# Portuguese and Romanian eu / meu



## avok

Hi,

Both in Portuguese and Romanian "eu/meu" means "I/my" respectively. 

What might have caused those two rather distant neo-latin languages to have identical words for "I" and "my" ?

Thanks,


----------



## FranParis

Both countries were invaded by Romans during similar periods.

Local populations learned the low-latin words from the invaders and kept them.


----------



## Flaminius

Hello avok,

If you assume by asking "[w]hat might have caused (...) ?" that the identical forms are due to common influences, my findings would disappoint you. At least _meu_ has been formed in different courses of phonological vicissitude.

The Romanian _meu_ is part of the demonstrative inflection system where the Latin paradigm is well-preserved (all references to Romanian forms are taken from here).

　　　　Masculine,     　Feminine,     　Neutrum     
singular: al meu,     　　a mea,     　　al meu
plural　: ai mei, 　　ale mele, 　　ale mele

Each of the genitive forms for the first person singular can be deduced from the nominative forms of the Latin possessive adjective _meus_ (_meus_, _mea_, _meum_; _mei_, _meae_, _mea_ with phonological changes known for the formation of Romance languages).  The _-le_ for the plural forms are part of the definite marker, which is a Romanian-specific innovation.

The Romanian personal pronouns, not just the genitive forms of other persons and numbers, generally attest to Latin origin.  The most striking are _îmi_ (< L. _mihi_) and _te_ (< L. _te_).  The most plausible origin of the Romanian _meu_ is the Latin _meus_ undergoing loss of the final _-s_.

The Portuguese _meu_ is situated in a paradigm quite different from that of the Romanian counterpart (all references to Romanian forms are taken from here).

masc. sing.　　　fem. sing.　　　masc. plur.　　　fem. plur.
　　　meu　　　　　minha　　　　　　　meus　　　　minhas

The Latin legacy fails to explain the plural marker _-s_, which appears in both the masculine and the feminine forms.  This and the feminine _-nha_ suggest that the Portuguese system is a few more steps down the developmental road than the Romanian one is.  I understand that _meu_ itself also derives from a secondary formation, irrelevant of the Latin nominative _meus_.

In all Romance languages that employ _-s_ as the plural marker for both genders, the morphological system for nouns and adjectives was created from the accusative forms of the first and the second declensions of Latin.

　masc. sing.　　　fem. sing.　　　masc. plur.　　　fem. plur.
　-o (< -um)　　　-a (< -am)　　　　　　-os　　　　　　　-as

The singular forms had already lost the final _-m_ to vowel nasalisation before the establishment of the Imperial Rome.  The vowels were later de-nasalised perhaps with influence from the dative and ablative forms.  It is very likely that this _meu_ was derived from *_meo_ in Romance or Vulgar Latin, which is _meum_ undergoing nasalisation and vowel changes.

If you have more questions on morphological comparisons you might find this thread of interest.


----------



## Outsider

Flaminius said:


> The Portuguese _meu_ is situated in a paradigm quite different from that of the Romanian counterpart (all references to Romanian Portuguese forms are taken from here).
> 
> masc. sing.　　　fem. sing.　　　masc. plur.　　　fem. plur.
> meu　　　　　minha　　　　　　　meus　　　　minhas
> 
> The Latin legacy fails to explain the plural marker _-s_, which appears in both the masculine and the feminine forms.


I thought the explanation was the same as always: from the Latin accusative plural.  



Flaminius said:


> This and the feminine _-nha_ suggest that the Portuguese system is a few more steps down the developmental road than the Romanian one is.


No mystery there:

mea > mia > minha (by dissimilation)

Here are the Latin possessive pronouns.


----------



## avok

Flaminius said:


> Hello avok,
> 
> If you assume by asking "[w]hat might have caused (...) ?" that the identical forms are due to common influences, my findings would disappoint you. At least _meu_ has been formed in different courses of phonological vicissitude.
> 
> If you have more questions on morphological comparisons you might find this thread of interest.


 
Yes, I thought that the identical forms are due to common influences. 

Even in Spanish which is the closest and closest sister language of Portuguese  it is : "Yo / mi" for "eu / meu" which happen to be the same both in Portuguese and Romanian. I found that interesting.


----------



## Outsider

avok said:


> Even in Spanish which is the closest and closest sister language of Portuguese  it is : "Yo / mi" for "eu / meu" which happen to be the same both in Portuguese and Romanian. I found that interesting.


But the possessive pronoun is _mío_ (_el mío_).
A look at the corresponding Italian pronouns might also be enlightening.


----------



## Flaminius

Outsider said:
			
		

> No mystery there:
> 
> mea > mia > minha (by dissimilation)


Ah okay.  I didn't know that _minha_ is derived from _mea_.  This makes all the explanations more transparent.  Yes, as you say, the Portuguese forms are all from  Latin accusatives.

By the way, does anyone know the derivational processes for _eu_?  Additionally, are the processes for _eu_ somehow related to those for _meu_ in respective languages?


----------



## Outsider

Flaminius said:


> By the way, does anyone know the derivational processes for _eu_?  Additionally, are the processes for _eu_ somehow related to those for _meu_ in respective languages?


Probably. In ancient Portuguese, the ending we now spell -_eu_ was often spelled -_eo_. This suggests:

ego > eo (with hiatus) > eu (diphthong)​The difference between Spanish and Portuguese in these cases is that in Spanish stress slipped to the last vowel (ego > eo > eó > yo), while in Portuguese the first vowel remained stressed, and it was the last vowel that was weakened, and raised (o > u).

As for the possessive, I assume that the development in Spanish was similar to the one in Italian:

meu(m) > meo > mio​But then, in a development characteristic of Spanish, the proclitic versions of this pronoun underwent apocope, losing the final, unstressed vowel, so that today you have both:

_mío, mía_ (stressed possessive pronouns)
along with 
_mi_ for both genders (proclitic possessive determiner)​In Portuguese, the evolution seems to have been similar to the one of _ego_. I think the -_nh_- in _minha_ was a later, possibly analogical dissimilation. You can still read _mia_ (sometimes _mha_) in medieval texts.

(N.B. I have not checked these derivations rigorously.)


----------



## avok

So, to sum it up, portuguese "eu/meu" and Romanian "eu/meu" both come from the same Latin words but their cases are different?


----------



## Flaminius

> (...) from the same Latin words but their cases are different?


That's for _meu_.  The origin of Rm., Pt. _eu_ is invariably L. _ego_ in nominative (the accusative is _me_, so L. _me_ > Pt. _eu_ is impossible).


----------



## avok

Then, do you know people why both Romanian and Portuguese decided upon "eu". Why did the Latin word become "eu" in both languages? just a coincidence?


----------



## OldAvatar

avok said:


> Then, do you know people why both Romanian and Portuguese decided upon "eu". Why did the Latin word become "eu" in both languages? just a coincidence?



_Eu_ in modern Romanian is more of a convention. Ancient Romanian had the word _io_, in both written and spoken language. Even today, many people pronounce it _io_, like in Italian, instead of the written form _eu_.


----------



## avok

OldAvatar said:


> _Eu_ in modern Romanian is more of a convention. Ancient Romanian had the word _io_, in both written and spoken language. Even today, many people pronounce it _io_, like in Italian, instead of the written form _eu_.


 
Thats interesting ! By convention what do you exactly mean?


----------



## OldAvatar

avok said:


> Thats interesting ! By convention what do you exactly mean?



I don't have a precise information about the period when the word _eu_ was officialized as it is now. But considering that all old texts used _io_ and no _eu_, I presume that the use of _eu_ became mandatory in XIXth century, when the process of „modernisation” of Romanian language took place.


----------



## avok

It's getting more interesting  But how come it was thought that "eu" is more modern than "io"?


----------



## OldAvatar

I can only think that the scholars who made the reform of Romanian language, in their efforts to bring the Romanian closer to Romance languages, especially to French, wanted to have a word that would be similar in pronunciation with French pronoun _je._
Anyway, I find that interesting too, I'll have a look, hoping that I'll find a reliable source able to reveal why such a change was made.


----------



## Outsider

It seems more likely to me that they wanted a spelling that was as close to Latin as possible. But I'm still a little surprised by this. I thought that the Romanian orthography was fairly phonemic!...


----------



## OldAvatar

Outsider said:


> It seems more likely to me that they wanted a spelling that was as close to Latin as possible. But I'm still a little surprised by this. I thought that the Romanian orthography was fairly phonemic!...



Romanian manuals recommend the pronunciation _ieu_, this being an exception, valid for almost all other words beginning with letter E.
However, only a few people respect such a rule, because such words sound very unfamiliar and foreign, pronounced in that way.


Also, in modern days, in spoken language, pronunciation _io_ is more natural, more simple, easier and shorter than _eu_ and; more than that, in unofficial written language _io_ has the advantage of presence of letter _o_ just after the letter _i_ on a keyboard, which make it much convenient to write and therefore it is being much often used. Though, these forms are not officially correct.


----------



## avok

OldAvatar said:


> I can only think that the scholars who made the reform of Romanian language, in their efforts to bring the Romanian closer to Romance languages, especially to French, wanted to have a word that would be similar in pronunciation with French pronoun _je._
> .


 
Well, they certainly ended up with the Portuguese "eu"


----------



## Caktus

OldAvatar said:


> _Eu_ in modern Romanian is more of a convention. Ancient Romanian had the word _io_, in both written and spoken language. Even today, many people pronounce it _io_, like in Italian, instead of the written form _eu_.



This is a very interesting statement. Actually in the letter of Neacsu from Campulung (the first compact and unitary document written in romanian)  _eu_ is used more than once (and not the form _io_):

_ I pak dau ştire domnie tale za lucrul turcilor, cum am auzit *eu* că împăratul au eşit den Sofiia, şi aimintrea nu e, şi se-au dus în sus pre Dunăre.
...........
I pak spui domniietale ca mai marele miu, de ce am înţeles şi *eu*. *Eu* spui domniietale iară domniiata eşti înţelept şi aceste cuvinte să ţii domniiata la tine....._

In other early writings in romanian like _Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei_(a moldavian chronicle)by_ Grigore Ureche, _the form_ eu _is used_.
_


----------



## Outsider

But that's ancient Romanian. How is the word pronounced today?


----------



## Caktus

The word today is pronounced _ieu_ and spelled _eu_ (literary language), but sometimes, certain people pronounced io. 
In the Etymological Dictionary of the Romanian Language written by Al. Cioranescu it says that_ io_ is used  in the southern part of Romania as a colloquial from for _eu_.
  I use the form eu.


----------



## OldAvatar

Caktus said:


> This is a very interesting statement. Actually in the letter of Neacsu from Campulung (the first compact and unitary document written in romanian)  _eu_ is used more than once (and not the form _io_):
> 
> _ I pak dau ştire domnie tale za lucrul turcilor, cum am auzit *eu* că împăratul au eşit den Sofiia, şi aimintrea nu e, şi se-au dus în sus pre Dunăre.
> ...........
> I pak spui domniietale ca mai marele miu, de ce am înţeles şi *eu*. *Eu* spui domniietale iară domniiata eşti înţelept şi aceste cuvinte să ţii domniiata la tine....__.
> _



1. In official documents, Mircea the Elder, for example, used the following signature. However, some claim a different origin of the word, like Greek _Ioannes_(Ιωάννης) . 
_„În Hristos Dumnezeu, binecredinciosul şi de Hristos iubitorul şi singur stăpânitorul, Io Mircea mare voievod şi domn...
_2. And about Neacşu, it appears that he, indeed, used the form *eu*_. _However, he used the word only once, as a standalone one, see the third line from the bottom to the top, (copy here)_, _and I reckon that the text looks a bit unclear:
_
„i pa(k)_ spui do(m)nïetale ka ma(i) marele mïu de če amĭ ĩcele(s) šïeu e(?)u spui do(m)nïetale jarŭ.”

Also, Neacşu used the combined form *şieu*, which may suggest that in times of Neacşu, _eu _was pronounced by many as _ieu_, as Romanian dictionaries do recommend nowadays. Though, we can't talk about grammar rules at those times.


----------



## Caktus

OldAvatar said:


> 1. In official documents, Mircea the Elder, for example, used the following signature. However, some claim a different origin of the word, like Greek _Ioannes_(Ιωάννης) .
> _„În Hristos Dumnezeu, binecredinciosul şi de Hristos iubitorul şi singur stăpânitorul, Io Mircea mare voievod şi domn_



 Mircea the Elder lived between 1355 – 1418. The letter of Neacsu from Campulung was written in 1521. So this text must have been written in Slavonic, otherwise it would have been the first document written in Romanian. As far as I know “Io” appears in this form in the original document, which was not written in Romanian. As you said, there are some theories about its meaning and etymology, and none of them states that it is related to the pronoun _eu_.



OldAvatar said:


> 2. And about Neacşu, it appears that he, indeed, used the form *eu*_. _However, he used the word only once, as a standalone one, see the third line from the bottom to the top,and I reckon that the text looks a bit unclear:
> _
> „i pa(k)_ spui do(m)nïetale ka ma(i) marele mïu de če amĭ ĩcele(s) šïeu e(?)u spui do(m)nïetale jarŭ.”
> 
> Also, Neacşu used the combined form *şieu*, which may suggest that in times of Neacşu, _eu _was pronounced by many as _ieu_, as Romanian dictionaries do recommend nowadays. Though, we can't talk about grammar rules at those times.



 I know that the Romanian Academy recommends that the forms of the verb_ a fi_ (=to be) like _este, eram_… should be pronounced _ieste, ieram_…. and that the personal pronouns that begin with the letter _e_ like _eu, el, ea, ei, ele_ should be pronounced _ieu, iel, ia, iei, iel_e.
Neacşu might have pronounced it _eu_ or _ieu_, I totally agree. 

 The response I gave previously regarded your statement:



OldAvatar said:


> Ancient Romanian had the word _io_, in both written and spoken language.


 
  Old Romanian had the form _eu_. It might have been pronounced _eu_ or _ieu_. I don't know any documents where the form _io_ was used, but I'm not an expert, maybe there are some.


----------



## MarX

I didn't know that *io* in Romanian was older than *eu*!
I remember some of my Romanian friends telling me that they actually pronounced _eu_ as _io_.


----------



## dinji

avok said:


> Yes, I thought that the identical forms are due to common influences.
> 
> Even in Spanish which is the closest and closest sister language of Portuguese  it is : "Yo / mi" for "eu / meu" which happen to be the same both in Portuguese and Romanian. I found that interesting.


Nowhere in this thread is the issue of Catalan raised. It has:
For 1st person personal pronoun _jo_ (easy to explain)
For possessives:
masc.sing _el meu _fem.sing _la meva < la meua _masc.plural _els meus _fem.plural _les meves < les meues_
The same pattern applies to _el teu_ 'your(s)' and _el seu_ 
Where would these come from??

NB. in parallell an archaic set _mon/ma/mons/mes_ is used but without the definite article and never after the noun. Thus:
_És el meu llibre_ = _És mon llibre (archaic) _'It is my book' but NEVER _El llibre és mon_


----------



## Claudiopolis

Caktus said:


> The word today is pronounced _ieu_ and spelled _eu_ (literary language), but sometimes, certain people pronounced io.
> In the Etymological Dictionary of the Romanian Language written by Al. Cioranescu it says that_ io_ is used  in the *southern part of Romania* as a colloquial from for _eu_.
> I use the form eu.



Now this is news for me! I lived all my life in Transilvania and all the people I met here use *io* in day to day speech. More than that, in the country side I heard *io* instead of *eu*(ieu) all over the country.

P.S. As far as I know *meu* is also used in southern Italy(e.g. "lu core meu").


----------

