Romanian (Kovačec 1984: 576)—voi cântå ‘(I) will sing’—and there is evidence that it was the construction for the future in the other trans-Danubian dialects, where it has fallen out of use or changed its value as the infinitive was replaced completely by the subjunctive. It is no longer used in Aromanian, but we see perhaps a remnant of it in the adverb vahi < va + hi ‘will + be’ = ‘maybe’ (Philippide [1927] 2015: 415). In Megleno-Romanian the periphrasis no longer appears to be used with future deictic value, but only epistemically, to express a present conjecture: vă veari lit. ‘will have’ = ‘maybe (s)he has’ (Atanasov 1984: 529). In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the auxiliary was morphologically undifferentiated form the lexical verb a vrea ‘to want’ (see §6.6.2).
²²⁸ For example, avea agonisit mult (CT; CC²) may be considered a pluperfect with the sense ‘he had gathered a lot’, but modern translations of this biblical passage suggest rather the interpretation ‘he had great wealth’ (Matthew 19: 22); likewise, auzită avea (CC²) may be interpreted as ‘he had heard’ or ‘he had information’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
373
Syntactic material could be intercalated between the elements of the periphrasis, and the auxiliary could be postposed: avea-voi lit. ‘have I will’. Already from the sixteenth century, the future periphrasis also had epistemic uses; in modern Daco-Romanian, such uses are possible only with the popular, reduced forms: o avea ‘maybe (s)he has’, o fi ‘it may be’, and thanks to this specialized usage it tends to enter the standard language from the substandard register. As shown in Table 6.74, the future with ‘want’ + infinitive has given rise to periphrases with ‘be’ + past participle or gerund and supercompound forms comprising two or more auxiliaries (to be discussed later in this chapter). Table 6.74 Periphrases formed from ‘want’ + infinitive (first-person singular forms)
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
future future perfect continuous future supercompound future with participle supercompound future with gerund
voi avea voi fi avut voi fi având voi fi fost avut voi fi fost având
The periphrasis with ‘want’ + subjunctive is attested in the sixteenth century in all existing person and number combinations. Gradually, however, a single, invariant form of the auxiliary, va—originally the third-person singular—takes over, resulting in the construction va să am ‘(I) will have’. The auxiliary undergoes phonological reduction and becomes established as an invariant o in the future type o să am ‘I shall have’, which has equivalents elsewhere in the Balkan area (see §6.7.3). This is the dominant model in northern Aromanian (e.g. va²²⁹ s-vedu ‘(I) will see’), while the southern dialects prefer the construction without the conjunction (va vedu), which may be modelled on Greek (Meyer-Lübke 1895: 152) or favoured by the presence of clitics between the auxiliary and the subjunctive (Capidan 1932: 467). The future periphrasis with the particle + să + subjunctive seems to have existed in MeglenoRomanian as well—to judge from some examples given by Morariu (1924: 23), or from the fact that the particle ăs is preserved in some dialects (Atanasov 1984: 529); see §6.7.3. However, Megleno-Romanian predominantly uses the subjunctive to express future meaning: nu s-ti lasă ‘(s)he will not let you’ (Capidan 1925: 167; Philippide [1927] 2015: 469). Meyer-Lübke (1895: 152) took this to be a simplification of an original structure with ‘want’ + să + subjunctive, which is suggested also by the existence of a conditional comprising the third-person singular imperfect of ‘want’ + subjunctive, while others consider it to be an imitation of Bulgarian. The future of the type ‘have’ + a + infinitive is infrequent and gradually disappears from the second half of the seventeenth century (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 232–41). The newer equivalent structure, with subjunctive instead of infinitive (‘have’ + să + ²²⁹ In southern Aromanian dialects the invariable particle has the form vai, which according to Capidan (1906: 229) comes from va + si.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
374 subjunctive) is more resistant. Unattested in the sixteenth century and rare afterwards, it is better represented in the nineteenth and twentieth (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 231–2). The periphrasis long preserves a modal value (necessity), not being completely grammaticalized as a future. This type exists in Megleno-Romanian (Philippide [1927] 2015: 470). Atanasov (1984: 529) states that it is especially used in the singular and has an invariant form for the third person, in both singular and plural (ari si veadă ‘(s) he/they will see’).
6.8.5 The future in the past periphrasis The future in the past in old Romanian is expressed by using a past tense form of the auxiliary of the future periphrasis, chiefly of the type voi + avea ‘I will have’: in the imperfect 3 vrea avea (lit. ‘(s)he was wanting to have’), in the perfect 3 a vrut avea (lit. ‘(s)he has wanted to have’), that is, ‘(s)he would have’. These constructions are the basis of the conditional mood. The future in the past could also be obtained from the future periphrasis with the auxiliary ‘want’ and the subjunctive: it could be formed by putting the auxiliary in the imperfect, as in vrea să moară²³⁰ (lit. ‘wanted să die.’ = ‘was about to die’):
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(54) începu a le grăi lor de carele vrea să fie lui231 started to to.them speak to.them about what wanted be. to.him ‘He started to speak to them about what would happen to him.’ In Aromanian, the imperfect of the verb a vrea ‘want’, namely vrea(i), may be followed by an optional să + present subjunctive (vrea (s-)moară ‘they were going to die’), by the synthetic conditional (vrea s-mâcare ‘(s)he was going to eat’), or by a past tense. The same value is obtained by combining the present of the auxiliary, va(i), with a past tense form of the main verb: va + imperfect (va făţea ‘he would do’) (Philippide [1927] 2015: 416–17). These constructions, which follow a typical path, have acquired conditional value. Modern Romanian forms the future periphrasis with the imperfect of a avea ‘to have’ or with an ungrammaticalized construction that uses the verb a urma ‘to follow’ in the imperfect: avea să vină; urma să vină ‘(s)he was going to come’ (Zafiu 2013a: 40).
6.8.6 The conditional periphrasis There were various conditional periphrases in old Romanian. They were constructed with an opaque auxiliary form from a vrea ‘to want’ (henceforth indicated by 1 aş) + infinitive (ară fi²³² ‘(s)he would be’), or with a ‘transparent’ auxiliary (i.e. one ²³⁰ CT; BB.
²³¹ Ev.
²³² CC².
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
375
identical with the lexical verb) a vrea ‘to want’, either in the imperfect (vrea fi);²³³ or in the analytic perfect (au vrut fi).²³⁴ In old texts, all these periphrases (including the most grammaticalized, the aş conditional)²³⁵ had either the initial value of future in the past or the value of (non-)counterfactual conditionals, depending on context.²³⁶ With the specialization of the perfect conditional periphrases formed with the participle of the lexical verb, the other periphrases have retained a predominantly non-counterfactual value (Zafiu 2017). Modern standard Romanian preserves only the aş conditional; in the Crișana region (Urițescu 1984: 310) there are isolated occurrences of the conditional with the periphrastic perfect of the auxiliary, in modified form, with conditional perfect value, as in (55).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(55) dacă ştiai nu te-ai vu supăra237 if know..2 not..-have.2 wanted worry ‘If you had known, you wouldn’t have worried.’ In the dialects of Banat and in Istro-Romanian, the conditional continues the type a vrea ‘to want’ (in the imperfect) + infinitive; it does so through intermediate forms, which appear to preserve an earlier stage of the development of the aş-conditional (reaş face, ręş face ‘(I) would do’). In southern Crişana (Uriţescu 1984: 310), the conditional is formed with an invariable third-person singular imperfect form of a vrea ‘to want’ + infinitive: vrę męre ‘would go’. This construction resembles the one we find in Aromanian, where an invariable form of the auxiliary a vrea in the imperfect, vrea, is followed by the subjunctive (this reflects the already complete process in Balkan languages of replacement of the infinitive by the subjunctive). In Istro-Romanian, two kinds of structure with past conditional value are recorded: one consists of the shortened form of a vrea ‘want’ + the participle of a fi ‘be’ + the infinitive of the lexical verb (ręş fost cântå ‘(I) would been sing.’ = ‘(I)’d have sung’: see Kovačec 1971: 148–9; Maiden 2016d: 110), another is made up of the shortened form of a vrea + the participle of the lexical verb (ręş cântåt: see Sârbu & Frăţilă 1998: 31). In Aromanian, the future in the past of the kind mentioned above, used in conditional clauses, is considered already to have become a conditional (an irrealis mood in Philippide [1927] 2015: 422–3; a past conditional in Capidan 1932: 473–7; Saramandu 1984: 458–9; Nevaci 2006: 142–52). It is unclear whether all the different types can be categorized as present or as perfect conditionals, and many examples suggest that the aspectual or temporal interpretation depends on the context, as we can see from (56).
²³³ CC². ²³⁴ CSIV. ²³⁵ The conditional with the value of a past indicative (Densusianu 1938: 231–2), especially frequent in PO, may be considered a translation error, unjustifiably equating the Latin imperfect subjunctive with the Romanian present conditional; but sometimes it is just future in the past. ²³⁶ Because of the future in the past value or of the counterfactual character of contexts, conditional periphrases with the infinitive of the lexical verb have sometimes been described as past conditional forms. ²³⁷ Text from Sălaj (Marin et al. 2017: 47).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
376 (56) ea când vrea hibă . . . cam pi la was when would be. about at ‘It would have been/be about 1850.’
opsuţin:ăţ 850
anlu238 year.
Here are a few further examples: vrea(i)( + s-) + subjunctive vrea(i)( + s-) + synthetic conditional vrea(i)( + s-) + imperfect vrea(i)( + s-) + analytic pluperfect239 va(i) ( + s-) + imperfect va(i) + analytic pluperfect240
e.g. vrea s-moarâ ‘would die, would have died’; vrea mâc ‘I would eat, I would have eaten’ e.g. vrea s-cântare ‘(s)he would have eaten’; vrea arcare ‘(s)he would have thrown’ e.g. vrea s-era ‘(s)he would have been’; vrea arca ‘(s)he would have thrown’ e.g. vrea avea datâ ‘(s)he would have given’ e.g. va s-mâcam ‘I would have eaten’; va făţeam ‘I would have done’ e.g. va avea vătămatâ ‘(s)he would have killed’
Megleno-Romanian has also developed a conditional that, originally, must have had future in the past value. This is the type with the invariable vrea (from the third person of the verb a vrea ‘to want’) + present or perfect subjunctive (vrea si/să facă, vrea si/să aibă fat(ă) ‘(s)he would do’: see Atanasov 2002: 251).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.8.7 Periphrases with past participle Periphrases with the past participle could be formed in old Romanian with the auxiliary a fi ‘to be’ in almost any finite moods and tenses (Table 6.75). There is no sign of a construction with the auxiliary in the preterite (e.g. **fu avut ‘(s)he had had’), while the construction with the present tense auxiliary (the type e avut ‘(s)he has had’) is very rare (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 74–76) and limited to the sixteenth century.²⁴¹ Of the periphrases with the participle, modern standard Romanian has retained the future perfect (viitorul anterior), which also has an epistemic or presumptive value (e.g. va fi avut ‘(s)he’s probably had’), the prefect subjunctive (e.g. să fi avut ‘that (s)he should have had’), and the conditional perfect (e.g. ar fi avut ‘(s)he would have had’). Other types have survived only regionally. Constructions with the gerund and infinitive + participle
²³⁸ Saramandu (2007: 9). ²³⁹ A rare construction, according to Capidan (1932: 474). ²⁴⁰ The foms with (present) va or (imperfect) vrea followed by imperfect or pluperfect are described by Capidan (1932: 477) as being calqued on Greek. ²⁴¹ Modern regional attestations may be interpreted as ungrammaticalized constructions, similar to the compound perfect with ‘be’, or constructions of the type ‘copula + adjective’ (see e.g. Marin 2005–7: 117 for Muntenia).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
377
Table 6.75 Periphrases (in the third-person singular) with the participle, according to auxiliary . . . . . (a) . (b) . (c) . (d) . . . .. .. (a) .. (b) ..
old Romanian era avut a fost avut fusese avut va fi avut ar fi avut vrea fi avut a vrut fi avut fure avut să fie avut fiind avut (seventeenth century) a fi avut (eighteenth century) va fi fost avut ar fi fost avut vrea fi fost avut să fie fost avut
modern Romanian — (regional) a fost avut — va fi avut/(regional, colloquial) o fi avut ar fi avut — — — să fi avut — a fi avut — — — —
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
appear fairly late, and only the latter survives in modern Romanian, as a perfect infinitive (e.g. a fi avut ‘to have had’). The values of various periphrases in old Romanian are not always clear. One generally finds in them an aspectual value, perfectivity, which acquires temporal undertones of anteriority, or a modal value of supposition about the past, in the epistemic future, also called ‘presumptive’ (va fi avut/o fi avut ‘(s)he’s probably had’). Out of these forms, the periphrasis with the imperfect auxiliary—3 era văzut²⁴² ‘they had seen’—was quite frequent; it functioned as an analytic pluperfect equivalent to the synthetic pluperfect (Densusianu 1938: 224). (57) Domnul Dumnedzeu încă nu era ploat the.lord God yet not was rained lit. ‘God had not yet rained upon the earth.’
pre pământ243 on earth
This periphrasis, well attested in the sixteenth century but rarer in the seventeenth (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 196–200), survives to this day in western and northern dialects, and also in Muntenia (Marin 2005–7: 117–19). The perfect auxiliary yields a supercompound perfect, attested in the sixteenth century (e.g. 3 au fost luat²⁴⁴ ‘they had taken’), frequent in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 37–62) and fairly well preserved in some modern dialects, especially in Transylvania, Banat, Maramureş, northern Moldova (ALRII map 2017) (e.g. Neagoe 1984: 263; Urițescu 1984: 309; Vulpe 1984: 337, Lăzărescu 1984: 225) and in Muntenia (Marin 2005–7: 119–20).
²⁴² CC¹.
²⁴³ PO.
²⁴⁴ DÎ XIX.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
378
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(58) ei s-o fo dusă la nuntă245 they .. been. gone. to wedding ‘They went/had gone to the wedding.’ This construction, generally considered an analytic pluperfect (Densusianu 1938: 224), nonetheless has different values and uses from those of the synthetic pluperfect (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 38–40): essential is its aspectual value as a perfect, which expresses an action completed in the past, unlike the synthetic pluperfect, whose essential value—anteriority to some reference point—is anaphoric and relative. The structure of the supercompound form makes transparent the link with the perfect, just as that of synthetic pluperfect makes plain the link with the preterite. The supercompound periphrasis also exists in Megleno-Romanian (fost-ăi mâncat lit. ‘been you. have eaten’, vut-ăi mâncată ‘have you.have eaten’: see Atanasov 1984: 528). Periphrases with an auxiliary in the pluperfect are rare (fusese zis²⁴⁶ ‘he had said’; Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 200–1, Frâncu 2009: 114), but they are attested in Muntenia (Marin 2005–7: 121). The periphrasis with a future auxiliary (veri fi auzit²⁴⁷ ‘(you) will have heard’) has future perfect value and may have had past presumptive value already in the sixteenth century. Periphrases with the auxiliary in the conditional have the value of a perfect conditional. From the sixteenth century on, old Romanian had several variants, often in free variation within the same texts: (1) with the auxiliary in the synthetic conditional— fure faptu²⁴⁸ ‘(s)he would have done’; (2) with the auxiliary in the aş condiţional—ară fi fost²⁴⁹ ‘it would have been’; (3) with the auxiliary in the vrea conditional—vrea fi venit eu²⁵⁰ ‘I would have come’; (4) with the auxiliary in the a vrut conditional: au vrut fi zis²⁵¹ ‘(s)he would have said’. The periphrasis with the auxiliary in the subjunctive constitues a perfect subjunctive. Attested since the sixteenth century (e.g. să fie zis²⁵² ‘that (s)he have said’), this construction changes gradually through the reduction of the auxiliary in the nineteenth century to a single form să fi zis, invariant with respect to person and number (see §6.7.5). The supercompound forms additionally mark perfectivity and anteriority. The supercompound future perfect—va fi fost făcut²⁵³ lit. ‘(s)he will have been done’ (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 258–9) is fairly rare. Best represented is the supercompound perfect conditional (considered by Frâncu 2009: 124 to be a conditional pluperfect)— aţi fi fost crezut ‘you would have believed’,²⁵⁴ attested from the sixteenth century on and constant in the seventeenth and eighteenth; it has the value of a conditional perfect (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 336, 339). Supercompound periphrases are also produced with other types of conditional forms (e.g. vrea fi fost iubit ‘(s)he would have loved’).²⁵⁵ The supercompound perfect subjunctive (să fie fost umblat²⁵⁶ ‘that he have gone’) is attested
²⁴⁵ Text from Sălaj (Marin et al. 2017: 45). ²⁵⁰ CC². ²⁵¹ CC². ²⁵² CC².
²⁴⁶ CC². ²⁵³ Prav. 1652.
²⁴⁷ CC². ²⁵⁴ CT.
²⁴⁸ CV. ²⁵⁵ CC².
²⁴⁹ CC². ²⁵⁶ NL.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
.
379
since the seventeenth century and became more frequent in the eighteenth (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 415; Frâncu 2009: 315–16, 2010: 121–3). The perfect infinitive (e.g. a fi avut ‘to have had’) appears late, in the eighteenth century (Diaconescu 1977: 140–2; Frâncu 2009: 321; Nedelcu 2016: 239), becoming more frequent in the nineteenth. It is probably modelled on the perfect subjunctive. The perfect gerund is attested since the seventeenth century (fiind făcută păcat²⁵⁷ ‘having (lit. being) done sin’); extremely rare in old Romanian, it disappears from use after the nineteenth century (Niculescu 2016: 275). In these periphrases, in the sixteenth century the participle sometimes agreed in gender and number with the subject (Dragomirescu 2014) (59): (59) era merrşi258 be. go... ‘they had gone’ In western and north-western regional varieties, all these periphrases (perfect conditional, perfect subjunctive, epistemic future perfect, etc.) may use the feminine form of the participle, in -ă (cf. §6.5.5): aş fi cântată ‘I would have sung’, aş fi foastă ‘I would have been’ (Urițescu 2007); and, in southern regional varieties, să fi avută ‘have had’, ar fi fostă ‘he would have been’, o fi fostă ‘he will have been’ (Donovetsky 2012: 188). The trans-Danubian dialects do not have periphrases of this kind with ‘be’ and the participle.²⁵⁹
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
6.8.8 Periphrases with the gerund Old Romanian had periphrases with ‘be’ and the gerund in all finite moods and tenses; these ran parallel to periphrases with the past participle (Table 6.76). They probably had a continuous or progressive aspectual value, which has gradually disappeared, and which made these periphrases equivalent to the corresponding synthetic tense forms. When the auxiliary had the form of the perfect, its contribution to the value of the periphrasis was probably purely temporal, the gerund form being the bearer of the aspectual value. There is no construction with auxiliary ‘be’ in the gerund combined with the gerund of the lexical verb, while the construction with the infinitive of the auxiliary appeared very late. Both in old and in modern Romanian, the situation of periphrases with the gerund is similar to that of periphrases with the past participle. Their position in modern Romanain is weaker, however: the only surviving forms are those of the future, subjunctive, and conditional (respectively va fi având, să fi având, ar fi având), but
²⁵⁷ PI. ²⁵⁸ CV. ²⁵⁹ Nevaci (2013: 79) mentions some constructions with ‘be’ instead of ‘have’ in the perfect and pluperfect subjunctives in the fărşerot dialect.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
380 Table 6.76 Periphrases with the gerund, according to the form of the auxiliary (given in the third-person singular)
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
. . . . . . . (a) . (b) . (c) . (d) . . .. .. ..
old Romanian e având era având a fost având fu având fusese având va fi având ar fi având vrea fi având a vrut fi având fure având să fie având a fi având (19th century) va fi fost având ar fi fost având să fie fost având
modern Romanian — — (regional) a fost având — — va fi având/(regional, colloquial) o fi având ar fi având — — — să fi având a fi având — — —
the last two are very little used (Zafiu 2013a: 42–3). These survivals—the equivalents of the future, the present subjunctive, and the present conditional—were more resistant because of the functionalization of the corresponding periphrases with the participle (respectively as future anterior, perfect subjunctive, and conditional perfect). Since they lack a specific temporal value, they have tended to be eliminated or to specialize in epistemic–evidential uses. The only periphrasis whose specialization has favoured stable retention is the future, which has become an unambiguous epistemic future: a ‘present presumptive’ that expresses supposition about the present (Zafiu 2013a: 40). In any case, the specialization for epistemic value is a recent phenomenon. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the periphrases with the gerund could have all the meanings and uses of the corresponding forms of the future, subjunctive, and conditional. Other periphrases with the gerund have been preserved in regional varieties. The periphrasis with the present auxiliary, with present progressive value (e.g. sântu stându²⁶⁰ ‘(I) am standing’, toate ce-s fiind²⁶¹ ‘all the things that are being’), is better attested in the sixteenth century (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 74–5), but rapidly fell out of use. Progressive periphrases with the auxiliary in the imperfect, perfect, and preterite are generally equivalent to the synthetic imperfect, owing to the aspectual value conferred on the construction by the gerund. They are all on record since the sixteenth century and increase in number in the seventeenth, possibly under the influence of the progressive periphrases of New Testament Byzantine Greek (Arvinte 2004: XLIV). The periphrasis with the imperfect of a fi ‘be’ and the gerund of the lexical verb (e.g. însumi era stându²⁶² ‘(I) myself was standing’; era având²⁶³ ‘he was having’) is attested in modern Muntenia (Marin 2005–7: 115). ²⁶⁰ CV.
²⁶¹ CPr.
²⁶² CV.
²⁶³ BB.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
381
The periphrasis with the perfect of ‘be’ and the gerund of the lexical verb (e.g. au fost având²⁶⁴ ‘they were having’) was quite frequent in the old language (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 62–74). This form has been preserved in Muntenia and Banat, and also in many areas of north-western and central Transylvania (e.g. Bihor, Oaş, Maramureş), as an archaism (Neagoe 1984: 263; Uriţescu 1984: 308; Vulpe 1984: 336; Marin 2005–7: 112–14).²⁶⁵ The preservation of this construction over a fairly wide area fits in with the survival of the corresponding periphrasis with the participle. For the periphrasis with the preterite of the auxiliary (e.g. fum veselindu-nă²⁶⁶ ‘(we) were rejoicing’), the examples are fewer, and they are problematic. Some might be constructions of a different type, invariable and impersonal, where ‘be’ means ‘happen’, ‘come about that’ (Arvinte 2004: XLVI): fu mergând eu²⁶⁷ ‘I was going’ or ‘[it was] as I happened to go/walk’. The pluperfect of the auxiliary with the gerund yielded a continuous pluperfect: fusease purtând²⁶⁸ ‘(they) had been carrying’. The construction with auxiliary a fi ‘to be’ in the future (the voi future) is attested from the sixteenth century, with future value, probably at first in a continuous– progressive sense that was gradually neutralized: fi-va ieșind²⁶⁹ ‘(it) will be coming out’/‘(it) will come out’. Sometimes this construction had the epistemic implication of making a supposition about some present event or state, disambiguated solely through context. As the gerund periphrases went out of use, the future periphrasis became specialized in that epistemic sense, both in the standard Romanian form (va fi făcând ‘(s)he must be doing’) and in the popular form with auxiliary o (o fi făcând), completely losing its temporal future value. The epistemic or presumptive periphrasis is equivalent to the epistemic uses of the future in the popular form with auxiliary (o fi făcând = o face). For the epistemic usage of the verb a fi ‘to be’, modern Romanian prefers the future o fi (over o fi fiind), but with other verbs the future with the gerund is preferred (o fi mergând ‘(s)he must be going’, rather than o merge). Several types of conditional yield progressive periphrases with an auxiliary in (1) the synthetic conditional: fure [ . . . ] lăcuind²⁷⁰ ‘((s)he) will/would be living’ (Densusianu 1938: 230); (2) the aş conditional: aţi fi având²⁷¹ ‘you would have’; (3) the vrea conditional: fi-vreaţi ştiindu²⁷² ‘you would know’; and (4) the a vrut conditional: am vrut fi fiind²⁷³ ‘(we) would be’. Their value is that of a present conditional with an attenuated aspectual sense, which was imperceptible even in the earliest attestations. In modern Romanian the periphrasis with aş is very rare but still occurs, after a recent specialization of usage, in contexts where the conditional has epistemic values. The subjunctive auxiliary produced a periphrasis of the type să fie având,²⁷⁴ attested since the seventeenth century (Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 1: 415–16; Niculescu 2013a: 158). Albeit extremely rarely used, it persists in standard Romanian—where, like the
²⁶⁴ CC². ²⁶⁵ An atypical construction, recorded in Banat, is made up of an invariant auxiliary and a gerund (e.g. o dând ‘(s)he gave’) and has the value of an imperfect or perfect. This construction may have arisen through loss of the past participle form fost (Neagoe 1984: 263). ²⁶⁶ PS. ²⁶⁷ BB. ²⁶⁸ CC². ²⁶⁹ Ev. ²⁷⁰ CPr. ²⁷¹ CT. ²⁷² CC². ²⁷³ CT. ²⁷⁴ Prav. 1646.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
382
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
progressive conditional, it has specialized in the epistemic sense. The infinitive auxiliary + gerund appears late, in educated registers, probably as a substitute for the subjunctive, especially when subordinated to a verb with epistemic–evidential meaning (e.g. pare a fi având ‘(s)he seems to be having’: see Niculescu 2013a: 166–7). The supercompound progressive future (e.g. va fi fost gătind²⁷⁵ ‘he will have been cooking’) and the supercompound progressive conditional (e.g. ară fi [ . . . ] fost fiind²⁷⁶ ‘(he) would have been being’; see Zamfir 2005–7, vol. 2: 258, 345) are very rare; more frequent, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, is the supercompound subjunctive (e.g. să fie fost ţiind²⁷⁷ ‘that he have been holding’). These periphrases are not found in transDanubian dialects.
²⁷⁵ Prav. 1652.
²⁷⁶ CPr.
²⁷⁷ CH.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
7 Word formation in diachrony 7.1 Structure and segmentation of affixes
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.1.1 Difficulties of analysis
ndelegan, Oana Ut 85.003.0007
Romanian has an extremely rich derivational system, richer and more productive in suffixation than in prefixation. From the earliest texts, the inventory of derived formations (suffixed, prefixed, and parasynthetic) has been remarkably large, and analysis of this material presents numerous difficulties of interpretation. In many contexts, the segmentation of the suffixed word and the identification of the suffix are straightforward and can be done through comparison with the base word. Formations such as că ruţaş ‘carter’, cizmar ‘bootmaker’, dornic ‘willing’, lă că tuş ‘locksmith’, tutungiu ‘tobacconist’ allow the separation of the roots că ruţ-, cizm-, dor-, lă că t-, tutun- from the suffixes -aş, -ar, -nic, -uş, -giu, when we compare those derived forms with the base words că ruţă ‘cart’, cizmă ‘boot’, dor ‘longing’, lacă t ‘padlock’, tutun ‘tobacco’. But even in these simple examples it is unclear, for instance, whether the suffix -nic in dornic has as its base the noun dor ‘longing’ or the verb dori ‘want’. A clear answer cannot be given by looking at the history of this suffix, since -nic can attach both to nominal and to verbal bases; thus there is on the one hand birnic ‘tributary’, where the suffix is attached to a nominal base (bir ‘tribute’), and on the other hand cucernic ‘pious’, which comes from the verbal base a se cuceri (obsolete) ‘submit’ (lit. ‘conquer oneself, be conquered’). Moreover, archaic formations such as clevetnic ‘slandering’, iscodnic ‘searching, curious’, or platnic ‘payer’ are attested and can be related to both verbal and nominal bases such as cleveată ‘slander’ and cleveti ‘to gossip, slander’, iscoadă ‘spy’ and iscodi ‘to spy, search’, or plată ‘payment’ and plă ti ‘to pay’. It is also difficult to decide, for certain formations, whether they are borrowed ‘ready-made’ from the source language or created within Romanian, the base and the suffix having been borrowed separately. For example, a formation such as obraznic ‘insolent, cheeky’ might have been created in Romanian (obraz ‘cheek’ + -nic) or might be a loan, a word borrowed in its entirety from Slavonic (Ciorănescu 2002: 553–4). Much literature has been produced on this topic (from a general theoretical point of view, but also in terms of decisions made in one concrete situation or another), not
The Oxford History of Romanian Morphology. Martin Maiden, Adina Dragomirescu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Oana Ut a̦ ̆ Bărbulescu, and ̆ a̦ ̆ Bărbulescu,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
384
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
always with clear-cut results.¹ Many other suffixed words raise problems of segmentation, analysis, and interpretation. We mention only a few: i. In words derived with the suffix -giu we encounter two different situations. These words may be related to base words such as cafea ‘coffee’, geam ‘glass’, han ‘inn’, or tutun ‘tobacco’, where the suffix -giu can be clearly identified (cafegiu originally ‘coffee maker, proprietor of a coffee shop’, now ‘regular coffee drinker’, geamgiu ‘window maker’, hangiu ‘innkeeper’, tutungiu ‘tobacconist’), or they may be related to base words such as blat ‘dough’, camion ‘lorry’, gră tar ‘grill’, where a slightly different suffix form is detached, namely -agiu (blatagiu ‘dough maker’, camionagiu ‘truck driver’, gră taragiu ‘person operating a grill’). In barcă ‘boat’ and reclamă ‘advertisement’, the segmentation shows that the form of the suffix is -agiu (barcagiu ‘boatman’, reclamagiu ‘claimant’). Such examples raise the question whether, in formations such as damblagiu ‘paralytic’ ( dambla ‘palsy’) or mahalagiu ‘busybody’( mahala ‘suburb’), -a- belongs to the root or to the suffix (dambla-giu or dambl-agiu, mahala-giu or mahal-agiu). ii. The examples just given raise another question, namely whether -giu and -agiu are variants of the same suffix or independent suffixes. Since the meaning of the two forms is identical, the suffixes have the same origin, and the roots belong to the same morphological category, analysing them as variants or different realizations of the same suffix is clearly convenient. iii. The distinction between variants of the same suffix and autonomous suffixes is even more difficult to ascertain when a suffix has different semantic values, be they closer or further apart in meaning. For example, the question arises whether it is the same suffix -nic or not that occurs in formations such as (a) birnic ‘tributary’ ( bir ‘tribute’), datornic ‘indebted’ ( dator ‘indebted’), dornic ‘willing’ ( dor ‘desire’), platnic ‘paying’ ( plată ‘payment’), and (b) îndă ră tnic ‘stubborn’ ( îndă ră t ‘backwards’), lă turalnic ‘side-’ ( latură ‘side’), nă valnic ‘impetuous’ ( nă vală ‘invasion’), puternic ‘strong’ ( putere ‘power’), where the meaning ‘possessor of a quality/feature’ is distant from the agentive one. In other cases, the semantic values are even further apart, and they are sometimes hard to explain as metaphorical extensions from one meaning to the other; good examples are the agentive, the instrumental, the locative, and the abstract values of the suffix -toare, in examples such as muncitoare ‘working woman’, seceră toare ‘mowing machine’, ascunză toare ‘hiding place’, vână toare ‘hunt(ing)’ (see Rainer 2011). The question is whether the suffix in all these words is one and the same or we are looking here at (partially) homonymous suffixes. iv. It can be difficult to determine the boundary between root and suffix; for example, is -i- in formations such as brazilian ‘Brazilian’ from Brazilia, sicilian ¹ See Rădulescu Sala (2012: 1826–7).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
385
‘Sicilian’ from Sicilia, or veneţian ‘Venetian’, from Veneția part of the root or part of the suffix? It is also difficult to decide whether a formation such as vitejeşte ‘courageously’ derives from viteaz ‘courageous’ + -eşte (! vitejeşte) or from vitejesc ‘courageous’ (a base itself derived with -esc) + -e (! vitejeşte). Certain suffixes are reanalysed within Romanian so that a new one is created by combining two. A good example of this chain of transformations is the new suffix -iceşte, which is now non-analysable: it occurs in formations such as culturaliceşte ‘culturally’ or papagaliceşte ‘parrot-like’, where it cannot be related to **culturalic or **papagalic, but rather to cultural ‘cultural’ and papagal ‘parrot’.
7.1.2 Variants of suffixes
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Suffixes that are identified often have variants. These can be: (i) morphological, when selected on the basis of the inflexional (sub)class of the base; such are, for example, the variants of the agentive suffix -tor (-ă tor, -itor, -âtor), made up of the thematic vowel and the suffix (cânta ~ cântă tor ‘to sing ~ singing’, vedea ~ vă ză tor ‘to see ~ seeing/seer’, citi ~ cititor ‘to read ~ reading/ reader’, pârî ~ pârâtor ‘to denounce ~ denouncing/denouncer’; see §7.3.2); (ii) phonological, which are subordinate to the morphological ones and are selected on the basis of the phonetic characteristics of the right edge of the root; examples are the variants -ietor and -ietură , selected by verb roots that end in a palatal element: tă ia ~ tă ietor ‘to cut ~ cutter’; tă ia ~ tă ietură ‘to cut ~ cut’; §§1.5, 7.3.2); (iii) lexical/etymological, which belong to different etymological strata: thus the neological variant -ator is distinct from -ă tor and occurs in conjunction with neological verb roots of the first conjugation (formator ‘former’, programator ‘programmer’, utilizator ‘user’; §7.3.2). Among phonological variants, we might also include the variants of verbal suffixes (see §7.9.1, the verbal suffix -ta: e.g. ofta ‘to sigh’), which have a supporting vowel (ă , e, i, o), probably to provide the prototypical syllabic structure VCV for the suffix (şchiopă ta ‘to limp’, vă ieta ‘to wail’, dormita ‘to slumber’, tropota ‘to tramp’).
7.1.3 The phonetic structure of suffixes, and stress The prototypical phonetic structure of the suffix is VC (-aj, -an, -ar, -aş, -at, -âş, -el, -et, -eţ, -ez, -ic, -iş, -iv, -os, -uş, -uţ, etc.), with the variant VC(C) (-esc, -ist, -ism, -ant). In the absence of an initial vocalic segment, the suffix often receives a connecting vowel, which creates many of the suffixal variants (e.g. -agiu for the agentive suffix -giu, or -ă ta, -eta, -ita, -ota, etc., for the verbal suffix -ta).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
386 The suffixes -nic (dornic ‘willing’, platnic ‘paying’) and -lâc (savantlâc ‘abstruse piece of knowledge’) and the motional (i.e. sex-marking) suffix -că (să teancă ‘countrywoman’, moldoveancă ‘Moldovan woman’, see §7.5), all of which attach directly to the base, without a connecting vowel, are an exception. It is noteworthy that the suffixes -nic and -că do not follow the normal stress rule for suffixes either, being unstressed (see infra), while -lâc has a productivity close to zero. There are very few suffixes with a strictly vocalic form VV in hiatus (-ui, -âi: vă rui ‘whitewash’, cârâi ‘croak’; -ă i: clă pă i ‘clatter’, tropă i ‘tramp’), with the form of a descending diphthong (-iu̯, -oi:̯ pă mântiu ‘sallow, ashen’, vulpoi ‘fox’), or simply V, in immediate verbal derivation (adânci ‘deepen’, albi ‘whiten’; cf. adânc ‘deep’, alb ‘white’). Nominal suffixes of feminine form often incorporate the feminine ending -ă (-ică , -iţă , -easă , -esă ), more rarely -e (-eţe); verbal suffixes often incorporate the grammatical suffix of the infinitive (-iza, -ifica, -iona, -ta, -ui, -âi). This is the reason why studies separate the form of the suffix from that of the ending (fet-ic-ă ‘little girl’, fet-iţ-ă ‘little girl’, împă ră t-eas-ă ‘empress’, prinţ-es-ă ‘princess’, bă trân-eţ-e ‘old age’) and the form of the lexical suffix from that of the grammatical suffix (optim-iz-a ‘to optimize’, solidific-a ‘to solidify’, porţ-ion-a ‘to portion’, of-t-a ‘to sigh’, vă r-u-i ‘whitewash, câr-â-i ‘to croak’). In motional derivation, which encompasses sex-marking suffixes (elev-ă ‘female pupil’, avocat-ă ‘female lawyer’; see also §7.5.2), and in direct verbal derivation (alb-i ‘to whiten’, albă str-i ‘to become blue’ from alb ‘white’, albastru ‘blue’), or in parasynthetic derivation (îm-bogă ţ-i ‘to enrich’, în-negr-i ‘to blacken’ from bogat ‘rich’, negru ‘black’), the final segment has two simultaneous functions: for nouns, it has the function of an ending that marks the feminine singular (see the opposition avocată ~ avocate ‘female lawyer ~ female lawyers’), as well as the more general function of a motional suffix; for verbs, it has the function of a grammatical suffix that marks the infinitive and the function of a lexical suffix that forms a new word. The double function explains the label ‘lexical–grammatical suffix’ given by Romanian linguists to these suffixes. The general stress rule for suffixed words is that stress falls on the suffix. Derivation by suffix triggers a stress shift (nimíc ‘nothing’! nimicí ‘annihilate’, albástru ‘blue’ ! albă strí ‘turn blue’, cízmă ‘boot’ ! cizmár ‘bootmaker’, feciór ‘young man’ ! fecioríe ‘youth’). In the case of successive derivation (with several suffixes), the stress shifts for each newly added suffix (oráş ‘town’ ~ oră şeán ‘townsman’~ oră şenizá ‘urbanize’). The stress shift may lead to allomorphy in the root (e.g. oráş ‘town’ ~ oră şeán ‘townsman’, gálben ‘yellow’ ~ îngălbení ‘to become yellow’, frumós ‘beautiful’ ~ frumuséţe ‘beauty’, dugheánă ‘booth’ ~ dughenizá ‘to set up booths’, floáre ‘flower’ ~ înflorí ‘to blossom’, bogát ‘rich’ ~ îmbogăţí ‘to enrich’). Among sex-marking suffixes, the general stress rule is not followed by the suffixes -ă (elévă ‘female pupil’) and -că (ţă ráncă ‘peasant woman’), as both are unstressed; but -ă is a different kind of suffix, functioning simultaneously as an inflexional ending, and in -că the suffix may be analysed as just c-, a non-syllabic component. The suffix -iţă
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
387
has a variable stress:² in some words it is stressed (jupâníţă ‘young noblewoman’, ospă tă ríţă ‘waitress’, primă ríţă ‘female mayor’, şcolă ríţă ‘female pupil’), but newer words do not shift the stress of the base (bárman ‘barman’ ~ bármaniţă ‘barmaid’, bróker ‘broker’ ~ brókeriţă ‘female broker’, chélner ‘waiter’ ~ chélneriţă ‘waitress’). The only agentive suffix that does not follow the general stress rule is -nic, which, at every stage in the evolution of the language, has constituted an unstressed syllable (ORo. bírnic ‘tax payer’, mitárnic ‘dishonest’; modern Romanian colhóznic ‘kolkhoznik’). Among abstract suffixes, -are (vânzáre ‘sale’) follows the stress rule, while -re, with its morphological variants (mâncáre ‘food’, vedére ‘sight’, trécere ‘passing’), reflects the stress patterns of the associated infinitives, since such forms were originally substantivized infinitives formed by conversion (see §§7.6.2.3, 7.6.2.4).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.1.4 Types of bases selected by suffixes There are few suffixes specialized for only one type of base (one morphological class). Examples are the deverbal agentive suffix -tor and the abstract deverbal suffixes -are, -re, -ciune, -inţă . Slightly more numerous are the suffixes specialized for the creation of morphological classes. These are labelled adverbial, adjectival, and verbal suffixes. The bases selected by suffixes are extremely varied. In verbs, which constitute the most open class as far as the morphological category of the base is concerned, one finds pronominal bases (însuşi ‘himself ’ ! însuşi ‘to appropriate’), numeral bases (zece ‘ten’! zeciui ‘to tithe’), and prepositional bases (asupra ‘above’ ! asupri ‘to oppress’)—as well as interjectional bases, from which onomatopoeic verbs are often derived (e.g. cârâi ‘to croak’, cloncă ni ‘to cluck’, gârâi ‘to croak’, piui ‘to cheep’, pârâi ‘to crackle’, sâsâi ‘to hiss’). A recent and extremely productive mechanism is derivation from abbreviations (Stoichiţoiu Ichim 2006a: 207–30), a type based on a French model. The most frequent suffixes for abbreviations are the neologistic -ist (PCR-ist ‘member of the Romanian Communist Party’, PNL-ist ‘member of the National Liberal Party’, ONG-ist ‘member of an NGO’, TBC-ist ‘TB patient’), -ism (UTC-ism ‘spirit of the Communist Youth Union’, brex-ism ‘Brexit ideology’), -iza (PSD-izá ‘to turn someone into a Social Democratic Party follower’). Some prefixes are attached to acronyms as well, for example the neologistic prefixes ex-, anti-, and pro- (ex-PNL ‘former-PNL’, anti-UE ‘anti-EU’, pro-UE ‘pro-EU’), and the negative prefix ne- (nepecerist ‘non-PCR member/sympathizer’). Derivation with the neologistic suffixes listed above also occurs with proper names (marxist ‘Marxist’, stalinist ‘Stalinist’, Le Pen-ist ‘Le Pen sympathizer’) and with fragments of lexical roots (Ceauşescu + -ist > ceauşist ‘sympathizer of Ceaușescu’, securitate + -ist > securist ‘Securitate member’).
² The diminutive suffix -iţă follows the general stress rule, triggering stress shift (fátă ‘girl’ ~ fetíţă ‘little girl’, fúndă ‘bow’ ~ fundíţă ‘little bow’).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
388
7.2 Diminutive and augmentative suffixes
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.2.1 Diminutive suffixes 7.2.1.1 Grammatical and semantic properties In the standard language,³ diminutive suffixes are attached to nominal stems (copil ‘child’ + -aş ! copilaş, fată ‘girl’ + -iţă ! fetiţă ), including anthroponyms (Ion ! Ionel/Ionuţ/Ionică , Adina ! Adinuţa/Adinuca), toponyms (Almă şel, Bă iţa, Bă işoara, Bistricioara; Iordan 1963: 446–61), adjectival stems (frumos ‘beautiful’ + -el ! frumuşel, prost ‘stupid’ + -uţ ! prostuţ),⁴ and adverbial stems (bine ‘well’ + -işor ! binişor, departe ‘far’ + -işor ! depă rtişor, puţin ‘little’ + -el ! puţinel).⁵ Among Romanian diminutive suffixes, only -iţă attaches exclusively to nominal stems. Diminutive suffixes preserve the lexical–grammatical class of the base,⁶ as well as its gender (obraz. ‘cheek’ ~ obră jor., mamă . ‘mother’ ~ mă mică .). They often function in pairs, one variant for masculine, and the other for feminine (-el vs -ea: feciorel ‘boy’ ~ feciorea ‘girl’; -ior vs -ioară : fră ţior ‘little brother’ ~ surioară ‘little sister’; -işor vs -işoară : botişor ‘cute pout’ ~ buzişoară ‘little lip’; -uş vs -uşă : că ţeluş ‘small dog’ ~ că ţeluşă ‘small female dog’; -uţ vs -uţă : pă hă ruţ ‘small glass’ ~ că suţă ‘small house’). Derivation displays patterns of root allomorphy also observable in inflexional morphology.⁷ Vowel changes are [a] ~ [ә]: pat ‘bed’ ~ pă tuţ; [a] ~ [e]: fată ‘girl’ ~ fetică ; [o̯a] ~ [o]: moale ‘soft’ ~ molicel; [e̯a] ~ [e]: deal ‘hill’ ~ deluşor; [o] ~ [u]: frumos ‘beautiful’ ~ frumuşel). Consonantal changes are [s] ~ [ʃ]: frumos ‘beautiful’ ~ frumuşel; [z] ~ [ʒ]: obraz ‘cheek’ ~ obră jor; [t] ~ [ts]: frate ‘brother’ ~ fră ţior. Some alternations are found only in derivation, for example consonantal changes [ts] ~ [tʃ]: mă suţă ‘small table’ ~ mescioară , [d]~ [ʒ]: rotund ‘round’ ~ rotunjor, and even vowel harmony: [a] ~ [a] > [ә] ~ [ә]: pahar ‘glass’ ~ pă hă rel. In all diminutive derivatives, the suffix bears the stress (pă túţ ‘little bed’, rotunjór ‘rather round’). Besides their denotative value, which is to designate objects or properties of smaller sizes (with many subvalues that derive from the general meaning ‘smaller’), diminutive suffixes are often used with a hypocoristic value. Some suffixes are polysemous; thus -iță , -el, and -ea are both diminutive and gender-marking or motional (fetiţă ‘little girl’, primă riţă ‘female mayor’). Sometimes both meanings are found in derivatives created from the same base (mieluşel ‘little lamb’, mieluşea ‘little female lamb’; see also §7.5). Two diminutive suffixes are frequently joined into a complex suffix with a stronger hypocoristic effect: -iţă + -ică ! -iţică (mă miţică ‘dear mother’); -el + -uş ! -eluş (purceluş ‘(cute) little piggy’); -el + -uţ ! -eluţ (purceluţ ‘(cute) little piggy’); -işor + -el ! -işorel (puişorel ‘(cute) little chick’); -uţă + -ioară ! -(u)cioară (că s(u)cioară ‘(cute) little house’), -işoară + -ică ! -işorică (domnişorică ‘(cute) little lady’). The suffixes ³ See §7.2.1.3 for a special situation in regional varieties. ⁴ On diminutival adjectives, see also §7.7. ⁵ For a description of diminutival adverbs, see §7.8.2.4. ⁶ With some exceptions in regional dialects where the diminutive suffix, attached to the verbal stems, forms nouns (see §7.2.1.3). ⁷ For stem allomorphy, both in inflexion and in derivation, see §1.5.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
389
involved—two or, more rarely, three (mamă ‘mother’ ~ mă mică ~ mă micuţă ~ mă micuţică ; porc ‘pig’ ~ purcel ~ purceluş ~ purceluşel)—can be different or the same (bere ‘beer’ ~ berică ~ bericică ; burtă ‘belly’ ~ burtică ~ burticică ). Derivation with two or three suffixes is exceptional and not possible with all suffixes. Iterated derivation is also found in Spanish and Italian (Meyer-Lübke 1895: 613, 615–16; for Italian, see Bauer 2011: 537, with examples such as casa ‘house’ ! casetta ‘small house’ ! casettina ‘house-.-’). Romanian differs from other Romance languages in that productive suffixes do not necessarily precede unproductive ones (see Zamfir & Uță Bărbulescu 2016). Diminutive suffixes form rich synonymous series such as fetică ~ fetiţă ~ fă tucă ~ fă tuţă ~ fetişoară ‘little girl’; a similar situation is found in Italian. Some series may contain between twelve and fifteen terms and are based on the words mamă ‘mother’ and tată ‘father’ (L. Vasiliu 1989b: 101). Synonymous diminutive pairs are frequent as well (ciobă naş ~ ciobă nel ‘little shepherd’, bră duţ ~ bră duleţ ‘little fir tree’, vântuţ ~ vântişor ‘small wind’, bunuţ ~ bunişor ‘goodish, pretty good’, etc.; see Moroianu 2016: 101–6). Although diminutival synonymy is frequent, not all diminutive suffixes are intersubstitutable in every context. There are grammatical restrictions determined by the gender of the base word, and there are usage preferences, with selectional (in)compatibilities. Gender restrictions explain the two following selectional rules: (1) bases that take masculine agreement require the masculine form of the suffix, as we can see in the synonymous series -aş and -el (bujoraş ~ bujorel ‘little peony’), -aş and -uţ (ulcioraş ~ ulcioruţ ‘little jug’), -el and -ior (bă trânel ~ bă trâior ‘little old man’), -el and -uţ (piciorel ~ picioruţ ‘small leg’), etc.); and (2) bases that take feminine agreement require the feminine form of the suffix, as we can see in the synonymous series -ea and -ică (ră murea ~ ră murică ‘small twig’), -ică and -ucă (că sică ~ că sucă ‘little house’), -ică and -uţă (bluzică ~ bluzuţă ‘small blouse’), -ică and -iţă (lânică ~ lâniţă ‘small piece/ object of wool’), etc. Restrictions on suffix selection may be arbitrary (they appear in the lexicon, not in grammar); thus derivatives like pă tuc ‘small bed’, scă unel ‘small chair’, iconiţă ‘small icon’, or pă durice ‘small forest’ are acceptable, but **pă tel, **scă unuc, **iconice, or **pă duriţă are not. A particular subtype is that of ‘false diminutives’, words that initially displayed a diminutive suffix but gradually lost their diminutive meaning entirely or partially. Examples are albuş ‘egg white’, arcuş ‘bow’, bunic ‘grandfather’, că prioară ‘deer’, fiică ‘daughter’, gă lbenuş ‘yolk’, mă nuşă ‘glove’ and numerous plant names: albă strea ‘cornflower’, cimbrişor ‘brotherwort’, lă cră mioară ‘lily of the valley’, lă mâiţă ‘lemon verbena’, and toponyms (see Coteanu ([1985] 2007: 46; Zafiu 2011; Leu 2016). Some diminutive derivatives inherited from Latin became structurally opaque (Bauer 2011: 534), some even from the late Latin period. We include here the class of Romanian nouns ending in -ea (stressed) and inherited from the Latin diminutive suffix - (e.g. că ţea ‘bitch’ < , rândunea ‘swallow’ < , turturea ‘turtledove’ < , ulcea ‘pot’ < *olliˈkella, vergea ‘wand’ < *virˈgella, viţea ‘female calf ’ < *viˈtella, etc.), but also other Latin derivatives that lost their
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
390
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
diminutive value (e.g. ̆̆ >*auˈrikla > ur(e)ache ‘ear’, > miel ‘lamb’, > inel ‘ring’, > * koˈliklu > regional curechi ‘cabbage’, fecior ‘boy, son’ < + - ‘boy, son’, picior ‘leg’ < ). As they are no longer themselves functional diminutives, they may attach a diminutive suffix to express the diminutive meaning (că ţeluşă ‘little dog/bitch’, cureluşă ‘small belt’, mieluţ ‘little lamb’, rândunică ‘little swallow’, turturică ‘little turtledove’, ulcică ‘small pot’, urechiuţă ‘small ear’, vergeluţă ‘small wand’, viţică ‘little female calf ’, etc.). This weakening or the loss of the diminutive value of the singular suffix -ea led to its replacement by the suffix -ică , whose status as diminutive suffix is clearer: rândunea + ică ! rândunică .⁸ Consequently there developed an irregular, indeed ‘suppletive’ morphological paradigm: the nominative–accusative singular form of the noun has the diminutive suffix -ică , while all other forms preserve -ele, that is, the plural form of the suffix -ea: pă să rea + -ică > pă să rică ‘little bird’ ~ pă să re(a)le; see Maiden (1999, 2014b: 39). The regular paradigm -ea ~ -e(a)le, frequent in the old language (pă să rea⁹ ~ pă să reale),¹⁰ was replaced by the irregular suppletive paradigm -ică ~ -e(a) le (pă să rică ¹¹ ~ pă să reale), which was found in the old language as well (for the evolution of these inflexional patterns, see §§2.1.2, 2.6). 7.2.1.2 Inventory and origins The inventory of diminutive suffixes is very rich. They originate from all the etymological strata of Romanian: (i) from the Dacian substratum:¹² -uş(ă ) (brânduşă ‘crocus’, că tuşă ‘handcuff ’, mă tuşă ‘aunt’); -z(ă ) (coacă ză ‘currant’, gă lbează ‘fluke’, pupă ză ‘hoopoe’); (ii) from Latin (inherited): -el, -ea < -, - (feciorel ‘boy’ ~ feciorea ‘girl’); -ic, -ică < -, -¹³ (bunic ‘grandfather’, turturică ‘little turtledove’); -ior,-ioară < -, - (fră ţior ‘little brother’, surioară ‘little sister’); -uc, -ucă < - (tă tuc ‘father’, mă mucă ‘mother’); -uie < - (că ră ruie ‘path, trail’, ferestruie ‘small window’); -uţ < - (pă tuţ ‘small bed’)—and some suffixes in this category are pan-Romance (e.g. < -); (iii) from Slavonic (borrowings): -eţ (podeţ ‘small bridge’), -ice (pă durice ‘small forest’), -iţă (rochiţă ‘little dress’); -uşcă (femeiuşcă ‘woman’); (iv) from Hungarian or Slavonic (borrowings): -aş, -uş¹⁴ (copilaş ‘little child’, picioruş ‘little leg’); (v) from Greek (one borrowing): -ache, specialized for the derivation of patronyms from first names (Mihalache, Petrache); (vi) from Romance languages (late borrowings): -et/-etă (vagonet ‘trolley’, statuetă ‘statuette’), -ină ⁸ In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries many nouns ending in stressed -ea and lacking any diminutive value were borrowed from Turkish and Greek. This process accelerated the loss of the diminutive function of the already existing suffix -ea (e.g. beizadea ‘prince’, belea ‘trouble’, bidinea ‘brush’, cafenea ‘coffee shop’, cherestea ‘timber’, chiftea ‘meat ball’, cişmea ‘water pump’, cucuvea ‘owl’, duşumea ‘floor’, giurgiuvea ‘window sash’, ghiulea ‘cannon-ball’, lichea ‘flunkey’, mahmudea (an old coin) narghilea ‘nargila, hubble-bubble’, pă tlă gea ‘aubergine’, perdea ‘curtain’, rindea ‘lathe’, saltea ‘mattress’, tejghea ‘counter’, tinichea ‘tin’). ⁹ CDicț. ¹⁰ Mărg. ¹¹ CDicț. ¹² See Brâncuş (2002: 50–1). For words inherited from Dacian before the Roman conquest, note the loss of transparency of the internal structure of the word. ¹³ For the suffix -ică , another hypothesis is that it has a non-Latin origin (Maiden 1999: 323), a view supported by the absence of iotacization of the final consonant in derivatives such as fetică ‘little girl’ or pisică ‘cat’. ¹⁴ The etymology of these suffixes is disputed: Slavonic, Hungarian, and multiple etymologies from several languages have been suggested. For argument and references, see Contraș & Rădulescu Sala (2015: 339).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
391
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(pianină ‘cabinet piano’, sonatină ‘sonatina’), -elă (stradelă ‘little street’) (see Carabulea 1973). Interestingly, the etymological strata may mix, so that some suffixes have multiple etymologies. Thus the suffix -ior, inherited from Latin, interfered with a suffix from the Dacian period (Brâncuş 2002: 42), the result being the suffix -ișor (puişor ‘little chicken’, botişor ‘pout’). In complex suffixes one often finds suffixes of different origins, combined, for example -iţă (old Slavonic) + -ică (Latin) in mă miţică ‘mother’, -ache (Greek) + -el (Latin) in Costă chel, -uţă (old Slavonic) + -ioară (Latin) in că s(u)cioară ‘little house’. There are complex suffixes in which the two units are from etymological strata in close proximity: -ulă (Russian, Slovenian, Polish, Czech) + -eţ (old Slavonic)! -uleţ (bră duleţ ‘small fir tree’); -ulă (Russian, Slovenian, Polish, Czech) + -iţă (old Slavonic) ! -uliţă (frunzuliţă ‘small leaf ’). Dialects south of the Danube also have a rich inventory of diminutive suffixes. Aromanian has derivatives such as apşoară ‘water’ (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1997); că ţă lic ‘small dog’, că ţă luş ‘small dog’, că livuşcă ‘small house’ (Papahagi 1974); cuţuţic, cuţutaşu ‘small knife’ (Capidan 1932: 516; Papahagi 1974); fântânică , fântânice ‘small fountain’, fitiţă , fitică ‘little girl’, ńicuţ ‘small + ’, urecl’uşe ‘small ear’ (Papahagi 1974). Megleno-Romanian has derivatives such as cupilaş (ALDMI map 460) ‘little baby’, fičuric ‘boy’ (ALDMI map 459), pă lmuţă palmă ‘palm’ + -uţă (Atanasov 2002: 280). Istro-Romanian has derivatives such as capuţ ‘small head’, caluţ ‘little horse’, copă cel ‘small tree’, coşel ‘little rooster’, kәrpuše ‘tick’ (Frăţilă 2011: 7). 7.2.1.3 Productivity The abundant availability of diminutivization in Latin was transmitted to the Romance languages (Rainer 2016: 519),¹⁵ and especially to Romanian and Italian (Meyer-Lübke 1895: 518, 615; Bauer 2011: 537). Romanian—overwhelmingly a popular and oral language, without the restrictions imposed by the norms of written texts and of an academic grammar until a late period—inherited and enhanced this predilection for diminutive derivation. In modern Romanian there are obvious differences between popular and familiar usage (Tudose 1978), where the diminutive derivation is productive, and the standard register with restrictions imposed by stylistic norms. For instance, the grammatical classes of base words are more varied in popular language than in the standard language. Besides nominal, adjectival, and adverbial derivations present in all registers, in the popular language we also find other types: verbal (încă rcă ţea ‘sled’ încă rca ‘to load’, încordă ţele ‘eyebrows’ încorda ‘to frown’, tră guţă ‘sled’ trage ‘to pull’), participial (înfă şă ţel ‘swaddled’ înfă şat participle of înfă șa ‘to swaddle’, desfă şă ţel ‘unswaddled’ desfă şat ‘unswaddled’, zbură ţel ‘a bird/person who has taken flight’ zburat ‘flown’), numeral (pă trior patru ‘four’, douţă două ‘two’), pronominal
¹⁵ French is nowadays an exception, since it is the most restrictive Romance language where derivation is concerned, but there was a period from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries when diminutive derivation was very productive (Hasselrot 1957: 213).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
392
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(cută rică /cută riţă cutare ‘so-and-so’, tiniuc/tiniuţă tine ‘you’, mă tă luţă /tă lică (ma)tale (a popular form of the second-person politeness pronoun), nimicuţa nimic(a) ‘nothing’), and interjectional (aolică aoleu ‘oh my!’, ietucă iată ‘look!’) (see Cazacu 1950; Tudose 1978: 125). Moreover, for each grammatical class of the stem, the inventory of diminutive words is more numerous in popular registers; for instance, the derived adverbs from northern Transylvania (acă sucă ‘home’, afă ruţă ‘outside’, aiciucă ‘here’, acuşica ‘now’, atâtuca ‘that much’, biniucă ‘well’, de-abieluţă ‘just, recently’, laolă ltuţă ‘together’, mereuţ ‘always’, olecuţică ‘a little’; Tudose 1978: 125–31) are not found in the standard language (for a full list of diminutive adverbs and their dialectal distribution, see Chircu 2006a: 425). Western varieties of Romanian also have a rich inventory of diminutive derivatives not found in the standard language (Rusu 1962). A suffix that is not very productive in the standard language (-uc/-ucă ) is widely used in the Maramureș area: alunuc ‘small hazel’, că ţelucă ‘small bitch’, gră suc ‘a little bit fat’, lă ducă ‘small bin’, mieluc ‘small lamb’, nepotuc ‘nephew’, picioruc ‘small leg’, slă buc ‘a little thin’, tână ruc ‘young’ (Mareş 1972; Farcaş 2008). Regardless of register, Romanian has a predilection for diminutive derivation that manifests itself in the following features: (i) a rich inventory of suffixes from all etymological strata; (ii) great productivity in all periods (Croitor 2015a: 98–101; Carabulea 2015a: 141–3, 149–50; see also Leu 2016). Neologistic diminutive suffixes are less productive; but among the old ones, the only suffix that became less productive in the contemporary language, to the point where it lost its diminutive function,¹⁶ is -ea (§7.5.3). Apart from -ea and a few others (-ac/-ag: prostac ‘stupid’; -ici: zgribulici ‘shivery’; -oc/-og: blândoc ‘soft’, -ulean: boulean ‘little ox’), all the old diminutive suffixes are productive or very productive; (iii) a rich inventory of complex suffixes, with frequent uses; (iv) derivational doublets and large synonymous series; (v) iterative diminutive derivation, with two or even three suffixes; (vi) the inclusion of diminutive forms into syntactic patterns with a repetitive structure, as markers of intensity (singură ~ singurică ‘all alone’, gol ~ goluţ ‘really empty, stark naked’, nou ~ nouţ ‘very new, brand new’) or emphasis (in popular lyrics: Bade, bă dică bă dişor!, Mă i bă diţă , bă diulică ! ‘My love!’).¹⁷ Besides a rich inventory and frequent use, the predilection for diminutivization manifests itself in the multitude of stylistic and pragmatic values of the derivatives (see also Bauer 2011: 904). In the contemporary language the pragmatic values have expanded from occasional, spontaneous uses with a specific communicative intention (e.g. positive evaluation, irony, discrediting) to conversational and textual strategies. ¹⁶ For the particular process of ‘un-diminutives’, see Zafiu (2011) and Leu (2016). ¹⁷ Diminutival repetition is found in Bulgarian as well (Puşcariu 1974: 301–2).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
393
Other notable phenomena are the revitalization of some obsolete diminutive suffixes with an ironic value (e.g. -ache), diminutive derivation and the shortening of anthroponyms, derivation from very recent neological stems, and the association of an intensity marker with a diminutive suffix of the same value—in other words with an intensive diminutive suffix (e.g. mai puţinel ‘a little’, mai repejor ‘faster’, mai tă rişor ‘stronger’; for usage details and the pragmatic function of each phenomenon, see Leu 2016).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.2.2 Augmentative suffixes 7.2.2.1 Grammatical and semantic properties Augmentative suffixes are attached to nominal bases (bubă ‘sore’ + -oi ! buboi, bă iat ‘boy’ + -an ! bă ietan) and to adjectival bases (lung ‘long’ + -an ! lungan, beţiv ‘drunk’ + -an ! beţivan). Just like diminutive suffixes, most of them preserve the lexical and the grammatical class of the stem (casă . ‘house’ ! că soaie., lung. ! lungan.),¹⁸ but the gender may change (casă ! că soaie., că soi.) as a result of the ability of the suffixes -oi and -oaie to function both as augmentative and as motional and ethnic suffixes (see §§7.2.2, 7.4). Like diminutive suffixes, augmentative suffixes, too, trigger root allomorphy that involves vocalic changes (§1.5): [a] ~ [ә] (casă ~ că soi), [ia̯ ] ~ [ie̯ ] (piatră ‘rock’ ~ pietroi). Apart from their denotative value related to size or enhancement, augmentative suffixes, like diminutive ones, have ‘affective’ values, and these can be laden with pejorative undertones.¹⁹ They are often polysemous: -oi is augmentative and sexmarking (bă boi ‘hag’, ră ţoi ‘drake’); -ă u is augmentative, agentive, and instrumental (bă ltă u ‘slough; pond’, mâncă u ‘eater, glutton’, mestecă u ‘rolling pin’: Popescu Marin 2015b: 494–5). Contextually, a diminutive derivative can acquire an augmentative (or ‘intensifying’) value (Şi era un geruleţ pe cinste! ‘There was a right little frost’, Gerilă suflă de trei ori cu buzişoarele sale ‘Jack Frost blew three times with his little lips’—Ion Creangă, nineteenth century). Romanian has false augmentatives, too, just as it has false diminutives: these are derivatives inherited from Latin that speakers no longer interpret as augmentatives. Thus in the derivatives cârnaţ ‘sausage’ (< *karˈnakju), gă inaţ ‘chicken droppings’ (< ), and vinaţ ‘kind of wine’ (< ), the suffix -aţ (< -) has lost its original augmentative value (Meyer-Lübke 1895: 503).
¹⁸ Like the diminutive suffixes, augmentative ones, too, can in rare situations change the grammatical class of the stem: when attached to verbal stems, the augmentative suffix -og (with the feminine form -oagă and the complex variants -ă log/-ă loagă ) creates nominal derivatives (pisa ‘to pound’ + -ă log ! pisă log./ ‘pestle; bore’; terfeli. ‘sully, tread underfoot’ + -oagă ! terfeloagă ., frequently in the plural form terfeloage ‘dusty old papers’). ¹⁹ Rainer (2016: 519) includes augmentatives and diminutives in the larger class of evaluative suffixes.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
394 7.2.2.2 Inventory and origins The inventory of augmentative suffixes in Romanian is less rich than that of diminutives. It comprises -oi, -oaie (că soi, că soaie ‘big house’, from Latin); -an (beţivan ‘drunk’, from old Slavonic); -ilă (Buzilă ‘big lips’, Ochilă ‘great sight’, specialized as a nickname, from Slavonic); -oc/-og, -oagă (moţoc ‘tomcat’, ghemotoc ‘pellet’, ghijoagă ‘old horse’, from old Slavonic, according to Meyer-Lübke 1895: 457, but with multiple Latin and old Slavonic etymologies, according to Pascu 1916: 216); -ă u/-ă lă u (from Hungarian; e.g. clă nţă u ‘chatterbox’ clanţă ‘door handle’, mută lă u ‘mute’ mut ‘dumb’); -andru,²⁰ of unclear etymology (copilandru copil ‘child’; puiandru pui ‘chick, young of some animal’). Trans-Danubian varieties display a similar inventory; some suffixes are identical with those of Daco-Romanian (-an: ńilgiucan ‘middle, average’, goliş(e)an ‘empty’; -andru: hil’andru ‘son’); others are slightly different, reflecting the phonological rules of the language (-ońu, -oańe: bruscońu ‘male frog’, muşcońu ‘mosquito’) (Papahagi 1974; cf. Ro. -oi, -oaie).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.2.2.3 Productivity No augmentative suffix is very productive. Derivatives are used mainly in popular varieties, and many of them are not found in the contemporary standard language. Given the oral nature of these occurrences, it is difficult to study these suffixes diachronically. As we have seen with diminutives, augmentative suffixes can form complex suffixes, usually reinforcing their pejorative force: -ă lă u: fă tă lă u ‘homosexual’, ‘he-big girl’, mută lă u ‘blockhead’; -ă loc/-ă log /-ă nog: pisă log ‘bore’, slă bă nog ‘scrawny’). The feminine form of the suffix may also be used to increase pejorative value (Byck 1967a): hârţoagă ‘bumph’, ‘useless document’, mârţoagă ‘old nag, jade’, scârţoagă ‘old broken shoes’, terfeloagă ‘old papers’).
7.3 Agentive suffixation 7.3.1 Grammatical and semantic properties According to the types of stem to which they attach, agentive suffixes may be classified into three categories or groups: (1) suffixes that attach exclusively to verb stems, for example -tor,²¹ -ă u [әu̯], -aci [aʧ], -âş [ɨʃ], -ant and all their variants (lucra ‘work’ + -(ă ) tor ! lucră tor ‘worker’; linge ‘lick’ + -ă u ! lingă u ‘sponger’; hră ni ‘feed/eat’ + -aci ! hră naci ‘glutton’; pârî ‘tell on [somebody]’ + -âş! pârâş ‘plaintiff ’; manipula ‘handle’ + -ant ! manipulant ‘handler’); (2) suffixes that attach to nominal stems, for example ²⁰ The hypothesis of its Dacian etymology has also been suggested (Poghirc 1969: 363). The suffix -andru is somewhat ambiguous between a diminutive and an augmentative value. ²¹ An exception seems to be că lă tor ‘traveller’ (Ciorănescu 2002: 138), which is related to the noun cale ‘way’, not to a verb. See also the Megleno-Romanian derivative drumă tor ‘traveller’ (Daco-Romanian drumeţ), also associated with a noun stem, drum. The derivative că să toriu ‘married man, head of the family’, nowadays obsolete but very frequent in the old language, is related to a now lost verb inherited from *kaˈsare (Ciorănescu 2002: 154), and not to the noun casă ‘house’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
395
-eţ, -giu, -ist (drum ‘track, trip’ + -eţ ! drumeţ ‘tripper’, tutun ‘tobacco’ + -giu ! tutungiu ‘tobacconist’, CFR ([ʧe fe re]), the acronym for Romanian Railways (Că ile Ferate Române) + -ist ! ceferist ‘railwayman’); and (3) suffixes that can attach to both nominal and verb stems, for example -ar (suge ‘suck, to absorb’ + -ar ! sugar ‘infant’, coş ‘chimney’ + -ar !coşar ‘chimney sweep’), -aş (cerceta ‘explore’ + -aş ! cercetaş ‘scout’, că ruţă ‘cart’ + -aş ! că ruţaş ‘carter’), -uş (juca ‘play’ + -(ă )uş ! jucă uş ‘playful’, lacă t ‘lock’ + -uş ! lă că tuş ‘locksmith’). As we have seen earlier, the suffix -nic, which was frequent in old Romanian, is found both in derivatives such as birnic ‘tax payer’ bir ‘tax’ or corabnic ‘sailor, ship captain’ corabie ‘ship’, which are clear denominatives, and in derivatives such as clevetnic ‘slanderer’, iscodnic ‘spy’, or platnic ‘payer’, which can be either denominatives or deverbatives; in other words this suffix can attach either to a nominal or to a verbal stem. Examples of the latter are the pairs cleveată ‘backbiting, slander’ and cleveti ‘backbite’, iscoadă ‘spy’ and iscodi ‘spy’, and plată ‘payment’ and plă ti ‘pay’. As for grammatical class, most of the new derivatives are nouns or adjectives. Some are only nouns; others, much fewer, are only adjectives, such as fermecă tor ‘charming’, încântă tor ‘enchanting’. Some derivatives can function both as nouns and as adjectives, for instance nevă ză tor ‘blind’: Are doi copii nevă ză tori. ‘[S/he] has two blind children’ vs Nevă ză torii. au nevoie de ajutor ‘The blind need help’. There are contexts, especially predicative ones, where the noun–adjective distinction is difficult to made (vinit-au să fie mă rturisitoriu, deşteptă toriu, învă ţă toriu ‘he came to be a witness, a revealer, a teacher’).²² Three variant forms of the suffixes -tor and -ar are observable in old Romanian: -toriu and -ariu, which are close to their Latin etyma (< -; < -); -tori and -ari, where the final u has dropped; and the later variants -tor and -ar, which result from the loss of palatalization of r (giudecă toriu ‘judge’, iubitori.. ‘loving’, nedejduitor ‘hoping’).²³ In the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries, all these variants were used, but the most frequent ones were -toriu and -ariu. Thus the distribution of these variants in a text from the end of the seventeenth century is -toriu 81%, -tori 16%, -tor 3%, -ariu 100% (DPar.). The only agentive suffix that does not obey the general rule that stress falls on the derivational suffix is -nic, which is obligatorily unstressed (ORo. bírnic ‘tax payer’, mitárnic ‘dishonest’, tipárnic ‘printer’; MRo. colhóznic ‘member of a kolkhoz’).²⁴ ‘Agentive suffix’ is an umbrella term for a range of meanings subordinate to the prototypical one of ‘agent’. When used as adjectives, derivatives with verbal stems (see §7.3.1) that remain semantically related to the verbs they come from denote the agent or a quality of the agent:²⁵ fermecă tor ‘charming’, hră naci ‘glutton’, lingă u ‘sponger’. Denominatives or derivatives with nominal bases often denote trades, occupations,
²² CC¹. ²³ DPar. ²⁴ See §7.1.3 for a discussion of stress on the suffixes. ²⁵ Depending on the meaning of the verb, they can also denote experiencer, possessor, beneficiary, etc. (see note 26).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
396 jobs, or professions: că ruţaş ‘carter’, coşar ‘chimney sweep’, pă lă rier ‘hatter’, tutungiu ‘tobacconist’, and so on. Agentive suffixes are polysemous, like many other Romanian suffixes, each having multiple denotations and producing derivatives of different genders. Even -tor, -toare, the most representative agentive suffixes, have other values that are not agentive. Rainer (2011) talks of an ‘agent–instrument–place polysemy’ of the suffix -tor, which denotes the agent, but also the instrument (bă tă tor ‘beater, whisk’, sucitor ‘rolling pin’, tă ietor ‘cutter’) and the place (spă lă tor ‘laundry’, dormitor ‘bedroom’). And the same suffix has an additional abstract value when used in the feminine (lă utoare ‘washing’, vână toare ‘hunting’). Homophonous formations are sometimes created from the same stem, and they have the same gender. As a noun, seceră toare can denote the agent, ‘person who harvests’—with switch of gender from the masculine form seceră tor ‘male harvester’ to the feminine, ‘woman who harvests’—or the instrument, ‘machine that harvests, reaper’. In the same way, trecă toare can denote either an agent, ‘(female) passerby’, or a place, ‘gorge, canyon’. So the agentive pair -tor, -toare produces masculine and feminine forms respectively ( lucră tor ~ lucră toare ‘worker’, muncitor ~ muncitoare ‘worker’). The form -toare is inherited from the Latin -, which has undergone the normal phonological changes (- > *-tore > -toare). When the derivative denotes the instrument or the locative, words in -tor either belong to the genus alternans (§2.3) (bă tă tor ‘beater, whisk’, sucitor ‘rolling pin’, tă ietor ‘cutter’; dormitor ‘bedroom’, spă lă tor ‘laundry’), or are feminine (apă ră toare ‘fender’, încuietoare ‘lock’, strecură toare ‘strainer’; ascunză toare ‘hiding place’, trecă toare ‘pass, gorge’). Rainer (2011) describes similarities and differences between the counterparts of -tor in Romance languages and notes that, for etymological reasons, these three values associated with it—agentive, instrumental, and locative—are found only in Romanian, Provençal, Catalan, and Spanish (see §7.3.3). Since Romanian has a great number of agentive suffixes, they may form synonymous series (e.g. sugar ~ sugaci ‘infant’; fugar ~ fugaş ~ fugaci ‘runaway’; see Graur 1929b: 15).
7.3.2 The grammar of -tor derivatives Derivatives with verbal stems, especially those in -tor (see also §7.1.2), preserve verbal properties of the stem, and consequently have a dual nature, nominal and verbal. The verbal nature of derived nouns and adjectives is manifest in several morphological and syntactic properties.²⁶ ²⁶ Syntactically, their verbal nature shows in the preservation of the thematic roles of the stem verb, as the role of agent (but also those of experiencer, possessor, patient, etc., according to the meaning of the verb) is retained in the meaning of the derived noun; and, if the verb has a rich inventory of thematic roles, these show in the derivative’s ability to take complements. There are syntactic rules that determine both this ability and the selection of complement (for the syntax of derivatives in old Romanian, see Brăescu 2016: 397–8):
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
397
The suffix -tor is preceded by a thematic vowel, which differs according to conjugation class: it is -ă - in the first, second, and third conjugations, -i- in the fourth, and -â- in the ‘fifth’.²⁷ Thus the suffix will take the form -ă tor in contact with verbs of the first three conjugations (învă ţa ‘teach’ ~ învă ţă tor ‘teacher’; vedea ‘see’ ~ vă ză tor ‘seer’; trece ‘pass’ ~ trecă tor ‘passerby’); it will take the form -itor in contact with verbs of the fourth conjugation (citi ‘read’ ~ cititor ‘reader’, moşteni ‘inherit’ ~ moştenitor ‘heir’, privi ‘look’ ~ privitor ‘looker on’); and it will take the form -âtor in contact with verbs of the ‘fifth’ conjugation (coborî ‘go down’ ~ coborâtor ‘descending’, pârî ‘tell on, denounce’ ~ pârâtor ‘plaintiff ’, târâ ‘crawl ~ târâtor ‘crawler’). In a few verbs with a vocalic root (şti ‘know’, la ‘wash’, bea ‘drink’), the suffix is preceded by the thematic vowel found in the participle and in the preterite (bă ut ‘drunk’, bă ui ‘I drank’ ~ bă utor ‘drinker’, ştiut ‘known’, știui ‘I knew’ ~ ştiutor ‘one who knows’, lă ut ‘washed’, lă ui ‘I washed’ ~ lă utor ‘washer’). Where the root is a neologism, we have the special firstconjugation form -ator (administra ‘administrate’ ~ administrator ‘administrator’,²⁸ copia ‘copy’ ~ copiator ‘copier’, fonda ‘found’ ~ fondator ‘founder’, utiliza ‘use’ ~ utilizator ‘user’). From the time of old Romanian into the early twentieth century, the root allomorph of the verb found in association with the -tor ending was the ‘iotacized’ form also found in the first-person singular present, in the third-person present subjunctive, and in the gerund (see §6.6.4): pieitor ‘one who disappears’, viitor ‘one who comes’,²⁹ spuietoriu ‘one who speaks’,³⁰ vă ză toriu³¹ ‘one who sees’. Where the root-final allomorph was yod, -ă - was automatically replaced by -e-, for the reasons explained in §1.5: tă ia ‘cut’ ~ tă ietor ‘cutter’, mângâia ‘soothe’ ~ mângâietor ‘soothing’. As iotacized forms were analogically replaced in the verb, so -e- was automatically replaced by the more general -ă -: spui-etor > spun-ă tor. Verbs that maintain the iotacized root allomorph in the gerund (see §6.5.4) keep that root in association with this suffix: vă zând ‘seeing’ ~ vă ză tor ‘one who sees, witness’, prinzând ‘catching’ ~ prinză tor ‘catcher’, scoţând ‘taking out’ ~ scoţă tor ‘a worker who takes out materials in a factory’. The regular and productive relationship between the verb stem and the -tor derivative (the number of verbs that can give rise to a noun or an adjective with -tor is ‘unlimited’ according to Meyer-Lübke 1895: 579), as well as the functional equivalence to a defining relative clause with an active verb (o pasă re cântă toare ‘a singing bird’ = o pasă re care cântă ‘a bird that sings’), led some scholars to consider -tor derivatives to be
El. citeşte romane/romanele. ! cititor. de romane./al romanelor. ‘He reads novels/the novels’ ! ‘reader of novels/the novels’ El. iubeşte arginţi/arginţii. ! iubitor. de arginţi /al arginţilor. ‘He loves money/the money’ ! ‘money lover’ El. posedă avere. ! posesor. de avere. ‘He owns wealth’ ! ‘wealth owner’ ²⁷ For the inflexion classes, see §6.2. ³¹ PO.
²⁸ On stress, see §7.1.3.
²⁹ DPar.
³⁰ CV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
398 a type of ‘active participle’ or ‘verbal adjective’ that forms part of the inflexional paradigm of the verb (see e.g. Scriban 1925: 139).³² These derivatives normally have active or neutral values when it comes to voice. Only very rarely do they have the passive value found in the old language (see (1) and Carabulea 2015b: 193–4) and preserved in contemporary dialectal registers—for example in bă utor ‘drinkable; (of alcoholic drinks) good to drink, pleasant to drink’ (e.g. Vinul de zahă r e bă utor, că ă la naturalu vine puțin acrișor, Buzău, DGDS I: 84, ‘Sugar wine is pleasant to drink, because the natural one is a little sour’), or in umblă tor ‘(of roads) trodden, walked on’ (e.g. Erau două drumuri, mă uitam și eu acolo să vă d care-i mai umblă tor, Vrancea, DGDS III: 386, ‘There were two roads, I was looking there to see which is the more trodden’). (1) a veşmăntele îmbrăcătoare33 clothes. dress-tor. ‘clothes that can be worn’ b boi înjugători34 ox. yoke-tor. ‘oxen that can be yoked together’ c bucate [ . . . ] mâncătoare35 food. eat-tor. ‘edible food’
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.3.3 Inventory and origins The inventory of agentive suffixes is rich and emerges from all etymological strata of Romanian: some are inherited from Latin (-tor < , -ar -tor), since it was the existing masculine counterpart of feminine -toare, was deployed as the agentive suffix. The result combined the meanings of both formatives: the agentive meaning of - and the instrumental and locative meanings of -(). Some old words, although they remain analysable in Romanian, are inherited from Latin or early Romance (e.g. că să toriu ‘one who is married, father’ < *kasaˈtoriu; datoriu/detoriu ‘debtor’ < *debeˈtorju, fă ptoriu ‘creator’ < *fakˈtorju; see Densusianu 1938: 431–2, 496, 493–4). These form etymological doublets with words derived in Romanian (e.g. dator ~ dă tă tor in (2a) and (2b), fă ptoriu ~ fă că tor in (2c) and (2d))— words that, being related through a prototypical agentive semantics, are used differently.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(2) a datori sântemu a ne indebted.. are.1 a ..1 ‘we are obliged to be afraid’ b care iaste dătătoriu who is give-tor.. ‘who is a lawmaker’
teame fear.
de leage36 of law
c lăsă făptoriul său37 leave..3 creator. his ‘he left his creator’ d lucrurile mari ale Domnului, carele-i făcătoriu things great. al.. God. who.=is maker 38 dzioa de astădzi day. of today ‘the great things of God, who is the creator these days’
în in
Like other semantic classes, agentive suffixes can appear in complex structures; thus -ar + -eţ produced -ă reţ, which is found in cântă reţ ‘singer’, plângă reţ ‘plaintive’, cugetă reţ ‘thinker’, cuvântă reţ ‘speaker’, and so on.³⁹ ³⁶ CC².
³⁷ CC¹.
³⁸ PO.
³⁹ DPar.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
400 Old Romanian had other complex formations, such as -ă tor + -nic ! ă tornic (începă tornic ‘beginner’);⁴⁰ -ar/-er + -nic! -arnic/-ernic (curvarnic ‘womanizer’,⁴¹ meserernic ‘compassionate’,⁴² mitarnic ‘corruptible’);⁴³ -ă tor + -iţă ! -ă toriţă (tunză toriţă ‘female barber’);⁴⁴ -ar + -iţă ! -ă riţă (uşă riţă ‘female doorkeeper’).⁴⁵ Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian preserved the agentive Latin suffix -ar. Thus Aromanian has alghinaru ‘bee keeper’, că rvă nar ‘caravan leader’, câruţaru ‘carter’, că şar ‘shepherd’ (Papahagi 1974; Caragiu Marioţeanu 1997). Megleno-Romanian presents nuntar ‘wedding guest’ (ALDMI map 521), murar ‘miller’ (ALDMIII map 1230), strungar ‘he who takes the sheep to the shed’ (ALDMIII map 1784), vă car ‘cowboy’ (Atanasov 2002: 139, 355), and viţă lar ‘cowboy’ (Atanasov 2002: 355). In Istro-Romanian -ar is found in inherited words such as kǫrburar ‘charcoal worker’ and pecurar ‘shepherd’, but also in derivatives formed within the language: boşcar ‘forester’, bačvar/ bă čvar/ bă ţvar ‘barrel maker, cooper’, ie̯ rbar ‘herb seller’ (Frăţilă 2011: 6). The suffix -tor is found only in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian: Aro. cunoscâtoru ‘connoisseur’, curâtoru ‘flowing’, zburâtoru ‘speaker’ (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1997); MeRo. cumpă ră tu̯or ‘buyer’, lucră tu̯or ‘worker’, vinditor ‘seller’, drumă tor ‘traveller’ (ALDMIII maps 1560, 1476, 1559). The absence of -tor in Istro-Romanian is addressed in Puşcariu (1926: 206) and Frăţilă (2011: 5).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.3.4 Productivity Agentive suffixes, especially -tor and -ar, have been very productive throughout the history of Romanian. One can consult the list in Densusianu (1938: 332–7) and Popescu Marin (2015a: 184–92) on the great productivity of -toriu derivatives during the old period, and Zafiu (2015: 298–9) for the nineteenth century. Some derivatives from old Romanian have become obsolete in modern Romanian (e.g. că sar ‘family member’; că saş ‘person who lives in the same house’; cetaş ‘companion, bandit’;⁴⁶ dă nţaş ‘dancer’;⁴⁷ miiaş ‘commander’;⁴⁸ moștinaş ‘inheritor’ ( moştean ‘heir’);⁴⁹ că să toriu ‘one who is married; father’;⁵⁰ despuietor ‘master, lord’;⁵¹ clevetnic⁵² ‘slanderer’⁵³), and some suffixes have become less productive (-nic and the complex suffix -ă reţ), but the class of agentive suffixes overall remained productive. Agentive suffixes form pairs, or even synonymous series. They may combine a neological suffix and an old suffix (reclamant ~ reclamagiu ‘plaintiff ’, tarabist ~ tarabagiu ‘market-stall holder’), or two neologistic suffixes (manipulant ~ manipulator ‘handler’; şantajor ~ şantajist ‘blackmailer’).
⁴⁰ DPar. ⁴⁷ GB.
⁴¹ CC². ⁴⁸ CV.
⁴² FT. ⁴⁹ PO.
⁴³ CC¹. ⁵⁰ LDI.
⁴⁴ CDicț. ⁴⁵ CDicț. ⁴⁶ PA. ⁵¹ CL. ⁵² PA. ⁵³ PA.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
401
7.4 Ethnic suffixation 7.4.1 Organization of ethnonyms The lexical subset of ethnonyms (i.e. words showing membership of a certain ethnic group in the broadest sense)⁵⁴ is organized into ‘paradigms with two sets of forms’ (Dominte 2006: 268) that correspond to the ‘natural’ sex and grammatical gender categories (român ‘Romanian male’ ~ româncă ‘Romanian female’, neamţ ‘German male’ ~ nemţoaică ‘German female’). The paradigms are not homogenous, the difference between them depending on the absence or presence of a specific ethnic suffix in the structure of the word used for the masculine. In Table 7.1 the suffix is absent in (i) and (ii), present in (iii) and (iv)). Table 7.1 The bipartite organization of ethnonyms (i) (ii)
(iii)
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(iv)
male letonØ ‘Latvian male’ românØ ‘Romanian male’ grecØ ‘Greek male’ neamţØ ‘German male’ albanez ‘Albanian male’ norvegian ‘Norwegian male’ italian ‘Italian male’ englez⁵⁵ ‘English male’ austriac ‘Austrian male’ moldovean ‘Moldovan male’
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
female letonă ‘Latvian female’ româncă ‘Romanian female’ grecoaică ‘Greek female’ nemţoaică ‘German female’ albaneză ‘Albanian female’ norvegiană ‘Norwegian female’ italiancă ‘Italian female’ englezoaică ‘English female’ austriacă ‘Austrian female’ moldoveancă ‘Moldovan female’
Other linguists (e.g. Lombard 1971: 84–5) identify a three-level organization that includes the corresponding ethnic adjective; this is formed with the ethnic suffix -esc and normally does not apply to persons. Lombard notes that, in this threefold classification, there are ethnic terms with realizations at all three levels (see examples (a)–(e) in Table 7.2), but there are also terms that have realizations only at two levels, as there are, in rarer cases, ethnic terms that cover only one level; examples of this last ⁵⁴ I.e. a sense that includes ideas of belonging to a nation, a people, a tribe, a geographical area, a religion, or a certain language. ⁵⁵ Not all these terms are clearly analysable; for instance the word englez, although containing the ethnonym suffix -ez, does not allow for the separation of an autonomous root.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
402 Table 7.2 Tripartite organization of ethnonyms a b c d e f g h i j k
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
l
român Romanian. ardelean Transylvanian. neamţ German. turc Turkish. latin Latin. albanez Albanian. croat Croatian. finlandez Finn(ish). japonez Japanese. german German. maghiar Hungarian. francez French.
in -esc românesc Romanian ardelenesc Transylvanian nemţesc German turcesc Turkish latinesc Latin – – – – nemţesc German unguresc Hungarian franţuzesc French
româncă Romanian. ardeleancă Transylvanian. nemţoaică German. turcoaică Turkish. latină Latin. albaneză Albanian. croată Croatian. finlandeză Finn(ish). japoneză Japanese. nemţoaică German. unguroaică Hungarian. franţuzoaică French.
type are the forms recorded under the first column for last three ethnonyms—the suppletive ones: german ‘German’, maghiar ‘Hungarian’, francez ‘French’. These last three terms, (j)–(l), cover all three levels (or have forms in all three ‘compartments’), but (k) and (l) have completely different roots across these levels: neamţ ‘German’ (an old Slavonic root) instead of german ‘German’ and ungur ‘Hungarian’ (also Slavonic) instead of maghiar ‘Hungarian’. As for (l), we have two related forms, franc(ez) ‘Frenchman’ and franţuz ‘Frenchman’: the latter has an older root, which is Russian or Polish and entered Romanian through Russian.
7.4.2 Inventory, origin, and characteristics of ethnonymic suffixes Some ethnic nouns do not have a suffix in the masculine, but do in the feminine (Table 7.1, (i) and (ii)); for gender-marking suffixes, see §7.5). Others have an ethnonymic suffix (-ez, -(i)an, -ean) in the masculine (Table 7.1, (iii) and (iv)), and augment it in the feminine by a gender-marking suffix or by a series of motional suffixes (e.g. sued-ez-ă ‘Swedish female’, ital-ian-că ‘Italian female’, moldov-ean-că ‘Moldovan female, grec-oai-că ‘Greek female’, chin-ez-oai-că ‘Chinese female’).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
403
The following suffixes help to create ethnonyms, either independently or (in the feminine) in combination with a gender-marking suffix:
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
• -ean [ˈe̯an], of old Slavonic origin (muntean ‘Wallachian’, moldovean ‘Moldovan’), with its Italian neologistic counterpart -(i)an, which is pronounced -ian [i’an] after a root ending in i (brazilian ‘Brazilian’, sicilian ‘Sicilian’, venețian ‘Venetian’)⁵⁶ and -an [ˈan] after a non-palatal consonant (marocan ‘Moroccan’, portorican ‘Puerto Rican’); • -oaie,⁵⁷ of Latin origin (- > ORo. -oańe⁵⁸ > Ro. -oaie [ˈo̯aje]); • -ez⁵⁹ [ˈez], a neologistic suffix (burundez ‘Burundian’, chinez ‘Chinese’, taiwanez ‘Taiwanese’, vietnamez ‘Vietnamese’); • -(i)ac [iˈak], a neologistic polysemous suffix (austriac ‘Austrian’, bosniac ‘Bosnian’) (Gherman 2015: 31–3). Derived ethnic names in -ez show root variation. An older form of root variation presents an alternating root (e.g. francez ~ franceji ‘Frenchman ~ Frenchmen’, albanez ~ albaneji ‘Albanian ~ Albanians’; the consonant change [z] ~ [ʒ] follows the inherited pattern viteaz ‘brave..’ ~ viteji ‘brave..’). The newer form is without root change (e.g. francez ~ francezi ‘Frenchman ~ Frenchmen’, albanez ~ albanezi ‘Albanian ~ Albanians’). (On the plural of these derived words, see Pană Dindelegan 2015b: 442.) Derived ethnic forms show different behaviours according to the suffix they carry. The suffixes -ean, -ez can form both nouns and adjectives (un moldovean. ‘a Moldovan male’ ~ un domnitor moldovean. ‘a Moldovan ruler’, un albanez. ‘an Albanian male’ ~ un manual albanez. ‘an Albanian textbook’). The suffix -că usually forms nouns (o româncă ‘a Romanian female’). Adjectival uses are rare and modify only personal nouns (o ţă rancă româncă ‘a Romanian country woman’, but **o fustă româncă ‘a Romanian skirt’, **o şcoală româncă ‘a Romanian school’). Most forms (including suffixed forms) establish a regular, grammaticalized relationship with a three-form adjective created with the suffix -esc (see Table 7.2) that specializes in showing ‘origin, descent’⁶⁰ (românesc.. ~ românească .. ~ româneşti..=. ‘Romanian’). Some linguists are of the view that the suffix -esc comes from the substrate (Brâncuş 2002: 50), whereas others deem it to be of Latin origin (< -; Meyer-Lübke 1895: 607). This suffix is also to be found in transDanubian varieties, with the exception of Istro-Romanian⁶¹ (e.g. Aro. arminesc
⁵⁶ It is hard to establish whether i (for all three nouns) is part of the root, part of the suffix, or part of both (see §7.1.1 for a discussion of this point). ⁵⁷ Its masculine counterpart -oi is not used as ethnonym; it has either a motional value, showing the masculine (raţă ‘duck’ ~ ră ţoi ‘drake’; see §7.5), or an augmentative value (babă ‘hag’ ~ bă boi ‘really old hag’; see §7.2.2). ⁵⁸ The archaic form -oańe is attested in Slavonic documents before the sixteenth century, in 1455 as a toponym (Mihăilă (1974: 99) and in 1473 as a hydronym (Mihăilă 1974: 118). ⁵⁹ The masculine form -ez comes from It. -ese and is also probably influenced by the pronunciation of the feminine Fr. française. ⁶⁰ For other values of the adjectival suffix -esc, see §7.7; see also Grossmann (2016: 2743). ⁶¹ For its absence from Istro-Romanian, see Puşcariu (1926: 206) and Frăţilă (2011: 5).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
404 ‘Armenian’, armânescu ‘Aromanian.’ (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1997); MeRo. vlă şescu ‘Vlach.’ (Atanasov 2002: 352). In turn, this -esc establishes a regular, grammaticalized relationship with the adverbial suffix -eşte: latin ‘Latin.’ ~ latinesc ‘Latin.’ ~ latineşte ‘in Latin’, român ‘Romanian. ~ românesc ‘Romanian.’ ~ româneşte ‘in Romanian’, ‘in Romanian fashion’, englez ‘Englishman’ ~ englezesc ‘English’ ~ englezeşte ‘in English’, ‘in English style’, moldovean ‘Moldovan’ ~ moldovenesc ‘Moldovan.’ ~ moldoveneşte ‘in Moldovan’, ‘in Moldovan’, ‘in a Moldovan way’ (for the special analysis of -eşte, see §7.8.2.1). There are also ethnic words that do not combine with the suffix -esc (englezesc ‘English.’, but **albanezesc ‘Albanian.’; italienesc ‘Italian.’, but **norvegienesc ‘Norwegian.’). The two adjectives with ethnonymic value (the type român ‘Romanian.=’ ~ românesc ‘Romanian.’), although synonymous, are not intersubstitutable in all their contexts, since they have special, differential uses (see Table 7.3). The only clear observation in this area is that the non-suffixed form is the prevailing one in official names of institutions and authorities (e.g. academia ‘academy’, armata ‘army’, că ile ferate ‘railways’, guvernul ‘government’, poliţia ‘police’, poşta ‘post’, transporturile aeriene ‘air transport’). With some nouns, usage is perfectly differentiated (e.g. poşta română ‘Romanian postal service’, but vin românesc ‘Romanian wine’); with others, both forms of the adjective are available (e.g. alfabet român/românesc ‘Romanian alphabet’). But, even when both uses are possible, one of them tends to be preferred over the other. Thus, in collocations such as limbă românească /română ‘Romanian language’, the non-suffixed version is preferred in modern standard Romanian. Table 7.3 Ethnonymic adjectives with and without -esc
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
governing noun academia ‘the academy’ accent ‘accent’ cultură ‘culture’ diplomă ‘diploma’ limbă ‘language’ mâncare ‘food’ modă ‘fashion’ muzică ‘music’ poşta ‘the post’ rapsodia ‘the rhapsody’ scriitor ‘writer’ specific ‘specific’ ştiinţă ‘science’
român/ă ‘Romanian’ +
românesc/ească ‘Romanian’ -
italian/ă ‘Italian’ +
italienesc/ească ‘Italian’ -
+ ? + ? + + + ?
+ + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + -
7.4.3 Productivity The derivation of ethnonyms has been a productive process throughout the history of Romanian. In old texts, the suffix -ean occurs in numerous derivational forms either by
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
405
itself (ardelean ‘Transylvanian’, braşovean ‘resident of or originating from Brașov’,⁶² ierusalimean ‘Jerusalemite’,⁶³ râmlean ‘Roman’⁶⁴), or in a complex suffix -eanin/-ianin (iudeianin ‘Jew’;⁶⁵ sirianin ‘Syrian’;⁶⁶ tarseanin ‘Tarsian’⁶⁷). Some forms are Slavonic loans (Contraș & Popescu Marin 2007: 90). Concerning feminine ethnonyms, it is to be noted that -oaie, a gender-marking suffix that was used in old Romanian (grecoaie ‘Greek woman’;⁶⁸ turcoaie ‘Turkish woman’),⁶⁹ no longer occurs in modern Romanian by itself, but only in combination with the sex-marking suffix -că (englezoaică ‘Englishwoman’, unguroaică ‘Hungarian woman’). It should be observed that only the feminine forms (-oaie and the complex suffix -oaică )⁷⁰ function as ethnonymic suffixes, while the masculine form -oi does not.⁷¹ In modern Romanian new ethnic suffixes occur, of which -ez is the most productive. The relation between an ethnic suffix and the motional (sex-marking) suffix is interesting diastratically, that is, in its socio-cultural variations. There are subtle differences between colloquial, non-standard language and the literary standard. In colloquial Romanian (Tudose 1978: 92–3), the sex-marking derivation of ethnic terms is striking. For each ethnic term there is a robust series of parallel forms, all with synonymic motional suffixes (Table 7.4). Table 7.4 Parallel forms of ethnic marking
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
bulgară cehă francească greacă polonă
bulgarcă cehoaie francezoaică greciţă poloaică
bulgă riţă cehoaică fră nţoaie grecoaică poloneză
bulgă reasă
bulgă roaie
franţuzoaie
franţuzoaică
polonezoaică
poleciţă
polecoaică
Bulgarian female Czech female French female Greek female Polish female
For modern standard Romanian, the norm establishes certain variations, albeit less numerous, depending on how old the base form is and according to diastratic preferences. The complex gender-marking suffix -oaică is preferred in older ethnic forms (e.g. bulgă roaică ‘Bulgarian female’, franţuzoaică ‘French female’, englezoaică ‘English female’, nemţoaică ‘German female’, rusoaică ‘Russian female’, turcoaică ‘Turkish female’), while more recent forms show preference either for the ethnic suffix -ez combined with the gender-marking suffix -ă (e.g. olandeză ‘Dutch female’, poloneză ‘Polish female’, suedeză ‘Swedish female’, portugheză ‘Portuguese female’) or for the ethnic suffix -(i)an + the motional suffix -ă (americană ‘American female’, canadiană ‘Canadian female’, marocană ‘Moroccan female’, tunisiană ‘Tunisian female’). Nonetheless, the norm allows for double forms, where the formal register prefers the
⁶² DÎ XLIV, XIX. ⁶³ CV. ⁶⁴ CT. ⁶⁵ CV. ⁶⁶ CT. ⁶⁷ CV. ⁶⁸ DÎ LIX. ⁶⁹ ULM. ⁷⁰ In contemporary Romanian, the complex suffix -oaică also has a pejorative, derogatory value (e.g. hoţoaică ‘hoyden’ (lit. ‘woman-thief ’), dră coaică ‘dragon lady’, ‘scold’ (lit. ‘she-devil’, ‘devil of a woman’). ⁷¹ For the masculine–feminine distinction in marking ethnic nouns, see Grossmann (2016: 2743).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
406 form with the motional suffix -ă (americană ~ americancă ‘American female’, canadiană ~ canadiancă ‘Canadian female’, marocană ~ marocancă ‘Moroccan female’). The two adjectival ethnic suffixes -esc and -ean (with their archaic variants -escu, -eanu) became specialized in creating patronyms (family names), the former becoming attached to first names or anthroponyms (Alexandru ! Alexandrescu, Ion ! Ionescu, Ilie ! Iliescu), the latter becoming attached either to first names too (Petre ! Petreanu, Teodor ! Teodoreanu) or to toponyms (Dobrogea ! Dobrogeanu, Siret ! Sireteanu). Moreover, the suffix -esc, in its plural form -eşti (with the phonological variant -ă şti), is the basis of numerous toponyms obtained by attaching the suffix to a forename (Bogdan ! Bogdă neşti, Bucur ! Bucureşti ‘Bucharest’, Mane(a) ! Mă neşti, Mircea ! Mirceşti) (Contraș & Popescu Marin 2007: 110–11; also Iordan 1963: 157–61). The process of creating patronyms and toponyms by using ethnic suffixes (Bucurescu, Bucureşti) is attested as early as pre-sixteenth-century Slavonic texts (Nestorescu 2006). It is extremely productive and regular, ensuring the formation of numerous three-term paradigms made up of forename ~ patronym ~ toponym (Manea ~ Mă nescu ~ Mă neşti, Bucur ~ Bucurescu ~ Bucureşti). The forename ~ patronym paradigm is also realized with two other suffixes, although these do not show the same regularity or frequency. Both are of Greek origin: -iu (Dumitru ~ Dumitriu, Manole ~ Manoliu) and -ache (Dumitru ~ Dumitrache, Manole ~ Manolache).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.5 Suffixal marking of sex/natural gender 7.5.1 Mobile noun and sex-marking suffix (motional suffix) versus epicene noun Animate nouns that formally differentiate the referents according to their sex or natural gender (i.e. have one form in the masculine, another in the feminine) are called mobile nouns. Such nouns select a grammatical suffix,⁷² which is termed a motional suffix.⁷³ The motional suffix regularly provides the feminine marker for animate nouns (primar. ‘mayor’ ~ primă riţă . ‘mayoress’, bucă tar. ‘cook’ ~ bucă tă reasă . ‘female cook’); more rarely, it indicates male sex (raţă . ‘duck’ ~ ră ţoi. ‘drake’; curcă . ‘turkey hen’ ~ curcan. ‘turkey cock’). The class of epicene nouns comprises animate, often non-human referents; such referents include animals (fluture ‘butterfly’ (), ţânţar ‘mosquito’ (), omidă ‘caterpillar’, viespe ‘wasp’ ()), elefant ‘elephant’ (), zebră ‘zebra’ ()). In modern vocabulary this class is continually being expanded through personal nouns that designate
⁷² ‘Lexical’ marking, with words of different stems (cocoş ‘cock’~ gă ină ‘hen’, cal ‘horse’ ~ iapă ‘mare’), is more limited in occurrence. ⁷³ Romanian linguistics generally uses the term ‘motional suffix’ to refer to sex-marking suffixes.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
. /
407
professions, jobs, and titles in prestige social fields traditionally held by males, for example cancelar ‘chancellor’, consilier ‘counsellor’, consul ‘consul’, deputat ‘deputy’, doctor (în ştiinţe) ‘doctor (of science)’, edil ‘councillor’, detectiv ‘detective’, manager ‘manager’, ofiţer ‘officer’, pilot ‘pilot’, prefect ‘prefect’, procuror ‘prosecutor’, rector ‘rector’, etc.⁷⁴ Although it is expanding in this way, the class of epicene nouns is non-prototypical for the Romanian vocabulary. Note, moreover, the clear tendency for the contemporary language to ‘feminize’ the terminology of modern professions and thereby to mark formally natural gender differences (e.g. doctoră , doctoriţă ‘lady doctor’, manageră ‘lady manager’, ofiţeră , ofiţereasă ‘lady officer’, rectoră , rectoriţă ‘lady rector’).⁷⁵
7.5.2 Sex-marking suffixes: inventory, origin, characteristics
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Romanian motional suffixes have the following characteristics: i. Motional suffixes that mark the feminine always include the feminine inflexional ending: for the singular, the desinence -ă in -iţ-ă (primă r-iţ-ă ‘mayoress’), -eas-ă (bucă tă r-eas-ă ‘female cook’), and -c-ă (ţă ran-c-ă ‘peasant woman’), and also the rarer desinence -e in -toar-e (munci-toar-e ‘female worker’). Motional suffixes that mark the masculine frequently lack an overt desinence for the singular (curc-an-Ø ‘turkey cock’). There is a series of motional nouns (e.g. elev ‘boy pupil’ ~ elevă ‘girl pupil’, profesor ‘male teacher’ ~ profesoară ‘female teacher’) for which the ending -ă functions both as a lexical suffix that marks the sex (‘natural’ gender) and as an inflexional ending that marks the grammatical gender. By comparison with the masculine form (elev ‘boy pupil’, profesor ‘male teacher’), it functions as a lexical suffix, making up a new word in relation to the masculine; by comparison with the paradigm of the noun elevă ‘school girl’, it functions as an inflexional ending, cumulatively expressing the information feminine singular nominative–accusative. ii. There is a rich inventory of motional suffixes: -ă [ә]: profesor. ‘male teacher’ ~ profesoară . ‘female teacher’; -că [kә]: ţă ran. ‘peasant man’ ~ ţă rancă . ‘peasant woman’; -ea [e̯a]: mieluşel. ‘little male lamb’ ~ mieluşea. ‘little female lamb’; -easă [e̯asә]: boier. ‘boyar (man)’ ~ boiereasă . ‘a boyar’s wife’; -iţă [iʦә]: primar. ‘mayor’ ~ primă riţă . ‘mayoress’; -oaie [o̯aje]: comis. ‘equerry’ ~ comisoaie. ‘equerry’s wife’; -toare [to̯are]: cerşetoare. ‘female beggar’; -esă [esә]: poet. ‘poet’ ~ poetesă . ‘poetess’; -eză [ezә]: steward. ‘steward’ ~ stewardeză . ‘stewardess’); -oi [oi]̯ : vrabie. ‘hen sparrow’ ~ vră bioi.‘cock sparrow’; -an [an]: gâscă . ‘goose’ ~ gâscan. ‘gander’).
⁷⁴ For the full inventory, see Stoichiţoiu Ichim (2010, 2012). ⁷⁵ On the ‘feminization’ of the current vocabulary of professions, see Stoichiţoiu Ichim (2010, 2012); see also Dragomirescu & Nicolae (2011: 223–30), which contains a full list of ‘feminized’ modern formations.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
408
iii. iv.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
v.
vi.
In some cases, the feminine motional suffix is added to the bare stem (which is the form of the masculine singular): boierØ ‘boyar’ + -easă ! boiereasă ‘boyar’s wife’. In other cases, the motional suffix may be seen as replacing the suffix of the masculine (mieluş-el ‘little male lamb’ + suffix -ea ! mieluşea ‘little female lamb’). The motional suffix often attaches to an agentive suffix that indicates profession (see §7.3) (croitor ‘tailor’ ~ croitoreasă ‘tailoress’; că pşunar ‘male strawberry picker’ ~ că pşună riţă ‘female strawberry picker’), and sometimes even three suffixes are combined at the same time (see zarzavagioaică ‘female greengrocer’ -giu + -oaie + -că ). The inventory of old Romanian motional suffixes is identical to that of modern Romanian, except for the neological -esă , -eză (see Contraș & Popescu Marin 2007: 214–15). There are differences in usage between the standard and the non-standard language: some epicene nouns in the standard language have a rich series of suffixed correspondents in non-standard language (standard: corb.(epicene) ‘raven’ vs non-standard: coarbă ., corboaică ., corboaie., corbuliţă ., corbă riţă . ‘female raven’; Tudose 1978: 91–2). The unstressed suffixes -ă and -că go against the general rule that motional suffixes carry the stress (elévă , ţă ráncă ) (see §7.1.3). Motional suffixes form series of synonyms both in old and in modern Romanian. Examples are, for old Romanian, bă rbiereasă ~ bă rbieriţă ‘barber’s wife’⁷⁶ and giupâneasă ~ jupaniţă ‘wife of a high official’⁷⁷ and, for modern Romanian, ospă tară ~ ospă tă riţă ~ ospă tă reasă ‘innkeeper’s wife’. In modern Romanian there are various stylistic connotations, pejorative or ironic, attached to words in these series (ministră ~ ministreasă ~ ministroaică ‘female minister’; Zafiu 2004). Two suffixes with identical values may combine (oaie + că : lup(u) ‘he-wolf ’ ~ lupoaie ~ lupoaică ‘she-wolf ’, urs(u) ‘he-bear’ ~ ursoaie ~ ursoaică ‘she-bear’). In old Romanian, the predominant pattern is -o̯aie (see Contraș & Popescu Marin 2007: 82, 159–60), whereas in modern Romanian the complex suffix -o̯aică is predominant. Motional suffixes have entered the language at different times. Some are inherited from Latin, such as -ă , -easă , -oi/-oaie, -tor/-toare, -el/-ea. Others are borrowed from the various languages with which Romanian has had contact; thus there are loans from old Slavonic, such as -că , -iţă , -an, and late loans from Romance, such as -esă and -eză . Note here that, as throughout its history, Romanian has enriched its inventory of suffixes to mark natural (and especially feminine) gender. Trans-Danubian varieties present a large number of motional suffixes with Daco-Romanian cognates. Here are a few of them: -ă : Aro. armân ‘Aromanian male’ ~ armână ‘Aromanian female’, porc ‘pig’ ~ poarcă ‘sow’, ţă ră pânu ‘male beggar’ ~ ţă ră până ‘female beggar’ (Papahagi 1974); MeRo.: iľ ‘son’ ~ iľă
⁷⁶ CDicț.
⁷⁷ DÎ XXIX.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
. /
409
‘daughter’, nipot ‘nephew’ ~ nipoată ‘niece’, porc ‘pig’ ~ po̯arcă ‘sow’, ver ‘male cousin’ ~ ve̯ară ‘female cousin’ (Atanasov 2002: 280, 196, 282, 280–1); -că : MeRo.: tirziic̯ ă ‘tailoress’, ľipuraşcă ‘doe hare’, ciuplito̯arcă ‘woodpecker.’⁷⁸ (ALDMIII map 1505, ALDMII maps 1167, 1185); -easă : Aro. prifteasă ‘priestess’, vă că reasă ‘cowgirl’ (Capidan 1932: 15); -oańe:⁷⁹ Aro. amiroańe ‘empress’, lucră toańe ‘female worker’, vasiloańă ‘queen’ (Capidan 1932: 518), lupoańe ‘she-wolf ’ (Papahagi 1974); MeRo. lipuroańă ‘doe hare’, lupoańă ‘she-wolf ’, ţirboańă ‘doe deer’, ursoańă ‘she-bear’ (ALDMII maps 1167, 1157, 1160, 1154); IRo. lupońe ‘she-wolf ’, ursońe ‘she-bear’ (Frăţilă 2011)).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.5.3 Productivity Motional suffixes have shown great productivity throughout the history of Romanian. In old Romanian -oaie was the most productive suffix (grecoaie⁸⁰ ‘Greek female’; leoaie).⁸¹ Other highly productive suffixes were -ă (with its positional variant -e): (ovrei. ‘Jew’ ~ ovreie.⁸² ‘Jewess’); -easă (giupâneasă ⁸³ ‘wife of a high official’; voivodeasă ⁸⁴ ‘voivode’s wife’); -iţă (prorociţă ⁸⁵ ‘female prophet’; fluieră riţă ⁸⁶ ‘female whistler’); -ea (feciorea⁸⁷ ‘maid’⁸⁸). Feminine motional suffixes have higher productivity than masculines. In contemporary Romanian, especially with the explosion of words for professions (Călăraşu 2004, 2005) and the strong tendency to feminize professional terminology (Stoichiţoiu Ichim 2010, 2012; Dragomirescu & Nicolae 2011), there is an increase in the productivity of all feminine motional suffixes, including those from older stages of the language, whose frequency had diminished. Such old suffixes as -easă , -iţă are reinforced as they attach now to recent neologistic stems: banchereasă ‘female banker’, barmaniţă ‘barmaid’, bloggeriţă ‘female blogger’, brokeriţă ‘female broker’, dealeriţă ‘female dealer’, DJ-iţă ‘female DJ’, picoliţă ‘pot-girl’, stripperiţă ‘female stripper’, and also ştrumfiţă ‘female smurf ’ (for other examples, see Stoichiţoiu Ichim 2012). The motional suffix -ea is dying out nowadays: for example the type feciorea ‘maid’ does not produce new derivatives and its original value is no longer perceived (see §7.2.1). In modern Romanian there are huge differences in usage between standard and non-standard; in non-standard Romanian, there is a striking variety of motional derivation with reference to ethnic names (bulgară ~ bulgarcă ~ bulgă riţă ~ bulgăreasă ~ bulgă roaie ‘Bulgarian woman’; see §7.4).
⁷⁸ Note that the suffix -că can be attached to other suffixes as well, either diminutival (ľipuraşcă ‘doe hare’) or motional (ciuplito̯arcă ‘woodpecker.’). ⁷⁹ The suffix -oańe, with the palatal sonant [ɲ], corresponds to the Daco-Romanian -oaie, where [ɲ] evolved to [j]. ⁸⁰ DÎ LIX. ⁸¹ PO. ⁸² CT. ⁸³ DÎ LXXXIX. ⁸⁴ DÎ CI. ⁸⁵ CT. ⁸⁶ CDicț. ⁸⁷ DÎ CI. ⁸⁸ CS XI.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
410
7.6 Suffixes for abstract nouns
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.6.1 Typology and semantics Suffixes that create abstract nouns fall into two categories, depending on the type of word to which they attach. One category is that of deverbal suffixes, which are added to verbal stems and turn them into nouns (îngropa. ‘bury’ ! îngropă ciune. ‘burial’, suferi. ‘suffer’! suferinţă . ‘suffering’). The other is the category of deadjectival suffixes, which are added to adjectival stems and turn them into nouns (singur. ‘alone’ ! singură tate. ‘loneliness’, gingaş. ‘gentle’ ! gingă şie. ‘gentleness’). This second category also includes denominal suffixes, which attach to nouns that designate ‘qualities’ (thus displaying predicative behaviour) and turn them into abstract nouns (hoţ. ‘thief ’ ! hoţie. ‘theft’, frate. ‘brother’ ! fră ţie. ‘brotherhood’). Sometimes the deverbal vs deadjectival–denominal distinction is difficult to make, because some nominal derivatives may relate both to the verb and to the adjective (putred ‘rotten’ ~ putrezi ‘rot’ ~ putreziciune ‘rottenness’, slobod ‘free’ ~ slobozi ‘free’ ~ slobozenie ‘freedom’), or both to the verb and to the noun (miloste ‘charity’ ~ milosti ‘take pity on somebody’ ~ milostenie ‘pity, compassion’). The semantics of the derivative is irrelevant to making this distinction clear, as postverbal and postadjectival abstract derivatives are close in meaning when the derivative is based on a state verb. There are only a few formations with -ciune that derive directly from an adjective (vioi ‘lively’ ~ vioiciune ‘liveliness’) or formations with -enie that derive from a noun (rudă ‘relative’ ~ rudenie ‘kinship’). Both types of formation are abstract nouns that designate actions and qualities. The former relate only to verbs, whereas the latter relate to qualifying adjectives, nouns denoting qualities, and state verbs. Both deverbal and deadjectival–denominal derivatives share a pattern of double behaviour—nominal on the one hand, verbal–adjectival on the other. The ability to take a definite article and the ability to express case oppositions (plecarea departure..-=; acestei/acestor this.-/those.- plecă ri departure(s).-) are nominal features, whereas the preservation of argumental structure and, implicitly, the ability to select complements (plecarea lui Ion spre Bucureşti ‘Ion’s leaving for Bucharest’, siguranţa de sine a câştigă torului ‘the winner’s self-confidence’) are verbal–adjectival features (compare Ion pleacă spre București ‘John leaves for Bucharest’, or Câștigă torul este sigur de sine ‘The winner is sure of himself ’). The degree of abstraction differs from one formation to another: formations with a highly abstract meaning, predominantly used as singularia tantum, ‘singulars only’ (administrare ‘administration’, curgere ‘flow’), are distinguished from formations that can be pluralized; in the latter, pluralization stands as evidence that the formation either came to express a more concrete meaning (cântă ri bisericeşti ‘church hymns’, jură minte mincinoase ‘dishonest vows’, adeverinţe false ‘false papers/credentials’, rezolvă ri incorecte ‘incorrect solutions’) or denotes repetition (vânză rile zilnice ‘daily
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
411
sales’, alergă ri de două ori pe zi ‘twice-a-day runs’). Differences in the degree of abstractization can appear in one and the same suffix, through changes of meaning (cântare ‘singing’ ~ cântă ri ‘hymns, songs’, rezolvare ‘solving’ ~ rezolvă ri ‘solutions’), or can be reflected in different suffixes; for example, the deverbal suffix -et/-ă t generates more formations with a concrete meaning than other abstract suffixes (gemete ‘groans’, plânsete ‘cries’, scrâşnete ‘gnashings’, ţipete ‘shouts’, urlete ‘screams’, zâmbete ‘smiles’). As the derivative loses its abstract value, taking on a more concrete meaning—related to a ‘result’, or to a ‘place of action’—its verbal features decrease (compare nouns such as fă râmitură ‘crumb’, pică tură ‘drop’, umplutură ‘filling’, zdrobitură ‘squashing’, which largely lose their ability to take complements, with the verbs fârâma ‘to crumble’, pica ‘to drop’, umple ‘to fill’, zdrobi ‘to squash’).
7.6.2 Inventory, variants, characteristics, origin
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.6.2.1 Deverbal abstracts The suffixes that turn verbal stems into abstract nouns (names of actions, or, in the case of state verbs, names of states, sometimes denoting results of actions)⁸⁹ are as follows: • -(a/(i)e/i/î)re: thus plecare ‘leaving, departure’ pleca ‘to leave’, că dere ‘fall’ că dea ‘to fall’, trecere ‘passing’ trece ‘to pass’, citire ‘reading’ citi to ‘read’, coborâre ‘descent’ coborî ‘to descend’; -are: nă scare ‘birth’ naşte ‘to give birth’, vânzare ‘sale’ vinde ‘to sell’; • -anie/-enie: pierzanie ‘perdition’ pierde ‘to lose’, petrecanie ‘death’ petrece ‘to pass through’, smerenie ‘humbleness’ smeri ‘to humble’; • -inţă with its neological variant -enţă : cerinţă ‘requirement’ cere ‘to request’, silinţă ‘endeavour’ ((a se)) sili ‘to force (oneself)’, trebuinţă ‘need’ trebui ‘to need’; audienţă ‘audience’ audia ‘to listen to’; • -eală /-ială : cheltuială ‘expense’ cheltui ‘to spend’, croială ‘cut (of a coat)’ croi ‘to cut’, pripeală ‘haste’ ((a se)) pripi ‘to hurry’, socoteală ‘calculation’ socoti ‘to calculate’; • -((ă / i))ciune: plecă ciune ‘bow’ ((a se)) pleca ‘to bow’, spurcă ciune ‘filthy thing/ creature’ spurca ‘to soil’, urâciune ‘ugliness’ urî ‘to hate’; • -mânt with the neologistic variant -ment: învă ţă mânt ‘education’ învă ţa ‘to teach’, jură mânt ‘oath’ jura ‘to swear’, legă mânt ‘promise’ lega ‘to bind’; antrenament ‘training’ antrena ‘to train’; • -((t/s))ură : alergă tură ‘running; come and go’ alerga ‘to run’, sperietură ‘fright’ speria ‘to frighten’, întorsură ‘turn’ past participle stem întors- ‘turn’, strânsură ‘gathering’ past participle stem strâns ‘to gather’;
⁸⁹ For Romanian deverbal suffixes, see Grossmann (2016: 2740–2).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
412
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
• -oare: plânsoare ‘cry’ past participle stem plâns ‘weep’, ninsoare ‘snow’ past participle stem nins-‘snow’, strânsoare ‘pressure’ past participle stem strâns‘press’; • -toare: însură toare ‘marriage’ însura ‘to marry’, vână toare ‘hunt(ing)’ vâna ‘to hunt’; • -et/-ă t: plânset ‘cry’ past participle stem plâns- ‘weep’, ţipă t ‘shout’ ţipa ‘to cry out’; • -uş, -iş: frecuş ‘friction’ freca ‘to rub’, urcuş ‘going up’ urca ‘to go up’, suiş ‘raise, upgrade’ sui ‘to climb’; • -(ţ/s)ie with the variant -(ţ/s)iune: administraţie ‘administration’ administra ‘to manage, administer’, nutriţie ‘nutrition’ nutri ‘to nourish’; agresiune ‘aggresion’ agresa ‘to attack’, anexiune ‘annexation’ anexa ‘to annex’, defecţiune ‘defect’ defecta ‘to deteriorate’; • -aj: afişaj ‘billposting’ afişa ‘to post, bill’, finisaj ‘finishing’ finisa ‘to finish off ’, masaj ‘massage’ masa ‘to massage’. The great variation of forms displayed by certain suffixes can be explained at three levels: (i) phonologically (see the variants -eală , -ială : socoteală ‘calculation’ vs cheltuială ‘expense’, the latter occurring in the context of a vocalic stem); (ii) phonomorphologically (see the variants of the abstract suffix -re triggered by the thematic vowel; §7.6.2.3); (iii) etymologically: either the same suffix has entered the language by a different route or different suffixes have entered at different moments, as etymological doublets. The etymological distinction has to do either with the neological variants -(ţ)ie/ -(ţ)iune, which entered the language by a different route (see §7.6.3.3), or with the pair -mânt vs -ment, the former inherited from Latin, the latter a learnèd variant borrowed in the modern age. Deverbal abstract suffixes may originate in any etymological stratum of Romanian. The suffix -re, an internal creation of Romanian by a mechanism of reanalysis, is the subject of much debate. The fact that an infinitive ending turns into a derivational– lexical suffix is not in the least surprising, as studies on word formation indicate that there are plenty of such cases of grammaticalization (see Rainer 2016: 515). With respect to the nominalized supine, Rainer (2016: 518) discusses the Romance counterparts of the Romanian names of action (Ro. cântat ‘singing’, Sp. lavado ‘washing’, It. nuotata ‘swimming’, Fr. arrivée ‘arrival’), suggesting that they have a common Latin origin in Latin action nouns such as ‘run’, with some influence from nominalized past participles. There is a category of suffixes inherited from Latin, some of which are in fact pan-Romance (-ciune < -,-; -(t/s)ură < -/; -mânt < -; -inţă < ; -oare < -, -; -toare < -; -ă t/et < -;⁹⁰ -are < , -); see also L. Vasiliu (1989c: 16–17). Another category is made up of old borrowings, namely the Slavonic -eală and -anie/-enie and the Slavonic or Hungarian -uş (its origin is a matter of controversy). A third category consists of the ⁹⁰ There is also an old Slavonic suffix with the same value; see Pascu (1916: 35).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
413
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
recent borrowings -aj (from French) and -(ţ/s)ie with the variant -(ţ/s)iune, which entered the language at different stages and by different routes (see §7.6.3.3). 7.6.2.2 Deadjectival/denominal abstracts Alongside deverbal abstracts, there is also a class of abstract deadjectival⁹¹ and denominal suffixes. This category includes the endings -ie, -ă /etate, -eață /-ețe, -oare, -ime, -șug, -lâc, -adă , -itudine, -ă rie (and its neological variant -erie), -enie,⁹² -ism, -ită : prietenie ‘friendship’ prieten ‘friend’, gingă şie ‘gentleness’ gingaş ‘fragile, delicate’; bună tate ‘goodness’ bun ‘good’, pustietate ‘desert’ pustiu ‘deserted’, singură tate ‘solitude’ singur ‘alone’; dulceaţă ‘sweetness’ dulce ‘sweet’, negreaţă ‘blackness’ negru ‘black’, frumuseţe ‘beauty’ frumos ‘beautiful’, bă trâneţe ‘oldness’ bă trân ‘old’;⁹³ ră coare ‘coolness’ rece ‘cold’, paloare ‘paleness’ pal ‘pale’, amploare ‘ampleness’ amplu ‘ample’; cruzime ‘roughness’ crud ‘savage, cruel’, lă rgime ‘width’ larg ‘wide’; hitleşug ‘cunning’ hitlean ‘cunning’; savantlâc ‘pedantry’ savant ‘learnèd’; balcaniadă ‘Balkan Athletics Championships’ Balcani ‘Balcans’; certitudine ‘certainty’ cert ‘certain’, promptitudine ‘promptness’ prompt ‘prompt’; dulcegă rie ‘mawkishness’ dulce ‘sweet’, cochetă rie ‘coquetry’ cochet ‘pretty, stylish’, camaraderie ‘comradeship’ camarad ‘comrade’, pedanterie ‘pedantry’ pedant ‘pedantic’; şubrezenie ‘frailty’ şubred ‘flimsy’, cuminţenie ‘good conduct; obedience’ cuminte ‘obedient’; marxism ‘Marxism’ Marx, junimism ‘Junimism’ Junimea (a literary movement); scenarită ‘predisposition towards seeing everything as a set-up’ scenariu ‘scenario’, telenovelită ‘obsession with soap operas’ telenovelă ‘soap opera’. Deadjectival and denominal derivatives are represented in all etymological strata, just like deverbal derivatives. Some are inherited from Latin (see -ie < -, -,⁹⁴ -tate < -, -eaţă /-eţe < -, -, -ime < -); others are either borrowings from non-Romance languages (OSl. -enie, Tk. -lâc, Hung. -şug) or late borrowings from French -ism, -itude, -ade, -ite. There are suffixes with multiple etymologies, inherited and neologistic. For example -oare is inherited from the Latin -, - and consolidated through the French -eur; -(i)tate is inherited from Latin, then strongly consolidated through the neologistic French -ité. The suffix -ă rie is an internal creation, arising from the combination of two other suffixes, and is strengthened by a late neological suffix (Fr. -erie). 7.6.2.3 The grammar of the suffix -re and its variants The so-called long infinitive (§6.5.1) deserves special discussion. Its ending -re has been interpreted either as a grammatical suffix (infinitive marker) or as a lexical suffix (deverbal suffix, recognizable in names of action or names of state). Closely related to the interpretation of the suffix -re is the question whether nominal long infinitives are a ⁹¹ ⁹² ⁹³ ⁹⁴
For Romanian deadjectival suffixes, see Grossmann (2016: 2740). -enie and -oare are the only suffixes that this category of abstracts shares with deverbal abstracts. The archaic forms of frumuseţe ‘beauty’ and bă trâneţe ‘oldness’ are frum(u)seaţe, bă trâneaţe. In some other analyses, the etymon is considered to be old Slavonic (Pascu 1916: 188).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
414 matter of suffixal derivation or conversion. There is no doubt that in the old language, when an active verbal long infinitive still existed, the ending -re functioned as a grammatical suffix and the transition from long infinitive to nominal was the result of a mechanism of conversion and grammaticalization (for the history of the infinitive, see Nedelcu 2016: 232). However, as the purely verbal value of the long infinitive dwindles, and particularly in the modern language, where its use as a verbal form is quite exceptional, the phenomenon clearly invites analysis as an effect of suffixation, not of conversion. The fact that in the modern language there are abstract formations with the suffix -re that lack a verbal counterpart (Stan 2003: 276–80) is an additional argument in favour of derivation rather than conversion (Pană Dindelegan 2008b: 578). The lexical suffix -re displays many morphological variants triggered by the thematic vowel,⁹⁵ depending on the class of verbs to which it is added: -áre is selected by first-conjugation verbs (cânta ‘sing’ ~ cântáre ‘singing’),⁹⁶ -ére by second-conjugation verbs (a vedea ‘see’ ~ vedére ‘sight’), -ere (unstressed) by third-conjugation verbs (trece ‘pass’ ~ trécere ‘passing, crossing’), -íre by verbs with the infinitive in -i (citi ‘read’ ~ citíre ‘reading’), and -âre by verbs with the infinitive in -î (coborî ‘descend’~ coborâre ‘descent’). Any deverbal derivative has a double nature, nominal and verbal. Among the abstract deverbal derivatives analysed in this chapter, -re derivatives display most strongly the behaviour of a ‘mixed category’.⁹⁷ Romanian notably has two distinct non-finite forms (an infinitive and a supine), two distinct types of infinitive (a verbal infinitive and a nominal infinitive) and two distinct types of supine (a nominal supine and a verbal supine), each with different degrees of ‘nominalization’, and an extremely rich inventory of deverbal suffixes that create abstract nominals. Romanian displays an extremely diversified hierarchy of degrees of nominalization, on a scale that goes in the direction of increase in nominal features and decrease in verbal ones: prototypical verb—(short) verbal infinitive—verbal supine—(long/derived) nominal infinitive— deverbal suffixal formations, which also display different degrees of nominalization.⁹⁸ 7.6.2.4 The status of the suffix -are: the relation to -re From the earliest records, Romanian has displayed the (inherently stressed) suffix -are, which occurs in parallel with the suffix -re, but independently of conjugation class. While -re is always attached to the stem of the infinitive (ză ce-re ‘lying’,⁹⁹ naşte-re ‘birth’, pierde-re ‘death,’ vinde-re ‘sale’), the -are forms combine with consonantal root allomorphs that are often identical with those of the third-person subjunctive with ⁹⁵ See a similar discussion for -tor postverbal derivatives in §7.3.2. ⁹⁶ For the variant -ere in first-conjugation verbs (e.g. tă iere ‘cutting’, îngenunchere [ɨnʒenunˈcere] ‘kneeling’, (în)junghere [ɨnʒunˈɟere] ‘stabbing’), see the discussion in §§1.5 and 7.3.2. ⁹⁷ For the fact that formations in -re display the behaviour of a ‘mixed’ category (with double features, nominal and verbal), see Pană Dindelegan (2015g: 199–208). ⁹⁸ See the difference between -et in foşnet ‘rustle’, rânjet ‘grin’, and -eală (-ială ) in croială ‘cut of a coat’, vă ruială ‘whitewashing’, with different degrees of abstractization, which are a consequence of differences in meaning. The first two derivatives given here indicate the result of the action, whereas the third and fourth indicate the action. ⁹⁹ The form used in the old language is (d)ză cea-re ‘lying, falling ill’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
415
root-final velars (fă cáre ‘doing’, nă scáre ‘birth’, petrecáre ‘manner of life; death’; also ză cáre ‘lying; falling ill’). This phenomenon extends to old iotacized forms in root-final -z (see §6.6.4 for an explanation of these patterns of allomorphy), even where such allomorphs have been levelled out by now in the finite forms of the verb. Examples are pierzáre ‘death’, vânzáre ‘sale’, and, as a rare example from a fourth-conjugation verb, prânzáre ‘lunch’ (cf. a prânzi ‘to lunch’). These forms may be compared with the corresponding infinitives and subjunctives of their verbs: ză cea ~ zacă , naște ~ nască , pierde ~ older piarză , modern piardă , vinde ~ older vânză , modern vândă . The fact that there can be two derivatives based on the same verb (see examples (3a) and (3b) for the old language) stands as clear evidence that -are developed as a self-standing deverbal lexical suffix, which has functioned in parallel and in competition with -re (see §7.6.3.3).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(3) a petrecare¹⁰⁰ pierzare¹⁰¹ vânzare¹⁰² (d)ză care¹⁰³ b petreacere¹⁰⁴ pierdere¹⁰⁵ vindere¹⁰⁶ ză ceare¹⁰⁷ 7.6.2.5 The grammar of the suffixes -it/-ă rit In parallel with derived nominal supines, which were very frequent in the old language (Dragomirescu 2016b: 250–2), a new suffix emerged at the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth (Contraș & Popescu Marin 2007: 147–8). This suffix has developed from the supine suffix and attaches to nominal stems. It gets added to agent names in -ar, thus yielding the complex suffix -ă rit. Initially it denoted the activity of collecting different types of taxes and, by extension, the tax itself: că mină rit ‘tax on wine’, cârciumă rit, cepă rit ‘tax on taverns’, dijmă rit ‘tax on beehives and pigs’, fumă rit ‘tax on chimneys’, goştină rit ‘tax on sheep, pigs, cattle’, ierbă rit ‘tax on the use of pasture’, mă jă rit ‘tax on cartfuls of fish’, oierit ‘tax on sheep’, să ră rit ‘tax on salt extraction’, ţigă nă rit ‘tax on each gypsy slave owned’, vă că rit ‘tax on cows’, vă dră rit ‘tax on wine produced’, as in (4). (4) Şi au mai scădzut desetina boierilor, [ . . . ] şi and they.have more decreased quitrent. boyars. and au rădicat ţigănăritul şi morăritul şi they.have raised tax.on.gypsy.slaves. and tax.on.mills. and prisăcăritul şi cârcimăritul, care le scornisă tax.on.beehives. and tax.on.taverns. which ... had.produced Mihai-vodă108 Mihai-vodă ‘They decreased the quitrent and increased the tax on gypsy slaves owned, on mills, on beehives, and on taverns, which were brought forth by Voivode Mihai.’
¹⁰⁰ Dosoftei, in DLR. ¹⁰¹ CC²; CazV. ¹⁰² CC²; DPV. ¹⁰⁴ CazV; DVS. ¹⁰⁵ CC². ¹⁰⁶ CC¹; CC². ¹⁰⁷ CDicț.
¹⁰³ DPV; DVS. ¹⁰⁸ NL.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
416
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
The types of tax gradually disappeared, and when this happened many forms fell out of use or changed their meaning: for example oierit, which initially meant ‘tax on sheep’, now has a more general meaning, as is characteristic of the supine, in this case designating an activity referring to sheep raising. 7.6.2.6 The suffixes -tură , -ciune, and their variants The suffix -(t/s)ură deserves discussion, since it displays great variation of forms throughout the history of the language. The suffix -tură is preceded by the vowel -ă in first-, second-, and third-conjugation verbs (e.g. alerga ‘to run’ ~ alergă tură ‘running; coming and going’; că dea ‘to fall’ ~ că ză tură ‘falling’; bate ‘to beat’~ bă tă tură ‘callosity’) and by the vowels -i- and -â- in verbs with infinitives in -i (izbi ‘to hit’ ~ izbitură ‘hit’) or in -î (târî ‘to crawl’ ~ târâtură ‘crawling’). The vowel ă - becomes -eunder the conditions described in §§1.5, 7.3.2 (e.g. mângâia ‘to caress’ ~ mângâi(e)tură ‘caress’, junghea ‘to twinge’ ~ junghietură ‘twinge’). Where the verb has, or had historically, an ‘iotacized’ root allomorph, that is the allomorph that appears before -ă tura (e.g. arz ~ arză tură ‘burn’, pierz ~ pierză tură ‘loss’). Some nouns in -(t/s)ură are in fact built on past participles in -t or -s (e.g. ars ‘burnt’ ~ arsură ‘burn’, fiert ‘boiled’ ~ fiertură ‘broth’, spart ‘broken’~ spă rtură ‘break’, umplut ‘filled’~ umplutură ‘filling’). In relation to the present tense stem, the suffix is realized as -ă tură , whereas in the relation to the participle stem it is preferably realized as -ură ; however, the variant -ă tură is not altogether impossible (împuns ~ împunsă tură ‘prick’). What is interesting is the possibility of generating competing derivatives by using combinations of the methods listed here: arză tură ~ arsă tură ¹⁰⁹ ~ arsură ‘burn’; împunsă tură ¹¹⁰ ~ împunsură ¹¹¹ ‘prick’; întorsă tură ~ întorcă tură ~ întorsură ,¹¹² ‘turn’; înţelegă tură ¹¹³ ~ înţelesă tură ¹¹⁴ ‘understanding’.¹¹⁵ There is similar variation, but less diversified, with the suffix -ciune. Its morphological realizations are -ă ciune, -iciune, -âciune, depending on the conjugation (-ă ciune in verbs ending in -a: îngropă ciune ‘burial’, spurcă ciune ‘filthy thing/creature’; -iciune in verbs in -i: putreziciune ‘putrefaction’, stârpiciune ‘infertility’; -âciune in verbs in -î: urâciune ‘ugliness; fright’); and it has a phonological realization -ieciune in the context of a vocalic stem (despuia ‘undress’ ~ despuieciune ‘nakedness’). Unlike -(t)ură , the suffix -ciune selects only the infinitive stem of verbs ending in -a, -i, -î—hence not that of second- and third-conjugation verbs.
7.6.3 Productivity, synonymy, competition Throughout the history of Romanian, suffixes that derive abstract nouns have been not only extremely numerous, but also very productive. It is remarkable that Romanian, a
¹⁰⁹ PO. ¹¹⁰ CII. ¹¹¹ CazV. ¹¹² CV. ¹¹³ CC². ¹¹⁴ PO. ¹¹⁵ Source texts are indicated only for derivatives that have disappeared from standard modern use; derivatives whose source is not given here are encountered in the current language.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
417
language with a predominantly rural history, should have developed such a rich inventory of abstract suffixes, many of them highly productive.¹¹⁶ In the transition from old to modern Romanian some suffixes have lost their productivity; -(ă /i)ciune and -anie/-enie are among the ones that were very productive in the past but display low productivity in the modern language—in fact the former became completely unproductive. Even so, the inventory is still rich and most suffixes remain highly productive. (For old Romanian, see Contraș & Popescu Marin 2007: 83–6, 102–3.) Both in old and in modern Romanian, the most productive deverbal suffix is -re. There is a relation of grammaticalization between the verb and the corresponding formation in -re. Almost any verb, even modals (putere ‘strength’, vrere ‘will’),¹¹⁷ aspectuals (începere ‘beginning’, continuare ‘continuation’, terminare ‘ending’), and copulas (devenire ‘becoming’, fire ‘being’), may have a nominalized long infinitive; any neologistic verb, however recent, has a corresponding deverbal formation in -re.¹¹⁸ Unlike -re, the related form -are is completely unproductive in modern Romanian. Among Romance neological suffixes, -ţie and -(i/ă )tate are extremely productive. The latter has a double etymology: it is inherited from Latin and, in the modern period, it is also borrowed from learnèd Latin or Romance. There are other neological suffixes, -ism, -itudine, -adă , -ită (from French), which are generally added to neological bases. In the current language, their derivational power tends to increase to the point where they can give rise to novel derivations unconnected with the neological formations through which they entered the language. Examples are formations such as mineriadă ‘mineriad’¹¹⁹ ( miner ‘miner’), dosariadă ‘inspection, handled by the Securitate, of persons who serve in public positions’ ( dosar ‘file’), cuponiadă ‘campaign related to privatization’ ( cupon ‘coupon’). The suffix -it- (‘-itis’) was initially specialized for medical terminology (amigdalită ‘tonsilitis’ amigdală ‘tonsil’, sinuzită ‘sinusitis’ sinus ‘sinus’) but has spread into colloquial use, where it acquired a pejorative and ironical function (demisionită ‘resignitis, symptomatic resignation of many persons in public service over a short period’, scenarită ‘scenarioitis, proneness to conspiracy theories, tendency to see everything as a set-up’, spionită ‘obsessive tendency to see spies everywhere’; see Stoichiţoiu Ichim (2006a: 223).
¹¹⁶ Rainer (2016: 518) notices that, in the transition from Latin to Romance languages, abstract nouns have suffered ‘heavy losses in the deeply rural society of the early Middle Ages, partly through concretization’. ¹¹⁷ Only the modal verb a trebui ‘must, have to’ lacks a corresponding long infinitive (**trebuire) and uses instead another abstract suffixal formation (trebuinţă ‘need’). ¹¹⁸ Very few verbs lack a nominal long infinitive (for verbs beginning with the letter C, Stan 2003: 174–5 indicates e.g. **cârâire ‘croaking’, **chelă lă ire ‘yelp(ing)’, **copilă rire ‘being a child’, **costare ‘costing’, **credere ‘believing’, **cuvenire ‘being proper’). This inventory is difficult to account for gramatically and semantically: for each of the corresponding verbs there is instead an abstract suffixal derivative (că lă torie ‘trip’, că să torie ‘marriage’, contribuţie ‘contribution’, copilă rie ‘childhood’, cuviinţă ‘decency’). There are also verbs that have a nominalized infinitive form, which moves away from the general meaning of the verb and acquires more specific meanings less connected to the verb, such as avere ‘fortune’ (cf. avea ‘have’), fire ‘moral and psychological nature of a person’ (cf. fi ‘be’), pă rere ‘opinion, point of view’ (cf. pă rea ‘seem’), stare ‘disposition, temporary state of a person’ (cf. sta ‘stand, be’). ¹¹⁹ The name given by journalists to repeated visits to Bucharest by miners from the Jiu valley in the early 1990s. Because these events were characterized by violent attacks on political opponents, the word designated, by extension, any attempt to eliminate political opposition by force.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
418
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian also display all the abstract suffixes inherited from Latin: Aro. dimândă čune ‘recommendation’, ľirtă čune ‘forgiveness’, putreğuni ‘putrefaction’; acupirimintu ‘cover’; eftină tate ‘cheapness’, singurătate ‘loneliness’; putridzime ‘putrefaction’, alăgătură ‘coming and going’, amurţâtură ‘numbing’; slăbinţă, slăbeaţă ‘weakness’ (Papahagi 1974); MeRo. ă nflătură ‘swelling’, ă nfricuşătură ‘terror’, ănclinăčuni ‘well-wishes’, ăngrupăčuni ‘burials’, ăncă lţămint ‘footwear’, ălbeaţă ‘white spot’ (Saramandu 2013). In both dialects, nominal long infinitives are very productive: aburari ‘steaming’, acâţari ‘hanging’, acupireari ‘covering’, acreari ‘souring’, adâstari ‘waiting’, and so on (see the nominal long infinitives in Caragiu Marioţeanu 1997).¹²⁰ For Megleno-Romanian, examples can be found in Atanasov (2002: 228) and in Saramandu (2013): ă mnari ‘walk’, ămpărtori ‘fortune division’, ă mpidicari ‘stumbling’, ămplitiri ‘weaving’, ănsurari ‘marriage’, ăntrari ‘entry’. 7.6.3.1 Competition between the long infinitive and the nominal supine Competition between the long infinitive and the nominal supine has manifested itself since the sixteenth century (see (7a)–(7c) and Dragomirescu 2015a) and it is still present in the current language. Stan (2003: 268–9) gives a list of formations beginning with letter C, for which DEX records both the nominal long infinitive and the nominal supine: că lcare ~ că lcat ‘ironing’, că utare ~ că utat ‘searching’, cerere ~ cerut ‘request’, ciocă nire ~ ciocă nit ‘knocking’, ciripire ~ ciripit ‘twittering’, citire ~ citit ‘reading’. Judging by the data presented in Stan (2003), the ratio between the nominal long infinitive and the nominal supine in the modern language clearly favours the long infinitive; so, if we look at the letter C in DEX, 370 of the verbs there have only long infinitive forms, forty-seven verbs have both long infinitive and nominal supine forms, and thirty-one verbs have only nominal supine forms).¹²¹ Even in the old language, the ratio between the nominal long infinitive and the nominal supine favoured the former, although the frequency of the nominal supine was higher than today (Dragomirescu 2015a); there are no significant differences between original and translated texts. (5) a de la ieşitul jidovilor până la Saul122 from exit.. Jews.of.the until Saul ‘from the exodus of the Jews until Saul’ a’ să ajute spre eşirea help.3. toward exit.. ‘to help with the devil’s departure’ b Dentâi, despre îngrupatul lu first about bury.. of ‘first, about Christ’s burial’
dracului123 devil.of.the
Hristos124 Christ
¹²⁰ In Aromanian the infinitive is used almost exclusively as a noun (Capidan 1932: 477, 548). ¹²¹ For the whole list of verbs without nominalizations in -re, most of which are unergative, see Boioc et al. (2017). ¹²² DÎ LXXI. ¹²³ CC². ¹²⁴ CC¹.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
419
b’ Acest obiceai şi nărav al îngroparei era al this custom and habit al bury.. was al jidovilor. Jews.of.the ‘this custom and habit of burial belonged to Jews’ c Şi înaintea născutului lu both before be.born... of 125 naşterea [ . . . ] be.born.. ‘both before and after Christ’s birth’
Hristos, şi Christ and
după after
In the case of the nominal supine, in the old language there existed both a masculine and a feminine variant (Dragomirescu 2016b: 251), sometimes in competition, as (6) illustrates. The masculine was predominant. In the current standard language, it is the masculine variant that has been generalized, with the exception of a few fixed constructions (Lă sata secului lit. ‘leaving of the dry’, ‘Shrovetide’).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
(6) a după lăcuitul lor în pământul after dwell.... their in land. biruituriei lor126 victory.. their ‘after their living in the land of their glory’ a’ ai orândit ţie afi loc de lăcuită you.have arranged to.you to be place of dwell... în sfânt locul tău127 in holy place. your ‘you have arranged your holy place to be a place to live in’ b cu bucurie se aşteptăm venritul lui şi with joy we.await come.... his and învierea morţiloru dead.of.the resurrection. ‘with joy let us await his coming and the resurrection of the dead’ b’ grăiaşte a doao venrită cu slavă mare128 talks the second come... with glory great ‘it is talking about his second coming with great glory’ Aromanian, represented in (7a), also has feminine forms with an abstract value that are identical with the participle and have the same function as the infinitive and the nominal supine in Daco-Romanian (Capidan 1932: 551–2). In Megleno-Romanian, represented in (7b), there are supines with an abstract value and masculine form as ¹²⁵ CC¹.
¹²⁶ PO.
¹²⁷ PO.
¹²⁸ CSXV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
420 well, but they are not as widespread as in Daco-Romanian (Atanasov 2002: 235–6). The most recent corpus of research results has emphasized the existence of certain constructions in Istro-Romanian that are formally, semantically, and in part distributionally identical with the Daco-Romanian nominal supine (Dragomirescu 2016c; see (7c)). (7) a Aro. tu turnată ‘at the return’, to işită ‘when leaving’, din apirită pân ască pitata soarlui ‘from dusk till dawn’ (Capidan 1932: 551f.) b MeRo. din vrut, din nivrut ‘willy-nilly’, din niştiut ‘without knowing’, dupu spus ‘as is said’, la siţirat ‘at the reaping’, etc. c IRo. de meritåt ‘to deserve’, de cumparåt ‘to buy’, de lucråt ‘to work’, de facut ‘to do’, etc.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Neither in the modern nor in the sixteenth-century language is there any systematic correlation between the type of nominalization (supine or infinitive) and the syntactic class of the verb (transitive, inaccusative, unergative). The list in Stan (2003: 273) that records both nominalized infinitives and nominalized supines includes formations from verbs of all types, although there is a preference for unergative verbs to have nominalized supines (că lă rit ‘riding’, chelă lă it ‘yelp(ing)’, chiră it ‘titter(ing)’, chiţă it ‘squeak(ing)’, clefă it ‘chomping’, cucurigat ‘cock-a-doodle-doo’). The modern language has a notable propensity for nominalized supines from verbs denoting activities or professions (că lă rit ‘riding’; cerşit, cerşetorit ‘begging’; colindat ‘carol-singing’; croşetat ‘crocheting’; cutreierat ‘wandering’). 7.6.3.2 Suffixal formation ~ competition with the long infinitive (and nominalized supine) Numerous abstract suffixal formations compete with the long infinitive or the nominalized supine. The phenomenon is present in all the historical periods and especially in the old language, when abstract suffixal formations were more frequent than today (e.g. gotovinţă ~ gotovire ‘preparation’; upovă inţă ~ upovă ire ‘hope’;¹²⁹ schimbă ciune¹³⁰ ~ schimbare¹³¹ ‘change’). Sometimes three terms may compete: începă tură ~ început¹³² ~ începenie¹³³ ‘beginning’; înţelegă tură ~ înţeleagere ~ înţeles¹³⁴ ‘understanding’. 7.6.3.3 Competition between different suffixal formations In the old language, competition between various abstract suffixal formations was more frequent than it is today: îmbră că ciune¹³⁵ ~ îmbră că minte¹³⁶ ‘clothes’; cură ţie¹³⁷ ~ cură ţenie¹³⁸ ‘cleanliness; purity’; slobozie ~ slobozenie ‘freedom’; eftenşug¹³⁹ ~ eftină tate¹⁴⁰ ‘cheapness’; hitlenşug ~ hitlenie¹⁴¹ ‘cunning’. Many of these derivatives have disappeared from standard use, but the phenomenon of synonymy among derivatives continues to be active. ¹²⁹ CP¹. ¹³⁶ PO.
¹³⁰ DVS. ¹³⁷ CC².
¹³¹ DVS. ¹³⁸ NT.
¹³² CC². ¹³⁹ CC².
¹³³ NT. ¹⁴⁰ Prav. 1780.
¹³⁴ CC². ¹⁴¹ CC².
¹³⁵ PH.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
421
There is competition between -are and -re. Except for crezare ‘credence’ and pă scare ‘pasture’, whose verb of origin belongs to the small class of verbs without a long nominal infinitive (**credere, **paştere), all other -are formations compete with the corresponding long infinitive (fă cáre ~ fácere ‘doing’, nă scáre ~ náştere ‘birth’, petrecáre ~ petrécere ‘death’, pierzáre ~ piérdere ‘loss; death’, vânzáre ~ víndere ‘sale’, ză cáre ~ ză cére ‘lying; falling ill’). Sometimes archaic formations in -are are preserved just in set expressions (e.g. orb din nă scare ~ din naştere ‘blind from birth’; a că zut la ză care ~ la ză cere ‘he fell ill’), but they may be found in other constructions as well (Tră ieşte din vânzarea/din vinderea fructelor ‘S/he earns her/his living from fruit selling’). Yet another rival form, especially in old Romanian, is the nominalized feminine past participle (orb den nă scută ‘blind from birth’).¹⁴² The suffixes -ţie (-sie) vs -ţiune (-siune) constitute special case. Both ultimately reflect the Latin ending -, accusative - (e.g. , ‘fraction’), with a variant form in -, - (e.g. , ). This ending has been immensely productive in numerous Romance and other European languages (e.g. Fr. -tion, It. -zione, Pt. -ção). In modern Romanian, -ţie has entered via Russian, while its cognate -ţiune is of Latin and Romance origin.¹⁴³ The variant -(ţ)ie was general by the start of the eighteenth century. The variant -(ţ)iune imposed itself after 1850, when western influence became very strong. At the beginning of the twentieth century, -(ţ) iune was predominant; then -ţie began to extend, until it took its place by the end of the century (see the comparison between juridical and grammatical terminology in Pană Dindelegan 2008a). The ratio between words in -(ţ)ie and words in -(ţ)iune, as listed in DOOM² for the letter P, is 141 to 22. The competition between -ţie and -țiune (-sie vs -siune) is still active in the sense that, in successive editions of normative works (DOOM¹ and DOOM²), certain forms in -(ţ/s)iune disappear from use, or, if still recorded, are followed by the indication ‘înv.’ (i.e. învechit, ‘obsolete’); others are in free variation with those in -(ţ/s)ie (the type transmisie/transmisiune ‘transmission’); and still others coexist with those in -(ţ/s)ie, but with lexical differences (the type fracţiune ‘fragment’ ~ fracţie ‘fraction’, permisiune ‘permission’ ~ permisie ‘leave of absence’, raţiune ‘reason(ing)’ ~ raţie ‘ratio’, etc.). A complete list of this type of variation can be found in Pană Dindelegan (2008a). The competition between -ţ/sie and -ţ/siune often manifests itself in a ternary array in which the long form of the infinitive intervenes: adopţie ~ adopţiune ~ adoptare ‘adoption’, consideraţie ~ consideraţiune (obsolete) ~ considerare ‘consideration’, contestaţie ~ contestaţiune (obsolete) ~ contestare ‘contestation’, separaţie ~ separaţiune (obsolete) ~ separare ‘separation’.
¹⁴² CT. ¹⁴³ There is an extensive bibliography on this suffixal competition (e.g. Niculescu 1978; Opera 1992–3; Zafiu 2007; Pană Dindelegan 2008a).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
422
7.7 Adjectival suffixation 7.7.1 Characteristics, inventory, origin Adjectival suffixes form words that belong to the class of adjectives regardless of the stem they attach to (îndră zniV‘dare’ ! îndră zneţ. ‘daring’, frică . ‘fear’ ! fricos. ‘fearful’). There are numerous such suffixes; and they are quite heterogeneous, both from a grammatical and semantic perspective and from the perspective of their origin. Grammatically, their behaviour depends on the class of stem they attach to. Some adjectival suffixes attach to verbal stems. Examples in this category are:
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
• -bil: lă udabil ‘praiseworthy’ lă uda ‘to praise’,¹⁴⁴ locuibil ‘inhabitable’ locui ‘to dwell’ mă surabil ‘measurable’ mă sura ‘to measure’; • -tor: fermecă tor ‘charming’ fermeca ‘to enchant’, ocrotitor ‘protective’ ocroti ‘to protect’, prevă ză tor ‘far-seeing’ prevedea ‘to foresee’; • -ă reţ: plimbă reţ ‘fond of walking’ plimba ‘to walk’, să ltă reţ ‘lively’ să lta ‘to jump’, zâmbă reţ ‘smiling’ zâmbi ‘to smile’; • -(ă /i/î)cios: mâncă cios ‘voracious’ mânca ‘to eat’, plângă cios ‘whimpering’ plânge ‘to weep’, urâcios ‘grumpy’ urî ‘to hate’. Other suffixes, such as -esc, -at /-ut, -nic, -liu [liu̯], -istic, -al, -ic, -ard, -ist, attached to nominal stems: pă rintesc ‘paternal’ pă rinte ‘father’,¹⁴⁵ sufletesc ‘spiritual’ suflet ‘soul’, să tesc ‘(of a) village’ sat ‘village’; guşat ‘goitrous’ guşă ‘goitre’,¹⁴⁶ mă rgelat ‘wattle’ mă rgele ‘glass pearls’, moţat ‘crested; tufted’ moţ ‘crest’; limbut ‘talkative’ limbă ‘tongue’, cornut ‘horned’ corn ‘horn’; casnic ‘household’ casă ‘house’, îndoielnic ‘doubtful’ îndoială ‘doubt’, fă ţarnic ‘hypocrite’ fă ţare ‘(old) hypocrisy’; chefliu ‘boozer’ chef ‘revelling, binge’; calendaristic ‘according to the calendar’ calendar ‘calendar’; să ptă mânal ‘weekly’ să ptă mână ‘week’, literal ‘literal’ literă ‘letter’; faptic ‘factual’ fapt ‘fact’, folcloric ‘folkloristic’ folclor ‘folklore’; lozincard ‘sloganeering’ lozincă ‘slogan’; familist ‘family man’ familie ‘family’, ţă ră nist ‘countryman’s’ ţă ran ‘countryman’, ceauşist ‘of Ceaușescu’, securist ‘of the Securitate’.¹⁴⁷ Some suffixes attach both to verbs and to nouns, for example -os and -eț: fricos ‘fearful’ frică ‘fear’, pletos ‘long-haired’ plete ‘locks of hair’, pântecos ‘big-bellied’ pântece ‘abdomen’, deluros ‘hilly’ dealuri ‘hills’,¹⁴⁸ ară tos ‘handsome’ ară ta ‘to show’, lunecos ‘slippery’ luneca ‘to slide’, tă ios ‘sharp, cutting’ tă ia ‘cut’; pă dureţ ¹⁴⁴ The multifunctional suffix -tor, with agentive value, is also discussed in §7.3. ¹⁴⁵ The multifunctional suffix -esc is also discussed in §7.4, with ethnic value. ¹⁴⁶ We differentiate these suffixes, which are attached to nouns and thus function as lexical suffixes, from the suffixes of the participle ([geam] spă lat, că zut, spart, vopsit ‘[a window that has been] washed/has fallen/has been broken/has been painted’). ¹⁴⁷ In the last two derivatives, note that the suffix attaches to fragments of the stem (Ceauşescu + -ist > ceauşist ‘of Ceaușescu’, Securitate + -ist > securist ‘of the Securitate’); for the type and the form of the stem, see §7.1.4. ¹⁴⁸ Notice that the suffix is attached to the plural form of the stem (dealuri ‘hills’).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
423
‘wild’ pă dure ‘wood(s)’, mă lă ieţ ‘mellow, soft’ mă lai ‘maize’, îndră zneţ ‘daring’ îndră zni ‘to dare’, fâşneaţă ‘lively; haughty’¹⁴⁹ fâşni ‘rustle; to move/glide along with a rustling noise’. The suffixes -os and -eţ occasionally attach to an adjective or to an adverb: anevoios ‘hard, laborious’ anevoie ‘hard, difficult’, mă reţ ‘stately’ mare ‘great’. Certain suffixes, such as -atic, -iu [iu̯], -eş, -aş, -(l)iv, attach to nominal and adjectival stems: tomnatic ‘autumnal’ toamnă ‘autumn’, muieratic ‘womanizing’ muiere ‘woman’; singuratic ‘solitary’ singur ‘alone’, subţiratic ‘slim’ subţire ‘thin’; pă mântiu ‘sallow’ pă mânt ‘ground, earth’, cenuşiu ‘grey’ cenuşă ‘ashes, cinders’, mijlociu ‘middle; second-born’ mijloc ‘middle’; vineţiu ‘violet-blue’ vână t ‘violetblue’, gă lbeniu ‘yellowish’ galben ‘yellow’; chipeş ‘handsome’ chip ‘face, aspect’, leneş ‘lazy’ lene ‘laziness’,¹⁵⁰ trupeş ‘stout’ trup ‘body’, rareş ‘with sparse hair’ rar ‘rare’; codaş ‘dragging behind’ coadă ‘tail’, fruntaş ‘eminent’ frunte ‘forehead’, nă ră vaş ‘restive’ nă rav ‘bad habit’; golaş ‘bare; barren’ gol ‘naked’; costeliv ‘skinny’ coaste ‘ribs’; uscă ţiv ‘lanky’ uscat ‘dry’. Other suffixes attach only to adjectival stems and do not change the lexical class of the stem. Examples here are diminutives such as cură ţel ‘cleanish’ curat ‘clean’, plinuţ ‘chubby’ plin ‘filled’, golaş ‘bare, barren’ gol ‘naked’, bă trâior ‘oldish’ bă trân ‘old’, dulcişor ‘sweetish’ dulce ‘sweet’ and augmentatives lungan ‘tall’ lung ‘long’, bogă tan ‘rich’ bogat ‘rich’.¹⁵¹ The suffixes discussed so far differ with respect to the variants they admit. Deverbal suffixes generally develop several variants, which are triggered by the verb’s thematic vowel. Thus the variant -ă tor or -itor is selected by the present stem of verbs that end in -a or respectively in -i in the infinitive: fermec-ă -tor ‘charm-ing’, ocrot-i-tor ‘protect-ive’.¹⁵² The suffix -bil presents the variants -abil, -ibil, and -ubil, depending on the thematic vowel of the infinitive or participle: mă sur-a-bil ‘measurable’, locu-i-bil ‘habitable’, şti-u-bil ‘knowable’, bă -u-bil ‘drinkable’.¹⁵³ The verbal nature of some of the deverbal adjectives, preserved through the stem, is extremely strong. The evidence in support of this statement is not only morphological but also syntactic: it consists in the preservation of the thematic grid and of the complements that the underlying verb can take. The syntactic behaviour of -bil is a good illustration: materiale utilizabile în construcţii ‘materials that can be used in construction’, rezultate comparabile cu cele anterioare ‘results comparable with the previous ones’, rezultate analizabile de că tre guvernanţi ‘results that the governors can analyse’.¹⁵⁴ The verbal nature of -bil can be further emphasized through the incorporation of a modal seme [+possibility] and of the seme [+passive]; derivatives such as
¹⁴⁹ ¹⁵⁰ ¹⁵¹ ¹⁵² ¹⁵³ ¹⁵⁴
Used predominantly in the feminine. The multifunctional suffix -aș has been discussed in §7.3.1 for its agentive value. For diminutive and augmentative suffixes, see the special discussion in §7.2. See the detailed discussion in §7.3.2. In the first two derivatives, the stem of the infinitive coincides with that of the participle. There is a similar discussion in §7.3.2.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
424 lă udabil ‘praiseworthy, laudable’ or citibil ‘readable’ have the meaning ‘which can be praised/read (by someone/anyone)’. Two classes of adjectives can be semantically differentiated. Most of the items in these classes express qualifying predications and have all the corresponding semantic– grammatical features. They are compatible with degree markers and display a variable word order: they can either precede or follow the noun (coleg foarte mâncă cios/foarte petrecă reţ ‘a colleague who is a gourmand/partygoer’; Foarte mâncă cios coleg! ‘Such a gourmandizing colleague!’). However, there are suffixes that, by their nature, generate categorial adjectives. One should consider here the status of -esc, which, as an ethnonym, forms categorial adjectives: magazin **foarte să tesc ‘shop very village.’, opinie **foarte cetă ţenească ‘opinion very civil.’, diplomă **foarte românească ‘diploma very Romanian.’; **oră şenesc spital ‘city. hospital’.¹⁵⁵ Adjectival suffixes may originate in any etymological layer of Romanian. Some of them occur in other Romance languages as well, being inherited from Latin (-os < -; -eţ șpe [ʃpe]: unșpe (cf. unsprezece) ‘11’, paișpe ‘14’ (cf. paisprezece). The second pattern presents a system of counting by multiplication and occurs in the formation of complex numerals that express the idea of tens, hundreds, thousands, and millions. Such numerals have the structure [numeral + noun.]: două zeci two. tens, ‘twenty’, trei sute ‘three hundreds’, patru mii ‘four thousands’, cinci milioane ‘five millions’, Aro. tréii̯ d̹ă ț three.tens, ‘thirty’. This system is most probably of Slavonic origin (Rosetti 1986: 352; cf. Bolocan 1969) or may reflect Balkan convergence—an analysis suggested by similarities with Albanian (Brâncuș 1973).
¹⁹⁵ CV.
¹⁹⁶ PO.
¹⁹⁷ CT.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
.
471
The third pattern uses coordination to link units to tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions. The coordination either is realized by și ‘and’ immediately after tens (e.g. treizeci și unu three.tens.and.one, ‘thirty one’) or is paratactic and places the units immediately after the hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions (e.g. două sute unu two hundreds one ‘two hundred and one’, Aro. tréii̯ d̹ă țîúnu three.tens.one, ‘thirtyone’: see Coteanu 1969f; Saramandu 1984: 447). This pattern may be a continuation of a Danubian Latin model ( / ‘twenty one’), consolidated through contact with Slavic (Dimitrescu 1978: 243; Rosetti 1986: 352), or it may be an internal development of Romanian, given that other languages have it as well (e.g. Greek, German, Armenian, the Baltic languages; see Dimitrescu 1978: 243). In Istro-Romanian the system of numerals is the same as in Daco-Romanian only from ‘1’ to ‘4’. From ‘5’ to ‘8’, both Romance and Croatian numerals are used (tʃintʃ/pet ‘5’, ʃɑse/ʃest ‘6’, ʃɑpte/sedәm ‘7’, opt/osәm ‘8’). From ‘9’ upwards, the speakers prefer the Croatian system exclusively: ie̯ dă nais̯ t ‘11’, trideset ‘30’, sto ‘100’, and so on (Kovačec 1971: 117; Caragiu Marioțeanu 1975: 201; Sârbu & Frățilă 1998: 24; Sala 2013: 220). Megleno-Romanian also uses Macedonian (ună pétcă ‘a (mark of) 5’) or Greek numerals (Atanasov 1984: 519).
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
7.14.3 Ordinal numerals The only non-derived ordinal numeral is the one meaning ‘first’, for which there are two forms. One is . primul, . prima ‘the first one’. It originates in , -, and usually appears in prenominal position: primul copil ‘the first child’. In the old language, the feminine form was frequently preceded by the preposition de: cartea de prima ‘the first book’, nă scutul de-a prima¹⁹⁸ ‘the first born’ (Densusianu 1938: 179–80; Dimitrescu 1974: 105). This structure was subsequently lost. The other form for ‘first’ is . întâi(ul), . întâi(a), inherited from *anˈtaneu—a compound specific to Balkan Latin (see Brâncuș 1973; a reflex of the segment - can be recognized in it). It usually occurs after the noun: clasa întâi(a) ‘the first class, the first year’. The complex form dintâi(a), with the preposition de + întâi(a), has also been attested since the old period. The invariant form (din)întâi has been used both for the masculine and for the feminine since the sixteenth century: locul.. să u dentâniu ‘his first place’, carte.. dentâniu ‘the first book’, că rți.. dentâniu¹⁹⁹ ‘the first books’ (Densusianu 1938: 179). The variable forms are first attested in two occurrences found in old texts from Moldova: stepena întă ia²⁰⁰ ‘the first generation’ and întâielor²⁰¹ ‘of the first ones’ (Frâncu 1997b: 131). The variable forms, although frequent earlier in the informal register, have been only recently accepted by the literary norm (DOOM²). The other ordinal numerals of standard modern Romanian derive from cardinal numerals through a freestanding proclitic morpheme that inflects for gender and is formally identical with the genitive marker (. al, . a), and through an enclitic ¹⁹⁸ PO.
¹⁹⁹ PO.
²⁰⁰ Prav. 1581.
²⁰¹ CV.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
472 morpheme that also distinguishes gender (. -lea, . -a: e.g. . al treilea, . a treia ‘the third one’). They are used only as singulars. While it is widely accepted that the proclitic element is etymologically related to the genitive marker al (see Stan 2013d: 323), the origin of the enclitic morphemes is debated. Coteanu (1969f: 238), Dimitrescu (1974: 105), and Rosetti (1986: 352) consider -le (and -l, on which more to follow) to be the definite article that attaches to nouns, as in câine-le ‘the dog’; and they interpret the second enclitic morpheme -a either as a deictic element or as a vowel that appeared in specific syntactic environments (Dimitrescu 1978: 247). This type of numeral shows important morphological variation, both from a diachronic and from a dialectal perspective. Diachronically, the following features are worth noting. First, the masculine forms could end either in -le, or in -lea, the first option being more frequent in the early old Romanian period: al treile,²⁰² al doile vs al doilea²⁰³ (Densusianu 1938: 179–80; Rosetti 1986: 352). Also, the forms in -le seem to be specific to northern varieties, whereas those in -lea occur in southern varieties and exended into northern ones only after 1700 (Frâncu 1997b: 130); however, the two forms are attested in the same text (see the examples from PO above). The feminine forms could appear without the final -a (phonological explanations are available only for the ordinal corresponding to ‘2’; for the others, the formative is missing). However, this option is not very frequent. In examples such as a doao,²⁰⁴ a doae,²⁰⁵ a patraspră dzeace,²⁰⁶ a şapteaspră dzeace,²⁰⁷ the feminine is exceptionally marked on the cardinal (-a-) in the last two forms (Densusianu 1938: 180). The masculine forms for ‘4’ and ‘8’ appear as al patrul²⁰⁸ and al optul²⁰⁹ (Densusianu 1938: 179); here the final element is identical with the definite article (copilul child.). Finally, with the masculine forms, until the eighteenth century the proclitic formative displays number inflexion, just like the genitive marker: ai doilea,²¹⁰ ai doii,²¹¹ cei dentă iu și ai doi și ai trei²¹² ‘the first ones, the second ones, and the third ones’ (Densusianu 1938: 179; Frâncu 1997b: 131; Stan 2016c: 350). The attestation of these forms in northern texts (CS; Prav. 1581), in which the genitive marker is invariable, challenges the hypothesis of the common origin for the two morphemes. In Istro-Romanian, the proclitic element does not show gender distinctions (Caragiu Marioțeanu 1975: 202, 245; Kovačec 1984: 571–2) or, in the southern dialect, is missing: IRo. (a) doile, (a) dova ‘the second’, (a) șåsile, (a) șåsile ‘the sixth one’ (Kovačec 1984: 572). In Aromanian, the proclitic morpheme is absent in most cases (tréil̯ u, tréia̯ ‘the third’). In Istro-Romanian, Croatian loanwords are used alongside the Romance forms— pă rvi, pă rvě ‘the first’, a desetile, a deseta ‘the tenth’ (Caragiu-Marioțeanu 1975: 201–2; Kovačec 1984: 571)—whereas Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian have borrowed Greek numerals; thus we find Aro. prótlu ‘first’, prótla (Caragiu Marioțeanu 1975: 245) and Megleno-Romanian prot, pro̯ată (Atanasov 1984: 520). ²⁰² CV. ²⁰³ PO. ²⁰⁸ CC¹; PO; DÎ XIX.
²⁰⁴ CC¹. ²⁰⁹ PO.
²⁰⁵ PO. ²¹⁰ CC².
²⁰⁶ CV. ²¹¹ CSVI.
²⁰⁷ PO. ²¹² Prav, 1581.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
.
473
7.14.4 Other numerical expressions Collective meaning can be expressed in the modern language by four morphological means. First, through simple words borrowed from Latin or Romance languages: ambii, ambele ‘both’. Second, through semi-transparent compounds inherited from Latin: amândoi < Lat. - + , amândouă ‘both’ (Densusianu 1938: 101; Stan 2016c: 351). Third, through compound forms with the formative tus- (cf. toți ‘all’) for numbers higher than ‘two’: / tustrei ‘all three’, / tuspatru ‘all four’. Fourth, through compound forms with câte(și), used in the spoken language: câteșitrei ‘all three’, in use since the eighteenth century (Hasan & Popescu Marin 2007: 257). Finally, collective meaning can also be realized by combining the quantifier toți, toate ‘all’ with the cardinal numeral: toți trei, toate trei ‘all three’. All the above patterns have been attested in Romanian from its earliest phase. However, there are some remarkable features in old Romanian. One is the existence of simple adjectives inherited from Latin: îmbi, îmbe < (Densusianu 1938: 177): îmbe laturile²¹³ ‘both sides’, îmbi.²¹⁴ These forms were still attested in the nineteenth century (Nicula 2015a: 178). Another is the formation, admittedly rare, of mixed compounds where amân- is separated from amândoi and attached to some cardinal other than doi: amândoispră zeace ucenici²¹⁵ ‘all the twelve apostles’ (Densusianu 1938: 177; Frâncu 2009: 81). In the sixteenth century there were also forms with tute, a special variant of the quantifier toate ‘all’: tute șase ‘all six’, tute unspră dzeace²¹⁶ ‘all eleven’ (Densusianu 1938: 1785; Dimitrescu 1974: 107; Hasan & Popescu Marin 2007: 257). In Aromanian, the plural form of cardinal numerals is used with a collective value: dól’i, do̯áu̯li ‘the two’, ‘both’ (Saramandu 1984: 448). Multiplicative value is expressed by adjectives that have the internal structure of a past participle from a verb derived with the prefix în- that incorporates a cardinal numeral from the series 2–6, 10, 100, and 1,000: . îndoit, . îndoită , . îndoiți, . îndoite ‘twofold’, întreit ‘threefold’, înzecit ‘tenfold’ (see Stan 2013d: 327). The source of these forms is unclear: they could derive either from a verb such as a îndoi ‘to double’ or directly from the numeral, in the absence of a corresponding verb: **a înșesi șase ‘six’ (Iordan 1956: 364; Dimitrescu 1978: 245). Such forms are not attested in the earliest period of old Romanian (Frâncu 2009: 82). In the contemporary language, neological forms such as triplu ‘triple’, cvadruplu ‘fourfold’ tend to replace the old forms (Nicolae 2009). Fractions are expressed in modern Romanian by nouns derived from cardinal numerals with the suffix -ime: o doime ‘half ’ doi ‘two’, două optimi ‘two eighths’ opt ‘eight’. The suffix -ime has been used since old Romanian in the formation of abstract and collective nouns (lungime ‘length’ lung, prostime ‘the commoners’ prost). It acquired fractional value in the nineteenth century, under the influence of the French -ième (deuxième ‘second’) and -aine (dizaine ‘decade’). These specific ways of expressing fractionality by means of the suffix -ime are not attested in old Romanian (Frâncu 2009: 82, 293), and appear in texts only from 1840 onwards (Carabulea 1958; Găitănaru 1993; Nicula 2015a: 180). ²¹³ PO.
²¹⁴ Prav, 1581.
²¹⁵ CC¹.
²¹⁶ PO.
delegan, Oana Ut 5.003.0008
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
8
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Conclusion In this book we have explored the often complex evolution of Romanian inflexional and derivational morphology. We briefly reiterate here, in conclusion, some general characteristics of Romanian historical morphology and identify their particular relevance to historical Romance linguistics or, more generally, to morphological theory. Romanian nominal and verb morphology is deeply permeated by the effects of successive sound changes, which have produced extensive root allomorphy (see especially §§1.5, 6.4.1). In this respect, Romanian considerably surpasses other major standard Romance languages.¹ Since only a handful of nouns, adjectives, or verbs do not show some root allomorphy, one might argue that Romanian has very few words in these categories that are ‘regular’. Moreover, the paradigmatic distributional patterns of root allomorphy, usually generated by sound change but sometimes inherited from Latin, continue to be replicated and preserved through time, despite the loss of semantic or phonological motivation for them. These are examples of Romanian’s sensitivity to ‘morphomic’ patterns, which are idiosyncratically distinctive of Romance languages generally (§6.6). Indeed, they constitute one of the hallmarks of the ‘Romanceness’ of Romanian morphology. The inflexional morphology of Romanian nouns and adjectives (but especially of nouns) displays a very high degree of unpredictability, in the sense that, in feminines and inanimate masculines, the plural desinences cannot be safely deduced from singulars. In general, it seems that knowledge of nominal morphology involves learning and storage of two word forms (although some words are invariable, while a few feminine nouns involve three word forms; see §2.2.3); nonetheless, the range of possible desinential variation in plurals is small (-i, -e, or -uri) (§2.2). Romanian also displays a remarkably close relation between gender and desinential morphology in nouns. All nouns whose singulars end in a consonant or in a glide are predictably masculine (and counterexamples have historically been eliminated), and all plurals of nouns that have the desinences -e or -uri are predictably feminine. Romanian is often claimed to have a third, ‘neuter’ gender; but, although the desinential morphology of so-called neuters is, at least in part, derivable from Latin neuter morphology, the history of these ‘neuter’ nouns clearly shows that they are nouns displaying an ‘alternating gender’ where, until very recently, masculine agreement in the singular and feminine agreement in the plural have been strict functions of the inflexional ¹ And probably most other Romance varieties, although the Romansh dialects (see e.g. Decurtins 1958) may be serious competitors in this respect.
The Oxford History of Romanian Morphology. Martin Maiden, Adina Dragomirescu, Gabriela Pana˘ Dindelegan, Oana Ut a̦ ˘ Bărbulescu, and a̦ ˘ Bărbulescu,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
475
endings. A possible further characteristic of Romanian, and one that would make it distinct among Romance languages, is that it can be argued to possess inflexional marking of definiteness—via the suffixed definite article, which behaves in significantly different ways from the cognate form in other Romance varieties (§4.2). Inflexional case marking (nominative–accusative vs genitive–dative) notably distinguishes Romanian from other modern Romance languages. However, it is basically restricted to the determiner (articles, demonstratives) and pronominal systems, where its origins are clearly rooted in Latin case-marking morphology. Case marking in the inflexional morphology of the nominal system is, perhaps curiously, restricted to feminine singular nouns and adjectives and, while it is possible that this is a matter of conservative inheritance from Latin, it seems more likely to be an innovation internal to Romanian (§2.6); anyway, it provides a rare example of creation of inflexional case marking against the overwhelming tendency for it to be lost in other Romance languages. Romanian displays a rich and diverse system for the expression of oblique cases: beyond inflexional markers it has analytic, preposition-like ones (§§2.4.3, 2.4.4), which are used in complementary distribution, in free variation (with some stylistical restrictions), or in co-occurrence. The overall picture is rather complex and intricate, and its rules have yet to be completely established. Another clear respect in which the nominal inflexional morphology of Romanian has deviated from that of the rest of the Romance languages is its acquisition of distinctive vocative forms. This is in part a matter of language contact, since the feminine vocative inflexion -o is, indisputably, of Slavonic origin (§2.9.2); but the creation of a distinct vocative form has a paradigmatic repercussion that is uniquely distinctive of Romanian, namely the development of a vocative plural form involving the genitive–dative plural of the determiner, as well as the existence of competing masculine singular endings -e and -ule, often with diverse stylistic–pragmatic functions (§2.9). Romanian historical morphology presents interesting phenomena at the boundary between the verb and the noun, with regard to supines and infinitives. Romanian is the only Romance language whose verb paradigm includes a nominal form labelled ‘supine’. It remains controversial and problematic whether the supine is inherited from the Latin supine and, while the arguments for morphological continuity seem perfectly straightforward, the functions associated with this form are far less easy to reconcile directly with inheritance from Latin, especially as regards the more ‘nominal’ (rather than ‘verbal’) values associated with this form (§6.5.3). An internal innovation of Romanian, however, is the emergence of the nominalized long infinitive (§6.5.1). While truncation of the infinitive (deletion of final -re) is shared with a number of other Romance (and especially Italo-Romance) varieties, only Romanian preserves both truncated and full forms, gradually attributing to the former purely verbal value, while the latter is reanalysed as being purely nominal. Exactly why and how this development occurred remains problematic. The long infinitives (unlike nominalized infinitives in all other Romance languages) acquire feminine gender, and in some dialects we also find that other non-finite verb forms acquire morphological characteristics typically associated with feminine nouns and adjectives, prompting the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
476 speculation that there may be a tendency towards the feminization of non-finite forms (§6.5.5). Indeed, Romanian has created an extremely diversified hierarchy of nominalized structures and nominalization degrees, on the scale prototypical verb—(short) verbal infinitive—verbal supine—nominal long infinitive—nominal supine—suffixal deverbal formations. The Romanian verb is unlike that of other Romance languages in the way in which it has all but eliminated distinctive inflexional morphology in the subjunctive (§6.3.3). Not only do subjunctives show no inflexion for tense (only continuants of the Latin present subjunctive survive as subjunctives), but they are usually distinct from present indicatives only in the third person. Some trans-Danubian varieties have eliminated or come close to eliminating subjunctive morphology altogether. The facts are clear, but the historical mechanisms that gave rise to this situation are still far from being well understood. The Romanian verb also stands out among verb systems in standard Romance languages by showing severely reductive phonological effects of grammaticalization in auxiliary verbs, which are often (as in the auxiliaries ‘have’, ‘be’, and ‘want’) radically different from the corresponding and still surviving lexical verbs (§6.7). Romanian morphology is notable for its sensitivity, manifested in different ways, to the feature of animacy.² For example, the only instance in which the inflexional morphology of plural nouns is safely predictable on the basis of singulars arises in masculine nouns denoting animate (or more precisely ‘biotic’) referents (see §2.3). Conversely, inanimacy (or more precisely the property of being ‘abiotic’) is one of the defining characteristics of nouns that show genus alternans (§2.3.1). The vocative, as a specific address form, characterizes animate nouns that refer to persons; the rich inventory and high productivity of suffixes with agentive value and of suffixes that distinguish sex in human beings also reflect the sensitivity of Romanian to the category of animacy or person (§7.5.1), a sensitivity manifested in other features as well; the particular morphological characteristics of kinship terms and the periphrastic marking of the genitive and of the indirect object with proper names also involve primarily the special marking of human referents (§2.1.3.1). The pronominal system has an unusually rich system of markers of distance and respect, not only in the second person but, notably, also in the third (§3.3). One striking difference between the history of inflexional marking of number, gender, case, tense, mood, aspect, and person on the one hand and, on the other, the history of word formation is that word formation (and, specifically, the morphology of waffixation) clearly reveals the effects of contact with other languages. While, with the exception of the vocative singular ending (see §2.9.1; also §§6.4.3 and 7.11.4 for the borrowing, in trans-Danubian dialects, of aspect markers and some forms of the verb ‘be’ from Slavonic), the inflexional morphology contains virtually nothing that can be attributed with any confidence to the influence of other languages, derivational affixes have been repeatedly and identifiably borrowed from other languages, so that broadly synonymous affixes of different origins readily coexist and proliferate in the language (see §7). ² But also of other phenomena, which might be considered syntactic, such as clitic doubling (e.g. §3.1.1).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
477
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Throughout its history Romanian has been conspicuously rich in agentive suffixes, gender-marking suffixes, and size-marking sufixes (§§7.2–7.5). It is remarkable that Romanian, originally a language used in predominantly rural settings, has in all its observable stages displayed numerous and varied mechanisms of obtaining deverbal and deadjectival abstract derivatives (§7.6). The foregoing are some of what might be regarded as the ‘highlights’ of our survey of the history of Romanian morphology, but in the end these are only fragments of a fascinating and multifaceted history, to which we hope to have opened the door.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
Textual sources
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
The abbreviation consists of the initial letter(s) of the text title, occasionally preceded by the initial of the text’s author, printer, or editor. The year or date given in the next column (which is usually not included in in-text citations) represents the date of publication of the corresponding text. The sign ’ indicates approximate dating. No dating is supplied for volumes that contain texts from different periods. Where appropriate, information is provided on the texts’ region of provenance. Abbreviation
Date
Provenance
Source
A
1620
South Transylvania, Braşov or Haţeg
Alexandria. Ed. Zgraon, F. (2005). Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Ştiinţă şi Artă.
AD
1722–5
Wallachia
Antim Ivireanul, Didahii. Ed. Ştrempel, G. (1997). Antim Ivireanul. Opere. Bucharest: Minerva, 3–210.
ADD
1697
Wallachia
Antim Ivireanul, Dedicație la cartea lui Ioan Cariofil Manual despre câteva nedumeriri. Ed. Ştrempel, G. (1972). Antim Ivireanul. Opere. Bucharest: Minerva, 399–402.
AnonCar
’ 1650
Caransebeș, Banat
Dictionarium valachico-latinum: primul dicționar al limbii române. Ed. Chivu, G. (2008). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
Apostol
before 1618
BB
1688
Bucharest
Biblia adecă Dumnezeiasca Scriptură a Vechiului şi Noului Testament, tipărită întâia oară la 1688 în timpul lui Şerban Vodă Cantacuzino, Domnul Ţării Româneşti (1977). Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic.
Bert
1774
Moldova
Bertoldo. Ed. Georgescu, M. (1999). Bucharest: Minerva.
CazV
1643
Moldova
Varlaam, Cazania. Ed. Byck, J. (1943). Bucharest: Fundaţia Regală pentru Literatură şi Artă.
CB
1559–60
south-east Transylvania or Braşov
Codicele popii Bratul. Ed. Gafton, A. http:// media.lit.uaic.ro/gafton.
CBuc
1749
Wallachia
Carte întru carea să scriu mâncările. Ed. Constantinescu, I. (1997). O lume într-o carte de bucate. Manuscris din epoca brâncovenească. Bucharest: Editura Fundației Culturale Române.
Apostol fragmentar (Cuvânt pentru curăție). Ed. Gaster, M. (1891). Chrestomatia română, I. Leipzig/Bucharest: F. A. Brockhaus/Socec & Co, 45–52.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
480 CC1
1567
Transylvania
Coresi, Tâlcul evangheliilor. Ed. Drimba, V. (1998). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
CC2
1581
Brașov
Cartea cu învăţătură. Ed. Pușcariu, S. & Procopovici, A. (1914). Bucharest: Atelierele Grafice Socec.
CCat
1560
Brașov
Coresi, Catehism. Ed. Roman-Moraru, A. (1982). In Texte româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea. I. ‘Catehismul lui Coresi’. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 101–5.
CD
1698
Iași
Dimitrie Cantemir, Divanul. Ed. Cândea, V. (1974). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 103–405.
CDicţ
1691–7
Brașov
Theodor Corbea, Dictiones latinae cum valachica interpretatione. Ed. Gherman, A.M. (2001). Cluj-Napoca: Clusium.
CETRV
Corpus electronic al textelor româneşti vechi (1521–1640). http://www.textvechi.ro/.
CH
1717–23
Moldova
Dimitrie Cantemir, Hronicul vechimei a romano- moldo-vlahilor. Ed. Toma, S. (1999–2000). Bucharest: Minerva, I: 1–274; II: 5–223.
CIst.
1700–50
Bucharest
Constantin Cantacuzino. Istoria Ţărâi Rumâneşti atribuită stolnicului Constantin Cantacuzino. Ed. Dragomir, O. (2006). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
CII
’1705
Moldova
Dimitrie Cantemir, Istoria ieroglifică. Opere complete, IV. Ed. Toma, S. (1974). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 51–289.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
CIL
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Inscriptiones Africae Latinae. Wilmanns, G. (1881–1959). Berlin: Reimer / De Gruyter.
CÎ
1678
Bucharest
Cheia înţelesului (Ioannykij Haleatovskyi). Ed. Popescu, R. (2000). Bucharest: Libra.
CL
1570
Brașov
Coresi, Liturghier. Ed. Mareş, A. (1969). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 127–48.
CLM
1700–50
Moldova
Miron Costin, Letopiseţul Ţărâi Moldovei. Ed. Panaitescu, P. (1958). Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă.
CLRV
1521–1639
Transylvania
Crestomaţia limbii române vechi, I. Ed. Mareș, A. (2016). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
CM
1567
Transylvania
Coresi,Tâlcul evangheliilor şi molitvenic românesc. Ed. Drimba, V. (1998). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 189–211.
CN
1620
Brașov
Codicele Neagoeanus. Miscellany copied by Ion Românul din Sâmpetru (Ms. rom. BAR nr. 3821).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
st: Editura Academiei.
481
CP
1570
Brașov
Coresi, Psaltirea slavo-română (1577) în comparaţie cu psaltirile coresiene din 1570 şi din 1589. Ed. Toma, S. (1976). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 35–662.
CP1
1577
Brașov
Coresi, Psaltirea slavo-română (1577) în comparaţie cu psaltirile coresiene din 1570 şi din 1589. Ed. Toma, S. (1976). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 35–662.
CPr.
1566
Brașov
Coresi, Apostol. Ed. Bianu, I. (1930). Texte de limbă din secolul XVI, IV, Lucrul apostolesc tipărit de diaconul Coresi la 1563. Bucharest: Cultura Națională.
CPrav.
1560–2
Brașov
Coresi, Pravila. Ed. Chivu, G. (1982). In Texte româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 218–31.
Cron.
1689
Moldova
Cronograf tradus din greceşte de Pătraşco Danovici. Ed. Ştrempel, G. (1998). Bucharest: Minerva, I: 3–271; II: 5–380.
CS
late 15th –early 16th century
Alba Iulia– Codex Sturdzanus. Ed. Chivu, G. (1993). north Hunedoara Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
CSI
1601– post–1619
Alba Iulia
CSIV
1590–1602
north Hunedoara Apocalipsul Maicii Domnului
CSV
1590–1602
north Hunedoara Cugetări în ora morții
CSVI
1590–1602
north Hunedoara Legenda lui Sisinie
CSIX
1580–91
Alba Iulia
Moartea lui Avram
CSXI
1583–1619
Alba Iulia
Legenda Sfintei Vineri
CSXII
1608
Alba Iulia
Întrebare creștinească
CSXIV
1609–18
Alba Iulia
Tâlcul evangheliei de la judecată (Zise Domnul)
Legenda duminicii
CSXV
1619
Alba Iulia
Frați dragi
CT
1560–1
Wallachian subdialect, Braşov
Coresi, Tetraevanghelul tipărit de Coresi. Braşov 1560–1561, comparat cu Evangheliarul lui Radu de la Măniceşti. 1574. Ed. Dimitrescu, F. (1963). Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
CTd.
1600–40
north Transylvania
Codicele Todorescu. Ed. Drăganu, N. (1914). Două manuscripte vechi. Codicele Todorescu şi Codicele Marţian. Bucharest/Vienna/Leipzig: Socec/C. Sfetea/O. Harassowitz, 191–229.
CV
1563–83
Moldova
Codicele Voroneţean. Ed. Costinescu, M. (1981). Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
DAR
Documente privind relațiile agrare în veacul al XVIII-lea. Ed. Mihordea, V., Papacostea, S., & Constantiniu, F. (1961). I Țara Românească; Ed. Mihordea, V., Constantinescu, I., & Istrati, C. (1966). II Moldova. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
DÎ
Documente şi însemnări româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea. Ed. Chivu, G., Georgescu, M., Ioniţă, M., Mareş, A., & Roman-Moraru,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
482 DÎ I
1521
Câmpulung
Scrisoare
DÎ II
1563–4
Gorj
Zapis de vânzare
DÎ IV
1573
Bistrița Monastery, Vâlcea
Mărturie
DÎ V
1576
Bolboși
Zapis de cumpărare
DÎ VI
1579–80
Oltenia
Zapis de vânzare
DÎ VIII
1591–1600
Olt
Testament
DÎ VIIIb
1592
Dâmbovița
Zapis de vânzare
DÎ IX
1593
Vâlcea
Mărturie
DÎ X
1594
Râmnic, Vâlcea
Zapis de danie
DÎ XI
1595
Argeș
Mărturie
DÎ XII
1595–6
Glodeni
Zapis de vânzare
DÎ XIII
1595–6
Glodeni
Zapis de vânzare
DÎ XIV
1595–1625
Ilfov
Testament
DÎ XVI
1597–1600
Prahova
Zapis de vânzare
DÎ XVII
1599
Wallachia
Însemnare
DÎ XVIII
1599
Târgoviște
Scrisoare
DÎ XIX
1599
Transylvania
Inventar
DÎ XXV
1599–1600
Transylvania
Scrisoare
DÎ XXVIII
1599–1600
Transylvania
Inventar
DÎ XXIX
1599–1600
Transylvania
Socoteală de venituri și cheltuieli
DÎ XXX
1599
Mehedinți or Gorj
Zapis de danie
DÎ XXXI
1600
Transylvania
Scrisoare
DÎ XXXII
1600
Transylvania
Scrisoare
DÎ XXXIII
1600
Transylvania
Act diplomatic (draft)
DÎ XXXIV
1600
Transylvania
Act diplomatic (final text)
DÎ XXXVI
1600
Transylvania
Act diplomatic
DÎ XXXIX
1600
Bălgrad
Zapis de danie
DÎ XLIV
1599–1600
Moldova
Act diplomatic
DÎ XLVIII
1600
Alba Iulia
Act diplomatic
DÎ L
1600
Sebeș
Scrisoare
DÎ LV
1600–2
Vâlcea
Zapis de danie
DÎ LVI
1600
Craiova
Zapis de danie
DÎ LIX
1570–1
Galați
Însemnare
DÎ LX
1577
Brăhășești, Galați Zapis de vânzare
DÎ LXI
1581
Bacău
Zapis de vânzare
DÎ LXII
1582–91
Moldova
Însemnare
DÎ LXXI
1587–8
Moldova
Tabele cronologice
DÎ LXXIb
1588
Iași
Însemnare
DÎ LXXII
1588
Galata Monastery
Catastif
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
DÎ LXXIX
1591–2
Moldova
Scrisoare
DÎ LXXX
1591
Siret, Suceava
Zapis de vânzare
DÎ LXXXII
1592
Moldovița Monastery, Suceava
Scrisoare
DÎ LXXXV
1592
Vrancea
Act de hotărnicie
DÎ LXXXVIII
1593
Poland
Mărturii în procesul lui Petru Șchiopul
DÎ LXXXIX
1593
Poland
Mărturii în procesul lui Petru Șchiopul
DÎ XC
1593
Poland
Scrisoare
DÎ XCII
1593
Bozen
Împuternicire
DÎ XCIII
1593
DÎ XCIV
1593
483
Scrisoare Suceava
Zapis de schimb
DÎ XCV
1593
Poland or Austria Scrisoare
DÎ XCVII
1593–7
Suceava
Scrisoare
DÎ C
1594
Bozen
Scrisoare
DÎ CI
1594
Bozen
Inventar
DÎ CII
1595
Câmpulung
Scrisoare
DÎ CIII
1595
Suceava
Scrisoare
DÎ CVI
1596
Piatra
Mărturie
DÎ CIX
1598
Tazlău Monastery, Neamț
Zapis de vânzare
DÎ CX
1600
Suceava
Scrisoare
DÎ CXI
1587
Brașov
Înștiințare
DÎ CXIII
1593
Maramureș
Zapis de împărțire
DÎ CXIV
1600
Bistrița
Scrisoare
DÎ CXV
1600
Bălgrad
Scrisoare
DIR.B
Documente privind istoria României, veacul XVII, B. Țara Românească. II (1611–15); III (1616–20); IV (1621–25). (1951–4). Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
DRH.A
Documenta Romaniae Historica. A. Moldova. I (1384–1448); 1996: XXIII (1635–1636); XXVIII (1645–1646). (1975–1996–2006). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
DRH.B
Documenta Romaniae Historica. B. Țara Românească. XXI (1626); XXII (1628–1629); XXIII (1630–32); XXIV (1633–1634); XXX (1645); XXXI (1646); XXXIV (1649); XXXVI (1651); XXXVII (1652); XXXVIII (1653). (1965–1969–1974–1998–2002–2006–2009). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
Doc.Ec.
Documente privitoare la economia Ţării Româneşti, 1800–1850 I–II. Ed. Cojocaru, I (1958). Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
484 DPar.
1683
Iași
Dosoftei, Parimiile preste an. Ed. Ungureanu, M. (2012). Iași: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’, 95–356.
DPV
1673
Uniev, Ukraine
Dosoftei, Psaltirea în versuri (1673). Ed. Ursu, N. (1974). Dosoftei, Opere I, Versuri. Iași: Mitropolia Moldovei și a Sucevei, 3–1065.
DVS
1682–6
Moldova
Dosoftei (1682–1686), Viața și petreacerea svinților (Iași). Ed. Frențiu, R. (2002). ClujNapoca: Echinox.
Ev.
1642
Govora Monastery, Oltenia
Evanghelie învăţătoare. Govora. Ed. Gherman, A.-M. (2011). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
FD
1592–1604
Putna Monastery, Moldova
Floarea darurilor. Ed. Roman Moraru, A. (1996). Bucharest: Minerva.
FN
1693–1704
Wallachia
Foletul Novel. Calendarul lui Constantin Vodă Brâncoveanu. Ed. Vârtosu, E. (1942). Bucharest: Monitorul Oficial și Imprimeriile Statului.
FT
1571–5
Cluj, Transylvania
Fragmentul Todorescu (Carte de cântece). Ed. Gheţie, I. (1982). In Texte româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 336–43.
GCond.
1762
Iași
Literatura românească de ceremonial. Condica lui Gheorgachi. Ed. Simonescu, D. (1939). Literatura românească de ceremonial. Condica lui Gheorgachi, 1762. Bucharest: Fundația Regele Carol I.
ISBD
Scrisori de boieri. Scrisori de domni. Ed. Iorga, N. (1925). Vălenii-de-Munte: Datina românească.
ISD
Studii și documente cu privire la istoria românilor. I-XXXI. Ed. Iorga, N. (1901–16). Bucharest: Socec.
GB. XVI–XVII
north Moldova
Însemnări pe de pe manuscrise şi cărţi vechi din Ţara Moldovei. I (1429–1750), 130–582; II (1751–1795). Ed. Caproşu, I. & Chiaburu, E. (2008). Iași: Demiurg.
ITM
LC
Glosele Bogdan. Ed. Georgescu, M. (1982). In Texte româneşti din secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 422–38.
’1650
south-west Transylvania
LD
Lemnul crucii. Ed. Timotin, E. (2001). Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Ştiinţă şi Artă. Legenda duminicii. Ed. Timotin, E. (2005). Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Ştiinţă şi Artă.
LDI
1601–19
Alba
ms. 447 = Codex Sturdzanus, 313–19
LDII
’1630
Maramureş
ms. 5032 = Manuscrisul de la Ieud, 320–8
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
LDIII
1630–50
Sălaj
ms. 4746 BCU Cluj, 329–40
LDIV
1659–81
Brașov
ms. 26 Şcheii Braşovului, 341–52
LDVa
1678
Bihor
ms. 5910, 353–63 ms. 4182, 364–9
LDVb
1680–92
Bihor
LDVI
1732
Bihor
ms. 701, 370–7
LDVIII
1725–50
Râmnic, Oltenia
ms. 1317, 389–91
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
LM
485
Morariu, L. (1928). Lu Frați Noștri. Libru lu Rumeri din Istrie. Suceava: Editura Revistei ‘Făt-Frumos’.
Mărg.
1691
Bucharest
Mărgăritare (Ioan Gură de Aur). Ed. Popescu, R. (2001). Bucharest: Libra.
MC
1620
Cozia Monastery, Mihail Moxa, Cronica universală. Ed. Mihăilă, Wallachia G. (1989). Bucharest: Minerva.
MI
’1630
north Transylvania, Maramureş
Ms. 45
17th cent.
Mystirio
1651
Târgoviște
Mystirio sau Sacrament, sau Taine 2 din cele 7, botezul și sfântul mir. Târgoviște.
NÎnv
’1700
Wallachia, Bucharest
Învățăturile lui Neagoe Basarab către fiul său Teodosie. Ed. Moisil, F., & Zamfirescu, D. (1971). Bucharest: Minerva.
NL
’1750–66
Moldova and Wallachia
Ion Neculce, Letopisețul. Ed. Iordan, I. (1959). Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei in Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei și O samă de cuvinte. Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă.
NT
1648
Alba Iulia
Noul Testament. Ed. (1998). Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea.
PA
’1630
Moldova
Eustratie Logofătul, Pravila aleasă. Ed. Gherman, A.-M. (2017). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
PH
1500–10
Moldova
Psaltirea Hurmuzaki. Ed. Gheţie, I. & Teodorescu, M. (2005). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
PI
’1650
south-west Transylvania
Palia istorică. Ed. Roman Moraru, A. & Moraru, M. (2001) Bucharest: Fundaţia Naţională pentru Ştiinţă şi Artă.
PO
1582
BanatHunedoara
Palia de la Orăştie. Ed. Arvinte, V., Caproşu, I., & Gafton, A. (2005). Iaşi: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’.
Prav.
1581
Putna Monastery, Moldova
Pravila ritorului Lucaci. Ed. Rizescu, I. (1971). Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
Manuscrisul de la Ieud. Ed. Teodorescu, M. & Gheţie, I. (1977). Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Vechiul Testament—Septuaginta. Versiunea lui Nicolae Spătarul Milescu (Ms. 45 de la Biblioteca Filialei din Cluj a Academiei Române). Ed. Munteanu, E. Iași: Editura Universității Alexandru Ioan Cuza.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2021, SPi
486 Prav.
1646
Moldova
Carte românească de învăţătură. Ed. Rădulescu, A. (1961). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 33–106.
Prav.
1652
Târgovişte
Îndreptarea legii. Ed. Rădulescu, A. (1962). Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
Prav.
1780
Bucharest
Pravilniceasca condică. Ed. Rădulescu, A. (1957). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 36–156.
Prav.
1640
PS
1573–8
Moldova
Psaltirea Scheiană. Ed. Candrea, I.-A. (1916). Psaltirea Scheiană comparată cu celelalte psaltiri din secolele al XVI-lea şi al XVII-lea. Bucharest: Socec. Ed. Bianu, I. (1889). Psaltirea Scheiană. Bucharest: Carol Göbl.
Sind
1703
Braşov
Sindipa. Ed. Georgescu, M. (1996). Bucharest: Minerva, 249–315.
SA
1683
Sebeș
Ioan Zoba din Vinţ, Sicriul de aur. Ed. Goţia, A. (1984). Bucharest: Minerva.
Pravila de la Govora. CETRV.
SB
Scrisori românești din arhivele Bistriței (1592–1638). Ed. Rosetti, A. (1944). Bucharest: Casa Școalelor.
ŞT
1644
Iași
Şeapte taine a besearecii. Ed. Mazilu, I. (2012). Iași: Editura Universității ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’.
SVI
’1670
Wallachia
Varlaam şi Ioasaf. Ed. Stanciu Istrate, M. (2013). Varlaam şi Ioasaf în cea mai veche versiune a traducerii lui Udrişte Năsturel. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Național al Literaturii Române.
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
TC
Cantemir, T. (1959). Texte istroromâne. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
TS
1551–3
Sibiu
Evangheliarul slavo-român de la Sibiu. 1551–1553. Petrovici, E. & Demény, L. (1971). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 121–354.
ULM
’1725
Wallachia, original from Moldova
Grigore Ureche, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei. Ed. Panaitescu, P. P. (1955). Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă.
VRC
1645
Dealu Monastery, Târgovişte
Varlaam, Răspunsul împotriva catihismusului calvinesc. Ed. Teodorescu, M. (1984). In Varlaam, Opere. Bucharest: Minerva, 143–230.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
References
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
For abbreviations of the source texts, see Abbreviations, Symbols, Journal Acronyms, and Other Conventions, and Textual Sources. Acquaviva, P. (2008). Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adams, J. (1994). ‘Wackernagel’s Law and the position of unstressed personal pronouns in classical Latin’. TPS 92: 103–78. Adams, J. (1996). ‘Interpuncts as evidence for the enclitic character of personal pronouns in Latin’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111: 208–10. Adams, J. (2013). Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ADSB = Oltean, V. (1980). Acte, documente și scrisori din Șcheii Brașovului. Bucharest: Editura Minerva. ALDMI, ALDMII, ALDMIII = Atanasov (2008, 2013, 2015). Alkire, T. & Rosen, C. (2010). The Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ALM = Udler, R. & Comarnițchi, V. (1968–73). Atlasul lingvistic moldovenesc. Chișinău: Academia de stiinţe a RSSM. ALRII = Atlasul lingvistic român (serie nouă). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1956–1972. ALRM = Micul atlas lingvistic român (serie nouă), vols 1–4. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1956–9. ALRRMaramureș = Neiescu et al. ALRRMunteniaDobrogea = Marinescu et al. ALRRTransilvania = Rusu, G. et al. Andreose, A. & Renzi, L. (2013). ‘Geography and distribution of the Romance languages in Europe’. In Maiden et al., 283–334. Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Arvinte, V. (1983). Român, românesc, România. Studiu filologic. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică. Arvinte, V. (2004). Normele limbii literare în Biblia de la Bucureşti (1688). Iaşi: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. Arvinte, V. (2007). ‘Normele limbii literare în Palia de la Orăştie’. In Gafton, A. & Arvinte, V. (eds), Palia de la Orăştie (1582), vol. 2. Studii. Iaşi: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’, 259–412. Asan, F. & Ciobanu, F. (1967). ‘Cuvintele compuse și grupurile sintactice stabile’. In Studii și materiale privitoare la formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. 4. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 235–52. Ashdowne, R. (2016). ‘Address systems’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 897–906. Atanasov, P. (1984). ‘Meglenoromâna’. In Rusu, 476–550. Atanasov, P. (2002). Meglenoromâna astăzi. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Atanasov, P. (2008, 2013, 2015). Atlasul lingvistic al dialectului meglenoromân, vols 1–3. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Avram, A. (1959). ‘Despre cauzele dispariției lui l final—articol hotărât’. SCL 10: 457–64. Avram, A. (1964). ‘Contribuţii la interpretarea grafiei chirilice a primelor texte româneşti’. SCL 15: 1–5. Avram, M. (1967). ‘Genul comun în limba română’. SCL 18: 479–89. Avram, M. (1973). ‘O desinență regională la persoana a doua singular a mai mult ca perfectului românesc’. SCL 24: 487–92. Avram, M. (1975). ‘Despre formele de perfect simplu cu -ră- la singular’. SCL 26: 27–36. Avram, M. (1978). ‘Accentuarea formelor de perfect simplu’. LR 27: 181–8.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
488 Avram, M. (1992). ‘Cultisme adverbiale cu sufixul “-e” în limba română’. SCL 43: 9–19. Avram, M. (1997). Anglicismele în limba română actuală. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Avram, M. (2003–4). ‘Despre desinenţa -uri la substantivele feminine’. Analele științifice ale Universității Al. I. Cuza din Iași 49–50: 63–70. Avram, M. (2005). Studii de morfologie a limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Avram, M. ([2005] 2007). ‘Forme verbale cu funcție circumstanțială de relație în construcții tautologice în limba română’. In Studii de sintaxă a limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 165–75. Avram, M., Carabulea, E., Ciobanu, F., Ficșinescu, F., Gherman, C., Hasan, F., Popescu-Marin, M., Rădulescu, M., & Rizescu, I. (eds) (1978). Formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. 2. Prefixele. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Avram, M. & Sala, M. (2000). May We Introduce the Romanian Language to You? Bucharest: Romanian Cultural Foundation. Bacinschi, E. (1913). ‘Ein mazedorumänischer Ausläufer des altslavischen dativus absolutus’. ZRP 37: 611–17. Baldi, P. & Nuti, A. (2010). ‘Possession in Latin’. In Baldi, P. & Cuzzolin, P. (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 3: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 239–387. Bateman, N. & Polinsky, M. (2010). ‘Romanian as a two-gender language’. In Gerdts, D., Moore, J., & Polinsky, M. (eds), Festschrift for David Perlmutter. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 41–77. Bauer, B. (2000). Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bauer, B. (2011). ‘Word formation’. In Maiden et al., 532–63. Beltechi, E. (1975). ‘Trei arii bănăţene. do(-), pro-, ză-’. CL 20: 173–86. Beltechi, E. (1994–5). ‘Perfectul simplu în graiurile bănăţene actuale’. Dacoromania 1: 103–15. Beneș, P. (1955). ‘Încrucișarea latino-slavă în forma infinitivului românesc’. SCL 6: 255–63. Bennett, C. (1910). Syntax of Early Latin, vol. 1: The Verb. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bentivoglio, P. (2003). ‘Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century’. In Taavitsainen, I. & Jucker, A. (eds), Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 177–91. Berea, E. (1961). ‘Din istoria posesivului său, lui în limba română’. SCL 12: 319–31. Berea-Găgeanu, E. (1979). Viitorul în limba română. Bucharest: Tipografia Universităţii din București. Bertocchi, A. (1989). ‘The role of antecedents of Latin anaphors’. In Calboli, G. (ed.), Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 441–62. Bidian, V. (1973). ‘Persistența unor forme vechi la primele două persoane de plural al perfectului simplu’. CL 18: 217–25. Bidian, V. (1976). ‘Forme verbale de tipul făcém, vindém în graiurile dacoromâne’. CL 21: 65–70. Bidu, A. (1963). ‘Schiță de sistem al pronumelor demonstrative cu exemplificare pe un text din secolul al XII-lea (Cazania lui Varlaam)’. SCL 14: 479–86. Bidu-Vrănceanu, A., Călărașu, C., Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, L., Mancaș, M., & Pană Dindelegan, G. (2005). Dicționar de științe ale limbii. Bucharest: Nemira. Bogrea, V. (1926). ‘Tătâne, mămâne, etc.’. Dacoromania 4: 896–8. Boiagi, M. (1915). Gramatică română sau macedo-română. Reeditată cu o introducere și un vocabular de Per. Papahagi. Bucharest: Tipografia Curții Regale. Boioc, A., Botez, M., & Costea, Ș. (2017). ‘Verbele româneşti fără nominalizare în -re. Inventar şi clasificare’. In Dragomirescu et al., 55–63. Boioc Apintei, A. (2019). ‘ “Să-l l-eau” între fonetică și morfosintaxă’. In Pană Dindelegan, G., Boioc Apintei, A., & Croitor, B. (eds), Variație diacronică și diatopică. Note gramaticale. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 261–71. Bolocan, G. (1969). ‘Observaţii asupra originii numeralelor româneşti’. LR 18: 133–5. Bonami, O. & Boyé, G. (2007). ‘French pronominal clitics and the design of Paradigm Function Morphology’. In On-Line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 291–322.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
489
Bossong, G. (1998). ‘Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe’. In Feuillet, J. (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 193–258. Bourciez, E. (1930). Éléments de linguistique romane. Paris: Klincksieck. Bourdin, P. & Urițescu, G. (to appear). ‘Sur le comportement insolite d’une flexion roumaine’. Actes du XXIXe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes. Strasbourg: Société de linguistique romane/ÉliPhi. Brăescu, R. (2016). ‘Adjectival complementation’. In Pană Dindelegan, 395–400. Brăescu, R. & Dragomirescu, A. (2014). ‘Sintaxa adjectivelor relaţionale în limba română veche’. LR 63: 27–47. Brâncuș, G. (1962). ‘Graiul din Oltenia’. LR 11: 248–60. Brâncuş, G. (1973). ‘Originea structurii numeralului românesc’. SCL 24: 507–10. Brâncuș, G. (1976). ‘Productivitatea conjugărilor în limba română’. SCL 27: 485–92. Brâncuş, G. (1983). Vocabularul autohton al limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică şi Enciclopedică. Brâncuş, G. (1985). ‘Pluralul femininelor neologice din limba română’. SCL 36: 187–91. Brâncuş, G. (2002). Introducere în istoria limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Fundaţiei România de Mâine. Brâncuş, G. (2005). ‘Tendinţe latine şi autohtone la originea unor particularităţi ale limbii române’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Limba română. Structură şi funcţionare. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, 697–702. Brâncuş, G. (2007a). ‘Despre alternanţa fonetică á. ă’. In Brâncuş, 9–13. Brâncuş, G. (2007b). Studii de istorie a limbii române, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). ‘The pronouns of power and solidarity’. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA/Chichester: MIT Press/Wiley & Sons Ltd., 253–76. Budai-Deleanu, I. (1818). Lexicon romănesc-nemţesc şi nemţesc-romănesc alcătuit de Ioanu Budai, chesaro-crăiescul sfetnic la judeţul nemeşilor în Livău, în patru tomuri. Unpublished ms., Bucharest, Biblioteca Academiei Române. Bujor, I. (1955). ‘Genul substantivelor în limba română’. SCL 5: 51–63. Buletinul Comisiei istorice a României, vol. 1. (1915). Bucharest: Atelierele grafice Socec. Bybee, J. (1995). ‘The semantic development of past tense modals in English’. In Bybee, J. & Fleischman, S. (eds), Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 503–17. Byck, J. (1951). ‘Despre câteva pronume personale în limba română’. Cum vorbim 3: 21–25. Byck, J. (1964). ‘Le pronom IPSE dans la langue roumaine’. Bulletin de la Société roumaine de linguistique romane 1: 27–29. Byck, J. (1967a). ‘Femininul peiorativ’. In Dimitrescu, 93–96. Byck, J. (1967b). ‘Originea infinitivului scurt în limba română’. In Dimitrescu, 145–50. Byck, J. & Graur, A. (1967). ‘Influenţa pluralului asupra singularului substantivelor şi adjectivelor în limba română’. In Dimitrescu, 49–92. Călăraşu, C. (2004). Dicţionar de terminologie a profesiunilor actuale. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Călăraşu, C. (2005). Studii de terminologie a profesiunilor. Încercare de sociologie lingvistică. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Calotă, I. (1986). ‘Graiurile din Oltenia în atlasele lingvistice’. In Contribuții la fonetica și dialectologia limbii române. Craiova: Scrisul Românesc, 169–296. Candrea, I.-A. & Adamescu, G. (1926–31). Dicţionarul enciclopedic ilustrat, vol. 1. Dicţionarul limbii române din trecut şi de astăzi; vol. 2. Dicţionarul istoric şi geografic universal. Bucharest: Editura Cartea Românească. Candrea, I.-A. & Densusianu, O. (1907–14). Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii române. Bucharest: Socec. Capidan, T. (1906). ‘Flexion des Substantivs und Verbums im “Codex Dimonie” ’. Jahresbericht des Instituts für rumänische Sprache (rumänisches Seminar) zu Leipzig 12: 179–232. Capidan, T. (1920). ‘Originea vocativului în -le’. Dacoromania 1: 185–209. Capidan, T. (1925). Meglenoromânii. Istoria și graiul lor. Bucharest: Cultura Națională. Capidan, T. (1932). Aromânii. Dialectul aromân. Bucharest: Imprimeria Naţională.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
490 Cappellaro, C. (2016). ‘Tonic pronominal system: morphophonology’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 722–41. Carabulea, E. (1958). ‘Observații asupra sufixului fracționar -ime’. In Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan, cu prilejul împlinirii a 70 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 135–38. Carabulea, E. (1973). ‘Sufixe diminutivale neologice în limba română contemporană’. SCL 24: 655–69. Carabulea, E. (1977). ‘Flexiunea derivatelor în -ică’. LR 26: 569–74. Carabulea, E. (2008). ‘Numeralul’. In Guțu Romalo, vol. 1: 289–322. Carabulea, E. (2015a). ‘-AN, -EAN, -ANĂ, -EANĂ’. In Rădulescu Sala, 138–50. Carabulea, E. (2015b). ‘-ANIE, -ENIE’. In Rădulescu Sala, 190–206. Caragiu Marioțeanu, M. (1959). ‘Observații în legătură cu sistemul pronumelui demonstrativ în aromână’. SCL 10: 409–17. Caragiu Marioțeanu, M. (1962). ‘Moduri nepersonale’. SCL 13: 29–43. Caragiu Marioțeanu, M. (1968). Fono-morfologie aromână. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Caragiu Marioțeanu, M. (1969). ‘Verbul’. In Coteanu (ed.), 254–78. Caragiu Marioțeanu, M. (1975). Compendiu de dialectologie română. Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică. Caragiu Marioţeanu, M. (1977). ‘Dialectul aromân’. In Caragiu Marioţeanu et al., 171–95. Caragiu Marioțeanu, M. (1997). Dicţionar aromân (macedo-vlah) A-D. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică. Caragiu Marioțeanu, M. & Saramandu, N. (2005). Manual de aromână. Carti trâ învițari armâneaști. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Caragiu Marioţeanu, M., Giosu, Ş., Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, L., & Todoran, R. (1977). Dialectologie română. Bucharest: Editura Științifică şi Enciclopedică. Cazacu, B. (1950). ‘Despre unele forme verbale cu sufixe diminutivale’. SCL 1: 91–7. Chircu, A. (2006a). ‘Adverbul românesc în diatopie’. In Lucrările celui de-al XII-lea Simpozion Naţional de Dialectologie. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega, 421–31. Chircu, A. (2006b). ‘Adverbul românesc şi sufixele diminutivale’. In Clim, H.-R. et al. (eds), Identitatea culturală românească în contextul integrării europene. Iaşi: Editura Alfa, 89–96. Chircu, A. (2008). L’adverbe dans les langues romanes. Étude étymologique, lexicale et morphologique (français, roumain, italien, espagnol, portugais, catalan, provençal). Cluj: Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă. Chircu, A. (2010). ‘Une concordance adverbiale franco-roumaine. anc.fr. -s/roum. -a(-le,-e, -şi)’. In Florea, L., Papahagi, C., Pop, L., & Curea, A. (eds), Directions actuelles en linguistique du texte. Actes du colloque international le texte. Modèles, méthodes, perspectives, vol. 1. Cluj-Napoca: Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă, 228–88. Chircu, A. (2012). ‘Un vechi sufix adverbial regional. -ul’. In Mocanu, N., Loşonţi, D., & Beltechi, E. (eds), Lucrările celui de-al XVI-lea Simpozion Internaţional de Dialectologie. Cluj: ArgonautScriptor, 64–71. Chirilă, A. (2013). Limba scrierilor lui Antim Ivireanul, I, Fonetica. Morfologia. Iaşi: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. Chițoran, I. (2002). ‘A perception-production study of Romanian diphthongs and glide-vowel sequences’. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 32: 203–22. Chivu, G. (1993). ‘Studiu lingvistic la Codex sturdzanus’. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 142–234. Chivu, G. (2000). Limba română de la primele texte până la sfârşitul secolului al XVIII-lea. Variantele stilistice. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. Chivu, G. (2010). ‘Neutre cu pluralul în -ă în limba română veche’. In Chivu, G. & Uță Bărbulescu, O. (eds), Studii de limbă română. Omagiu profesorului Grigore Brâncuş. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 53–60. Chivu, G. (2011). ‘Texte scrise cu litere latine în epoca veche a culturii româneşti’. In Munteanu, E., Florescu, I.-F., Gînsac, A.-M., Moruz, M., Savu-Rotenștein, S., & Ungureanu, M. (eds), Receptarea Sfintei Scripturi. Între filologie, hermeneutică şi traductologie. Lucrările Simpozionului Naţional ‘Explorări în tradiţia biblică românească şi europeană’, vol. 1. Iași: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’, 85–96.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
491
Chivu, G., Pană Dindelegan, G., Dragomirescu, A., Nedelcu, I., & Nicula, I. (eds) (2015). Studii de istorie a limbii române. Morfosintaxa limbii literare în secolele al XIX-lea și al XX-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Ciobanu, F. (1958). Scrierea cuvintelor compuse. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Ciobanu, F. & Hasan, F. (eds) (1970). Formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. 1: Compunerea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Ciobanu, F. & Nedelcu, I. (2008). ‘Prepoziția’. In Guțu Romalo, vol. 1: 607–30. Ciompec, G. (1980). ‘Particulele adverbiale în limba română’. LR 29: 86–91. Ciompec, G. (1985). Morfosintaxa adverbului românesc. Sincronie şi diacronie. Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică. Ciorănescu, A. (1958–66). Diccionario etimológico rumano. Tenerife: Universidad de la Laguna. Ciorănescu, A. (2002). Dicţionar etimologic al limbii române. Bucharest: Saeculum. Cipariu, T. ([1869] 1992). Gramateca limbei române. Partea I. Analitică, Bucharest, 1869. In Pamfil, C.-G. (ed.), Timotei Cipariu. Opere, vol. 2. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 65–256. Cohuț, C. & Vulpe, M. (1973). Graiul din zona ‘Porţile de Fier’, vol. 1. Texte. Sintaxă. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. London: Blackwell. Conțiu, M. (1971). ‘Observaţii asupra accentuării formelor verbale în graiurile olteneşti’. FD 7: 159–72. Contraș, E. & Popescu Marin, M. (2007). ‘Sufixele’. In Popescu Marin, 59–218. Contraș, E. & Rădulescu Sala, M. (2015). ‘-AȘ, -EȘ; -AȘĂ’. In Rădulescu Sala, 328–42. Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, G. (2012). Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornilescu, A. & Nicolae, A. (2009). ‘Evoluția articolului hotărât și genitivul în româna veche’. In Zafiu, R., Stoica, G., & Constantinescu, M. N. (eds), Limba română. Teme actuale. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 647–67. Cornilescu, A. & Nicolae, A. (2011a). ‘On the syntax of Romanian definite phrases: changes in the patterns of definiteness checking’. In Sleeman, P. & Perridon, H. (eds), The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 193–221. Cornilescu, A. & Nicolae, A. (2011b). ‘On the syntax of the Romanian indefinite pronouns unul and altul’. In Zafiu, R., Ușurelu, C., & Bogdan Oprea, H. (eds), Limba română. Ipostaze ale variației lingvistice. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 67–94. Cornilescu, A. & Nicolae, A. (2012). ‘Observaţii asupra genitivului prenominal în limba română veche’. In Saramandu, N., Nevaci, M., & Radu, C. (eds). Convergențe lingvistice. Lucrările celui de al patrulea Simpozion Internaţional de Lingvistică. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 285–300. Costinescu, M. (1979). Normele limbii literare în gramaticile românești. Bucharest: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică. Coteanu, I. (1958). ‘Ce este -ule de la vocativ?’. In Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan cu prilejul împlinirii a 70 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 213–16. Coteanu, I. (1969a). ‘Adverbul’. In Coteanu (ed.), 279–81. Coteanu, I. (1969b). ‘Articolul’. In Coteanu (ed.), 229–36. Coteanu, I. (1969c). ‘În legătură cu structura numeralului românesc’. LR 18: 137–8. Coteanu, I. (ed.) (1969d). Istoria limbii române, vol. 2. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Coteanu, I. (1969e). Morfologia numelui în protoromână (româna comună). Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Coteanu, I. (1969f). ‘Numeralul’. In Coteanu (1969d), 236–38. Coteanu, I. (1969g). ‘Pronumele demonstrative’. In Coteanu (1969d), 247–52. Coteanu, I. (1969h). ‘Pronumele posesive’. In Coteanu (1969d), 243–7. Coteanu, I. (1971). ‘Urme de declinarea a IV-a latină în limba română’. In Actele celui de al XII-lea Congres Internaţional de Lingvistică şi Filologie Romanică, vol. 2. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1425–8. Coteanu, I. (ed.) (1985). Limba română contemporană. Fonetica, fonologia, morfologia. Bucharest: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
492 Coteanu, I. ([1985] 2007). Formarea cuvintelor în limba română. Derivarea, compunerea, conversiunea. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Croitor, B. (2008a). ‘Aspecte privind acordul în determinare în limba română veche’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Limba română. Dinamica limbii, dinamica interpretării. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 213–18. Croitor, B. (2008b). ‘Interjecţia’. In Guțu Romalo, vol. 1: 657–85. Croitor, B. (2009). ‘Acordul demonstrativelor cu sintagmele coordonate’. LR 58: 183–91. Croitor, B. (2015a). ‘-AL (-ale, -aliu, -el), -EU’. In Rădulescu Sala, 92–106. Croitor, B. (2015b). ‘Oscilația între masculin și neutru la unele substantive neologice’. LR 64: 487–97. Croitor, B. (2015c). ‘Pronumele’. In Chivu et al., 121–72. Croitor, B. & Giurgea, I. (2009). ‘On the so called Romanian “neuter” ’. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 21–39. DA/DLR = Academia Română (1965–2010). Dicţionarul limbii române (serie nouă). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. DA = Academia Română (1913–49). Dicţionarul limbii române. A B, C, D De, F I, J Lojniţă. Bucharest: Librăriile Socec & Comp. şi C. Sfetea, Tipografia Ziarului ‘Universul’, Monitorul Oficial şi Imprimeriile Statului, Imprimeria Naţională. Dahmen, W. (2005). ‘Die Aromunen heute. Eine Volksgruppe in der Identitätskrise?’. Südosteuropa Mitteilungen 2: 66–77. Dănăilă, I. (1960). ‘Sufixul -mente în limba română’. In Studii şi materiale privitoare la formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. 2. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 185–99. DDM = Saramandu, N. (ed.) (2013). Dicţionarul dialectului meglenoromân. General şi etimologic, vol. 1. A–C. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. de Vaan, M. (2008). Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill. Decurtins, A. (1958). Zur Morphologie der unregelmässigen Verben im Bündnerromanischen. Bern: Francke. Dediu, C. (2009). ‘Adjectivul invariabil în limba română actuală’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Dinamica limbii române actuale. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 9–75. Deletant, D. (1996). ‘Language policy and linguistic trends in the Republic of Moldavia, 1924–1992’. In Dyer, D. (ed.), Studies in Moldovan. New York: Columbia University Press, 53–87. DELR = Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii române, vols 1–2 (2011–15). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Demirtaş-Coşkun, B. (2001). The Vlachs: A Forgotten Minority in the Balkans. London: Portland. Densusianu, O. (1938). Histoire de la langue roumaine, vol. 2. Le seizième siècle. Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux. Densusianu, O. (1961). Istoria limbii române, vol. 2. Secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică. DEX = Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române (1996). Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. DEX2 = Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române (1998). Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. DGDS = Dicţionarul graiurilor dacoromâne sudice, vols 1 and 3 (2009, 2011). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Diaconescu, I. (1971). ‘Supinul în limba română din secolele al XVI-lea–al XVIII-lea’. Analele Universităţii din Bucureşti. Limba şi literatura română 20: 151–63. Diaconescu, I. (1977). Infinitivul în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică. Diaconescu, P. (1961). ‘Un mod de descriere a flexiunii nominale, cu aplicație la limba română contemporană’. SCL 12: 163–89. Diaconescu, P. (1969). ‘Sintagmatic și paradigmatic în structura genului din limba română’. SCL 20: 23–40. Diaconescu, P. (1970). Structură şi evoluţie în morfologia substantivului românesc. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Diaconovici Loga, C. ([1822] 1973). Gramatica românească, ed. Şerban, O. & Dorcescu, E. Timişoara: Facla. Diez, F. (1838). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, vol. 2. Romanische Grammatik. Bonn: Eduard Weber. Dimitrescu, F. (1959a). ‘Deixis și persoană’. SCL 10: 487–91.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
493
Dimitrescu, F. (1959b). ‘Note asupra sistemului deicticelor romîneşti’. SCL 10: 55–61. Dimitrescu, F. (1969). ‘Notes sur les suffixoïdes dans le roumain littéraire actuel’. RRL 14: 3–6. Dimitrescu, F. (1973). Contribuţii la istoria limbii române vechi. Bucharest: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică. Dimitrescu, F. (1974). Introducere în morfosintaxa istorică a limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Dimitrescu, F. (ed.) (1967). Jacques Byck. Studii şi articole. Bucharest: Editura Științifică. Dimitrescu, F. (ed.) (1978). Istoria limbii române. Fonetică, morfosintaxă, lexic. Bucharest: Editura didactică și pedagogică. Dimitrescu, F. (1995). Dinamica lexicului românesc. Ieri și azi. Cluj-Napoca/Bucharest: Clusium/ Logos. Dimitrescu, F. (2016). ‘Portretul unui prefixoid în expansiune. ciber-’. In Constantinescu, M., Dragomirescu, A., Nicolae, A., Stoica, G., & Zafiu, R. (eds), Perspective comparative și diacronice asupra limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 257–72. Dimitriu, C. (1999). Tratat de gramatică a limbii române. Morfologia. Iași: Institutul European. Dinică, A. (2008). ‘Adverbul’. In Guțu Romalo, vol. 1: 585–605. Dinică, A. (2009). ‘Curând. Adverb independent sau formă a verbului a cure?’. LR 2: 202–13. Dinică, A. (2012). Pronumele şi adverbele nehotărâte în limba română. Doctoral thesis, University of Bucharest. Dinică, A. (2013). ‘Compounding’. In Pană Dindelegan, 612–20. Dinică, A. (2015). ‘Adverbul’. In Chivu et al., 224–48. Dinică, A. (2017). ‘Aspecte privind compunerea în secolul al XVI-lea’. In Dragomirescu et al., 185–190. Dinu, T. (1923/4). ‘Graiul din Țara Oltului’. Grai și suflet 1: 107–39. DL = Dicţionarul limbii române literare contemporane, vol. 1. A–C; vol. 2. D–L; vol. 3. M–R; vol. 4. S–Z. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1955–7. DLR = Academia Română (1965–2010). Dicţionarul limbii române (serie nouă), ed. Iordan, I., Graur, A., Coteanu, I., Sala, M., & Mihăilă, G. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. & Giurgea, I. (2006). ‘The suffixation of definite articles in Balkan languages’. RRL 51: 73–103. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. & Giurgea, I. (2013a). ‘Pronominal possessors’, in Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea, 347–54. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. & Giurgea, I. (eds) (2013b). A Reference Grammar of Romanian. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dominte, C. (2003). Negaţia în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Fundaţiei România de Mâine. Dominte, C. (2006). ‘Paradigmele superansamblului lexico-gramatical al etnonimiei în limba română contemporană’. In Pană Dindelegan (ed.), Limba română. Aspecte sincronice şi diacronice. Actele celui de al 5-lea Colocviu al Catedrei de limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 265–79. Donovetsky, O. (2009). ‘Forme și valori ale verbului în graiurile muntenești (II)’. FD 28: 183–206. Donovetsky, O. (2010). ‘Forme și valori ale verbului în graiurile muntenești (III)’. FD 29: 177–226. Donovetsky, O. (2011). ‘Forme și valori ale verbului în graiurile muntenești (IV)’. FD 30: 135–79. Donovetsky, O. (2012). Forme şi valori ale verbului în graiurile munteneşti. Bucharest: Editura Universitară. DOOM1 = Dicţionarul ortografic, ortoepic şi morfologic al limbii române (1982). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. DOOM2 = Dicţionarul ortografic, ortoepic şi morfologic al limbii române (2005). Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Drăganu, N. ([1906] 1998). Compunerea cuvintelor în limba română. Timișoara: Amphora. Dragomirescu, A. (2013a). ‘Du latin au roumain. Une nouvelle hypothèse sur l’origine du supin en roumain’. RLR 77: 51–85. Dragomirescu, A. (2013b). Particularităţi tipologice ale limbii române în context romanic. Supinul. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Naţional al Literaturii Române.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
494 Dragomirescu, A. (2014). ‘L’accord du participe passé en ancien roumain’. Linguistica Atlantica 33: 38–51. Dragomirescu, A. (2015a). ‘Observaţii despre supinul nominal şi relaţia cu infinitivul nominal în texte din secolul al XVI-lea’. In Sala, M., Stanciu Istrate, M., & Petuhov, N. (eds), Actele celui de-al cincilea Simpozion Internaţional de Lingvistică. Bucharest: Editura Univers Enciclopedic Gold, 250–61. Dragomirescu, A. (2015b). ‘Verbul’. In Chivu et al., 186–222. Dragomirescu, A. (2016a). ‘The past participle and the participial clause’. In Pană Dindelegan, 259–70. Dragomirescu, A. (2016b). ‘The supine and the supine construction’. In Pană Dindelegan, 249–59. Dragomirescu, A. (2016c). ‘Supinul din istroromână’. LR 60: 355–62. Dragomirescu, A. & Nicolae, A. (2011). 101 greşeli de lexic şi de semantică. Bucharest: Editura Humanitas. Dragomirescu, A. & Nicolae, A. (2013). ‘Urme ale selecției auxiliarului de perfect compus în română’. In Balaș, O. & Lupu, C. (eds), Hommages offerts à Florica et Alexandru Niculescu. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 340–55. Dragomirescu, A. & Nicolae, A. (2016). ‘L’ellipse nominale avec article défini de l’ancien roumain au roumain moderne. Le cas du participe passé’. In Buchi, E., Chauveau, J.-P., & Pierrel, J.-M. (eds), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). Strasbourg: Société de linguistique romane/ÉliPhi, 137–52. Dragomirescu, A., Nicolae, A., Stan, C., & Zafiu, R. (eds) (2017). Sintaxa ca mod de a fi. Omagiu Gabrielei Pană Dindelegan, la aniversare. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Drincu, S. (1998). ‘Studiu introductiv’. In Drăganu, 5–35. Egerland, V. & Cardinaletti, A. (2010). ‘I pronomi personali e riflessivi’. In Salvi & Renzi, 401–67. Elson, M. (1992). ‘A Latin source for the conditional auxiliary in Romanian’. ZRP 108: 360–75. Ernout, A. & Meillet, A. (2001). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Ernout, A. & Thomas, F. (1953). Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Farcaş, M. (2008). ‘Derivarea cu sufixe diminutivale în subdialectul maramureşean’. In Saramandu, N. (ed.), Lucrările primului Simpozion Internaţional de Lingvistică. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 35–47. Farcaș, I.-M. (2011). Texte dialectale. Maramureş. Baia Mare: Editura Universităţii de Nord. Farkas, D. (2013). ‘The semantics of determiners’. In Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea, 175–230. Farkas, D. & Kazazis, K. (1980). ‘Clitic pronouns and topicality in Romanian’. Proceedings of the 16th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 16: 75–82. Fernández-Soriano, O. (1999). ‘El pronombre personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y tónicos’. In Bosque, I. & Demonte, V. (eds), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española I. Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1209–73. Feuillet, J. (1986). La linguistique balkanique. Paris: Publications Langues O. Feuillet, J. (2006). Petite grammaire du bulgare. Sofia: Colibri. Ficșinescu, F. & Popescu-Marin, M. (1978). ‘Ne- (nă-, nea-, ni-)’. In Graur, A. & Avram, M. (eds) Formarea cuvintelor în limba română. Prefixele. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. 161–8. Filipi, G. (2003). ‘Câteva observaţii asupra istroromânei actuale’. Tabula: Journal of the Faculty of Letters in Pula 6: 83–94. Fischer, I. (1969). ‘Derivarea’. In Coteanu (1969d), 175–86. Fischer, I. (1985). Latina dunăreană. Introducere în istoria limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Științifică şi Enciclopedică. Fleischman, S. (1982). The Future in Thought in Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flora, R. (1969). Rumunski banatski govori u svetlu lingvističke geografije. Belgrade: Filološki fakultet beogradskog univerziteta. Formentin, V. & Loporcaro, M. (2012). ‘Sul quarto genere grammaticale del romanesco antico’. Lingua e stile 47: 221–64. Forza, F. & Scalise, S. (2016). ‘Compounding’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 524–38. Frăţilă, V. (2011). ‘Formarea cuvintelor în dialectul istroromân’. FD 30: 5–21.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
495
Frâncu, C. (1969). ‘Formele de persoana a III-a ale auxiliarului de la perfectul compus’. SCL 20: 299–318. Frâncu, C. (1970). ‘Conjunctivul perfect românesc. Privire diacronică’. SCL 21: 205–27. Frâncu, C. (1971a). ‘Cu privire la vechimea a două inovații în flexiunea verbală comună dialectelor limbii române’. FD 7: 179–88. Frâncu, C. (1971b). ‘Vechimea şi răspîndirea formelor să deie, să steie, să beie, să ieie în graiurile dacoromâne’. SCL 22: 261–76. Frâncu, C. (1972). ‘Din istoria demonstrativelor românești. Formele (a)celei(a), aceleiași, (a)celeilalte, (a)cesteia’. In Studii de limbă literară și filologie. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 25–52. Frâncu, C. (1976). ‘Din istoria verbelor neregulate. Perfectul sigmatic al verbelor a fi, a avea și a vrea’. LR 26: 55–65. Frâncu, C. (1977). ‘Din istoria verbelor neregulate. Imperfectul verbelor a da și a sta’. LR 26: 79–90. Frâncu, C. (1978). ‘Din istoria numeralului românesc. Vechimea formelor paisprezece, șaisprezece, șaizeci’. LR 27: 599–606. Frâncu, C. (1980a). ‘Din istoria verbelor neregulate. Perfectul simplu şi mai mult ca perfectul verbelor a da şi a sta’. LR 29: 307–18. Frâncu, C. (1980b). ‘Formele de persoana a II-a singular de la imperativul negativ al verbelor a avea, a fi, a (a)duce, a face, a zice’. LR 29: 26–33. Frâncu, C. (1981). ‘Vechimea şi răspîndirea unei inovaţii morfologice. Verbul a curge’. Limbă şi Literatură 21: 331–40. Frâncu, C. (1982a). ‘Vechimea formelor de mai mult ca perfect, perfect compus, prezent indicativ și conjunctiv în -ră’. LR 31: 281–93. Frâncu, C. (1982b). ‘Vechimea şi difuziunea lexicală a unei inovaţii comune dialectelor limbii române. Desinenţa -uri la pluralul femininelor’. LR 31: 99–212. Frâncu, C. (1983–4). ‘Geneza şi evoluţia timpurilor verbale supracompuse în limba română’. Anuar de lingvistică şi istorie literară 29: 23–62. Frâncu, C. (1984). ‘Din istoria perfectului simplu. Formele de tipul zisei’. LR 33: 426–36. Frâncu, C. (1985). ‘Originea, vechimea şi difuziunea lexico-areală a formelor de perfect simplu în -sei’. Anuar de lingvistică şi istorie literară, A. Lingvistică 30: 291–9. Frâncu, C. (1997a). ‘Fonetica’. In Gheție, 87–112. Frâncu, C. (1997b). ‘Morfologia’. In Gheție, 113–46. Frâncu, C. (1997c). ‘Morfologia’. In Gheție, 319–46. Frâncu, C. (2009). Gramatica limbii române vechi (1521–1780). Iaşi: Demiurg. Frâncu, C. (2010). Conjunctivul românesc şi raporturile lui cu alte moduri. Iaşi: Demiurg Plus. Freedman, P. (2007). Power and Passion in Shakespeare’s Pronouns: Interrogating ‘You’ and ‘Thou’. Aldershot: Ashgate. Friedman, V. (2009). ‘The diffusion of Macedonian inflections into Megleno-Romanian: a reconsideration of the evidence’. In Franks, S., Chidambaram, V., & Joseph, B. (eds), A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne. Bloomington: Slavica, 223–33. Fruyt, M. (2011). ‘Grammaticalization in Latin’. In Baldi, P. & Cuzzolin, P. (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 4: Complex Sentences, Grammaticalization, Typology. Berlin: de Gruyter, 661–864. Gaeng, P. (1977). A Study of Nominal Inflection in Latin Inscriptions: A Morpho-Syntactic Analysis. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Găitănaru, S. (1993). Numeralul în limba română. Studiu descriptiv şi istoric. Pitești: Calende. Gamillscheg, E. (1913). Studien zur Vorgeschichte einer romanischen Tempuslehre. Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gardani, F. (2013). Dynamics of Morphological Productivity: The Evolution of Noun Classes from Latin to Italian. Leiden: Brill. Gheorghe, M. (2015). ‘Limba română în Transilvania. Sfârşitul secolului al XIX-lea–începutul secolului al XX-lea’. In Chivu et al., 380–402. Gheorghe, M. (2016). ‘Relative clauses’. In Pană Dindelegan, 473–91.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
496 Gherman, C. (2007). ‘Schimbarea valorii gramaticale’. In Popescu-Marin, M. (ed.), Formarea cuvintelor în limba română din secolele al XVI-lea–al XVIII-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 271–96. Gherman, C. (2015). ‘-AC (-acos) -IAC (-iacos)’. In Rădulescu Sala, 31–4. Gheţie, I. (1966). ‘Vocativul doamnele’. LR 15: 305–6. Gheţie, I. (1971). ‘U final la Neculce’. LR 20: 493–6. Gheţie, I. (1973). ‘Originea auxiliarului a de la pers. 3 sg. a perfectului compus’. SCL 24: 421–30. Gheție, I. (1975). Baza dialectală a românei literare. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Gheție, I. (1979). ‘Evangheliarul de la Sibiu şi textele româneşti scrise cu litere latine şi ortografie maghiară’. LR 28: 165–72. Gheţie, I. (1989). ‘În legătură cu formele analogice înțelegut, înțelegui, înțelegusem’. SCL 40: 433–5. Gheţie, I. (1994). Introducere în dialectologia istorică românească. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Gheție, I. (ed.) (1997a). Istoria limbii române literare. Epoca veche (1532–1780). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Gheție, I. (1997b). ‘Originile scrisului în limba română’. In Gheție, I. (ed.), Istoria limbii române literare. Epoca veche (1532–1780). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 69–77. Gheţie, I. & Mareș, A. (1974). Graiurile dacoromâne în secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Gheție, I. & Mareș, A. (1985). Originile scrisului în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică. Gheție, I. & Teodorescu, M. (1965a). ‘În legătură cu desinența -u a pers. 3 pl. a imperfectivului indicativ’. SCL 16: 87–101. Gheție, I. & Teodorescu, M. (1965b). ‘L’influence de la langue littéraire sur les parlers daco-roumains. À propos de la désinence -u de la 3e personne du pluriel de l’imparfait de l’indicatif ’. RRL 10: 183–92. Gheție, I. & Teodorescu, M. (1966a). ‘Asupra desinenței -u a pers. 3 pl. a indicativului imperfect. Noi contribuții’. SCL 17: 175–83. Gheție, I. & Teodorescu, M. (1966b). ‘À propos de la désinence -u de la 3e personne du pluriel de l’imparfait de l’indicatif. Nouvelles contributions’. RRL 11: 183–91. Gheţie, I. & Teodorescu, M. (1973). ‘În legătură cu auxiliarul or de la pers. 3 pl. a perfectului compus’. SCL 24: 279–89. Giosu, Ş. (1986–7). ‘Scria(re) “scrie(re)” ’. Anuar de lingvistică şi istorie literară, A. Lingvistică 31: 243–61. Giurescu, A. (1975). Les mots composés dans les langues romanes. The Hague: Mouton. Giurgea, I. (2012). ‘The origin of the Romanian “possessive-genitival” article al and the development of the demonstrative system’. RRL 57: 35–65. Giurgea, I. (2013a). ‘Nominal inflection’. In Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea, 827–56. Giurgea, I. (2013b). Originea articolului posesiv-genitival al și evoluția sistemului demonstrativelor în română. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Național al Literaturii Române. Giusti, G. (2010). ‘I possessivi’. In Salvi & Renzi, 359–76. Gołąb, Z. (1984). The Arumanian Dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia, SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences. Gorăscu, A. (2008). ‘Deixis’. In Guțu Romalo, vol. 2: 727–48. Goția, A. & Corcheș, C. (2010). ‘Sânt/sunt și paradigma verbului a fi’. Dacoromania 15: 145–9. Grandgent, C. (1907). An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: Heath. Graur, A. (1929a). ‘À propos de l’article postposé’. Romania 55: 475–81. Graur, A. (1929b). Nom d’agent et adjectif en roumain. Paris: Champion. Graur, A. (1929c). ‘Questions latino-roumaines’. Romania 29: 469–81. Graur, A. (1935). ‘Une nouvelle marque de pluriel dans la flexion verbale roumaine’. Bulletin linguistique 3: 178–82. Graur, A. (1936). Mélanges linguistiques, vol. 1. Paris: Droz. Graur, A. (1955). Studii de lingvistică generală. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
497
Graur, A. (1961). ‘Din istoricul tipului stea/stele’. Studii de gramatică 3: 5–9. Graur, A. (1968). Tendinţele actuale ale limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică. Graur, A., Avram, M., & Vasiliu, L. (eds) (1966). Gramatica limbii române I, II. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Gregorian, M. (1937). ‘Graiul din Clopotiva’. GS 7: 132–93. Grossmann, M. (2012). ‘Romanian compounds’. Probus 24: 147–74. Grossmann, M. (2016). ‘Romanian’. In Müller, P., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., & Rainer, F. (eds), WordFormation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, vol. 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2731–51. Groza, L. (2004). Elemente de lexicologie. Bucharest: Humanitas. Guevara, E. & Scalise, S. (2009). ‘Searching for universals in compounding’. In Scalise, S., Magni E. & Bisetto A. (eds), Universals of Language Today. Amsterdam: Springer, 101–28. Guţu Romalo, V. (1965). ‘Din morfologia secolului al XVI-lea. Perfectul simplu al verbului a face’. In Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la 70 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 337–40. Guţu Romalo, V. (1967). ‘Articolul şi categoria determinării în limba română actuală’. In Coteanu, I. (ed.), Elemente de lingvistică structurală. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică, 225–36. Guţu Romalo, V. (1968). Morfologie structurală a limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Guţu Romalo, V. (1969). ‘Câteva probleme ale studierii sintaxei’. Studii de istorie a limbii române literare. Secolul al XIX-lea, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură, 48–68. Guţu Romalo, V. (1985). ‘Substantivul’. In Coteanu, 110–45. Guţu Romalo, V. (ed.) (2008). Gramatica limbii române, vol. 1. Cuvântul; vol. 2. Enunțul. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Harris, M. (1982). ‘The “past simple” and “present perfect” in Romance’. In Harris, M. & Vincent, N. (eds), Studies in the Romance Verb. London: Croom Helm, 42–70. Hasan, F. (1970a). ‘Adverbul’. In Ciobanu & Hasan, 215–24. Hasan, F. (1970b). ‘Conjuncția’. In Ciobanu & Hasan, 228–29. Hasan, F. (1970c). ‘Introducere’. In Ciobanu & Hasan, 1–31. Hasan, F. (1970d). ‘Prepoziția’. In Ciobanu & Hasan, 225–27. Hasan, F. (1970e). ‘Verbul’. In Ciobanu & Hasan, 209–14. Hasan, F., Gherman, C., & Ocheșeanu, R. (2007). ‘Prefixele’. In Popescu Marin, 11–58. Hasan, F. & Popescu Marin, M. (2007). ‘Compunerea’. In Popescu Marin, 225–70. Hasdeu, B. (1983). Cuvente den bătrîni, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică. Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hasselrot, B. (1957). Étude sur la formation diminutive dans les langues romanes. Uppsala: Lundeqvist. Haverling, G. (2010). ‘Actionality, tense, and viewpoint’. In Cuzzolin, P. & Baldi, P. (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 2: Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 277–523. Heliade Rădulescu, I. ([1828] 1980). Grammatică românească, ed. Guțu Romalo, V. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu. Heliade Rădulescu, I. (1939). Opere, vol. 1, ed. Popovici, D. Bucharest: Fundaţia Regală pentru Literatură şi Artă. Helmbrecht, J. (2013). ‘Politeness in pronouns’. In Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/45. Herman, J. (2000). Vulgar Latin. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Hobjilă, A. (2003). Microsistemul deicticelor în limba română vorbită neliterară actuală. Iași: Casa Editorială Demiurg. Hockett, C. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Holtus, G., Metzeltin, M., & Schmitt, C. (eds) (1989). Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart, vol. 3. Rumänisch, Dalmatisch/Istroromanisch, Friaulisch, Ladinisch, Bündnerromanisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hurren, A. (1969). ‘Verbal aspect and archi-aspect in Istro-Romanian’. La Linguistique 2: 59–90. Hurren, A. (1999). Istro-Rumanian: A Functionalist Phonology and Grammar. Ms : University of Oxford.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
498 Iancu, V. (1966). ‘Vechimea iotacizării verbelor românești’. CL 11: 271–74. Iatridou, S. (2000). ‘The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality’. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–70. Igartua, I. (2006). ‘Genus alternans in Indo-European’. Indogermanische Forschungen 111: 56–70. Iliescu, M. (1956). ‘Concurenţa dintre pronumele relative care şi ce’. In Graur, A. & Byck, J. (eds), Studii de gramatică, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 25–36. Iliescu, M. ([1965] 2008). Miscellanea romanica (1956–2007). Cluj-Napoca: Clusium/Scriptor. Iliescu, M. (1967). ‘Sur l’origine du démonstratif daco-roumain ăl’. RRL 12: 59–60. Iliescu, M. (1995). ‘Său, sa ou lui, ei en roumain contemporain’. In Lupu, C. & Renzi, L. (eds), Studi rumeni e romanzi. Omaggio a Florica e Alexandru Niculescu. Padua: Unipress. Iliescu, M. (2006). ‘L’article adjectival roumain. Un exemple de récurrence typologique cyclique’. RRL 51: 159–63. Iliescu, M. (2007). Româna din perspectivă romanică. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Iliescu, M. (2008). ‘Phénomènes de convergence et de divergence dans la Romania. Morphosyntaxe et syntaxe’. In Ernst, G., Gleßgen, M.-D., Schmitt, C., & Schweickard, W. (eds), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3266–81. Iliescu, M. (2009). ‘Aspects de l’évolution de l’article défini en français et en roumain’. Travaux de linguistique 59: 13–23. Iliescu, M. & Macarie, L. (1969a). ‘Modurile nepersonale’. In Coteanu (1969d), 102–3. Iliescu, M. & Macarie, L. (1969b). ‘Pronumele’. In Coteanu (1969d), 68–74. Iliescu, M. & Macarie, L. (1969c). ‘Substantivul’. In Coteanu (1969d), 46–61. Ionașcu, A. (1960). ‘O paralelă gramaticală slavo-română (sistemul cuvintelor deictice în graiurile oltenești)’. Romanoslavica 4: 73–86. Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, L. (1978). ‘Observaţii generale cu privire la flexiunea verbală’. In Dimitrescu, 280–92. Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, L. (1999). Conversația. Structuri și strategii. Sugestii pentru o pragmatică a românei vorbite. Bucharest: All. Ionică, I. (1965). ‘Noi atestări ale imperativului negativ arhaic’. In Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la 70 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 403–7. Ionică, I. (1984). ‘Subdialectul muntean’. In Rusu, 163–208. Ionică, I., Marin, M., & Marinescu, A. (2009). Dicționarul graiurilor dacoromâne sudice. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Iordan, I. (1928). ‘Dialectele italiene de sud şi limba română, V. Sintactice’. Arhiva 35: 181–204. Iordan, I. (1935). ‘Forme de conjugare mixtă în limba română’. Buletinul Institutului de Filologie Română ‘Al. Philippide’ 2: 47–127. Iordan, I. (1938). ‘Pluralul substantivelor în limba română actuală’. Buletinul Institutului de Filologie Română ‘Al. Philippide’ 5: 1–54. Iordan, I. (1943). Limba română actuală. O gramatică a ‘greșelilor’. Iași: Institutul de Arte Grafice Alexandru A. Țerek. Iordan, I. (1954). Limba română contemporană. Manual pentru instituțiile de învățământ superior. Bucharest: [s.n.] Iordan, I. (1956). Limba română contemporană. Bucharest: Editura Ministerului Învăţământului. Iordan, I. (1963). Toponimia românească. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Iordan, I. & Manoliu, M. (1965). Introducere în lingvistica romanică. Bucharest: Editura didactică și pedagogică. Iordan, I., Guțu Romalo, V., & Niculescu, A. (1967). Structura morfologică a limbii române contemporane. Bucharest: Editura Științifică. Iorgovici, P. ([1799] 1979). Observaţii de limba rumânească, ed. Bogdan-Dascălu, D., & Dascălu, C. Timişoara: Facla. Ivănescu, G. (1944–5). ‘Probleme capitale ale vechii române literare’. Buletinul Institutului de Filologie Română ‘Al. Philippide’ 11–12: 1–412. Ivănescu, G. (1980). Istoria limbii române. Iași: Junimea. Ivănescu, G. (2000). Istoria limbii române. Iași: Junimea. Jäger, A. (2010). ‘ “Anything” is “nothing” is “something” ’: on the diachrony of polarity types of indefinites’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 787–822.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
499
James, D. (1982). ‘Past tense and the hypothetical: a cross-linguistic study’. Studies in Language 6. 375–403. Jensen, F. (1986). The Syntax of Medieval Occitan. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kahl, T. (1999). Ethnizität und räumliche Verbreitung der Aromunen in Südosteuropa. Münster: Institut für Geographie der Westfälischen Wilhelms, Münster University. Kahl, T. (2006). Istoria aromânilor. Bucharest: Tritonic. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2001). ‘Adnominal possession’. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., and Raible, W. (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals/ Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien/La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques, vol. 2: An International Handbook/Ein Internationales Handbuch/Manuel International. Berlin: de Gruyter, 960–70. Kovačec, A. (1966). ‘Quelques influences croates dans la morphosyntaxe istro-roumaine’. Studia romanica et anglica zagabriensia 21–2: 57–76. Kovačec, A. (1971). Descrierea istroromânei actuale. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Kovačec, A. (1984). ‘Istroromâna’. In Rusu, 550–91. Kruschwitz, P. (2004). Römische Inschriften und Wackernagels Gesetz. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu epigraphischen Zeugnissen aus republikanischer Zeit. Heidelberg: Winter. Lambrior, A. (1892). Gramatica română. Fonetica şi morfologia. Iaşi: Editura Librăriei I. Kuppermann. Lardon, S. & Thomine, M.-C. (2009). Grammaire du français de la Renaissance. Étude morphosyntaxique. Paris: Garnier. Lausberg, H. (1966). Lingüística románica, vol. 2. Morfología. Madrid: Gredos. Lăzărescu, P. (1984). ‘Subdialectul moldovean’. In Rusu, 208–40. Ledgeway, A. (2011). ‘Syntactic and morphosyntactic typology and change’. In Maiden et al., 382–471. Ledgeway, A. (2012). From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, A. (2015a). ‘Romance auxiliary selection in light of Romanian evidence’. In Pană Dindelegan et al., 1–31. Ledgeway, A. (2015b). ‘Varieties in Italy 1’. In Jungbluth, K. & Da Milano, F. (eds), Manual of Deixis in Romance Languages. Berlin: de Gruyter, 75–113. Ledgeway, A. (2016). ‘The dialects of southern Italy’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 246–69. Ledgeway, A. (2017). ‘The Romanian definite article in a comparative Romance perspective’. In Dragomirescu et al., 229–45. Ledgeway, A. & Maiden, M. (eds). (2016). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, A. & Smith, J. C. (2016). ‘Deixis’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 879–96. Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lesnea, G. (1943). Izvod. Poezii. Bucharest: Casa Școalelor. Leu, V. (2016). Diminutivarea în limba română. Doctoral thesis, University of Bucharest. Lexiconul de la Buda (1825). Lesicon romanesc–latinesc–unguresc–nemţesc, care de mai mulţi autori, în cursul a trideci şi mai multor ani s-au lucrat, seu. Lexicon valachico-latino-hungaricogermanicum quod a pluribus auctoribus decursu triginta et amplius annorum elaboratum est. Buda: Typographia Regiae Universitatis Hungaricae. Lødrup, H. (2014). ‘Split possession and the syntax of kinship nouns in Norwegian’. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 17: 35–57. Lombard, A. (1938). ‘Une classe spéciale des termes indéfinis dans les langues romanes’. Studia Neophilologica 11: 186–209. Lombard, A. (1954–5). Le Verbe roumain. Étude morphologique, vols. 1–2. Lund: Gleerup. Lombard, A. (1971). ‘Les termes ethniques en roumain’. Studia Neophilologica 43: 96–100. Lombard, A. (1972). ‘Les pronoms personnels du roumain. Aperçu syntaxique’. Studier i Modern Språkvetenskap 4: 190–249. Lombard, A. (1974). La Langue roumaine. Une présentation. Paris: Klincksieck.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
500 Lombard, A. (1979). ‘Encore une fois le î prosthétique du roumain. Et un rapprochement avec le catalan’. RRL 28: 5–9. Lombard, A. & Gâdei, C. (1981). Dictionnaire morphologique de la langue roumaine. Lund/ Bucharest: CWK Gleerup/Editura Academiei. Loporcaro, M. (1998). Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. Loporcaro, M. (2002). ‘Il pronome loro nell’Italia centro-meridionale e la storia del sistema pronominale romanzo’. Vox Romanica 61: 48–116. Loporcaro, M. (2008). ‘Opposizioni di caso nel pronome personale. I dialetti del mezzogiorno in prospettiva romanza’. In De Angelis, A. (ed.), I dialetti meridionali tra arcaismo e interferenza. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Dialettologia (Messina, 4–6 giugno 2008). Palermo: Centro di Studi filologici e linguistici italiani, 207–35. Loporcaro, M. (2011). ‘Phonological processes’. In Maiden et al., 109–54; 689–98. Loporcaro, M. (2016). ‘Gender’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 924–35. Loporcaro, M. (2018). Gender from Latin to Romance: History, Geography, Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lupu, C. (2006). Din istoricul numelor de monede în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Maiden, M. (1995). A Linguistic History of Italian. London: Longman. Maiden, M. (1996). ‘On the Romance inflectional endings -i and -e’. RP 50: 147–82. Maiden, M. (1997). ‘A propos d’un changement analogique remarquable en roumain. Le type carte – cărți’. VR 56: 24–57. Maiden, M. (1999). ‘Il ruolo dell’“idoneità” nella morfologia diacronica. I suffissi romeni -ea, -ică ed -oi ‘. RLR 63: 321–45. Maiden, M. (2003). ‘Verb augments and meaninglessness in Romance morphology’. Studi di grammatica italiana 22: 1–61. Maiden, M. (2004). ‘Perfect pedigree: the ancestry of the Aromanian conditional’. In Ashdowne, R. & Finbow, T. (eds), Oxford Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics 9: 83–98. Maiden, M. (2005). ‘Morphological autonomy and diachrony’. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J. (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2004. Springer: Dordrecht, 137–75. Maiden, M. (2006). ‘On Romanian imperatives’. Philologica Jassyensia 2: 47–59. Maiden, M. (2007). ‘Despre -te și -t(u). Cu privire la istoria unor desinențe de persoana a doua plural în limbile romanice estice’. In Reinheimer Rîpeanu, S. & Vintilă Rădulescu, I. (eds), Limba română, limba romanică. Omagiu acad. Marius Sala la împlinirea a 75 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 303–11. Maiden, M. (2009a). ‘Un capitolo di morfologia storica del romeno. Preterito e tempi affini’. ZRP 125: 273–309. Maiden, M. (2009b). ‘Where does heteroclisis come from? Evidence from Romanian dialects’. Morphology 19: 59–86. Maiden, M. (2011a). ‘Allomorphy, autonomous morphology and phonological conditioning in the history of the Daco-Romance present and subjunctive’. TPS 109: 59–91. Maiden, M. (2011b). ‘Morphophonological innovation’. In Maiden et al., 216–67, 706–13. Maiden, M. (2011c). ‘Morphological persistence’. In Maiden et al., 155–215, 699–706. Maiden, M. (2012). ‘Supin şi participiu trecut în morfologia istorică a limbii române’. In Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., & Nicolae, A. (eds), Limba română. Direcții actuale în cercetarea lingvistică, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Universității din Bucureşti, 11–18. Maiden, M. (2013). ‘The Latin “third stem” and its Romance descendants’. Diachronica 30: 492–530. Maiden, M. (2014a). ‘Morfologia flexionară a pluralului românesc şi aşa-zisul “neutru” în limba română şi în graiurile româneşti’. In Sala, M., Stanciu Istrate, M., & Petuhov, N. (eds). Lucrările celui de-al cincilea Simpozion Internațional de Lingvistică. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic Gold, 32–45. Maiden, M. (2014b). ‘Le rôle de la synonymie lexicale dans la formation du pluriel flexionnel en dacoroman’. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris 22: 35–50.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
501
Maiden, M. (2015). ‘The plural type cărnuri and the morphological structure of the Romanian feminine noun in diachrony’. In Pană Dindelegan et al., 33–54. Maiden, M. (2016a). ‘Ambiguity in Romanian word structure: the structure of plurals in . . . -uri’. RRL 61: 3–12. Maiden, M. (2016b). ‘Inflectional morphology’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 497–512. Maiden, M. (2016c). ‘Number’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 697–707. Maiden, M. (2016d). ‘Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Aromanian’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 91–125. Maiden, M. (2016e). ‘The Romanian alternating gender in diachrony and synchrony’. Folia Linguistica Historica 37: 111–44. Maiden, M. (2016f). ‘Segmentarea cuvintelor în teoria morfologică și problema pluralelor românești în uri’. In Constantinescu, V., Dragomirescu, A., Nicolae, A., Stoica, G., & Zafiu, R. (eds), Perspective comparative și diacronice asupra limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 11–17. Maiden, M. (2016g). ‘Some lessons from history: morphomes in diachrony’. In Luís, A. & BermúdezOtero, R. (eds), The Morphome Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33–63. Maiden, M. (2017). ‘Cu privire la geneza vocalelor tematice în sistemul verbal dacoromanic’. In Dragomirescu et al., 247–54. Maiden, M. (2018a). The Romance Verb: Morphomic Structure and Diachrony. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maiden, M. (2018b). ‘Romanian iotacization and the morphology of second person singular verbforms: The type (tu) vii, (tu) rămâi.’ RRL 63: 325–40. Maiden, M. (2019a). ‘Alberto Varvaro e la storia “interna” delle lingue romanze’. In Minervini, L. (ed.), Filologia letteratura e linguistica di Alberto Varvaro. Atti delle giornate di studio. Padua: Antenore, 101–16. Maiden, M. (2019b). ‘Familia flexionară mamă/mumă ~ mămâni/mumâni, tată ~ tătâni, frate ~ frățâni / frățini și locul ei în istoria sistemului cazual românesc’. In Pană Dindelegan, G., Boioc Apintei, A., & Croitor, B. (eds), Variație diacronică și diatopică. Note gramaticale. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 99–112. Maiden, M., Smith, J. C., & Ledgeway, A. (eds) (2011). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 1: Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maiden, M., Smith, J. C., & Ledgeway, A. (eds) (2013). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 2: Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malkiel, Y. (1992). ‘The transmission into Romance of Latin NŌDUS, NǓPTIAE, NǓRUS, and NǓX: diachronic interplay of phonetic and semantic analogies’. In Diachronic Studies in Lexicology, Affixation, Phonology: Edita and Inedita 1979–1988. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 207–30. Mallinson, G. (1986). Rumanian. London: Croom Helm. Mallinson, G. (1988). ‘Rumanian’. In Harris, M. and Vincent, N. (eds), The Romance Languages. London: Routledge, 391–419. Manea, D. (2015). ‘Pronumele’. In Chivu et al., 479–524. Maneca, C. (1959). ‘Cuvinte compuse în terminologia științifică și tehnică actuală’. In Studii și materiale privitoare la formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 191–202. Manoliu Manea, M. (1971). Gramatica comparată a limbilor romanice. Bucharest: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică. Manoliu Manea, M. (1993). Gramatică, pragmasemantică şi discurs. Bucharest: Litera. Manoliu Manea, M. (1995). ‘From deixis ad oculos to discourse markers via deixis ad phantasma’. RRL 40: 57–75. Manoliu, M. (1959). ‘Une déviation du système de conjugaison roumaine. Temps composés avec a fi “être” à la diathèse active en roumain’. Recueil d’études romanes. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 135–41. Manoliu, M. (2002). ‘Conventional implicature and language change. The Romanian paradigm of identity’. ABRALIN 1: 99–125. Manoliu, M. (2011). ‘Pragmatic and discourse changes’. In Maiden et al., 472–531.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
502 Manu Magda, M. (2016). ‘The structure of appellative phrases with a vocative head’. In Pană Dinelegan, 619–23. Mareș, L. (1969). ‘Cine. Element de compunere în limba română’. In Studii și materiale privitoare la formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. 5. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 65–70. Mareş, L. (1972). ‘Repartiția geografică a sufixului -uc(ă)’. Studii şi materiale privitoare la formarea cuvintelor în limba română 6: 89–96. Mărgărit, I. (1998). ‘În legătură cu o formă de pronume negativ în graiurile dacoromâne sudice’. SCL 49: 201–5. Mărgărit, I. (2001). ‘Construcţii cu alde în graiurile munteneşti’. LR 5–6: 276–93. Mari, T. (2016). ‘Third person possessives from early Latin to late Latin and Romance’. In Adams, J. & Vincent, N. (eds), Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 47–68. Marian, S. (1892). Înmormântarea la români. Studiu etnografic. Bucharest: Litotipografia Carol Göbl. Mării, I. (1969a). ‘Însemnări despre imperativele duce-vă-ți/duce-vi-ți și culcați-vă-ți/culcați-vi-ți’. CL 14: 255–64. Mării, I. (1969b). ‘Note etimologice și morfologice’. CL 14: 54–6. Mării, I. (2004). ‘Infinitivul lung cu valoare verbală. Note’. In Mării, I., Contribuții la lingvistica limbii române. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium, 26–33. Marin, G. (1959). ‘Compunerea și schimbarea categoriei gramaticale în Psaltirea Hurmuzaki’. In Studii și materiale privitoare la formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 213–20. Marin, M. (1987). ‘Notes sur les parlers roumains de l’est de la Transylvanie (à partir d’une recherche récente)’. RRL 32: 251–7. Marin, M. (1991). ‘Morfologia verbului in graiurile muntenești’. FD 10: 45–65. Marin, M. (2005–7). ‘Timpurile indicativului în graiurile dacoromâne actuale (II)’. FD 24–6: 89–164. Marin, M. (2009). ‘Importanţa formelor de plural în stabilirea filiaţiei unor cuvinte’. In Lucrările celui de-al XIII-lea Simpozion Internaţional de Dialectologie. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega, 219–25. Marin, M. (2010). ‘Despre desinenţa -i la substantivele neutre în graiurile munteneşti’. In Chivu, G. & Uţă Bărbulescu, O. (eds), Studii de limba română. Omagiu profesorului Gr. Brâncuş. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 135–44. Marin, M. (2013). ‘Pluralele picere, piciori. Notă “morfologică” ’. FD 32: 193–6. Marin, M. (2015). ‘Câteva particularități ale graiurilor dacoromâne din sud-estul Ucrainei și Caucaz din perspectiva concepției lui Sextil Pușcariu despre ariile laterale’. Caietele Sextil Pușcariu 2: 217–28. Marin, M., Conțiu, M., Marinescu, B., Radu, C.-I., & Tiugan, M. (2017). Graiurile din Sălaj. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Marin, M. & Mărgărit, I. (2005). Graiuri românești din Ungaria. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Marin, M., Margarit, I., & Neagoe, V. (1998). ‘Graiurile românesti din Ucraina și Republica Moldova’. FD 17: 69–155. Marin, M., Mărgărit, I., & Neagoe, V. (2000). ‘Graiuri românești din Ucraina și Republica Moldova’. In Marin, M., Mărgărit, I., Neagoe, V., & Pavel, V. (eds.), Cercetări asupra graiurilor românești de peste hotare. Bucharest: București Noi, 42–121. Marin, M., Mărgărit, I., Neagoe, V., & Pavel, V. (2016). Graiuri dacoromâne din sud-estul Ucrainei. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Marin, M. & Marinescu, B. (1984). ‘Graiurile din Transilvania’. In Rusu, 354–90. Marin, M. & Tiugan, M. (1987). Texte dialectale şi glosar. Bistriţa-Năsăud. Bucharest: Consiliul Culturii, Institutul de Cercetări Etnologice și Dialectologice. Marinescu, A. (1992). ‘Adverbul în graiurile din Muntenia și Oltenia’. FD 11: 67–76. Marinescu, B., Teaha, T. Ionică, I., & Saramandu, N. (1996). Atlasul lingvistic român pe regiuni. Muntenia şi Dobrogea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Mavrogiorgos, M. & Ledgeway, A. (2019). ‘Non-verbal predication and clitics in Aromanian’. In Feldhausen, I., Elsig, M., Kuchenbrandt, I., & Neuhaus, M. (eds), Romance Languages and
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
503
Linguistic Theory 15: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ 30, Frankfurt. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 334–51. Melnik, V. (1977). Елементе де морфолоӂие диалекталэ. Chișinău: Штиинца. Mensching, G. & Remberger, E.-M. (2016). ‘Sardinian’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 270–91. Merlo, R. (2014). ‘Un problema trascurato di fonetica storica romena. La “palatalizzazione delle velari” tra eredità latina e interferenze slave’. Dacoromania 19: 165–97. Metzeltin, M. (2016). Româna în contrast. O cercetare tipologică. Iaşi: Editura Universității ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. Meul, C. (2009). ‘L’evoluzione dell’infisso latino -idi- nella morfologia verbale romanza. Status quaestionis e approfondimenti in base ad una ricerca condotta sul ladino della Val Badia’. Italian Journal of Linguistics 21: 309–42. Meul, C. (2013). The Romance Reflexes of the Latin Infixes -i/esc- and -idi̯-: Restructuring and Remodeling Processes. Hamburg: Buske. Meyer-Lübke, W. (1890). Grammaire des langues romanes, vol. 1. Phonétique. Paris: Welter. Meyer-Lübke, W. (1895). Grammaire des langues romanes, vol. 2. Morphologie. Paris: Welter. Meyer-Lübke, W. (1900). Grammaire des langues romanes, vol. 3. Syntaxe. Paris: Welter. Micu, S. & Şincai, G. ([1780] 1980). Elementa linguae daco-romanae sive valachicae, ed. Zdrenghea, M. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia. Mihăescu, H. (1993). La Romanité dans le sud-est de l’Europe. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Mihăilă, G. (1974). Dicţionar al limbii române vechi (sfârşitul sec. X–începutul sec. XVI). Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică Română. Miklosich, F. (1882). Beiträge der Lautlehre der rumunischen Dialekte. Vocalismus III. Consonantismus I. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mirska, H. (1959). ‘Unele probleme ale compunerii cuvintelor în limba română’. Studii și materiale privitoare la formarea cuvintelor în limba română 1: 145–89. Mîrzea Vasile, C. (2012). Eterogenitatea adverbului românesc. Tipologie şi descriere. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Mîrzea Vasile, C. (2013). ‘Un tipar adverbial specific românei. Pe alese, pe nemâncate. Corespondente romanice şi balcanice’. LR 62: 147–258. Mîrzea Vasile, C. (2015). ‘Adverbul’. In Chivu et al., 597–627. Mišeska Tomić, O. (2004). ‘The Balkan Sprachbund properties’. In Mišeska Tomić, O. (ed.), Balkan Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1–55. Mocanu, N. (1995). ‘Forme de gerunziu întâlnite în atlasele lingvistice românești’. Dacoromania 1: 144–55. Monachesi, P. (1998). ‘The morphosyntax of Romanian cliticization’. In Coppen, P., van Halteren, H., & Teunissen, L. (eds), Proceedings of Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 99–118. Morariu, L. (1924). ‘Morfologia verbului predicativ român’. Codrul Cosminului 1: 1–96. Morariu, L. (1927). ‘Morfologia verbului predicativ român’. Codrul Cosminului 2/3: 285–346. Morariu, L. (1928). Lu Frați Noștri. Libru lu Rumeri din Istrie. Suceava: Editura Revistei ‘Făt-Frumos’. Morariu, L. (1929). ‘Morfologia verbului predicativ român’. Codrul Cosminului 4/5: 3–96. Morcov, M., Răuțu, D., & Zamfir, D.-M. (2015). ‘Alternanțe vocalice secundare în flexiunea verbală românească. Tipuri istorice și repartiția lor în graiurile dacoromâne’. Caietele Sextil Pușcariu 2: 262–93. Moroianu, C. (2016). Motivarea formală a relaţiilor semantice. Sinonimia analizabilă. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii Bucureşti. Mourin, L. (1980). ‘L’infixe -e- des verbes de la 1ère conjugaison en ladin du Val Gardena’. SCL 5: 585–9. NALRBanat = Neiescu, P., Beltechi, E., Faiciuc, I., & Mocanu, N. (1980). Noul atlas lingvistic român pe regiuni. Banat. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. NALRCrișana = Stan, I. & Urițescu, D. (2003). Noul atlas lingvistic pe regiuni. Crișana, vol. 2. Bucharest/Cluj-Napoca: Editura Academiei Române/Clusium. NALROltenia = Cazacu, B., Teaha, T., Ionică, I., & Rusu, V. (1970). Noul atlas lingvistic român pe regiuni. Oltenia. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
504 Neagoe, V. (1973). ‘Despre -ră în formele de perfect simplu și de mai mult ca perfect’. FD 8: 129–40. Neagoe, V. (1984). ‘Subdialectul bănăţean’. In Rusu, 240–84. Neagoe, V. (1992). ‘Aspecte ale morfosintaxei graiului din Ţara Moţilor’. FD 11: 161–8. Neagoe, V. (2000). ‘Arhaism şi inovaţie în graiurile româneşti vorbite în estul Ucrainei’. Fonetică şi dialectologie 19: 245–54. Neagoe, V. & Mărgărit, I. (2006). Graiuri dacoromâne din nordul Bulgariei. Studiu lingvistic, texte dialectale, glosar. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Nedelcu, I. (2008). ‘Conjuncția’. In Guțu Romalo, vol. 1: 631–55. Nedelcu, I. (2013a). ‘Inflectional classes’. In Pană Dindelegan, 273–8. Nedelcu, I. (2013b). ‘The inflectional classes of verbs’. In Pană Dindelegan, 18–23. Nedelcu, I. (2013c). ‘Singularia tantum and pluralia tantum’. In Pană Dindelegan, 260–1. Nedelcu, I. (2015). ‘Substantivul’. In Chivu et al., 37–62. Nedelcu, I. (2016). ‘The infinitive and the infinitival construction’. In Pană Dindelegan, 232–49. Neiescu, P. (2016). Dicţionarul dialectului istroromân, vol. 3. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Neiescu, P., Rusu, G., & Stan, I. (1969–). Atlasul lingvistic român pe regiuni. Maramureş. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Nestorescu, V. (2006). Din viaţa cuvintelor româneşti. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Nevaci, M. (2006). Verbul în aromână. Structură și valori. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Nevaci, M. (2007). ‘Ternary deictic system in Aromanian’. Dialectologia et geolinguistica 15: 71–76. Nevaci, M. (2013). Identitate românească în context balcanic. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Național al Literaturii Române. Nevins, A. (2007). ‘The representation of third person and its consequences for person–case effects’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313. Nevins, A. & Săvescu, O. (2010). ‘An apparent number case constraint in Romanian: the role of syncretism’. In Arregi, K., Fagyal, Z., Montrul, S., & Tremblay, A. (eds), Romance Linguistics 2008: Interactions in Romance. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 185–200. Nicolae, A. (2008). ‘Altul vs. un altul. Noi explicaţii’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Limba română. Dinamică sincronică şi diacronică. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 119–26. Nicolae, A. (2009). ‘Utilizarea numeralului multiplicativ în limba română actuală’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Dinamica limbii române actuale. Aspecte gramaticale și discursive. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 211–16. Nicolae, A. (2012). ‘Articolul’. In Pană Dindelegan, 111–20. Nicolae, A. (2013a). ‘Demonstratives’; ‘Alternative and identity determiners’. In Pană Dindelegan, 294–309. Nicolae, A. (2013b). ‘The determiner cel’. In Pană Dindelegan, 309–18. Nicolae, A. (2013c). ‘Means of encoding nominal phrase internal possession’. In Pană Dindelegan, 335–49. Nicolae, A. (2013d). ‘Notă de sintaxă comparată. Parametrul [+definit] în sintaxa grupului nominal românesc’. LR 62: 186–208. Nicolae, A. (2013e). ‘Polydefinite structures’. In Pană Dindelegan, 318–19. Nicolae, A. (2013f). ‘The possessive affix’. In Pană Dindelegan, 341–3. Nicolae, A. (2015a). ‘On the syntactic specialization of Romanian demonstratives and the grammaticalization of cel’. RRL 50: 47–70. Nicolae, A. (2015b). ‘The parameter of definiteness in Romanian: diachronic and synchronic evidence’. In Hill, V. (ed.), Formal Approaches to DPs in Old Romanian. Leiden: Brill, 17–61. Nicolae, A. (2016a). ‘Ellipsis licensed by the definite article’. In Pană Dindelegan, 383–5. Nicolae, A. (2016b). ‘Pronominal possession’. In Pană Dindelegan, 332–46. Nicolae, A. (2019). Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nicolae, A. & Niculescu, D. (2016). ‘Pronominal clitics: clitic ordering, clitic clusters’. In Pană Dindelegan, 52–70.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
505
Nicula, I. (2009). ‘Dinamica pronumelor și a adjectivelor demonstrative în limba română actuală. Observații pe corpusurile de română vorbită’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Dinamica limbii române actuale. Aspecte gramaticale și discursive. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 181–94. Nicula, I. (2013). ‘The gerund’. In Pană Dindelegan, 245–54. Nicula, I. (2015a). ‘Numeralul’. In Chivu et al., 173–84. Nicula, I. (2015b). ‘Numeralul’. In Chivu et al., 525–34. Nicula Paraschiv, I. (2016). ‘The direct object’. In Pană Dindelegan, 123–43. Nicula Paraschiv, I. & Pană Dindelegan, G. (2016). ‘The indirect object’. In Pană Dindelegan, 149–60. Niculescu, A. (1965). Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice, vol. 1. Contribuţii gramaticale. Bucharest: Editura Știinţifică. Niculescu, A. (1968). ‘Observations sur les démonstratifs daco-roumains provenant du lat. ille’. RRL 13: 471–80. Niculescu, A. (1974). Strutture allocutive pronominali reverenziali in italiano. Florence: Olschki. Niculescu, A. (1978). ‘Neologismele de tipul -(ţ)ie – -(ţ)iune’. In Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice, vol. 2. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică, 116–22. Niculescu, A. (2003). ‘Norme latino-romanice în structura morfologică a limbii române’. In Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice, vol. 4. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium, 37–40. Niculescu, A. & Roceric, A. (1999). ‘Pronumele dânsul în limba română’. In Niculescu, A., Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice, vol. 3. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium, 144–74. Niculescu, D. (2003). ‘Observații privind statutul cuplului său/lui în româna actuală’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Aspecte ale dinamicii limbii române actuale, vol. 2. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 173–82. Niculescu, D. (2008). Mijloace lingvistice de exprimare a posesiei în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București. Niculescu, D. (2013a). Particularităţi sintactice ale limbii române din perspectivă tipologică. Gerunziul. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Naţional al Literaturii Române. Niculescu, D. (2013b). ‘The possessive dative structure: the possessive object’. In Pană Dindelegan, G., 183–90. Niculescu, D. (2016). ‘The gerund and the gerundial construction’. In Pană Dindelegan, 271–87. Nielsen Whitehead, B. (2012). ‘On Italian, Ibero-Romance and Romanian imperatives in -i and the fate of Latin final -e’. RR 47: 283–304. Onu, L. (1965). ‘Bătu-te-ar norocul’. In Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la 70 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 651–55. Onu, L. (1989). ‘Langue et écriture’. In Holtus, Metzeltin, & Schmitt, 305–24. Operstein, N. (2012). ‘A new look at an old problem: on the origin of the pronominal augment -ne’. Romance Notes 52: 235–42. Oprea, I. (1992–3). ‘Istoria adaptării împrumuturilor româneşti care au corespondente latineşti în -(t)io,-(t)ionis’. Anuarul de lingvistică şi istorie literară 33: 81–131. Orbanić, S. (1995). ‘Status attuale delle comunità istro-romene’. Annales (Koper) 6: 57–64. Ortmann, A. & Popescu, A. (2000). ‘Romanian definite articles are not clitics’. In Gerlach, B. & Grijzenhout, J. (eds), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 295–324. Orza, R. (1975). ‘Arhaism și inovație în paradigma verbului a fi. Indicativul prezent’. CL 20: 47–50. Orza, R. (1976). ‘Cu privire la flexiunea verbală în graiurile dacromâne. Indicativul prezent’. CL 21: 199–212. Orza, R. (1979). ‘Cu privire la iotacizarea verbelor în graiurile limbii române’. CL 24: 73–81. Orza, R. (1980). ‘Participiul în -ă din componenţa formelor verbale perifrastice’. CL 25: 67–71. Palmer, L. ([1954] 1977). The Latin Language. London: Faber & Faber. Pamfil, C.-G. & Dănilă, E. (2009). ‘Originea condițional–optativului românesc în concepţia lui A. Philippide’. Philologica Jassyensia 5: 69–77. Pană Dindelegan, G. (1987). Aspecte ale dinamicii sistemului morfologic verbal (perioada după 1880). Bucharest: Tipografia Universității din București. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2003a). Elemente de gramatică. Dificultăți, controverse, noi interpretări. Bucharest: Humanitas Educațional.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
506 Pană Dindelegan, G. (2003b). ‘Formații substantivale recente și rolul “clasificatorilor” în actualizarea lor contextuală’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Aspecte ale dinamicii limbii române actuale. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 31–46. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2007a). ‘Din nou despre participiu şi supin. Câteva precizări’. SCL 58: 163–73. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2007b). ‘Pe marginea tiparului flexionar feminin I-E (în hiat) – IĬ (în diftong). albie – albii, manie – manii’. Analele Universităţii din București, Seria Limba şi literatura română 46: 67–75. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2007c). ‘Reflecţii pe marginea a două tipare flexionare nominale: (ea / a) Ø – -le şi u /ŭ / Ø – -uri’. In Reinheimer Rîpeanu, S. & Vintilă Rădulescu, I. (eds), Limba română, limbă romanică. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 424–34. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2008a). ‘Concurenţa -(ţ)iune ~ -(ţ)ie; stadiul actual al fenomenului’. SCL 59: 489–501. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2008b). ‘Relaţia verbului cu alte clase lexico-gramaticale’. In Guțu Romalo, vol. 1: 572–84. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2009). ‘Trăsături flexionare ale substantivului în româna actuală’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Dinamica limbii actuale. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 3–32. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2011). ‘Din istoria supinului românesc’. In Zafiu, R., Uşurelu, C., & Bogdan Oprea, H. (eds), Limba română. Ipostaze ale variaţiei lingvistice. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 119–30. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2013a). ‘Flexiunea cazuală. Între analitic și sintetic. Cardinale și cuantificatori non-numerici în româna veche’. LR 62: 159–73. Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.) (2013b). The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2013c). ‘The infinitive’. In Pană Dindelegan, 211–22. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2013d). ‘Prepositional marking: the pe-construction’. In Pană Dindelegan, 128–35. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2013e). ‘The supine’. In Pană Dindelegan, 233–44. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2014). ‘Despre utilizarea lui “de” relativ în româna veche’. In Chivu, G. & Uță Bărbulescu, O. (eds), Ion Coteanu. In memoriam. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii Bucureşti, 335–43. Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.) (2015a). Gramatica de bază a limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Univers Enciclopedic. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2015b). ‘Morfologia: Substantivul’. In Chivu et al., 405–48. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2015c). ‘Numeralul și grupul nominal cu centru numeral’. In Pană Dindelegan (ed.), 178–210. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2015d). ‘Pronumele şi adjectivul pronominal relativ’. In Pană Dindelegan, 163–73. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2015e). ‘Un text de la sfârşitul secolului al XVII-lea, loc de confruntare a tendinţelor de sintetism şi de analitism în marcarea genitivului’. In Zafiu, R. & Nedelcu, I. (eds), Variația lingvistică. Probleme actuale, vol. 1. Gramatică, istoria limbii române, filologie, dialectologie. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 85–93. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2015f). ‘Verbul’. In Chivu et al., 535–96. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2015g). ‘Does Old Romanian have “mixed categories”?’. In Pană Dindelegan et al., 197–224. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2016a). ‘Feminine singular pronouns with neutral value’. In Pană Dindelegan, 611–18. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2016b). ‘Gramatica “animatului” în limba română. Cu raportare la limba veche’. LR 26: 74–91. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2016c). ‘The partitive phrase’. In Pană Dindelegan, 323–32. Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.) (2016d). The Syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2017). ‘Substantive masive şi abstracte pluralizate în româna veche’. Diacronia 6: 1–82. Pană Dindelegan, G. (2018). ‘Inversion and nominal ellipsis: a special type of nominalization in Romanian’. In Pană Dindelegan, G., Dragomirescu, A. Nicolae, A., & Nicula Paraschiv, I. (eds), Romance Syntax: Comparative and Diachronic Perspectives. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 5–20.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
507
Pană Dindelegan, G., Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., Nicula, I., Nicolae, A., & Esher, L. (eds) (2015). Diachronic Variation in Romanian. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Papahagi, T. (1924). ‘Din epoca de formaţiune a limbei române’. GS 1: 200–34. Papahagi, T. (1925a). ‘Cercetări în Munții Apuseni’. GS 2: 1–72. Papahagi, T. (1925b). Graiul şi folklorul Maramureşului. Bucharest: Cultura Naţională. Papahagi, T. (1937). Din morfologia limbii române. Bucharest: Atelierele Grafice Socec & Co. Papahagi, T. (1963). Dicționarul dialectului aromân, general și etimologic. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Papahagi, T. (1974). Dicționarul dialectului aromân general și etimologic. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Pascu, G. (1916). Sufixele româneşti. Bucharest: Ediţiunea Academiei Române, Librăriile Socec & Co. Pătruț, I. (1963). ‘Consideraţii în legătură cu vocativul romînesc în “-o” ’. Romanoslavica 7: 87–93. Pătruţ, I. (1974). ‘Vocativul românesc în -o’. In Pătruţ, I., Studii de limba română şi slavistică. ClujNapoca: Editura Dacia, 124–32. Penny, R. (1991). The History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perkowski, J. & Vrabie, E. (1986). ‘Covert semantic and morphophonemic categories in the Romanian gender system’. Slavic and East European Journal 30: 54–67. Pescarini, D. (2016). ‘Clitic pronominal systems: morphophonology’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 742–60. Pețan, A. (2001). ‘Pronume personal’. In Sala, 431–3. Petrovici, E. (1952). ‘Corelația de timbru a consoanelor rotunjite și nerotunjite’. SCL 3: 127–85. Petrovici, E. (1967). ‘Le neutre en istro-roumain’. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. The Hague: De Gruyter, 523–6. Petrucci, P. (1999). Slavic Features in the History of Romanian. Munich: Lincom. Philippide, A. (1894). Principii de istoria limbii. Iaşi: Fraţii Şaraga. Philippide, A. ([1927] 2015). Originea românilor, vol. 2. Iaşi: Editura Universităţii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’. Philippide, A. (2011). Istoria limbii române. Iași: Polirom. Pinkster, H. (2015). The Oxford Latin Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pittau, M. (2005). Grammatica del sardo illustre. Sassari: Carlo Delfino Editore. Poghirc, C. (1962). ‘Particula pronominală -ne în greacă, albaneză și română. (În legătură cu rom. mine, tine, sine.)’ SCL 13: 491–5. Poghirc, C. (1969). ‘Influența autohtonă’. In Coteanu (1969d), 313–65. Pop, S. (1931–3). ‘Cum dispar termenii vechi administrativi și cum se încetățenesc cei noi’. Dacoromania 7: 61–71. Pop, S. (1948). Grammaire roumaine. Bern: Francke. Pop, S. (1952). ‘La iotacisation dans les verbes roumains’. In Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature romanes offerts à Mario Roques, vol. 3. Paris: Bade, 195–235. Pop, S., & Petrovici, E. (1933). ‘Mână cu pluralul’. Dacoromania 7: 95–108. Popescu, C. (2013). Viitorul şi condiţionalul în limbile romanice. Abordare morfosintactică şi categorizare semantică din perspectivă diacronică. Craiova: Editura Universitaria. Popescu Marin, M. (1966). ‘Propoziția atributivă’. In Graur et al., 274–83. Popescu Marin, M. (ed.) (2007). Formarea cuvintelor în limba română din secolele al XVI-lea – al XVIII-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Popescu Marin, M. (2008). ‘Adjectivul’. In Guțu Romalo I, 141–79. Popescu Marin, M. (2014). ‘Concordanţe româno-retoromane. Particulele -a, -ş(a) la adverbe’. In Chivu, G. & Uţă Bărbulescu, O. (eds), Ion Coteanu. In memoriam. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 283–6. Popescu Marin, M. (2015a). ‘-AND, -END, ANDĂ, -ENDĂ’. In Rădulescu Sala, 184–7. Popescu Marin, M. (2015b). ‘-ĂU (-âu, -ou, -ăul), -EU’. In Rădulescu Sala, 488–509. Popușoi, C. (2013). Limba română actuală din Basarabia. Particularități morfosintactice și lexicosemantice. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Național al Literaturii Române. Posner, R. (1996). The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Procopovici, A. (1921). ‘Eccum’. Dacoromania 1: 162–85.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
508 Procopovici, A. (1928). ‘Din istoria pronumelui în limba românească’. Revista filologică 1–2: 318–45. Procopovici, A. (1941). ‘Adecăte(a), adecăle(a), adecătele(a); de-a-ncâtelea; uite – uită’. Dacoromania 10: 72–9. Puşcariu, S. (1905). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der rumänischen Sprache, vol. 1. Lateinisches Element mit Berücksichtigung aller romanischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Winter. Pușcariu, S. (1906). Studii istroromâne, vol. 1. Texte. Bucharest: Institutul de Arte Grafice ‘Carol Göbl’. Puşcariu, S. (1908). ‘Aoace’. ZRP 32: 478–82. Puşcariu, S. (1924–6). ‘Pe marginea cărţilor’. Dacoromania 4: 1303–409. Puşcariu, S. (1924). ‘Lat. libet în româneşte’. Dacoromania 3: 397–406. Puşcariu, S. (1926). Studii istroromâne. Bucharest: Cultura Naţională. Pușcariu, S. (1931). ‘Viitorul cu vadere’. Dacoromania 6: 387–93. Pușcariu, S. (1936–8). ‘Pe marginea cărților (IV)’. Dacoromania 9: 403–49. Pușcariu, S. (1937). ‘Considérations sur le système phonétique et phonologique de la langue roumaine’. Etudes de linguistique roumaine. Cluj: Imprimeria Națională, 202–59. Puşcariu, S. (1974). ‘Despre diminutivele româneşti’. In Dan, I. (ed.), Cercetări şi studii. Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 297–302. Puşcariu, S. (1975). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der rumänischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Winter. Puşcariu, S. (1994). Limba română, vol. 2. Rostirea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Romãne. Quiles Casas, C. (2004). Resumen de gramática estremeña (pa la palra d’El Rebollal). Iventia in veritate sapientia. https://iventia.com/destacaus/descargues/gramatica_est.pdf. Rădulescu Sala, M. (2012). ‘From Latin to Romanian’. In Müller, P. Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S. & Rainer, F. (eds), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, vol. 12: Historical Word-Formation III: Language sketches. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1821–39. Rădulescu Sala, M. (ed.) (2015). Formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. 4. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Rainer, F. (2011). ‘The agent–instrument–place “polysemy” of the suffix -TOR in Romance’. Language Typology and Universals 64: 8–32. Rainer, F. (2016). ‘Derivational morphology’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 513–23. Ramat, P. (1997). ‘Why veruno means “nobody” ’. RP 51: 1–14. Ramat, P. & Ricca, D. (2016). ‘Romance: a typological approach’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 50–62. Reinheimer, S. & Tasmowski, L. (2005). Pratique des langues romanes, vol. 2. Les pronoms personnels. Paris: L’Harmattan. Reinheimer Rîpeanu, S. (2001). Lingvistica romanică. Bucharest: All Universitar. Reinheimer Rîpeanu, S., Tasmowski, L., & Vasilescu, A. (2013). ‘The structure of clitic clusters’. In Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea, 250–9. Renwick, M. (2014). The Phonetics and Phonology of Contrast: The Case of the Romanian Vowel System. Berlin: de Gruyter. Renzi, L. (1993). ‘L’articolo postposto rumeno in diacronia e in sincronia’. RRL 38: 307–22. Renzi, L. (1997). ‘Expression of allocutionary distance’. In Maiden & Parry, 113–15. Renzi, L. (2010). ‘Il vocativo’. In Salvi, G. & Renzi, L. (eds), Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1305–12. Renzi, L. & Andreose, A. (2003). Manuale di linguistica e filologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino. Repetti, L. (2016). ‘Palatalization’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 658–68. REW = Meyer-Lübke, W. (1930–5). Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter. Ripoll, A. (2012). ‘Les adverbes de langue en latin. propriétés et emplois’. In Brachet, J.-P., Fruyt, M., & Lecaudé, P. (eds), Les Adverbes latins. Syntaxe et sémantique. Paris: L’Harmattan, 163–78. Rizescu, I. (1964). ‘Contribuții la istoria pronumelui în limba română’. SCL 15: 749–53. Rizescu, I. (1966). ‘Substantivul’. In Graur et al., 82–94. Rizescu, I. (1978). ‘Ză-’. In Graur, A. and Avram, M. (eds), Formarea cuvintelor în limba română. Prefixele. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 256. Roberts, I. (2016). ‘Object clitics’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 786–801. Rohlfs, G. (1966). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Fonetica. Turin: Einaudi.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
509
Rohlfs, G. (1968). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Morfologia. Turin: Einaudi. Rohlfs, G. (1969). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Turin: Einaudi. Rosetti, A. (1932). Limba română în secolul al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Cartea Românească. Rosetti, A. (1937). ‘Sur l’origine de l’-Ă au participe roumain’. Bulletin linguistique 5: 38–42. Rosetti, A. (1938). Istoria limbii române, vol. 1. Limba latină. Bucharest: Fundația pentru Literatură și Artă. Rosetti, A. (1955). ‘Cercetări experimentale asupra diftongilor românești’. SCL 5: 7–27. Rosetti, A. (1986). Istoria limbii române, vol. 1. De la origini până la începutul secolului al XVII-lea. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică. Rothe, W. (1957). Einführung in die historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Rumänischen. Halle: Niemeyer. Rusu, G., Bidian, V., & Loșonţi, D. (1992–2006). Atlasul lingvistic român pe regiuni. Transilvania. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Rusu, V. (1962). ‘În legătură cu derivarea cu sufixe în dacoromână’. FD 4: 257–68. Rusu, V. (1968). ‘Din morfonologia graiurilor olteneşti. Pl. subst. casă’. SCL 19: 135–39. Rusu, V. (1971). Graiul din nord-vestul Olteniei. Fonetică. Considerații fonologice. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Rusu, V. (ed.) (1984). Tratat de dialectologie românească. Craiova: Scrisul Românesc. Sala, M. (1976). Contributions à la phonétique historique du roumain. Paris: Klincksieck. Sala, M. (ed.) (1989). Enciclopedia limbilor romanice. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. Sala, M. (1998). De la latină la română. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. Sala, M. (1999). Du Latin au roumain. Paris: L’Harmattan. Sala, M. (ed.) (2001). Enciclopedia limbii române. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. Sala, M. (2006a). Aventurile unor cuvinte românești I. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. Sala, M. (2006b). De la latină la română. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic. Sala, M. (2013). ‘Contact and borrowing’. In Maiden et al., 187–236. Sala, M. & Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, L. (2018). Istoria limbii române I. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic Gold. Salvi, G. (2011). ‘Morphosyntactic persistence’. In Maiden et al., 318–81. Salvi, G. & Renzi, L. (eds) (2010). Grammatica dell’italiano antico I, II. Bologna: Il Mulino. Sánchez Miret, F. (2006). ‘Productivity of the weak verbs in Romanian’. Folia Linguistica 40: 29–50. Sánchez Miret, F. (2017). ‘Elisión de la /l/ del artículo en dos hablantes de rumano’. In Dragomirescu et al., 359–67. Sandfeld, K. (1930). Linguistique balkanique. Problèmes et résultats. Paris: Champion. Șandru, D. (1935). ‘Enquêtes linguistiques du Laboratoire de phonétique expérimentale de la Faculté de Lettres de Bucarest. III: Lăpujul de Sus (Hunedoara)’. Bulletin linguistique 3: 113–77. Șandru, D. (1936). ‘Enquêtes linguistiques du laboratoire de phonétique expérimentale de la Faculté de Lettres de Bucarest. Le Bihor’. Bulletin linguistique 4: 127–79. Șandru, D. (1937). ‘Enquêtes linguistiques du laboratoire de phonétique expérmentale de la Faculté de Lettres de Bucarest: Vallée de l’Almăj’. Bulletin linguistique 5: 125–89. Șandru, D. (1938). ‘Enquêtes linguistiques du laboratoire de phonétique expérimentale de la Faculté de Lettres de Bucarest. District de Năsăud (Nord-Est de la Transylvanie)’. Bulletin linguistique 6: 173–230. Saramandu, N. (1984). ‘Aromâna’. In Rusu, 423–76. Saramandu, N. (1992). ‘Iotacizarea verbelor și structura dialectală a dacoromânei’. LR 41: 83–7. Saramandu, N. (2005). Atlasul lingvistic român pe regiuni. Sinteză. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Saramandu, N. (2007). Aromâna vorbită în Dobrogea. Texte dialectale. Glosar. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
510 Saramandu, N. (ed.) (2013). Dicţionarul dialectului meglenoromân general şi etimologic, vol. 1: A–C. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Saramandu, N., Celac, A., Floarea, C., & Tiugan, M. (eds). (2015). ‘Dicţionarul dialectului meglenoromân, literele Č, D–Dr’. FD 35: 134–241. Sârbu, R. & Frățilă, V. (1998). Dialectul istroromân. Texte și glosar. Timișoara: Amarcord. Săvescu, O. (2007). ‘Challenging the person case constraint: Evidence from Romanian’. In Camacho, J., Flores-Ferran, N., Sanchez, L., Deprez, V., & Cabrera, M.-J. (eds), Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected Papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 261–75. Săvescu, O. (2009). A Syntactic Analysis of Pronominal Clitic Cluster in Romance: The View from Romanian. Doctoral thesis, New York University. Săvescu Ciucivara, O. (2011). A Syntactic Analysis of Pronominal Clitic Clusters in Romance: The View from Romanian. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Schön, I. (1971). Neutrum und Kollektivum. Das Morphem -a im Lateinischen und Romanischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Schøsler, L. & Strudsholm, E. (2013). ‘Preservation, modification, and innovation: paradigmatic reorganisation of the system of personal pronouns, from Latin into modern Italian’. In Jeppesen Kragh, K., Lindschouw, J. (eds), Deixis and Pronouns in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 49–68. Schulte, K. (2005). ‘Vowel centralization in Romanian verbs of Slavic origin: deliberate exploitation of an indigenous sound change’. In Geerts, T., van Ginneken, I., & Jacobs, H. (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 378–94. Scriban, A. (1925). Gramatica limbii româneşti (morfologia) pentru folosinţa tuturor. Iaşi: Institutul de Arte Grafice ‘Viaţa Românească’. Scriban, A. (1939). Dicționarul limbii românești (etimologii, înțelesuri, exemple, citațiuni, arhaizme, neologizme, provincializme). Iași: Institutul de Artă Grafică ‘Presa Bună’. Scurtu, V. (1966). Termenii de înrudire în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Seche, L. (1969). ‘Elementul de compunere mini-’. In Studii și materiale privitoare la formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. 5. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 71–81. Seidel, E. (1958). Elemente sintactice slave în limba română. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Șiadbei, I. (1930). ‘Le sort du prétérit roumain’. Romania 56: 330–60. Şiadbei, I. (1952). ‘Persistenţa cazurilor latine în Romania orientală’. In Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature romanes offerts à Mario Roques par ses amis, ses collègues et ses anciens élèves de France et de l’étranger, vol. 4. Paris: Didier, 231–9. Skok, P. (1926). ‘Zur Chronologie der Palatalisierung von c g qu vor e i y i im Balkanlatein’. ZRP 46: 385–410. Smith, J. C. (2011). ‘Change and continuity in form-function relationships’. In Maiden et al., 268–317. Soare, E. (2007). ‘Romanian participle: 3 items with 1 morphological unit’. In Booij, G. et al. (eds), On-Line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 2005 (MMM5). University of Bologna. http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it. Sornicola, R. (2009). ‘I tipi italiani conesso, lunghesso, sovresso, sottesso e la grammaticalizzazione di ipse’. Linguistica 49: 121–30. Sornicola, R. (2011). ‘Romance linguistics and historical linguistics: reflections on synchrony and diachrony’. In Maiden et al., 1–49. Sornicola, R. (2012). ‘Multifunzionalità di ipse in latino e polimorfismo degli esiti romanzi’. In Biville, F., Lhommé, M.-K., & Vallat, D. (eds). Latin vulgaire—latin tardif. Actes du IX colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif (Lyon, 2–6 septembre 2009). Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, 347–62. Șovar, G.-A. (2010). ‘Trăsături de gen personal ale numelor de rudenie în limba română veche’. In Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., & Nicolae, A. (eds), Limba română. Controverse, delimitări, noi ipoteze. Actele celui de al 9-lea colocviu al Catedrei de Limba Română (4–5 decembrie 2009), vol. 1. Gramatică. Lexic, semantică, terminologii. Istoria limbii române şi filologie. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 173–9.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
511
Șovar, G.-A. (2012). ‘Nume de rudenie cu flexiune specială în limba română veche’. In Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., & Nicolae, A. (eds), Limba română. Direcții actuale în cercetarea lingvistică. Bucharest: Editura Universității din Bucureşti, 245–56. Stan, C. (2003). Gramatica numelor de acţiune din limba română. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Stan, C. (2007). ‘Articolul nişte’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Limba română. Stadiul actual al cercetării. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 199–205. Stan, C. (2008a). ‘Declinarea substantivelor comune compuse’. In Guțu Romalo, vol. 1: 92–5. Stan, C. (2008b). ‘Raportul substantivului cu alte clase lexico-gramaticale’. In Guțu Romalo, vol. 1: 129–39. Stan, C. (2010a). ‘Elemente de sintaxă diacronică. Adverbul anume în româna veche’. In Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., & Nicolae, A. (eds), Limba română. Controverse, delimitări, noi ipoteze, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Universității București, 161–6. Stan, C. (2010b). ‘On the grammaticality status of numerals in Romanian’. RRL 15: 237–46. Stan, C. (2012). ‘Ortografia și ortoepia. Secolul al XX-lea’. In Chivu, G., Pană Dindelegan, G., Dragomirescu, A., Nedelcu, I., & Nicula, I. (eds), Studii de istorie a limbii române. Morfosintaxa limbii literare în secolele al XIX-lea și al XX-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 29–33. Stan, C. (2013a). ‘The complements of the noun (nominalizations)’. In Pană Dindelegan, 373–80. Stan, C. (2013b). ‘The enclitic definite article: The proclitic indefinite article’. In Pană Dindelegan, 285–94. Stan, C. (2013c). ‘Genitive and dative case-marking’. In Pană Dindelegan, 262–71. Stan, C. (2013d). ‘Quantifiers’. In Pană Dindelegan, 319–35. Stan, C. (2013e). O sintaxă diacronică a limbii române vechi. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București. Stan, C. (2013f). ‘Sulla sintassi dei sintagmi nominali con più determinanti nel rumeno’. In Casanova Herrero, E. & Calvo Rigual, C. (eds), Actas del XXVI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y de Filología Románicas, Valencia 2010. Berlin: de Gruyter, 397–407. Stan, C. (2015). ‘Some functions of the definite article in old Romanian’. In Pană Dindelegan, 55–65. Stan, C. (2016a). ‘The article and other determiners’. In Pană Dindelegan, 288–303. Stan, C. (2016b). ‘The genitive: between analyticity and syntheticity’. Pană Dindelegan, 312–23. Stan, C. (2016c). ‘(Numerical and non-numerical) quantifiers: quantifying approximators’. In Pană Dindelegan, 346–56. Stan, C. (2016d). ‘Polydefinite structures’. In Pană Dindelegan, 304–12. Stati, S. (1959). ‘Din problemele istoriei declinării româneşti’. SCL 10: 63–75. Stavinschi, A. (2015). ‘Romanian’. In Jungbluth, K. & Da Milano, F. (eds), Manual of Deixis in Romance Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter, 17–44. Ștefan, I. (1978). ‘Răspîndirea desinenței -u a pers. 3 plural a imperfectului indicativ în limba literară’. LR 27: 41–50. Stoica, G. (2018a). ‘Pronumele’. In Sala & Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, 409–38. Stoica, G. (2018b). ‘Substantivul’. In Sala & Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, 370–90. Stoichițoiu Ichim A. (2002). ‘Aspecte actuale ale compunerii tematice’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Aspecte ale dinamicii limbii române actuale. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 225–48. Stoichiţoiu Ichim, A. (2006a). Creativitatea lexicală în româna actuală. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Stoichiţoiu Ichim, A. (2006b). Vocabularul limbii române actuale. Dinamică, influenţe, creativitate. Bucharest: Editura ALL. Stoichițoiu Ichim, A. (2007). ‘Anglicisme “la modă” în limbajul modei’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Limba română. Stadiul actual al cercetării. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 581–98. Stoichițoiu Ichim, A. (2008). ‘Din nou despre anglicisme “la modă” în limbajul modei’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Limba română. Dinamica limbii, dinamica interpretării. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 681–92. Stoichiţoiu Ichim, A. (2010). ‘Un aspect sociolinguistique de la néologie. La féminisation des noms de professions en roumain contemporain’. In Cabré, M. T., Domenech, O., Estopa, R., Freixa, J., &
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
512 Lorentec, M. (eds), Actes del 1 Congrés Internacional de Neologia de les Llengües Romàniques. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, 1095–105. Stoichiţoiu Ichim, A. (2012). ‘Aspecte sociolingvistice privind exprimarea genului la numele de profesiuni’. In Constantinescu, M. & Uță Bărbulescu, O. (eds) Modernitate şi interdisciplinaritate în cercetarea lingvistică. Omagiu doamnei profesoare Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 493–510. Streller, F. (1904). ‘Das Hilfsverbum im Rumänischen’. Jahresbericht des Instituts für rumänische Sprache 9: 1–74. Strungaru, D. (1976). ‘Terminaţia -uri la pluralul neutrelor e atestată în secolul al XV-lea’. SCL 27: 639–41. Teaha, T. (1961). Graiul din Valea Crișului Negru. Bucharest. Editura Academiei. Teaha, T. (1969). ‘Texte dialectale din Oaş’. FD 6: 211–32. Tekavčić, P. (1980). Grammatica storica dell’italiano, vol. 1. Fonematica; vol. 2. Morfosintassi. Bologna: Il Mulino. Theodorescu, M. (1978). ‘Perfectul indicativului’. In Dimitrescu, 306–11. Thornton, A. (2011). ‘Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): a non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology’. In Maiden, M., Smith, J. C., Goldbach, M., & Hinzelin, M.-O. (eds), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 358–81. Thornton, A. (2012). ‘Reduction and maintenance of overabundance: a case study on Italian verb paradigms’. Word Structure 5: 183–207. Tiersma, P. (1982). ‘Local and general markedness’. Language 58: 832–49. Tiktin, H. ([1883] 1945). Gramatica română, Parts I–II: Etimologia; sintaxa. Iaşi: Șaraga. Tiktin, H. (1888). ‘Die rumänische Sprache’. In Gröber, G. (ed.), Grundriss der romanischen Philologie. Strasbourg: Trübner, 438–60. Tiktin, H. (1891). Gramatica română pentru învățământul secundar. Teorie și practică, vol. 1. Iași: Șaraga. Tiktin, H. (1903, 1911, 1924). Dicționar român-german/Rumänisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch, vols 1–3. Bucharest: Staatsdruckerei. Tiktin, H. (1904). ‘Die Bildung des rumänischen Konditionalis’. ZRP 28: 691–704. Tiktin, H. (1905). Rumänisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter. Titova, V. (1959). ‘O problemă litigioasă a morfologiei istorice româneşti (originea condiţionalului)’. SCL 10: 561–71. Todoran, R. ([1956] 1984). ‘Forme analogice ale verbului a fi. Fiut şi iest’. In Todoran, R. (ed.), Contribuții de dialectologie română. Bucharest: Editura Științifică şi Enciclopedică, 111–13. Toma, E. (1978). ‘Adverbul’. In Dimitrescu, 338–46. Trudgill, P. (2012). Sociolinguistic Typology: Structural Determinants of Language Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tudose, C. (1978). Derivarea cu sufixe în româna populară. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Tuten, D., Pato, E., & Schwarzwald, O. (2016). ‘Spanish, Astur-Leonese, Navarro-Aragonese, JudaeoSpanish’. In Ledgeway & Maiden, 382–410. Ulivi, A. (1975). ‘Observații asupra structurii acustice a semiconsoanelor românești [y] și [w]’. FD 9: 107–12. Urițescu, D. (1984). ‘Subdialectul crișean’. In Rusu, 284–320. Urițescu, D. (2007). ‘Dans la perspective de l’atlas linguistique de Crişana (I). Le participe passé dacoroumain en -ă. Mythe roumain ou innovation d’une langue romane?’. In Reinheimer Rîpeanu, S. & Vintilă-Rădulescu, I. (eds), Limba română, limbă romanică: Omagiu acad. Marius Sala la împlinirea a 75 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 555–66. Uță Bărbulescu, O. (2014). ‘Cu mila lu Dumnezeu, domniia-lui este sănătos și vesel. Lungul drum al pronominalizării onorificelor’. In Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., & Nicolae, A. (eds), Limba română. Diacronie și sincronie în studiul limbii române, vol. 1. Gramatică. Fonetică şi fonologie. Istoria limbii române, filologie. Actele celui de al 13-lea Colocviu Internațional al Departamentului de
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
513
Lingvistică (Bucureşti, 13–14 decembrie 2013). Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 317–28. Uță Bărbulescu, O. (2017). ‘Scurte observații asupra delocutivelor de deferență în documentele moldovenești de la începutul secolului al XVII-lea (1600–1640)’. In Dragomirescu et al., 447–61. Uță Bărbulescu, O. & Zamfir, D.-M. (2018). ‘Observaţii privind flexiunea substantivelor româneşti moştenite noru (< lat. nurus) și soru (< lat. soror) în secolul al XVI-lea’. In Lupu, C. (ed.), Studii romanice. Omagiu profesorilor Florica Dimitrescu și Alexandru Niculescu. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 907–30. Väänänen, V. (1963). Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck. Väänänen, V. (1967). Introduction au latin vulgaire, 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Varvaro, A. (2013). ‘The sociology of the Romance languages’. In Maiden et al., 335–60. Vasile, C. (2013). Adverbul românesc, între continuitate latină, specific balcanic şi evoluţie internă. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Naţional al Literaturii Române. Vasilescu, A. (2008). ‘Pronumele’. In Guţu Romalo, vol. 1: 181–288. Vasilescu, A. (2009). ‘Cel: Categorie semilexicală’. In Zafiu, R., Croitor, B., & Mihail, A.-M. (eds), Studii de gramatică. Omagiu doamnei profesoare Valeria Guțu Romalo. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 265–87. Vasilescu, A. (2013). ‘Pronouns’. In Pană Dindelegan, 379–409. Vasilescu, A. (2016). ‘Nominal intensifiers’. In Pană Dindelegan, 386–93. Vasiliu, E. (1989). ‘Rumänisch. Phonetik und Phonemik’. In Holtus, Metzeltin, & Schmitt, 1–7. Vasiliu, E. & Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, L. (1986). Limba română in secolele al XII-lea al XV-lea. Bucharest: Tipografia Universităţii din București. Vasiliu, L. (ed.) (1989a). Formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. 3. Sufixele. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Vasiliu, L. (1989b). ‘Sufixe diminutivale’. In Sala, 180–1. Vasiliu, L. (1989c). ‘Sufixare pentru abstracte nominale’. In Sala, 16–17. Vasiliu, L. (2001). ‘Compunere, elemente de-’. In Sala, 107–8. Vennemann, T. (1978). ‘Phonetic and conceptual analogy’. In Baldi, P. & Werth, R. (eds), Readings in Historical Phonology. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press, 258–74. Vulpe, M. (1973). ‘Observații asupra sintaxei graiului din zona Porțile de Fier’. In Cohuț, C. & Vulpe, M., Graiul din zona Porțile de Fier, vol. 1. Texte. Sintaxă. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 353–93. Vulpe, M. (2006). Subordonarea în frază în dacoromâna vorbită. In Mocanu, N. & Mării, I. (eds) Magdalena Vulpe. Opera lingvistică III. Cluj: Clusium, 33–277. Vulpe, M. (1984). ‘Subdialectul maramureşean’. In Rusu, 320–54. Wagner, M. L. (1938). ‘Flessione nominale e verbale del sardo antico e moderno’. L’Italia dialettale 14: 93–170. Wahlgren, E. (1920). Étude sur les actions analogiques réciproques du parfait et du participe passé dans les langues romanes. Uppsala: A.-B. Akademiska Bokhandeln. Weigand, G. (1892). ‘Nouvelles recherches sur le roumain de l’Istrie’. Romania 21: 240–56. Weigand, G. (1896a). ‘Der Banater Dialekt’. Jahresbericht des Instituts für Rumänische Sprache 3: 198–332. Weigand, G. (1896b). ‘Die Bildung des Imperfecti Futuri—Konditionalis, Optativi—im Rumänischen’. Jahresbericht des Instituts für Rumänische Sprache 3: 139–61. Weigand, G. (1899). ‘Samosch- und Theiss-Dialekte’. Jahresbericht des Instituts für rumänische Sprache zu Leipzig 6: 1–85. Weiß, H. (2002). ‘Indefinite pronouns: morphology and syntax in cross-linguistic perspective’. In Simon, H. & Wiese, H. (eds), Pronouns: Grammar and Representation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 85–107. Wild, B. (1983). Meglenorumänischer Sprachatlas. Hamburg: Buske. Wilkinson, H. (1985–91). ‘The Latin neuter plurals in Romance (I–VII)’. Ronshu 26–32. http:// www6.ocn.ne.jp/~wil/lnp.pdf. Willis, D. (2007). ‘Syntactic lexicalization as a new type of degrammaticalization’. Linguistics 45: 271–310.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 15/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
514 Willis, D. (2013). ‘The history of negation in the Slavonic languages’. In Willis, D., Lucas, C., & Breitbarth, A. (eds) The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 341–98. Willis, D. (2016). ‘Exaptation and degrammaticalization within an acquisition-based model of abductive reanalysis’. In Norde, M. & Van de Velde, F. (eds), Exaptation in Language Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 197–225. Woodcock, E. (1959). A New Latin Syntax. London: Methuen. Zafiu, R. (2001). Diversitate stilistică în româna actuală. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Zafiu, R. (2004). ‘Ministră, ministreasă, ministroaică’. România literară 48: 12. Zafiu, R. (2007). ‘Criterii estetice în normarea limbii române’. In Stan, C., Zafiu, R., & Nicolae, A. (eds), Studii lingvistice. Omagiu profesoarei Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, la aniversare. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 457–73. Zafiu, R. (2008). ‘Gerunziul’. In Guţu Romalo, vol. 1: 527–8. Zafiu, R. (2009). ‘Utilizări actuale ale lui alde’. In Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.), Dinamica limbii române actuale. Aspecte gramaticale și discursive. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 163–80. Zafiu, R. (2011). ‘Diminutivele în româna actuală. Lexicalizare şi utilizare pragmatică’. In Nedelcu, I., Nicolae, A., Toma, A., & Zafiu, Z. (eds), Studii de lingvistică. Omagiu doamnei profesoare Angela Bidu-Vrănceanu. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 373–82. Zafiu, R. (2012). ‘Particula -şi între intensificare şi indefinire’. In Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., & Nicolae, A. (eds), Limba română. Direcții actuale în cercetarea lingvistică, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Universității din Bucureşti, 277–85. Zafiu, R. (2013a). ‘Mood, tense, and aspect’. In Pană Dindelegan, 24–64. Zafiu, R. (2013b). ‘Politeness pronouns’. In Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea, 282–7. Zafiu, R. (2013c). ‘The pronominal intensifier însuși’. In Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea, 287–94. Zafiu, R. (2015). ‘Adjectivele în -tor’. In Chivu et al., 298–9. Zafiu, R. (2016). ‘The syntax of moods and tenses’. In Pană Dindelegan, 14–52. Zafiu, R. (2017). ‘The auxiliary of the Romanian conditional: semantic and functional arguments concerning the reconstruction of a disputed grammaticalization process’. Diacronia 6: 1–20. Zafiu, R. (2019). ‘Schimbarea morfologică în paradigma de prezent a verbului a fi. Formele bănățene mi(-)s, ni(-)s, vi(-)s’. In Pană Dindelegan, G., Boioc Apintei, A., & Croitor, B. (eds), Variație diacronică și diatopică. Note gramaticale. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 395–413. Zagaevschi, V. (1999). ‘Un sincretism arhaic dialectal la verbele de conjugarea I’. Dacoromania 3: 81–9. Zamboni, A. (1980–1). ‘Un problema di morfologia romanza. L’ampliamento verbale in -idio, -izo’. Quaderni patavini di linguistica 2: 171–87. Zamfir, D.-M. (2005–7). Morfologia verbului în dacoromâna veche (secolele al XVI-lea-al XVII-lea), vols 1–2. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Zamfir, D.-M. & Uță Bărbulescu, O. (2016). ‘Observaţii privind poziţia diminutivelor în limba română veche, cu privire specială asupra Divanului lui Dimitrie Cantemir’. SCL 67: 209–25. Zdrenghea, M. (1958). ‘Un vocativ regional’. In Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan, cu prilejul împlinirii a 70 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 939–40. Zwicky, A. & Pullum, G. (1983). ‘Cliticization vs inflection: English n’t’. Language 59: 502–13.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Index -a (as final particle in pronouns) 220–2, 232, 235, 237 -a (as formative for ordinal numerals) 241, 472 -ă as plural desinence 70–2 a- 434, 441, 444–5 ab- 441–2 a (as analytical/prepositional marker for genitive-dative cases) 89, 90, 93–6 abbreviation 387, 462–3 abiotic meaning 55, 66 ablative 9, 330–1, 333, 430 Abruzzo 151 abstract nouns 76, 122, 124–5, 338, 384, 387, 396, 410–14, 416–18, 420, 430, 473, 477 abstractization, degree of 411, 414 accusative (see case) acel, acela (acea, aceea etc.) 161, 220–2 acest, acesta (această, aceasta etc.) 159–62, 167, 220–3, 239–40 -ache 115, 390–1, 393, 406 Acquaviva, P. 71, 103 acronyms 387, 425, 462 -adă 413, 417 Adamescu, G. 161, 189–90 Adams, J. 201, 209 address forms 133–4, 138, 150–57 adessive 235 adjacency constraint 88 adjunct 158, 329, 453, 460, 464 adverb, adverbial structures 58, 145, 159, 187, 191, 194–7, 199, 224, 230, 235–48, 337, 391–2, 399, 423, 425–32, 439, 449–50, 463–4, 467–8 affixes 9, 271, 348, 476 affricates, affrication 10–12, 17, 34, 37, 41, 52, 99, 110, 308, 350, 352, 354–5 agglutination, agglutinated 7, 9, 209, 255, 459 agreement 8, 23, 53–4, 56–7, 59, 61, 64, 66, 68–70, 83, 88, 105, 127–8, 139–40, 151–2, 155–7, 159, 171, 212, 220, 223, 338, 356, 370, 389, 474 al (as a formative for ordinal numerals) 215–19 al (as case marker) 175, 200–1, 206, 215–19, 222, 471–2 al câtelea 169, 171–2
ăla 161, 222, 224, 240 Albania, Albanian 3, 79, 113, 143, 204, 240, 307, 337, 340–1, 364, 429, 470 alde 200 Alecsandri, V. 108 allative 235 allomorphy 2, 7–10, 12, 28–9, 37, 51–2, 60, 80, 96–8, 102, 104, 106, 114, 146, 152, 160, 161, 165, 184, 202, 252, 258, 290, 298, 308, 315, 318–19, 326, 334, 336, 341, 347, 355, 386, 388, 393, 415, 474 alt, altul (etc.) 159, 161, 166, 167, 182, 183, 187–9, 199, 201 alternations (in suffix derivation) 388 alternations in roots 10–18, 22, 25, 35–38, 41–4 50–3, 58, 62, 71, 79, 80, 96–101, 105, 108, 112–14, 117, 119, 160–2, 166, 251–2, 273, 308–9, 315–7, 333, 337, 342, 345–8, 350–6, 361 analogy (see also levelling) 36, 60–1, 64, 72–3, 79, 80, 83, 96–9, 101, 103–8, 110, 112–13, 117, 120, 122–3, 142–3, 147–9, 160–1, 166, 184, 189–90, 192, 195, 197–8, 223, 227, 239–40, 242, 244, 248–52, 257, 260, 262–5, 276, 279, 280, 282–87, 292, 303–4, 306, 309, 311, 314–17, 319, 321, 327–8, 334–6, 342, 346, 347–9, 351–5, 358–62, 367, 368, 397 analytic marking, constructions 74, 87, 89, 95, 141, 151, 168–9, 176, 197, 256, 258, 277, 309, 324, 338, 344, 369–71, 377–8, 469, 475 Andreose, A. 2 -anie/-enie 411–12, 417 animacy (and inanimacy) 25–8, 30, 38, 55–7, 66–70, 77, 85, 87, 105, 129–30, 140–1, 144, 164, 406, 474, 476 -ant 385, 394, 398 anteriority 9, 259–60, 370, 377–8, 380 anthroponyms 4, 28, 77, 388, 393, 406, 425 Antim, I. 186 anume, anumit 128, 199 Apostolul 164 -ar 40–1, 118, 383, 385, 395, 398–400, 415, 424 -are 98, 387, 411–12, 414–15, 417, 421
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
516 Aromanian 2, 3, 11, 17, 39–41, 46, 48–9, 67, 70, 86, 99, 103, 107, 132–3, 140–1, 143, 144, 146, 160, 165, 169, 185, 187, 192, 205, 217, 220, 223–4, 236, 244, 250–1, 253–5, 257, 258, 260, 265, 267, 270, 278–5, 287–8, 290, 292–99, 305, 309, 311, 313–14, 316–18, 320, 322–3, 325, 328, 333, 336–8, 340, 342, 345, 362, 364, 370–5, 391, 400, 418–19, 426–7, 429, 433, 437–8, 440, 446, 469, 470, 472–73 Aronoff, M. 341, 356, 357 arrhizotony, arrhizotonic forms 8, 9, 263, 267–68, 292, 294–5, 297, 312, 314, 343–5 article
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
definite 7, 8, 19, 21–3, 25, 27, 32–3, 37, 48, 63, 70, 74, 76–7, 79, 82–4, 85, 88, 99, 110, 114, 116, 125–6, 131, 133, 159–60, 162–64, 167, 182–3, 184–5, 187–9, 190, 193–4, 197–9, 201–19, 222–3, 225, 227, 229, 230–1, 233, 239–42, 244–5, 251, 254, 256, 324, 329, 337, 432, 450–60, 463, 472, 475 freestanding 201 indefinite 183–6, 219–20, 450, 455, 457, 459 partitive 32–3, 192, 219 suffixation of 19, 23, 27, 114, 184, 188, 197–8, 251, 256
Arvinte, V. 193, 241–2, 244–5, 248, 319, 380–1, 429 -aș, -âș 383, 385, 388, 390, 394–5, 398, 423 Asan, F. (see Hasan, F.) Ashdowne, R. 150–1 aspect 8, 9, 37–81, 258–60, 271, 290, 306, 308, 329, 347, 357, 370, 375, 417, 438, 442–3, 445–6, 476 ăst(a), astă (etc.) 26, 161–2, 221–4, 240 asyllabic -i 16, 39, 40, 67, 82, 115, 119, 144, 194, 214 -și 196, 239
Atanasov, P. 3, 62, 67, 85, 105, 121, 160, 166, 169, 179, 184, 251–2, 254, 265, 280, 283, 287, 294, 298, 313, 319, 323, 332, 337, 344, 362, 364, 370–74, 376, 378, 391, 400, 404, 409, 418, 420, 427, 433, 438, 446, 471–2 atare 198 atât 197, 198 -au 288 -ău 112, 113, 135, 393, 394, 398 augment 259, 269–73, 275–77, 319, 347, 348 auxiliary verbs 1, 9, 143–4, 146–7, 193–4, 258, 260, 282, 288–9, 300, 305, 316–18, 322, 338–41, 359–82, 476 avea 265, 281–2, 291, 299, 301, 315–16, 336–5, 372, 374
Avram, A. 40, 116, 211 Avram, M. 1, 43, 49–50, 115, 280, 284, 295, 329, 344, 432, 442–3, 460 Baldi, P. 164 Balkans, Balkan areal features 3, 79, 204, 228, 240, 364, 373, 375, 469–71 Banat 3, 11, 72–3, 108, 144, 161, 166, 174, 189, 206, 217, 250, 252, 274, 276, 278, 281, 294–5, 288–90, 292, 300, 306, 314, 317, 321, 323, 339, 360–1, 365–8, 371, 375, 377, 381, 442 Bateman, N. 55, 59 Bauer, B. 329, 389, 391–2, 430, 444–5, 447, 449–52, 454–6, 460–1, 465, 467, 469, 470 bea 318–9, 357, 361, 397, 425 Beltechi, E. 280–1, 314, 442 Beneș, P. 325 Bennett, C. 330 Bentivoglio, P. 151 Berea-Găgeanu, E. 364 Berea, E. 253 Bertocchi, A. 252 Bessarabia 283, 292, 303, 339, 340 Bible 253, 280 Bidian, V. 267, 287, 344 Bidu-Vrănceanu, A. 447, 449 -bil 422–5 Boioc Apintei, A. 316, 418 Bolocan, G. 470 Bonami, O. 148 Bosnia 3 Bossong, G. 143 Bourciez, E. 142 Boyé, G. 148 Brăescu, R. 233, 396 Brâncuș, G. 25, 41, 46, 48, 70–1, 73, 80, 162, 204, 223, 236, 265, 329, 390, 391, 403, 470–1 Brown, R. 150 Bucovina 107, 153, 157, 272, 280, 288, 303, 442 Budai-Deleanu, I. 107 Bujor, I. 68 Bulgaria 2, 118 Bulgarian 79, 98, 132–3, 135, 192, 204, 307, 323, 364, 373, 392, 398, 456 Byck, J. 117, 157, 246, 325, 394 -că 28, 30, 46, 386, 402–3, 405, 407–9, 435 Calabria 151 Călărașu, C. 409 Campania 151 Candrea, I.-A. 110, 142, 157, 161, 189–90, 239–40, 245, 438 Cantemir, D. 186, 447, 464
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
cap 35, 60, 97, 104, 106–7 Capidan, T. 67, 79, 86, 132–3, 135, 164, 177, 240, 250–1, 280, 283, 284, 286–7, 292–3, 295–8, 302, 311, 318, 320–1, 323, 328, 337, 340, 344–5, 365, 371, 373, 375–76, 391, 409, 418–20, 426, 437 Carabulea, E. 391, 392, 398, 468, 473 Caragiu-Marioțeanu, M. 39–41, 46, 79, 150, 177, 204–6, 224, 226, 279, 284, 286, 298, 323, 329, 337, 345, 360, 364, 370–2, 391, 400, 404, 418, 426–7, 469–72, 489 Cardinaletti, A. 168 care 159, 160, 165–7, 169, 171–2, 175–82, 191–2, 195, 241, 247, 439, 449 Cartea de cântece 4 case, case-marking, case-system 1, 8, 22, 25, 74–6, 79–81, 84, 86–7, 89, 94–6, 98–100, 103–4, 110, 114, 127, 140–6, 151–54, 159–60, 163–9, 175, 179, 181, 183, 202–6, 214, 216–17, 223, 229, 230, 249, 251, 256–7, 329, 410, 450–4, 463, 469, 475 accusative 8, 19, 50, 60, 74, 97, 105, 112, 141–6, 148–9, 157, 163–8, 176, 200, 215, 246, 324, 328–31, 399, 421 dative 8, 93–6, 110, 134, 141–6, 148–9, 158, 191, 218, 239, 241, 243, 246, 248, 322–3, 331, 469 genitive 8, 22, 27, 65, 74, 83–91, 95–6, 110, 112, 119–121, 126, 153–4, 160, 163–4, 168–9, 175, 197, 201, 202, 210–11, 216–9, 240–4, 252–54, 256, 324, 451, 453–5, 463, 469, 471–2, 476 oblique 25, 74, 81, 84, 89, 95, 179, 223, 230, 475
cât, câtă (etc.) 169, 172, 175, 177 Catalan 132, 201, 263, 270–1, 325, 396, 469 către 93, 95–6, 450 Cazacu, B. 392 Cazania lui Varlaam 253 ce, cel ce, ceea ce (etc.) 169, 171–3, 175, 177–8, 181, 192 celălalt, cealaltă (etc.) 163, 167–8, 201 centralization 14, 16, 17, 70–73, 99, 147, 161, 264–5, 275–76, 333, 346–9 cere 314, 337 Chircu, A. 241, 392, 431, 433 Chițoran, I. 148 Chivu, G. 70, 134, 250, 307 cine 142, 165, 169, 171–2, 174–7, 180–1, 183, 193, 197, 199, 247 cine- 447 Ciobanu, F. 215, 446, 447, 449, 450, 457, 462 Ciompec, G. 235, 238–9, 241, 242, 248
517
Ciorănescu, A. 73, 83, 96, 116, 139, 157, 187, 383, 394, 438 Cipariu, T. 153 clipping 448 clitics (see pronouns) coase 278, 343–4 Codex Sturdzanus 294 Codicele Bratul 4, 55, 164 Codicele Voronețean 164, 336 Cohuț, C. 239, 241 complementizer 319, 324, 328 compounds, compounding 67, 128, 168, 171, 177, 182–3, 187, 189, 191–6, 199–200, 222, 241–2, 247, 439, 445, 447, 449–67, 469–70, 473 Comrie, B. 25, 27 conditional 25–9, 145, 196, 260, 262, 277–82, 284–87, 290, 294–7, 309, 314, 317, 342, 345, 360, 364–70, 372–6, 378–82 conjugation (see inflexion classes) consonant clusters 6, 37, 39, 211, 252, 278–80, 283 muta cum liquida 5–7, 16, 67, 202, 278
Conțiu, M. 267–8 contraction 143–4, 146–7, 152, 155 Contraș, E. 390, 405–6, 408, 415, 417, 424–5, 427, 446, 449, 450 contrast function 252 coordination 207, 324, 465, 471 copaci (as singular) 97, 117 Corbett, G. 53, 59 Corcheș, C. 321 Coresi 65, 120, 132, 137, 164, 217, 312–13, 326, 334 Cornilescu, A. 201–2, 207–8, 212, 217–18 Corsican 270 Coteanu, I. 1, 49, 64, 80, 110, 122, 133, 184, 203–4, 206, 209, 214, 217, 219–20, 223, 226, 239, 255, 389, 447, 460, 462, 470–2 Crișana 3, 73, 108, 143, 153, 174, 256, 276, 278, 285–6, 289–90, 294–5, 300–1, 336–7, 339, 361, 368, 375, 470 Croatia, Croatian 3, 69, 70, 160, 277, 323, 446, 471–2 Croitor, B. 55, 139, 149, 159–61, 164, 182, 184–6, 189, 190, 199, 212, 220, 224, 227, 253, 392 cui 165, 175, 177, 180, 184, 191, 247 cumulative, cumulativeness 8, 19–20, 159, 258, 293 curge 311, 315, 334 cutare 98, 159, 160, 162, 198 Cyrillic alphabet 3, 4, 5, 39, 40
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
518 da 287–8, 292–4, 298, 311–14, 316 Dacia 2 Dacian 79, 204, 390, 394, 398, 470 Daco-Romance 2 Daco-Romanian 2 Dahmen, W. 3 Dalmatian 37, 270, 325 Dănăilă, I. 430 dânsul, dânsa (etc.) 157–8, 162–3 dative (see case) de (as relative) 169–71, 174–5, 177–8 de Vaan, M. 252 de-a 215, 242, 245 Decurtins, A. 474 defectiveness 81, 101, 141, 158, 160, 163–4, 168, 255, 306, 311, 329, 358 definiteness 19, 74, 87, 91–2, 94, 140, 204, 211–2, 475 degree words 207 deictic particles 238 Deletant, D. 5 Demirtaş-Coşkun, B. 3 demonstratives
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
distal 161, 165–6, 177, 201, 220, 222, 224, 226–31, 237, 247, 251 identity 201, 247 proximal 166, 201, 221, 223, 224, 226, 230–1, 236–38 strong (vs weak) 220–5, 232 ternary system 161, 224
Densusianu, O. 1, 27, 64–5, 70, 72–3, 79, 99, 109, 110–11, 124, 132, 157, 159, 183, 185, 188–9, 191–2, 196–7, 201, 206, 211–12, 214, 217, 219, 224–5, 227, 239–40, 242, 245, 248, 250, 256, 265, 274, 282, 284–5, 302, 307, 313, 317, 324, 329, 336, 341, 354, 361, 375, 377, 378, 381, 399–400, 433, 438, 450, 463, 466–9, 471–73 derivational morphology 9–10, 239, 337, 354, 357, 359 devocalization 39, 144–6, 148–9, 162 Diaconescu, I. 323–5, 329, 379 Diaconescu, P. 55, 62, 71, 133, 205, 225–6 Diaconovici Loga, C. 185, 188, 250, 368 diacritic letters 6, 7, 203, 462 Diez, F. 166 differential object marking 25, 141 pe (as object marker) 176, 461
diminutivization 391–2 Dimitrescu, F. 132–3, 142, 148, 157, 180, 184, 203–4, 206, 210–11, 217, 219–20, 224, 225, 226, 228, 230, 235, 447–8, 451, 453, 469, 470–3 Dimitriu, C. 68
Dinică, A. 192, 432, 447–50, 454–57, 460, 463, 465–8 Dinu, T. 317 diphthongization 15, 142, 161, 166, 250, 316 distance (politeness, respect), morphological marking of 150–57, 392, 476 honorifics 150–1, 153, 155, 157 plural for singular 156–7
Doamne 132–3, 139, 303 Dobrogea 70, 112, 118, 218, 278, 284, 288, 290, 339 Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 160, 201, 204 Dominte, C. 401, 441 domni(i)a voastră (ta, etc.) 151–6 domnule 133 Donovetsky, O. 285, 289, 371, 379 dragă 138–9 Drăganu, N. 447, 449 Dragomirescu, A. 1, 208, 233, 301, 319–22, 328–9, 331–2, 341, 361, 368, 370, 379, 407, 409, 418–20, 425, 437 dumisale, dumitale 152, 154 dumnealui, dumneaei (etc.) 154 dumneasa 154 dumneavoastră (dumneata) 152, 449 ‘dunno’ constructions 191–2, 197 -e (as singular inflexional ending) 19, 40, 43–4, 51, 57, 59–60, 63, 107, 111–12, 120, 124, 126–7, 202, 213, 407, 409, 474 -e (as adverbial suffix) 426–7, 431–2 -e (for feminine genitive-dative) 74, 79–81, 123, 209 -e (for feminine plural) 19, 34, 35–7, 43–5, 46, 49–52, 56–9, 61–64, 67, 69–73, 80–1, 83, 101, 113, 119–20, 123, 147, 158, 162, 244, 338, 474 -ea 21, 46–48, 101, 388–90, 392, 407–9 -eață/-ețe 413 Egerland, V. 168 -ei (as definite/pronominal genitive-dative inflexion) 82, 85, 125, 165, 175, 183, 195, 219, 223, 251 ei (ii/i/ăi) (feminine proclitic case marker) 195, 217 -el 385, 388–391, 408 Elson, M. 365 empty morphs 8, 191, 261, 269 enclitic, enclisis (see also clitics) 74, 84–5, 88, 144–9, 191, 195, 204–6, 238, 240, 246, 282, 472–3 epicene 406–8 -esc 385, 401–6, 422, 424, 427–8, 431 -ește 385, 404, 426–8, 431
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
-ețe 122, 386, 413 ethnic marking 29–30, 393, 401–6, 409, 465–6 etymological doublets 399, 412 etymology, multiple 424 exotica 67 -ez 51, 259, 385, 401–3, 405 face 294, 302, 305, 311, 342, 421, 444 Farcaș, I-M. 141 Farcaș, M. 392 fărşerot 165, 236 feminization 260, 338–41, 407, 476 ferăstrău 112–13 Fernández-Soriano, O. 165 Feuillet, J. 132, 204 fi 144, 196, 292, 295, 298–300, 302, 306, 311–12, 320, 329, 358, 368–9, 373, 375–6, 381, 417
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
este 287 fost 295, 320, 329 su 321 suntem, sunteți 7, 292, 320–1
fia 436–7 Ficșinescu, F. 438–9, 442 fie 124 fie- 191, 196 fiecare 165, 196, 241, 449 fierbe 304, 311, 327 Filipi, G. 3 Finno-Ugric 204 Fischer, I. 71, 142, 311, 329, 424 Flora, R. 278 Florea darurilor 4 Formentin, V. 64 Forza, F. 449, 460 Frâncu, C. 28, 31, 49, 62, 76, 83, 102–3, 122, 159–61, 185, 186, 188, 192, 194, 203, 206, 212, 217, 220, 224, 227, 230, 244, 248, 253, 256, 265, 280–1, 283, 287–89, 293, 295, 300–1, 305–6, 313–15, 321, 324, 336, 342, 344, 361, 363, 365, 367–9, 371–2, 378–9, 469–73 frate 26–8, 86, 104, 110–11, 139, 255–6, 410 Frățilă, V. 332, 375, 391, 400, 403, 438, 471 Freedman, P. 156 French 4, 35, 47, 55, 66, 91, 99, 127, 156, 182, 224, 253, 263, 333, 391, 398, 413, 417, 424, 430, 436, 441, 444, 447, 467, 473 Friulian 270 Fruyt, M. 142 fugi 270, 336 fusional structure 7, 258, 290 future 9, 258–60, 279, 292, 296–7, 305, 309, 316, 318, 360–6, 368–70, 372–82 future in the past 9, 362, 365, 368, 374–6
519
Gâdei, C. 280 Gaeng, P. 168 Găitănaru, M. 474 Gallo-Romance 270 Gamillscheg, E. 279, 317, 320 Gardani, F. 64 Gascon 271 gender 1, 8, 19–20, 26, 31, 36–7, 51–3, 56–7, 59–69, 74, 114–16, 140, 144, 146–8, 151, 153, 158–63, 167, 216, 220, 249, 254–5, 338, 379, 386, 388–9, 393, 396, 401–8, 451, 453, 455, 457, 460, 463, 472, 474, 477 controller vs target 59 genus alternans 24, 34–6, 38, 47, 49, 51–72, 74–5, 99, 104–5, 107, 112–13, 115–16 masculine (vs feminine) 5, 8, 24, 26, 28, 31, 38–43, 51, 53–7, 59–64, 68–70, 74, 82, 85, 87, 97, 105, 109–10, 112, 114–20, 126, 129–33, 135–6, 138, 144, 147–8, 160–62, 182, 184, 202, 205–6, 209–11, 213–14, 242, 245, 249–52, 255, 257, 338–9, 358, 388–9, 396, 399, 401–3, 405–9, 419, 426, 451, 463, 472, 474, 476 ‘neuter’ 1, 53–55, 59–61, 64, 67–8, 70–73, 104–5, 160, 328, 474
genitive (see case) German 5, 199, 253, 424, 436, 447, 471 Germanic 204 gerund 9, 143, 146, 149, 239, 244, 258, 260, 262, 264, 273, 320, 333–7, 340–1, 350–54, 368–9, 373, 376, 379–82, 397, 433, 438–9 Gheorghe, M. 179, 432 Gherman, C. 329, 403 Gheție, I. 4, 49, 70, 116, 122, 135, 189, 217–18, 241, 244, 250, 288, 303, 361, 363, 367, 469 ghici 272 Gilman, A. 150 -giu 383–85, 395, 398, 408 Giurescu, A. 447, 449–51, 454, 459, 467, 468 Giurgea, I. 55, 87, 160–1, 200, 201, 204, 214, 216–17 Giusti, G. 254 Gorăscu, A. 201 Goția, A. 321 grabovean 3 grammaticalization 96, 134, 150–1, 155, 157, 165, 171, 183, 192, 196, 201, 203, 205, 227, 233, 254–5, 367, 369–72, 412, 414, 417, 476 grămostean 3, 236 Grandgent, C. 166, 329 grâu 113–14
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
520
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Graur, A. 1, 36, 50, 96, 112, 117, 203–4, 211, 250, 289, 304, 308, 337, 346, 353, 396, 398–9, 427 Greece 3, 224 Greek 47, 73, 79, 143, 204, 240, 244, 259, 271, 307, 369, 372, 373, 375, 380, 390, 406, 436–8, 441, 444–6, 448, 449, 471–2 Grossmann, M. 67, 403, 405, 411, 413, 439, 447–8, 450–1, 453, 455–6, 460–1, 465–8 Groza, L. 447–8, 457 Guțu Romalo, V. 34–5, 43, 174, 201, 215, 313, 326 Harris, A. 370 Hasan, F. 438, 446–50, 453, 456–7, 462, 464, 468, 473 Hasdeu, B. 142, 337 Haspelmath, M. 183, 191 Hasselrot, B. 391 head-final syntax 465, 467 Heliade Rădulescu, I. 108, 361 Helmbrecht, J. 151 Herman, J. 60, 166, 337 heteroclisis 276, 344, 348–9 Hobjilă, A. 150, 201 Hockett, C. 59 homonymy 282, 384, 430 honorifics (see distance) Hunedoara 144, 206, 217, 295, 321 Hungarian 4, 5, 55, 72, 112, 259, 276, 307, 390, 394, 398, 412, 424, 436–7, 449 Hungarians 3 Hungary 2, 340 Hurren, A. 69, 226, 290, 299 hypocoristic 115, 388 -ic 385, 390, 422, 424, 427 -ică 21, 47–8, 101, 239, 386, 388–90 Igartua, I. 53 Iliescu, M. 37, 142, 168, 178, 182, 228, 230, 253, 327, 334 -ime 413, 473 imparisyllabics 34–5, 97, 104–9 imperative 134, 136, 146–8, 260, 263, 267, 269, 272, 276, 284–5, 290–1, 297, 299, 301–8, 329, 345, 350, 461 in -o 134, 303, 307
imperfective 258, 262, 271, 290, 334, 354, 446 inanimacy (see animacy) indefinites 160–63, 166, 171, 182–3, 191–94, 198–9, 241 indicative 259, 297–300, 302
infinitive long (vs short) 267, 306, 323–5, 331, 338, 341, 366, 413–14, 417–18, 420–1, 475–6 nominal 323, 414, 421 perfect 260, 269, 377, 379
inflexion classes 258, 260–78 fifth conjugation 276, 397 first conjugation 259, 261, 262, 264, 268–74, 276, 279, 283–4, 287–8, 291–2, 294, 297–8, 302, 304–5, 333, 335, 344, 347–51, 355, 385, 397, 414, 437 fourth conjugation 72–3, 106, 259, 261–5, 268–77, 291, 292, 304, 305, 314, 325, 326, 327, 334–6, 347–51, 397, 414, 415, 434 second conjugation 262, 264–67, 271, 305, 414 third conjugation 258, 262, 263–76, 288, 291, 294, 302, 304–5, 308, 310, 326, 334, 344, 345, 351, 414, 416
îns(ul) 157–8, 164 însumi, însuși, însuți, îmsămi, însăși, însăși (etc.) 158–9, 163, 167, 246, 248, 387, 434 intensifier(s) 140, 159, 163, 190, 246, 248 intransitives, intransitivity 276, 304–5, 350, 435, 460 invariance 9, 34, 37, 43, 68, 76–7, 86, 97, 101, 104–5, 114–29, 160, 167, 217–8, 256, 300, 369, 373 -ioară, -ior 388, 390–1 Ionașcu, A. 161, 224, 236 Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, L. 40, 201, 211, 217–18, 329 Ionică, I. 63, 223–5, 237 Iordan, I. 46, 55, 61, 66, 68, 71, 99, 142, 157, 253, 268, 349, 365, 388, 406, 427, 447–8, 473 Iorgovici, P. 250, 328, 366 iotacization, iotacized forms 12, 334–7, 350–52, 354–5, 390, 397, 415 irrealis 259, 369, 375 -iș, -âș 385, 412, 426, 430 -ișoară, -ișor 388, 391 -ist 387, 399, 422, 425 Istrian 270 Istro-Romanian, Istro-Romanians 2, 3, 11, 69–71, 85, 99, 103, 105, 107, 133, 140–41, 144, 160, 169, 205, 219–20, 223, 226, 250–4, 258, 260, 265, 268, 270, 277, 283, 286, 288–92, 296–99, 302–3, 307, 309, 317–23, 325, 327, 332, 334, 337, 362, 364–7, 372, 375, 391, 400, 420, 427, 438, 443, 446, 471–2 -it 417 -iță 386–91, 400, 407–9, 413, 417 Italian 4, 5, 10, 42, 50, 66, 70, 87, 115, 187, 263–4, 267, 270, 304, 307, 311, 321, 334, 367, 389, 391, 403, 426, 430, 432, 447, 449, 455
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Italo-Romance 27, 32, 37, 39, 52, 64, 151, 252, 254, 270–1, 304–5, 325, 347, 367 430, 475 -iu 406, 423, 424, 426 Ivănescu, G. 1, 73, 99, 152, 161, 204, 292, 296–7, 338, 340, 361, 363–65, 368 jude 35, 104–6
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Kahl, T. 3 kinship terms 26–8, 30, 86, 105, 110, 124, 135, 138, 216, 254, 256, 476 Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 256 Kovačec, A. 69, 105, 107, 160, 164, 169, 219, 226, 251, 254, 265, 277, 283, 288, 290, 296–99, 302, 317–18, 320, 332–4, 362, 364–5, 372, 375, 446, 471–2 Kruschwitz, P. 140 L-pattern 351 la 92–6, 141, 168–9, 469 la (verb) 288 labial consonants 14, 17, 70, 161, 283, 318, 363, 441 -lâc 386, 413 Ladin 37, 270–1 Lardon, S. 166, 168 Latin 1, 2, 4, 8–9, 26, 66, 73–4, 134, 136, 140, 142, 156–8, 160, 164–66, 183, 191, 201, 220, 240, 249–50, 252–3, 258–66, 269–71, 294, 301–2, 321, 326–9, 331, 342, 345, 347, 357–8, 370, 417, 432, 436–7, 441, 444–6, 448–50, 467, 470, 474–76 Lausberg, H. 59, 271 Lăzărescu, P. 41, 44, 67, 158, 160, 164, 169, 237, 377 -le (as a final particle) 183, 189–90, 238–9, 244–5, 248, 432, 472 -lea (as a formative for ordinal numerals) 245–6, 472 Ledgeway, A. 141, 146, 151, 167, 201–2, 207–9, 211–15, 220, 226, 228, 235–6, 254, 369 Leech, G. 153 Leu, V. 389, 392–3 levelling (see also analogy) 10, 96, 104, 106–8, 249–51, 336, 354–5 lexical differentiation 46, 52, 268 linking vowel 449, 469 loanwords 35, 55, 57–8, 62, 66, 73, 99, 277, 447, 467, 469, 472 Lødrup, H. 256 Logudorese 160 Lombard, A. 99, 142, 144, 193, 201, 209, 246, 280, 302–3, 307, 311, 315, 329, 343, 349, 353, 364, 368, 401, 428
521
Loporcaro, M. 1, 15, 53, 59, 64, 66, 160, 165–6 lua 288, 315, 334, 346 lui/lu 25–6, 74, 84–87, 205–6 Lupu, C. 55 măcar 187, 197, 432 Macarie, L. 142, 327, 334 Macedonia 3, 224 Macedonian 283, 323, 337, 370, 446, 471 Maiden, M. 1, 10, 31, 35–7, 41–2, 46–7, 49–51, 53, 55, 59–64, 66, 72, 74, 76–7, 79–81, 83, 97–9, 101, 103, 109, 112, 122, 125, 132, 138, 146, 150, 162, 165, 220–3, 260, 265, 270–1, 276–78, 284–86, 289, 293, 296, 299, 301–4, 306–9, 314, 321, 324, 327–9, 336–7, 340–60, 375, 390, 434, 446, 461 Maior, P. 5 Malkiel, Y. 108 mamă 28, 104, 109–0, 303, 389 Manea, D. 224, 227, 253 Maneca, C. 447 Manoliu(-Manea), M. 158, 204, 217, 237–8, 247, 369 mânu 59, 122 Manu Magda, M. 136 Maramureș 3, 11, 49–50, 62, 73, 135, 143, 153, 161, 265, 267, 276, 290, 293, 295, 303, 329, 337, 339, 346, 361, 368, 377, 381, 392, 470 Marche 151 Mareș, A. 4, 49, 70, 122, 189, 250, 363 Mareș, L. 392, 447 Mărgărit, I. 40, 117–8, 200, 303, 340, 439 Mari, T. 252 Mării, I. 305–6, 325 Marin, G. 450, 463, 466, 468 Marin, M. 49, 62, 95, 97, 121, 153, 169, 206, 266–7, 281, 284, 288, 292, 298, 303, 317, 322, 329, 339, 340, 361, 362, 364, 371, 375–8, 380–1 Marinescu, B. 49, 95, 153, 169, 235–6 marked, markedness 74, 96–7, 100–1, 105, 141, 150, 164, 184, 188, 367, 450 mass meaning 30–3, 49, 64, 71, 76, 102–3, 124–25 Mavrogiorgos, M. 146 Megleno-Romanian 2, 3, 11, 17, 49, 62, 67, 71, 85, 97–8, 103–5, 121, 133, 140–1, 144, 160, 169, 187, 192, 205, 220, 223, 226, 250–55, 265, 270, 279–80, 283, 287–8, 290, 292–94, 298, 305, 307, 309, 313, 316, 318–20, 322–3, 325, 327, 332, 337, 362, 364, 370–74, 376, 378, 391, 394, 400, 418–19, 426–7, 433, 438, 443, 446, 471–2
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
522 Melnik, V. 285, 337 Mensching, G. 143 -mente 430–31 merge 315 metonymy 55 Metzeltin, M. 132 Meul, C. 270–1 Meyer-Lübke, W. 39, 109, 132–3, 142, 157, 166, 239, 246, 282, 316, 361, 365–67, 373, 389, 391, 393–4, 397–8, 403, 426, 430, 437–8 Micu, S. 250, 363 Mihăilă, G. 403 -minte 128, 431 Mirska, H. 449, 456, 460, 465 Mîrzea Vasile, C. 245, 427, 429–33, 439 mixed category 324, 414 mobile (noun) 406–7 modal-existential construction 324 modifier 228, 230, 451, 456 Moldova, Moldovan 2, 3, 11, 41, 44, 49–50, 73, 96, 108, 110, 142, 153, 158, 160–1, 164, 166, 186, 180, 218, 238, 280–1, 285, 288, 290, 303, 306, 319, 337, 437, 442, 471 mood 8–9, 191, 258–60, 306, 369, 370, 374–5 Morariu, L. 274, 280, 285, 296, 334, 365–6, 371, 373 Morcov, M. 347 Moroianu, C 389 morphomic patterns 308, 341–59, 474 motional suffix (see sex-marking suffix) mult 197 Muntenia, Muntenian 3, 70, 73, 108, 112, 250, 256, 266–8, 272, 284–5, 289, 293, 306, 314, 319, 322, 327, 337, 339, 340, 371, 377–8, 380–1 N-pattern 276, 345–50 Năsăud 153, 161, 174, 206 -ne 142–3, 248, 283, 432 ne- 387, 438–41 nea 81, 101 Neacșu de Câmpulung 4 Neagoe, V. 40, 117–8, 166, 246, 280, 287, 289, 292, 303, 306, 344, 361, 365, 377, 381, 443 Nedelcu, I. 30, 45, 58, 91, 99, 213, 215, 259, 266, 272, 324, 328, 379, 414, 450 negative prefix 387, 438–41 neologisms, neologistic forms 43, 47, 51–2, 57–8, 63, 72, 115, 126–7, 129, 261, 268, 270, 272, 277, 311, 385, 387, 392–3, 397–8, 400, 403, 408–9, 411–13, 417, 424–7, 431–2, 437, 441–6, 473 nescai, nescare 192
neștine 192, 438 Nestorescu, V. 406, 425 neutralization, phonologically induced 67, 119, 273–4 Nevaci, M. 3, 165, 236, 265, 267, 281, 295, 298, 333, 337, 340, 370, 375, 379 Nevins, A. 149 New Testament Greek 380 -nic 383–4, 386–7, 395, 400, 422, 424 nici unul, niciun(ul) 183, 186–7, 241, 449 nici- 196 Nicolae, A. 1, 23, 27, 145–6, 201–2, 207–9, 211–12, 214–15, 217–18, 220–5, 228–9, 231, 233, 249, 370, 407, 409, 473 Nicula Paraschiv, I. 25, 89, 164 Nicula, I. 221, 333–4, 470, 473 Niculescu, A. 30, 230, 421 Niculescu, D. 146, 150–1, 157–8, 249, 253–4, 279, 381–2 nimeni, nimănui 168, 189–90 nimic 189–90, 392, 438 niște 192, 219, 438 nominal ellipsis 208, 227, 233, 459 nominalization 24, 134, 414, 420, 476 nominative 26, 74, 79, 97, 104–5, 129, 133, 136–7, 141–2, 146, 163–65, 189 non-mortal 55, 68 noră 35, 59, 82, 104, 108, 110 Noselo 160 number (see also -e, uri) 1, 8–9, 19–20, 37–52, 74, 97, 99–106, 113–14, 116–17, 122, 140–1, 144, 148, 152–3, 158–63, 168, 251, 258–60, 278, 297, 300, 361, 364, 465–6, 469, 472, 476 double and triple plural marking 51 lexical plurals 64, 76, 203 plurale tantum 30, 49 singulare tantum 30, 49, 76, 124
nume 63, 104–5, 115, 121 numerals 215, 218–19, 241, 245, 458, 469–73 cardinal 89, 208, 219, 239, 459, 468–73 collective 241, 468, 473 distributive 468 fractional 468, 473 multiplicative 247, 468, 473 ordinal 47–2, 215–19, 241, 244–5, 248, 458
Nuti, A. 164 -oaie 115, 402–3, 405, 408–9 oare 318 oare- 191, 193–95 Oaș 278 oblique case (see case) Occitan 132, 325
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
-oi 394, 403, 405, 407–8 Oltenia 70, 72, 108, 161–2, 174, 189, 224, 266–8, 280, 289, 292–3, 300, 306, 317, 346, 361, 371, 442 Oltenian 223, 235 om, oameni 35, 104–5, 133 onomatopoeic verbs 387, 435 Onu, L. 5, 278 Operstein, N. 142 Oprea, I. 421 Orbanić, S. 3 ori- 171–2, 191, 194 original documents 212, 226 orthography 5, 40, 117 Ortmann, A. 201 Orza, R. 278, 323, 339, 341 overabundance 154, 164, 253, 254
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
palatalization 6, 10, 11–13, 37, 52, 111, 118–19, 250, 252, 280, 308, 335, 350–6, 395 Palia de la Orăstie 274, 303, 307, 313, 326 Palmer, L. 330 Pană Dindelegan, G. 32, 38, 40, 43, 45, 58, 66, 77, 86, 89, 117, 125–6, 161, 171, 174, 178–9, 198, 206, 213, 215, 256, 259, 266–8, 272–3, 317, 320–22, 329, 344, 403, 414, 421, 424, 437, 448, 463, 468 Papahagi, T. 48, 70, 107, 145, 296, 329, 346, 367, 391, 394, 400, 438, 440, 446 paradigm 8, 99, 101–2, 104, 140, 146–8, 158, 163–4, 249, 278, 297, 341, 345, 401, 474–5 two/three-word-form distribution is nouns and adjectives 74, 99–100, 102–3, 474
paradigmatic gaps 146, 164 parasynthetic formations 383, 386, 434, 437, 443, 445 pârău 113 Pascu, G. 394, 412, 424 past participle 9, 258, 260, 262–3, 285, 289, 309, 311, 314–15, 320, 326–9, 337–41, 343–4, 355–9, 369, 370, 373, 376, 379, 398, 411–12, 416, 421, 473 patronym 390, 406 Penny, R. 151 perfect 25–60, 279, 286, 296, 309, 340, 356, 360–1, 365, 367–71, 375–81 perfective 9, 258–9, 262–3, 284, 286, 289, 293–7, 300, 308–11, 313–14, 320, 327, 338, 340, 342–47, 356–7, 377, 446 periphrastic constructions 9, 258–60, 340, 356, 360–82, 476 Perkowski, J. 55, 64
523
person 8–9, 140, 143, 148, 158, 249, 260–1, 278–89, 300, 360, 367, 476 Pescarini, D. 146, 148–9 Pețan, A. 157 Petrovici, E. 69, 70, 145, 325 Petrucci, P. 325 Philippide, A. 333, 337, 365, 367, 372–75 pindean 3 Pinkster, H. 156, 333 Pittau, M. 165 pluperfect 260, 262, 277, 281–2, 284–90, 293–97, 309, 312, 314, 326, 343–5, 347, 353, 355, 362, 370–2, 377–8, 381 plurals (of nouns and adjectives) (see number) Poghirc, C. 143, 394, 427, 432 Polinsky, M. 55, 59 Polish 391, 402 politeness distinctions (see distance) polydefiniteness 212 Pop, S. 106, 307, 325, 354 popă 38, 40, 110, 303 Popescu, A. 201 Popescu, C. 365 Popușoi, C. 2 Portuguese 32, 265, 469 Posner, R. 430 possessives 249–56 adjectives 27, 113, 154, 206, 216–18, 249–54 affixes in kinship expressions 26–8, 86, 108, 124, 254–56
prea- 444 predicative position 457 predictability (in morphological paradigms) 1, 8, 38, 44–6, 51, 56, 58–9, 64, 66–7, 113, 474, 476 prefixation, prefix 9, 129, 191, 383, 387, 434, 438–6 prefixoid 446–8 prepositions 89, 93, 95–6, 157, 168–9, 215, 239–40, 242–4, 449–50 preterite 9, 258–63, 277, 279–80, 284, 287, 289–95, 309–14, 326–7, 328, 337, 342–5, 355, 365, 367, 370–1, 376, 378, 380–1 proclisis, proclitic 25–6, 74, 84–87, 143–4, 146, 149, 204–6, 228, 323, 472 Procopovici, A. 161, 198, 245, 248 pronouns 140–200 clitic 8, 27–8, 86, 96, 140–9, 151, 153, 155, 157, 158, 160, 191, 202–5, 207, 208, 209, 227, 231, 239, 243, 246, 248, 283, 304–5, 317, 322–3, 360, 366, 369, 373, 383, 461, 476
clitic clusters 144, 148 clitic doubling 140–1, 143, 461 interrogative 169, 191, 196
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
524 pronouns (cont.) non-personal 165, 175 personal 8, 140–1, 156–8, 160, 163–5, 167–8, 218, 246, 252–54, 258 pronominal adjectives 167, 169, 182, 194, 196, 251 pronominal inflexion 154, 165, 175, 219, 223, 251 reflexive 143, 147, 149, 158, 164, 246, 252 relative 160, 174, 183, 191, 195 stressed 140–3, 159–60, 163, 165, 167, 246 syllabic 144–9
proper names 26, 28–30, 86, 204, 206, 214, 216, 228, 387, 428, 476 proxy requests 153 Psaltirea Hurmuzaki 3, 73, 135, 294, 313, 326 Psaltirea Șcheiană 296 Psaltirea Voronețeană 294 Puglia 151 Pullum, G. 202, 209 Pușcariu, S. 17, 40, 66, 105, 110, 117, 119, 157, 161, 239, 248, 250, 265, 268, 277, 282–3, 290, 292, 296, 298–9, 303, 307, 317, 319, 322, 333–4, 341, 353, 364, 392, 400, 403 putea 317, 324 PYTA 308–15, 326, 327, 342
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
quantifier 89, 90, 167, 169, 192, 197–8, 220, 228, 473 Quiles Casas, C. 165 -ră (verb plural ending) 71, 73, 260, 284, 286–89, 344, 367 Rădulescu Sala, M. 384, 390, 438, 441, 447, 449 Raeto-Romance 39, 325 Rainer, F. 384, 391, 393, 396, 399, 412, 417, 424, 430, 445 raising (of vowels) 14, 67, 277, 343–4, 462 Ramat, P. 32, 187 răs- 441, 443–4, 446 -re 366, 367 realis 259 reflexive 158, 164, 191, 239, 246, 248, 252, 448 Remberger, E.-M. 143 Renwick, M. 275 Renzi, L. 2, 132, 151, 202, 207 Repetti, L. 10–1 resyllabification 141, 145, 149 rhizotony, rhizotonic forms 8, 265, 267–8, 290–2, 294–5, 309, 312, 326–7, 343–5, 348, 367 rhotacism 64, 105, 184, 189 Ricca, D. 32 Rîpeanu Reinheimer, S. 149, 150
Ripoll, A. 429 Rizescu, I. 55, 144, 442 Roberts, I. 140, 143, 149 Roceric, A. 158 Rohlfs, G. 151, 165, 187, 271, 325, 333, 367 Romanian, history of the language 2–4 Romansh 270–1, 474 root 7–9 Rosetti, A. 1, 15–16, 40, 73, 79, 110–13, 116, 132, 142, 148, 157, 161, 188, 191–2, 198, 203–4, 206, 209, 211, 227, 238, 240, 282, 285, 317–18, 320, 329, 337, 340–1, 352, 354, 365, 367, 469–72 Rothe, W. 1, 59, 99, 111, 274, 279, 282, 285, 316, 334 Russian 2, 5, 66, 253, 391, 402, 421, 424, 436, 447 Rusu, V. 40, 48, 72, 99, 336–7, 392 să 297 Sala, M. 1, 11–13, 15–17, 39, 48, 50, 73, 99, 112, 114, 116, 217, 284, 310, 312, 438, 471 Salvi, G. 27, 79, 140, 165–6, 168, 175, 177, 254, 333 Sánchez Miret, F. 211–2 Sandfeld, K. 79, 204, 340, 369, 372 Șandru, D. 206, 295 Saramandu, N. 160, 164–6, 184–5, 250, 254, 265, 280, 313, 337, 349, 353, 362, 370–1, 375–6, 418, 426, 437, 446, 469, 470–1, 473 Sârbu, R. 3, 219, 332, 375, 471 săva 196 Săvescu Ciucivara, O. 149 Scalise, S. 449, 460 Schön, I. 60–1 Schulte, K. 275–6 Scriban, A. 98, 107, 398 Scurtu, V. 10 -se (verb ending) 285, 293, 296 Seche, L. 448 segmentation 33–36, 43, 46, 50, 61, 82, 190, 366, 383, 384 Seidel, E. 470 Serbia 2, 3, 278 Serbian 192, 236, 307 sex-marking (suffix) 30, 115, 405–7 -și (as a final particle) 159, 180, 183, 191–2, 195–6, 235, 237–8, 245–8, 432, 450 -și (second person singular ending) 284, 286, 289, 294, 345 Șiadbei, I. 284–5 sigmatic forms 309–13, 315, 320, 326–8, 344 Șincai, G. 250, 363
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
singular (see number) Slavonic 2, 4, 26, 42, 47, 51, 79, 97–8, 132–4, 139, 156, 183, 192, 240, 259, 276, 319, 322, 325, 369–71, 383, 390–1, 394, 398, 402–3, 405–6, 408, 412–13, 424, 430, 436–8, 443–4, 449–50, 453, 463–4, 469, 470, 475–6
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
Old Church Slavonic 2, 192
Slavs 3 Soare, E. 358 soră, surori 35, 59, 82, 100–1, 104–5, 108–10 Sornicola, R. 140, 157–8 Șovar, G.-A. 256 Spanish 32, 182, 265, 292, 309, 389, 396, 426, 455 sta 287, 288, 292–94, 298, 302, 304, 313–14, 319, 417 Stan, C. 5, 84, 87–9, 168, 185, 199, 201–5, 208–9, 211–12, 214, 216, 219–20, 224–6, 228, 232–3, 323, 414, 417–18, 420, 447, 451, 456, 459–62, 468, 470, 472–3 Stati, S. 79 Stavinschi, A. 220, 235, 237 Ștefan, I. 288 stems 388, 393–96 Stoica, G. 79, 132–3, 226, 255 Stoichițoiu Ichim, A. 387, 407, 409, 417, 425, 438, 448 Streller, F. 299, 316–17 stress 6–10, 15, 25, 34–6, 44, 46–7, 51, 57, 62–3, 71, 80, 82, 104, 108, 126, 136, 142, 145, 152, 166, 179, 203, 211, 255, 258, 263–68, 280, 291–2, 294–5, 297, 302–3, 308–9, 314, 316–17, 326, 345–7, 385–89, 395, 408, 424, 439, 443 Stroici, L. 4 Strudsholm, E. 140 Strungaru, D. 51 subjunctive 1, 9, 12, 196, 259–63, 269, 272, 274, 276, 297–309, 316, 318–23, 334–6, 345, 350–53, 364, 368–76, 378–82, 461, 476 subordination 453, 464–5 suffixation, suffixes 383–438 abstract 411, 414 adjectival 422–4 agentive 394–400 augmentative 115, 177, 180, 388, 393, 394, 403, 423 competition between 416–21, 428 complex 388, 391, 394, 400, 405, 415, 427, 436 deadjectival 410, 413, 477 denominal 410, 413
525
deverbal 387, 410, 412–14, 417, 476–7 diminutive 47–8, 101, 239, 388–93, 426, 431 homonymy in 384, 430 multifunctional 422–3 neologistic 398, 400, 403, 408, 411–13, 417, 425, 431–2, 437 phonetic structure of 385–87 productivity of 391–94, 400, 404, 407, 425, 435–7, 440–1, 446 polysemy in 388, 393, 396 synonymy in 389, 392, 396, 400
suffixoid 446–8 supercompound verb forms 259, 260, 369, 373, 377–8, 382 superlative 229–31, 234–5 supine 1, 9, 245, 258, 262, 323, 328–32, 338, 340–1, 344, 356–59, 412, 414–16, 418–20, 431, 439, 475–6 suppletion 8, 47–8, 101, 113, 147–8, 154, 160, 162, 164–5, 249, 253, 292, 298, 307–08, 315–16, 318–20, 322, 390, 402 Šušnjevica 160 synaeresis 146, 147, 184 syncope 360 syncretism 8, 19, 21, 37, 40, 74, 75, 76–81, 96, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120–5, 132, 136–8, 141, 144, 148–9, 154, 159–60, 162–65, 167, 175, 209, 223, 256, 258–9, 278, 287–8, 297, 300, 321, 358, 360–1, 364, 367, 461 synthetic forms 141, 158, 168–9, 256, 258, 260, 262, 277, 279, 281, 285–87, 289–90, 295–97, 309, 314, 342, 370–1, 374, 376, 378–81 Tâlcul evangheliilor 313, 326 TAM 258–9 Țara Românească 106, 144, 158 Țărnareca 144, 160, 251, 280 Tasmowski, L. 150 tată 28, 38, 42, 104, 109–10, 213, 389 -te 248, 432 Teaha, T. 287, 307, 344 Tekavčić, P. 166, 271 tense 8, 9, 258, 289–97, 306, 317, 347, 369, 476 Teodorescu, M. 288, 361 thematic vowel 9, 72–3, 258–65, 268, 271, 273–75, 277–8, 283, 291–93, 296–7, 309–10, 312–14, 324–37, 348, 355–6, 385, 397, 412, 414, 423 Thomine, M.-C. 166, 168 Thornton, A. 154, 164 Thraco-Dacian 204
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/2/2021, SPi
526
Copyright © 2021. Oxford University Press USA - OSO. All rights reserved.
-ți (second person plural ending) 285, 306 Tiersma, P. 96 Tiktin, H. 46, 66, 99, 107, 113, 153, 282, 365 timpuri 34, 46, 57, 62 Titova, V. 365 Tiugan, M. 153 -toare 296, 384, 399, 412 Todoran, R. 329 toponym 4, 28, 38–9, 406 -tor, -tori, -toriu 40–1, 106, 118, 385, 387, 395–400, 408, 422 tot 162, 167, 169, 197–99, 248 trans-Danubian varieties 2, 11, 13, 79, 87, 132, 141–3, 145, 150, 162, 164–66, 169, 177, 192, 239, 242, 250, 253, 258–9, 263, 295, 303, 316, 332, 354, 370–72, 379, 382, 394, 403, 408, 426, 437–8, 446, 476 translation 4, 375 Transylvania, Transylvanian 3, 5, 49, 55, 73, 95, 106–7, 135, 144, 153, 157, 161, 166, 174, 180, 197, 217, 218, 250, 256, 272, 278, 280–1, 288–290, 293, 295, 303, 305, 307, 314, 319, 321, 329, 337, 339, 361, 367–8, 377, 381, 392, 432, 437 Transylvanian School 5 trebui 272–3, 411, 417 -tu (second person plural ending) 285, 289, 294 Tudose, C. 391–2, 405, 408 Turkish 47, 62, 307, 390, 398, 424, 426, 437 Tuten, D. 283 -u (inflexional ending in nouns, adjectives, and verbs) 15, 39–40, 42, 56, 59–61, 108, 116–18, 122, 133, 147, 149, 245, 254, 262, 278, 280, 282–3, 288, 291, 299, 355 U-pattern 351 -ui (as genitive-dative inflexion) 165, 175, 183–4, 188–9, 219, 223, 251 Ukraine 2, 206, 246, 292 Ukrainian 133 Ulivi, A. 148 Umbria 151 un(ul), una, ună (etc.) 142, 160–62, 167, 176, 182–88, 199, 219–20, 241 unaccusative 460–1 -uri (-ure) (plural desinence) 24, 31–36, 43, 46, 49–53, 56–58, 61–2, 64–66, 69–70, 76, 97, 102–5, 107, 122, 126, 211, 248, 474
Uriţescu, D. 72–3, 95, 305, 341, 371, 375, 377, 379, 381 Uță Bărbulescu, O. 154, 389 -va 191–2, 195 Väänänen, V. 59, 166, 271 vacă 28, 98 vare 187, 191, 193–95 Vasilescu, A. 24–9, 149–50, 156–8, 165, 220, 228, 246 Vasiliu, E. 16, 40, 211, 217–18, 329 Vasiliu, L. 389, 412, 434–6, 447, 449 veni 302, 311 vocative 1, 8, 20, 24, 26–7, 129–38, 257, 303, 475–6 diastratic use of 129, 137–8 in -e 20, 129–30, 132, 137–8, 303 in -o 24, 130, 133–4, 138, 475
voi (verb) 319 voice 398 Vrabie, E. 55, 64 vrea 364–68, 372, 374–76, 378–81 vreun(ul), vreo 187, 241 Vulpe, M. 49, 95, 141, 174, 206, 239, 241, 377, 381 Wagner, M. L. 143 Wallachia 5, 235–6, 288, 437 Weigand, G. 333, 361, 365, 366 wh- questions, relatives 169, 191 Wild, B. 97 Wilkinson, H. 61 writing system 2–5 yod 11–2, 17, 265, 308, 350–54, 397 ză- 442 Zafiu, R. 30, 150, 158, 191, 200, 216, 239, 246, 297, 323, 362, 365, 367, 371, 374–5, 380, 389, 392, 400, 408, 425, 439 Zamboni, A. 271 Zamfir, D.-M. 1, 108, 254, 267–8, 272–74, 276, 279, 281, 287, 299, 301–7, 312–15, 317–19, 336–7, 341, 345, 353, 361, 363–65, 367–8, 371–74, 376–82, 389 Zdrenghea, M. 135 Žejane 3, 69–70, 105, 277, 289, 320 zero endings 8, 64, 119, 339, 355 zi 34, 43, 46, 48–9, 51, 82 Zwicky, A. 202, 209