TheOxfordHistoryof RomanianMorphology
By
MARTINMAIDEN,ADINADRAGOMIRESCU, GABRIELAPAN Ă DINDELEGAN, OANAU Ț Ă B Ă RBULESCU, ANDRODICAZAFIU
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©MartinMaiden,AdinaDragomirescu,GabrielaPană Dindelegan, OanaUță Bărbulescu,andRodicaZafiu2021
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2021
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2020941615
ISBN978–0–19–882948–5 DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198829485.001.0001
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Contents
Preface xiii
Abbreviations,symbols,journalacronyms,andotherconventions xv
1.Introduction1
1.1Aimsandbackground1
1.2AbriefoutlineofthehistoryoftheRomanianlanguage2
1.3TheRomanianwritingsystem4
1.4MajortypologicalcharacteristicsofRomanianmorphology7
1.5MajorpatternsofallomorphyinRomaniannouns,verbs, adjectives,andderivationalmorphologyduetosoundchange9
2.Nounsandadjectives19
2.1Introduction19
2.1.1Sketchofbasicmorphologicalstructureofthenounandadjective19
2.1.2Morphologicalsimilaritiesandasymmetriesbetweennouns andadjectives:number,gender,andcase20
2.1.3Theroleof ‘animacy’ andof ‘ mass ’ meaninginthehistoryof nominalmorphology25
2.1.3.1Animacytraits25
2.1.3.2Masstraits30
2.1.4Morphologicalsegmentation:difficultiesandsolutions33
2.2Patternsofdesinentialnumbermarkingandthehistoryofthedesinences37
2.2.1Introduction37
2.2.2Themasculine38
2.2.3Thefeminine:thenatureandinventoryofpluralendings43
2.2.4Finalconsiderationsonnumberendings51
2.3ThemorphologicalhistoryoftheRomanian genusalternans (or ‘neuter’)53
2.3.1Characteristicsofthe genusalternans 53
2.3.2Thecorrelationbetweenendingsand genusalternans membership,insynchronyanddiachrony56
2.3.3 Genusalternans nounsinplural-ă 70
2.4Inflexionalcasemarkingofnounsandadjectives74
2.4.1Introduction74
2.4.2Inflexionalcasemarking75
2.4.2.1Syncretisminfemininenouns75
2.4.2.2Feminineinflexionalendingsinobliquecases81
2.4.2.3Thefunctionofagreementingenitive–dativesingularmarking83
2.4.3Betweenenclitic–inflexionalandprocliticmarking84
2.4.3.1Introduction84
2.4.3.2Obliquemarkingbyproclitic lui 84
2.4.3.3Genitivemixedmarking:inflexional+proclitic al 87
2.4.4Analytic(prepositional)markersofobliquecases
2.4.4.1Introduction
2.4.4.2Thegenitiverelationship
2.4.4.3Thedativerelationship
2.4.4.4Origins,evolution,frequency
2.5Analogicallevellingandcreationofalternation
2.5.1Levellingandcreationofnumberalternationsinnouns
2.5.2Novelallomorphyinfemininenouns:thetype strad
2.6Thepatterningofcaseandnumbermarking:femininenouns
2.7Idiosyncraticirregularities
2.7.1IdiosyncraticremnantsofLatinimparisyllabics
2.7.2Imparisyllabicsofthetype
2.7.3Thetype ferăstrău ~ ferăstraie
2.7.4Thetype grâu ~ grâne
2.8Thehistoryofmorphologicallyinvariantforms
2.8.1Introduction
2.8.2Inventoryofinvariantnounsaccordingtogender
2.8.3Typology,causes,andhistoryofinvariantforms
2.8.3.1Theetymologicaland/orphonologicaltype
2.8.4Invariantadjectives:typologyandtheevolutionoftheclass127
2.9Historyofthemorphologicalmarkingofthevocative
2.9.1Vocativedesinences
2.9.2Thehistoryofthevocativeendings
2.9.3Othermeansofmarkingthevocativemorphologically
2.9.4Thecomplexdiastraticuseofdifferentvocativeforms
3.Pronominalandindefi
3.1Historyofthestressedversuscliticdistinction
3.1.1Overview
3.1.2Thestressedforms:preservationversusreductionofdistinctions140
3.1.3Thestressedforms:inventory
3.1.4Thecliticforms
3.2Morphologicalcharacteristicsofcliticsandcombinationsofclitics145
3.2.1Overview
3.2.2Syllabicversusasyllabicclitics
3.2.3Paradigmaticgaps
3.2.4Pronominalcliticclusters
3.3Emergenceofmorphologicalmarkersofdistance/respectin pronouns
3.3.1Overview
3.3.2Absenceofpolitenessdistinctions
3.3.3Binarypolitenessdistinctions
3.3.4Pluralforsingular
3.3.5 Dânsul
3.4Genderandnumberinpronouns
3.4.1Overview
3.4.2Morphologicalheterogeneityandpreservationversus reductionofgenderoppositions
3.4.3Number
3.5Casemarkinginpronouns163
3.5.1Overview163
3.5.2Defectiveparadigms163
3.5.3 ‘Overabundance’ andsuppletion164
3.5.4Suppletiveandothermodesofcasedistinction165
3.5.5Typesofinflexionandcasesyncretisms167
3.5.6Multiplemarking168
3.5.7Syntheticversusanalyticstructuresingenitive–dative casemarking168
3.6Relativeandinterrogativepronouns169
3.6.1Inventory,distribution,usage169
3.6.2Inflexionalproperties175
3.6.3Origins,history,andspecialusesinoldRomanian177
3.7Indefinites182
3.7.1Overview182
3.7.2 Unul anditscompounds(niciunul , vreunul)183
3.7.2.1 Unul, una
3.7.2.2 Niciunul,niciuna
3.7.2.3 Vreunul, vreuna
3.7.3 Altul, alta
3.7.4 Nimeni, nimic 189
3.7.5Compoundswithinterrogative–relativeelements191
3.7.5.1Overview191
3.7.5.2Theformative-şi 191
3.7.5.3Indefinites neşte, neştine, nescare/nescai, neşchit 192
3.7.5.4Serieswiththeindefinitemarkerfromformsofthe verb avrea 193
3.7.5.5Theseriesin fie-196
3.7.5.6Theseriesin nici-196
3.7.5.7Theseriesin măcar 197
3.7.5.8Newseries197
3.7.6Thequanti fiers tot ‘all’ , atât ‘somuch,thatmuch’ , mult ‘much’ , puţin ‘little’
3.7.7 Atare, cutare, acătare
3.7.8 Anume, anumit
3.7.9Compoundsformedfrominde finitesandnon-lexicalized collocations199
3.8Theform alde 200
4.Determinersandthedeicticsystem201 4.1Introduction201
4.2Historicalmorphologyofthede finitearticlefromLatin
4.2.1Formsandallomorphy202
4.2.2Origin203
4.2.3Thepositionofthedefinitearticleanditshost204
4.2.3.1Enclisis204
4.2.3.2Proclisis204
4.2.3.3Positioninthenominalphrase207
4.2.4Morphophonologicalchanges209
4.2.5Polydefinitestructures212
4.2.6Idiosyncrasiesandirregularities213
4.3 Al indiachrony216
4.4Morphologicalhistoryoftheindefinitearticle219
4.5Demonstrativesasdeterminers,deicticadjectives,andpronouns220
4.5.1Introduction220
4.5.2Proximaldemonstratives220
4.5.3Distaldemonstratives222
4.5.4Inflexionalanddistributionalproperties222
4.5.5Specialdemonstrativesystems224
4.5.6Demonstrativesindiachrony224
4.5.7Thegrammaticalizationofthedeterminer cel 227
4.6Othermodesofdeixis(locatives,adverbs)235
4.7Theformatives -a, -le,and-și 238
4.7.1Introduction238
4.7.2Theformative-a 239
4.7.3Theformative-le 244
4.7.4Theformative-şi 246
4.7.5Theformatives-re,-ne,-te,-i 248
5.Possessives249
5.1Introduction249
5.2Theparadigm:conservationandreorganization249
5.2.1Stressedformsofthe firstandsecondpersons249
5.2.2Stressedthird-personforms252
5.2.3Possessiveaffixes254
6.Theverb258
6.1AbriefoverviewofthestructureoftheRomanianverb258
6.2Inflexionclassesandtheirorigins260
6.2.1Thefourinheritedclasses:theiroriginsandcharacteristics260
6.2.2Thedistinctionbetweenthe ‘second’ andthe ‘third’ conjugationsin diachrony265
6.2.3Historicalproductivityoftheclasses268
6.2.4Theemergenceofnewinflexionalsubclassesandtheircauses269
6.2.5Phonologicallyinducedneutralizationofconjugation classdistinctions,andresultantchangesofconjugationclass273
6.2.6Onthegenesisofnewconjugationclasses274
6.3Theinflexionalparadigmoftheverb278
6.3.1Theinflexionalmarkingofpersonandnumber278
6.3.2Inflexionalmarkingoftense:present,imperfect,preterite, pluperfect,andsyntheticconditional289
6.3.3Inflexionalmarkingofindicativevssubjunctive297
6.3.4Inflexionalmarkingofimperatives301
6.4Allomorphyinthelexicalroot308
6.4.1Introduction308
6.4.2TheremnantsofLatinperfectiverootmorphology: ‘PYTA’ roots308
6.4.2.1Introduction308
6.4.2.2GeneralcharacteristicsofRomanianPYTAroots:stress, sigmatism,andthematic[e]309
6.4.2.3Thefateofnon-sigmaticPYTAroots: aveni, a fi, aface, ada, asta, acere 311
6.4.2.4OthermorphologicaleffectsofPYTAroots314
6.4.3Suppletionandotherunusualformsofallomorphy:the verbs lua ‘take’ , avea ‘want’ , putea ‘beable’ , vrea ‘want’ , and fi ‘be’ 315
6.5Themorphologicalhistoryofnon-finiteforms323
6.5.1Thedivergenceandsemanticspecializationoflongandshortinfinitives323
6.5.2Themorphologyofthepastparticiple326
6.5.3Theoriginsofthe ‘supine’ anditsrelationtothepastparticiple328
6.5.4Thegerund333
6.5.5Themorphological ‘feminization’ ofnon-finiteforms338
6.6Theemergenceof ‘morphomic ’ patternsintheverb341
6.6.1Introduction341
6.6.2MorphomicrepercussionsofLatinperfectivemorphology342
6.6.3The ‘N-pattern’ 345
6.6.4Thefateofpatternsofalternationoriginallyproducedbypalatalization350
6.6.5Thesupineandpastparticipleas ‘morphome’ indiachrony356
6.7Themorphologicalhistoryofauxiliaryverbs359
6.7.1Overview359
6.7.2Auxiliary have 360
6.7.3Auxiliary want 362
6.7.4Conditionalauxiliaries364
6.7.5Auxiliary be 368
6.8Novelperiphrasticconstructionsinvolvingauxiliaryverbs andnon-finiteverbforms369
6.8.1Introduction369
6.8.2Theperiphrasticperfect370
6.8.3Thetrans-Danubianpluperfectperiphrasis371
6.8.4Futureperiphrases372
6.8.5Thefutureinthepastperiphrasis374
6.8.6Theconditionalperiphrasis374
6.8.7Periphraseswithpastparticiple376
6.8.8Periphraseswiththegerund379
7.Wordformationindiachrony383
7.1Structureandsegmentationofaffixes383
7.1.1Difficultiesofanalysis383
7.1.2Variantsofsuffixes385
7.1.3Thephoneticstructureofsuffixes,andstress385
7.1.4Typesofbasesselectedbysuffixes387
7.2Diminutiveandaugmentativesuffixes388
7.2.1Diminutivesuffixes388
7.2.1.1Grammaticalandsemanticproperties388
7.2.1.2Inventoryandorigins390
7.2.1.3Productivity391
7.2.2Augmentativesuffixes393
7.2.2.1Grammaticalandsemanticproperties393
7.2.2.2Inventoryandorigins394
7.2.2.3Productivity394
7.3Agentivesuf fixation394
7.3.1Grammaticalandsemanticproperties394
7.3.2Thegrammarof-tor derivatives396
7.3.3Inventoryandorigins398
7.3.4Productivity400
7.4Ethnicsuffixation401
7.4.1Organizationofethnonyms401
7.4.2Inventory,origin,andcharacteristicsofethnonymicsuffixes402
7.4.3Productivity404
7.5Suffixalmarkingofsex/naturalgender406
7.5.1Mobilenounandsex-markingsuffix(motionalsuffix) versusepicenenoun406
7.5.2Sex-markingsuffixes:inventory,origin,characteristics407
7.5.3Productivity409
7.6Suffixesforabstractnouns410
7.6.1Typologyandsemantics410
7.6.2Inventory,variants,characteristics,origin411
7.6.2.1Deverbalabstracts411
7.6.2.2Deadjectival/denominalabstracts413
7.6.2.3Thegrammarofthesuffix-re anditsvariants413
7.6.2.4Thestatusofthesuffix-are:therelationto-re 414
7.6.2.5Thegrammarofthesuffixes-it/-ărit 415
7.6.2.6Thesuffixes-tură,-ciune,andtheirvariants416
7.6.3Productivity,synonymy,competition416
7.6.3.1Competitionbetweenthelonginfinitiveandthe nominalsupine418
7.6.3.2Suffixalformation~competitionwiththelonginfinitive (andnominalizedsupine)420
7.6.3.3Competitionbetweendifferentsuffixalformations420
7.7Adjectivalsuffixation422
7.7.1Characteristics,inventory,origin422
7.7.2Productivity425
7.8Adverbialsuf fixation426
7.8.1Preliminaryremarks426
7.8.2Inventoryofsuffixesandtheircharacterization426
7.8.2.1Thesuffixes-eşte,-iceşte 426
7.8.2.2Thesuffix -iş/-â 430
7.8.2.3Thesuffix-mente 430
7.8.2.4Diminutiveadverbialsuffixes431
7.8.2.5Onthe(oldandneological)suffix-e 431
7.8.2.6Notesonexpressiveformants(adverbialaugments)432
7.9Verbalsuffixation433
7.9.1Inventory,grammaticalandsemanticcharacteristics,origins433
7.9.2Productivity,competition,semantics436
7.10Thenegativepre fix ne-438
7.10.1Originandhistory438
7.10.2Formsandgrammaticalproperties438
7.10.3Semanticproperties440
7.10.4Productivity440
7.10.5Othernegativeprefixes441
7.11Otherderivationalpre fixes441
7.11.1Inventory,characteristics441
7.11.2Origins444
7.11.3Meaning445
7.11.4Productivity446
7.12Prefixoidsandsuffixoids446
7.13Theformationofcompoundnouns,adjectives,andverbs449
7.13.1Introduction449
7.13.2Compoundnouns450
7.13.3Compoundadjectives464
7.13.4Compoundverbs467
7.14Thehistoricalmorphologyofnumerals468
7.14.1Introduction468
7.14.2Cardinalnumerals469
7.14.3Ordinalnumerals471
7.14.4Othernumericalexpressions473
8.Conclusion474
Textualsources
References
Preface
Romanianhaslongremainedrathera ‘Cinderella’ amongtheRomancelanguages, beingtoooftenoverlookedorsimplymisrepresented,despitewidespreadacknowledgementofitsimportanceforRomancelinguisticsandlinguistictheory.This situation,whichhasinpartbeenduetothedearthofreliabledescriptionsof Romanianinlanguageseasilyaccessibletointernationalscholarship,isnowchanging (see,forexample,Pană Dindelegan2013b,2016d;Dobrovie-Sorin&Giurgea2013).
Thepresent OxfordHistoryofRomanianMorphology isafurtherstepinthisdirection: itisthe firstvolumeexclusivelydevotedtothehistoricaldescriptionandinterpretation ofallofRomanianmorphology.TotheextentthatstandardhistoriesofRomanian haveaddressedmorphologyatall,theirtreatmenthasoftenbeenatthelevelof descriptionandpresentationofforms.Thereisnoshortageofoftenexcellentindepthdiachronicdiscussionsofparticularmorphologicalphenomena,asthe Referencessectioninthisbookwilltestify;buttheyareusuallytobefoundinarticles scatteredacrossspecialistjournals,orinchaptersofeditedvolumes.Moreover,forthe mostparttheyarewritteninRomanianandarethereforeinaccessibletomost linguists.Thelackofacomprehensiveaccountofthehistoricalmorphologyofthe languageisparticularlyseriousbecauseRomanianmorphologyoftenpresentsprofoundandproblematicdifferenceswhencomparedwithallornearlyallother Romancelanguages(see§1.1).
TheoriginsofmanyofthedistinctivedevelopmentsofRomanianmorphologyare problematic,indeedcontroversial,andtheinterpretationofthesephenomenadeserves thekindofthoroughhistoricalpresentationthatthisbookaimstooffer.Moreover,all thesemattersarerelevantnotonlytothehistoryofRomancelinguisticsbut,more broadly,tomorphologicaltheory.Itisacentralaimofthisbooktomakethe phenomenadescribedhereaccessibletoallhistoricallinguists.
ThehistoryofRomanianmorphologyisexploredanddocumentedherebytaking accountof,andsynthesizing,allavailablehistoricalandcomparativesources,notleast textualmaterialfromoldRomanian.TherecordedhistoryofRomanianisfrustratingly short(itdoesnotgobackbeyondtheendofthe fifteenthcentury),andtheearlytexts, writtenastheyweremainlyintheCyrillicalphabet,oftenposesubtleproblemsof interpretationthatrequirespecialphilologicalexpertise.Detailedexamplesculledfrom earlytextsareacentralfeatureofthebook,alongwithdiscussionoftheirimportance, oftheproblemstheypresent,andofhowtoaddressthem.Wealsodrawonan impressiverangeofmoderncomparativeevidence,asfurnishedbyasetofextremely richRomanianlinguisticatlasesandbyalargecorpusofdescriptivestudies,both dialectologicalandhistorical.
Thebookistheresultoffruitfulcollaborationbetweenall fiveauthors,andevery partofithasbeenreadandrereadbyeachoneofthem.Somepartsaregenuinelythe resultofmultipleinput;but,eventhen,generalindicationsaboutauthorshipcan bemade.AdinaDragomirescuismainlyresponsiblefor§§4.1–4.6,6.5.1–6.5.3,and 7.12–7.14;MartinMaidenforchapters1and8andfor§§2.3,2.5–2.7,6.2,6.3,6.4.3, 6.5.3–6.5.5,and6.6;GabrielaPană Dindeleganfor§§2.1–2.2,2.4,2.8–2.9,§3.6,and 7.1–7.11;OanaUță Bărbulescuforchapter5andfor§§3.1–3.6;RodicaZafiufor §§3.7–3.8,4.7,6.1,6.4.1–6.4.2,and6.7–6.8.Maidencoordinatedtheentirevolume, whichiswhyhisnamecomes first;theremainingnamesareorderedalphabetically, sincenohierarchyor ‘orderofimportance’ wasinoperationamongtheauthors.
WethankManuelaTecușanforherpatientandpainstakingworkincopy-editing thisbook.Ourheartfeltthanksgo,also,toJuliaSteerandtoVickiSunterofOxford UniversityPressfortheirconstantencouragement,understanding,andpatienceaswe putthebooktogether.
Introduction
1.1Aimsandbackground
DespitetheremarkablecomplexityofthemorphologicalsystemofRomanian,no singleworkdevotedtoitshistoricaldescriptionandinterpretationexists.Ofcourse, historiesofthelanguagedoincludeaccountsofitsmorphology,andtheseareoften highlyreliable.¹Whatismore,thereareplentyofseparatetreatmentsofspecific morphologicalphenomena manyofthemexcellent,andmostinRomanian.But thelackofafocusedandcomprehensivehistoricalaccountissurprising,especiallyif webearinmindthatthemorphologyofRomanianoftenpresentsprofoundand problematicdifferencesfromthoseofotherRomancelanguages.Herearesomeof themostsalientdistinctivetraitstobeconsideredinthesepages:
• themorphologicalsystemofRomanianappearstopossessathirdgender,in additiontomasculineandfeminine agendercalled ‘neuter’,withdistinctive morphologicalcharacteristics;
• itpossessesaninflexionalcasesystem;
• unlikeotherRomancelanguages,ithasaninflexionalvocative;
• themorphologicalmarkingofnumberreachessuchalevelofunpredictability that,formostnouns(andformanyadjectives),theformofthepluralmustbe independentlyspecifiedalongsidethatofthesingular;
• thereisanon-finiteformoftheverbthatapparentlycontinuestheLatinsupine;
• relativelyrecently,theinfinitivehasundergoneamorphologicalsplitsuchthat oneformnowfunctionspurelyasanoun,whiletheotherremainspurelyaverb;
• thedistinctivemorphologyofthesubjunctivehaslargelydisappeared(with systematicexceptions);
• strikingmorphologicaldifferenceshaveemergedbetweenauxiliaryverbsandthe lexicalverbstheyoriginatefrom;
¹Manualsofthehistoryofthelanguage(e.g.Densusianu1938;Rothe1957;Graur1968;Ivănescu1980;Rosetti 1986;Sala1999;Philippide2011)oftencontaindiscussionsofthesubject,andthereareimportantmonographic studiesdedicatedtodescribingmajoraspectsofhistoricalmorphology(e.g.Coteanu1969a–h;Zamfir2005–7). SomeofthechaptersofmajorencyclopaedicdescriptionsoftheRomancelanguages(e.g.chapters165–206in Holtusetal.1989)containusefulinformation.ThereislittlethatisavailableinEnglish:someaccountsof Romanianmorphology,largelysynchronicallyoriented,canbefoundinMallinson(1986,1988);Maiden (2016b–d);Dragomirescu&Nicolae(2016);andLoporcaro(2016).Reliablebutelementarynotionsofhistorical morphologymaybegleanedfromAvram&Sala(2000).ManyusefulhistoricalremarksmaybefoundinPană Dindelegan(2013b).
TheOxfordHistoryofRomanianMorphology. MartinMaiden,AdinaDragomirescu,GabrielaPana Dindelegan,OanaUt a Barbulescu,and a Barbulescu,
• themorphologyofbothnounandverbisdeeplypermeatedbytheeffectsof successivesoundchanges,andthishascreatedremarkablycomplexpatternsof allomorphy.
Theoriginsofmanyofthesedevelopmentsareproblematic,oftencontroversial,andit istobehopedthattheirinterpretationwillbenefitfromthekindofthoroughhistorical expositionthatthisbookoffers.Moreover,theyareproblematicinwaysthatareof interestfromthebroaderperspectivesofhistoricalRomancelinguisticsaswellasof morphologicaltheorymoregenerally.Andweshouldrepeatherethatoneofouraims inthisbookistoreachbeyondthehorizonofRomancelinguistics,makingthe phenomenadescribedhereaccessibletoallstudentsandscholarsofhistorical morphology.
1.2AbriefoutlineofthehistoryoftheRomanianlanguage
RomanianistheprincipalmemberoftheDaco-RomancebranchofRomance languages.Thisbranchcomprisesfourmajorsub-branches:thedialectsknownas ‘Daco-Romanian’,towhichstandardRomanianbelongs,andthethreedialectswecall ‘trans-Danubian’,spokensouthoftheDanube,namelyAromanian(orMacedoRomanian),Megleno-Romanian,andIstro-Romanian.Thatthesevarietieshavea commonhistoricaloriginisbeyonddoubt,buttheirprehistory,thedetailsofthe dialectalseparation,andthegeographical ‘cradle’ ofDaco-Romanceareallcontroversialandprobablyintheendunrecoverable(cf.Andreose&Renzi2013:287).Linguists generallyassumethatRomaniancontinuestheLatinspokeninDacia,sinceitisspoken overageographicalareathatbroadlycorrespondstotheRomanprovinceofDacia, occupiedbytheRomansforlessthantwocenturies,from 106to 271. AromanianprobablysplitofffromtherestofDaco-Romancebeforetheeleventh century,whileIstro-RomanianandMegleno-Romanianseemtohavebecome detachednoearlierthanthethirteenthcentury.RomanianistodaytheofficiallanguageofRomania(andthemothertongueof90%ofitsapproximately22million inhabitants),andalsotheofficiallanguageoftheRepublicofMoldova(whereitisthe mothertongueofaboutthree-quartersofapopulationof3.4million).²Romanianis alsothelanguageofcommunitiessettlednearthefrontiersofRomaniaandthe RepublicofMoldova,innorth-easternBulgaria,Serbia(TimocValleyand Voivodina),Hungary,andtheUkraine.TheemergenceofRomanianasawrittenor officiallanguagewasaslowandsporadicprocess,notcompletedbeforethenineteenth century.Untilthesixteenthcenturythelanguageofwritingandofelevateddiscourse wasmainlyOldChurchSlavonic.Thebasisofthemodernstandardlanguageisthe
²The ‘Moldovanlanguage’,essentiallyindistinguishablefromRomanian(seePopușoi2013forrecentRussian influences),isbasicallyapoliticalinvention.Seee.g.Andreose&Renzi(2013:309–10)andVarvaro(2013:341).
dialectofMuntenia,thesouth-easternrepresentativeofadialectalcontinuum characterizedbyahighdegreeofmutualintelligibility acontinuumthatincludes thefollowingvarieties:Moldovaninthenorth-east, maramureșean inMaramureș (in thenorth-west), crișean inCrișana(inthewest), bănățean inBanat(inthewest),and Transylvanian(bestseenasatransitionalzonebetweentheothers).
Istro-Romanianisspokeninthenorth-easternIstrianpeninsula(Croatia),insome villagessouthofMountUčka,andin Žejane,tothenorthofthemountain.TheIstroRomaniansprobablydescendfrompastoralcommunitiesthatsettledduringthelate MiddleAgesinBosnia,Serbia,andCroatia,havingenteredIstriafromthe fifteenth century.Theplaceoforiginoftheirlanguageandthequestionwhetheritbranchedoff fromvarietiesspokeninRomaniaorfromothervarietiesspokenintheBalkans,or whetheritrepresentsamixtureofdialectsarecontroversial(cf.Sârbu&Frățilă 1998: 13–18).DocumentaryandtoponymicevidenceindicatesthattheIstro-Romanians wereoncemorewidespreadinIstria,aswellasonthenearbyAdriaticislandsofKrk andRab.Todaytheremaybenomorethanacoupleofhundredspeakersleftin Croatia,mostofthemelderlyandbilingualinIstro-RomanianandCroatian(Orbanić 1995;Filipi2003).
TheAromaniansarefoundintheBalkanarea,particularlyinAlbania,incentral andnorthernGreeceandinsouth-westernMacedonia(seeKahl1999,2006; Demirtaş -Co ş kun2001;Nevaci2013).Theynumberanywherebetween200,000 or300,000and500,000(seeDahmen2005;Nevaci2013:18).Theirmainsubdivisionsarethepindeanandgr ă mosteanvarieties,spokenmainlyinGreeceandthe RepublicofMacedonia,andthef ă r ş erotandgraboveanvarieties,spokenmainlyin Albania.
Megleno-Romaniancountsbarely5,000speakers,allsettledinvillagesinthePella andKilkisprefecturesofnorthernGreeceandintheRepublicofMacedoniaonthe othersideofthefrontier,intheregionofHuma(Umă).Weknownexttonothing aboutMegleno-Romanianbeforethebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.Somehold thatitoriginatesinsouthernRomaniandialects;others(seeAtanasov2002:15–27), thatitisanoffshootofAromanian.
WhilethemainfocusofthisbookisthehistoricalmorphologyofRomanian,the morphologyoftheotherbranchesofDaco-Romanceoftenthrowsconsiderablelight onRomaniananddisplaysdevelopmentsthatdeserveourattention.Forthisreason frequentreferencewillbemadetothemall.
ThedominantcharacteristicsofthehistoryofRomanian(andofDaco-Romance generally),particularlyinitsearlieststages,areisolationandobscurity.Cutofffrom otherRomancelanguagesbytheSlavincursionsofthe fifthandsixthcenturies(and, later,bythearrivalofHungarianstowardstheendoftheninthcentury),Romanianis almosttotallyinaccessibletodirectlinguisticanalysisuntilthesixteenthcentury.The languageseemsnottohavebeensetdowninwritingbeforethefourteenthcentury, andtheearliesttextstohavecomedowntous,writtenintheCyrillicalphabet,date fromnoearlierthanthebeginningofthesixteenthcentury.Theearliestsurviving documentis PsaltireaHurmuzaki,acopy,fromabout1500,ofa fifteenth-century
translationofthePsalmsintoRomanian.Theearliestsurvivingdocumentspontaneously writteninRomanianisaletterof1521,byacertainNeacșudeCâmpulung.These documentsclearlycontinuealong-establishedwrittentraditionandcertainlycannot beconsideredtorepresentthe firststagesofwrittenRomanian.Thebeginningofthe writtenhistoryofthelanguage,attheopeningofthesixteenthcentury,alsomarksthe commencementofwhatisknownasthe ‘oldRomanian’ period.Theendofthisperiod isconventionallydatedto1780.
Evenbeforethetimeoftheearliestsurvivingtext,Romanianwords(anthroponyms, toponyms,commonnames)areattestedindocumentswritteninSlavonic,³Latin,or Hungarian,theofficiallanguagesintheRomanianlandsatthattime.Textsinthe Cyrillicalphabetareclearlyinthemajorityduringtheoldperiod,buttherearealso Romaniantextsintheromanalphabet(Carteadecântece,printedinCluj,anda versionoftheLord’sPrayer,composedbyLucaStroiciandpublishedinKraków).The beginningsoftheRomanian(ortho)graphictraditioncanbetracedbacktothemidfifteenthcentury,tojudgebothfromtheappearanceatthattimeofcertaingraphical peculiaritiesthatarenotfoundinthewritingofSlavonicwordsandfromtwovariable graphemesthatreflect,respectively,traditionandactualusage(seefurtherGheție 1997b).Thesixteenth-centurytextsare,overwhelmingly,translationsofcanonical religiouswritings,buttherearealsoapocrypha,printedorinmanuscript,mostof theminRomanian,somebilingual(Slavo-Romanian,withintercalatedtranslation). Layliteratureisrepresentedbyatranslationof Floreadarurilor,afewmedicalrecipes, andapopularmagictextfrom CodiceleBratul.Sixteenth-centurytextsdirectlywritten inRomanianarefewandfarbetween,beingrepresentedbychancelleryandprivate documentsandbyprefacesandepiloguestoreligioustranslations.
ThelinguisticisolationofRomanianfromotherRomancelanguagesbeginsto diminishfromtheeighteenthcentury,mainlyasaresultoftheactivitiesofintellectuals.AnewawarenessofthelinguisticandculturalheritageofLatinmanifestsitself linguisticallyintheintroductionofstructures,especiallyvocabulary,borrowedfrom Latin,French,andItalian.IfmodernwrittenRomanian,especiallyinitshigherand scientificregisters,mayberelativelyeasytounderstandforareaderwhoknowsFrench orItalian,thisisbecauseoftheselinguisticandespeciallylexicalinfluencesfromrecent centuries.Incontrast,asixteenth-centuryRomaniantextislikelytobeverydifficultto understand.Theseinfluenceswillfrequentlybeapparentinthefollowingdiscussions ofRomanianhistoricalmorphology.
1.3TheRomanianwritingsystem
Ourunderstandingofmorphologicalhistoryisperforcedependentonwrittensources. Moreover,theRomanianexamplescitedinthisbookaregenerallygiveninthe
³Therearealsocommentsmadeindidacticwritings(Gheţie&Mareş 1974).
standardRomanianorthography,exceptwheretheorthographycruciallyobscures morphologicalphenomena.Someobservationsonthewritingsystemanditshistory arethereforeinorder.
Aswehavesaid,theearliestRomaniantextsarewrittenintheCyrillicalphabet, accordingtoasometimeserraticsystem,whichmaycreateambiguityaboutthe phonologicalandmorphologicalrealitiesitrepresents.Forthesixteenthcentury thereareproblemswiththeinterpretationofCyrillicletters,someofwhichhavea bearingonmorphologicalanalysis,notablywithrespecttotherealizationofthe continuantsofhistoricallyunderlying final * -u (associatedespeciallywiththemarking of first-personsingularinverbsandmasculinesingularinnounsandadjectives)and final * -i (associatedespeciallywiththemarkingofsecond-personsingularinverbsand pluralinnounsandadjectives).Theissuesaretoocomplextobeexploredindetail hereandbearmainlyonthehistoryofthewritingsystem.Sufficeittosaythatthe graphicevidencemaybeambiguousastowhethertherelevantvowelsarefullvowels ordevoicedvowelsorhaveinfactbeendeleteddespitebeingretainedinorthography. Thereisalsoambiguityregardingthevalueofthelettersusedtorepresentthe diphthong[ea]andthecentralvowel[ɨ].
Itisnotuntilthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturythatoneseesmultiple, oftenuntidyattemptstosimplifythetraditionalorthography(seeOnu1989:305–6). Thesameperiodwitnessesthe firstattemptstowriteRomanianintheromanalphabet (seeStan2012).RomaniantextswithromanlettersappearinTransylvaniabythe eighteenthcentury;theyfollowPolish,Hungarian,German,orItalianorthographic models.Fromtheeighteenthcenturyon,intellectualsbelongingtothe ‘Transylvanian School’ (seeOnu1989:307–8),especiallyasrepresentedbyPetruMaior(1756–1821),⁴ laidthefoundationsofmodernRomanianorthography.Between1828and1859, ‘transitional’ alphabetscomprisingbothCyrillicandromanlettersweredevised (Onu1989:309–10).Astandardizedorthographyusingtheromanalphabetwas intoducedinWallachiaandMoldovaintheearly1860s.TheRomanianAcademy’ s firstofficialorthography,whichwasofabroadlyphonemickindandpromoted Wallachiannormsofpronunciation,appearedin1881.Thetwentiethcenturysaw variousspellingreforms(Stan2012).⁵ Thecurrentspellingsystem,whichisusedin thisbook,hasthefollowingcharacteristics.
ModernRomanianorthographyisbroadlyphonemicandtherelationbetween soundsandletters,atleastatthesegmentallevel,istransparentandpredictable,as showninTable1.1.
⁴ PetruMaiorisalsotheinventoroftheletter ț,whichisapparentlyuniquetoRomanianamongtheworld’ s writingsystems.
⁵ TheRomanianoftheMoldovanAutonomousSovietSocialistRepublic,andsubsequentlyoftheMoldovan SovietSocialistRepublic,adoptedCyrillicaspartofthelinguisticpolicyoftheStalinistera(seeDeletant1996:53, 58–9,61).ThiswasnoreversiontothetraditionalCyrillicscriptofRomanian;itwasanadaptationofCyrillicas usedinthenotationofmodernRussian,withconcessionstothepeculiaritiesofRomanianphonology.
Table1.1 Letter–soundcorrespondences inmodernRomanian
lettersound
a [a] ă [ә] â [ɨ] b [b]
c [k](or[ʧ],seebelow) d [d]
e [e] f [f]
g [g](or[ʤ],seebelow)
h [h] i [i](butseebelow)
î [ɨ] j [ʒ] l [l] m [m] n [n] o [o] p [p] r [r]
s [s]
ş [ʃ] t [t] ţ [ʦ] u [u] v [v] x [ks]or[gz] z [z]
Thissystemnonethelessdisplayssomemismatchesbetweenletterandsound,and certainofthemarerelevanttomorphology:
i.Theletter i mayhavepurelydiacriticvaluewhenitimmediatelyfollows c or g andisnotfollowedbyafrontvowelletter,indicatingthepronunciations[ʧ]and [ʤ]: ciocan [ʧo ˈkan] ‘hammer’ , ciuguli [ʧugu ˈli] ‘nibble’ , giuvaer [ʤuva ˈer] ‘jewel’ , treci [treʧ] ‘ pass2 ’ , răngi [rәnʤ] ‘crowbars’.Aparticularlyimportantobservationfromthepointofviewofmorphologyisthatword-final i (ifit doesnotrepresentastressedvowel)almostalwaysmarksapalatalizedpronunciationofanimmediatelyprecedingconsonant: lupi [lupʲ] ‘wolves’ , pari [parʲ] ‘poles’ , şcoli [ʃkolʲ] ‘schools’ , suni ‘yousound’ [sunʲ], rupi ‘youtear’ [rupʲ].After theletter j or ş ithasnodistinctivevalue(althoughitmayserveasan orthographicalmarkerofpluralinnounsandadjectives,orofsecond-person singularinverbs): mieji [mjeʒ] ‘kernels’ , paşi [paʃ] ‘steps’ , ieşi [jeʃ] ‘goout2.
’.Finalunstressed-i isalwayspronounced[i]after[Cr]clusters(e.g. acri
‘ sour ’ , codri ‘woods’).Whentheunstressedvowel[i]occursattheendofa word,itisnormallyrepresentedinspellingasdouble ii: lupii [ˈlupi] ‘thewolves’ ,
parii [ˈpari] ‘thepoles’ , paşii [ˈ paʃi] ‘thesteps’.Astheseexamplesshow, final-ii isprominentasamarkerofthe(masculine)pluraldefinitearticle.
ii.Romaniandoesnotorthographicallyindicateprimarystressinwords.Minimal pairssuchaspresenttense[ˈkɨntә] ‘(s)hesings’ vspreterite[kɨn ˈtә] ‘(s)hesang’ ,or [ˈ mɨna] ‘thehand’ vsimperfecttense[mɨˈna] ‘(s)hedrove’,orpresenttense[fuʤ] ‘ you2 flee ’ vspreterite[fuˈʤi] ‘(s)he fled’,or[ˈia] ‘thelinenblouse’ vspresent tense[ja] ‘(s)hetakes’ are,homographically, cântă, mâna, fugi,and ia.Inprinciple, itispossibletodeployawrittenacuteaccenttoindicatestress(e.g. fugí).
iii.Theletters â and î bothhaveexactlythesamepronunciation,namely[ɨ].The letter â iscurrentlyusedeverywherefor[ɨ],exceptwhenitisthe firstorlastsound ofaword,inwhichcase î mustbeused(includingatthebeginningofwords formingpartsofcompounds):thus înger ‘angel’ but sânge ‘blood’.Thisconventionhastheeffectofproducingpurelyorthographicallomorphyintheverb system(cf.infinitive hotărî [hotә ˈ rɨ] ‘decide’ vsgerund hotărând [hotә ˈ rɨnd], wherethereisinfactnodifferenceinthephonologicalormorphologicalidentity oftherelevantvowel).Notealsotheetymologizingratherthanphonemicspellings suntsuntemsunteți forpresenttenseformsoftheverb ‘be’ (reflectingLatin ),despitethefactthattheirrootisgenerallypronounced[sɨnt].
iv.Theletters c and g standfor[k]and[g],exceptthatbeforelettersrepresenting frontvowels(e and i)theyhave,respectively,thevalues[ʧ]and[ʤ]: cană [ˈkanә] ‘ mug ’ , cină [ˈʧinә] ‘dinner’ , fugă [ˈfugә] ‘flee3 ’ , fuge [ˈfuʤe] ‘flee3 ’ .
v.Theletter h isusedasadiacriticbetween c or g andimmediatelyfollowingfront vowelletters,inordertoindicatethat c or g representvelars: China [ˈkʲina] ‘China’ , cina [ˈʧina] ‘thedinner’ , ghem [gʲem] ‘ballofwool’ , gem [ʤem] ‘I moan ’.Elsewhere, h alwayshasthevalue[h]: pahar [paˈhar] ‘glass’ , duh [duh] ‘spirit’ .
vi.Theletters e and o representthesounds[e]and[o],exceptinthedigraphs ea and oa,whicharereadasopeningdiphthongs[ea]and[oa]: pleacă [ˈpleakә]
‘departs’ , poate [ˈpoate] ‘(s)hecan’ .
1.4MajortypologicalcharacteristicsofRomanianmorphology
ThebrieftypologicaloutlinethatfollowsisintendedtohighlightsomemajorcharacteristicsofRomanianinflexionalmorphology.Nodetailedexamplesaregivenhere, butreaderswill findplentyofthembyfollowingthetrailofreferencestotherelevant partsofthevolume.
Romanian,likeotherRomancelanguages,displaysinflexionalmorphologyinits nouns,adjectives,pronouns,determiners,andverbs.Whilemanywordformsinthese classeshaveabroadlyagglutinativestructure atleastinthesensethatonecan identifya ‘root’ thatbearsthelexicalmeaningfollowedbyadesinencethatcarries grammaticalmeaning theinflexionalmorphologyis,toahighdegree, ‘fusional’ .
Thedesinencesareoftencumulative(quitefrequentlyonecannotseparateclearlythe carriersofparticulargrammaticalmeanings),andsometimesgrammaticalmeanings mayhavenoovertrealization(e.g. ‘ zero ’ endings).Therearepervasive,sometimes unpredictablepatternsofrootallomorphy,andthesearepresentinRomaniantoa notablyhigherdegreethaninotherstandardRomancelanguages.Therearealso alternationsofstress.AsinotherRomancelanguages,thepositionofthestressis invariableinadjectivesandpronouns,andalmostalwaysinnouns,too.Incontrast (and,again,aselsewhereinRomance),verbsarecharacterizedbysystematicpatternsof stressalternationbetween ‘rhizotony’ (stressfallingonthelexicalroot)insomepartsof theparadigmand ‘arrhizotony’ (stressnotfallingontheroot)elsewhereintheparadigm.
Romanianinflexionalmorphologyisalsoextensivelycharacterizedbysyncretism, especiallyintheverb(§6.3).Rootallomorphyfrequentlyobeysrecurrentanddiachronicallypersistentpatternsofparadigmaticdistributionthatcannotbedirectly correlatedwithanycoherentmorphosyntacticormorphosemanticvalues(§6.6).In theverbinparticular,onealsosometimes finds ‘emptymorphs’,thatis,systematic elementsoflinearstructurelocatedbetweentherootandthegrammaticaldesinences towhichnolexicalorgrammaticalvaluecanbeassigned(§6.2.4).
Pronouns,determiners,andvirtuallyallnouns(andalladjectivesinagreement) inflectfornumber(singularvsplural).Thepronominalsystemalsodistinguishes firstpersonsingular, first-personplural,second-personsingular, first-personplural, second-personplural,third-personsingular,andthird-personpluralforms.Finite formsoftheverbinflectaccordingtothenumber(singularorplural)ofthesubject.
UnlikeothermodernRomancelanguages,Romanianretainsinitsdeterminer system(demonstrativeadjectives,definiteandindefinitearticles),initsdemonstrative pronouns,andmarginallyinitsnominalsystem(femininesingularnounsandadjectives)avestigialinflexionalcasesystemcomprisingtwocaseforms,onebroadly associatedwiththesubjectandthedirectobjectoftheverb,theotherbroadly associatedwiththevaluesofthegenitiveorthedative(see§2.4).Mostpronouns distinguishinflexionallybetweentheaccusativeandthedative(§3.5).Romanianisalso distinctiveamongRomancelanguagesinpossessingdesinencesthatmarkthevocative, bothinthesingularandintheplural(§2.9).
Adjectives,determiners,andthird-personpronounsinflectforgender(masculinevs feminine).Thereisastrongbutimperfectcorrelationbetweentheinflexionalstructure ofnounsandtheselectionofmasculineorfeminineagreement(§2.3).
IncommonwithotherRomancelanguagesbutunlikeLatin,Romanianmakesa morphologicaldistinctionbetweenfullandcliticformsofpersonalpronouns(inthe accusativeanddativeforms);thesedistinctionsaremainlysuppletiveornear-suppletive.Thecliticformsthemselvesdisplayconsiderableallomorphy,asafunctionoftheir positioninrelationtotheirhostortoeachother(§3.2).
AsinallRomance(andasinotherIndo-European)languages,theinflexional paradigmoftheverbismadeupof finiteforms(inflectingforpersonandnumber, butalsofortenseandmoodand,vestigially,foraspect)andnon-finiteforms.In finite forms,themarkersofpersonandnumber(cumulativelyexpressed)tendtooccur
‘rightmost’ intheword;theseendingsalsotendtodisplayallomorphyaccordingto tense,mood,andaspect(§6.4).Itcanbedifficulttoidentifyandisolatemarkersof mood(indicativevssubjunctivevsimperative)andoftense(chieflypresentvspast,but alsoanteriority),whichareoftenfusedcumulatively,notonlywitheachotherbut sometimesalsowithpersonandnumbermarkers.Inflexionaldistinctionsofaspect, pervasiveinLatinverbmorphology,havebeenallbuteffaced;but,aselsewherein Romance,theaspectdistinctiondoespersistinthedistinctionbetweentheformsofthe preteritetenseandthoseoftheimperfecttense(§6.4.2).Markersoftense,mood,and aspect,wheretheycanbeclearlyisolated,appearbetweentherootandthepersonand numberendings.UnlikemanyRomancelanguages,Romaniandoesnothavesynthetic inflexionalformsforthefutureorthefuture-in-thepast(butsee§6.4.2),nordoesit markdifferencesoftenseintheinflexionalmorphologyofthesubjunctive.
LikeotherRomancelanguages,RomanianinheritsfromLatinatleastthreenon-finite verbforms:theinfinitive,thegerund,andthepastparticiple.Theinfinitiveshowsa distinctivemorphologicalbifurcationinRomanianintoa ‘short’ and ‘long’ form,the formerbeingmorphologicallyinvariant,thelatterreanalysedasaverbalnounand inflectibleasanoun(§6.5.1).Thegerundisa(usually)morphologicallyinvariantelement, mainlywithclausalvalue(§6.5.4),andisprobablyderivedfromtheablativeformofthe Latingerund.ThepastparticiplecontinuesitsLatinantecedentandcanfunctionbothasa verbaladjective(usuallywithpassivevalue)andasaconstituenteitherofpassiveperiphrases,incombinationwiththeauxiliaryverb ‘be’,orofperfectiveperiphrases,in combinationwithauxiliaryformsoftheverbs ‘have’ or ‘be’ (§6.7).Romaniancanbe distinguishedfromotherRomancelanguages,however,insofarasitmaybeseentohave preservedfromLatinalsoakindofverbalnounknownasthe ‘supine’ (§6.5.3).
Nouns,adjectives,andverbsaredividedintoanumberofdistinctinflexionalclasses, eachnoun,adjective,orverbusuallybelongingtooneofthem.Innounsandadjectives, suchclassesarelinkedtotheidentityofthenumber-(andcase-)markingdesinences.In verbs,theinflexionalclassesareprimarilyassociatedwiththeidentityofa ‘thematic vowel’ that,incertainpartsoftheparadigm,comesimmediatelyaftertheroot(§6.2), althoughtheseclasseshaveotherstructuralcorrelatesapartfromthevowel.
Finally,derivationalmorphologyinRomaniantendstobeofamoreagglutinative characterthaninflexionalmorphology.Typically,derivedformscomprisealexical rootfollowedbyaderivationalaffix,althoughthepresenceofthataffixisoften correlatedwithallomorphyintherootandwitharrhizotony(§§7.1–7.9).Lesscommon,butbynomeansrare,isderivationbyprefixation,whichisneverassociatedwith anyrootallomorphyorwithanystressshift(§§7.10–7.11).
1.5MajorpatternsofallomorphyinRomaniannouns,verbs, adjectives,andderivationalmorphologyduetosoundchange
FewotherRomancelanguages,andcertainlynostandardones,haveabsorbedthe effectsoftheirphonologicalhistoryintotheirmorphologyasfullyashasRomanian.
Elimination(‘levelling’)oforiginalalternationsthatarisefromsoundchangecertainly occurs,butRomanianmorphologyremainsprofoundlymarkedbyallomorphyresultingfromphonologicalchange.Wesummarizebelowsomeofthemostcommonly encounteredalternationtypesdirectlyattributabletosoundchange,althoughthelistis farfromexhaustive.Wethenexemplifyeachtypewithmaterialfromnominal,verbal, orderivationalmorphology,asappropriate,remarkingonthestatusofthehistorically underlyingsoundchanges.Historical–phonologicalexplanationsaregivenherein outlineonly;manyofthedetailsappropriatetoafulleraccountofhistoricalphonology areomitted.Wherenecessary,stressismarkedbyanacuteaccentinorthographical representations.ThemajormorphologicalalternantsetsarepresentedinTable1.2.
Table1.2 Majorconsonantalandvocalicalternationsetsin Romanian Consonantal
C1.(a)k~ ʧ (b)g~ ʤ (c)sk~ ʃt
C2.(a)n~j(b)r~j
C3.(a)t~ ʦ (b)d~z(ʣ)
C4.(a)s~ ʃ (b)z~ ʒ
C5.l~ j/i
Vocalic
V1.a~ ә
V2.o~u
V3.(a)oa~o(b)ea~e
V4.(a)u~Ø(b)i~ ʲ/Ø
V5.(a)i~ ɨ (b)e~ ә
V6.(a) ә ~e(b)a~e
TypeC1reflectsproto-Daco-Romancepalatalizationandaffricationofvelarconsonantsbeforethefrontvowels[i]and[e].⁶ Althoughtheseprocesseshavelongbeen extinctandexamplesofunpalatalizedvelarsbeforefrontvowelsaboundinthemodern language,modernDaco-Romanceshowstheeffectsofthispalatalizationextensively. Hereareafewexamples: > *ˈpake> pace [ˈ paʧe] ‘ peace ’ ; > *o ˈkide> ucide [uˈʧide] ‘(s)hekills’ ; > *ˈkinke> cinci [ʧinʧ] ‘five ’ ; > *ˈlege> lege [ˈleʤe] ‘law’ ; > *ʤinˈʤia> gingie [ʤinˈʤie] ‘ gum ’.Thesequence *[sk] beforeafrontvowelultimatelybecomes[ʃt]: > *ˈ sʧimu> știm [ʃtim] ‘weknow’ ; > *ˈpeske> pește [ˈ peʃte] ‘fish’.Typicalresultantmorphologicalalternationsare presentedinTable1.3.
⁶ Forthetrickyquestionofwhetheritispartofthesamehistoricalpalatalizationofvelarsattestedinmost otherRomancelanguages(cf.Repetti2016),suchasItalian,seeSkok(1926);Merlo(2014);andMaiden(2019a: 105–11).
