# Romance languages - possesive adjectives and definite articles



## xarruc

I would like to explore the possessive adjectives of the romance languages and in particular their use with a preceding definite article.

English: This is my book
Spanish: Este es mi libro
Catalan: Aquest és el meu libre [this is (the) my book]

The main romance languages provide:

With the article:

*Catalan:*

El meu
El teu
El seu
El nostre
El vostre
El seu (archaic llur (without article)

Aquest és el meu llibre

*Italian*


Il mio
Il tuo
Il suo
Il nostro
Il vostro
Il loro 
 
Questo é il mio libro

*Portuguese*


O meu
O teu
O seu
O nosso
O vosso
O seu

¿?


*And without the article*



*Spanish*


Mi
Tu
Su
Nuestro
Vuestro
Su

Este es mi libro.

*French*


Mon
Ton
Son
Notre
Votre
Leur

C’est mon libre

*Occitan*


Mon
Ton
Son
Nòstre
Vòstre
Lor

¿?


*- Rumanian - any helpers ?*

It is interesting to note that in Catalan there also exists a form on the French model (mon, ton, son) which do not take the article. I do not know if they are still in use in any dialects, but they are still currently used to describe parents, ie. _Aquest és mon pare_ (this is my father) but _Aquesta és la meva casa_ (this is my house).

I believe that in Italian the definite article can be dropped when describing parents.


I would like to discuss how this change happened. Why are Spanish, Occitan and French different to Italian, Catalan and Portuguese? It seems an unlikely distribution. Did Catalan adopt the use of the definite article at a later date, (perhaps through contact with Italy in its heyday as the kingdom of Aragon)? This would explain the archaic form (mon, ton, son) and leave a swathe of gallo-romance with the mon, ton, son form, without the article and perhaps explaining its absence in Spanish, however it would still leave Portuguese and Italian as isolates, and the Spanish form is more of a reduced meu teu seu (cf. tu su) form than a reduced mon, ton, son form.



Why does loro (etc) not take the definite article? Is it disappearing in Italian, Occitan and French as it has in Catalan and, presumably, did in Portuguese and Spanish (see below)?

Also is/was their a loro form in old Spanish or Portuguese? The loro (lor, leur, llur) goes with both meu, teu form (Catalan, Italian) and the mon, ton (French, Occitan) so one might expect it in both the other two too.

Are all the Italian regional languages (Sardú, Piedemontese etc. of the modern Italian type?


EDIT. It is il loro in Italian, with the article, not without, as I originally stated (see posts below). Thanks.


----------



## Jenikd43

Well, this is strictly speculation, but I think Latin's lack of articles may have a lot to do with it. Conceptually, in the case of Latin genitive pronouns and possessive adjectives, the word which shows possession and thusly modified the noun acted as an adjective (as modern possessive adjectives do). Thusly, in modern day languages such as Italian, the possessive adjective Mio Tuo Suo etc. acts ONLY as an adjective and as such the article must also be included. In this case Il *mio* libro and il *rosso* libro (*adjective usually found after the noun) serve the same function (modifying book) and thusly cause the article to stick as it would with any other adjective. In the case of languages which do not employ the article, I believe Latin's lack of articles can again come into play. Without the partitive case, it is implicit that any noun modified by a possessive adjective is definite and as such a definite article would be redundant. You can really find logic in both schools of thought.

again, this is the impression I get when I examined the potential logistics of the linguistic structures myself. I am by no means an expert and any opinions which might disprove my speculation or shed further light on the situation would be much appreciated.


----------



## Andre Balian

By the way, in Italian it should be _il loro_.  No exception here.


----------



## Jenikd43

I agree, I would be very confused if I saw the possessive loro without an article. I would assume it was an object.

E.G. it would always be "Damme il loro libro" etc. NEVER "Damme loro libro" The latter would make me question to whom the book was being given and is incorrect stylistically and grammatically.


----------



## OldAvatar

xarruc said:


> I would like to explore the possessive adjectives of the romance languages and in particular their use with a preceding definite article.
> 
> English: This is my book
> Spanish: Este es mi libro
> Catalan: Aquest és el meu libre [this is (the) my book]
> 
> 
> The main romance languages provide:
> 
> With the article:
> 
> *Catalan:*
> 
> El meu
> El teu
> El seu
> El nostre
> El vostre
> El seu (archaic llur (without article)
> 
> Aquest és el meu llibre
> 
> *Italian*
> 
> 
> Il mio
> Il tuo
> Il suo
> Il nostro
> Il vostro
> Il loro
> 
> Questo é il mio libro
> 
> *Portuguese*
> 
> 
> O meu
> O teu
> O seu
> O nosso
> O vosso
> O seu
> 
> ¿?
> 
> 
> *And without the article*
> 
> 
> 
> *Spanish*
> 
> 
> Mi
> Tu
> Su
> Nuestro
> Vuestro
> Su
> 
> Este es mi libro.
> 
> *French*
> 
> 
> Mon
> Ton
> Son
> Notre
> Votre
> Leur
> 
> C’est mon libre
> 
> *Occitan*
> 
> 
> Mon
> Ton
> Son
> Nòstre
> Vòstre
> Lor
> 
> ¿?



*- Romanian *
_feminine sg._
a mea
a ta
a noastră
a voastră
a ei (a sa)
a lui
a lor

_masculine sg.
_al meu
al tău
al nostru
al vostru
al ei
al lui (al său)
al lor

Aceasta este cartea mea.

If you want to substitute the substantive, you use *Aceasta este a mea. *Otherwise, *a* is not used.
For example:
– Whose this book?
– It's mine. 

– A cui este cartea?
– Este a mea!


----------



## Outsider

xarruc said:


> It is interesting to note that in Catalan there also exists a form on the French model (mon, ton, son) which do not take the article. I do not know if they are still in use in any dialects, but they are still currently used to describe parents, ie. _Aquest és mon pare_ (this is my father) but _Aquesta és la meva casa_ (this is my house).


In Portuguese also, the article before the possessive is dropped in certain dialects or contexts. 
I once heard that dropping the article is a more modern feature than keeping it, in the Romance languages in general.


----------



## pomar

Sardinian is not a Regional Italian, it's a separate romance language, which has two main variants, Campidanese and Logudorese. In both, we put the possessive after the noun:
*Sardinian Campidanese*
Su libru miu,
su libru tuu,
su libru suu,
su libru nostu,
_su libru bostu (not frequent, it is an ancient polite form, speaking to one person)_ 
normally we would say
su libru 'e bosatrus (lit: the book of you - plural)
su libru insoru.


----------



## xarruc

So in Romanian when the possesive is used as a pronoun the article is used and when it is an adjective it is not.

In Catalan it is the opposite, the article is not used with the pronoun.

És la meva casa
És meva.

It is also interesting to note that Sardinian uses the possesive like an ordinary adjective, placing it behind the noun. Catalan allows such a construction too: A casa meva (at my house), Oh, fill meu! (Oh, my son!) although I believe much less used than the standard _article-adjective-noun_. It is perhaps, with the exception of the very common _casa meva_, a style that is a little _affected_.



PS. Pomar, I didn't want to imply that Sardinian was a form of the Italian language, more that it was a language of a region of Italy, and hence a Italian regional language as opposed to a regional Italian language, if you follow. (Living in Catalanya I'm well aware of regional sensibilities when it comes to lanuages, so my apologies if I have inadvertently offended you).


----------



## OldAvatar

xarruc said:


> So in Romanian when the possesive is used as a pronoun the article is used and when it is an adjective it is not.
> 
> In Catalan it is the opposite, the article is not used with the pronoun.
> 
> És la meva casa
> És meva.
> 
> It is also interesting to note that Sardinian uses the possesive like an ordinary adjective, placing it behind the noun. Catalan allows such a construction too: A casa meva (at my house), Oh, fill meu! (Oh, my son!) although I believe much less used than the standard _article-adjective-noun_. It is perhaps, with the exception of the very common _casa meva_, a style that is a little _affected_.
> 
> 
> 
> PS. Pomar, I didn't want to imply that Sardinian was a form of the Italian language, more that it was a language of a region of Italy, and hence a Italian regional language as opposed to a regional Italian language, if you follow. (Living in Catalanya I'm well aware of regional sensibilities when it comes to lanuages, so my apologies if I have inadvertently offended you).



On the other hand, I consider the similarities between Catalan and Romanian as being amazing. There are some words and forms which are more similar between Catalan and Romanian than between Catalan and Spanish, for example...

Example:
Oh, fill meu! = Oh, fiul meu! (Romanian)
A casa meva = La casa mea (Romanian)


----------



## kernowseb

In the Sursilvan variant of Romansh, known as *Romontsch sursilvan*, the  attributive possessive adjectives are used without the definite article:

m. sg.  *miu* frar = my brother
f. sg.   *mia* sora = my sister
m. pl.   *mes* tgauns = my dogs
f. pl.    *mias *casas = my houses

the others possessive adjectives being:
tiu, tia, tes, tius = your
siu, sia, ses, sias = his, her, its
nies, nossa, nos, nossas = our
vies, vossa, vos, vossas = your
lur = their (invariable)

Uniquely, in this variant of Romansh, is the archaic use of a predicative possessive adjective, which is only used for masculine singular nouns and is the same as the masculine plural form:

il cudisch ei *mes* = the book is _mine_
ils cudischs ein *mes* = the books are _mine_

il tractur ei *tes* = the tractor is _yours_
ils tracturs ein *tes* = the tractors are _yours
_
But with feminine nouns the regular attributive possessive adjectives are used:

la casa ei *mia* = the house is _mine_
las casa ein *mias* = the houses are _mine
_
The substantive possessive adjectives are used with the definite article:

quei ei buca miu tractur, quei ei *il tiu* = this is not my tractor, this is _yours_
quei ei buca nossas casas, quei ei *las vossas* = these aren't our houses, they're _yours
_*mia* casa (my house) > *la mia* (mine)
*tes* tgauns (your dogs) > *ils tes* (yours)
*nies *auto (our car) > *il nies* (ours)
*vos* frars (your brothers) > *ils vos* (yours)


----------



## Whodunit

For Latin, it was possible to say _hic meus liber_ (this my book) or _hoc teum plaustrum _(this your truck). As far as I know, this is possible in many languages, but often sounds either dated or simply strange.


----------



## Outsider

kernowseb said:


> The substantive possessive adjectives are used with the definite article:
> 
> quei ei buca miu tractur, quei ei *il tiu* = this is not my tractor, this is _yours_
> quei ei buca nossas casas, quei ei *las vossas* = these aren't our houses, they're _yours
> _*mia* casa (my house) > *la mia* (mine)
> *tes* tgauns (your dogs) > *ils tes* (yours)
> *nies *auto (our car) > *il nies* (ours)
> *vos* frars (your brothers) > *ils vos* (yours)


I think that is so in every Romance language.



			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> For Latin, it was possible to say _hic meus liber_ (this my book) or _hoc teum plaustrum_ (this your truck). As far as I know, this is possible in many languages, but often sounds either dated or simply strange.


You can say it in Portuguese, and it does not sound dated or strange. However, we don't use that construction very often. Perhaps Latin used it in more contexts.

(P.S. There was a thread about this structure in the Cultural Discussions forum, if memory serves me.)


----------



## voltape

Spanish needs urgently a form for THEIR -  Su is a confusion  with his her, its, yours, etc.
Why can't Spanish have a form as Italian LORO, French LEUR, etc.   A Colombian scholar proposed to use LEURO -  LEURE - LEUROS - LEURES - Dr. Luis Lopez de Mesa.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Esta discusión está mal planteada por falta de datos. En protorromance es generalizado *illu (ipsu) meu libru*: _*o/el/le/son/al/su  meu/mi/mon/miu  libro/libre/libru/cartea/cudish*_ (la lista no es eshaustiva). En la historia de las lenguas algunas lo pierden y otras no (unas lenguas en ciertos casos son más progresivas que otras). Pero en los dialectos y variantes sigue perviviendo la forma antigua medieval con el artículo (todavía con cierto valor deíctico), por ejemplo en el español asturiano se sigue oyendo y aparece a veces en la lengua poética. La supresión del artículo da más fuerza expresiva al posesivo, pero la expresión pierde fuerza deíctica.


----------



## Hulalessar

voltape said:


> Spanish needs urgently a form for THEIR -  Su is a confusion  with his her, its, yours, etc.
> Why can't Spanish have a form as Italian LORO, French LEUR, etc.   A Colombian scholar proposed to use LEURO -  LEURE - LEUROS - LEURES - Dr. Luis Lopez de Mesa.



Spanish reflects the fact that Latin only had _suus_.

I do not think that Spanish _needs _a word for _their _any more than it _needs _to distinguish between _his_, _hers _or _its._ Whoever the third person possessor is is usually clear from the context and if not can be clarified by adding _de él _or _de ellas_ etc. It is simply the case that languages differ in what they require to be specified. Indeed, Spanish often does without a possessive where it is required in English, e.g._ Dame la mano_; English _Give me the hand_ very strongly suggests you are referring to a hand that is not connected to anyone's arm.


----------



## jazyk

> Spanish reflects the fact that Latin only had _suus_.


Latin also had illorum. That explains why Catalan, Romanian and French (more?) also have it.


----------



## Hulalessar

jazyk said:


> Latin also had illorum. That explains why Catalan, Romanian and French (more?) also have it.



True, but the point is that _suus _means _his_, _hers _its and _their_. Further, _illorum _had the singular equivalent _illius_. Suus usually refers to the subject of a sentence.


----------



## Istriano

In Brazilian Portuguese (general), the article usage is *optional*:

1. in formal written language articles are _not preferred_:

_ Sua casa _(your house), _a sua casa_ (to your house),
_antes de seus pais chegarem_ (prior to the arrival of your parents).

2. in many regional dialects, articles are not preferred (baiano for example),
they are more used than the articleless variant:

_Meu amigo_ (my friend),  less frequently:_ O meu amigo_ (my friend).

3. in other regions/situations there are many situations where the article is never used:

_por sua causa _(because of you), and never _pela sua causa._
_a meu ver_ (in my opinion), and never _ao meu ver._
_Meu Deus!_ (Oh my God) vocative

4. in Rio, Espírito Santo and Minas, the article is normally dismissed at the very
   beginning of a phrase:

_Meu computador_ is somewhat more common than_ O meu computador_,


   When the article contracts with a preposition, the article is preferred:

_ Do meu computador _is more common than _De meu computador._

  When there is no contraction, article is normally omitted:

_para sua mãe_ (to your mother) rather than _para a sua mãe_

  (because it's shorter and because it's pronounced as: _pra sua mãe_ in speech;
   but notice _pro seu pai _! the contraction is easily visible and ''seen'' here).


Conclusion, the of articles with possessive adjectives is optional, more used in speech, less used in writing. With some expressions the article cannot be used (_a meu ver, por sua causa_)...Even in regions where article is not used with personal names (like Niterói-RJ, Bahia or Espírito Santo), definite articles can be used with possessive adjectives, but they can be omitted too.

Spoken language:
_
São Paulo_: *o* João, *o* meu pai, por sua causa

_Rio_: *o* João, *(o)* meu pai, por sua causa

_Niterói-RJ, Espírito Santo, Bahia_:  João, *(o) *meu pai, por sua causa


PS
1.
In all varieties of Portuguese, one says:  _Esse/o livro é meu_ and not _Esse/o livro é o meu._
That is, they function here as possessive pronouns _mine _and _yours _in English, definite article is not used
(indefinite article may be used tho': _um amigo meu = a friend of mine_)

2.
With expressions that are used after the noun, the article is always used:  _O carro dela (_Her car), not_ Carro dela_
(Not to confuse: _Estou com medo dela. _= I'm scared of her (no article) with a nonsense phrase: _Estou com o medo dela_ (I am with her fear)  
_Medo dela _(Afraid of her) is an expression (mimicking Latin genitive) and not a possessive, that's why no article).


----------



## Istriano

Hulalessar said:


> Spanish reflects the fact that Latin only had _suus_.
> 
> I do not think that Spanish _needs _a word for _their _any more than it _needs _to distinguish between _his_, _hers _or _its._ Whoever the third person possessor is is usually clear from the context and if not can be clarified by adding _de él _or _de ellas_ etc. It is simply the case that languages differ in what they require to be specified. Indeed, Spanish often does without a possessive where it is required in English, e.g._ Dame la mano_; English _Give me the hand_ very strongly suggests you are referring to a hand that is not connected to anyone's arm.



Colloquial CostaRican Spanish is similar to colloquial Brazilian Portuguese:

your = su/seu  or  tu/teu
his = de él/dele
her = de ella /dela
their = de ellos /deles
your (pl) = de Ustedes / de vocês



*Seu carro e o de vocês *= your (singular) car and your (plural) car 
_(*Seu carro e o dela*_ = your (singular) car and hers)

 In peninsular Portuguese and Spanish it is also very clear:

_O teu carro e o vosso.
Tu coche y el vuestro.

It is in English where you have rephrase it:
_The car of yours and the one of you guys._ 




_


----------



## Istriano

In Italian article is omitted in vocatives and with close family members:
_mio babbo_ (my pop), _tua zia_ (your ant),_ nostro figlio_ (our son)
not_ il mio babbo, la tua zia, il nostro figlio_

But with plurals and diminutives, the article is restored:
_le tue zie _(your aunts),_ il nostro figliuolo_ (our little son, our sonny  )


----------



## jazyk

> _a meu ver_ (in my opinion), and never _ao meu ver._


I've seen _ao meu ver _and so has Google. Never say never in languages.


----------



## Favara

xarruc said:


> It is interesting to note that in Catalan there also exists a form on the French model (mon, ton, son) which do not take the article. I do not know if they are still in use in any dialects, but they are still currently used to describe parents, ie. _Aquest és mon pare_ (this is my father) but _Aquesta és la meva casa_ (this is my house).


Valencian dialects use _mon/ton/son_ with several positions in the family (parents, uncle/aunt, grandparents & older... _mon pare, ta tia, son rebesavi_), and the words "house" and "life" (_ta casa, sa vida_).
_Mallorquí de la Marina_, which is a Majorcan dialect completely surrounded by Southern Valencian, also does this, but they add "of him/her" whenever they use _sa_ as a possessive, since it's also a definite article for them. "The house" -> _sa casa_; "his house" -> _sa casa d'ell_. I don't know how they do it in the islands (Mallorquí de la Marina is actually spoken in the continent), maybe they've lost this trait there.

On the other hand, _llur_ is completely extinct here.


----------



## olaszinho

Istriano said:


> In Italian article is omitted in vocatives and with close family members:
> _mio babbo_ (my pop), _tua zia_ (your ant),_ nostro figlio_ (our son)
> not_ il mio babbo, la tua zia, il nostro figlio_
> 
> But with plurals and diminutives, the article is restored:
> _le tue zie _(your aunts),_ il nostro figliuolo_ (our little son, our sonny  )


 
Il mio babbo is correct! I have never heard mio babbo without the article.
La mia mamma is more correct than mia mamma although the latter is more used in the North.
Mio figlio but i miei figli (my son/s)
mia figlia - le mie figlie (my daughter/s)
mio padre (my father)
mia madre (my mother)
mio cugino - i miei cugini (my cousin/s
mia suocera  (my mother in law) and so on


----------



## Istriano

jazyk said:


> I've seen _ao meu ver _and so has Google. Never say never in languages.




Google has also ''vi ela'' instead of ''vi-a'' 

http://ciberduvidas.com/pergunta.php?id=3678



> Diz-se *ao seu dispor*, mas *a meu ver*. Julgo não haver  regras, é questão de uso. Nestas expressões, o artigo «enfiou» numa e na  outra não, e assim cristalizou.


----------



## Istriano

olaszinho said:


> Il mio babbo is correct! I have never heard mio babbo without the article.
> La mia mamma is more correct than mia mamma although the latter is more used in the North.
> Mio figlio but i miei figli (my son/s)
> mia figlia - le mie figlie (my daughter/s)
> mio padre (my father)
> mia madre (my mother)
> mio cugino - i miei cugini (my cousin/s
> mia suocera  (my mother in law) and so on



Well to be frank, we don't use either _mio babbo_ or_ il mio babbo_ in Vèneto. 



> Mio babbo ha comprato la moto nuova!!


http://www.motoclub-tingavert.it/t120599s.html


----------



## jazyk

> Google has also ''vi ela'' instead of ''vi-a''
> 
> http://ciberduvidas.com/pergunta.php?id=3678


I know that. We are not talking about what is correct or not under a normative point of view, but what happens or not in a given language under a descriptive view, which, by the way, seems to be your preferred approach. Why the change now?


----------

