# Neuter in Romance languages



## francisgranada

In some Romance languages there exists some kind of neuter gender, for example in Romanian and Asturian. Are these neuters derivable from Latin, or they are rather "innovations" in the respective languages?

Precision:
My question is especially about the languages where also the _nouns _may be of neuter gender, not only some pronouns (like the Spanish _este, esta, esto _etc.).


----------



## CapnPrep

The neuter in Romanian works just like the gender-changing nouns in Italian (e.g. _il dito_, _le dita_), it just involves a larger (and still growing) class of nouns. Many of the nouns trace back to Latin neuters, but this is not systematically the case (again, much like in Italian). There aren't specifically neuter forms as there were in Latin, so I suppose you could consider this an innovation in Romanian/Italian, or more accurately a reanalysis of the Latin neuter as a mix of the masculine and feminine.

The neuter ending in Asturian may trace back morphologically to the Latin neuter, but the productive semantic effect (indicating substance/material or something like that) is an innovation, I believe. In any case, it should be treated completely separately from the Italian/Romanian neuter.


----------



## killerbee256

What about in other Italian romance dialects/languages like sicilian, sardinian, venetian etc?


----------



## francisgranada

@CapnPrep. Thanks for the (really) good answer. However, I have a "problem" (the same as in case of the origin of the Italian/Romanian plural endings), i.e. can we (somehow) suppose the existence of _three genders_ in the (presupposed) common Proto-Romance? ... 


killerbee256 said:


> What about in other Italian romance dialects/languages like sicilian, sardinian, venetian etc?


As far as I know, in these languages no traces of the Latin neuter do exist. But I'd prefer to hear/read the opinon of native speakers or experts because of my very limited knowledges about these languages ...

P.S. It's a bit off topic, but I wouldn't call (especially) the Sardian language neighter "Italian dialect" nor "Italian language" as it is a totally different Romance language (at least as "similar" to the Spanish as to the Italian, for example). This is not a "criticism", of course, because the term "Italian" can be understood also in a geografical sense. However ...


----------



## Cynical

It's just apart of the grammar. Asturian preserves the -u ending.


----------



## Nino83

In Italian, sometimes, some neuter noun retained its plural ending in "-a" (for example, "brachium/brachia" for "braccio/braccia", "labrum/labra" for "labbro/labbra", "cilium/cilia" for "ciglio/ciglia", "ovum/ova" for "uovo/uova") so, from a morphological point of view, sometimes it is not an innovation. On the other hand, some masculine noun took the neuter plural ending (like "dito/dita" for "digitus/digiti") and other nouns took both endings with different meanings ("i muri" in general but "le mura" for the walls of castels and cities). 
Anyway there's no neuter gender because determiners and adjectives are only feminine or masculine, so these nouns can be seen as masculine in the singular (*il* mur*o* bianc*o*) but feminine in the plural (*le* mura bianch*e*). The difference between Italian and Romanian is that in Italian these nouns retain the Latin neuter plural inflection (il braccio/le bracci*a*) while in Romanian they take the feminine inflection (braţ/braţ*e*). 

In the Italian languages spoken south of the La Spezia-Rimini line, the situation is the same. 
For example, in Sicilian we have: "brazzu/brazza", "ovu/ova" and so on. 

As CapnPrep said, these nouns are very few in Italian and they are often included in the class of "irregular plurals". 
I don't think that we can say that there were three genders in proto-Romance.


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> ... Anyway there's no neuter gender because determiners and adjectives are only feminine or masculine, so these nouns can be seen as masculine in the singular (*il* mur*o* bianc*o*) but feminine in the plural (*le* mura bianch*e*) ...


 Yes, nevethless it is interesting. A "pure" masc. plural is "i muri bianchi" and if considering _mura _simply an irregular plural form, then it should be "* i mura bianchi". What's the reason for the change of gender in plural? 

(The ending _-a_ in _mura _doesn't explain it, as there is no fem. plural ending in Italian in _-a. _Intuitively one would expect perhaps rather _"* la mura bianca"_ ...)


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> Yes, nevethless it is interesting. A "pure" masc. plural is "i muri bianchi" and if considering _mura _simply an irregular plural form, then it should be "* i mura bianchi". What's the reason for the change of gender in plural?



Yes, it's interesting. This is the consequence of the loss of the neuter gender. Almost all neuter nouns became masculine, because their endings were almost equal, some noun became feminine (like "folium/folia" --> "foglia/foglie"). 

It's probable that those nouns which retained the neuter plural inflection became masculine in the singular because the inflection is the same, i.e "o" but feminine in the plural probably because the final "a" is equal to the feminine singular "a", so "l'uovo/le uova". So we can say that when people said "le uova" or "le mura" (in proto-Romance), the neuter gender was just lost.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Almost all neuter nouns became masculine, because their endings were *almost *equal


Why "almost"? Since most proto-Romance nouns where derived from the accusative singular forms they were exactly equal.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> Why "almost"?



the plural


----------



## ahvalj

The neuter didn't survive in Old French despite the continuations of the Nominative endings being different: 
Sg. _li murs_ vs. **_le vin_
Pl. _li mur_ vs. **_la vine_


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> the plural


The second declension plural wasn't preserved in proto-Romance (I said "...where derived from the accusative *singular* forms"). Apparently not even dialects south of the La Spezia-Rimini line. The popular idea that the Italian_ -i_ and _-e_ plural endings are direct continuations of the Latin first and seconds plurals seems to be a myth -- which came as a surprise to me too; see the discussion here.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> The second declension plural wasn't preserved in proto-Romance (I said "...where derived from the accusative *singular* forms"). Apparently not even dialects south of the La Spezia-Rimini line. The popular idea that the Italian_ -i_ and _-e_ plural endings are direct continuations of the Latin first and seconds plurals seems to be a myth -- which came as a surprise to me too; see the discussion here.


That's wrong, the Old French _murs_ phonetically continues _mūrus_, and _mur_ continues _mūrī_. There is no other explanation of the Nom. Pl. form (even though _li sac_ doesn't exhibit an assibilated _c_).


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> The second declension plural wasn't preserved in proto-Romance (I said "...where derived from the accusative *singular* forms"). Apparently not even dialects south of the La Spezia-Rimini line. The popular idea that the Italian_ -i_ and _-e_ plural endings are direct continuations of the Latin first and seconds plurals seems to be a myth -- which came as a surprise to me too; see the discussion here.



No matter where the plural endings came from, they are different (i.e, "i"/"os" for masculine vs. "a"/"a" for neuter). I was speaking of both singular and plural.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> No matter where the plural endings came from, they are different (i.e, "i"/"os" for masculine vs. "a"/"a" for neuter). I was speaking of both singular and plural.


It does matter because you said "Almost all neuter nouns *became *masculine, because their endings *were *almost equal" (past tense!). And that was apparently not the actual process at the time.


----------



## francisgranada

Turning back to my question in #7: are we sure that the today's feminine plural (le uova, etc.) of these nouns was in Italian always "felt" as feminine or we can suppose the former existence of e.g. "la uova bianca" as continuation of the Latin neuter plural, which later changed to "le uova bianche", emphasizing it's pluralness (to distinguish it from fem. singular)?

P.S. In other words, if e.g. _uovo_ was simply considered a masculine noun (as no neuter existed any more), then "normally" it should have maintained its gender in plural as well, inspite of the irregular form of the plural in -a.


----------



## CapnPrep

francisgranada said:


> Turning back to my question in #7: are we sure that the today's feminine plural (le uova, etc.) of these nouns was in Italian always "felt" as feminine or we can suppose the former existence of e.g. "la uova bianca" as continuation of the Latin neuter plural, which later changed to "le uova bianche", emphasizing it's pluralness (to distinguish it from fem. singular)?


I think the various patterns were already fully established within Italian by the time of the earliest texts, and I don't think there are examples of things like _i mura bianchi_, as you wondered about above. But the developments can be traced in late Latin, where you can find forms like _bracias_, _labras_, _ovarum_, _ossarum_, where previously neuter nouns are clearly treated as feminine plurals, or formally neuter forms that take feminine plural adjectives (e.g. _folia  virides  teneras_). Of course other neuter _-a_ plurals were reinterpreted as feminine _-a _singulars, and others had their ending replaced and became ordinary masculine plurals. But what we do not find (or much more rarely) is something like _ova _(retaining the neuter _-a_ plural ending) combined with masculine plural agreement.

In other words, _-a_ forms like _ova_ (It. _uova_) went directly from being neuter plural to being feminine plural. They did not pass through a stage where they were masculine in the plural, despite what happened to them in the singular.

This long (unpublished?) article by Hugh Wilkinson, from which I took most of the examples above, should answer a lot of your questions, and then some : The Latin Neuter Plurals in Romance.


----------



## aefrizzo

CapnPrep said:


> I think the various patterns were already fully established within Italian by the time of the earliest texts, and I don't think there are examples of things like _i mura bianchi_, as you wondered about above. But the developments can be traced in late Latin, where you can find forms like _bracias_, _labras_, _ovarum_, _ossarum_,



I was going to object that in western Sicily we actually say _i mura bianchi, i vrazza curti (corte), i labbra nivuri (nere), l'ova duri (sode). l'ossa rutti (rotte)_...
Then I realized that we do not use but the "masculin"  for the plural of the adjectives.
OTP?


----------



## francisgranada

aefrizzo said:


> ...Then I realized that we do not use but the "masculin"  for the plural of the adjectives.


This may be due to the pronounciation of the final/unstressed _e_ in Sicilian, i.e. both _bianchi _and _bianche _would sound [bjanki] (se non mi sbaglio).

The definite article has also the same form (*i*) in plural in Sicialian for both the genders?


----------



## Nino83

aefrizzo said:


> I was going to object that in western Sicily we actually say _i mura bianchi, i vrazza curti (corte), i labbra nivuri (nere), l'ova duri (sode). l'ossa rutti (rotte)_...
> Then I realized that we do not use but the "masculin"  for the plural of the adjectives.



In "i mura (b)janchi" the adjective is feminine plural. It ends in "i" only because Sicilian language has a pentavocalic system, i.e closed "e" = "i" and closed "o" = u. 

So we don't have: bianco, bianca, bianchi, bianche but jancu, janca, janch*i*, janch*i* (closed "e" = "i"). 

"jancu" is pronounced [jaŋku] (i.e in Sicilian orthography "j" represents the semiconsonant [j]). 



francisgranada said:


> The definite article has also the same form (*i*) in plural in Sicialian for both the genders?



Yes. 

Il/lo = u 
la = a 
i/gli = i 
le = i


----------



## francisgranada

CapnPrep said:


> I think the various patterns were already fully established within Italian by the time of the earliest texts and I don't think there are examples of things like _i mura bianchi __.... _


Yes, this is also my personal experience. I was thinking of the earlier not documented stages and my idea was rather a theorically imaginable "pre-Italian" plural like *_illa mura blanca_  (preserving "temporarily" the pl ending _-a _also in the article and the adjectives), because even the possible existence of a plural like *_i muri bianchi_ would not explain _per se _why it changed later to feminine. 

Thank you very much for your interesting and useful answer (I didn't know about the late Latin developments) and for the link (it seems to be an interesting reading) .


----------



## aefrizzo

Nino83 said:


> In "i mura (b)janchi" the adjective is feminine plural. It ends in "i" only because Sicilian language has a pentavocalic system, i.e closed "e" = "i" and closed "o" = u.
> 
> So we don't have: bianco, bianca, bianchi, bianche but jancu, janca, janch*i*, janch*i* (closed "e" = "i").
> 
> "jancu" is pronounced [jaŋku] (i.e in Sicilian orthography "j" represents the semiconsonant [j]).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Il/lo = u
> la = a
> i/gli = i
> le = i




 I am talking of Western Sicilian as it is actually* spoken,* not  about ortography. Sorry, I do not agree on  any of your statements. Usually: 1) initial"B" is  doubled or lenghtened, 2) last vowel in bianchi is a schwa, and so on. Even the article list you report is only partially valid: it does not held in the Agrigento district.
I realize though that the  pronunciation may strongly change from a district to another even not so far away. 
I suppose anyway the topic is too peculiar and definitely out.


----------



## irinet

That is a very interesting question!!! 
Each and every neuter in Romanian is masculine in the singular and changes into a kind of feminine in the plural,  and it's never viceversa. 
However,  most native speakers would recognise a neuter when they see it. How is that possible because I cannot recall any rules to be taught besides the one of counting in order to depict the noun gender,  i. e. 'an argument - two arguments'  = "*un* argument - *două* (numeral-adj.) argument*e*". We even have two options for the 'same'  neuter though it might not be so, as the meaning is changed: 'un profil - două profil*e*/-*uri*'.  We also have the 'egg'   -  'ou' in neuter,  that takes the plural differently 'ou*ă*'. The plural morpheme 1) '-uri'  would be the only morpheme that doesn't belong to either masculine or feminine plurals. However,  2) '-e'  + 3)  '-ă' (very rare,  if not unique as a plural morpheme) go to help the neuter,  too.


----------



## Nino83

aefrizzo said:


> I am talking of Western Sicilian as it is actually* spoken,* not  about ortography. Sorry, I do not agree on  any of your statements.



You can't agree but the Sicilian phonology is this (I speak one of the Eastern variant, _Messinese_, where the "b" in "bianchi" is elided). 

Latin, Italian, Sicilian: 

pĕtra [pɛtra], piètra [pjɛtra], pètra [pɛʈɽa]; fĕsta [fɛsta], fèsta [fɛsta], fèsta [fɛsta] --> [ɛ]/[jɛ] = [ɛ] 
pĭrum [pɪrum], péra [pera], pira [pira]; siccum [sɪkkum], sécco [sekko], siccu [sikku] --> [e] = _ 
nŏvum [nɔvum] nuòvo [nwɔvo] nòvu [nɔvu]; pŏrta [pɔrta], pòrta [pɔrta], pòtta [pɔtta] --> [ɔ]/[wɔ] = [ɔ] 
sōlum [solum], solo [solo], sulu [sulu]; curtum [kurtum], corto [korto], cuttu [kuttu] --> [o] =  

Seeing that in Italian all final vowels (except when they are stressed) are mid-closed vowels (i.e [e] and [o]), in Sicilian they are  and . 

So, "la casa bianca" is "(l)a casa (b)ianca" and "le case bianche" is "(l)i cas*i* (b)ianch*i*" where "casi" and "(b)ianchi" are *feminine* and *not* masculine. 
It's not true that in Sicilian the adjectives are only masculine in the plural. It is, simply wrong. 

About the definite article: 
(l)u (m. s.), (l)a (f. s.), (l)i (m. pl.), (l)i (f. pl.) and l' (before vowels, both before masculine and feminine, singular and plural). 



aefrizzo said:



			last vowel in bianchi is a schwa
		
Click to expand...


No. The "schwa" (which is not [ə] but a centralized "i", [ɨ]) is not present in final position but only in pre-tonic position (for example "caminari", in Italian "camminare", is [kamɨnaːri]) and only for pre-tonic "i" (not also for "a", "e" and "o", as in Neapolitan), so it doesn't influence inflection (so "i casi bianchi" is [i kaːsi bjanki] and not [ə kaːsə bjankə], like it is in Neapolitan). 

Going back to the topic, in "(l)i mura (b)ianchi", "bianchi" is feminine plural._


----------



## aefrizzo

*@ Hello, Nino*
    Have a look, please to my first post (#18) in reply to CapnPrep (#17..._I don't think there are examples of things like __imura bianchi_,....). I was presenting several examples of such _ “things” _you can find in spoken Sicilian, regardless of what CapnPrep was really meaning. I realized that the relevant adjectives look and sound like “masculine” , notice the inverted commas. Are they supposed to be here feminine? Nothing to object if you alreafy know that “mura” is feminine. A layman would be puzzled. Actually we use the same plural _bianchi _for both masculine and feminine genders.


Yourpost#24_:It's not true that in Sicilian the adjectives are only masculine in the plural. _
Can you provide a couple of examples?


  As  for the pronunciation of “bianchi”in my neck of woods    

Don't    ask, please for “janki” things.You will be misundertood. We say  bbianki.or bbjanki.
The    last vowel “i” is hardly noticeable (not a schwa? )  You can  hear it clearly spelt out just when someone is shouting to a child   or to a deaf man, wanting to be unequivocally understood.


*@ Hello,Francis*
The definite articles may be slighly different  from a  district to  another, As anticipated by Nino, you can find:
il/lo = u cori, lu cori, u spagnolu, lu spagnolu, u zappune, lu zappune, l'omu
la = a fimmina, la fimmina, l'aranciata
i/gli = li masculi, i masculi, i spagnoli, li spagnoli, i zuavi, li zuavi, l'omini
le = li fimmini, i fimmini, l'aranciati


----------



## Nino83

aefrizzo said:


> I realized that the relevant adjectives look and sound like “masculine” , notice the inverted commas. Are they supposed to be here feminine?
> 
> Yourpost#24:_It's not true that in Sicilian the adjectives are only masculine in the plural. _
> Can you provide a couple of examples?



You said this:



aefrizzo said:


> la = a fimmina, la fimmina, l'aranciata le = li fimmini, i fimmini



Do you think that in sentences like "i fimmini" or "i fimmini beddi", "fimmini" and "beddi" are grammatically masculine? 

The Sicilian feminine plural "i" derives from the Vulgar Latin "ē" and "ǐ" (where Italian, French, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese have "é" [e]) while the masculin plural derive from the Vulgar Latin "ī". But, it doesn't mean that "fimmini beddi" is masculine. 
Watch here and here. 

In a few words, "é" [e] doesn't exist in Sicilian language. It's a phonological, not a grammatical matter. These substantives and adjectives are feminine, not masculine. 



aefrizzo said:


> Nothing to object if you alreafy know that “mura” is feminine. A layman would be puzzled. Actually we use the same plural _bianchi _for both masculine and feminine genders.



I said that "mura" is a neuter plural substantive and that, like in Italian, the adjective is feminine.  



aefrizzo said:


> The last vowel “i” is hardly noticeable (not a schwa? ) You can hear it clearly spelt out just when someone is shouting to a child or to a deaf man, wanting to be unequivocally understood.



Anyone can listen to "Mafia e Parrini" of Rosa Balistreri (Western Sicilian). 
All final "i" are clearly pronounced, like in [la 'maːfja e li par'rini si 'dettiru la 'maːnu], ['cruːci], [li], ['surdi], ['muːti], [ka'tiːni], ['voːli]
The [ɨ] appears only sometimes in post-tonic but non-final position ['poːvɨru] but not always, ['dettiru]
Also in pre-tonic position there is _, like in [sanʧiː'suka], [ʧitta'diːnu] but in spoken language this "i" is often centralized. 

This is why linguists say that there isn't any "schwa" in Sicilian language. The "i" can be centralized, sometimes, in pre-tonic position or in post-tonic but non-final position. Inflections are not centralized in Sicilian._


----------



## francisgranada

What are the plural forms of _amicu_ and _amica_ in Sicialian? 
(they could be different ...)


----------



## Nino83

I say "alivi grechi" for "le olive greche" and "i greci" for "i greci".


----------



## aefrizzo

Nino83 said:


> Do you think that in sentences like "i fimmini" or "i fimmini beddi", "fimmini" and "beddi" are grammatically masculine?
> 
> The Sicilian feminine plural "i" derives from the Vulgar Latin "ē" and "ǐ" (where Italian, French, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese have "é" [e]) while the masculin plural derive from the Vulgar Latin "ī". But, it doesn't mean that "fimmini beddi" is masculine.


*Andiamo*, Nino. Never said it. I just observed that the plural feminine adjectives sound exactly as the "masculine" ones. Call them as you like it: clearly your linguistic skill allows you to know and appreciate the final "i"difference between "(omini) bedd*i*" and "(fimmini) bedd*i". *I (and a few millions of sicilians) simply are not able.


Nino83 said:


> Anyone can listen to "Mafia e Parrini" of Rosa Balistreri (Western Sicilian).


The late Rosa Balistreri, one of my favourites, was born and bred (until she migrated) in Licata, a small town near Agrigento. (I know her not just from LPs but also from live shows). Her local dialect and pronunciation are rather peculiar, and besides a few lullabies she used to shout her "protest" songs. I would not recommend her for a course of "Sicilian for foreigners".

PS I do not know whether we have to go on. In my opinion this is a typical conflict between a language expert and and an old layman.


----------



## CapnPrep

Since there are so few morphophonological cues for gender in the plural in Sicilian, it would not be surprising if the mixed-gender pattern for nouns like _mura_ and _uova_ were less robust. For example there could be speakers who would say _l'ova greci_ (masc.) instead of _l'ova grechi_ (fem.), or they might accept both. In fact, if this grammar is correct, Sicilian has a lot more _-a_ plurals than Italian, and many of them are definitely masculine (e.g. agentive nouns referring to men). I don't know the history of the masculine _-a_ forms in Sicilian, but I suspect that they are innovative with respect to Italian, so they don't really shed any light on francisgranada's question about "pre-Italian".


----------



## francisgranada

CapnPrep said:


> ... For example there could be speakers who would say _l'ova greci_ (masc.) instead of _l'ova grechi_ (fem.), or they might accept both.


This would imply that for a Sicilian practically no gender change happens, but _-a_ is simply a plural marker both for some masculine and feminine nouns. A question for Nino and Aefrizzo: is it so? I.e. do the Sicialian natives say consequently _l'ova grechi __or_ _l'ova greci_ is also possible/preferred?


----------



## Nino83

aefrizzo said:


> *Andiamo*, Nino. Never said it. I just observed that the plural feminine adjectives sound exactly as the "masculine" ones. Call them as you like it: clearly your linguistic skill allows you to know and appreciate the final "i"difference between "(omini) bedd*i*" and "(fimmini) bedd*i". *I (and a few millions of sicilians) simply are not able.



Ok, it could be that for someone there's no difference, but when I say "fimmini beddi" *I* can't think "fimmini" or "beddi" is masculine. 
It could be because we speak Italian. I don't know if for a XIX century monolingual Sicilian they were the same. 



aefrizzo said:


> Her local dialect and pronunciation are rather peculiar, and besides a few lullabies she used to shout her "protest" songs. I would not recommend her for a course of "Sicilian for foreigners".



I can say that, when I speak and hear other Sicilian speak, I hear the "i" very clear (as the "i" of Rosa Balistreri). 
In my experience, the [ɨ] is present only in unstressed pronouns (mi, ti, cci, nni, vvi, cci), in "chi" (Italian "che", conjunction) and can happen in unstressed non-final position. 

For example I and other Sicilians say [kɨ mɨ dɨʧiːst*i*] ("chi mi dicisti", "che mi dicesti" in Italian), if one says [kɨ mɨ dɨʧiːst*ɨ*] I think it is Neapolitan. The final schwa is one of the strongest difference between Sicilian language and Neapolitan (Campania, Puglia) and immediately noticeable. 
On this point we simply don't agree. Balistreri's pronunciation of "i" is, for me, a typical Sicilian pronunciation. 
I never heard someone sing [ʧurɨ ʧurɨ ʧurɨ dɨ tuttu l'annu] instead of [ʧur*i *ʧur*i*]. 



CapnPrep said:


> For example there could be speakers who would say _l'ova greci_ (masc.) instead of _l'ova grechi_ (fem.), or they might accept both.



Yes, there are (sometimes I do it too), it's frequent. 



CapnPrep said:


> In fact, if this grammar is correct, Sicilian has a lot more _-a_ plurals than Italian, and many of them are definitely masculine (e.g. agentive nouns referring to men). I don't know the history of the masculine _-a_ forms in Sicilian, but I suspect that they are innovative with respect to Italian, so they don't really shed any light on francisgranada's question about "pre-Italian".



Yes. Like in Italian, some masculine noun took the "a" plural inflection (like "dito/dita" in Italian, from "digitus"). 
For example, "jornu/jorna" for "giorno/giorni". But we knoe that "giorno" derive from the Latin adjective "diurnum", so I'd not say that the difference is between innovation/retention, because "diurnum" could be both masculine and neuter. Italian went for the masculine while Sicilian went for the neuter. 



francisgranada said:


> This would imply that for a Sicilian practically no gender change happens, but _-a_ is simply a plural marker both for some masculine and feminine nouns. A question for Nino and Aefrizzo: is it so? I.e. do the Sicialian natives say consequently _l'ova grechi __or_ _l'ova greci_ is also possible/preferred?



Yes, Francis, but nobody says "(l)i grechi" for "i greci". 
The alternative "grechi" is not possible for masculine nouns (it is "l'antichi greci" and not "l'antichi grechi").


----------



## aefrizzo

francisgranada said:


> A question for Nino and Aefrizzo: is it so? I.e. do the Sicialian natives say consequently _l'ova grechi __or_ _l'ova greci_ is also possible/preferred?


As a native Sicilian I would say "ova greci, alive greci, mura greci, cavaddi greci" and so on. Due to the present imperfect bilinguism (let's say so), I am ready to use and hear both (greci and grechi, for masculine as well as feminine gender)


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> But we knoe that "giorno" derive from the Latin adjective "diurnum", so I'd not say that the difference is between innovation/retention, because "diurnum" could be both masculine and neuter. Italian went for the masculine while Sicilian went for the neuter.


True, but in case of plurals like _duttùra_, _cacciatùra_, _picuràra_ ... it must be an innovation because the corresponding singulars could never be seen as neuters. 





> Yes, Francis, but nobody says "(l)i grechi" for "i greci".


This is clear to me, I don't say that only masculine plurals exist in Sicilian. However, according to your and Aefrizzo's answer and the examples in CapnPrep's link, now I think that the plurals in _-a_ are in general not considered feminines in Sicilian (as they are in Italian). 

P.S. In other words, if we knew nothing about the Latin, the Sicialian would suggest us that there might have existed also a plural ending _-a_ in Latin. At the same time the Italian gives us more information because of the "anomalous" gender change in plural: these nouns must have belonged to a different "grammatical cathegory" than the rest of masculine nouns (that form the plural in -i and do not change gender), plus none of these nouns refers directly to men (nor to women, of course, as they are masculine in singular). Hence we could quite easily deduce that the Latin had (probably) tree genders  ... And this is what I find interesting, i.e. that the (standard) Italian practically preserves not only the plural ending -a, but also the information about the existence of the neuter in Latin (even if indirectly and in relatively few cases).


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> However, according to your and Aefrizzo's answer and the examples in CapnPrep's link, now I think that the plurals in _-a_ are in general not considered feminines in Sicilian (as they are in Italian).



We simply don't know whether the "beddi" in "(l)i mura beddi" is feminine like the "beddi" in "(l)i fimmini beddi" or not. 
For me, the most logical answer is "yes, it's feminine", like in other Italian languages, but there isn't any decisive proof, due to the merger of [e] and _ in Sicilian, so one can say what he wants.  

P.S. 
In CapnPrep's link, it is said that it's "amicu/amici" and "amica/amichi" (like in "greci/grechi")._


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> Are these neuters derivable from Latin, or they are rather "innovations" in the respective languages?
> 
> My question is especially about the languages where also the _nouns _may be of neuter gender, not only some pronouns



There is an innovation in "_dialetti mediani_" (Latina, Frosinone, Terni, Macerata, Fermo) and "_dialetti meridionali_" (Ascoli Piceno, Campania, Abruzzo, Molise, Puglia settentrionale e centrale, Basilicata, nord della Calabria). 

In these languages, mass nouns (i.e nouns for materials, uncountable nouns, general concepts) are neuter. These nouns have the same inflections but the article change. 

dialetti mediani: [*lo* pane] (il pane, neuter, uncountable) but [lu kane] (il cane, masculine), [*lo* ferru] (il ferro, material, neuter) but [lu ferru] (il ferro da stiro, masculine) 
dialetti meridionali (the example is in Neapolitan): [*ɔpp*anə] (il pane, neuter, uncountable) but [ɔ kanə] (il cane, masculine), [*ɔff*jɛrrə] (il ferro, material, neuter) but [ɔ fjɛrrə] (il ferro da stiro, masculine) 

So in "dialetti mediani" there is "lo" for neuter nouns and "lu" for masculine nouns while in "dialetti meridionali" (Neapolitan) there is "o" with "raddoppio fonosintattico" for neuter nouns (probably it derives from the Latin form "illud" so the "d" makes the first consonant of the noun double) and "o" without "raddoppio fonosintattico" for masculine nouns. 

Other Italian languages don't have this distinction, for example "il ferro" (Tuscan), "er fero" (Roman), "lu ferru" (Sicilian). 

Other examples are: [lo niru], [ɔnnirə] (il colore nero, neutro) but [lu niru], [ɔ nirə] (il nero, la persona di colore, masculine) or [ɔbbɛllə] (la cosa bella, ciò che è bello, general concept, neuter) and [ɔ bɛllə] (quello bello, la persona bella, masculine), [ɔssaʧʧə] (lo so, so questa cosa, neuter) but [ɔ saʧʧə] (lo conosco, conosco questa persona, masculine).


----------



## mjb1005

francisgranada said:


> In some Romance languages there exists some kind of neuter gender, for example in Romanian and Asturian. Are these neuters derivable from Latin, or they are rather "innovations" in the respective languages?
> 
> Precision:
> My question is especially about the languages where also the _nouns _may be of neuter gender, not only some pronouns (like the Spanish _este, esta, esto _etc.).



Hello there!!

I've studied Asturian for about a year now and my thesis for my MA is on the mass neuter in Asturian, I just successfully defended Wednesday. I would like to add that some linguists feel the neuter did come from Latin, but as my study was not to read too far into its historical origins, I cannot specifically comment on that. I would like to add that from what I read in replies, saying Asturian preserved the -u ending for the masculine is a little bit over-generalized, as that primarily exists in central Asturian. As you work your way east where Castillian Spanish has had more influence for example, the masculine ending is -o, just like in Spanish. In central Asturian we predominately find -o for neuter, -u for masculine, and -a for feminine in the singular. That being said, the neuter is generally used with mass nouns and carries a non-specific interpretation. (Masculine adjective: el arroz blancu, the white rice with a specific interpretation, i.e. the speaker has it in front of them / Neuter adjective: el arroz blanco, the white rice with a general interpretation, i.e. any rice that is white). There are also distinctions between words like hair, depending on if the neuter is present (pelu, count noun / pelo, mass interpretation).

For anyone looking for more information on Asturian, please feel free to contact me. 

Mateo


----------



## Nino83

mjb1005 said:


> Asturian preserved the -u ending for the masculine is a little bit over-generalized, as that primarily exists in central Asturian.



Also Italian _dialetti mediani_ and _dialetti alto-meridionali_ retained the difference between Latin final /ǔ/ and /ō/.
For example, _pǒrtǔm > pɔrtu_ (port) and _pǒrtō > pɔrto_ (I bring/take).
But neuter works in a different manner.
In Asturian the vowel of the adjective changes while in those Italian languages it is the vowel of the article that changes.

el arroz blanc*u* - el arroz blanc*o* - Asturian
[l*u* niru] (the black person) - [l*o* niru] (the colour) - _dialetti mediani_ (Southern Lazio, Southern Umbria, Central Marche, L'Aquila)
[o nirə] (the black person) - [o *n*nirə] (the colour) - _dialetti alto-meridionali_ (Neapolitan, Apulian)

_Raddoppio fonosintattico_ (in the case the double /nn/) is due to the fact that the masculine definite article derives from _illum > lo > o_ (final /m/ was lost) while the neuter definite article derives from _illud > od > o_, i.e the final /d/ was not entirely lost but fully assimilated with the following consonant, like in Italian [ad 'kasam] > [a 'kkasa].

The Asturian and the Southern Italian systems are not the same and it is sure that the Southern Italian neuter is an innovative feature so I think that also the Asturian neuter is an innovation (in fact, note that in your example the definite article is the same, _el_).


----------



## mjb1005

There are actually more examples than I gave, I was just trying to keep things general. There is also a neuter article "lo" (lo guapo, lo vieyo). Other than that, you can find the neuter marked in other contexts, I've shown them below. Also, when you say "innovative", what exactly do you mean by that terminology?

Neuter Demonstratives: eso, esto, aquello (Esto nun ye honrao)
Neuter Pronoun: ello (Ello nun foi bono)
Neuter Indefinites: daqué, dalgo, dello, nada, otro uno, too (Hai daqué malo na nevera)
Neuter Interrogatives: cuánto, cuálo (¿Cuálo ye más guapo?)
Agreement with the infinitive: (Fumar ye malo)


----------



## Nino83

mjb1005 said:


> There are actually more examples than I gave, I was just trying to keep things general. There is also a neuter article "lo" (lo guapo, lo vieyo). Other than that, you can find the neuter marked in other contexts, I've shown them below.
> 
> Neuter Demonstratives: eso, esto, aquello (Esto nun ye honrao)
> Neuter Pronoun: ello (Ello nun foi bono)
> Neuter Indefinites: daqué, dalgo, dello, nada, otro uno, too (Hai daqué malo na nevera)
> Neuter Interrogatives: cuánto, cuálo (¿Cuálo ye más guapo?)
> Agreement with the infinitive: (Fumar ye malo)



But you find this type of pronouns also in those languages that don't have a neuter gender.
"Ce que tu as fait" vs. "celui qui tu a vu", "aquilo que você fez" vs. "aquele que você viu", "aquello que hiciste" vs. "aquel que viste", "ciò che hai fatto" vs. "quello che hai visto", or "il" vs. "ça", "egli" vs. "esso", "esse" vs. "isso", "ese" vs. "eso". 



francisgranada said:


> Precision: My question is especially about the languages where also the _nouns _may be of neuter gender, not only some pronouns (like the Spanish _este, esta, esto _etc.).





mjb1005 said:


> Also, when you say "innovative", what exactly do you mean by that terminology?



The question of this topic is:



francisgranada said:


> In some Romance languages there exists some kind of neuter gender, for example in Romanian and Asturian. Are these neuters derivable from Latin, or they are rather "innovations" in the respective languages?



In Latin, neuter was a grammatical gender, i.e each noun has a fixed grammatical gender. 
In Asturian and Neapolitan, the same noun or adjective can be, at the same time, neuter or masculine, i.e neuter gender is not fixed, it depend on the meaning of the word.
For example, in Latin, _ferrum_ is always neuter. 
In Neapolitan, _ferro_ can be both masculine and neuter.
In Asturian, _arroz_ can be both masculine and neuter. 

So, in these cases, the neuter gender that we find in Asturian and Neapolitan is not derived from the Latin neuter gender, it is an innovation of these languages.


----------



## mjb1005

Nino83 said:


> But you find this type of pronouns also in those languages that don't have a neuter gender.
> "Ce que tu as fait" vs. "celui qui tu a vu", "aquilo que você fez" vs. "aquele que você viu", "aquello que hiciste" vs. "aquel que viste", "ciò che hai fatto" vs. "quello che hai visto", or "il" vs. "ça", "egli" vs. "esso", "esse" vs. "isso", "ese" vs. "eso".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question of this topic is:
> 
> 
> 
> In Latin, neuter was a grammatical gender, i.e each noun has a fixed grammatical gender.
> In Asturian and Neapolitan, the same noun or adjective can be, at the same time, neuter or masculine, i.e neuter gender is not fixed, it depend on the meaning of the word.
> For example, in Latin, _ferrum_ is always neuter.
> In Neapolitan, _ferro_ can be both masculine and neuter.
> In Asturian, _arroz_ can be both masculine and neuter.
> 
> So, in these cases, the neuter gender that we find in Asturian and Neapolitan is not derived from the Latin neuter gender, it is an innovation of these languages.



Thank you for the clarification. I would also like clarify that to my knowledge "arroz" cannot be both masculine and neuter in Asturian, it is a masculine noun. However since it is a mass noun, it can be followed by a neuter adjective to create the mass neuter phenomenon in Asturian, which generates a semantically generic interpretation. In "el arroz blanco" the article and noun are masculine, and the adjective is neuter.


----------



## Nino83

mjb1005 said:


> However since it is a mass noun, it can be followed by a neuter adjective to create the mass neuter phenomenon in Asturian, which generates a semantically generic interpretation. In "el arroz blanco" the article and noun are masculine, and the adjective is neuter.



A similar thing happens in Neapolitan/Apulian but, here, it is the definite article that changes (while in Asturian it's the adjective that changes).

As you can see in this example, the neuter article is used with mass, uncountable nouns.

dialetti mediani:
[*lo* pane] (il pane, bread, uncountable) but [lu kane] (il cane, dog, countable)
[*lo* ferru] (il ferro, iron, material, uncountable) but [lu ferru] (il ferro da stiro, electric iron, countable)
dialetti meridionali (the example is in Neapolitan):
[*ɔpp*anə] (il pane, bread, uncountable) but [ɔ kanə] (il cane, dog, countable)
[*ɔff*jɛrrə] (il ferro, iron, material, uncountable) but [ɔ fjɛrrə] (il ferro da stiro, electric iron, countable)


----------

