Romance Languages

The neuter has disappeared from all romance languages; a few relics of it still survived in the mediaeval period. The term "neuter" used in Rumanian to designate the third declension applies to substantives conforming to the masculine declension in the singular and to the feminine declension in the plural, e.g., un cutit (a knife), niste cutite (knives). The two-case system of declension (nominative and accusative) characterising the early period of some romance languages (French, Provencal and perhaps Rhaeto-Romanic) has disappeared (see RUMANIAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE) substantives and adjectives now possess only a single case in the singular and in the plural. More numerous traces of declension are preserved by the personal and relative pronouns. The definite article and personal pronoun of the third person are in all romance languages derived from ille (or illi), illa. The car dinal numbers I to 10 correspond in all romance languages to the Latin cardinals, but from I I onwards there are varied divergences. A noteworthy feature of French is the use of 20 as multiplier. The synthetic comparatives and superlatives have mostly been ousted by magis or plus preceding the positive, e.g., grandior, grandissimus, replaced by magis or plus grandis. The tense para digms have been profoundly modified ; the future and conditional of occidental romance languages are derived from new Vulgar Latin creations which substitute for the synthetic classical amabo, amarem, forms made up of infinitive + (h)abeo (amare [h]abeo) for the future, and of infinitive + (h)abebam (amare [h]abebam) for the conditional. In Italian, however, the prototype of the conditional was infinitive + (h)abui (amare [h]abui). In Rumanian and the Rhetic idioms the future and conditional are periphrastic. Romance languages have further evolved a new perfect and pluperfect based on Latin (h)abui and (h)abebam past participle: (h)abui amatum and (h)abebam amatum. The imperative either perpetuates the Latin forms (somewhat curtailed), as in Italian, or replaces the plural by indicative or subjunctive forms. The infinitives in —are and —ire have evolved regularly ; but those in --ere and —ere have suffered varying fates in the different romance languages. As to past participles, most striking is the extension of forms in —Taus at the expense of those in —itus and —iitus. In the personal flexions

of the various tenses analogy has worked many changes; e.g., in Italian and Rumanian the second person singular of all tenses ends in Romance retains no vestige of the deponent verbs, all of which have been assimilates to active verbs, e.g., nasci has become nascere. Romance has substituted for the synthetic tenses of the passive voice, a periphrasis compounded from the different forms of essere (Vulgar Latin for esse) or of stare ± past participle.

4. Syntax.

Evolution has been towards a more rational and logical word-order and stricter connection both of clauses and of words. Many new syntactical features are closely correlated with the modifications mentioned in 2 and 3. There has been con stant action and reaction between phonetics, morphology and syntax. If the structure of the Romance sentence is compared with that of the Latin sentence the salient innovations observable are (a) the normal constructional order subject, verb, comple ment, replacing the elaborate artifices of classical Latin which had gradually disappeared in Vulgar Latin; (b) the substitution of the relative clause of the Vulgar Latin type, credo quod (or quem or quatenus) for the infinitive construction e.g., credo quod ilium verum est for credo illud verum esse; (c) increase in use and number of prepositions which in Vulgar Latin perform the functions of the lost genitive, dative and ablative cases ; (d) creation of a definite article (from ille, illa) and an indefinite article (from unus, una), (e) increase in number of tenses per mitting greater precision in' expression of the past (past anterior, past imperfect and past conditional) ; (f) ingenious devices for formation of adverbs and prepositions more adequately expressing the shades of abstract thought, e.g., French, en, ens, dans, dedans, corresponding respectively to in, intus, de + intus, de + de + intus; (g) complexity of certain interrogative forms best exempli fied by the French equivalent for the Latin Quid est?: Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela? the etymological counterpart of which would be : Quid est eccehoc quod eccehoc est quod ecce iliac? (Example quoted from the Dictionnaire General).