# Possessive adjective "Their" in French and Italian



## merquiades

In Iberian Romance languages there is no difference between the singular possessive pronoun his/her and the plural possessive pronoun their
_Su(s) amigo(s)_ / _O(s) seu(s) amigo(s)..............._    His/her/ their (male) friend(s)
_Su(s) amiga(s)_ /  _A(s) sua(s) amiga(s)..............._   His/ her/ their (male) friend(s)
Though I don't know Latin, it looks like Iberian languages inherited this trait directly from Latin:  _meus, teus, suus, noster, vester, suus_

However, in French and Italian the cognate of the aforementioned inherited forms is nowadays only used in the singular possessive, and an other form _leur(s) / loro_ is used for the plural possessive pronoun
_Son copain  / Ses copains.........._His/her male friend(s)/ buddies ..................  _Leur(s) copain(s).......... _Their male friend(s)
_Sa copine / Ses copines............_ His/her  female friend(s)/buddies..................._Leur(s) copine(s).........._ Their female friend(s)
I used _copain/ copine_ rahter than ami(e) so gender is shown easily and there are no unneeded irregularities

_Il suo amico / I suoi amici..............._His/her male friend(s).........................._Il loro amico / I loro amici..................._Their male friend(s)
_La sua amica / Le sue amiche.....,,,_His/her female friend(s)....................._La loro amica / Le loro amiche.........._Their female friend(s)


A few questions arise.
1)  Where does the_ leur(s)_ / _loro_ form come from?  It is not in the Latin paradigm
2)  It seems rather clumsy and out of place.  In French because it doesn't agree in gender, and in Italian because it neither agrees in gender or number.  It is as if it were taken from some other source, out of context, then used to establish this difference between singular/ plural that these Romance languages started to feel they needed. Why was _leur/loro_ not adapted to agree in gender and number like the other possessive adjectives?  The -s in French is silent so it could have been stuck on in recent years.
3)  Might this other source be in fact the third person plural indirect object pronoun which is also _leur_ in French and _loro_ in Italian.?  _Je leur écris une lettre_ / _Io scrivo loro una lettera_.  By the way, this indirect object pronoun is also weird in Italian because it follows the verb instead of precedes it like all the other object pronouns.
4)  Actually _Loro_ also corresponds to the subject pronoun _They_ in Italian.  So you could theoretically have a sentence that goes like:   _Loro scrivono loro la loro lettera  _which is odd because you have a word ending in -o used for plural, not agreeing at all, and used for three different functions.

Does anyone know of the origin of _Leur / Loro_ and can shed a light on how and why it was adopted into French and Italian?


----------



## bearded

merquiades said:


> Where does the_ leur(s)_ / _loro_ form come from? It is not in the Latin paradigm


Hello
The origin is the plural genitive _illorum _from the demonstrative adjective/pronoun _ille. _In French and Italian it is also - by extension - used for dative or nominative cases, as you have remarked. The perception of cases and their meaning was lost - or was confused - during the early stages of those languages.
As for the Latin usage, please note that _suus _was used in sentences where the possessive referred to the same persons/subjects of the sentence, whereas illorum/illarum or eorum/earum was used as a possessive referring to persons other than the subject (third parties). _Veniunt ad urbem suam = _they come to their own city, _veniunt ad illorum urbem/urbem illorum = _they come to the city of those people. Italian ''(essi) vengono nella loro città'' is of course ambiguous, as it may mean both and can only be distinguished by context.


----------



## danielstan

Same paradigm is used in Romanian based on Latin _illorum_:
_Amicul său / Amicii săi..............._His/her male friend(s).........................._Amicul lor / Amicii lor..................._Their male friend(s)
_Amica sa / Amicele sale..........,,,_His/her female friend(s)....................._Amica lor / Amicele lor.........._Their female friend(s)

_"Ei vin în orașul *lor*" _- has the same ambiguity as in Italian.


----------



## Swatters

merquiades said:


> It seems rather clumsy and out of place. In French because it doesn't agree in gender



It fits in that regard the other possessive articles with plural referents: vos/votre and nos/notre only show number contrast, like leur/leurs does.

Old French maintains traces of -or used as a genitive plural suffix (for both genders), although by then it had lost productivity and starts showing signs of being reinterpreted as an adjectival suffix for groups of humans: Li livres paienor (the.NOM.SG book-NOM.SG pagan-GEN.PL, the book of the pagans) starts appearing as Li livres paienors (the.NOM.SG book-NOM.SG pagan-NOM.SG, the pagan book).

The extension of this -or suffix to the dative plural seems to only have happened with pronouns: one text preserves the form "celor" of the demonstrative pronoun, echoing "lor": "li celor salus" in the Sermon sur Jonas (beginning of the 10th century). You'd expect "li lor saluz" in later texts


----------



## Sardokan1.0

In Sardinian works in a similar way, but instead of using a derivative of _"illorum"_ we use a derivative of _"ipsorum"

S'amigu sou / Sos amigos suos....._His/her male friend(s).................._S'amigu *issòro */ Sos amigos *issòro*.........._Their male friend(s)
_S'amiga sua / Sas amigas suas....._His/her female friend(s).............._S'amiga *issòro */ Sas amigas *issòro*.........._Their female friend(s)


----------



## Dymn

In *Catalan *there's also _llur_, used without the article in literary language and with the article in Northern Catalonia. It agrees in number but not in gender:

_el seu amic / els seus amics... (el) llur amic / (els) llurs amics
la seva amiga / les seves amigues...  (la) llur amiga / (les) llurs amigues_


----------



## Penyafort

Also in Medieval Aragonese *lor*(s) / *lur*(s) :

_Quando foron los godos entrados en Espanna, leuantoron rei de *lor *lignage._​_Deuen auer *lur* conseillo en comun sobre aqueill pleito_​_E possediscan la villa d'Aynnues y el molino con todos *lores *dreytos_​_Deuen los fieles partir *lures *mollones et fer lures sennales._​​​


----------



## merquiades

bearded said:


> Hello
> The origin is the plural genitive _illorum _from the demonstrative adjective/pronoun _ille. _In French and Italian it is also - by extension - used for dative or nominative cases, as you have remarked. The perception of cases and their meaning was lost - or was confused - during the early stages of those languages.
> As for the Latin usage, please note that _suus _was used in sentences where the possessive referred to the same persons/subjects of the sentence, whereas illorum/illarum or eorum/earum was used as a possessive referring to persons other than the subject (third parties). _Veniunt ad urbem suam = _they come to their own city, _veniunt ad illorum urbem/urbem illorum = _they come to the city of those people. Italian ''(essi) vengono nella loro città'' is of course ambiguous, as it may mean both and can only be distinguished by context.


  Thanks.   So _illorum_ came from genitive plural and is a pronoun.   That means that _ leur(s) ami(e)(s)_ and _ il/la/i/le  loro amico/i/a/e _ literally mean the friend(s) of those people.  This would certainly explain why there is no agreement.  I wonder why over the centuries the common folk didn't reevaluate as an adjective and start making agreements.
It is harder to rationalize why _illorum_ was applied as an indirect object pronoun
_Je leur parle / Io parlo loro_ is literally  I speak of those people rather than I speak to those people
And then what to make of it becoming the third person subject pronoun in Italian too??? 


Swatters said:


> It fits in that regard the other possessive articles with plural referents: vos/votre and nos/notre only show number contrast, like leur/leurs does.
> 
> Old French maintains traces of -or used as a genitive plural suffix (for both genders), although by then it had lost productivity and starts showing signs of being reinterpreted as an adjectival suffix for groups of humans: Li livres paienor (the.NOM.SG book-NOM.SG pagan-GEN.PL, the book of the pagans) starts appearing as Li livres paienors (the.NOM.SG book-NOM.SG pagan-NOM.SG, the pagan book).
> 
> The extension of this -or suffix to the dative plural seems to only have happened with pronouns: one text preserves the form "celor" of the demonstrative pronoun, echoing "lor": "li celor salus" in the Sermon sur Jonas (beginning of the 10th century). You'd expect "li lor saluz" in later texts


   I wouldn't put _leur/s_ in the same category as _notre/nos _and _votre/vos_.  Besides the difference in origin, the plural inflection is silent in French.  The plural -s in _leurs_could have been tacked on since the 14th century to match _nos_ and _vos_.


Dymn said:


> In *Catalan *there's also _llur_, used without the article in literary language and with the article in Northern Catalonia. It agrees in number but not in gender:
> 
> _el seu amic / els seus amics... (el) llur amic / (els) llurs amics
> la seva amiga / les seves amigues...  (la) llur amiga / (les) llurs amigues_


  In French Catalonia is _llur(s)  _in daily use?   Is the -s pronounced?  I don't think I have every heard anyone use this form.   I guess I woud have noticed.   Is it used much in Spain nowadays?  Do you use it?  Would _llur_ have dropped out of use or was it always highfalutin?  It could have been original use, but it's rare to lose a possessive adjective.  Perhaps it was seen as bizarre due to no gender agreement.

@Penyafort.  Aragonese looks beautiful.  Like a Catalan that hasn't dropped final vowels.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

merquiades said:


> It is harder to rationalize why _illorum_ was applied as an indirect object pronoun
> _Je leur parle / Io parlo loro_ is literally I speak of those people rather than I speak to those people
> And then what to make of it becoming the third person subject pronoun in Italian too???



I've always found this a really weird thing, this feature never developed in Sardinia, which in the phrases you mentioned instead uses "lis" shortened version of "illis" (to them) : _Je leur parle / Io parlo loro -> Eo lis faeddo (literally "ego illis fabello")_

While the third person subject pronoun is "issos /issas" (ipsos, ipsas).


----------



## merquiades

@Sardokan1.0 _Lis_ reminds me of _les_ in Castilian Spanish.  It seem Sardinian always prefers adopting  _ipsus _even for the definite article.


----------



## Zec

I think the fact that the Latin genitive _illorum_ started being used as dative can only be understood in the context of the general confusion of dative and genitive cases in early Romance, for example in Romanian the two cases merged, with the dative ending being used in the singular and the genitive ending in the plural (best seen in the suffixed article, I think).


----------



## Dymn

merquiades said:


> In French Catalonia is _llur(s) _in daily use? Is the -s pronounced?


Yes and yes (final _-s_ are always pronounced in Catalan).



merquiades said:


> I don't think I have every heard anyone use this form. I guess I woud have noticed. Is it used much in Spain nowadays? Do you use it?


Actually some places in the Spanish side of the border do seem to maintain this pronoun. DCVB (carried out in the 20s) quotes the following places (French Catalonia and a significant part of Girona province):



			
				DCVB said:
			
		

> En el llenguatge vulgar ha perdut molta vitalitat aquest possessiu, substituït per _seu; _però encara es conserva en el parlar viu de la Catalunya francesa (afavorit pel fr. _leur_) i a les comarques d'Agullana, Maçanet de C., Arbúcies, Vilabertran, Ripoll, Olot, Banyoles, Besalú i fins a Collsacabra.



On the other hand the ALDC (in the 60s) only attests "_llur"_ in a small village near the border. Note that they use the form "_llura" _for the feminine (I didn't know), so it seems this pronoun has been adapted both in number and in gender in these dialects.

Other than that, "_llur" _is archaic/literary in the rest of the territory. It seems "_seu" _for singular possessors was only rarely used in the old language. I wouldn't discard this extension in meaning of "_seu_" being a result of Spanish influence.

Also, you may be interested that "_llur" _was also used as the 3rd person plural dative in Old Catalan as well (I didn't know either):



			
				DCVB said:
			
		

> II. ant. _pron. _personal de tercera persona plural en cas datiu; cast. _les. _Les gents lur donen ofrenes, Llull Cont. 110. Aquest amor que ells veen que vós lur avets, ibid. 99. S'usava sovint la forma de plural analògic _llurs _i la contracta _lus. _Que y sien tots per nós, e que nós lus donem cap, doc. a. 1285 (Capmany Mem. iv, 13). L'ermità lus ensenya la carrera, Llull Sta. Mar. 12. Totes vegades que'l ne requiren, lurs mostrarà los comptes, doc. a. 1378 (Capmany Mem. ii, 153). No veya que esperit ni altra cosa llurs isqués del cors, Metge Somni i. Ço que ara llurs plau, adés llurs desplaurà, ibid. i. Nós lus scrivim de present per nostres letres privades..., per què presentats-lus aquelles, doc. a. 1404 (AST, xiv, 154).



In modern Catalan this is "_els" _(same as the accusative pronoun), or "_els hi" _in colloquial Central Catalan.


----------



## bearded

merquiades said:


> _Je leur parle / Io parlo loro_ is literally I speak of those people rather than I speak to those people
> And then what to make of it becoming the third person subject pronoun in Italian too???


As I wrote, there was a confusion in the perception of cases at the early stages of the Romance languages. However, also in (colloquial) Italian we can use _gli (_from 'illis') instead of _loro _as a plural dative (= to them). _Incontro quegli uomini e gli parlo = _I meet those men and speak to hem (_….e parlo loro_ is more literary standard).


----------



## Sardokan1.0

merquiades said:


> @Sardokan1.0 _Lis_ reminds me of _les_ in Castilian Spanish.  It seem Sardinian always prefers adopting  _ipsus _even for the definite article.



For both articles and pronouns

Articles : _su / sa -> plural "sos / sas" (northern Sardinian) plural "is" (southern Sardinian)_
Pronouns : _issu (he), issa (she), isse (he, it) -> plural "issos / issas"_


----------



## merquiades

bearded said:


> As I wrote, there was a confusion in the perception of cases at the early stages of the Romance languages. However, also in (colloquial) Italian we can use _gli (_from 'illis') instead of _loro _as a plural dative (= to them). _Incontro quegli uomini e gli parlo = _I meet those men and speak to hem (_….e parlo loro_ is more literary standard).


Ok, I thought_ gli_ was the singular dative pronoun.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

merquiades said:


> Ok, I thought_ gli_ was the singular dative pronoun.



Most of people use it also as plural even if it's grammatically incorrect.

Instead of "io parlo loro" most of people commonly say "io gli parlo"

Ho detto loro -> Gli ho detto (for both plural and singular)


----------



## danielstan

Zec said:


> I think the fact that the Latin genitive _illorum_ started being used as dative can only be understood in the context of the general confusion of dative and genitive cases in early Romance, for example in Romanian the two cases merged, with the dative ending being used in the singular and the genitive ending in the plural (best seen in the suffixed article, I think).



1. The genitive-dative confusion appears in Late Vulgar Latin / early Romance: Vulgata: _hoc illorum dictum est_), inscriptions from Balkans.
In my opinion the disappearance of the final _-s_ in Eastern Romance had a significant contribution to this situation.
2. The same genitive-dative confusion is a feature of the Balkan Sprachbund (Romanian, Albanian, Bulgarian/Macedonian, modern Greek).
See this concise paper at page 74: http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL19/pdf_doc/04.pdf

This matter is quite complex, while the linguists are not in agreement for a generally accepted theory:
is the Vulgar Latin the source of the G-D syncretism in Balkan Sprachbund?


----------



## Swatters

merquiades said:


> I wouldn't put _leur/s_ in the same category as _notre/nos _and _votre/vos_. Besides the difference in origin, the plural inflection is silent in French. The plural -s in _leurs_could have been tacked on since the 14th century to match _nos_ and _vos_.



It's a determiner, so the /z/ is systematically audible when followed by a vowel. According to the TLFi, the earliest attestation of an inflected _leurs_ dates from the late 12th century (Benoît de St-Maure's Chronique des Ducs de Normandie, an Anglo-Norman text in verse), but I can't find their cited excerpt in the text ("il tendent *lors *paveillons") and the poem seems to consistently use _lor _with nominative sg and accusative pl nouns.

What I did find however, searching for the sequence "lors paveillons" is the First Crusade cycle, a series of epic poems contemporary with the _Chronique_ and where several acc pl lors can be found: "Robers li Frisons se herberga a le porte devers Capharnaon et fu aveuc lui Engerrans de Saint Pol et Hues ses peres et sont bien compaignons et ont *lors *paveillons tendés" (Chanson d'Antioche) ; "Puis font sonner *lors *cors" (Chanson de Jérusalem). So it's old! 

By the 14th century, it has indeed generalised, but again, liaison would have been systematic by then.


----------

