# Romance nouns



## osemnais

From which Latin case do nouns in Romance languages come? Some sources say they're descendant from acc. singular, but other claim they're from nom. singular.


----------



## Nino83

In French, Spanish and Portuguese nouns derive from singular and plural accusative. 
In Italian nouns derive from singular accusative and plural nominative. 

The final _m_ was lost at an early stage. The short _u_ became _o_. In French all final vowels are lost and final _a_ became _e_. 

rosa (classical: rosam)/rosas/rose 
muro (classical: murum)/muros/muri 

French: rose/roses mur/murs


----------



## fdb

Nino83 said:


> In French, Spanish and Portuguese nouns derive from singular and plural accusative.
> In Italian nouns derive from singular accusative and plural nominative.



What about Romanian? Actually, the origin of the Romance plurals is hotly debated. Have we not discussed this topic very recently on here?

See also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals


----------



## Nino83

fdb said:


> Actually, the origin of the Romance plurals is hotly debated. Have we not discussed this topic very recently on here?



Yes. 
Some people say that the final _i_ of Italian plurals (third declesion nouns) is due to a transformation of _s_ in _i_, but this "rule" does not work with first declesion nouns (rosae --> rose, not rosas --> rosi). 

In all non western Romance languages the final _s_ was lost at an early stage, so that _murum_ and _muros_ or _rosam_ and _rosas_ became _muro_ and _rosa_ for both singular and plural accusative. 
In order to avoid this, I think, the only way was using plural nominative _muri_ and _rose_. 

P.S. 

When the difference between long and short vowels and both final _m_ and _s_ were lost, in non western Romance languages (Italian included), nominative, accusative and ablative singular, for the first declesion, and nominative, accusative, dative and ablative singular, for the second declesion, had the same form (_rosa_ and _muro_). 
Genitive and dative case became perifrastic (de + ablative and ad + accusative) so accusative case (which had the same form of ablative and nominative) was the most (the only) used case. 

In western Romance languages the final _s_ was not lost and for a period of time there was a two case system (_murs/mur_ for the singular and _mur/murs_ for the plural). Then only the accusative (oblique) case, i.e the most used case, was retained (_mur_ for the singular and _murs_ for the plural). 

The confusion between accusative and other cases is avoided by using prepositions (_a/à_ for dative and _di/de_ for genitive) and the difference between nominative and accusative by mandatory SVO word order. 
Preposition were used (for other complements) in Latin.


----------



## fdb

Nino83 said:


> but this "rule" does not work with first declesion nouns



The "accusative theory" claims exactly this (-as > -e).


----------



## Nino83

fdb said:


> The "accusative theory" claims exactly this (-as > -e).



If claims this it doesn't work for second and third declesion nouns. 

muro/muri (muros --> mure) 
volpe/volpi (vulpes --> volpe) 

I knew that it claimed _s --> i_ 

It will be illogical that _as_ became _e_ and _os_ and _es_ became _i_. Why this difference? 
May you link some page about it?


----------



## fdb

…and ēs > i, spreading by analogy from the third to the second declension.


----------



## Nino83

And why in second person present indicative conjugation (tu) _cantas_ became _canti_ (and not _cante_)?


----------



## fdb

All of this can be explained, e.g. by generalisation of the subjunctive suffixes. (Look up the references in the Wikipedia article). All I am saying is that the accusative/nominative theory is no longer universally accepted by Romanists.


----------



## Nino83

Yes, it's true, but the alternative theory has a lot of problems. 
The loss of final _s_ explain better the first and second plural person verbal conjugation (_cantamus --> cantiamo_, different from _chanton*s*_ and _cantamo*s*_ and _cantatis --> cantate_ different from _chante*z*_ and _cantai*s*_). 

This theory claims that _as_ --> sometimes _e_ and sometimes _i_, _os_ --> sometimes _o_ and sometimes _i_, _es --> i_ and _is --> e_. 
A phonological process would be more "general". 
All this in my opinion.


----------



## francisgranada

If we follow the logic of the* s>i* theory then I see it as follows:

rosas > *rosai > rose
moros > *muroi > muri
homines > *hominei > omini > uomini
etc.

stas > stai
das > dai
post > pos > poi (_sp. _pues)
habes > *has > hai (_alternatively *_haes > hai)
vadis > *vas > vai (_alternatively_ *vais > vai)
etc.

In case of the monosyllabic words -_ai/-oi _has not become -_e/-i, _which can be explained (for example because the vowel _a/o_ was stressed). 

In case of the verbal conjugation (_ami _instead of *amai>*ame), I agree with fdb ("uniformization" of the suffixes).                                   

P.S. At the moment I don't say the accusative/nominative theory is _a priori_ unacceptable ... (there are arguments both pro and contra).


----------



## Nino83

What about _cantamus --> cantamos --> cantiamo_ (and not _cantiami_, as in _muros --> muri_)? 

EDIT:



francisgranada said:


> If we follow the logic of the* s>i* theory then I see it as follows:
> 
> rosas > *rosai > rose
> moros > *muroi > muri
> homines > *hominei > omini > uomini





> The "accusative" theory essentially suggests:
> 
> 
> 
> Italian plurals are indeed derived from the nominative plural.
> However, Proto-Romance had nominative plural -ĀS, not *-AE.
> The following sound changes took place:
> /as/ > /ai/, /es/ > /ei/.
> In unstressed syllables, /ai/ > /e/, /ei/ > /i/.





> Per il suo consolidarsi, la maggior parte dei nomi del lessico italiano  derivano dalla forma dell’accusativo e non da quella del nominativo  latino.
> Le eccezioni a questa norma non sono numerose. Talvolta i resti delle  desinenze casuali latine diverse dall’accusativo si riconoscono in  maniera sistematica nella morfologia: è il caso della desinenza _-i_ del plurale dei nomi maschili in _-o_, che deriva con certezza dal nominativo latino (it. _lupi_ < lat. lupi).



http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/caso_(Enciclopedia_dell'Italiano)/ 

It's uncontested that the plural form of the second declesion drives from the plural nominative.


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> What about _cantamus --> cantamos --> cantiamo_ (and not _cantiami_, as in _muros --> muri_)?


Not all the Latin _-s_ has become _-i_ (I think this is clear). But -_amos _is a bisyllabic desinence, thus the loss of the final _-s_ did not cause any ambiguity or "necessity" to maintain the final _-s_ (even if "transformed" to -i). But this is only my "speculation", I don't know the exact answer ...

But ... in the so called "Séquence de saint Eulalie", written in old "langue d'oïl" (or "Proto-Piccard") we find: "Voldrent la veintre _l*i*_ ... _inim*i*_", but "Elle nont escoltet _le*s* mal*s* consillier*s*_".

This may suggest that the distinction between the nominative and accusative plural still existed in the 9th century (in some regions, of course). However, I don't know if there are other relevant sources that could confirm this ...


----------



## fdb

".... con certezza ...." is something that no professional linguist would ever say.


----------



## Nino83

fdb said:


> ".... con certezza ...." is something that no professional linguist would ever say.



But it seems that the accusative theory doesn't bring it into discussion. 
The alternative is between _as_ and _ae_.


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> ... It's uncontested that the plural form of the second declesion drives from the plural nominative.


I agree, but if our argumentation will consist only in citing "indoubtable" declarations of various authoriries/sources, then what is the sense of this thread? ...


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> I agree, even more I know that _-oi>-i_  (as in _post > poi_) is rare in the Italian language (but not in other languages). But if our argumentation will consist only in citing "indoubtable" declarations of various authoriries/sources, then what is the sense of this thread? ...



We could say what is discussed and what is not. 

For French, Spanish and Portuguese there's no doubt among linguists. Nouns derive from accusative singular and plural. 
For Italian, we may say that there is a discussion about the plural nominative of the first declesion. One theory says that it was _ae_, the other that it was _as_. 
It seems that both theories say that Italian nouns derive from accusative singular and nominative (in _ae_ or in _as_, for the first declesion) plural.


----------



## CapnPrep

See also:
Accusative declension from Latin -> Italian
Italian and Romanian plural


francisgranada said:


> This may suggest that the distinction between the nominative and accusative plural still existed in the 9th century (in some regions, of course). However, I don't know if there are other relevant sources that could confirm this ...


It is well known — and mentioned in the previous threads — that Old French (and Gallo-Romance more generally) maintained the distinction between subject and object/oblique case, and this lasted quite a bit beyond the 9th century.


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> We could say what is discussed and what is not ...


Ok, now I understand you .  



CapnPrep said:


> ...It is well known — and mentioned in the previous threads  ...


You are right (sorry).


----------



## Beachxhair

CapnPrep said:


> It is well known — and mentioned in the previous threads — that Old French (and Gallo-Romance more generally) maintained the distinction between subject and object/oblique case, and this lasted quite a bit beyond the 9th century.



Was the object/oblique case an inflected noun, equivalent to the modern constructions with prepositions? Why did French maintain this distinction for longer than other Romance languages?


----------

