The Latin Neuter Plurals in Romance - Page ON

1 

1 

The Latin Neuter Plurals in Romance 

Hugh E. Wilkinson 

1. Introduction. As is well known, Rumanian has a flourishing “mixed 

declension”, consisting of nouns with masculine forms in the singular and 

feminine forms in the plural, and having its origins in the Latin neuter nouns. In 

Italian, too, there are a certain number of nouns, very limited in the standard 

language, which are similarly declined, such as il dito, le dita or il braccio, le 

braccia. Such plural formations are not found elsewhere in Romance, except 

for sparse traces in the earliest records of some languages, and instead the Latin 

neuter plural forms, where they have survived, have become feminine singulars, 

a process that is also exemplified in Rumanian and Italian, giving feminine 

nouns like Rum. foaie, It. foglia, Fr. feuille, Sp. hoja. This is a widespread 

phenomenon, sometimes resulting in the parallel existence of two separate 

nouns derived from a single Latin noun, one coming from the singular form and 

one from the plural, such as Fr. bras, Sp. brazo ‘arm’, as against brasse, braza 

‘fathom’. However, it does not seem to have excited much interest among the 

majority of the writers of historical grammars of the individual Romance 

languages, who generally devote no more than a single paragraph to it. This is 

probably due to the fact that there are no special morphological problems 

attached to this development, the new feminine nouns being treated in the same 

way as the original feminines in -A, but the result is to understate the extent to 

which the Latin neuter plurals are represented in Romance 

To give credit where it is due, it is only fair to say that full attention has 

been paid to the developments in the later stages of Latin in such works as V. 

Väänänen’s Introduction au latin vulgaire, C. H. Grandgent’s Introduction to

2 

Vulgar Latin, E. Bourciez’s Éléments de linguistique romane, H. Lausberg’s 

Romanische Sprachwissenschaft and the like; Lausberg, in particular, goes into 

great detail when describing the development from the neuter plural, first to a 

collective feminine singular and then to a singular noun denoting an individual 

item, as in the case of the names of fruits. What would appear, judging from the 

title, to be the first definitive work on the subject, W. Meyer(-Lübke)’s youthful 

work Die Schicksale des lateinischen Neutrums im Romanischen (Halle, 1883), 

was unfortunately written, as he admits, before he had amassed much material 

on the subject which concerns me here, though it still contains much valuable 

information; he had a chance to remedy this, however, in his succeeding works 

on the subject of Romance philology, such as his Grammatik der romanischen 

Sprachen and Die lateinische Sprache in den romanischen Ländern (in 

Gröber’s Grundriss). Other useful information is provided by a work of equal 

antiquity, E. Appel’s De genere neutro intereunte in lingua latina (Erlangen, 

1883), which is a storehouse of examples of late Latin developments. When we 

come to grammars of the individual languages, good coverage is given by G. 

Rohlfs, in his Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache, to all the 

instances of the survival and even extension of the Latin neuter plurals as plural 

forms in Italian, though even he (in §384) gives short shrift to the new 

feminine singulars. Full attention is also paid, of course, to the “mixed” 

declension in Rumanian grammars, though even here one may not be aware, 

without recourse to a dictionary, of the vigour of this type of declension, which 

accounts, I should say, for a greater percentage of the total number of nouns 

than the old Latin neuters, embracing, as it does, a large number of loanwords 

as well as nouns that were masculine or feminine in Latin. Again, grammars of 

Rhaeto-Romance are bound to note the existence in this language family of 

collective singulars with plural meaning, derived from the Latin neuter plurals 

and referring to a number of objects regarded as a single group, alongside new 

“regular” plural forms which are used when the same objects are considered 

2

individually. 

3 

3 

Such treatments adequately represent the situation in the individual 

languages concerned, but there seems to be a dearth of works treating the 

developments in Latin and then following this up with a detailed investigation 

into the subsequent history of each word, or class of words, in each of the 

Romance languages. These developments pose no particular problems, but to 

me the very extent of them is fascinating in itself, inasmuch as the Latin neuter 

declension, so far from being preserved only in Rumanian and Italian (though 

even here no neuter gender is recognized), left widespread traces also in 

Western Romance, where the Latin neuter nouns are generally dismissed in the 

grammars simply as having changed to masculines, apart from a certain number 

of plural forms such as ARMA, OPERA, FOLIA, which became feminine singulars 

and in their turn generated new plural forms (OPERA is often quoted as an 

example, though it is not an ideal one as it was already used as a feminine noun 

in Latin, whether taken from the neuter plural of OPUS or representing a separate 

cognate). 

My purpose, therefore, in this paper is to try and make good this 

deficiency by tracing the development of the Latin neuter plurals in Romance 

word by word (as far as my researches have extended), both as regards their 

preservation as plural forms and in terms of the stages by which they were 

changed to feminine singulars. In so doing, I am not breaking any new ground, 

but I hope that by laying a broad panorama before the reader I may help to 

present a truer picture than is often seen of how widely these neuter plurals are 

represented in Romance. The plural endings concerned are both -A and -ORA, 

the latter extracted from words like TEMPORA, CORPORA and used to form the 

plurals of other nouns; both of these are widely used in Rumanian (in the 

“double plural” forms -e and -uri), and also in Italian dialects, particularly in 

the south, and not only in words which were neuter in Latin but also in nouns

4 

which were originally masculine or even, occasionally, feminine. (For a 

comparison of the developments in the two languages, see P. Aebischer, “Les 

pluriels analogiques en -ora en Italie”, in ALMA, VIII (1933). There is also a 

treatment of the subject by G. CaragaŃă, which I have not been able to trace.) 

Furthermore, we shall see, as Aebischer stresses, that this development is not 

one which belongs to the more recent history of the individual languages, but 

had its genesis in Latin itself, where an inherited tendency (see below) for 

masculine nouns denoting objects which might, in the plural, be considered 

collectively as a group or in pairs, to form a new “neuter” plural in -A was 

extended further, giving forms like late Latin DIGITA, FRUCTA beside DIGITI, 

FRUCTUS (or FRUCTI). (These forms, like the previously existing neuter plurals, 

could also become new feminine singulars in Romance.) We shall also find that, 

as we go back in time, the cleavage between Rumanian and Italian on the one 

hand, which still preserve the old neuter forms in a plural function, and the 

other languages, which do not, was not so sharply marked. Rather, we shall 

find that the picture changes gradually as we go further west from Italy, passing 

first through a zone where these forms still have, or once had, a limited plural 

use, and finally arriving at the Iberian peninsula, where they are only found as 

feminine singulars, though still often retaining their collective meaning. In 

searching for my examples, I have taken as my starting-point those Latin 

(including late Latin) neuter plurals that have survived as plural forms in both 

Italian and Rumanian, and then turned to the other languages to see what traces 

they have preserved of these same words, and in what functions. 

2. The early Latin stage. 

a) This tendency for the neuter plurals to become feminine singulars goes 

hand in hand with another, which is for the neuter nouns to be merged with the 

masculines, and both these tendencies had their inception right at the early 

4

5 

5 

stages of the language. (Incidentally, it is curious that the neuter gender should 

have been so vulnerable in Romance, when it is still thriving in Greek, 

Slavonic and Germanic; among the modern Germanic languages, apart from 

German and Icelandic which preserve three genders, Dutch, Danish, Swedish 

and Norwegian (Riksmål) have merged their masculine and feminine genders 

but still kept the neuter separate! It may also require a stretch of the 

imagination for those brought up on Kennedy’s Latin Primer, as I was, or its 

equivalents, to realize that the ancient Romans did not have all their nouns 

tidily sorted out into declensions in their minds, arranged in neat little tables 

showing gender, number and case!) In the case of the interchange between 

neuter and feminine, we need to bear in mind that in the Indo-European 

languages the nominative and accusative forms of the neuter plurals have the 

same origin as a type of feminine singular with collective meaning (in this 

connection note that the classical Greek neuter plurals take a singular verb); 

see E. H. Sturtevant, “The Prehistory of Indo-European ā-stems” (Language, 

Vol. 14, pp. 239-247), and “Indo-Hittite Collective Nouns with a Laryngeal 

Suffix” (Language, Vol. 24, pp. 259-261). So the neuter gender tends to 

embrace words which can, in their plural signification, be conceived of in the 

mass (or in pairs) rather than individually, though this is certainly not true of 

all neuter words. Bourciez (op. cit.) suggests that another cause for the change 

to feminine singulars might be the frequent use of the plural for the singular 

made by poets (e.g. GAUDIA, which scans as a dactyl, for GAUDIUM, which can 

only be used in a hexameter if the final syllable is elided before a following 

short vowel), but the effect this would have on popular speech seems to me 

doubtful. (Of greater significance are the “double plurals” formed from the 

plurals which became feminine singulars, for which see below.) 

When it comes to confusion with the masculines, there are two points

6 

to consider, as A. Ernout points out in his Morphologie historique du latin. 

Firstly, there was a tendency in the Indo-European languages for this collective 

form also to be attached, as a plural, to masculine nouns, as in the case of 

Greek words like mērós, kýklos, desmós, lýchnos, stathmós, sîtos, or the 

Russian dom, no less than in the case of Latin iocus or locus. Secondly, it will 

easily be seen that in the singular the neuters differ from the masculines only 

in the nominative in the 2nd declension and only in the nominative and 

accusative in the 3rd and 4th declensions, though even here some neuters of 

the 3rd declension are not distinguishable from masculines in the nominative, 

cf. MEL, VER, MARMOR, FULGUR, TEMPUS, NOMEN as SOL, PATER, AMOR, 

VULTUR, LEPUS, PECTEN, and invariable adjectives like FELIX, INGENS, VETUS, 

PAUPER. Moreover, the loss of final -S in the masculine nominative, which 

began early (witness the early poets, who elide it before a consonant but 

preserve it before a vowel where it evidently forms liaison, as in French; it had 

probably became reduced to an aspirate, as in certain forms of Spanish and in 

Middle French) and must have continued uninterrupted, though the -S was 

restored in classical Latin (Cicero’s strictures on the old pronunciation as being 

“subrusticus” are well known) and was carried by the upper classes (educators 

and administrators) to Gaul and elsewhere, and this loss produced an identity 

of ending in words like GRADU(S) and GENU, and close similarity between 

MENSI(S) and MARE; furthermore, when the final -M became lost (and its 

existence was always tenuous, as witness the omission of -M from many old 

inscriptions; when it was pronounced it evidently had the same phonetic value 

as the Japanese “syllabic nasal”, that is, a nasalized vowel before a vowel or 

fricative, and a stopped nasal consonant before a stop), there would be no 

difference in ending between ANNU(S)/ANNU(M) and OVU(M) or MENSE(M) and 

MARE, as well as between GRADU(S)/GRADU(M) and GENU. A further factor 

which entered in was the confusion between the 2nd and 4th declensions, 

which led to the elimination of the latter (though certain isolated forms are 

6

7 

7 

preserved in Italian, such as the old or dialectal plurals mano, figo, peco, aco, 

and Old Rumanian has mânŭ); we also find interchange between these 

declensions and the 3rd declension in the case of neuters such as OS ‘bone’, 

VAS ‘vessel’, PECU/PECUS ‘cattle’, TERGUM/TERGUS ‘back’, IUGERUM ‘acre’. 

Amidst all this confusion, only one type of neuter noun stood firm as a distinct 

formation, and that was the type CORPUS, TEMPUS, PECTUS, with plurals 

CORPORA, TEMPORA, PECTORA; this has particular significance for Romance 

because we shall find that this -ORA segment enjoyed a notable extension as a 

plural ending in certain areas, as already mentioned above. (Note that with the 

collapse of the case system nouns of the TEMPUS type were left with a single 

form for the singular based on the Latin form ending in -US, which made the 

-ORA of the plural appear to be a plural ending rather than a combination of 

stem and ending, as it originally was. For this development, compare the -er of 

German Kind-er, Ei-er, Engl. dial. child-er.) Before we proceed further, let me 

emphasize again that these tendencies to change were already evinced in the 

early stages of Latin and continued to follow the same pattern throughout the 

history of the language. 

b) Examples of neuter plurals which can be thought of collectively are 

OSSA ‘bones’, VASA ‘vessels (pots and pans, dishes)’, coming to mean ‘the 

baggage of an army’, LIGNA ‘firewood’, VISCERA ‘entrails’, ‘internal organs’, 

MILIA ‘thousands’, and of plurals forming pairs BRACHIA ‘arms’, CUBITA 

‘elbows’, CORNUA ‘horns’, GENUA ‘knees’, LABRA ‘lips’, CILIA ‘eyelids’. In 

other cases, words are only used in the plural, with a collective meaning, as in 

the case of ARMA ‘arms’, HIBERNA ‘winter quarters’ MOENIA ‘town walls’, 

BACCHANALIA ‘festival of Bacchus’ (so also nouns like SATURNALIA, 

VESTALIA, and SPONSALIA ‘betrothal’), or have a different meaning in the 

plural from the singular, such as CASTRA ‘camp’ (CASTRUM ‘fort’), AUXILIA

8 

‘allied forces’ (AUXILIUM ‘help’), IMPEDIMENTA ‘baggage’ (IMPEDIMENTUM 

‘hindrance’), AERA ‘bronzes (bronze figures, bronze coins)’, ‘counters’ (AES 

‘bronze’). Other plurals which, like GAUDIA above, are used by poets with a 

singular meaning are MELLA ‘honey’, SILENTIA ‘silence’, RURA ‘country’, 

FRIGORA ‘cold’, MARMORA ‘marble’ (examples taken from Kennedy). 

From this stage it was but a step for plurals in -A to become feminine 

singulars. We have already seen that OPERA may have come from the plural of 

OPUS ‘work’, with a different nuance of meaning (most commonly ‘work’ in 

the sense of ‘effort’, ‘pains’). Other possible examples of former plurals 

fossilized as feminine singulars are VIGILIA ‘watch’, cf. ‘the watches of the 

night’ (the adj. VIGIL was no doubt formerly declined like AGILIS, FRAGILIS; 

note also the form VIGILIUM quoted by Nonius from Varro), ORA ‘shore’ (from 

‘river mouths’) and ERVILIA ‘lentil vetch’ (cf. ERVUM). (Comparison with 

Oscan also suggests that TERRA was originally a plural form.) Apart from these, 

in pre-classical writers we find examples of the plurals of neuter nouns (which 

remain as such in classical Latin) being used as singulars, and in turn forming 

“double plurals”, thus CAEMENTA ‘rough stone’, ‘chips’, ARMENTA ‘herds’, 

‘cattle’, RAMENTA ‘shavings’, RETIA ‘nets’ and so ‘netting’, ‘net’, LABIA ‘lip’, 

ARVAE ‘fields’, NERVIAE ‘strings (made of gut)’ (beside neuter NERVIA 

‘muscles’), COLOSTRA ‘beestings’, ‘colostrum’, FENISICIA ‘haymaking’, 

DELICIAE ‘delights’, SAGA ‘cloak’, FULMENTA ‘support’, LAMENTA ‘lament’, 

OFFERUMENTA ‘weal’. We also have the sentence quoted from Accius by 

Nonius, “Castra haec vestra est”, and may note the close cognates TESTU(M) 

‘pot-lid’, TESTA ‘pot’ and CRUSTUM ‘a pastry’, CRUSTA ‘crust’. 

c) The other tendency, to confuse the neuters with the masculines, is also 

apparent in early Latin. Examples of neuter forms where classical Latin uses the 

masculine are: CASEUM ‘cheese’, NASUM ‘nose’, GLADIUM ‘sword’, PUTEUM 

8

9 

9 

‘well’, CAPILLUM ‘hair’ (pl. CAPILLA for ‘hair’ collectively), UTERUM ‘belly’, 

‘womb’, MODIUM ‘a quarter of a bushel’, MUNDUM ‘toilet articles’, ACINUM 

‘grape’, ‘berry’, PALUM ‘stake’, ANULUM ‘ring’, PANNUM ‘cloth’, CATINUM 

‘cooking pot’, and the plurals ARTUA ‘limbs’, CULLEA ‘large measures of 

liquids’, LACERTA ‘muscles’. The reverse case also occurs: COLLUS ‘neck’, 

CAELUS ‘sky’, VADUS ‘ford’, CORIUS ‘hide’, ‘leather’, AEVUS ‘age’ (“vitalem 

aevom”), FORUS ‘open area’, ‘market-place’, SCUTUS ‘shield’, VISCUS ‘birdlime’, 

DORSUS ‘back’, TERGUS (2nd decl.) ‘back’, CALLUS ‘callus’, SAGUS ‘cloak’, 

LUTUS ‘mud’, INTESTINUS ‘intestine’, ABROTONUS ‘aromatic plant’, AERARIUS 

(pl. “aerarios”) ‘treasury’, CANDELABRUS ‘candlestick’, LIBUS ‘sacrificial cake’. 

When it comes to alternation between the 4th and 2nd declensions, we find 

SERU ‘whey’, TESTU ‘pot-lid’ and VERU ‘spit’ also have the forms SERUM, 

TESTUM, VERUM, while CORNU ‘horn’, GENU ‘knee’ and GELU ‘frost’ go further 

and are backed up by CORNUS/CORNUM, GENUS/GENUM and GELUS/GELUM. The 

word DORSUS ‘back’ is also said by the grammarians to have had 4th-declension 

forms, and the same is true of CIBUS ‘food’ and LECTUS ‘bed’, while VERSUS 

‘row’, ‘line’, GRADUS ‘step’ and ARCUS ‘bow’ have 2nd-declension forms, and 

DOMUS ‘house’ was at all times divided between the two, having inherited two 

Indo-European stem-forms. The same vacillation is also especially the case with 

4th-declension nouns in -TUS, which often have genitives in -TI, so GEMITI, 

TUMULTI, SENATI, QUAESTI, FRUCTI, EXERCITI, PORTI. SPECUS ‘cave’ is generally 

a 4th-declension masculine noun, but a plural SPECA is also found, and the 

grammarians give many other forms, while PENUS ‘food’ can be masculine or 

feminine, 2nd or 4th declension, and also neuter (gen. PENORIS), with other 

forms PENU/PENUM. Note also that PECU, pl. PECUA, is the earliest form of PECUS 

‘cattle’. The noun OS ‘bone’ had a multiplicity of forms at all stages of the 

language, with both OSSU (pl. OSSUA in Pacuvius) and OSSUM found in early 

Latin. Similarly, for VAS ‘vessel’ early VASUM is found, and the 2nd-declension 

forms for the plural are the standard ones in classical Latin. Another old form is

10 

neuter DUA for DUO ‘two’, which is preserved in classical times in the phrase 

DUAPONDO (= PONDERE). In the 3rd declension too we find confusion between 

the neuter and the masculine, so early acc. LACTEM ‘milk’ beside 

LAC/LACT/LACTE, POLLINEM beside POLLEN, old RETEM ‘net’, GUTTUREM ‘throat’, 

PAPAVEREM ‘poppy’, MURMUREM ‘murmur’, nom. PRAESEPES ‘manger’ for later 

RETE, GUTTUR, PAPAVER, MURMUR, PRAESEPE/PRAESEPIUM, old neuter pl. UTRIA 

‘leather bottles’ for UTRES, and old neuters SAL/SALE ‘salt’ and PANE ‘bread’ 

becoming classical masculines SAL and PANIS, and similarly SANGUEN ‘blood’ 

giving way to masculine SANGUIS. It also appears that AUGUR ‘augur’ and 

CALOR ‘heat’ were originally neuter. (The forms Fr. laite, Sp. lecha, Ptg. leita 

‘milt’ appear to be recent formations from lait, leche, leite ‘milk’, and have no 

connection with the fact that Lat. LAC was a neuter; I can find no evidence of a 

Latin plural form.) 

We can see from all this that there was widespread confusion, but it is 

hard to see any particular pattern of development emerging, especially as the 

classical forms may not represent a later stage, but simply be retentions, 

sometimes artificial, of an earlier idiom; in this connection we may get more 

enlightenment as to what the popular trend was when we come later to compare 

Petronius with the early writers. (I am also hampered by the fact that my main 

sources — the dictionaries of Lewis & Short, Gaffiot and Souter (Glossary of 

Later Latin), the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Väänänen, Grandgent, Bourciez 

and Muller & Taylor (Chrestomathy of Vulgar Latin) — do not always state 

whether the transference to masculine or neuter gender affects only the singular 

or the plural or both.) The one thing that does emerge clearly is the confusion of 

genders and of declensions (this also happened between the masculine and 

feminine genders, as in the case of nouns like CALLIS, FINIS, CINIS, COLUS, ACUS 

and the names of trees, which were feminine in classical Latin but became 

masculine in the pre-Romance stage; many of the names of trees also fluctuated 

10

etween the 2nd and 4th declensions). 

11 

11 

3. The classical age. When we come to the classical age we find the same 

kind of pattern continuing. Some old neuter plurals have become feminine 

singulars, for example MENDA and GANEA for old MENDUM ‘mistake’, GANEUM 

‘tavern'. TRIMODIA is found for TR1MODIUM, as ‘a measure of 3 modia’. 

LACERTA, which was used by Accius as the plural of LACERTUS ‘muscle’, is a 

singular in the Golden Age, with the sense of ‘lizard’ (alongside LACERTUS, 

which has both senses). For ‘turnip’ both RAPUM and RAPA are found, and for 

‘pea(se)’ both PISUM and PISA, while the port of OSTIA (from OSTIA ‘mouths of 

the river’) is treated both as a neuter plural and as a feminine singular. In the 

same way CODETA ‘areas where horsetails grow’, used in the plural like 

FRUCTETA, GLABRETA, RUBETA, came to be a feminine singular place name. We 

find Laberius using IDOLA for IDOLUM ‘idol’, while Calidius is quoted as using 

HORREA for HORREUM ‘barn’, and Vitruvius has SCHIDIAE ‘splinters’. BALNEUM 

‘bath (in a private house)’ takes the form BALNEAE as the regular plural in the 

sense of ‘public baths’, though the poets use BALNEA, no doubt partly for the 

sake of the metre. So also we find EPULUM ‘public feast’ and EPULAE ‘banquet’ 

(the singular EPULA is also found in early Latin, and a plural AEPULA in an 

inscription). OSTRE-UM/-A ‘oyster’ coexist in all ages (see also §4f below). 

Again, many nouns are used in both the masculine and neuter genders, 

so CLlPE-US/-UM ‘round shield’, BACUL-US/-UM ‘stick’, BALTE-US/-UM ‘belt’ 

(BALTEUM is rare in the singular, but the pl. BALTEA is common in poetry, metri 

gratia), VAD-UM/-US ‘ford’, FOR-US/-UM ‘gangplank’, ‘row’, CUBIT-UM/-US 

‘elbow’, ‘cubit’ (later grammarians say that CUBITI is ‘elbows’ and CUBITA 

‘cubits’, but this seems to be a fictitious distinction), GLADIOL-US/-UM ‘small 

sword’, FRET-UM/-US (4th decl.) ‘strait’, ANGIPORT-US (4th decl.)/-UM ‘alley’, 

CADUCE-US/-UM ‘wand of Hermes’, CARR-US/-UM ‘wagon’, SIBIL-US/-UM ‘hiss’,

12 

‘whistle’ (pl. SIBILA commonly in poetry), TONITR-US/-UUM ‘thunder’ (pl. 

TONITRŪS, TONITRUA and pre-classical TONITRA; Charisius says the singular of 

TONITRUA was TONITRU). CORNUM and perhaps CORNUS continue beside CORNU, 

and TESTUM beside TESTU, while GENUS is used by Cicero as a neuter beside 

GENU, and “specus horrendum” is found in Virgil. NASUM, COLLUS and TOFUM 

‘tufa’ are also found occasionally beside the usual NASUS, COLLUM and TOFUS. 

We also have the plural forms RASTRI/RASTRA ‘harrowing implement’, for 

which the singular forms are rarely used, and the noms. RASTER/RASTRUM seem 

only to occur in grammarians (is the plural used because of the many teeth? — 

cf. RASTELLUS ‘rake’). In other cases the alternation is found in the plural only, 

as in FRENI/FRENA from FRENUM ‘bit’; it is not stated whether there is any 

distinction in meaning. IOCUS ‘jest’ forms IOCI or IOCA, the latter favoured by 

Cicero and clearly collective in meaning; similarly LOCUS ‘place’ makes LOCI or 

LOCA, the former expressly glossed as ‘individual places’ and the latter as 

‘places collectively’, ‘region’ (so HAEC/ILLA LOCA ‘these/those parts’; also used 

for ‘private parts’), with the kind of distinction of form and function that we 

shall find repeated in Romance. In the same way we find the feminine noun 

CARBASUS ‘linen’ with pl. CARBASA ‘sails’, and TARTARUS, TARTARA ‘infernal 

regions’ taken over from Greek. Note also that VALLUS ‘stake’ could be used 

collectively, by a kind of synecdoche, for VALLUM ‘palisade’, ‘rampart’, while 

there were two separate but related words SPICA ‘ear of corn’ and SPICUM (also 

SPICUS) ‘ditto’, ‘pin’, which were liable to be confused at a later date. 

It is also relevant to note that there were deverbal neuters in the 2nd 

declension similar in form and meaning to masculine nouns in the 4th 

declension, thus EVENTUM and EVENTUS ‘event’, RICTUM and RICTUS ‘gaping 

mouth’ (cf. old VOLTA for VULTUS ‘faces’), and PECCATUM ‘a sin’ beside 

PECCATUS ‘sin(ning)’ or VISUM ‘a sight’, ‘a vision’ and VISUS ‘sight’ (cf. also 

FRET-UM/-US above). Furthermore, there are other cases of neuter nouns 

12

13 

13 

changing their declension in the same way as the VAS (3), VASA (2) that we have 

already looked at, which were carried over from earlier times. So we get 

TERGUM ‘back’ (2), pl. TERGA, or TERGUS (3), pl. TERGORA, and IUGERUM ‘acre’ 

(2) in the singular, with IUGERA (3) in the plural, while there are three 

2nd-declension neuters in -US without plurals, VIRUS ‘poison’, PELAGUS ‘sea’ 

and VULGUS ‘crowd’, of which the first two originally belonged to the 3rd 

declension, while VULGUS was originally masculine and continued to be used as 

such by many writers. Another noteworthy change is from PECU to PECUS, first 

as a neuter with pl. PECORA or PECUDA for ‘cattle’, collectively, and then as a 

feminine with pl. PECUDES for ‘single beasts’, with the difference of form and 

gender once again indicating a difference in function. Another kind of 

alternation between masculine and neuter (already found in Varro and old 

inscriptions) is seen in TERMINUS/TERMEN ‘limit’, ‘boundary’; the type in -MEN 

evidently enjoyed a certain expansion at one stage, as we find evidence in 

Romance for forms like *VERMEN, *FAMEN, *COSTUMEN for VERMIS ‘worm’ (by 

association with VERMINA ‘griping pains’), FAMES ‘hunger’ and CONSUETUDO 

‘custom’. Not directly involving the neuters but having relevance to the later 

change to neuter forms is the continued erosion of the 4th declension (masc. 

and fem. forms) by the 2nd; in addition to the nouns quoted in §2c above, we 

find COLUS ‘distaff’ and ACUS ‘needle’ have also been affected, and many 

names of trees like FAGUS ‘beech’, QUERCUS ‘oak’, LAURUS ‘laurel’, MYRTUS 

‘myrtle’ (also 1st decl. MYRTA), FICUS ‘fig’ and PINUS ‘pine’. Finally, we need to 

remark on a different kind of change, from neuter singular to feminine, 

affecting the Greek words ending in -MA; we already find “cum servili schema” 

in Plautus, and then in classical times we find gen. sing. CYMAE ‘cabbage 

sprout’ (Volumnius; so also CYMAM later in Pliny and Columella), and acc. 

DIADEMAM (Pomponius), DOGMAM (Laberius), with other words being affected 

later.

4. Post-classical and late Latin. 

14 

a) In the post-Augustan age one very revealing source of information is 

Petronius, who deliberately introduced into his work the popular idiom which 

the classicists had been at such pains to expunge from their writings. In this he 

may be said to be a link between the pre-classical writers and those of later 

ages whose usage foreshadows Romance developments. He uses masculine 

forms for many neuter nouns (in the singular only?), such as BALNEUS, 

CANDELABRUS, VINUS, VASUS, CAELUS (only used by the classical writers when 

the ‘heaven’ was personified as a god), LORUS ‘thong’, FATUS ‘fate’ (4th decl.), 

LACTEM (and LACTE), and has the neuter forms THESAURUM ‘treasure’, NERVIA 

‘muscles’ and LIBRA ‘books’. He also makes use of 2nd-declension forms for 

GUSTUS ‘taste’. His use of BALNEUS is supported by an inscription from 

Pompeii; in similar inscriptions from the same place one finds masculine for 

neuter CADAVER MORTUS ‘dead body’ and the pl. PASSI for PASSUS ‘paces’. 

Other examples of masculines for neuters are CALLUS and PELAGUS, and 

SISERES ‘rampions’ in Pliny, SCALPER ‘scraping tool’ in Celsus, and a possible 

FILI for FILA ‘threads’ in Lucan, while the opposite tendency is seen in MODIA 

(Pliny), MUSTACEUM ‘cake made with must’ (Juvenal) and ROGUM ‘pyre’ 

(Afranius). Further, the pre-classical LABIA prevails again as a feminine 

singular, and we also find TRIBULA ‘threshing-sledge’ and CICERA ‘chickling’ 

as feminines in Columella, and NERVIAE ‘strings’, ACINAE ‘berries’ and 

EMPLASTRA ‘plaster’ in Gellius, while conversely COLOSTRUM for COLOSTRA 

appears in Martial and Pliny (who also uses MALANDRIA ‘malanders’ as a 

singular). We may also note the use of GENICULUM (GENUCULUM) ‘knee’ as in 

pre-classical Latin and Romance, while 2nd-declension GENUM also continues; 

another interesting point is the use of VIRIDIA as a noun meaning ‘greens (green 

vegetables)’, as this word has survived widely in Romance as a unit noun. 

14

15 

15 

Another popular development which had been taking place all this time 

and which is significant for Romance is exhibited in the Defixionum Tabellae, 

cursing tablets, which are found dating from the 1st century B.C. onwards, and 

by the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. begin to contain forms of interest from the 

Romance point of view. Here we find, besides 2nd-declension pl. MANOS for 

MANUS and neuter pl. CAPILLA (as in Plautus), the entirely new “double plurals” 

BRACIAS ‘arms’, LABRAS ‘lips’, with INTESTINAS ‘intestines’ (also used by 

Petronius), and perhaps ILIAE ‘flanks’ (the actual reading given in Audollent’s 

edition is ILAE), as well as LABIAS and NERVIAS as in pre-classical texts. They 

also contain pre-classical COLLUS, and MENTUS ‘chin’ and FEMUS ‘thigh’ (a 

back-formation from: FEMORIS). The interesting thing about BRACIAS, LABRAS, 

INTESTINAS, ILIAE, and probably also NERVIAS, is that there was no singular in 

-A (the dictionaries list only the pl. forms NERVIA, NERVIAE, without any 

singular); so we can imagine the sings. BRACHIUM, LABRUM, being matched by 

the pls. BRACHIAE, LABRAE, like BALNEUM, BALNEAE. This use of a “double 

plural” corresponds to the situation found at present in Rumanian and some 

Italian dialects, and is also the forerunner of the development seen in late Latin, 

where the neuter plurals are treated as feminine plurals as regards adjectival 

concord. It is also easy to see how a plural like LABRAS could give rise to a new 

singular *LABRA, the ancestor of Fr. lèvre. So we are now at the stage where we 

can begin to see some sort of a pattern emerging. 

b) We come now to the period of the popular Latin of inscriptions and 

the “low” Latin of later writers, the kind of Latin whose deviations from the 

classical norm are an indication of what was happening in the language in the 

centuries before the emergence of texts written in the Romance vernaculars. At 

this stage the phenomena we have already observed begin to assume the form 

of a definite pattern of development. Though the works I have scanned do not

16 

always show the distribution of the forms clearly, Grandgent and Väänänen are 

in agreement on what took place. Grandgent says (§349): “Thus the masculine 

and neuter inflections came to be fused, the characteristic neuter plural -a being 

regarded as an alternative masculine plural ending.” He is referring to the 

merging of the neuter nouns with the masculines in the singular, and the use of 

the neuter plural ending -A when a collective meaning is indicated, even in 

those nouns which were traditionally masculine. Väänänen amplifies and 

clarifies (§§220, 222, 224): “Dans les textes non littéraires des VIIe/VIIIe 

siècles, la plupart des neutres en -um apparaissent...comme masculins en -us au 

nom. sing.... Enfin, le pluriel collectif neutre en -a tient bon et gagne même du 

terrain. Ce n’est sans doute pas fortuit que pour balneum/balneus, 

dorsum/dorsus, vasum/vasus, vinum/vinus, etc., on ne connaît guère de pluriel 

en -ī, -ōs…. Les noms au pluriel collectif présentent en roman une flexion 

hétérogène: ils sont masculins au singulier, féminins au pluriel.... Il en est 

résulté un nouveau pluriel en -ae, par analogie des féminins en -a, phénomène 

qui s’était produit déjà en latin….” He quotes some of the examples we have 

already looked at and then takes a particular case to illustrate his point: “La 

flexion hétérogène est bien établie dès le VIe siècle au plus tard. Dans les 

traductions latines d’Oribase (Italie du Nord, qu’on date d’environ 600), les 

neutres sont traités de la façon suivante: 1) au singulier, ils sont presque tous 

devenus masculins; 2) au pluriel, le nom.-acc. est toujours en -a; 3) le gén. pl. 

est au féminin: ovarum (coctarum) 28 fois, contre ovorum (sans épithète) 2 fois; 

4) l’épithète ou l’attribut se rapportant à un neutre pluriel est presque toujours 

au féminin: folia virides teneras...” (and several other examples which I will 

quote later). He concludes: “Le neutre ne subsiste donc plus qu’au pluriel, en 

tant qu’expression collective. Quant au pluriel en -a traité comme singulier 

féminin, c’est sans doute l’effet d’un compromis entre le collectif du type folia, 

gaudia et le pluriel tel que les brachias, labras des tablettes d’exécration, d’où 

16

une formation hybride à cheval sur le collectif et le pluriel.” 

17 

17 

Bearing out the first point made by Väänänen, examples of singulars in 

-US in Oribasius are provided by Souter, e.g. MEMBRUS, SIGNUS, and notably 

OVUS. (Note that Oribasius comes from Northern Italy, where -S was preserved 

in the pronunciation; see. W. von Wartburg, Die Ausgliederung der 

romanischen Sprachräume. In this region, no doubt, -S was regarded as the 

correct nominative ending for all nouns, whether originally masculine or neuter, 

whereas further south both -US and -UM would have become simply *-U. In this 

connection, note also that the hesitation between -ARUM and -ORUM described in 

the previous paragraph can be taken as an indication that the genitive had 

already dropped out of use in the spoken language.) By contrast, Bourciez (see 

§96c) quotes an inscription from Gaul with the seemingly anomalous MEMBRI, 

while the Glosses of Cassel have pl. MEMBRAS; the former may indicate the 

local loss of the neuter plural in this area, while the -AS of the latter is not 

necessarily an indication of a feminine double plural, as A and E/O were used 

interchangeably for the neutral vowel in this area by this time, witness Gl. 

Reich. AUCELLAS ‘birds’, MANACES ‘threats’, CALVES SORICES ‘bats’, and the 

Oaths of Strasbourg FRADRE/FRADRA, KARLO/KARLE etc. We need, therefore, to 

treat our source materials with some caution; for example, in Tardif’s collection 

Cartons des Rois, one document of the year 697 (see Muller and Taylor’s 

Chrestomathy of Vulgar Latin, p. 201) has nom. sing. VINUS while a later one of 

753 (ibid., p. 202) has the pl. VINA, and yet there is no trace of VINA in French, 

and in fact this word is found in the context “ad...vina comparandum”, which is 

an artificial construction, a Romance speaker’s attempt to write Latin. So all the 

examples which I will quote now are not necessarily to be taken as representing 

the actual usage of the writer when speaking, but merely general hints as to the 

situation obtaining at that time. We shall, for example, find neuter singulars 

where we would by now expect masculines, but this, if not simply an archaism

18 

or reflecting the pronunciation of an area where final -S was lost, may be a kind 

of “reverse spelling”, indicating that the writer used the word as a neuter in the 

plural. (Alternatively it may simply mean that a dictionary has listed a word in 

the -UM form when in fact only the plural in -A is attested.) 

c) Firstly, to take the masculine singular forms found in late Latin, apart 

from MEMBRUS, SIGNUS, OVUS, and VINUS we find CAELUS, PELAGUS, COLLUS, 

MENTUS, INTESTINUS, LIBUS, GELUS and CORNUS all continuing (this last with 

2nd-decl. forms, and also neuter CORNUM), then CASTELLUS, FROMENTUS (= 

FRUMENTUM), FAENUS/FENUS, LIGNUS, TEMPLUS, PRATUS (4), VERBUS, IUDICIUS, 

CEREBELLUS, CAPITULUS, CAPITELLUS, CANTICUS, CASTER, CRIB(R)US, PODIUS, 

CALCANEUS, EPULUS, VESTIGIUS, INSTRUMENTUS, ESTRATUS (= STRATUM), 

ORACULUS, ORATORIUS, MONASTERIUS, FURTUS (4), PUNCTUS, SCABELLUS, 

SPICUS, TABUS, LARIDUS, APIUS, DOLUS (for DOLUM ‘deceit’), DOLEUS (for 

DOLIUM ‘jar’), also a new formation DOLUS/DOL(I)UM ‘grief’, ARGENTUS VIVUS, 

COLLEGIUS, COAGULUS, BACILLUS, TESTAMENTUS, CUBICULUS, LATROCINIUS, 

TELONEUS, CENUBIUS (= COENOBIUM), MONIMENTUS, GYMNASIUS, HORREUS, 

MANCIPIUS, ALBUCUS (and ALBUCIUM, for ALBUCUM ‘asphodel’), PRECIUS (Lex 

Sal.), FOLIUS (Gloss. Sang.), ALTAR-IUS/-IS, COCHLEAR-IUS/-IS. (My main sources 

were Souter and the Thes. Ling. Lat., Vols. I-V, this last accounting for the large 

number of words from the beginning of the alphabet; no doubt a scanning of 

later volumes would turn up many more examples.) These last two alternate 

with neuter forms ALTAR(E)/ALTARIUM and COCHLEAR(E)/COCHLEARIUM, those in 

-IUM being late forms, cf. EXEMPLARIUM for EXEMPLAR(E) and many other words 

listed by Meyer-Lübke; there is also a neuter BACILLUM, both the masculine and 

neuter forms being late in appearing. Note that while certain of these forms no 

doubt represent the Latin of France, where the -S was preserved and appears in 

Old French and Provençal, the forms MONIMENTUS (MUNIMENTUS), GYMNASIUS 

(GIMNASIUS), HORREUS and MANCIPIUS are quoted by Carnoy as occurring, along 

18

19 

19 

with acc. pl. LUSTROS, in inscriptions in Spain, where this nominative -S was not 

preserved. We also find CAPĪTUM and CAPĪTUS ‘fodder’ from Greek, and 

FRITUS/FRETUM ‘refuge’ from Germanic. 

Other late forms of a different nature are the masc. and fem. variants 

CRINICULUS/CRINICULA, ACULEA as evidenced by the “ACULEUS non ACULEA” of 

the grammarian Probus, and BESTIUS formed from BESTIA, all these having some 

relevance for Romance; also the pl. GRANI for ‘plaits’, evidently from the 

resemblance to ears of corn. The 3rd-decl. STERCUS seems to have become a 

2nd-decl. masculine in Oribasius (cf. also the doubtful reading STERCUM in 

Varro), while the 8th-century Compositions (Muller & Taylor, op. cit., p. 213) 

has “mitte stercos caninus et columbinus et gallinacium”, where “stercos” is 

apparently the accusative plural, and Frodebertus et Importunus (ibid., p. 179) 

has acc. sing. ISTERCO (cf. Ptg. esterco as against Sp. estiércol, although OPtg. 

has estércora); so also acc. pl. PONDUS in the Form. Andec. (cf. DUA PONDO 

above, §2c), and “ad latum suum”. (Note that nouns like CORPUS, TEMPUS are 

generally invariable in the singular in Oribasius and elsewhere, with masculine 

concord.) Examples of 3rd-declension changes over to the masculine are 

LACTEM (Chir.), ANIMALIS, ANIMALEM and abl. pl. ANIMALIS frequent, whereas 

classical Latin almost only used the neuter), SULFUREM (Tert., Jer., Orib.), 

MARMOREM (Pl. Val., Greg.), MURMUREM (Vulg.), INGUINEM (Schol. ad Iuv.), 

MARIS, MAREM (inscr., Greg.), PIPEREM (Orib.), OREM (Orib.), RETEM (Itala, Lex 

Sal.), FRIGOREM (freq.), PECTOREM (Greg.), ROBOREM (Greg., Orib., Ed. Roth.), 

COLLAREM (inscr.), URNALEM (Past. Herm.), SUBARMALIS (Valer., etc.), “ad 

medium litore” (Chron. Altin.). We also find ACER ‘maple’ as a feminine in 

Servius. One interesting change affects SAL, which, as we have seen, could be 

masculine or neuter, sometimes taking the form SALE; the Itala has the clause 

“si sals fatum fuerit” (“fatum” = “fatuum”, with the sense of Fr. fade), in which 

“sals” has the masculine -s but neuter concord. (While we are on the subject of

20 

SAL/SALE, Rohlfs (§348) supposes forms with an extra -E, like the one in SALE 

(and *MELE, *FELE, *CORE), for the nouns in -MEN, to account for forms like It. 

vimine, dial. assaminu (EXAMEN); at the same time he notes that these might 

equally be formed from the oblique stem, as abl. VIMINE, examples of which are 

given by Bourciez (§218c), “incisum nomine erit”, “canem qui legamine novit”. 

The Spanish forms, like bimbre/mimbre, enjambre, could come from either, but 

the -mene of Sard. lumene, nomene etc. points to *-MEN-E, as -MINE would have 

given *-mine; so also sambene must have come from pre-classical SANGUEN. 

These nouns in -MEN, pl. -MINA did not survive as a declensional class, although, 

as we have seen, they attracted to themselves other words, giving rise to new 

forms like *FAMEN, *VERMEN, *COSTUMEN. At the same time, as Meyer-Lübke 

notes in his Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft, 

Romance evidence shows that some words developed stems in both *-IN- and 

*-IT-, perhaps on the basis of the close association between LIMIN- ‘threshold’ 

and LIMIT- ‘border’, which evidently gave rise to a new pl. *LIMITA (LIMITUM is 

found in a gloss), so LENDIN- (LENDINA in a gloss)/LENDIT- (Isid.) ‘nit’, 

*TARMIN-/TARMIT- ‘woodworm’, TERMIN-/TERMlT- (surveyors, Cod. Dipl. Cav.) 

‘boundary’, *FAMlN-/*FAMIT- ‘hunger’ (FOMITEM is attested in the Rule of St. 

Benedict, see Muller & Taylor, p.141; cf. Rum. foamete), INGUIN-/*INGUIT- 

‘groin’. Cf. also CIRCIN- ‘circular course’/CIRCIT- ‘hoop’, GLUTIN-/GLUT- ‘glue’ 

and GLAND-/GLANDIN- ‘acorn’, INCUD-/lNCUDIN- ‘anvil’. In several cases, the 

modern reflexes of these words show feminine forms ending in -a.) 

d) Among the non-classical neuters found in late Latin are some forms 

continued from earlier times, such as CORNUM, THESAURUM, CASEUM, CAPILLUM, 

GLADIUM, CARRUM, PUTEUM, PANNUM, LABIUM and OSSUM, this last quoted by 

St. Augustine: “Quod vulgo dicitur ossum, latine os dicitur.” Other forms 

OSSU/OSSUUM are also still in use at this stage, and pl. OSSA/OSSUA/OSSE (this 

last being found in Dalmatian inscriptions; Rohlfs, §369), gen pl. 

20

21 

21 

OSSUUM/OSSUORUM/OSSORUM/OSSARUM! This last form (found in Vindic., 

4th-5th c., and Orib.) bears out my observation about the OVARUM quoted by 

Väänänen from Oribasius, and is also supported by “cultellarum opifex” in a 

gloss, coming from CULTELLUM for CULTELLUS (cf. App. Prob., “CULTELLUM 

non CUNTELLUM”). Besides these we have LECTUM (pl. LECTA in Esp. Sagr.), 

LAQUEUM, CARBASUM (as well as a new masc. pl. CARBASOS), LACERTUM 

(Väänänen relates this to the pl. LACERTA found in Accius), HORTUUM (= 

HORTUS; pl. (H)ORT(U)A ‘fences’), FICUM ‘fig’ (the fruit), BOTULUM, BOTELLUM 

(VOTELLA in a gloss), CIRCULUM (pl. CIRCLA), CIRCUM, CUNEUM, CUNICULUM, 

CULTRUM (pl. CULTRA), CALCULUM, CAMINUM, CAPULUM, AGELLUM, PORTICUM, 

RADIOLUM, TERMINUM (a blend of TERMINUS and TERMEN?), CIRCINUM, 

CATINUM, CARILLUM (also CATINA, CATILLA, f.), CATELLUM, ARTICULUM, 

FUNDUM (pl. FUNDA), CIRCUITUM, ORCIUM, ORCIOLUM (= URCE-, glosses), 

“gustum versatile” in Apicius (Souter gives GUSTUM without examples, 

indicating that it was in general use), LOCELLUM (pl. LOCELLA in the Form. 

Marc.). We also find SOMNIUM used for SOMNUS (and INSOMNIUM for INSOMNIA). 

There are, too, some new singular formations like the ALTARIUM, COCHLEARIUM, 

EXEMPLARIUM given above: RETIUM, MURMURIUM, SEXTARIOLUM, 

CENTENARIUM (the substantival use of an adjective, to which compare the pl. 

MILIARIA used in the meaning of ‘thousands' as well as in the earlier meanings 

of ‘milestones’, ‘miles’). 

The plurals of other neuter adjectives also came to be used as collective 

nouns, e.g. VICTUALIA, CAMPANEA/CAMPANIA (sc. LOCA), MINUTALIA (already so 

used by Petronius), BATT(U)ALlA, AQUATILIA, DULCIA, FRONDEA (FRONDIA once 

in a gloss), INTRANEA (for INTERANEA) and INTRALIA (both in the Gl. Reich.), 

and, with a similar meaning ‘entrails’, a new word formed with a participial 

ending, CORATA (see DCELC); other participial forms so used are FLUXA and 

VOMITA. Other forms specifically quoted in the plural, and important for

22 

Romance, are DIGITA (Itin. Ant. Plac., Ed. Roth.), FRUCTA (Tardif; FRUCTUM 

already appears as a neuter in the Itala), FUSA (common from the 4th c. on), 

GRADA (inscr. and Ps.-Asper), RADIA (glosses), LUMBA (glosses), RAMA (Lex 

Rip., Gl. Reich.), SEXTARIA (Dioscorides: “sextaria Alexandrina 18 = 1 modius”), 

AGRA (Agn.), PUGNA (Itala), HUMERA (Cambr. Matt.), CONDIA (= CONGIA, 

Greg.), AERA ‘air’ (Ven. Fort.). We also find the pl. IECORA used for a singular 

meaning (Souter). (In the case of FUSA, Gaffiot gives FUSUM as used by 

Symmachus, 4th c., but, as I said earlier with regard to other -UM forms given 

by the dictionaries, it is not clear to me whether this means that the neuter 

singular (viz. the nominative) is attested or whether this merely indicates that 

the word is sometimes declined as a neuter, namely in the nominative and 

accusative plural.) There are also some cases of transference to the 3rd-decl. 

neuter class in -US: RIVORA/RIGORA ‘rivers’ (in the 4th-c. surveyors), ARMORA 

‘shoulders’ (in Diosc. and Chiro, also 4th c.), along with acc. ARMUS, which may, 

however, be a 4th-decl. plural form (the traditional abl. ARMIS is also used), 

CIBUS, CIBORA ‘food’ (Chir., Greg., Anthimus, 5th-6th c.), ERVUS (Ven. Fort.; 

Meyer-Lübke, Einführung, cf. Fr., Pr. ers), abl. FUNDERE ‘bottom’, ‘land 

holding’ (Greg.; Meyer-Lübke, Schicksale, also quotes the grammarian 

Consentius as saying that FUNDUS can be m. or n.), similar FUNDORA and 

COLFORA ‘gulfs’ from Ravenna, 7th c. (Väänänen and Aebischer); also 

changes within the 3rd declension, giving CINUS ‘ashes’ (surveyors, Orib., 

glosses etc.; also gen. pl. CINERORUM in an inscr.), PULVERA (inscr.; Bourciez, 

§218c). A complicated development is seen in the case of FIMUS ‘dung’ (neuter 

FIMUM in Pliny), which appears as a 3rd-decl. neuter in Q. Serenus 

(Meyer-Lübke) and is quoted by Souter as having gen. FIMERIS; in the Gl. Reich. 

the form FEMUS appears. The Romance languages derive their forms from both 

FEMUS (with an open e) and pl. *FEMITA, so that it seems as if there was also 

contact sometimes between stems in -OR- and stems in -IT-. This seems to be 

reflected in the history of CAPUT ‘head’, which appears as CAPUS in an 

22

23 

23 

inscription (Bourciez, §218c), and as KAPO in a Spanish Latin text of the year 

844. (No. 4 in Gifford and Hodcroft’s Textos Lingüísticos); the second of these 

forms may only reflect 2nd-decl. *CAPU, which seems to be the ancestor of the 

Romance forms in general, but it seems to me that CAPUS could equally well be 

a 3rd-decl. neuter in view of the Lombard Latin pl. CAPORA, still preserved in 

southern Italian dialects, while the stem CAPIT- continues in dialectal forms like 

cápito, cápeto, taken from the old pl. cápita, cápeta (cf. also Rum. capete, 

capuri). Also TERMlN-/*TERMlT- appears in Rumanian as Ńărm(ure), pl. Ńărmuri, 

behind which we may possibly see a third stem *TERMOR-. (Note also the 

agreement between ARMORA and Rum. armuri, with OFr. ars pointing to 

3rd-decl. ARMUS.) 

e) I have just spoken of “Lombard Latin” in connection with CAPORA. 

The spread of the plural ending -ORA to nouns of other classes, as seen here, is 

particularly noticeable in these documents, which date back to the 8th century in 

Italy, and continue till the 12th. Aebischer (op. cit.) gives a full account of all 

the forms occurring both with this ending and with the double plural -ORAS 

(note that this ending, with final -S, is not limited solely to northern Italy; 

perhaps it was felt that the pronunciation -ORA was a mispronunciation of 

-ORAS), and with feminine concord (see below), and some of the salient forms 

are also quoted by Meyer-Lübke, Väänänen and Rohlfs. Aebischer points out 

the links between these and the 4th-century forms to show that the Italian and 

Rumanian forms (see my §1) must have had a common origin, and gives as 

examples of similar formations PAVIMENTORA, CAMPORA, CURSORA, FUNDORA, 

LOCORA, RIVORA and pământuri, câmpuri, cursuri, funduri, locuri, râuri. He 

could also have added VENTORA, RAMORA, ARCORA, LACORA, VADORA, LATORA 

(replacing LATERA), to which correspond Rum. vânturi, ramuri, arcuri, lacuri, 

vaduri, laturi (or lături). It is also interesting that this -ORA is used as the plural 

ending for abstract nouns taken from Latin 4th-decl. nouns or participial forms,

24 

giving CURSORA(S), PRAECEPTORA(S), INGRESSORA(S), EGRESSORAS, REGRESSORA, 

SCRIPTORA(S), MANSORAS, MERCATORA, TRAVERSORAS, as this type of formation 

is also found in such words in Rumanian, some evidently inherited, like visuri 

‘dreams’, vânaturi ‘venison’, aluaturi ‘dough’, viersuri ‘melodies’, others 

formed from Rumanian roots, such as scrisuri ‘writings’, dusuri ‘departures’, 

trecuturi ‘past things’, or from words recently adopted into the language, like 

asalturi ‘assaults’, pulsuri ‘pulses’, discursuri ‘speeches’. The -ORA ending is 

also used for foreign, in this case Germanic, words, so BORGORA, WALDORAS, 

MORGINCAPORA (cf. German Morgengabe), just as Rum. -uri is used very freely 

to form the plurals of foreign words (from whatever sources) denoting 

inanimate objects or concepts, so ziduri ‘walls’, ceasuri ‘hours’, glasuri ‘voices’, 

ciocuri ‘beaks’, sferturi ‘quarters’, cecuri ‘cheques’, birouri ‘offices’. There are 

also some words which will appear later in Italian dialects, such as PRATORA, 

PLANORA, NIDORA, TECTORA, ORTORAS (= HORTI), VICORAS, LECTORA, STARIORA 

(= SEXTARII), FRUCTORA, GRADORA, MODIORA. I also find similar forms, in this 

case the direct successors of the Latin ones, such as PIGNERAS, PECTORAS, 

PECORAS, PONDERAS, LADERAS, LITORAS, quoted by Appel from various sources 

which appear to be old charters from Italy. The final -S he explains as being in 

effect a double plural, and not indicating that there were ever any singular forms 

ending in -ORA. We will pay more attention to this formation later, when we 

come to the Romance forms. 

One final development that took place during this age is the creation of a 

certain number of neuters out of feminine nouns; so VERTEBRUM and 

PALPEBRUM for VERTEBRA and PALPEBRA; here it is easy to see that the latter 

might have been taken for collective plurals meaning ‘vertebrae’ and ‘eyelids’, 

and this is a process that is sometimes repeated in Romance, as in It. orecchio 

for orecchia apprehended as ‘ears’. Other similar forms are SUPPETIUM (for pl. 

SUPPETIAE ‘succour’), CRATICULUM ‘little grill’, TENDICULUM ‘little snare’, 

24

25 

25 

PRAESTIGIUM, INFAMIUM, BLASPHEM1UM, MEMORIUM. Amongst other forms, 

such as COPULUM, MANICUM, TEGULUM, Appel quotes several examples of the 

substitution of -MONIUM for -MONIA, giving forms such as AEGRIMONIUM, 

CAERIMONIUM, QUERIMONIUM. There are no traces of *MEDULLUM ‘marrow’, 

which we might expect from a comparison of the Romance forms, but 

Grandgent quotes Meyer-Lübke for a form ORIDIUM ‘rice’ (for ORYZA), showing 

the same orthographic treatment as BAPTIDIARE and exactly corresponding to 

Rum. orez (not It. riso, which is ultimately from modern Greek). 

f) We come now to those neuter plurals which became feminine 

singulars in late Latin, but first let me say that in some cases it is difficult to see 

which of the two is intended (we have already seen that the double plurals are 

no guarantee of the existence of feminine singular forms). Muller and Taylor 

say of the singular nouns in general that they had one single oblique form (they 

are evidently thinking of Proto-Italo-Western Romance, excluding Rumanian), 

and in the case of the 3rd-decl. neuters they give examples of the nom.-acc. 

form being used for the ablative in Merovingian Latin, so “de flumen”, “de uno 

latus”, “de alio latus”, “a longum tempus”, “suscepto...onus” (Väänänen gives a 

similar example of “ex ipso pignus” from the Ed. Roth.). They do not, however, 

make any observations about the neuter plural, but in the texts one finds phrases 

like “de tempora” ‘from the temples’ (Chir.), “a fundamenta” (inscr.), “ex ipsis 

memorata loca” (Form. Marc.), “de quantamcumque carra”, “de ipsa carra” and 

“nec de navigia, nec de portus, nec de carra nec de saumas'” (Tardif’s Cartons 

des Rois), “in qualibet loca” (Form. Andec.), “de spolia” and “sub folia auseriae 

absconsus fuisti” (Pass. Mem.), “sine arma” (Gl. Reich.). Similar examples are 

provided by Appel, so “de paradisi gaudia” (Agnell.), “de vita et claustra 

monachorum” (Mon. Hist. Pat.), “excepto vivenda et fodro” (Cap. Car. Mag.), 

and one by Carnoy, “cum gaudia vite” (inscr. in Spain). One hesitates to see 

these as feminine forms, even where this development is found in Romance, as

26 

a plural meaning is indicated (and note “ipsis...loca” and the contrast between 

“navigia...carra” and “saumas”), but we can safely conclude that by this time all 

case distinction had been lost in the neuter plural, thus facilitating the 

subsequent transfer to the feminine singular. 

Of the feminines, some hark back to an earlier period, such as ARVA 

(“gravis arva” in Ven. Fort., 6th c.), LABIA (Orib.), CASTRA (freq., and cf. the 

App. Prob. “VICOCASTRORUM non VICO CASTRAE”), LACERTA (Gl. Reich.), 

MALANDRIA (Marc. Emp.), ARMENTAS (Gl. Cass., like the MEMBRAS above, and 

also BONAS, IUMENTAS), NERVIAS (Itala, for the ‘withes’ with which Samson 

was bound), RETIAM (Itala), PISA (freq., cf. PISAS in the Gl. Florent., Nyrop), 

TRIBULA (Vulg., and cf. the App. Prob. “TRIBULA non TRIBLA”), 

INTESTINAE/(I)STENTINAE (freq.). Besides these we have GAUDIA (Greg.; and 

“eternam gaudia”, Pap. Dipl.), FOLIA (Chir., Orib., Diosc., Isid. etc.), PRIMA 

VERA (inscr.), ASTRAM (inscr.; W.D. Elcock, The Romance Languages), PRATAS 

(Form. Andec., Lombard Latin of N. Italy), MELA (both fruit and tree, Diosc.), 

also MELA PERSICA (tree), MELA QUIDONIA (both), PERSICA (Diosc., = ‘walnut’, 

cf. App. Prob. “PERSICA non PESSICA”), PIRA (Diosc.), POME (pl., “pome mire 

pulchritudinis”, Gl. Reich.), PRUNA (see Appel), MESPIRA/MESPERA/ 

NESPILA/NESPULA/MESFILA (glosses; see DCELC), FRAGA (gloss), GRANAS 

(Andr. Bergam.), LIGNA (“ubi ligna desuper ardet”, Gl. Reich.), SACRAMENTA 

(“plurima sacramenta precurrere videtur”, Form. Senon., described by Muller 

& Taylor as a plural form regarded as a singular collective; cf. also “sacramenta 

data” intended as an ablative absolute, Andr. Bergam.), ANGIPORTA (Apul. Ulp., 

3rd c.), CLAUSTRAE (gloss), CANTICA (Orib., Ven. Fort.), CRURAS (Chir., Itala, 

Cod. Lugd.), CINDRA (doubtful form; gloss), CINISSA (anon. med., 5th c.) — 

both these two for CINIS — , ARMA (Itin. Ant. Plac.; in spite of this word’s 

often being quoted as an example, like OPERA, of a neuter plural already being 

used as a singular in Latin, this is the only reference I have found in the Thes. 

26

27 

27 

Ling. Lat., but Nyrop quotes “cuius arma est” and “armas non portare” without 

references, and L.F. Sas (The noun decl. syst. in Merov. Lat.) gives “incultam et 

sordidam armam” from the Lib. Hist. Franc.), FRIGORA ‘chilly fever’ (frequent, 

according to Souter, but note the examples of its use as a plural given in Du 

Cange, and the Rum. pl. friguri in the same sense), AERA ‘way of reckoning the 

years of the era’ (Isid., from the pl. of AES, in the sense of ‘counters’), INGUINA 

‘swelling in the groin’ (Isid., Orib.; this is one of the classical meanings of 

INGUEN, a word commonly used in the plural), SARMENTA (Itala, Diosc.), 

CALCIAMENTA (Orib., Diosc.), BISATIA (Gl. Reich., glossing SARCINA; = 

BISACCIA), FORTIA (“per fortiam” in the Form. Senon.; Grandgent says that 

FORTIA, n. pl., in church Latin means ‘mighty deeds of God’), HOSPITIA 

(Probus), CATINA (gloss), CATILLA (gloss), PUNCTA (Veget.), GESTA 

(Merovingian Latin, e.g. “hanc gestam”; Nyrop), FESTA (“omnem festam”, 

Laus Pomp., “tres festas”, Stephan.), PLACITA (“per plures placitas”; Nyrop, no 

ref.), RETIA (Ital., Bour.) SIGNA (“per signas certas”, ditto), OBLATA 

(“oblata...offeretur”, Tardif), LUSTRA (6th-c. inscr. in France), PASCUAS (Tert., 

Vulg., Form. Andec.), STRUMENTA (= I(N)STRUMENTA, Form. Marc.), FATABUS 

(inscr., pointing to the use of *FATAE for the ‘Fates’; cf. “fate concesserunt” in 

an inscr. in Spain; Carnoy), INGENIAS (Gl. Reich.), SIMULACHRAS (Gl. Reich.), 

EXEMPLARIAS (Frod. et Imp.), SPONSALIAE (gen sing.; Fredegarius), CASTELLAS 

(Lombard Latin; Rohlfs, §368), LOCAS (ditto; both northern forms). 

Other forms provided by Appel are: CAVA (surveyors, inscr. in Spain, 

Pap. Dipl.), PECCATA (Chron. Altin.), LUSTRA ‘bog’, SAXA (inscr. in Spain; cf. 

SASAS in Alv. & Pott.), OVAS (Mon. Rav.), OLIVETAS (Mon. Venet.; cf. CODETA 

above and the doubtful reading MYRTETA quoted by Priscian from Plautus, and 

subsequent developments in Romance), PLAUSTRA (Sidon.), PRAEMIAS (Lex 

Rom. Utin.), SPOLIA (Augustine etc.), MODIAS (Mon. Hist. Pat.), FILAS (Priv. 

Car. Magn.), IUDICIAS and IUGIAS (= IUGA; Laus Pomp.), CEREBELLAS (Lex

28 

Alem.), TURMENTAS (= TOR-; Form. Andec.), TESTIMONIAS and VESTIMENTAM 

(Esp. Sagr.), NOVA (Ann. Genuens.), ORCIOLAS (= URCE-; Pelag.), BATALIAM 

(Mon. Hist. Pat.), VICTUALIAE (gen. sing.; Chron. Altin.), MANCIPIAS (Praec. 

Loth.), MURAS (Spain, 959 A.D.). In addition, H. Suchier (in Arch. Lat. Lex.) 

quotes VELAS and MIRABILIAS. Note also that by this time OPERA has absorbed 

the plural of OPUS, which only remains in the phrase OPUS EST and related uses. 

Then there are also some new formations, such as SPICULA beside 

SPICUL-UM/-US, CRINICULA, CAMPANIAM (Greg.; cf. n. pl. CAMPANIA), which are 

of relevance for Romance. Note also that OMNIA has become a singular 

adjective (see examples in §8 below). Besides these, we have further examples 

of Greek neuter singular: in -MA that have become feminine: CHRISMA (eccles. 

Latin, e.g. CRISMAM, Caes. Arel., 6th c.), SAGMA, with the forms 

SAUMAS/SAOMAS/SOMA (dating from the 3rd c., Veget., Vulg., Tardif, Gl. 

Reich.), FLEUMMAS (from PHLEGMA, Frod. et Imp.), ANATHEMA (inscr. in Spain). 

Here let me also include an interesting quotation I have found in Alvar & 

Pottier, Morfología Histórica del Español, §32, n. 29, concerning the word 

OSTREUM ‘oyster’. They quote the grammarian Servius (c. 400) as saying: “Si 

animal est, neutrum non est, sed femininum; si non est animal, neutrum 

erit…Ideo ista differentia…servatur…ut ita dicamus frange omnia ista 

ostrea…et comedi multas ostreas.” That is, the neuter plural preserves the 

collective meaning, while the feminine is used for the individual oyster. 

g) Let us add here the further changes of declension between the 4th 

and the 2nd (examples mostly provided by Grandgent): from the 4th to the 2nd, 

MANOS (and MANNI, Itala), TONITRUOS, LACUS, MERCATUS, GRADUS, ARTUS, 

CASUS, LUCTO, IUSSO, PASSOS, USOS, FETOS, PORTICOS (“porticos arcos” in an 

inscr. in Spain), PORTO, FRUCTO and FRUCTOS, SENATUS (in these last three 

cases this marks the completion of a process which began in the genitive 

28

29 

29 

singular in early times), SPIRITUS (and n. -UM), GELUS, CORNUS, GENUM, and, 

from the 2nd to the 4th, SOMNUS (Itala; this may be an instance of 

hyper-correction). We have also noted the use of LECTUS (4), FRETUS (4), 

PRATUS (4), FATUS (4) and FURTUS (4) for LECTUS (2) later LECTUM, FRETUM, 

PRATUM, FATUM and FURTUM, and similarly the pairs of verbal nouns 

EVENTUS/EVENTUM, RICTUS/RICTUM, PECCATUS/PECCATUM, VISUS/VISUM, to 

which we may add FRUCTUS/FRUCTUM and IUSSUS/IUSSUM. In addition we have 

noted the use of GUSTUM for GUSTUS and CIRCUITUM for CIRCUITUS, while 

another example of close pairs is SPUTUS ‘spitting’ and SPUTUM ‘spittle’. We 

may also add, from classical times, DICT-US/-UM, FACT-US/-UM, VOMIT-US/-UM, 

and, in late Latin, DUCTUM, CANTUM, INGRESSUM, REGRESSUM for DUCTUS etc., 

and conversely PLACITUS, PACTUS for PLACITUM, PACTUM. Note also the 

correspondence between FLUXA (pl.) and FLUXUS, or ACTA and ACTUS; in this 

last case earlier versions of the Bible have “Acta Apostolorum”, but this is 

changed to “Actus Apostolorum” in the Vulgate and later writers. Similarly we 

find the title “Edictus Rothari” rather than “Edictum”. We have here a key to 

the fact that in Rumanian, for example, the nouns corresponding to the Latin 

verbal nouns in -TUS, -SUS all belong to the mixed declension (generally with 

plurals in -e, though, as we have just seen in §4e, others in -uri are also found), 

even though many of these words are new formations or learned borrowings. 

The fact is that, as neuter participles gradually came to be used as nouns, a 

natural confusion arose between these and the old verbal nouns in -TUS, -SUS 

(hence the reverse process leading to the formation of PRATUS, FATUS, FURTUS); 

in the singular, as we have seen, the masculine forms would take over from the 

neuter, while in the plural the collective sense would predominate, so the old 

plurals in -ŪS would disappear from the verbal nouns. Add to this the fact that, 

as we have seen, the 4th-declension forms in general gave place to the 2nd, and 

also that many of the words in this declension were of the kind that naturally 

adopted collective plurals, such as GRADA ‘steps’, ‘stairs’, PASSA ‘(foot)steps’

30 

(attested as passa ‘fords’ in Du Cange, s.v. passum), FRUCTA ‘fruit’, and one 

can see the stages leading up to the situation which Lausberg, correctly enough 

but unenlighteningly, describes (§655): “Die Mask. der u-Deklination treten 

gemeinromanisch zu den Neutra der o-Deklination über.” 

h) The following examples show the concord of the old neuters in later 

Latin. In the singular, masculine: “os locutus est”, “donum caelestem”, “hunc 

signum” (Itala), “hunc saeculum”, “hunc stagnum”, “hunc verbum”, “hunc 

vulnere” (Greg. of Tours), “hunc factum” (Esp. Sagr.), “hunc sacramentum” 

(Form. Andec.), “quemlibet pecus” (Lex Sal.; along with pl. “qualibet pecora”), 

“talem sacramentum”, “duplicem crimen” (Ps.-Cypr.), “qualis pelagus”, 

“unusquisque caput”, “caput notatus”, “hunc corpus” (inscr.), “lucidior metallo 

corpus” (Apring.), “senilem corpus” (Vict. Vit.), “corpus exteriorem” (Serm. 

Arrian.), “cubiculum superiorem” (inscr.), and, from the Passio Memorii, 

“capete hunc magum”, “invenerunt caput...eum deportantes”, “de hunc 

corpore”. In the plural, feminine: “ipsa animalia aliquas mortas fuerant”, 

“strumenta...plurimas”, “paria tantas”, “loca nunccupantis” (Form. Andec.), 

“gaudia versae sunt”, “diversas volatilia” (Agnellus), “ova sorbiles”, “ossa 

consparsas”, “grana oppressas”, “folia virides teneras”, “folia molles”, “folia 

infusas”, “stercora omnes” (Orib.), “ossa exterae” (inscr. in Dalmatia), “ricta 

indicia termenandas”, “strumenta...ipsas”, “loca noncobantis”, “placeta 

habuerint initas” (Tardif), “ipsas strumenta perierunt” (Form. Marc.), “stragula 

duo valentes solido uno” (Ravenna, 564 A.D.), “senedochia…ipsas 

dimittant...sint gubernatae” (Capitulare Francicum, 783 A.D.), and, from 

Lombard Latin, “duas adplictora”, “plures ossa”, “totas mediora tria”, “totas 

litoras”, “duas mansoras”, “quatuor camporas”, “ambas ipsa ribora”, “laderas 

ambas”, “capitas ambas”. For the use of OMNIA as a singular, compare “omnia 

quod ex hace lege factum non erit” (2nd-c. inscr.; Rohlfs, §500, n. 2), “omnia 

30

31 

31 

substantia consumitur” (Itala), “cum sambuca et omnia stratura sua”, “haec 

omnia subscripta rem” (Form. Andec.), “cum terris, domibus...vel omnia 

ibidem aspicientem” (Form. Marc.), “cum omnia ris [= res] mea”, “vestimento 

meo omnia” (Cod. Dipl. Long.). It may be an invariable neuter plural in 

“traditis ei clericis et omnia” (Greg. of Tours). 

5. The beginnings of Romance. 

a) The situation we have now arrived at is still far from clear-cut, but 

certain points are emerging. In the singular we can suppose from the 

widespread fluctuation between masculine and neuter that the two genders 

were merged into a common form of declension, with -US in the nominative 

and -UM in the oblique case (but nouns in -ATICUM appear in early Provençal 

texts without a final -s; also an exception has to be made for mass nouns, 

which were preserved in the ablative case, this coming from a partitive use, as 

*DE ILLO FERRO — see R.A. Hall in Language, Vol. 44). When the 

dictionaries and grammars quote a form in -US, I take it that a masculine 

singular form is found, whatever the plural may be, as in the case of VINUS, 

FENUS, DOLEUS, FROMENTUS, IUDICIUS, LATROCINIUS, ORATORIUS, TELONEUS, 

CAELUS, CENUBIUS, found in the texts of Muller & Taylor, and so also 

presumably in the case of the INSTRUMENTUS, MONASTERIUS quoted by 

Väänänen from the Form. Marc. (in these texts the plurals are sometimes 

neuter, as VINA, STRUMENTA, sometimes masculine, as TELONEOS, CAELOS); but 

when a noun is listed in the -UM form, to indicate neuter gender, this may in 

certain cases, as I see it, only be a grammarian’s way of saying that -A forms 

are found in the plural, as in the case of the CIRCLA, CULTELLA, CULTRA, CARRA, 

HORTUA, LOCELLA, FLUXA, VOMITA quoted above (a singular form like 

“gustum versatile” is not conclusive, as this could simply be a case of -E for

32 

-EM, cf. “grave iniuriam” in the Pass. Mem.). In the case of the plurals we may 

be justified in anticipating the Romance situation and supposing that there was 

a tendency, at least, for those masculines and neuters that were capable of 

having both a collective and an individual signification to have a collective 

form in -A and an individual one in -I, -OS, irrespective of which type they 

originally belonged to. In this case we have already seen that pairs like 

LOCI/LOCA, CUBITI/CUBITA and later DIGITI/DIGITA and FRUCTI (for 

FRUCTŪS)/FRUCTA existed together. 

At this point there comes a cleavage between Eastern and Western 

Romance (the latter including Sardinian and the dialects of northern Italy), 

which seems to be connected with the loss of final -S in the former. In Western 

Romance (or, at least, one area of it) the masculines of the 2nd and 3rd 

declensions (which had absorbed the neuters) at one stage preserved a two-case 

declension as seen in OFr., Prov. sing. murs, mur, pl. mur, murs, OFr. sing, 

chiens, chien, pl. chien (from *CANI as MURI, cf. Gl. Reich. FOLLI, Gl. Cass. 

PIRPICI (= BERBICES), SAPIENTI), chiens, Prov. sing. cans, ca(n), pl. ca(n), cans; 

traces of this system still remain in Sursilvan in certain adjectival and 

participial forms (e.g. “il bab ei buns/amaus”, “ils babs ein amai” — ‘the father 

is good/loved’, ‘the fathers are loved’) and in other Rhaeto-Romance plural 

forms such as Tyrol. restei, Val. Gard. restiei, Friul. rascjei, all from RASTELLI 

(Bour., §526a). Elsewhere the oblique case ousted the nominative at an early 

date, though traces of the latter sometimes remain, as Sp. Dios (as against 

Judaeo-Sp. Dió), Ptg. Deus, OCat. nom. Deus, obl. Deu, OPied. nom. Deus, obl. 

Deu (Monaci, No. 18; cf. OEng. Deus/Deis and Dieu, Surs. Dieus and Diu); in 

the case of Catalan, Spanish and Portuguese we must distinguish between the 

pre-literary morphological loss of -S in the singular and the regular 

phonological preservation of -S, which led to its retention as a mark of the 

32

33 

33 

plural (evidence of the early use of a one-case plural in -OS is provided, for 

African Latin at least, by an inscription, “Filios et nepotes salvos...posuerunt”; 

Bourciez, §214b). In the case of Sardinian, which likewise only has one case, 

Lausberg comments that the creation of new plurals like corpos, tempos points 

to the identification of the -us of corpus, tempus with that of the vanished 

nominative of the 2nd declension. In this Western Romance system, the 

important feature is not so much the existence of a distinction between the two 

cases, which was soon lost, but the fact that in the oblique case the plural was 

felt to be formed by adding -s to the singular, as was the case with the feminine 

nouns coming from the Latin 1st declension, so that the lexical form of the 

word remained as an unchanging morpheme and the idea became established 

that to form the plural one simply added a suffix, without tampering with the 

final vowel of the singular. 

In Eastern Romance, by contrast, the loss of -S meant that in the 

singular there was no difference between the nominative and oblique cases 

(except originally in imparisyllabic nouns referring to persons), and there was 

no -s to act as a plural marker; instead, the final vowel of the singular was 

changed to the vowel corresponding to that of the Latin nominative plural, that 

is, from -ă (Rum.) or -a (It.) to -e (occasionally -i) in the first declension 

(though the origin of the -e in Italian is disputed; here one has to bear in mind 

the question of interference by the northern Italian type, which originally 

preserved -S), from -u or -o to -i in the masculines of the 2nd declension, from 

-e to -i in those of the 3rd (it seems most probable that this -i was taken from 

the 2nd declension, as the same vowel also underlies the Old French and 

Provençal forms), and from -u or -o to -a (or its replacement -e) in the 

2nd-declension neuters. Moreover, and this is significant, there was another 

group of neuter nouns ending in *-U, those of the type *CORPU, *TEMPU, 

*PECTU, and these formed their plurals by changing the -U to -ORA, and had, as

34 

we have seen, begun to affect other nouns in -U. You have, therefore, a situation 

very different from that in Western Romance, one in which the plural is formed 

by changing the final vowel; and the vowel -U, in particular, could be changed 

in three ways, to -I, -A or -ORA. This was a situation favourable to the retention 

of the neuter plural as a type of plural formation (alongside a parallel masculine 

one, if so desired), and also to the substitution of one neuter type for the other 

(the more clearly marked -ORA for -A); furthermore, if the reason behind the 

distinction between -I and -A/-ORA were no longer felt, there would be no 

obstacle to the substitution of -A/-ORA for -I in other nouns denoting individual 

objects if this proved to be of benefit. By contrast, in Western Romance the 

absence of the -S marker from -A and -ORA meant that these could no longer 

survive as plural endings, and so the neuter declension would disappear 

naturally; the only neuter plural forms that would have any hope of surviving 

would be the double plurals like LABRAS, and these would quickly develop new 

singular forms in -A, thus becoming new feminines. 

b) As for the new feminine singulars already recorded in late Latin, we 

find many that are significant for Romance, such as LABIA, RETIA, TRIBULA, 

GAUDIA, FOLIA, PRIMA VERA, MELA, PERSICA, PIRA, POMA, PRUNA, NESPILA, 

FRAGA, GRANA, LIGNA, CLAUSTRA, CINDRA, CINISSA, ARMA, OPERA, INGUINA, 

BISATIA, SARMENTA (more especially important as a type of the -MENTA 

formation), VELA, FORTIA, PUNCTA, GESTA, SPONSALIA, BATTALIA, MIRABILIA, 

CAMPANIA, and dat. pl. FATABUS. But it is not always clear to me, owing to lack 

of information, in what sense these singulars were used, whether as collective or 

as individual nouns, or whether these words were only used in the plural; for 

instance, does “FOLIA” mean that this word is used in the singular (the Thes. 

Ling. Lat. provides evidence that in fact it is), and, if so, does it mean ‘foliage’ 

or ‘leaf’, or are we to understand that we only find the plural FOLIAS (recorded 

34

35 

35 

in Chir.) as ‘leaves’? The modern languages offer examples of both meanings in 

the singular, of which ‘foliage’ (found, e.g., in phrases corresponding to the 

similar English ‘in leaf’) must surely be the older. In other cases the process of 

transference is clear. In that of an abstract noun like GAUDIA, the collective 

plural meaning, as in “the joys of motherhood” (as contrasted with the 

individual “Five Joys of the Virgin”), is close to that of the singular, and in the 

same way the pl. FORTIA ‘mighty deeds’ easily becomes the sing. FORTIA ‘might’, 

‘force’, and for the development of SPONSALIA compare English “nuptials” = 

“wedding”. In other cases we know that the singular use to indicate a single 

object developed early, as in the case of LABIA, RETIA, TRIBULA, OPERA (but in 

the abstract, not the concrete, sense). In the case of LIGNA, PRATA, CLAUSTRA, 

CINDRA, CINISSA, INGUINA, BISATIA, GESTA, CAMPANIA we can clearly see a 

collective use, and perhaps so also in PRIMA VERA, as ‘the first days of spring’. 

Souter says SARMENTA means ‘twig’, but does not say whether it appears in the 

singular. He quotes FATAE, but this may simply be extrapolated from the 

FATABUS seen above, in which case we may merely have an example of a neuter 

plural having a feminine oblique case (like OVARUM, OSSARIJM, CULTELLARUM), 

though the -ABUS certainly seems to mark the word as feminine, being used in 

classical Latin to distinguish the dat.-abl. of DEAE, FILIAE, ANIMAE from those of 

DEI, FILII, ANIMI. The phrases quoted by Nyrop show that ARMA had both a 

collective and an individual meaning. It is not stated how MELA, PERSICA, PIRA, 

PRUNA, NESPILA and FRAGA are used, but the “pome mire pulchritudinis” 

glossing “mala granata” in the Gl. Reich. are clearly individual fruits in the 

plural, like Fr. pommes (the scribe might well have written “*pomas” for the 

nominative, like “litteras” in another gloss). (It must be borne in mind that while 

many of these examples are relevant to the whole of Romance, eg. FOLIA, ARMA, 

PRIMA VERA, RETIA, some, like LIGNA, PRATA, GAUDIA, GESTA, only apply to part 

of the territory, or even just to one local area, viz. France, and such examples are 

only recorded in late locally-coloured texts.) In the case of the new singular

36 

forms referring to single objects, though it might be possible to see them as 

originating in double plurals, we should probably be guided by the usage in 

Rhaeto-Romance (see below) and decide that the individual meaning grew out 

of the collective one, thus FOLIA, ARMA meant firstly ‘foliage’, ‘arms’ and then 

‘a leaf’, ‘a weapon’. For the change from a neuter plural to a collective singular 

compare English hair from OE n. pl. hæ#r. 

c) When we come to look at the outcome of the Latin neuter plurals in 

Romance, we shall find firstly, as I have said, a clear division between Eastern 

and Western Romance. In the Eastern area the plurals are preserved in their 

plural function, and the new “mixed” declension has expanded to take in, 

initially, masculine nouns of collective meaning, and, later, nouns of all sorts; as 

we have seen, the -ORA ending has achieved a remarkable extension (this only 

in Eastern Romance, though corresponding new forms reflecting -A are 

sometimes found elsewhere), being used in Rumanian to form the plurals of 

loanwords. In contrast to standard Italian, where the old neuter plurals tend only 

to be preserved if they have a collective meaning, Rumanian keeps all the old 

neuters regardless of meaning (though this often is collective), thus capete 

‘heads’, care ‘carts’, morminte ‘tombs’, nasuri noses’, preŃuri ‘prices’, vinuri 

‘wines’ (these last with extension of -uri beyond the bounds of that of -ORA as 

exemplified in Lombard Latin). It should be noted here that -e and -uri (earlier 

-ure) are double plural endings, coming from -AE and *-ORAE; however, 

Meyer-Lübke states (Schicksale and Grammatik) that -A and -ORA are reflected 

in Istro-Rumanian, which has forms like osă, fusă, fl’eră, kl’eptură, ventură, 

fokură for standard oase, fuse, fiare, piepturi, vânturi, focuri, though in view of 

the fact that these words contain the same segments, -să and -ră, as the 

Moldavian oasă and cară, which he says came from an earlier oase and care by 

phonetic change (as standard ouă from *oue), I wonder how far he is justified in 

his statement. I have already given examples of the extension of -uri to 

36

37 

37 

loanwords and verbal nouns; it is also sometimes added to feminine nouns, 

giving făinuri ‘kinds of flour’, lânuri ‘fleeces’, mătăsuri ‘silks’, cărnuri ‘meats’. 

The ending -e is used to form the plurals of newly introduced verbal nouns, like 

acte, subiecte, procese, following the model of old participial neuters like 

păcate ‘sins’, fapte ‘acts’, ‘deeds’; it is also used equally with -uri to form the 

plurals of loanwords. In the case of Italian, the situation in the southern dialects 

(which are better exemplars than Tuscan of Eastern Romance) can be broadly 

compared to that in Rumanian, though it differs in detail. Both -A and -ORA are 

kept as plural endings (sometimes replaced by -AE and *-ORAE), and many of 

the forms correspond to the Rumanian ones and will be discussed later when we 

examine all the Romance forms together, but one interesting new development 

is the substitution of -a for -i in masculine nouns (without changing their 

gender) in those areas where -e and -i are confused, the purpose being to 

distinguish masculine from feminine. So you get i pila (for standard i peli), i 

mula (i muli), i latruna (i ladri), tri jorna (tre giorni), i furna (i forni) and so on 

(Rohlfs, §368). There are similar examples of the use of the -ORA ending, so 

mulərə (muli), vareləra (barili), maretəra (mariti), bukəra (buchi), zianərə (zii), 

jaddərə (galli), kanatərə (cognati), amešərə (amici), kəssprenərə (cugini), 

furnure (forni), chiuppira (pioppi), jardinura (giardini), and even for feminines, 

so ripura (ripe), casara (case). In Tuscan the neuter plurals are much more 

restricted, and are in general, as I said, limited to collectives; there are, however, 

in Old Tuscan a certain number of new formations using -ora, such as borgora, 

boscora, bustora, cambiora, fornora, elmora, nomora, some of them, like the 

Lombard Latin forms we have already looked at in §4e, being loanwords from 

Germanic. In northern Italy the use of the neuter plural is still more restricted, 

especially in modern times (though the new -ORA(S) forms are found in the 

Lombard Latin of this region), and the words concerned are all collective in 

meaning. This is only to be expected, as this region really comes within the 

Western Romance area, and in fact, since the preferred form is the double plural,

38 

forms like le osse, le ove are directly comparable to, for example, (O)Ptg. as 

ossas, as ovas. 

d) In Western Romance, for the phonological reasons explained above, 

though similar forms reflecting Latin neuter plurals in -A, -ORA exist, they are 

no longer used as plurals. True, there are statements made by grammarians to 

the effect that such plurals exist (cf. Väänänen: “Ce pluriel neutre subsiste en 

roumain, en italien, en ancien français et en ancien provençal,” or Bourciez: 

“Les pluriels en -a...se sont même rarement conservés en Gaule avec leur valeur 

de pluriels...cinquante care (Rol. 131), quatre brace, les doie etc.,” or Lausberg: 

“Reste des Neutr. Plur. -a finden sich auch im Afr. (cinquante charre...deus 

doie...),”), but they fail to emphasize one important point. Pope comes closest to 

the truth when she says: “Traces of the neuter pl. lived on into late Old French, 

especially in the plurals of nouns denoting weight and measure, cf. 

charre...deie...milie...paire...sestiere.” She mentions the important “weight and 

measure” but, like the others, neglects to observe that the only type of formation 

that “lived on into late Old French” (in contrast to a few sporadic examples that 

appear in the early stages) was the one consisting of a weight or measure 

preceded by a numeral. These forms are in fact equivalent to collective 

singulars, comparable to the English plurals with singular concord in such 

sentences as “Ten pounds doesn’t go far these days”, “Is three yards enough to 

make a suit?”, “Five miles is a good walk.” (Compare also the English use of 

what was originally an unmarked neuter plural in a phrase like “two pound ten”, 

imitated in “five foot six”, and the use of collective fish, fruit as against 

individual fishes, fruits.) The other Western Romance usage which comes close 

to the old plural (and in fact originally had plural concord) is the 

Rhaeto-Romance collective singular of the type la bratscha, la laina. In one 

sense this is of the same nature as such singulars as Sp. la braza ‘fathom’, la 

leña ‘firewood’, but there is an important difference; these collective feminine 

38

39 

39 

singulars are felt to be the plurals, in a collective sense, of cognate masculine 

nouns which have other plurals, formed by the addition of -s, to denote the same 

objects when viewed individually, whereas the Sp. braza, leña are quite 

divorced from brazo, brazos, leño, leños. Equally, they are equivalent to the 

plurals of singular masculine nouns when used with numerals to form a 

collective measurement, so ün bratsch, dua bratscha, whereas Spanish has 

braza in the singular, with a new plural brazas. So Rhaeto-Romance occupies a 

kind of intermediate position (morphologically as well as geographically) 

between the languages which use the -A forms as plurals, and those which only 

use them as singulars. (Sardinian belongs basically to the latter category, with 

only faint traces of -A forms used other than as feminine singulars.) All these 

forms will be discussed in detail as we proceed. 

6. Nouns denoting parts of the body. 

a) When we come to look at actual examples, taking the words that 

have left reflexes in Romance one by one, it will be convenient to start with 

this last-mentioned word, Lat. BRAC(C)HIUM, pl. BRAC(C)HIA. The parts of the 

body provide good examples of collective neuters, because they are commonly 

thought of in pairs or in groups, and this particular word also developed a use 

as a unit of measurement, when combined with a numeral. To judge from 

Rumanian and Italian, the neuter plural form of the definite article in late Latin 

must have been *ILLAE, like the existing fem. ILLAE, with the feminine concord 

that we saw earlier in the case of adjectives. (This applies at least to the cases 

where the words are still felt to be plural; but if they have already become in 

effect feminine singulars then the article is ILLA. It has been suggested that 

*ILLAE came from ILLAEC, formed on the analogy of HAEC (Bourciez, §218a) 

and serving both as feminine or neuter plural, and this, added to the use of

40 

double plurals, would have backed up the idea of feminine concord.) ln 

Rumanian the -A ending was replaced, in the noun as in the article, by the 

feminine -AE > -e (which became -ă after some consonants, as we have just 

seen; note also Mac. Rum. mură, quoted by L. Spitzer in R.F. Hisp., III), so that 

in the case of BRACHIUM we have sing. braŃul, pl. braŃele, recalling the Latin 

double plural BRACHIAS (also braŃurile; Pop, Gram. Roum., p. 118); in view of 

this type of formation all the old neuters are considered to belong to a mixed 

declension, masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural. The word is 

also a unit of measurement, so that un braŃ, două braŃe, can mean ‘one fathom’, 

‘two fathoms’, as well as ‘one armful’, ‘two armfuls’. 

In Italian the standard form of the plural of il braccio is the collective le 

braccia, meaning ‘the arms (of the body)’, with due braccia for ‘two ells’, ‘two 

cubits’; feminine plural concord is used in both cases, though in Old Italian one 

finds le braccia vostra (Rohlfs, §399). However, in cases involving individual 

arms, or when the word has a transferred meaning, such as ‘supports’, ‘brackets’, 

‘wings of a building’, ‘branches of a river’ etc., the plural form is the masculine 

i bracci. Thus we see that in standard Italian the -a form is only preserved in the 

collective sense, whereas Rumanian uses braŃe in all senses. In this way Italian 

may be closer to the late Latin pattern, which perhaps had *BRACHII (not 

attested) for individual arms. In the local dialects we find forms corresponding 

to the Rumanian ones, and bearing out Aebischer’s thesis of common 

development, thus bracce (and brazze, brase etc.) in outlying parts of Tuscany 

as well as in the north (from where it spread to Corsica) and the south, while 

from Bari we find vrazzərə formed as Rum. braŃuri. In the case of this 

commonly used word we can see that the inherited “irregular” forms have held 

their ground well, but in many other cases we shall find that the -a form, or 

similar forms, belong only to the older stages of the language or to certain 

dialects, while the “regular” -i form has taken over in the modern standard 

40

41 

41 

language, producing a situation similar to that in Western Romance. In the case 

of braccio we can see this happening in the north, as well as in the fringe areas 

of Tuscany and in Umbria, giving Mil. pl. braš, NWTusc. brazi, Umb. bracci 

for almost all meanings. In this case Meyer-Lübke says that the plural in -a only 

appears in the combination of a numeral and a unit of measurement (cf. my 

remarks concerning Rhaeto-Romance below), giving Ven. trea brazza 

(otherwise brazze), Mil. doa/tria/quattro bra(t)sa (as against braš). What is 

more — a point that is significant in relation to Western Romance — a new 

singular un bratsa (sic, Meyer-Lübke, Grammatik; a misprint? — cf. una dida 

in §6d below) has also been developed. 

b) Proceeding in the direction of Western Romance, we find that in 

Rhaeto-Romance a significant grammatical development has taken place, 

though the forms themselves are very similar to the standard Italian ones 

(allowing for the derivation of the masc. pl. from the acc. -OS rather than the 

nom. -I): Surs. la bratscha ‘the arms of the body’, in bratsch ‘one ell’, dua 

bratscha ‘two ells’, ils bratschs ‘individual arms’, ‘individuals ells (“nov 

bratschs vigls dat diesch novs” — with a singular verb!)’, ‘the branches of a 

river’. The difference from Italian is that today the form bratscha, though 

having a plural meaning, is grammatically a collective feminine singular, taking 

a singular verb (and sometimes forming a plural, as in Eng. a bratschas ‘arm in 

arm’), whereas the non-collective ils bratschs is a full plural. However, in the 

older stage of the language we find that these collective nouns had plural verbal 

concord. Thus Velleman, in his grammar of Upper Engadinian, quotes, “La 

vestimainta sun cuvertas da la tridezza” (Abyss), “Horrenda vermiglia havevan 

fat gnieu in teis cour” (ditto), “La mia verva nu vignen a passer via” (Bifrun, 

Mark), “Tuotta la membra nun haun una proepia houra” (Bifrun, Romans), and 

Ascoli, in Arch. Glott. It., VII, gives for Sursilvan, “Sia detta han pigliau”,

42 

“Vanginen...detta d’in maun”, “Salidada seias vus, soigia schanuglia”, “Vegnen 

salvada si la ss. ossa”. It will be seen that the adjective generally ends in -a like 

the noun, as in the case of the modern singular forms, though there is one 

example of “cuvertas” with a plural ending. On the question of the use of the -a 

and -s forms, Lausberg (§609) explains that objects when regarded individually, 

for example when counted, take the plural -s form (cf. the “nov bratschs” above), 

but then reveals a weakness in his analysis by being taken aback at finding 

forms like dua bratscha. He says (§765): “Semantisch handelt es sich nicht um 

kollektive Plurale, da ja gezählt wird, sondern um archaische Reste alter 

Fügungen im Neutrum Pluralis.” Here he shows that he has failed to consider 

the fact that we have to do not with two separate ells but with a single collective 

unit consisting of two ells (cf. the English examples given above in §5d). In 

general, the existence of a collective form alongside a plural one can be 

compared to the situation in German, which has collective nouns beginning with 

Ge- (Geäder ‘veins’, Gebein ‘bones’, Gebirge ‘mountains’, Gebrüder ‘brothers’, 

Gebüsch ‘bushes’, Gedärm ‘intestines’, Gefieder ‘feathers’, Gefilde ‘fields’, 

Gehirn ‘brains’, Gehörn ‘horns’, Gewässer ‘waters’ and so on) as against 

individual plurals (Adern, Beine, Berge, Brüder, Büsche, Därme, Federn, Felder, 

Hirne, Hörner, Wasser/Wässer). It is always possible, of course, to suppose that 

the German formations encouraged the continuance of the Romance collectives, 

knowing how much German speech habits have filtered into Rhaeto-Romance. 

Before leaving Rhaeto-Romance we should also note the Friulian feminine form 

brazzis, which Meyer-Lübke quotes in his Schicksale as being used, like the 

Berg. brassa, only in the plural in such phrases as “fális brazzis” meaning 

‘come to grips’, ‘wrestle’. This further strengthens the impression I have gained 

elsewhere that in Friulian the old neuter plurals have all become feminine 

singulars. 

42

43 

43 

c) Passing now to French, we find in the main the W. Romance 

separation of BRACHIUM and BRACHIA as seen in modern bras ‘arm’ and brasse 

‘fathom’. However, in Old French we find the older Rhaeto-Romance situation 

reflected to some extent. Firstly, la brace can be used for a person’s two arms, 

with the phrase “en/entre sa brace” being found frequently for ‘in his/her arms’; 

other similar phrases are “s’entretienent a une brace”, “brace estendue”, “brace 

levee”, “brace a brace”, “a brace de corps”, this last still preserved as “nager à 

la brasse” ‘swim breaststroke’. Here brace is grammatically a feminine singular, 

but the meaning is plural, and Väänänen also quotes a form “ambes les brace” 

(no reference given), while Tobler & Lommatzsch give “ces brace” (Oxf. LHs.) 

and “ambe sa brace” (Hist. Jos., this perhaps the same as the “ambe brace” 

given by Nyrop). Here we find examples of plural concord, but this seems to be 

very rare in Old French, except in the case of words of measurement (see 

below), and in some cases may be imitated from Latin. Bourciez quotes les doie 

(no reference; see my comments in §6d below), and Spitzer (op. cit.) “bestes et 

tuit aumaille” (reproducing the Latin “bestiae et universa pecora”; Oxford 

Psalter), “aumaille petiz ot les granz” (Latin “animalia pusilla cum magnis”, 

ibid.; cf. “cent almaille”, Laws of Will. Conq.), “les prophecies et les signe” 

(Job), and “li altre…la dure lenge [=leigne] qui tardiement esprendent” 

(A.Tobler, Archiv., XXVI, 288); this last example seems to me, however, to be 

falsely included, as the antecedent of “qui esprendent” is “li altre” (not quoted 

by Spitzer) rather than “la lenge”. In addition, Nyrop gives “s’oste ses arme” 

(Rich. li biaus, 2255, occurring in the rhyme; “ses armes” is found a little later, l. 

2469), as well as another example falsely analysed. But quite apart from these 

few isolated instances we have ample evidence in French of the use of the 

collective form in the combination of numeral and unit of measurement, just as 

in Rh. dua bratscha, a usage which must originally have been widespread in 

Western Romance as a whole. In the case of this word, both Bourciez and 

Spitzer quote an example of quatre brace (with no reference, and no example in

44 

Godefroy, but this usage is confirmed by similar examples with other nouns; 

one is tempted here to quote English “three brace of partridge” as a parallel, 

though it seems to me doubtful if there is any direct connection). Already in 

Middle French we find this construction has given way to the modern one in 

which the old collective has come to refer to a single unit, just as la/sa brace 

were replaced by les/ses braces in the sense of ‘arms’ before dying out, but at 

least the earlier state of affairs persisted into late Old French, as Pope says. I 

have not found any record of un bras being used as a unit of measurement, and 

in this connection the difference between Rh. bratsch–bratscha ‘ell(s)’ and Fr. 

brasse(s) ‘fathom(s)’ may not be without significance. We may well suppose 

that in French the brasse either was from the start, or soon came to be, a unit 

equivalent to the length of two arms, based on Latin BRACHIA (and cf. NIt. 

bratsa), whereas Rh. bratsch was a one-arm unit based on BRACHIUM. But this 

may be purely fanciful speculation (according to the Camb. It. Dic., It. braccio 

can mean either ‘ell’ or ‘fathom’). 

In Provençal the situation is similar to that in French. We find the old 

phrase “en/entre sa brassa”, and sa brasso, à la brasso still in modern use. I 

have found no record, however, of anything corresponding to the Fr. quatre 

brace, though such a construction must certainly have existed; Grafström, 

Étude sur la morph. des plus anc. chartes langued., gives examples for other 

nouns (see below), but none of his sources have provided any examples of 

brassa used in this way. Levy’s Suppl. Wört. gives an example of 130 brassas, 

which is the modern construction, and also una brassa, showing that this was 

the unit form at an early date. The construction “en sa brassa” penetrated as far 

as Roussillon; Badía Margarit, Gram. Hist. Cat., quotes this phrase from 

Corominas’ edition of Vidas de Santos, remarking on it as “un arcaísmo 

extraordinario”. Otherwise, Cat. braça, like Sp. braza (OSp. braça, found in 

the Cid), Ptg. braça, is a regular feminine noun, meaning ‘fathom’, entirely 

44

45 

45 

separated from braç, as are the others from brazo, braço respectively. (Note 

that the Spanish form also means ‘breaststroke’ and, in the plural, ‘braces (on a 

ship)’. Thus we find that the extreme west of Romania has moved furthest from 

the original Latin position, a fact which is not surprising when one considers 

how innovatory Spanish is, particularly in its verb system (three conjugations, 

very few strong preterites, HABERE for ESSE to form the perfect of intransitive 

verbs (with invariable past participle), remodelling of the -udo p.ps. as -ido, 

extension of the -ESC- interfix to all parts of the verb, etc.), and also that this 

area was the first to reject the use of vowel change (from -o to -i) for forming 

the plural. So it is that in the Iberian peninsula there are no traces at all of even 

lingering echoes of the use of the Latin neuter plural with any plural force. 

Sardinian has certain stray examples of the survival of the old plural, as we 

shall see later, but in this case has only forms like rattu, rattos ‘branch(es)’, 

brattsu, brattsos ‘arms’ (with br- from Italian). 

d) Another part of the body often thought of collectively is the fingers. 

Here we have already seen that late Latin had the collective plural DIGITA. In 

Rumanian this has become degete(-le), again a single form for all purposes. 

Italian has le dita (and ORom. deta) for ‘the fingers’ looked at collectively, but 

i diti for ‘specific fingers’; dita is also used as a measurement, so due dita ‘two 

finger’s-breadths’. In the dialects other forms are used, such as the “double 

plurals” dite (popular Tuscan), di(d)e/dede (northern), and tišite (in the south), 

as well as new -ORA forms (southern) such as daitərə/detərə/tetera/deštrə. We 

also find the same distribution for forms corresponding to diti as for those 

corresponding to bracci, so NWTusc. didi, Mil. did; similarly we find northern 

dida in the combination doa dida ‘two finger’s-breadths’, with a new singular 

una dida in Milan (Meyer-Lübke; cf. his un[a] bratsa). The position in 

Rhaeto-Romance is similar; collective singular la detta (Surs.; formerly with

46 

plural concord, as we have just seen), la dainta (Eng.) for all the fingers 

together, but for individual fingers forms like treis dets, trais daints ‘three 

fingers’, while for ‘three finger’s-breadths’ the collective form is used, as trei 

detta, traia dainta (Lausberg, §§609, 765). In Old French we also find a 

collective singular, as in Rhaeto-Romance (and like la brace), e.g. longue doie, 

par la doie, as against trois doi(gt)s ‘three fingers’ (I therefore question 

Bourciez’s les doie quoted above, with plural concord; he may have falsely 

extrapolated it from combinations of numeral and unit of measurement, which 

are the only examples given by Tobler and Lommatzsch, unless he has 

abbreviated a combination like les doie de la main). In the sense of 

‘finger’s-breadth’ the usage once again follows that of Rhaeto-Romance, so 

dous deie (Roland), deus doie (Aiol.), troi doie (Eneas) for ‘two (three) 

finger’s-breadths’. This word eventually died out, except in dialects of the 

north and east, where it means ‘toe’, but before doing so it became treated as a 

normal feminine (again, cf. brace), so deus doies (Artur). Going further south, 

Wartburg quotes an ODauph. dea, and the REW a Lyon. (Fr.-Prov.) daya, and a 

Prov. deda, but I have found no other confirmation of these forms, and no 

forms for Catalan or Portuguese. In the case of Spanish, Meyer-Lübke, 

Corominas, García de Diego and Wartburg quote Ast.-Leon. forms, 

de(d)a/di(d)a in the sense of ‘toe’, ‘big toe’ (for this last Corominas gives a 

form deona), that is, the word has come to denote an individual object. 

However, I have not been able to trace any occurrences of this word in the 

earlier stages of the language. Sardinian (old digitu, Log. didu) does not seem 

to have any traces of an -a form. 

Closely linked with these is CUBITA ‘elbows’, ‘cubits’, which we have 

seen existed alongside CUBITI. Here Rumanian has the expected coate ‘elbows’, 

and also coturi ‘bends in a river’ and, surprisingly, coŃi ‘cubits’ (perhaps this is 

46

47 

47 

a modern formation). Old Italian had gomita and northern gome(dh)e, but these 

have now yielded place to gomiti. Rhaeto-Romance has singular forms like 

combet/cumbet, gombet/gumbet, but more often these have been changed 

phonetically, thus Surs. cumbel, Eng. cundun; there are no collective forms in -a, 

and the word does not have the meaning ‘cubit’. Old French has the old Latin 

plural as a feminine singular coute/coude, meaning ‘cubit’, but Godefroy gives 

no examples of the basic form without -s being used with a plural numeral as a 

unit of measurement. The Provençal forms derived from the Latin singular are 

cobde/covede/coide (now cou(i)de), and Levy quotes a single example of coyda 

‘cubit’, evidently from CUBITA, in the phrase “XL coydas”. He doubts the 

reading, however, thinking that “coydats” is intended; in this he seems to me to 

be wrong, as the scansion of the line, “quaránta cóydas sés mentír”, surely 

requires “coydas”. In Catalan the modern form derived from the old singular is 

colze, said to have been changed from earlier colde under the influence of polze 

‘thumb’. Other early forms are cotze, coldo, colzo. There is no apparent record 

of a form in -a, but it is interesting that an early example of colde, from Llull, 

comes in the form “XL coldes”, which could equally be the plural of *colda. 

(Colde has come from *coude, as delme, galta, malalt from deume, gauta, 

malaute.) Spanish, like Old French, has preserved the old Latin plural as a 

feminine singular, coda ‘wedge for strengthening a joint (in carpentry)’. I have 

not, however, been able to discover any similar form in Portuguese (is cota 

‘back of a knife’ related to coto(velo) ‘elbow’?); the Portuguese unit of 

measurement is côvado ‘ell’. When we come to Sardinian, on the other hand, 

we are rewarded by a rare instance of the preservation of the Latin plural in the 

old language in the combination of numeral plus unit of measurement, “XI 

cubita de pannos” (Wagner, Flessione, §10), “XXIIII cubita de pannu” (R. 

Sampson, Early Romance Texts, No. 74); Wagner also quotes a modern form, 

Camp. kuida, used as a singular for the individual ‘un braccio’. Judging from all 

the above forms, it seems in general as if the collective idea of ‘elbows’ was

48 

less strongly felt that that of other parts of the body, and consequently less well 

preserved. 

e) A more strongly represented word is OSSA. Here Rumanian has oase 

in all contexts (with Istro-Rum. osă, Mold. oasă, see above, §5c; also 

Istro-Rum. osur-le, M.-L., Schicks., p. 53), while Italian has ossa for all the 

bones of the body as a whole, and ossi for such things as individual chicken 

bones in one’s dinner. Other formations, similar to the Rumanian ones, are osse 

(Tuscany, parts of the south, the north, Corsica), and éəssərə in Apulia (Matera). 

We also find forms corresponding to ossi used for ossa in the areas which have 

bracci, diti for braccia, dita. As before, Rhaeto-Romance has the collective 

singular ossa (formerly with plural concord, as seen above, §6b), contrasted 

with the plural Eng. öss, Surs. oss for individual bones (the Surs. singular is ies, 

with metaphony). The collective singular is also found in OFr. osse (a “double 

plural” osses is also found, and the same form in Old Franco-Provençal), Prov. 

and Cat. ossa (modern Prov. osso), and OPtg. ossas, one more exmple of a 

double plural; we likewise find s’ossa sua as a collective singular in Old 

Sardinian (Fless., §10), and this form continues in use in Logudorian. Modern 

Spanish has huesa ‘grave’, which is very likely a combination of Latin FOSSA 

and OSSA, as Ptg. fossa only means ‘ditch’; an older spelling uesa is recorded 

once in the Cronica de Corral (c. 1430), and Nebrija also spells the word 

“uessa”. (I also note that García de Diego quotes Ast. frangüesa ‘osprey’, if this 

spelling is to be relied upon; Corominas quotes the word as “frangüesu”.) 

Equally well represented is CORNUA, rivalled at all times by CORNA, and, 

on occasion, by CORNI. Here Rumanian has two “mixed” declension plurals, 

coarne ‘horns’, ‘plough-handles’, and cornuri ‘rolls of bread’, ‘musical horns’, 

48

49 

49 

‘powder horns’, ‘corners’ (ORum. cornure, M.-L., Schicks., p. 49). Italian has 

corna ‘horns (as a pair)’, ‘corns on the feet’, with dial. corne (as bracce, dide, 

osse), but corni for a number of individual horns and also in transferred senses 

such as ‘musical horns’, ‘horns of the moon/of the altar/of a dilemma’, 

‘horn-shaped projections or objects’; corni is also found for corna in the areas 

which use bracci, diti and ossi for braccia, dita and ossa. Rhaeto-Romance 

follows suit with the collective singular la corna ‘horns’, ‘antlers’ (Germ. 

Gehörn) as opposed to the individual ils corns (the singular is Eng. chüern, Surs. 

tgiern); however, in this case la corna can also be used for a single horn, with 

las cornas for ‘horns’. This is similar to the situation in Old French, where la 

corne can be a collective (“exalcer vostre corne”, Psalter; Meyer-Lübke, 

Schicks., p. 125, also speaks of it as a plural), but usually refers to a single item 

(also used in “les cornes de l’autel”); but here cor gained ground initially, so 

that corns meant ‘horns’, ‘antlers’, ‘horns of the altar’, and the singular cor was 

used for the material ‘horn’ and in the phrase “cor d’abondance”, and for 

‘musical horn’, ‘corner’. In modern French cor only has transferred meanings, 

such as ‘musical horn’, ‘tine of an antler’ (individually countable), ‘corn on the 

foot’, ‘sitfast’, while corne has become the word for a single ‘horn’ (also as the 

material), and has other meanings like ‘shoehorn’, ‘hoof’, ‘dog’s-ear of a page’, 

‘point of a cocked hat’. In Old Provençal, as far I have discovered, both cor(n) 

and corna are used for ‘horn’, ‘musical horn’, and corna also means ‘auricle’, 

‘lobe of the heart’; the modern uses are similar to the French ones, with corno 

as the standard word for ‘a horn’ (and also the material), while cor is restricted 

to meanings like ‘musical horn’, ‘tip’, ‘corner’, ‘corn on the foot’ (but in 

Guienne and Béarn cor is used in the senses of corno). In Catalan corn is the 

standard word for ‘horn’ in all senses, but in the north corna is used instead (and 

has also given Spanish the word cornas ‘back-stays’). The semantic position in 

Spanish is similar to that in Rhaeto-Romance, with cuerna firstly having the 

collective meaning of ‘horns’ (like cornamenta) and then individually of ‘an

50 

antler’, and also having the specialized meanings of ‘rustic hunting horn’, 

‘rustic horn vessel’, while cuerno is the standard word for ‘horn’ (also the 

material), with other meanings like ‘hornlike projection or object’, ‘horn of the 

moon’, ‘horn of plenty’, ‘sitfast’ (but the musical instrument is a corneta). 

Portuguese now uses only corno in all senses (‘horn’, ‘hornlike projection or 

object’, ‘horn of the moon’, ‘horn of plenty’; but the musical instrument is 

corne (from French) or corneta); however, corna was formerly used collectively 

for ‘antlers’ (like cornadura) and also singly for a special ‘rustic horn vessel’. 

Finally, Sardinian has corru, corros for ‘horn(s)’, but the Latin CORN(U)A 

survives as the singular corra ‘shell’, ‘pod’ (shaped like two horns). It will be 

seen from all this that CORNU and CORNUA became greatly confused in many 

areas after the latter began to be used to refer to a single object. 

f) Two other words for parts of the body forming natural pairs are CILIA 

and SUPERCILIA, the latter evidently also taking the form *SUPRA(N)CILIA, to 

judge from the Rumanian, Italian, Sursilvan and Portuguese forms. In Latin 

CILIUM means ‘eyelid’, specifically the lower eyelid adjoining the GENA; Pliny 

uses it for ‘eyelash’, and later it could also be used for ‘eyebrow’, for which 

SUPERCILIUM was the standard word. The GENAE were the upper parts of the 

cheeks, and the word could also be used for ‘eyelids’ (PALPEBRAE), and 

poetically for ‘eyes’. In Rumanian, CILIA seems to have become blended with 

GENAE, giving sing. geană, pl. gene ‘eyelash(es)’; further, Puşcariu, Etym. Wört., 

says that phonologically an etymon such as *GENNA is required, and suggests 

contamination by PINNA. However, in view of the fact that for SUPERCILIA we 

find sprânceană, pl. sprâncene ‘eyebrow(s)’ (Mac. Rum. suprăceană), I suspect 

that there may have been intervention by CINNUS/CINNA ‘grimace’, ‘eye-signal’ 

(compare the Spanish forms below), giving *supracinna > *supracenna, which 

in turn reacted on GENA, producing *genna. The expected reflex of CILIA would 

be *ceie, which is not so unlike -cene, especially when we consider that -ie can 

50

51 

51 

also represent Latin -NIA (cf. the parallel developments of TENEAT > Ńie, 

*VOLEAT > voaie, and femeie < FAMILIA, leading to a blend with FEMINA). In 

Italian we have ciglio, which has the collective pl. ciglia (ceglia/cegghia/zeja) 

or dial. ciglie (cegie) for ‘eyelashes’, ‘eyelids’, ‘eyes’, ‘brow’ (there is also a 

unitary sing. ciglia for ‘cilium’), while for other meanings like ‘edges’, ‘rims’, 

‘banks’ it has the individual pl. cigli; sopracciglio ‘eyebrow’, and also ‘frown’ 

(cf. cipiglio) has the collective pl. sopracciglia. In Friuli, Istria and Bergamo 

CILIA has become a new singular, Friul. seie, Istr. sia, Berg. seya. In 

Rhaeto-Romance, Eng. su(r)vaschella/suvertschella (fem. sing.) and LEng. pl. 

tschaigls all mean ‘eyebrow(s)’, while Surs. tscheglia (fem. sing.) means 

‘eyelash’, and survintscheglia (fem. sing.) ‘eyebrow’. Modern French has only 

cil ‘eyelash’ and sourcil ‘eyebrow’, ‘brow’, but previously there was an OPic. 

cille (Wartburg, Fr. etym. Wört.), and OFr. sourcille, which was generally a 

collective singular but could also be used in the pl. sourcilles for ‘eyebrows’. 

Provençal has both forms apparently used interchangeably: cilh/celh and 

cilha/celha for ‘eyelash’, and sobrecilh/sobrecelh or sobrecilha/sobrecelha for 

‘eyebrow’, all referring to individual objects. (Corominas says the meanings 

differ according to the dialects.) Catalan has cell ‘cloudbank’, corresponding to 

Sp. cejo, and cella (Rouss. cilla) for ‘eyebrow’ and the other meanings of Sp. 

ceja, while sobrecell/sobrecill and sobrecella all mean ‘brow’. In Spanish, cejo 

means ‘river fog’ and formerly also ‘frown’, while ceja is the standard word for 

‘eyebrow’, and can also mean ‘edging’, ‘rim’, ‘(violin) bridge’, ‘cloudcap’; 

sobrecejo means ‘frown’ (and so also entrecejo), and sobreceja ‘brow’ (formerly 

‘eyebrow’). Note that Spanish also has the word ceño < CINNU ‘frown’, 

corresponding to It. cenno ‘sign’, ‘nod’, and OGen. cegno, Rh. tschegn, both 

influenced by SIGNU (so also OFr. cigner beside (a)cener, cf. OCat. cenar), 

together with sobreceño, also ‘frown’; it is the agreement between these and 

cejo, sobrecejo that has made me wonder, as stated above, whether CINNU had 

some part in the formation of Rum. sprânceană. Ptg. celha means ‘eyelash’ or

52 

‘cilium’ (generally used in the pl. celhas; Ptg. also has pestana for ‘eyelash’, 

corresponding to Sp. pestaña, Cat. pestanya), while sobracelha means 

‘eyebrow’, ‘brow’. Portuguese also has the words cenho, sobrecenho, with the 

same crossing with SIGNU as described above, unless these words were taken 

from Spanish. In Sardinian we find Log. kidza, Camp. tšilla ‘frown’ as feminine 

singulars, as against kidzos, tšillos ‘eyebrows’. All in all, we can see here that in 

Western Romance CILIA, SUPERCILIA have generally bypassed the collective 

stage to become nothing more than alternatives for CILIUM, SUPERCILIUM, 

probably because eyelashes and eyebrows are generally spoken of only in the 

plural. 

g) Other old neuter words relating to parts of the body are represented 

in varying degrees. For GENUCULA ‘knees’ Rumanian has the “mixed” plural 

forms genu(n)chie or genunchiuri, and also a masc. genunchi; similarly Italian 

has the collective plurals ginocchia and dial. ginocchie (also found in Dante), 

šənocchiərə, and a masc. ginocchi meaning ‘joints’. In Rhaeto-Romance we 

find the collective singulars Eng. schnuoglia, Surs. schanuglia, but we also find 

these words forming “double plurals”, as in the phrase “metter in 

schnuoglias/schanuglias”; as we have already seen in §6b, the collective 

schanuglia had plural concord in the earlier stages of the language. As regards 

Friulian, I have seen no reference anywhere to the preservation of the Latin 

neuter plurals in a plural function, perhaps because of the phonetic 

developments in Friulian, in which -A becomes -e and -AS -is. In this instance 

we have zenolis from zenoli, in which the -i is a vowel of support; this is 

apparently formed regularly by the addition of -s, but could conceivably be a 

double plural representing *GENUCULAS (cf. lavri below). For Old French 

Godefroy gives one example of les genouilles, but I have not found any such 

forms surviving in any of the other languages. From late Lat. ARTICULA ‘joints’ 

we have the Surs. collective sing. (d)artuglia ‘knuckles’. Latin CALCANEA 

52

53 

53 

‘heels’ gives the Rumanian pl. călcâie, Italian pls. calcagna and dial. calcagne 

(also found in Dante), and the Sursilvan collective sing. la calcogna (one 

example cited in DRG); modern Occ. caucagno, Gasc.-Béarn. caucagne 

‘heel-prints’ also seem to reflect the same form (is Braz. Ptg. calcanha ‘woman 

sweeper’ connected?). We have seen that LABRA and LABIA ‘lips’ were also 

treated as singulars in Latin, with plurals LABRAS, LABIAS, and this dual 

treatment is reflected in Romance. In the case of LABRA, Italian still uses the 

word as a plural labbra (with matching adjective in Old Italian “le labra 

vermiglia”), dial. labbre, but has masc. i labbri for ‘edges’, ‘rims’, and in 

Lombardy (Bergamo) l’avra has become a singular (Rohlfs, §384, M.-L., 

Gramm.). In Friulian we find the singular lavri from LABRU, with -i as the 

vowel of support; the pl. lavris, like zenolis, may be formed from this, but may 

equally come from LABRAS (cf. altris, m. and f., ‘others’; a phrase like “tos 

lavris” could have been either gender), and from Meyer-Lübke’s references to 

templi-s, mur-is (M.-L., Schicks., pp. 45, 169; see below, §§6i, 13d) I suspect 

the latter is the case. (Other Rhaeto-Romance dialects have borrowed from 

German. The German dialectal form Lefze can be seen in Surs. lefz (m.), 

lefza(s) (f.; with Romance gender interference?), while UEng. leiv, LEng. lef 

presumably come from OHG lefs rather than Latin LABIUM, and Val Verz. liffia 

(M.-L., Schicks., p. 132) clearly reflects OHG *liffja.) Elsewhere LABRA only 

survives as a singular form: Fr. lèvre, Prov. labra/lavra/laura, Sard. (Nuor.) 

labra, (Log., Camp.) lara, (northern rustic) lavra (Wagner, Ling. Sard., p. 104, 

Fless. §§8 n., 10 bis). In Spanish only the old labro is found. (Labio, like Ptg. 

labio, Cat. llavi, is late and learned; the peninsular languages have tended to 

prefer other popular forms, Sp., Cat. morro, Sp. bezo, Ptg. beiço.) Latin LABIA, 

where it has survived, is invariably a singular form: OIt. labbia ‘face’ (cf. 

Dante, Inf., 14:67, 25:21), Prov. labia ‘lip’ (also la labia in the Provençalized 

Vie de St. Léger, in the sense of ‘lips’), Cat. llavia, Sp., Ptg. labia ‘honied

54 

words’ (the DCVB thinks that Cat. llavia may have been taken from Spanish; 

for the transference of meaning, cf. Engl. “none of your lip”). 

h) We have noted earlier that in pre-classical Latin COLEUS/CULLEUS 

‘bag’ had a plural CULLEA; this is found in Cato ap. Varr. meaning ‘large 

measures of liquids’. The relation of these two forms to each other, and to 

Greek koleós ‘sheath’, is uncertain, but at any rate COLEUS developed the 

meaning of ‘scrotum’ and then ‘testicle’ (Cicero, Petronius, Martial), and this 

continued into Romance, though rivalled by a new CULIO/COLEO (gen. -ONIS), 

which appears in a gloss. The pl. CULLEA/*COLEA must evidently also have 

been used for ‘testicles’, and has come into Romance mostly as a singular, 

sometimes glossed as ‘scrotum’ and sometimes as ‘testicles’, thus evidently 

denoting the whole unit of scrotum and contents. Here Rumania has sing. coiu, 

pl. coaie ‘testicle(s)’, but elsewhere both forms are in the singular: OIt. coglio 

‘testicle’, It. coglia ‘(scrotum with) testicles’, similarly OFr. co(u)il, co(u)ille, 

with modern Fr. couilles ‘testicles’, Prov. colh ‘testicle’, colha ‘testicles’, Sard. 

(Log.) kodza, (Camp.) kolla ‘testicles’; the Asturian coya! (see DCELC) also 

corresponds formally (and cf. Sp. cojudo, corresponding to It. cogliuto, Fr. 

couillu, Prov. colhut, Cat. collut, Ptg. colhudo, Sard. kodzudu, kolludu). 

Going on to other parts of the trunk, we find that ILIA ‘flanks’ has 

survived widely, mostly as a singular (or in the double plural form) meaning 

‘groin’ or, occasionally, ‘flanks’: Rum. iie, Corsican iglia, Cerignola (N. Apul.) 

igghiə, Apul. iddzə (and, with the -ORA ending, Bari igghiərə, Salento ijure), 

Surs. eglias, UEng. iglias, OFr. illes (now iles), Prov. ilha. (Elsewhere we only 

find derivatives, such as Cat. ilhada, Sp. ijada, Ptg. ilhal, Log. iddzare, Camp. 

illari.) A similar pair of words is BOTULA, BOTELLA ‘sausages’, ‘small 

intestines’, both attested in glosses. The former has given the collectives Breg. 

54

55 

55 

böila, Eng. böglia, Surs. beglia ‘intestines’, and OFr. b(r)uille/b(r)euille, with 

double pl. breuilles; from the latter come the Italian collective pl. budella 

‘bowels’, dial. (OPad.) buelle (and Pied. sing. buela), alongside masc. budelli 

in figurative senses, and, as collective singulars, OFr. la boelle (or les boelles), 

Prov. budella. The Rh. budella ‘small lump’, butella ‘belly’ are also probably 

partly connected. 

The word INTESTINA, in the form ISTENTINA (found in glosses), survived 

as a plural in SIt. stentina, but otherwise as a feminine singular in Log. 

istentina, Camp. stentinas, OSp. estentina, OPtg. stentĩa. Another word with 

the same meaning was INTERANEA, which also developed another form 

INTRALIA (found in the Gl. Reich., along with INTRANEA). Here also only 

feminine singular forms have survived, usually with an added plural ending: 

OIt. entragna/entragne, OLomb. entraglie, OFr. entraigne and entraille, now 

pl. entrailles, Prov. entralha(s), now lis entraio or entralhos, OCat. entralles, 

mod. Cat. entranyes, Sp. entrañas, Ptg. entranhas (Sard. intragnas is from 

Spanish). In modern Italian, interiora is used as a collective plural with the 

same meaning. Another word for ‘entrails’ is CORATA, found in a cursing tablet 

(see DCELC). From this have come collective singulars meaning ‘giblets’, 

‘pluck’: It. corata, NIt. corada, OFr. coree(s) (now dial. courée), Prov. corada 

(now courado), Cat. corada, Sp. corada (Ast. coraes), Ptg. col(h)ada, Sard. 

corada. (A similar *CORALIA is seen in Eng. curaglia ‘lung’.) For ‘intestines’ 

Rumanian also has the plural forms măruntaie < MINUTALIA, which we shall 

look at later, and maŃe, corresponding to It. dial. mazza, Sard. matta; these have 

all come from the singular MATTEA ‘savoury meat dish’, later ‘intestines’ (from 

Greek mattyē, perhaps used as a plural by Martial), but in Rumanian the word 

was apprehended as a plural, by a process we shall look at later (§15b), and 

from it was created a new sing. maŃ. Latin INGUINA has also survived in certain

56 

areas as a singular (so used by Isidore): It. (Tarent.) énčida and (Fassa) énžia 

(these formed from an alternative form *INGUITA; M.-L., Einf.; cf. §4c above), 

LEng. aingla, OFr. eigne/engre/aingle etc., now aine, Prov. engueno, Sp. (Ast.) 

ingua/yénguana, Ptg. ingua, Sard. (Log.) imbena, (Camp.) inguna (Fless., § 

10). Again, VIRILIA ‘male genitals’ has given the feminines Sp. verija, Ast. bria, 

Ptg. virilha, Gal. brillas ‘groin’, while *RENA ‘kidneys’ now appears as Rum. 

rână ‘side’, OPied. (Lodi) rena, Umbr. pl. rina, OFr. reines, Gasc. 

regno/(ar)reo ‘reins’, ‘back’. Finally *SPLENA ‘spleen’ has survived in Rum. 

splină, OIt. splena, Tessin špyena (REW), while the REW and Rohlfs (§384) 

also quote other forms (Ven., Friul., etc.) coming from the related SPLENIA. 

i) Passing to the head, we find the pre-classical CAPILLA ‘hair’, which 

also appeared in a cursing tablet, continued in OIt. i capella (Dante, Inf., 

32:103); in Rhaeto-Romance we find the collective form only in the phrase Eng. 

alla chavella, Surm. alla tgavella, Surs. ella cavella in the sense of getting ‘into 

a person’s hair’. Godefroy gives one example of OFr. une chevele, and in 

Mistral I find Occ. cabelho for the ‘bushy top of a tree’, ‘plume of maize’ etc. 

For CEREBELLA ‘brains’ we have It. pl. cervella and cervelle (but i cervelli in 

figurative senses), with dial. OSien. ciaravella, Mil. cinivella, Lomb. servela, 

OBerg. cenevelle; as singular collective forms Friulian has serviele, Vegliot 

carviale, French cervelle and Prov. cervella (in the sense of ‘a person’s brains’ 

as opposed to Fr. cerveau, Prov., Cat. cervell ‘the brain, as an organ’), and 

Sardinian carvedda, (M.-L., Schicks., p. 135). The word for ‘heads’ itself, 

CAPITA, survives in the Rumanian pl. capete (giving rise to a new sing. capăt) 

and the Logudorian sing. cabida ‘head of cattle’ (beside Log. cabidu, Camp. 

cabidu/cabudu ‘head of a rope’); we also find OTusc. capita/capeta (and new 

sings. capito/capeto elsewhere), while in Spain CAPITA is fleetingly represented 

by Mozarabic chentocapta ‘eryngo’ (= ciencabezas; V. García de Diego, Man. 

56

57 

57 

de Dial. Esp., p. 346). But besides these there was a new plural type CAPORA, as 

attested in the Lombard documents, which survives in southern Italian forms 

like capura, capure; Rumanian likewise has capuri, which S. Pop (Gram. 

Roum.) lists alongside capete, though other sources only give it as the plural of 

the French loanword cap ‘cape’. Rumanian also has the masc. pl. capi ‘chiefs’, 

corresponding to the standard It. capi and the masculine forms elsewhere, while 

southern Italian dialects have turned capo into a feminine, with pl. capo like 

mano, aco, fico, as if this word at one stage passed to the 4th declension in 

Latin; Rohlfs quotes the CAPUS found in an inscription as evidence for this, but 

in fact this form could equally well be the ancestor of the capo–capi or 

capo–capora types. For the idea of ‘head’ or related ideas the Romance 

languages also make widespread use of the word CAPITIA (*CAPITTIA); it is not 

clear whether this is the plural of CAPITIUM ‘headpiece’, ‘head-opening’, but at 

least the modern languages in general have parallel forms corresponding to 

these two. So we find It. capezza/cavezza ‘halter’ (in Corsica ‘head’) as opposed 

to Ven. cavezzo ‘cape’, Eng. chavezza ‘halter’, Eng. chavazza, Surs. cavazza 

‘skull’ as against Surs. cavez ‘throat’, OFr. chevece ‘(helmet-)head’ as opposed 

to chevez (now chevet) ‘head of a bed’, ‘bolster’, Prov. cabessa ‘head’ as against 

cabes ‘bolster’, ‘head-opening’, Cat. cabessa ‘flower-bulb’ as against cabes 

‘collar’, Sp. cabeza (OSp. cabeça, Moz. cabessa), Ptg. cabeça ‘head’ as 

opposed to cabezo (Moz. cabis), cabeço ‘knoll’, and Sard. (old) capitha, (Log.) 

cabitta ‘head’, Camp. cabittsa ‘(end of an) ear of corn’ (Rumanian only has 

derivatives like căpăŃână ‘skull’, căpăŃân ‘halter’, formed as Prov. 

capsana/causana ‘halter’). 

One part of the head with a name which shows a very complicated 

development is the ‘temples’. The Latin word was TEMPORA, but the modern 

forms are mostly derived from *TEMPULA, which has generally become a 

feminine singular; there are also some masculine forms which may or may not

58 

reflect *TEMPULUM. One example of a plural form in -a is found in SIt. (Rusio) 

le templa (with sing. lu templu), and Trans. Rum. has timpuri agreeing with the 

standard reflex of TEMPORA = ‘times’, but otherwise the forms in -a are all 

singulars. Those containing an -r- are Calabr. trempe, Istr. tempure, Eng. 

taimpra, Surs. tempra, Ptg. têmpora and Sard. trempa ‘cheek’; of these, the Ptg. 

têmpora could be a re-formation of *tempra (which represents the actual 

pronunciation) formed with the regular substitution of pr for pl in semi-learned 

words, while the proto-Sardinian *tempra could equally be a case of the regular 

confusion of pr and pl. The other forms are Rum. tâmplă, It. tempia, OFr. 

temple (now tempe), Prov., Cat. templa (also appearing as a loanword in 

Spanish); the etymological Spanish form appears variously as tienllas and 

tiemplas in Berceo, Mil., ll. 246a and 273c (and tienllas is perhaps the correct 

reading in Alex., l. 648b), but has otherwise been replaced by sien. Other 

examples of masculine forms are the OFr. li temple(s) in the Roland, modern 

Occ. temple, and Friul. timpli; in this last case it is possible that the pl. timplis 

has come from *TEMPULAS, but was regarded as a masculine, like zenolis, lavris, 

so that a new singular timpli was formed, as zenoli, lavri, to replace *timple. As 

regards other parts of the head, NASA is represented by the plural forms 

nase/nasuri in Rumanian (is Occ. nasa ‘snook’ connected?), while *OCULA, not 

recorded in Latin, has its counterpart in Rum. ochiuri (with the -ORA ending) in 

figurative meanings such as ‘fried eggs’ (exactly the Japanese medamayaki!), 

and OIt. le occhia, Apul. (Cerignola) occhiərə. At the same time OIt. orecchia, 

from the fem. AURICULA, came to be considered as a plural form, so le orecchia 

replaced le orecchie, and from this a new Tuscan singular orecchio was formed, 

but orecchia is still the regional form and also has limited uses in the standard 

language. One more word which in some areas had to do with the head is 

VITALIA, which has given Dauph. viayə, Ast. bidaya ‘temples’, while OFr. 

viailles, Prov. vialhas mean ‘vitals’. 

58

59 

59 

j) Traces of other old neuter forms referring to parts of the body are seen 

first in It. le membra, with old and dial. membre, Rh. la membra (formerly with 

plural concord) for ‘limbs’, as opposed to masc. membri, members ‘members’; 

here Rumanian similarly has membre and membri, but in this case the word is a 

modern borrowing. The Friul. membris is ambiguous. A fossilized form of 

MEMBRA is also seen in OFr. vie et membre, Prov. vida e membra (cf. Engl. “life 

and limb”, from the old pl. limu), Angevin “avoir de la membre”. In this case we 

also have one more rare example of the extension to Catalan of a singular form 

with plural signification in the phrase “ta vita ni ta membra” found in two 

slightly Latinized texts in Russell-Gebbett’s chrestomathy (elsewhere we can 

also find “de nostra membra” and “de omnia membra” in what may be called 

Catalan Latin texts). From late Latin PUGNA (PUGNUS is also found once as a 

neuter in Plautus) come It. pugna (as in “serrare le pugna” = ‘die’) beside older 

pugnora and standard pugni, and Rum. pumne beside popular pumnuri and 

standard pumni; there is no collective form in Rhaeto-Romance, but the Fr. 

poigne (OFr. “vivre par sa poigne”) and Prov. ponha ‘grip’ seem to belong here, 

whereas other forms like Cat. punya, OSp. puña and Sard. punna would appear 

to be deverbals. Latin NERVIA does not seem to have survived, but *NERVA is 

seen in It. dial. nerəva alongside nerbora (also OTusc.), and in the collectives 

Eng. gnierva, Surs. gnarva. DORSA has been preserved in Rum. doase/dosuri, Fr. 

dosse ‘flitch’, ‘plank with the bark on’, and Prov. trasdossa ‘lean-to’ (M.-L., 

Schicks., p. 163). The Salento dialect has extended the -ORA ending to manure 

‘handfuls’ from MANŪS ‘hands’, and a similar mânure ‘hands’ is found in Old 

Rumanian (ibid., p. 175); Italian and Rumanian also agree here in having the old 

plurals mano and mânŭ and transference to the -A declension — OTusc. 

mana–mane, Rum. mână–mâini. As one word for ‘legs’ Italian has le cuoia 

from CORIA ‘hides’, which in Lucania has become a sing. coira ‘leather’ like Sp. 

cuera, Ptg. coira ‘leather jacket’, Sard. (Log.) cordza ‘bark’. Rumanian has 

picioare for ‘feet’, ‘legs’ from PETIOLI (*PEC-) ‘little feet’, where Italian has

60 

masc. picciuoli ‘one’s pins’, and also umere (dial. or fig.) from late Latin 

HUMERA beside umeri ‘shoulders’ from HUMERI ‘ditto’ (It. omeri). LUMBA for 

LUMBI ‘loins’, found in glosses, gives OAbruzz. lomma, and Cat. lloma, Sp. 

loma, Ptg. lomba ‘rising ground’. SlNŪS ‘bosoms’ is represented by -A forms in 

Rum. sânuri ‘bosoms’ and Cat. sina ‘bosom’ beside si/se. Another word which 

we may include here is the Latin fem. MEDULLA ‘marrow’, which partly became 

regarded as a plural form and developed a new singular *MEDULLU, so It. 

midollo (OIt. le midolla) ‘marrow’, midolla ‘pulp of fruit’, ‘the crumb of bread’ 

(Rum. has only măduvă), UEng. miguogl, LEng. mizguogl/maguogl, Surs. 

maguol (crossed with MICA ‘crumb’) as opposed to Surs. misuola, Istr. madula, 

Friul. medole, Fr. mol (Lorraine) and meole > moelle, Prov. mezol and mezolla, 

(O)Cat. m(o)oll and m(e)olla, Sp. meollo, Salam. migollo and migolla, Gal. 

miolo and miola, OPtg. meollo (now miolo) and moela (Beira miola), Sard. 

meuddu/mueddu and muedda. In Italian this process has produced, apart from 

the le orecchia seen above, other new collective plurals out of feminine 

singulars: le minugia ‘guts’, found in Dante, le unghia ‘nails’, le mascella 

‘jaws’, le guancia ‘cheeks’, le nocca ‘knuckles’, and presumably at one time 

also le coscia, ‘thighs’, to have given rise to coscio ‘joint of meat’. Before we 

leave the parts of the body we may also note that learned words have sometimes 

been affected; we find pulsa ‘pulses’ in Dante, and pulsuri ‘ditto’ in Rumanian 

(cf. other Latin 4th-declension nouns seen in §§4g, 12g,h), while VISCERA 

‘viscera’, treated as a feminine singular, is widely found in a new plural form, 

so Rum., It. viscere (in Dante, le viscera), Sp., Ptg., Sard. visceras (but Fr. 

viscères is masc.). 

Two more words with physical connections may conveniently be 

considered here. The first is OVA ‘eggs’ (with the O shortened in late Latin), 

which had a particular collective use with reference to fish eggs or spawn. 

Here Rumanian has ouăle (from *OVAE ILLAE) in all senses, and so too It. le 

60

61 

61 

uova, with dial. ove or ovi following the same pattern of distribution as the 

words previously looked at; in Rhaeto-Romance we find the collective form 

for ‘roe’, ‘spawn’ only in Surs. ova. Here Old French has l’oeuve (ueve) or les 

oeuves, and Franco-Provençal and Provençal have ova (Wartburg quotes the 

latter from P. Meyer, Doc., without further details). The word is missing from 

Catalan, unless ova ‘kind of seaweed (bladder-wrack?)’ (Griera) belongs here, 

but Spanish has hueva or huevas, and Portuguese ovas for ‘roe’, ‘spawn’; there 

is also an Ast. güévara, which Corominas says suggests an original such as 

*óvera or óvora. The other is LENDINA (gloss)/*LENDITA ‘nits’, which has 

produced Rum. lindină, Pied. lendna, Ven. g&endena (× GLANDE ‘acorn’), MFr. 

landre (modern lente is ambiguous), SEFr., Prov. lendena, Cat. llemena, Ptg. 

lendea. 

7. Words denoting units of measurement. Many of the objects we have been 

considering so far have occurred in pairs, so now I would like to take the word 

PARIA ‘pairs’ itself, and proceed from there to other words used as units of 

measurement, which are widely found in Romance in combination with 

numerals to form a single collective unit. From PARIA we have the Italian pl. 

paia (“due paia”), with a new singular un paio (also = ‘a couple of’, ‘a few’, cf. 

Germ. ein Paar); here we also find doa para in the north, and the word is used 

as a singular, una para (cf. una bratsa, una dida above), in the same way as 

OTusc. paria (“una paria” in Mon., 38:5), foreshadowing the development 

found in Old French and Provençal. As here, so also in Rhaeto-Romance we 

find the collective singular combined with a numeral to form a multiple unit, as 

in the case of dua bratscha, traia dainta in §6b,d above, so Eng. dua (traia) 

pêra, Surs. dua (trei) pera, and similarly OFr. deus (treis) paire, Prov. doa 

(tria) paira (Grafström, §12). (Cf. Engl. five pair, which may well be directly 

taken from the French.) Later we find Fr. paires for paire (incidentally the two

62 

forms were homophonous by this time), and Prov. pairas for paira. As we have 

seen, this collective usage still continues in Rhaeto-Romance, and we may 

suppose that it was once general in all the Western Romance languages. Other 

languages derive their words for ‘pair’ from *PARICULA (perhaps originally a 

plural) or *PARICULU, so Rum. sing. păreche (Mac. Rum. păreacl’e and 

părecl’u), Prov. parelha and parelh (the modern form), Cat. parella ‘couple’, 

parell ‘pair’, Sp. pareja, Ptg. parelha (and in Brazil parelho ‘two-piece suit’), 

Sard. (Camp.) pariga; Old French also used pareil, and Italian has pariglia (a 

northern form) and Cal., Sic. paricchia or paricchiu, parigghia, this latter from 

the standard language. 

Of the other unit words, let us take first late Latin CARRA ‘carts’. Here 

we have the Rum. pl. care (Mold. cară) as the general word for ‘carts’, not 

only ‘cartloads’, and then OIt. due carra (dial. carre) for ‘two cartloads’, as 

opposed to carri ‘carts’; here the northern dialects also preserve the old neuter 

form, so Ven. mille cara, as compared with ose for standard ossa. In 

Rhaeto-Romance we find Eng. dua (traia) charra (and Central tgarra) as well 

as duos chars, whereas Sursilvan only has the construction dus carrs. Old 

French has the similar cinquante care (in the Roland), though it also uses the 

plural form charres in such cases; similarly in Provençal we find VII charra de 

leigna (Graf., ibid.), but this Latin plural form does not seem to have survived 

beyond the Pyrenees. Again, Latin MODIA ‘2-gallon units’ (found in Pliny, and 

note also the Lombard Latin MODIORA) gives the Italian pl. moggia 

‘hogsheads’; note too that besides the standard Tuscan form moggio, Italian 

also uses the northern mozzo for ‘hub’. Of the corresponding OFr. muie 

Godefroy only gives examples with the plural -s affixed, but for Provençal 

Grafström quotes tria semoia < SE(MI)MODIA ‘gallons’ (a usage not recorded by 

Levy); as far as I can ascertain, Eng. mozza is likewise the collective plural of 

möz ‘bushel’, but the Surs. mosa has become a unitary word for a 

62

63 

63 

‘kneading-trough’, in the same way as Neap. semmoja (Wart.) means a ‘hub’. 

In this connection there is a word of almost pan-Romance distribution, but of 

uncertain origin, though it looks as if it has some connection with MODIA, and 

that is the word for a ‘hopper’ in a mill, which seems to be a combination of 

TRIMODIA ‘a measure of 3 modia’ and TREME-; the forms are It. tramoggia, Eng. 

tramozza, Surs. termosa, OFr. tremuie (now trémie), Prov. 

tremueja/tremueia/tremoia, Cat., Arag. tremuja, Sp. dial. tramoya, Gal. 

tremoya, Ptg. tremonha (tramoia is from Spanish in the standard Sp. sense of 

‘trick’), Sard. termoia. 

From late Latin SEXTARIA ‘pints’ we get It. staia, first as the plural of 

staio, meaning ‘bushel(ful)s’, and then as a singular, una staia ‘one bushelful’; 

besides this there is the form staiora, found first in Lombard Latin as STARIORA, 

which now has a new sing. staióro, with change of accent (cf. pugnóro from 

pugnora), and so pl. staióra, meaning ‘the amount of land that can be sown 

with a bushel of seed’. In this case Milanese also has doa stera, and šteira is 

found in Ticino. In Rhaeto-Romance the corresponding forms are the 

collectives Eng. dua (traia) stêra, Surs. dua (trei) stera. In Old French there are 

numerous examples of sestiere used invariably, as well as with an added -s; for 

Provençal Wartburg quotes an old form sestaria (Latinized?), while the modern 

sestieiro points to an earlier sestie(i)ra. (Gascon and Catalan have masc. sester, 

like Fr. setier.) Similarly It. sacco makes a pl. due sacca/sacche/saccuri 

(Calab.) in the sense of ‘sackfuls’ as against sacchi for the ‘sacks’ themselves 

(but note that sacca means ‘sacks’ in Dante, Par., 22:78), where standard 

Rumanian seems to be similar, as Schönkron’s dictionary has the masc. pl. saci 

in one half, while labelling sac “n.” in the other, with backing from 

Meyer-Lübke, who gives the forms sace/sacuri; here note that there is also an 

It. fem. sing. sacca ‘sack’, ‘bag’, paralleled by Fr.-Prov. sachi, Prov., Cat., Sp.,

64 

Ptg. saca ‘(large) sack’, providing a contrast with sacco etc., which was to lead 

to a further development to be noted later. Similarly, from the plural of 

*MANUCULUM, which developed everywhere out of MANIPULUS ‘handful’, we 

get Rum. pl. mănunchie ‘bundles’, ‘sheaves’ and the alternative singular forms 

It. mannocchia ‘bundle of sticks’, Prov. manolha ‘handful’ beside mannocchio, 

manolh. Another old measure of capacity was the CONGIUS ‘6 pints’, and from 

the late Latin pl. CONGIA we have It. (due) cogna, used in the wine trade (which 

has driven out the popular reflex of CUNEA ‘wedges’); is this also the origin of 

an OCat. cuyes ‘oil containers’, probably representing *cunyes? Of the units of 

length, the 4th-declension noun PASSUS must have developed a pl. *PASSA like 

the other deverbal nouns of this declension that we considered above in §4g (cf. 

the passa cited there), and here we have, leaving aside what looks like a new 

Rumanian formation pasuri ‘passes’, OIt. doi cento cinquanta passa ‘250 

Roman paces’ (Mon., 139:98), with similar Ven. do passa, as mille cara above 

(cf. also OVen. doa tanta ‘twice as much’) and the Engadinian collective sing. 

dua passa; where similar forms occur elsewhere, they should probably be taken 

as deverbals from the reflexes of PASSARE, though Cat. passa in the sense of 

‘pace’ may belong here. We may perhaps also for convenience include here 

Rum. pl. juguri ‘yokes’, ‘ox-bows’ from Latin IUGA ‘yokes’, together with Sard. 

iua/džua ‘herd’, presumably originally ‘a team of oxen’ (cf. also the English 

uninflected “five yoke of oxen” from the old neuter plural). This puts me in 

mind of another pair of words, Sp. (Leon.) jera, Ptg. jeira/geira ‘yoke of land’ 

from DIARIA ‘daily allowances’, later ‘journals’, being the amount a yoke of 

oxen can plough in a day, and corresponding formally to Rum. pl. ziare 

‘journals’. Finally we may note that, as in the case of orecchia, unghia and so 

on, Italian dialects often treat a feminine noun in -a as a plural, with a numeral 

attached, so tria volta, tre fiata, doa lira, tre ora, quattr’ oncia, tre manera and 

the like (Rohlfs, §643). 

64

65 

65 

8. Numerals and pronominal adjectives. While we are dealing with 

measurements, this is a good point at which to speak of the neuter plural forms 

of the numerals which were used in Latin, noting in passing that even the word 

NUMERUS ‘number’ developed a neuter form, as seen in Rum. pl. numere, 

OPerug. nomera (Grundr.). The relevant forms are the old DUA ‘two’, 

preserved in the phrase “dua pondo” (see §2c) and later found also in 

inscriptions, but condemned as vulgar by the grammarians, TRIA ‘three’ and 

MILIA ‘thousands’. In Rumanian DUA fell in with the fem. DUAE, which became 

*doue by a development affecting Rum. u before /w/; the oldest extant form is 

doauă, still used in Macedo-Rumanian, and other old forms are doaoă/doao, 

while the modern form is două. Old Italian and vulgar Tuscan have the form 

dua used indiscriminately (e.g. old dua compagni e tria, dua fiada u trea, le 

dua novelle; now especially before a pause, so sono dua, ne ho trovato dua); 

Rohlfs says this has not developed from Latin DUA but is a proclitic form of 

due < DUAE (perhaps also affected by tria/trea) similar to mia, tua, sua, which 

developed in the same way from mie, tue, sue. In Rhaeto-Romance the form 

dua is used only in conjunction with collective words of measurement, e.g. dua 

bratscha, dua pêra (cf. Mil. doa bratsa, doa para, doa fiada, OVen. doa tanta), 

and in the numerals Eng. duatschient, duamilli, Surs. duatschien, duamelli, thus 

seeming to be genuinely developed out of the old Latin neuter. Meyer-Lübke 

gives doue as the Old French form, while Grafström has one single example of 

Prov. doa in the phrase doa paira, which corresponds exactly to Rh. dua pêra, 

though he also quotes Schultz-Gora as saying that it is similarly used in 

combination with milia, and this is corroborated by Suchier. DUA also survives 

in Sardinian in the combined numerals Log. dua midza, Camp. dua milla. TRIA 

is less well represented. As seen from the above examples, Italian dialects have 

tria, trea, used notably with units of measurement, so Barsegape trea via, Rom.

66 

tria volta, Ven. trea brazza, Mil. tria bratsa, OLomb. trea milia, or before a 

pause, as in 12th-c. cafise de oleu trea, and modern vulgar Tuscan passa’n 

giorno, ne passa dua, ne passa trea. In Rhaeto-Romance it only appears in 

Engadinian, in the same combinations as dua, so traia bratscha, traiatschient, 

traiamilli; Lausberg explains that, as Sursilvan makes use of the bound form of 

treis, trei-, it does not need another form, so trei bratscha, treitschien, treimelli. 

Provençal makes a similar use of tria, so tria semoia, tria milia (Graf.). The 

other surviving form is OFr. troie, used as a noun to mean the ‘trey of a dice’. 

To my mind the most notable forms here are the Prov. doa, tria, showing that 

the W. Romance use of these neuter forms was not confined to 

Rhaeto-Romance. 

The position with regard to MILIA ‘thousands’ is more complicated. It 

has developed popularly in three ways, firstly as a plural, secondly as a new 

singular, and thirdly as a noun meaning ‘mile(s)’ (from (TRIA) MILIA PASSUUM 

‘(three) thousand Roman paces’, a pace being five Roman feet); then it has also 

been borrowed into the Romance languages in its original meaning. As a plural 

for ‘thousands’ it appears in ORum. mie (Laus., §780), which is now a singular 

with a new pl. mii, and in Sard. (Log.) midza, (Camp.) milla, so dua 

midza/milla; but in Campidanian one can also say duos millas. In the sense of 

‘mile’ it appears as a plural in Italian, so tre miglia (with a new sing. miglio; 

note also il mille miglia ‘the 1,000-mile motor race’, Mil. mia, and milia used 

once by Dante for the rhyme), but otherwise as the sings. Rh. miglia, Friul. mie, 

Prov., Ptg. milha, Cat. milla, Log. midza. Here Rumanian has the loanword 

milă, and Spanish the semilearned milla (belonging to the same stratum as 

other -LIA words like batalla, maravilla); the popular Spanish development is 

seen in the derivative mijero ‘milestone’, formerly ‘mile’. For ‘mile’ French 

uses the same word as for ‘thousand’, originally mil(i)e (fem.; see below), then 

66

67 

67 

mil and modern mille (masc.). As a borrowing from Latin, MILIA appears as a 

numeral in Old Italian and Provençal in the forms we have just looked at above, 

trea milia, tria milia, and Calabrian still uses duimilia, trimilia; for ‘thousands’ 

modern Italian uses a new pl. mila, developed from mille, joined with another 

numeral in a combined form as in diecimila, while modern Occitanian has a 

similar milo for both ‘thousand(s)’ (along with mil(e), mili) and ‘mile’. 

Elsewhere, MILIA ‘thousands’ appears in Old French as milie or mile, in forms 

like chinc milie, di mile, but also with added -s as in XIII miles, though the 

modern language only uses the plain mille (which has fallen in with mil < 

MILLE as a positional variant) in such combinations; the development of mile, 

mille from milie is comparable to that of huile from OFr. olie. MILIA 

‘thousands’ can also be found in Old Spanish and quite frequently in Old 

Catalan in the form milia, but this has now been replaced by the uninflected mil 

in both languages. It seems also, from the use of the neuter dua, as if learned 

MILIA rather than MILLE may underlie Eng. duamilli, Surs. duamelli (a 

comparable -i for -IU is commonly found in learned words, e.g. prezi, vezi, 

palazi, dicziunari, vocabulari). 

From the numerals it is but a short step to the pronominal adjectives. 

The prime case is OMNIA ‘all’, which, as we saw at the end of §4, was used not 

only as a feminine singular ( “omnia stratura sua”) in late Latin, but even as an 

invariable adjective (“vestimento meo omnia”) and a singular (or plural?) 

pronoun (“traditis ei clericis et omnia” and “omnia que audivi a patre meo 

notum feci vobis”, Vää., §347). This word has had a continued existence in 

certain areas in the sense of ‘every’. Rohlfs (§500) quotes ogna sasone, ogna di, 

ogna potestate from Old Lombard, showing that the word was not limited to the 

feminine gender, and also an old ogna strame from N.W. Tuscany; other

68 

examples in Monaci show it used in north Italy mostly as a feminine, but he 

also gives OLomb. omia gran, OEmil. unna mese and OTusc. ungna debito. 

(From ogna was created a northern masc. ogno beside the standard ogne/ogni, 

which developed from OMNE in prevocalic position alongside preconsonantal 

onne/onni.) The same usage extends to neighbouring Friulian, where we find 

the masc. pluj ch’ogno altri inamorat in a dialect which has -o < -A (text No. 70 

in Sampson’s anthology). The other area where OMNIA is found is Sardinia. 

Here Wagner (Fless., §42) says that the old forms omnia, onnia must have 

come from Italian, as they preserve -ni-; this may be true of the modern doña 

(and doñi), but he neglects the fact that -ni- regularly appears in the early stages 

of Sardinian, e.g. vinia < VINEA, ponio < *PONIO, and in fact the expected 

corresponding modern form Log. dondza is found, together with a spelling 

ongia which may illustrate a later intermediate development of -ni-. The word 

is used as masculine or feminine — onnia (also omni) sinnu, omnia lunis, 

omnia opus, de d’onia frate meu, cun onnia pertinenthia issoro — and often as 

a pronoun in a context such as cun (de d’) omnia kantu vi aveat. (We may also 

note here the forms going back to *OMNI-UMQUAM, so It. 

ognunche/-que/-ca(na), OLomb. omiunqua/-ca, OUmbr. kignunca, OMil., Pied. 

minca, Surs. mintga, mintgin, Eng. mincha, minchün.) 

Apparently parallel to OMNIA is *NULLIA ‘no(ne)’, although Rohlfs 

prefers to see prevocalic masc. pl. NULLI as the starting point for the palatalized 

stem as seen in OVen. nujo, nui, cf. OMNE > ogni; however, his theory does not 

take into account the fact that this stem is found also in areas where the final -I 

disappeared, giving Prov. nulha, OCat. nulla, OSp. nulla, OPtg. nulha, with 

corresponding mascs. nulh(s), nul(l), nul(lo), nulho (unless we are to take as the 

starting point a possible Prov. nulh < NULLI as ilh < ILLI and suppose that the 

other languages borrowed from Provençal). There are also unpalatalized forms, 

68

69 

69 

OFr. nu(l)s, nule, Prov. nuls, nula, OIt. nullo, nulla, Sard. (Log.) nuddu, nudda. 

Sard. (Log. and Camp.) nudda and modern It. nulla are also used as pronouns 

to mean ‘nothing’, but may not have come from the neuter plural but rather 

from the sing. NULLA RES, and so do not concern us here. But there are other 

pronominal forms coming from *NULLIA, which may originally be a neuter 

plural: NWTusc. nugghia, ONIt. nuia, Posch. nüglia, Friul. nuglie > nuie, 

Dolom. nuia, Tyrol. nia, LEng. nöglia, Vegl. nol’a (Rohlfs. §499, Bour., §§225c, 

527d, Laus., §185). In Rhaeto-Romance there is another usage of obscure 

origin which may come from the neuter plural, and that is the use of the 

invariable TOTA ‘all’ before a pronoun (besides forms showing concord) and in 

certain fixed expressions, so Surs. tutta quei, tuttacass (en tutta cass), tuttafatg 

(but this may be as Fr. tout à fait), Eng. tuotta quai, tuotaziò, tuotta queaus, 

tuotta lur cussaigls, tuottadi, tuottaffat, Central totta quegl, de totta quests. 

(Could this also be the origin of the OIt. tutta (tutt’a) tre, where Rohlfs 

explains the a as going back to AC ?) 

9. Words denoting objects in the plant world. 

a) For our next group of words let us turn to the plant world. Trees have 

branches, leaves, wood and fruit, all of which can be looked at collectively (cf. 

the English words wood and fruit), and in this case we find that Latin either 

had inherited neuter plurals, or had developed them in the course of time. 

However, these have only rarely been preserved as plural forms in Romance, 

being generally converted to singular collectives, or even to words denoting 

individual objects. The Latin words for the four categories are RAMA (a late 

form; note also the Lombard Latin RAMORA), FOLIA and sometimes FRONDIA 

(found in a gloss; this may be from the adjectival FRONDEA, attested in 

substantival use), LIGNA (followed locally by forms corresponding to *FUSTA 

for FUSTES) and FRUCTA (not attested before French charters). In the first

70 

instance we find ramă in Rumanian only as a Megleno-Rumanian form; in 

standard Rumanian the plural form is ramuri or rame, rămuri, ramure, with a 

new sing. ramură created beside ram. Vegliot has ruoma (how used ?). In 

Italian we find the old pl. le rama, now replaced by i rami, and OLomb. le 

rame; rama is now a singular form, quoted as standard Italian for ‘branch’ by 

the CID, but given as a dialect form by Rohlfs (§384). The RAMORA of the 

charters is also continued in Old Tuscan (one example in Dante, Purg., 32:60) 

and further south. (Cf. also armenta, romenta ‘twigs’ in the north, from Latin 

pl. RAMENTA; Vää., §215.) According to Lausberg, la rama is a collective 

singular meaning ‘all the branches of a tree’, and he compares It. poca rama 

with Surs. pauca roma, which is the collective form corresponding to the 

individual pl. roms; in this case Engadinian has ram(m)a and rams. Old French 

has raime, which could be used collectively or individually, while Prov. and 

Cat. rama are collectives. Ptg. rama is also a collective, but Sp. rama now 

means a large individual branch, while ramo has been degraded to meaning a 

smaller branch (not so in Berceo); for branches collectively, las ramas is used. 

Sardinian only has masc. ramu. 

As far as FOLIA goes, it has not survived as a plural, and in fact was 

often used as a singular in late Latin, with a pl. FOLIAE (Chir., Diosc.). Even in 

the singular it is virtually only in Rhaeto-Romance that it is found as a 

collective; otherwise it has become the word for an individual leaf, leaving the 

reflexes of FOLIUM for other meanings, though even here the meaning can 

sometimes be collective, as in Sp. la caída de la hoja, It. esser in foglia (cf. 

Engl. leaf, which originally meant ‘foliage’, and in leaf). So we find that Surs. 

la feglia means ‘foliage’, as against fegls ‘leaves’ or ‘sheets of paper’ etc.; in 

Engadinian la föglia can equally mean ‘foliage’, but it is also the standard word 

for ‘leaf’, with a pl. föglias, in contrast to fögls meaning ‘sheets’ (Fögl Ladin is 

the name of a newspaper). This is an exceptional case, and elsewhere we only 

70

71 

71 

find the meaning ‘leaf’, as in Rum. foaie, Vegl. fuaglia, Friul. fueie, It. foglia 

(note that this can also be a plural in the north, where -AS > -a, whereas in 

Lucanian (SIt.) it is still a collective), Fr. feuille, Prov. folha/fuelha, Cat. fulla, 

Sp. hoja (Moz. fulya, OArag. fuelya/fuylla), Ptg. folha, Log. fodza, Camp. folla; 

in the same way FOLIUM is found in most areas with a transferred meaning such 

as ‘sheet of paper’, so It. foglio, OFr. fueil, Prov. folh/fuelh, Cat. full, Moz. folyo, 

Ptg. folho, OLog. fogiu, Camp, follu, as well as the Surs. fegl, Eng. fögl already 

quoted (Rum. foaie and Sp. hoja do service for this meaning as well, as does 

modern Fr. feuille). As for FRONDIA, it is preserved as Rum. sing. frunză ‘leaf 

(more popular than foaie in the literal sense), SIt. fronza/frunza ‘first green 

leaves’, WSp. froncia/francia ‘brushwood (of broom)’, OPtg. fronça, now 

franças ‘small branches’, ‘ends of branches’; cf. also UEng. fruonzla, LEng. 

fronsla ‘pine-needles’. 

LIGNA, which appears in the late forms “de ligna” (Chrodegangus), “ubi 

ligna desuper ardet” (Gl. Reich.), has been preserved both as plural and singular 

in the sense of a supply of wood, particularly firewood, as opposed to LIGNUM, 

which denotes wood as a material. In Rumanian lemne is plural, and so we find 

phrases like “taietor de lemne” (‘woodcutter’), “lemne de ars” (‘firewood’) 

contrasting with “gravură in lemn” (‘woodcut’). Italian also has the collective 

pl. le legna (standard language and Bolognese), as opposed to i legni ‘pieces of 

wood’, ‘ships’, ‘woodwinds’; but it can also use the word legna as a collective 

singular, with a pl. le legne, which can also be taken as a dialectal form of le 

legna, while another plural form is Sic. lignira ‘beams’. Rhaeto-Romance has 

the usual singular collective forms, Surs. la lenna, Eng. la laina (with the 

double pl. las lainas), as opposed to the pl. ils lenns, ils lains. Old French has 

leigne (m. or f.), as opposed to lein ‘ship’; it is also found in the double plural 

form les leignes. In the other languages the position is similar, with the pairs of

72 

corresponding forms Prov. lenha/linha (as opposed to lenh/linh), Cat. llenya 

(lleny), Sp. leña (leño), Ptg. lenha (lenho), Sard. linna performing both 

functions (but cf. linnarbu (m.) ‘poplar’). (LIGNUM has generally developed the 

meaning of ‘ship’ as well as ‘wood’.) We also find a widespread opposition of 

the same sort between the reflexes of individual FUSTE meaning ‘wood, as a 

material’, ‘trunk’, ‘stick’, ‘barrel’ and those of collective *FUSTA meaning 

‘timber’ (but also later denoting a kind of ship), whether or not this goes back 

to Common Romance times, thus It. fusto (with gender characterization)/frusto 

(× FRUSTUM ‘fragment’) and OVen. fusta ‘galley’, ‘prison hulk’, OIt. frusta 

‘cudgel’ (now ‘whip’, ‘baguette’), Rh. füst, füsta, OFr. fust (now fût), fuste, 

Prov., Cat. fust, fusta, Sp., Ptg. fuste, fusta (also ‘pinnace’); only the FUSTE form 

is found in Log. fuste, Camp, fusti, Rum. fuşte (back-formation from the pl. 

fuşti). Here the original distinctions of meaning have often become blurred, and 

we may have to do with some borrowing by one language from another 

(Corominas says OVen. fusta comes from Catalan, and the same may be true of 

the French, Provençal, Spanish and Portuguese words when used in the sense of 

‘galley’ or ‘pinnace’); however, the distinction between unitary fust(e) and 

collective fusta in Old Catalan and Old Spanish, for example, is quite clear, so 

that it seems to me that basically there was a native development of both forms 

in the areas where both are found. 

Finally, the collective plural FRUCTA has everywhere been preserved 

either as a plural or as a collective singular, forming a contrast with the reflexes 

of FRUCTU, which denote an individual fruit (or, in the plural, figurative ‘fruits’). 

Here Rumanian has pl. frupte, which has acquired the meaning of ‘milk 

products’ (fruit of milk ? – see Provençal below), while for collective ‘fruit’ or 

‘fruits’ it has fructe, plural of the loanword fruct. Italian has the collective pl. 

frutta, as opposed to the individual tre frutti; this frut(t)i is also used for frutta 

72

73 

73 

in the areas which use -i forms to replace braccia, dita etc. But the word frutta 

can also be a collective singular, la frutta, with a new plural le frutte; as in the 

case of legne, frute is also found in the old northern dialects as the equivalent of 

le frutta, thus corresponding to both frutta and frutte in the standard language. 

We also find in Lombard Latin the forms FRUCTORA(S)/FRUCTURA, and these are 

preserved in OIt. le fruttora, SIt. le frotturi; equally, Sardinian has a collective 

sing. fruttora/fruttura, from old fructora/fructura (seemingly plural forms), for 

which a pl. fruttoras is also found (Fless., § 8). In Rhaeto-Romance, 

Engadinian has the collective frütta, as opposed to individual früts. Here 

Sursilvan only seems to have fretgs; Ascoli quotes a collective fritga, calling it 

Sursilvan, but the DRG only cites a form frichia taken from a single dictionary, 

which seems from its spelling to belong rather to a Central dialect. Old French 

has the collective la fruite as opposed to the individual fruit (now the only form 

used), and similarly Provençal has la frucha/fruita, now frucho/fruto (which 

also, in the Alps, can have the meaning of ‘milk products’) as against 

fruch/fruit/fru(t) for the individual fruit; so also Catalan has la fruita, used 

collectively and with a pl. les fruites, as opposed to the individual fruit (now 

mostly figurative). Spanish has the collective fruta, but also with a pl. frutas, as 

against the individual fruto (with t < CT after a high vowel, cf. enjuto, old 

destruto, though Old Spanish also has frucho, found, for example, in Berceo, as 

old ensucho, (a)ducho and lucha, trucha; the Glosas Silenses have fruitu, and 

Aragonese has fruito as old destruito). Portuguese similarly has fruta, earlier 

and popular fruita, for collective ‘fruit’, as opposed to the individual fruto. 

b) Having looked at the development of the word for ‘fruit’, we may 

now proceed to the names of the different kinds of fruit. In classical Latin the 

fruit-trees generally belonged to the 2nd declension in -US, but were feminine, 

as was ARBOR (for mythological reasons, as Lausberg explains); the fruits on

74 

the trees were neuter, with -UM in the singular and -A in the plural. But then, as 

Lausberg explains in detail (§601), the trees generally became masculine, as did 

ARBOR also, while at the same time the formal distinction in the singular 

between masculine and neuter was becoming lost, so that the names of the tree 

and the fruit became the same in the singular; in the plural the distinction 

between masculine -I and neuter -A was maintained, but there was a further 

tendency to change the name of the tree to a form in -A, in keeping with its 

feminine gender (so ORNA for ORNUS in an inscription), and to use the neuter 

plural of the name of the fruit for the singular, thus creating a further kind of 

confusion. (An example of the opposite tendency is seen in the creation of the 

tree-name CASTANEUS, quoted by Grandgent from Gregory of Tours, to form a 

contrast with CASTANEA, which had always been a feminine singular and now 

became reserved for the name of the fruit.) Thus in late Latin we can find either 

MELU-, POMU-, PIRU-, MESPILU- or MELA, POMA, PIRA, MESPILA as the names 

both of the trees and the fruit (we have already encountered a pl. POME in the Gl. 

Reich.). This confusion has been continued in Romance in certain areas, but has 

been obviated in most cases by creating a new name for the tree, generally by 

use of the ending -ARIUS or -ARIA (depending on the gender of the word for 

‘tree’). MELU- is continued in Rumanian as măr, meaning ‘apple-tree’ or 

‘apple’, with differing forms in the plural following the classical distinction, 

meri for the former and mere for the latter (here Istro-Rumanian seems to have 

a pl. merur, and a similar perur ‘pears’). Similarly, Old Italian had an 

undifferentiated singular il melo for the tree and the fruit, but differentiated 

plurals i meli and le mela, and this situation is continued today in the southern 

dialects. This seems to have been the pattern followed originally by all the fruits 

in Italian (cf. pomo still used for both tree and fruit), and we shall find that the 

old masculine or neuter singular forms are also sporadically preserved 

elsewhere in the case of certain fruits. (There were also a certain number of 

fruits which never had a neuter form.) 

74

75 

75 

c) Let us now look at the situation in the individual languages. 

Rumanian, apart from the example of măr just given, generally uses the -U type 

for the tree and the -A type for the individual fruit, in the latter case following 

the pattern most commonly found in Romance. Thus we find pom/poamă 

‘fruit(-tree)’, păr/pară ‘pear’, prun/prună ‘plum’ (note also prună de Damasc 

‘damson’), mur/mură ‘blackberry’ (in Latin ‘mulberry’), piersic/piersică 

‘peach’, cireş/cireaşă ‘cherry’ (late Lat. *CERESIU-, CL adj. CERASEU-), gutuiu 

(măr-gutuiu)/gutuie (MELU- COTONEU-) ‘quince’, sorb/soarbă ‘service(-berry)’, 

corn/coarnă ‘cornel(-cherry)’; this type has also been extended to other words 

such as nuc/nucă ‘walnut’ (both with pl. nuci), moşmol/moşmoală ‘medlar’, 

dud/dudă ‘mulberry’, agud/agudă ‘ditto’, cais/caisă ‘apricot’, zarzăr/zarzără 

‘ditto’, măceş/măceşă ‘briar/hip’, porumbrel/porumbrea ‘blackthorn/sloe’, 

smochin/smochină ‘fig’, rodiu/rodie ‘pomegranate’, măslin/măslină ‘olive’, 

portocal/portocală ‘orange’ and năranŃă ‘bitter orange’ (so REW, but 

Schönkron gives năramză; the orange first introduced by the Arabs was bitter, 

but in most of the Romance languages the name was later applied to the sweet 

Chinese orange), lămâiu/lămâie ‘lemon’, castan/castană ‘chestnut’ (not 

popularly transmitted; cf. Mac.-Rum. căstînu/căstînă and note the forms găstîñe 

and Megl. căstañă given in the REW), smeur/smeură ‘raspberry’, 

coacăz/coacăză ‘(red) currant’, agriş/agrişă ‘gooseberry’, căpşun/căpşună 

‘strawberry’ (the fruit is also called fragă, from the Latin pl. FRAGA, but the 

plant is frăgar); jujubă is evidently from French, see below. Note also that other 

words, in which the Latin -A form was a feminine singular, also fit this type, 

thus alun/alună (AVELLAN-US/-A) ‘hazel’ and migdal/migdală (AMYGDAL-US/-A) 

‘almond’, the latter having come into the language from modern Greek. The 

word for ‘grape’ is the masc. strugure.

76 

d) In Old Italian, as we have just noted, we find an original type melo 

for both tree and fruit, with separate plurals meli and mela, and similarly pomo 

(also a 3rd declension form pome, used by Dante amongst others), pero, pruno, 

pesco, with plurals for the fruit (collective like le frutta) poma, pera, pruna 

(Rohlfs, §368; presumably also pesca — does the Lombard Latin PESCORA 

belong here?). This situation is continued in certain northern and southern 

Italian dialects, so SCalab. milu, piru, pumu, cerasu for tree and fruit (Rohlfs, 

§382); for the fruit the pl. puma is clearly quoted (Bat. & Al., Diz. Etim. It.), and 

Rohlfs (§369) speaks of rare occurrences in the south of -e forms such as pire 

(sing. piru), but otherwise I have found no clear references; Rohlfs only speaks 

here in general of -a forms being favoured in the south, especially in S. Calabria 

and Sicily, but later, in §643, he specifically quotes pumə and pirə as collectives. 

Lausberg (§612) also speaks of the occurrence of a collective singular in -a in 

the south, such as la pera, as an intermediate stage between the types uno pero 

and una pera for ‘a pear’. (In the northern areas which have the same masculine 

form for both tree and fruit, I take it that words like Pied., Emil. per have 

adopted the -I type plural, following the general tendency that we have observed 

for this area to abandon the -A type.) 

The most usual type of formation in modern Italian is the same as that 

in Rumanian, and here let me first take the case of the two words melo and 

pomo, as they tend to be rival formations, and also the shades of meaning 

assumed by pomo are typical of those found in the languages we shall deal 

with subsequently. The first of the two follows the general pattern, that is, melo 

(pl. meli) means ‘apple-tree’, and for ‘apple’ we have a fem. mela (pl. mele), 

from the old neuter plural, with a similar situation in the dialects, so Bol. 

meil/meila. In the case of pomo, the standard language, as in earlier times, uses 

the one form for both tree and fruit, with just one plural, pomi, and we have to 

76

77 

77 

turn to the dialects to find differentiated forms for the two: Calab. (some areas) 

pumu/puma, Bol. pôm/poma. (We also find OIt. poma as a singular as well as a 

plural, and similarly pome may be the plural of poma, especially in the sense 

of ‘breasts’, as well as an alternative form for pomo!) The meaning of the Latin 

POMUM was ‘pome’, that is, a fruit of the apple, pear, quince variety, while the 

‘apple’ proper was in later times MELUM, from the Hellenistic Greek word 

which ousted the earlier Doric MALUM. These meanings have been preserved 

in the It. pomo and mela, but there was a tendency in many of the Romance 

areas to specialize POMUM in the sense of ‘apple’, and in Italy we find broadly 

that while mela is preferred in the central areas, from mid-Calabria up to 

Emilia, pomo/pumu or poma/puma are used further north and south to 

designate the ‘apple’. Other meanings taken on by pomo include round objects 

such as a ‘knob’ or ‘orb’, a ‘pommel’, and, in the plural, ‘the breasts’ (also le 

pome). In compounds, both pom- and mel- are found virtually interchangeably, 

thus for tree-names we have pomo cotogno (POMU- COTONEU-; also for the 

fruit), melo cotogno ‘quince’, pomo rancio, pomarancio, melarancio ‘orange’, 

pomo granato, melo granato, melagrano, melograno (also for the fruit) 

‘pomegranate’, and for the fruits mela cotogna, pomarancia, melarancia, 

pomagranata, melagranata, melagrana. 

The other fruits, as I said, follow the pattern seen in Rumanian, with 

the name of the tree ending in -o, and the individual (or, in some areas, 

collective) fruit in -a, so pero/pera, prugno/prugna (replacing pruno/pruna, 

now regional; note also old brugna, Cal. brunu, and prugnolo/prugnola 

‘blackthorn/sloe’, for which Calabrian has (a)trigno/(a)trigna, cf. Spanish 

below), moro/mora (the latter meaning ‘blackberry’ as well as ‘mulberry’; for 

the ‘mulberry tree’, too, the more usual term is gelso), pesco/pesca, ciliegio 

(earlier ciriegio, ciragio, cf. Rom. cera-ša/-sa, Sic. cirasa)/ciliegia, cotogno/

78 

cotogna, corni(ol)o/corni(ol)a, nespolo/nespola ‘medlar’, with other forms 

following the pattern later, such as nocciolo/nocciola ‘hazel’ (the root word 

noce ‘walnut’ is masculine when referring to the tree and feminine when 

referring to the nut, even appearing with an -a in Versil. nocia, Emil. nuža, Ven. 

nosa; so also the derivative nocella), susino/susina ‘plum’, arancio/arancia 

(and old narancio/-cia, OVen. naranza) and granato/granata as above, and 

amareno/(a)marena or amarasco/(a)marasca, Calab. amarella ‘morello 

cherry’ (from which maraschino is made; cf. Rum. amărea ‘holy thistle’). 

Another word for the ‘wild sour cherry’ is visciolo/visciola, from what is 

possibly a Germanic root beginning with w- (cf. Germ. Weichselkirsche), as 

cognate forms with gu- are found elsewhere; here Rumanian has vişin/vişină 

‘wild sweet cherry’ and vişinel/vişinea ‘blackthorn/sloe’. For the ‘damson’ 

Italian has damas-chino (-ceno)/damas-china (-cena) (also a masc. damasco 

for the fruit), with various other forms such as (a)moscino, amóscino, abóscino, 

abósino/amoscina, OMant. avoxina, Mil. brüña masina, Lig. briña damásina; 

these forms show the fluctuation of accent and loss of initial d- (taken to be d’) 

which we shall find reappearing elsewhere. Another Latin word belonging to 

this type is ZIZYPHUS/ZIZYPHUM ‘jujube’, taken from Greek; this has undergone 

many changes in Romance, and the Italian forms are giuggiolo/giuggiola or 

zizzolo/zizzola, Veron. zinzola, which find echoes in some of the other 

languages. Adapted to this type we have albicocco/albicocca ‘apricot’, from 

the Ptg. albricoque, Sp. albaricoque, for which there is also another name 

meliaco/meliaca; note also the feminine fruits frag(ol)a ‘strawberry’, 

(a)griotta ‘sour cherry’, lim(ett)a (lomia, lumia) ‘lime’ (limone ‘lemon’ is 

masc.). Italian has also created ginepra from ginepro for the ‘juniper berry’, 

and has the pair (from Latin adjectival forms) leccio/leccia ‘holm-oak/acorn’ 

(but ONeap. elcina is the name of the tree). Finally we also find formations 

matching the Rum. alun/alună type, so avellano/avellana, mandorlo/mandorla, 

castagno (cf. late Latin CASTANEUS)/castagna (NIt., SIt. castegna), and 

78

79 

79 

matching these also ulivo/uliva. There is in addition one unique formation; the 

Lat. UVA for a single ‘grape’ has become a collective sing. uva ‘grapes’. Note 

also that in some dialects -ARIUS, -ARIA are used for the tree, as is the case 

elsewhere. 

e) When we come to Rhaeto-Romance we shall not be surprised to find 

that it has preserved an earlier state of affairs as far as the names of certain of 

the fruits are concerned. Here the names of the trees are formed with the -ARIU 

suffix, as Surs. pumer, pirer, maler, Eng. pomer, pairer, mailer, and the old 

neuter singular form, now become a masculine, is retained as the name of the 

individual fruit, as in Old Italian and certain present-day Italian dialects; the old 

neuter plural, as we have observed before in Rhaeto-Romance, has become a 

collective singular referring to the fruit in the mass, while a new masculine 

plural in -s has been created for reference to a number of individual fruits. So 

we have Surs. pum/puma, LEng. pom/poma for ‘fruit’ (and ‘knob’, ‘pommel’), 

while UEng. pom/pomma, in addition to having these meanings, also has the 

specific meaning of ‘apple(s)’, corresponding to Surs. meil/meila and LEng. 

mail/maila, and for collective ‘fruit’ this dialect has pomaraida. For other kinds 

of fruit we have Surs. pér/péra, Eng. pair/paira ‘pear(s)’, Surs. prem/prema 

‘plum(s)’, meil-granat, meila granata ‘pomegranate(s)’ (it is not clear whether 

pum-granat, and Eng. pom-granat (old pom granó, puom granâ), mail granat 

follow the same pattern). But in other cases, perhaps because the fruit was 

always thought of in the mass, we find the masculine form has disappeared and 

the -a form is used for the individual fruit, as elsewhere, so that we have UEng. 

prünna/brünna ‘plum’, LEng. brümbla ‘plum’, ‘sloe’, Surs. tscherescha, Eng. 

tschirescha ‘cherry’, Surs. mura, Eng. mu(o)ra (and LEng. amura) ‘blackberry’, 

Surs. curnella ‘cornel·cherry’ (with curnel for the tree), Surs. nespla ‘medlar’, 

Eng. freia ‘strawberry’ (cf. Val. Ses. fraiga), and, formed on the same model, 

Surs. amarella, marena ‘morello cherry’, Surs. pumaranza, Eng. pomaranza

80 

‘orange’, Surs. parmuglia (per-) ‘sloe’, Eng. parmuoglia ‘juniper berry’, Eng. 

vaixla ‘sour cherry’, together with Surs. castogna, Eng. chastagna ‘chestnut’. 

On the other hand we find some masculine fruits which seem to have no 

collective forms: Surs., Eng. persic ‘peach’, Surs. cudugn ‘quince’ (cf. masc. 

Pied. codogn/cugn). In this connection we may note that Sursilvan has mandel 

for ‘almond’ and mandla for ‘tonsil’, while Engadinian has mandla for both 

meanings, and Sursilvan has apricosa ‘apricot’ corresponding to Eng. 

abricos/albicoc. Note also Eng. nuschè ‘pine-seed’ with the corresponding 

nuschella used for ‘ankle’, where the cognate It. nocella means ‘walnut’ or 

‘lower head of the ulna’. By a contrary development we find that Eng. ü(j)a 

‘grapes’ (Surs. iua ‘grape’ or ‘grapes’) from the Latin singular form UVA (cf. 

Italian above) has developed a new form üj for a single ‘grape’. I have been able 

to turn up very little information about the situation in Friulian; pome means 

collective ‘fruit’, and mel, per, more seem to correspond to Surs. meil, pér, 

mura, while the REW also gives as Friulian forms bruñul, brómbula and 

cjástina, ulive. In general it seems clear that in this dialect the old neuter plurals 

have simply become unitary singulars. 

f) French generally follows the Italian pattern as far as the names of the 

fruits are concerned, while using -ARIU to form the names of the trees. However, 

the use of the neuter/masculine has survived in some cases. The first of these 

concerns POMU, which gives OFr. pom ‘pommel’ like the It. pomo (modern 

French uses pommeau), while the plural POMA has given pomme ‘apple’ and 

other derived senses, see Provençal below; we shall find that this survival of the 

old singular in a transferred sense is typical of W. Romance. MELU/MELA as 

such left no reflex in French (the Middle French mel(l)e is from Provençal); 

however, we do find the older migraine ‘pomegranate’, which seems to be from 

*MELU GRANA contaminated by MILLE. Most other fruits show the -A form: 

poire, prune, mûre (OFr. meure), pêche, cerise, sorbe (with the synonymous 

80

81 

81 

corme), corne (OFr. cornelle)/cornouille, OFr. macienne (in the phrase 

“pommes maciennes et aigres”; cf. Spanish below), nèfle (earlier mes(p)le, 

nesple etc.), fraise (earlier fraie) ‘strawberry’, jujube (evidently an Occitan form, 

which has also penetrated elsewhere), with other similar formations like 

amarelle (Lorr. amerelle) ‘morello cherry’, griotte and merise ‘sour cherry’, 

guigne ‘wild sweet cherry’ (corresponding to Rum. vişină), with older forms 

guisne, guine (whence Engl. gean [gi:n]; cf. the liqueur guignolet from Angev. 

guindole), beloce ‘bullace’, alise ‘wild sorb’, grenade, earlier pome grenate, 

‘pomegranate’, framboise ‘raspberry’ and groseille ‘gooseberry’, ‘currant’ (both 

from Germanic), orange (earlier pume orenge, pomme d’orenge), lim(ett)e, 

noisette ‘hazel’, prunelle ‘sloe’, flanked by a masc. pruneau ‘prune’, and OFr. 

damoisine (dem-, davoisne) ‘damson’, with the modern Forez. daveñ, Sav. 

aməzna (REW). Old Latin feminines fitting into this scheme, as in Italian, are 

amande, aveline (earlier -aine), châtaigne and olive. For ‘quince’ there is only 

the masc. coing (cf. It. pomo cotogno), though there is a feminine derivative 

cognasse for the ‘wild quince’, from which the name of the tree is taken. (The 

mascs. abricot, ultimately from Spanish, and damas, for prune de Damas, are 

outside our framework.) For ‘grapes’, we similarly find a masculine word, 

raisin, from *RACIMU for RACEMU ‘bunch of grapes’, with Provençal and 

Catalan following suit and using razin/-im, raïm (Sp., Ptg. racimo still mean 

‘bunch’, like NIt. ražimu (standard racimolo), Val Gard. ražim.) There is also 

one more masculine word, of disputed origin, which deserves our attention. This 

is OFr. permain/parmain, which has given Engl. pearmain; this latter was 

originally the name of the ‘warden pear’, but is now the name of a kind of apple, 

and has been taken back into French as the fem. permaine. The generally 

accepted etymology is that suggested by Förster in ZRPh. XXIII, 423 (1899), 

namely that it derives from a (highly) suppositious *PARMANUS for PARMENSIS. 

As there is no other evidence for such an adjective (Italian uses parmigiano), 

and as there is widespread evidence of the continuance in Romance of PIRU (cf.

82 

Italian, Rhaeto-Romance, and see also below), I would hazard the suggestion 

that this word has come from PIRU MAGNU (and a subsequent reference to 

Wartburg reveals that he is also of the same opinion), with treatment of the first 

vowel as if in a closed syllable (cf. nerprun < NIGRU PRUNU, saumure < SALE 

MURIA, Fourvière < FORU VETERE, maudire < MALE DICERE, and Engl. verdict, 

ME verdit, from VERE DICTU; cf. also the development of persil, verglas, from 

*PETROSILIU, *VITROGLACIE). The occurrence of par- beside per- is not 

significant, as fluctuation between er and ar is a regular feature of Old French 

(cf. perdon/pardon, cercelle/sarcelle, herseler/harceler). 

g) The situation in Provençal is largely similar to that in French, but 

with slight variations, the first being that the names of the trees can be formed 

either with the masc. -ARIU or the fem. -ARIA according to the area. Both pom 

and poma (now poum and poumo) are found for ‘apple’, likewise with 

regional distribution, and poumo also has the senses ‘knob’, ‘ball’, ‘head of 

cabbage’ etc., like Fr. pomme; in some areas mela (melo) is also found. MELU 

also survives in the modern forms mióugrano, mi(e)lgrano, mi(eu)grano, 

meigrano, mingrano (old melgrana, milgrana) ‘pomegranate’, seemingly 

formed like It. melograno, with the ending of melagrana; note the form 

milgrano with assimilation to MILLE GRANA, like the Fr. migraine. A similar 

compound is melapio ‘lady apple’. Unlike French, Provençal also has the 

masc. persec/p(r)essec for ‘peach’, beside the fem. persega/p(r)essega; this 

may be because the words follow the model of pom/poma, echoing the 

original forms POMUM PERSICUM and POMA PERSICA. In other cases the same 

kind of feminine forms are found as in French: pera, pruna, mora (with a 

modern (a)mouro), cer(i)eisa/cer(i)eira, sorba/serba, cornha, poma massana, 

mesp(o)la/nesp(o)la, fraga/fraia. Similarly the modern patois have other 

forms like the French ones: amarello, (a)grioto, grenado (gra-), grousello, 

frambueso (from the French, cf. also freiso beside frago/fraio), courniolo 

82

83 

83 

beside cuerno/corgno, prunello and masc. prunèu, dameisino and 

damass-eto/-oto (also an old (d)avaissa, now abaisso, given in the DCELC s.v. 

ciruela, showing the same accentuation as OFr. davoisne), limo and limouno 

(for the ‘orange’ an old auranja is recorded, but the usual word now is the 

masc. arange). For the ‘jujube’ the modern forms are jousibo, zuzubo and also 

gijoulo, ginjourlo etc., these seemingly from Italian; however, some dialects 

by confusion use the word guindoulo, which, like guindoul, guindo, guino, 

guigno, corresponds to the Fr. guigne and is used variously to mean ‘sour 

cherry’, ‘sweet cherry’ or ‘sloe’. There are also the same original Latin 

feminines mandola/ame(n)la/amenda etc., avelana (also masc. avelan), 

castanha, oliva; note also that the modern dialects have the characterized 

feminine forms nogo/noio beside nose (old notz) ‘walnut’, as well as the 

diminutives nouseto, nougueto, nousiho ‘little nut’, and that eusino, 

corresponding to OIt. elcina, has the meaning ‘acorn’ as well as ‘holm-oak’. 

Paralleling the Fr. coing, Provençal has the masc. coudoun(h), but there is also 

a fem. coudou(g)no, which denotes a bigger fruit. Other masculines, outside 

our scope, are aubricot/ambricot and damas (‘a kind of grape’; cf. pruno de 

Damas for ‘damson’); there is also perus for ‘a kind of pear’, which 

corresponds to WPied. prüs (Rohlfs, §382), and seemingly to OFriul. piruç. 

h) Catalan follows Provençal, with the fruits mostly ending in -a, and 

the trees formed with -ARIU (dialectal) or -ARIA (so pomer, pomera). Pom is 

found in the sense of ‘apple’ as well as ‘pome’, ‘pommel’ etc., beside the 

standard poma (both forms are found in the “Seville Bible”, No. 43 in 

Russell-Gebbett’s anthology, and we also find poma maçana cited by Moll), 

and Meyer-Lübke (Gram.) quotes mela; magrana, malagrana, mangrana 

‘pomegranate’ seem to reflect an earlier *me(l)grana, like the Provençal forms 

(note also the toponym Marmellar, DCELC, reflecting MELIMELU, cf. Sp. Ptg.; 

melocotó is taken from Spanish). Catalan also follows Provençal in having the

84 

masc. pressec for ‘peach’, in this case not flanked by any feminine form. 

Otherwise feminine forms are the rule: pera, pruna, mora (and amora), cerira 

(now cirera), serva, maçana, nespra (Mall. nespla), dial. fraga/fraula (for 

standard maduixa ‘strawberry’). (For the ‘cornel’ only the tree-name corn, 

cornell, corniol is found.) The word for ‘orange’, taronja, is likewise feminine 

(though in Roussillon a masc. taronjo is found); this word, which comes from 

the same Arabic source as the cognate Sp., Ptg. taronja ‘bitter orange’, 

‘grapefruit’, is used for the sweet fruit in preference to naronja, which is 

reserved for the bitter one. Similar feminine forms are llimona ‘lemon’, llima 

‘lime’, and Catalan also has andrina, apparently from Spanish, for ‘sloe’; note 

also the dial. nouella ‘Adam’s apple’. For ‘jujube’ Catalan has the masc. 

gínjol, and for ‘sour cherry’ guinda or guindola (earlier guíndola). Original 

Latin feminines are ametlla (old amenla), (a)vellana, castanya and oliva (note 

also the placename Oliu); in the standard language alzina (Valen. aulina) 

‘holm-oak’ is only the name of the tree, but in dialect it refers to the acorn, as 

does Prov. eusino (the tree being alzinera). Codony is the standard word for 

‘quince’, but codonya is also used, as in Provençal, for a larger variety. We 

also have the expected masc. albercoc ‘apricot’, together with gerd ‘raspberry’ 

(here the pruna de Damasc (or Domàs) is a ‘greengage’); note also prun 

‘plum’ in the adjoining zone of Benasque (DCELC). Catalan also provides 

corroboration of my etymology of OFr. permain in permany (peramany), 

denoting a large kind of pear. 

i) The position in Spanish is more similar to that in Italian, in that it 

often preserves the old masculine name of the tree, as well as the neuter 

singular for the fruit. (But for the name of the tree it may also use -ARIU, -ARIA, 

as in almendr-ero/-era, albaricoquero, avellanera, morera, or transfer the -al 

ending, normally used along with -ar to denote an orchard or plantation, so 

peral ‘pear tree’, moral ‘mulberry tree’, as compared with pomar ‘orchard’, 

84

85 

85 

cerezal ‘cherry orchard’, castañ-al/-ar ‘chestnut grove’.) In the case of the 

‘apple’, the standard word is manzana (earlier ma(n)çana, Moz. massana, Ast. 

mazana) from POMA MAT(T)IANA ‘apples of Matius’, and the name of the tree 

is manzano (cf. also manzanilla and manzanillo). Pomo and poma are both in 

use, the first meaning ‘pome’, ‘pommel’, ‘pomander’, the second formerly (as 

in the Alex.) and still dialectally ‘apple’, otherwise ‘pomander’. (The range of 

meaning may partly have been taken from Catalan.) MELU on the other hand, 

is only preserved in compounds. Firstly we have old milgrano, as in Berceo, 

Mil., 4b, and also melgrano, mingrano, malgranado, recalling It. melograno, 

melo granato, to which Menéndez Pidal (§72.5a) also quotes parallel forms 

milgrana, mingrana, and the DCELC melgrana, manglana, malgranada (Mil., 

39a). Then there is membrillo ‘quince’ (Moz. melmelo, Ast. marmiellu) from 

MELIMELU, for both tree and fruit; there is also a fem. membrilla for a variety 

of quince. Finally we have learnèd melocotón, now the generic word for 

‘peach’, originally meaning a peach grafted on to a quince and based on MELU 

COTONEU. For ‘pear’ Spanish has pera, but there is also pero for a ‘pearmain 

apple’ (both fruit and tree), further supporting my derivation of OFr. permain 

(compare Catalan and see Portuguese below; peros is found in Mil., 4b, 

contrasted with mazanedas). The standard word for ‘plum’ is ciruela (Moz. 

chirola), from PRUNA CEREOLA, with ciruelo as the name of the tree, but 

pruna is also found on the edge of Catalan-speaking territory, and in some 

dialects pruno is used for the fruit as well as for the tree (Men. Pid., §77.2; cf. 

Benasque prun above). In Asturian there is a parallel form (a)bruno or abruño 

for a ‘small black plum’ (sloe? – cf. OIt. brugna, Ptg. (a)brunho) or its tree, 

with a similar bruñola given in the REW (cf. Friul. bruñul). For the ‘sloe’ the 

standard word is endrina (also introduced into Galician), with endrino for the 

‘blackthorn’ tree; the older forms are andrina, andrino, as in Asturian (cf. It. 

(a)trigno, (a)trigna, from Latin *ATRINU), and these have also spread to

86 

Braganza, and andrina appears in Catalan. Another name is amargaleja, while 

Asturian has nisa, nisu from NIXU (García de Diego quotes this as niša). 

Other words with -o/-a forms for the tree and the fruit are 

cerezo/cereza (Moz. cherasia, Ast. cereiza/zreisa), serbo/serba (sierva in 

Berceo, Duel., 35d; these and cognate forms are from a variant of Lat. 

SORBU/SORBA, the original vocalism of which is retained in Moz. šorba), mora 

‘mulberry’ (the tree is, as we have seen, morera or moral, avoiding conflict 

with moro ‘Moor’) and zarzamora ‘blackberry’, níspero (earlier niéspero, still 

used in Soria, Moz. n(i)éxporo), níspera, níspola, dial. míspero, míspola, 

niéspola ‘medlar’, with níspero (Murc. nispolero) for the tree, Arag. fraga 

‘strawberry’ (for ‘cornel’ only the tree names corno, cornejo, cornizo are 

given in the dictionaries, though the REW quotes a form cornízola, evidently 

for the fruit). Other fruits following the same pattern, some with matching tree 

names of secondary formation, are granada (Moz. granatha)/granado, 

grosella, frambuesa/frambueso, fresa (these three from French), 

naranja/naranjo, lima; another word is (ciruela) damascena, Toled. amacena, 

to which correspond Leon. méixena, méijana with the displacement of the 

accent that we have already seen. For the ‘jujube’ the standard forms are the 

Arabic azufaifa/azufaifo, but Spanish also has the Catalan jínjol for the fruit, 

and, formed from this, jinja/jinjo, and then, by contamination with 

guinda/guindo ‘sour cherry’ (cf. Prov. guindo), another set guínjol, 

guinja/guinjo; it also has yuyuba, evidently from the same source as the Fr. 

jujube. Other pairs going back to the same Latin feminines as we have seen 

elsewhere are avellana/avellano, almendra (Moz. amíndola, OArag. 

alméndola)/almendro, castaña/castaño (Moz. castanyola/castanyuelo) and 

oliva/olivo (generally both for the tree, as the ‘olive’ is aceituna, from Arabic, 

also with a parallel aceituno); there is also one more feminine, uva ‘grape’. In 

standard Spanish, encina (Moz. elchina, OSp. lecina) is the name of the 

86

87 

87 

‘holm-oak’ tree, but Arag. le(n)cina means ‘acorn’, and as a corollary to this 

we find encino in American Spanish as the name of the tree. The original 

name of the ‘peach’ has generally remained masculine, as the standard prisco, 

used for one variety, with the earlier form priesco surviving in some areas, 

such as Soria; cf. also the Ast. piesco/piescu and the forms pérsico, pérsigo 

(learnèd?). Here Aragonese has a similar presiego, but also the fem. presiega 

‘quince’ (is another example to be seen in the Asturian placename Priescal ?). 

Peaches can be classified, as ‘freestone’ (abridero) or ‘clingstone’ (durazno, 

Moz. durachno), both masculine for tree and fruit; for the latter variety there 

are also the fem. pavía (fruit) and albérchiga/albérchigo, from the Arabic 

form of PERSICU. (Other masculines outside our scope are albaricoque (Moz. 

barcoc), from Arabic, and damasco, which in parts of Spain and in South 

America means ‘apricot’; cf. Arag. damasquino for a kind of peach.) 

j) As compared with Spanish, Portuguese differs in forming the name of 

the tree by the addition of -ARIU or -ARIA, the gender, strangely enough, being 

determined by that of the fruit. (The only case of a tree name in -o matching the 

Spanish one is castanho, which is flanked by castanheiro, while castanheira, 

which matches the gender of castanha, refers only to the wild tree; cf. also 

(a)zambujo/(a)zambujeiro for the ‘wild olive’, with fruit azambuja.) As in 

Spanish, the standard word for ‘apple’, maçã, is taken from MAT(T)IANA, with 

POMU, POMA surviving (or readopted) in special uses, thus pomo for any ‘pome’, 

especially an apple (e.g. for the ‘forbidden fruit’, ‘apple of discord’, ‘Adam’s 

apple’), ‘pommel’, ‘woman’s breast’, and poma anciently for ‘apple’ and now 

for ‘pomander’, ‘woman’s breast’, the two having a slightly different range and 

distribution of meanings from the Spanish words. As in Spanish also, MELU 

only appears in compounds; firstly there is the Gal. miligranda (DCELC) and 

OPtg. melgrada, mirgada, Transm. milgrada (REW) ‘pomegranate’ (the

88 

standard Ptg. romã is taken from Arabic), and then marmelo ‘quince’ (the origin 

of the words for ‘marmalade’ in the various languages), where the old Japanese 

form marume(i)ra, beside marumero, marumeru (all dating back to the days of 

the early Portuguese missionaries), seems to point to an earlier Ptg. marmela, 

corresponding to Sp. membrilla. Portuguese also has maracotão/melocotão, 

Transm. melgotão, corresponding formally to Sp. melocotón but still preserving 

the meaning of ‘a peach grafted on to a quince’. Like Spanish, too, Portuguese 

has pêra ‘pear’ (pereira ‘pear-tree’) and pêro ‘a kind of apple’ (defined by 

Michaelis as ‘pearmain’, as is the tree’s name pereiro by Taylor, adding further 

corroboration to the evidence of French, Catalan and Spanish). Latin PRUNA 

seems to have left no direct reflex, but (a)brunho means ‘sloe’ (with no 

feminine form); there is also a Gal. cirola corresponding to Sp. ciruela. (As 

mentioned above, there is another local word for ‘sloe’, andrina/endrina, taken 

from Spanish.) As in Spanish, again, other fruits in -a coming from the old 

neuters are cereja (Gal. cereiša), sôrva (and Gal. serba, agreeing with Spanish), 

amora (and old mora) ‘mulberry’ (amora-preta ‘blackberry’), nêspera ‘medlar’. 

(There is no reflex of FRAGA, as the Portuguese word for ‘strawberry’ is 

morango, and the Galician (a)morote; for the ‘cornel’ tree there are corniso and 

corni(s)olo, to which the REW also supplies a fem. cornisola.) Other fruits 

following the same pattern are groselha and framboesa from French, and 

laranja (with dissimilation), lima; in this category comes also the standard 

word for ‘plum’, ameixa, OPtg. améixea as Leon. méixena (cf. OPtg. 

ameixenedo below). For the ‘jujube’ Portuguese has açofeifa and jujuba, similar 

to the Spanish forms, but the other word ginja, by a process of confusion that 

we have already observed, has replaced *guinda (cf. the placename Guindais) 

in the sense of ‘sour cherry’. (Ptg. amarela refers to a different plant, the ‘tart 

polygala’.) Old Latin feminines fitting into this class are avelã, amêndoa, 

castanha and oliva (poetical for the usual azeitona); there is also the fem. uva 

‘grape’ as in Spanish. Again as in Spanish, the ‘peach’ is the masc. pêssego (Gal. 

88

89 

89 

péšego), with another variety alperc(h)e (also used for the ‘persimmon’), and 

with durázio (Gal. durainzo, also durasno from Spanish) for the ‘clingstone’ 

variety (cf. durázia for a hard variety of olive). (Outside our scope are 

albricoque and damasco, which has replaced the other as the standard name for 

the ‘apricot’.) We also find that, in accordance with the semantic development 

seen in Arag. lecina, the Ptg. azinha (an-, en-) has become the word for ‘acorn’, 

leading to the formation of azinho (beside azinheira, azinheiro) for the tree. 

k) Sardinian shows a different course of development, which, as we 

have seen earlier, was also represented in late Latin. Here, as Lausberg explains 

(§601c), the -a forms serve in most cases for both tree and fruit, as the names of 

the trees retained their feminine gender and altered their declension accordingly 

(for this process cf. Sp., Ptg. murta ‘myrtle’ and the names taken from Latin 

adjectival forms, such as It. quercia ‘oak’, Sp. haya, Ptg. faia ‘beech’, Sp. 

encina ‘holm-oak’ etc.), while the old neuter plural form became the new 

singular name of the fruit. So we find mela, with melarenada (or arenada) 

‘pomegranate’, pira, pruna, mura (‘mulberry’ or ‘blackberry’), Log. cariasa, 

Camp. tšeresia ‘cherry’, Central kitondza, Log. melagidondza, Camp. 

melagidondža ‘quince’, nespula ‘medlar’, together with Nuor. ákina, Log. 

ágina, Camp. ážina ‘grape’ (Ling. Sard., p. 85, where a cognate Calab. ácina 

‘grapes’ is also quoted; cf. early Latin ACINUM and later ACINA, quoted in my 

§§2c, 4a); the REW suggests that Log. suerva may be from Spanish, though 

there is also a form superva, while in the south we find sorba, apparently a 

native form. We also find fragula, taken from Italian, and lima, coming from 

Spanish. The Latin singular POMU is still retained, however, as OSard. pumu 

(also used synecdochically for an ‘orchard’, Mon., No. 10, Ling. Sard., p. 373); 

there is also an old pumora with the same meaning of ‘orchard’, formed as 

fruttora, and this survives in Dorgali (Log.) as the pl. pummoras ‘fruit’.

90 

Another masculine form is Central pessike, Log. pessige, Laconi pessiu, Camp. 

pressiu ‘peach’, and this seems to have followed the gender of pumu (has Cat. 

pressec also exerted some influence?). Other masculine forms have been 

introduced from Italy: limone, arantsu (-dzu, -džu), baracocco (-u) or piricocco 

(-u), džiddžulu (and -a) or tsintsulu (and -a). As might be expected, Sardinian 

has also retained the same Latin feminines as the other languages, thus Camp. 

oddana ‘hazel-nut’, Log., Camp. mendula, Log. castandza, Camp. castandža, 

OSard. oliba (oliva), Log., Camp. olia (ulia). Finally, to round out my list of 

languages, I note that Lausberg (§612) also quotes a Vegliot paira for the 

individual ‘pear’, indicating that this is the usual type of formation in this area, 

while Bec (p. 2/412) gives a suppositious *krisa as the source of the Croatian 

form (here the REW has a similar kris). 

l) Another fruit that has a slightly different history is the ‘fig’. The Latin 

FICUS originally belonged to the 4th declension, and gradually changed to the 

2nd, with the meaning of both tree and fruit as well as of the physical affliction 

‘piles’; the word was generally feminine but might also sometimes be maculine, 

and in late Latin (C. Aurel.) a neuter FICUM is also found for the fruit, bringing 

this word into line with the others. It keeps its feminine gender in Sardinian, 

both for the tree and the fruit: OLog. sa ficu, Nuor. ficu, Log., Camp. figu (sa 

vigu), Sass. la vigga with adaptation to the names of the other fruits (Fless., 

§15, Laus., §662). In Tuscan, fico is masculine for both tree and fruit (and also 

denotes a ‘tumour’), but in the south fico, figo, ficu are feminine in the sense of 

the fruit and are invariable in the plural, this being a relic of the 4th declension 

morphology. Ligurian has a masc. sing. u figu but fem. pl. e fighe, and a similar 

le fica can be found in Old Italian (DCELC). From this comes a further 

development to a sing. la fica for the fruit as opposed to the tree, formerly used 

widely and still found in southern Italian (Rohlfs, §§389, 382; REW) and in 

90

91 

91 

the Piedmontese form la figa (Rohlfs, §382, translator’s note; cf. DCELC) and 

Istrian feiga; however, in the standard language of today this word is limited to 

the meaning of ‘female genitals’ (in imitation of Greek) or to the obscene “fig” 

gesture made with the thumb either protruding between the first two fingers or 

placed behind the upper teeth. In central and south Italian we find another pl. 

ficora, which has also become a new singular in certain parts (Rohlfs, §§361, 

370). Both FICUS (masc.) and FICA (the plural of FICUM which becomes used as 

a feminine singular) are found in other Romance languages, with FICA tending 

to be reserved for the secondary meanings. Old French has fi ‘tumour’ and fie 

‘fig’, now replaced by figue, from Provençal, in the senses of ‘fig’, ‘genitals’ 

and ‘gesture’, Provençal and Catalan have fic ‘tumour’ and figa as Fr. figue, 

Spanish has higo (Moz. fico) ‘fig (of the second crop; breva < BIFERA is used 

for the first)’, ‘piles’, higa ‘gesture’ (also an amulet in this form, used for 

warding off the evil eye), Ast. figa ‘big fig’ (cf. also no dar dos higas ‘not give 

two hoots’, and Berceo, Duel., 176c “que non balien tres figas”), and 

Portuguese has figo ‘fig’, ‘tumour in horses’, figa ‘gesture’, ‘amulet’ (as 

Spanish; also OPtg. não valer uma figa). There are also words for the tree: Fr. 

figuier, Sp. higuera, Ptg. figueira. The word is not found in standard Rumanian, 

which has smochin/-ă, but the REW gives Mac.-Rum. hic/hică and Megl.-Rum. 

ic/ică for the tree and the fruit; it also quotes the Vegl. faika, a form that agrees 

with the paira above. The Rhaeto-Romance forms, Surs. fig, Eng. fic, seem to 

have been taken from Italian (we would expect Surs. *fitg, Eng. *fih, from a 

earlier *fich, in line with the Ticinese form fik’, cf. spitg, spih in 9x). There is a 

feminine form figa (as against spigia/spia), which is found used occasionally in 

the sense of ‘fig’, though its usual meaning is ‘sheep-tick’, but this may well 

have been taken from the Swiss German Fige; there is also a phrase far fias 

‘arouse (sexual) desire’, in which we may see a native form used with a 

meaning which has sprung from the obscene use seen in the corresponding

word in the other languages. 

92 

m) After this rather discursive treatment, it may be necessary once more 

to remind ourselves of the relation between the modern forms in the various 

languages and the Latin neuter plural forms. We have found, exceptionally, that 

Rumanian keeps the mixed declension only in the case of măr/mere, that Italian 

employs the same pattern only in limited cases (including those of melo and 

pomo) in the old language and in dialect, and that Rhaeto-Romance is similarly 

limited in its use of the collective singular, with a wide-ranging use of the old 

neuter plural as a feminine singular denoting the individual fruit; in the other 

areas, not unexpectedly, we find the old neuter plurals used as unitary feminine 

singulars, but at the same time there are a number of masculine names of fruits. 

In the case of Rumanian we can point to the fact of the use of the -A forms as 

feminine singulars already in late Latin, coupled with the need to preserve a 

distinction between tree and fruit, as contributory causes to the use of the -A 

form to denote the fruit, and the same points apply to Italian too. In the case of 

the other languages, as also in Italian, we find that the masculine names of the 

fruits are basically limited to the reflexes of MELU, POMU, and combinations of 

these with COTONEU (originally CYDONIU), PERSICU, GRAN(AT)U and the like, 

and also PIRU and, to some extent, (*A)PRUNU and FICU. It seems to me 

conceivable that this difference of treatment has some relation to the size of the 

fruit, an apple or pear being more of an individual fruit than a cherry or 

strawberry, so that in the latter case the plural forms in -A would be the ones 

normally in use and eventually become the lexical forms (it is interesting that, 

by an opposite process, the Engl. cherries, which was originally a singular 

form, came, like peas(e), to be regarded as a plural; the fact that they both 

ended in -s was the decisive factor, but no doubt the semantic association also 

played a part). I would say also that the popularization of the -A forms was 

92

93 

93 

assisted by the feminine nouns whose reflexes I have quoted in each case — 

ABELLANA, AMYGDALA, CASTANEA (each originally qualifying NUX) and OLIVA. 

n) While we are on the subject of trees, we may also consider the words 

referring to plantations of trees, which have a natural collective feeling. In this 

connection, before coming to the pan-Romance development we should note in 

passing a special Rhaeto-Romance phenomenon. In this area the Latin ROBORA 

survived as a collective singular, Surs. ruvra, denoting a forest of oak-trees 

(Laus., §648), beside ruver for a single tree, and this led to the formation of 

similar collectives from other tree-names, especially in Sursilvan. So we have 

such forms as faua from fau ‘beech’, collera from coller ‘hazel’ (cf. Eng. 

placename Coldra), badugna from badugn ‘birch’ (and Eng. baduogna from 

baduogn), Fraisna from fraissen ‘ash’, pumera from pumer ‘apple-tree’, and 

tieua from tieu ‘pine’, ‘fir’, where Lower Engadinian has tieula ‘candlewood’ 

(cf. Sp. tea < TAEDA) beside tieu ‘pine’, and so also UEng. teja, tev. This 

development has also affected the word for a ‘wood’, which in Sursilvan is 

bostga, beside the original bostg, and in Engadinian bos-cha; as a result the 

Eng. bös-ch has now come to denote a single ‘tree’ (here Sursilvan uses plonta 

< PLANTA). (As my sources of information are limited, it is possible that this 

formation is more widely found than I have been able to ascertain.) 

The Romance forms in general go back to Latin ones derived from the 

names of trees by adding the suffix -ETUM, pl. -ETA. The plural form originally 

referred to discrete plantations, but, like the English woods, no doubt came to 

refer to a large indefinite tract covered with trees, and so could easily become a 

singular, as we have seen happen in the case of the place name CODETA, and 

later OLIVETA(S); so it is that we find that in the Romance langages both -ETUM

94 

and -ETA have come to be used to refer to a single group of trees or other 

vegetation (and later, by extension, to other groups of objects). 

o) In this case Rumanian, true to type, keeps these words as “mixed” 

nouns, with -et in the singular and -ete (or -eturi) in the plural, so pomet/pomăt, 

pomete, and similarly frăsinet, sălcet (pl. sălcete or sălceturi), Mac.-Rum. 

arburet (standard arboret is a new formation), făget, ulmet, nucet, lauret, spinet, 

castanet, prunet, meret, peret, alunet, cărpinet, vişinet, brădet (fir), călinet 

(guelder rose), bunget (‘thicket’) and so on (rivalled by other formations, as 

brădeŃ, brădiş, fânaŃ, fâneaŃă, with -iş being especially productive). In Italian 

both types are found as singulars, with regional distribution, but in Old Italian 

we seem to have one survival of -ETA used as a plural in the place name le 

Castagneta, which occurs in the same piece as Castagneto (Mon., No. 12, a 

Latin text with Italian names). Today, according to Rohlfs (§1135), -ETU is 

preferred in the south (in the form -itu, with u-mutation) and -ETA in the north 

(though he quotes a greater number of examples of -ETU from that region!), 

while Tuscany uses both, but with a preference for -eto, which is the only form 

used for certain trees. So we find fagg-eto/-eta, pin-eto/-eta, alber-eto/-eta 

(tree; aspen), acer-eto/-eta (maple), castagn-eto/-eta (the latter quoted for 

Corsica, which favours -eta), querc-eto (Calab. cercitu)/-eta (and presumably 

cerqueto in the central areas which use the form cerqua), noceto (Calab. 

nucaritu)/Noceta, ontan-eto/-eta (alder), uliv-eto/-eta (Latian livitu/leveta), 

felc-eto/-eta (fern), ginestr-eto/-eta (‘thorny place’), cerr-eto/-eta (turkey-oak), 

but pometo (Calab. pumaritu), alneto (alder), betulleto ‘birch’, carpineto 

(hornbeam), calluneto (‘heath’), ciliegeto, corileto (hazel), pioppeto (poplar), 

frassineto, salceto, spineto, olmeto, mirteto (myrtle), pereto, pruneto, 

elceto/lecceto (Calab. ilicitu), fich(er)eto, laureto (Loreto), giglieto (lily), 

giuncheto (rush), canneto (reed), moreto, roseto (Calab. rosaritu), rovereto 

94

95 

95 

(oak), roveto (bramble), vigneto; northern forms are roveda (Berg. ruida), 

Pesseda (spruce, from northern pezo for standard peccia), Castagneda, and also 

Frasnedo, Faido, arbréi, beol’é, fighé, ortighé (nettle), genestré/genestrái and 

pumái. 

p) As far as the Rhaeto-Romance forms are concerned, I have not been 

able, from the materials available to me, to ascertain clearly to what extent 

Latin -ETU, -ETA have survived in their original function; formally, we have 

Surs. -iu, -eida and Eng. -ai (from -aid, cf. aschai(d) < ACETU ‘vinegar’ 

corresponding to Surs. ischiu), -aida. Here, the surprising Sursilvan form -iu 

seems to show the same development as is seen in -au, -iu from -ATU, -ITU, 

-UTU, notably in past participles, with, perhaps, the raising of -e- to -i- in hiatus, 

as in Diu and the possessives miu, tiu, siu. The forms I have been able to turn 

up are Surs. ruvriu (oak), figiu (beech, with Fieu, -fagieu, -figieu in place 

names), tuliu (pine), and the place name Ignieu (alder), where Engadinian has 

Agnai, Agnaida. Besides these, Upper Engadinian has pomaraida, which I 

quoted earlier as the collective for ‘fruit’, grusaida ‘rhododendron’, and the 

place name Lusai/Alossai (bird-cherry). But the real vitality of the suffix is seen 

in those cases in which -ETU has come to be used to form words denoting other 

kinds of groupings (as is the case in Italian, and cf. also Sardinian below); so 

we find Surs. plattiu, Eng. plattai for ‘a place (in the mountains) full of flat 

stones’, Surs. crappareida ‘stony wasteland’, Eng. chalcherai ‘a place full of 

limestone’, chavrai ‘a horde of goats’ (cf. NIt. cavredo), giallinai ‘a swarm of 

hens’, femnai ‘womenfolk’ (cf. It. donneto). For Friulian the REW quotes 

pinede, perhaps indicating that in this area -ETA was more popular than -ETU. 

q) In French we find that in the old language -oi < -ETU shares equal 

place with -oie < -ETA (and survives in names), whereas the modern language

96 

only uses -aie (rarely -oie), thus (O)Fr. arbroi(e)/aubroi(e) (Daubray), 

auberoi(e) (white poplar), aulnoi(e)/aunaie (Delaunay), charmoi(e) (Carmoy) 

(horabeam), chastenoi (Châten-oy, -ay), chesnoi(e)/chênaie (Duquesnay), 

coldroi/coudraie, espinoi(e)/épinaie (Epinoy, Engl. spinney), faï, 

fresnoi(e)/frênaie (Fresnoy, Frasnay), jonchoi/jonchaie, ormoi(e)/ormaie 

(Ormoy), pinoie, prunoi(e) (Prun-oy, -ay), ronçoi (brambles), rosoy(e) (Rosay), 

rouvroi (Rouvr-oy, -ay) (oak), sausoi(e)/saussaie/saulcie (Sauss-oy, -ay), 

vernoi(e) (alder), vignoi (Vign-oy, -ay), now only arbroie, au(l)naie, charmoie, 

chênaie, coudraie, épinaie, frênaie, jonchaie, ormaie, prunelaie, ronceraie, 

rouvraie, saussaie or saulaie, and similarly boulaie (birch), buissaie (box), 

cannaie (there is also an old canoi listed by Godefroy under chaumoi), cerisaie, 

châtaigneraie, fougeraie (fern), hêtraie (beech), mûr(er)aie, noiseraie, olivaie, 

peupleraie (earlier peuplaie), pommeraie, roseraie, tremblaie (aspen) and so on. 

Provençal follows a very similar pattern, using both -ETU and -ETA, with many 

of the masculine forms now only used as names and the feminine ones acting as 

the standard forms, as can be seen from the following: aubret, 

aubaret/aubaredo (white poplar, willow), Aunet, Lavelanet/avelanedo, bessedo 

(birch), bouisset/bouissedo, Canet, Cardet (thistle), casta(g)net/ 

casta(g)nedo/castagnaredo, cauprenedo (hornbeam), Ceriset/cer(i)eiredo, 

Coudret, Espinet, Euzet/Auzet (holm-oak), Faiet/Faget/fagedo (Gasc. hayedo), 

Fenouiet/fenouiedo (fennel), Figueiret/figueiredo, Freyssenet/freissenedo, 

Grevoulet/grifouledo (holly), Lauret/lauredo, Mouret/Mouredo/amourie(i)redo, 

Nozedes/Nougaret/nougaredo, Oumet/oumedo (Gasc. aumeda), Oulivet/ 

ouliv(eir)edo, pibouledo (black poplar), Pinet/pinedo, Poumet/Poumaret/ 

poumaredo, Rouret/rouredo, rouvet (Rouvet)/rouvedo (brambles), sambuguedo 

(elder), Sauset/sausedo, Vernet/vernedo; a different formation is seen in 

cassenado/cassagnado, where French has chênaie. In Gascon too one finds 

similar forms preserved as names, so Castah(i)ed, Averaed (Bec, p. 1/521, 

Bour., §270d). 

96

97 

97 

r) The position in Catalan is exactly the same as in modern French, 

with the -ETU forms only turning up in placenames, apart from one dialectal 

form. So we have arb(o)reda/albreda, albereda (alba-), Alzinet/Valen. 

aulet/alzineda/auleda (holm-oak), Avellanet/avellaneda, boixeda (and 

Boixedera), Canet, Caraixet (holm-oak), Cardet, Casanet (as Fr. chênaie), 

Castanyet/castanyeda, Cercet/Cerqueda/Cerceneda (cf. Moz. cherco ‘oak’), 

Espinet, Espinalbet, Faget/Fayet/fageda, Fonollet (Fe-)/fonolleda (fe-), 

Freixenet/freix(en)eda, Grevoleda, Lloret/lloreda(r), Maçaneda, 

Moret/Muret/Mureda, No(u)et/Noguet/No(s)edes/noguereda (Nogareda), 

Olivet/oliv(ar)eda, Omet/o(l)meda (Omeda, Almeda), pineda (Pi-), 

pollancreda/poll(er)eda (black poplar), pomereda (Po-), Rouret/roureda, 

Salcet/Saulet/salz(er)eda/sauleda (Sau-), saüqueda (elder), Vernet/verneda, 

and possibly also Asnet/Ainet, if this is from ACINETU (cf. ACINUM, §2c), and 

Ceret, Lillet, if these can be equated with It. cerreto and giglieto. 

s) Spanish similarly uses both forms, with -edo appearing notably in 

place names, but neither can be said to be a living suffix, this function being 

performed by -al (-ar), sometimes found added to -ed-. The forms I have 

turned up are arbol-edo/-eda, acebedo (holly), alameda (poplar), aliseda (alder, 

seemingly corresponding in form to OFr. alisoi (wild sorb, whitebeam); 

Meyer-Lübke, Schicks., also quotes alnedo, matching OSp. alno), arcedo 

(maple), avellan-edo/-eda (Av-), boj-edo/-eda (box; M.-L., Schicks.,), cañedo 

(Ca-), Figueredo (Diez), fresneda, hayedo, hinojedo (M.-L., Gram..), 

mazanedas (Berceo, Mil., 4b), moreda/Moraleda, nocedo (REW)/noceda, 

olivedo (F.J.), olm-edo/-eda, per(al)eda, pinedo (in S. America; also 

Pinedo)/pineda, piorneda (broom), pobeda (white poplar), pruneda (M.-L., 

Gram.), robl-edo/-eda, salc-edo (Sal-)/-eda/sauceda, viñedo; forms with added

98 

-al are bojedal, carpedal, Faedal, lauredal, nocedal, robledal, saucedal, and 

another formation is seen in pomarada, equivalent to pomar. García de Diego 

provides further illustrations from the dialects. From Mozarabic he quotes 

cardeth(o), lauret and alommeda < ULMETA, which he says is the source of 

Cast. alameda; also the place names Canit, Elchite, Fregenite point to 

Mozarabic origins. From Asturo-Leonese we have Ablaneu, 

castañedo/Castañeda, Encinedo, Fae(d)o (haedo, Jahedo, fa(y)eu), Frejeneda, 

lloredo (Llo-)/Lloreda (from LAURU, not FLORE), Omedo, Periedo/Pereda, 

Pineo, Ucedo/Ucieda (heath; cf. Uceda from Guadalajara, M.P., §55.1), 

Viduedo (birch). We also find the same formation in roqu-edo/-eda ‘rocky 

place’; this can be compared to It. sasseto/Sasseta, which in fact goes back to 

Latin SAXETU. 

t) When we come to Portuguese we find a surprising contrast. Here the 

ground is occupied almost exclusively by -edo, though this is a dead suffix, 

with -al used for the majority of present-day formations (and -ar in pomar). 

Examples are arvoredo, alnedo and am(e)edo (alder; also Am(en)edo), old 

ameixenedo (REW), Arazedo < *ELICETU, castanhedo and Castendo, Cerquedo 

(cf. cerco, cerquino ‘oak’), figueiredo, Louredo, old olivedo, olmedo (and 

olmedal), Pinhedo, revoredo and robledo (this from Spanish?), Salzedo (REW), 

vinhedo, with the feminine forms Ameda, alameda (from Spanish?), Salzeda(s) 

and urzeda (DCELC), and, with added -al, carpedal. The Galician forms given 

by García de Diego provide some additions, but all in -edo (-ido): 

Acib-edo/-ido, Abruñido, avele(n)do/Abelaindo, Carball-edo/-ido (oak), 

Carrac-edo/-ido (holm-oak), Cerqu-edo/-ido, Codesedo (cytisus), Figueir-edo/ 

-ido, Freijido, Lourido, Nogueirido, reboredo/reboledo/Robledo, Sabacedo (= 

Salzedo?), Sabucedo (elder), Torguedo (heath) and Verduc-edo/-ido (second 

growth after felling). Portuguese also has rochedo corresponding to Sp. 

roquedo. Judging from the placenames, the -eda ending would seem to be 

98

99 

99 

native to the area all right, and perhaps did not gain popularity because of the 

competition from -al. 

u) In Sardinian the basic form is likewise taken from -ETU, thus 

arburetu/arburedu, cannetu/cannedu, eligedu, džunkedu, murtedu, nugedu/ 

Nughedu, piredu, prunedu, ulumedu, with other words appearing in place 

names, such as Albuthetu, Alinetu, Aspilletu (squill), Cercetu, Fenughedu, 

Frassinetu, Furmentedu (corn), Iscobedu (heath; cf. It. scopeto). There are also 

traces of -ETA in names, such as Oiastreta, apparently ‘grove of wild olives’. As 

in Italian and Rhaeto-Romance, these endings are also used to form words 

denoting other kinds of groups, as in ededu ‘group of kids’, rokkedu ‘rocky 

place’, Petretu (cf. Petreto in Corsica), Campeta, Monticleta. For Vegliot I have 

only Lausberg’s statement (§170) that the termination was -ait < -ETU. All in all, 

then, we can say that in this case the old neuter plural in still preserved in a 

plural function in Rumanian, with a faint trace of the same in Italian, but that 

otherwise the old plural has come to be used with a singular meaning, which is 

not surprising in view of its inherent collective signification. 

v) Keeping to the plant world, we find a number of other neuters that 

have survived in one form or another. Firstly we have GRANUM, GRANA 

‘(single) grain(s)’, which have generally undergone a dual development. In the 

first place, Rumanian still preserves the Latin pattern, with grâu ‘wheat’, grâie 

‘wheatfields’ and grâne ‘cereals’, and with a new form grâiuri ‘kinds of grain’. 

Standard Italian also uses grana as a plural in the sense of a measurement, so 

due grana ‘two grains (weight)’, while in the south it is a general plural (Rohlfs, 

§368). Some only seem to have preserved the singular form, thus Surs., LEng. 

graun, UEng., Friul. gran, Sard. granu, which would appear to be an Italianism

100 

beside Log. ranu, rustic Camp. ũ nãu, and Vegliot grun. Otherwise, both in 

Italian and elsewhere, the two words have become differentiated singulars, 

though the range of meaning varies from language to language; basically 

GRANUM refers to a single ‘grain’ and GRANA to ‘grain’ collectively, but one 

interesting meaning commonly attached to the latter is ‘cochineal’, which was 

formerly believed to have been extracted from berries. Here we have the forms 

It. grano, grana, Fr. grain, graine, Prov., Cat. gra, grana, Sp. grano, grana, Ptg. 

grão, grã. Closely connected with this is *GRANELLU, which has given It. 

granello ‘(single) grain’, ‘seed’, ‘pip’, pl. granella ‘cereals’, and also OIt. tre 

granella, and le granelle for ‘(single) grains’ (Monaci, No. 174); similarly we 

have Surs. garnial, Eng. granè ‘(single) grain’ and the collectives Surs. 

garniala ‘grain’, Eng. granella ‘hailstones’, the French verb greneler ‘grain 

(put a grain in)’, Prov. granella ‘little grain’ (from the plural), Cat. granell, Sp. 

granillo ‘little grain’, granilla ‘grain in cloth’, Ptg. grêlo ‘seed germ’, ‘sprout’ 

(cf. Transm. graello ‘hail’), Sard. (Log.) raneddu ‘chicken’s testicle’, ranedda 

‘ “parson’s nose” ’. Amongst other related words we have firstly those evidently 

derived from a neuter plural form *GRANALIA: It. granaglie (pl.) ‘corn’, 

‘cereals’, Rh. granaglia ‘ditto’, Fr. grenaille ‘refuse grain’, ‘granulated metal 

(shot)’, Prov. granalha ‘ditto’, Cat. granalla ‘ditto’, borrowed into Spanish and 

Portuguese as granalla, granalha. Then there are the assorted Rum. grăunŃ, pl. 

grăunŃe/grăunŃuri ‘(single) grain’, grâneaŃă ‘cereals’, corresponding to Eng. 

granezza, It. graniglia ‘grit’, gragn(u)ola ‘fine hail’, Surs. collective 

garnetscha/garnitscha ‘grain’, Prov. granilha ‘little grain’, gragnola, granissa 

‘hail’, Cat. granis ‘hail’, Sp. granizo ‘ditto’ (borrowed into Portuguese), Ptg. 

grainha ‘pip’ (cf. also graeiro ‘(single) grain’, ‘pellet’, which has come, like 

Cat. granera ‘broom’, from a specialized use of GRANARIUM), mostly pointing 

to old neuter plural forms. It will be noted that some of these formations have 

the meaning of ‘hail’, being associated with GRANDINE; the Fr. grêle, like the 

OIt. grale, is unconnected, being referred, like grésil ‘sleet’ to a Germanic root, 

100

101 

101 

but the fortuitous similarity may have helped in the adoption of the word. 

w) In another case, Lat. RAPA ‘turnip’ was found both as singular and 

plural, and has survived as a singular, so It. rapa (also rapo, probably newly 

formed), Surs., LEng. rava, UEng. reva, OFr. reve (the modern rave is from 

Provençal), Prov. raba, Cat. raba, ‘base of the tail’, Sard. raba. From the sing. 

RAPUM have come, apparently, Sp., Ptg. rabo ‘tail’ (there is also a Sp. raba 

‘octopus tentacles’); here note the development, by another process to be 

discussed later, of Sp. naba ‘swede’, ‘rutabaga’ alongside nabo ‘turnip’ < 

NAPUS ‘rape’. Two other neuter plurals have become singulars with special 

Romance meanings. The adjectival VIRIDIA ‘green stuff’ has become the word 

for ‘cabbage’ (cf. Engl. “greens”), giving Rum. varză, It. verza, Eng. verza, 

Surs. versa, Sp. berza (Moz. bercha), Ptg. berça (the word is not found in 

French, Provençal or Catalan, but the same root is seen in verg(i)er ‘orchard’). 

Another adjectival form GRANDIA ‘coarse stuff’ has become ‘bran’, so Mac. 

Rum. grândză/grândze (the grandză of the REW seems suspect to me, unless it 

is an Istro-Rumanian form), SIt. granza ‘bran’, ‘siftings’, Gasc., Béarn. granço 

‘remains of beaten wheat’, Sp. granza, Ptg. grança ‘siftings’, Camp. grandža, 

Nuor. (Gavol) grandza ‘bran’, cf. Log. randza ‘little grain’ and the verb 

ingrandzare ‘sift’. (OSp. garança ‘madder’ has become confused with this 

word, and the resulting granza has also been borrowed into Portuguese 

alongside garança. The voiceless -ça for -DIA in the Old Spanish and 

Portuguese forms would seem to be due to contamination by the far commoner 

-TIA ending; that it is not the natural phonological development is shown by the 

existence of the dual Mozarabic forms uarso and uaryo, also huerço (whence 

horchata) and huerjo, and the OPtg. orjo (in the Cantigas) from HORDEU 

‘barley’.) The late Latin singular PISA ‘pea’, beside PISUM, pl. PISA, lies behind 

SIt. (Cal., Sic.) pl. pisedda (as well as Engl. pease, pea(s), where a collective

102 

became regarded as a plural form, giving rise to a new singular); this is also 

matched by a Sic. fasòa ‘beans’, as against standard fagi(u)olo ‘bean’ from 

PHASEOLUS, with cognates in Sp., Ptg. (It is interesting to note here that the 

feminine singular ERVILIA ‘cultivated vetch’, which has given NIt. (Emil.) 

arvija, Ptg. ervilha ‘pea’, has become a collective singular in Rhaeto-Romance, 

so UEng. arvaglia, LEng. arbaglia, Surs. arveglia, Comasco erbeja, and from 

these have developed new masculine forms for the individual ‘pea’, arvagl and 

arvegl; similarly Spanish, by a different route, has created arvejo ‘bastard 

chick-pea’ from arveja ‘vetch’ (cf. erveja in Berceo and Alex., Moz. arbilya, 

Ast. arveya, Arag. arvilluela).) VlMINA ‘withes’ has given NIt. (Bol.) vemna, 

Bergam. venna, Friul. vimine, and Gal. vimia, to which may be compared Mall. 

vima and Béarn. bimo (M.-L., Gram., Schicks.); the REW and other sources 

give Ast. blimba, Leon. blima, bimbria, brimba, Prov., Cat. vima. VlBURNA 

‘wayfaring trees’, ‘viburnums’ has given It. vavorna, Pied. viorna, Fr. viorne, 

Prov. viourno (the REW quotes viorna as a Spanish form, but I can find no 

support for this; it may be the old Provençal form). At first sight we may see 

PAPAVERA ‘poppies’ in many of the modern forms, such as Rum. paparoană, 

Lombard pópola, Pied. pompola, Cat. dial. paparola (-ota), Sp. amapola (Moz. 

apapaura, Sanab. papoya), Ptg. papoula (Gal. mapoula); however, the 

immediate source of the Rumanian form is Greek or Bulgarian, and the Spanish 

and Portuguese forms betray Arabic interference. 

From (TERRAE) TUBERA/*TUFERA ‘truffles’ we have OIt. tubera ‘tuber’ 

and truffa ‘truffle’ (this perhaps from French, like Rum. trufă), Lomb., Pied., 

trifola, Ven. tartufola ‘truffle’, Surs. collective sing. trufla (with individual 

truffel), Fr. truffe (earlier truffle and tartufle, often with the meaning ‘potato’, 

also taking the forms tartoufle, cartoufle, whence Germ. Kartoffel), Prov. trufa, 

OCat. tofera, now tófona, with tru(m)fa ‘potato’ from French, Arag. tufera, Sp. 

102

103 

103 

trufa from French, Ptg. tubera with trufa from French, Log. tuvara. BLIT(T)A 

‘blites’ has given OIt. bieta ‘orache’ (now bietola, also meaning ‘beetroot’ by 

crossing with BETA; all these plants are related species), Friul. blede, Fr. 

blette/blète (also = ‘beet’), Prov. bleta/bleda (and blet) ‘ditto’, Cat. bleda (and 

blet) ‘leaf beet’ (with bleda-rave ‘beetroot’); standard modern Spanish and 

Portuguese only have the forms derived from BLITUM, Sp. bledo, Ptg. bredo, but 

García de Diego (Dial. Esp., p. 362) gives beleda ‘beetroot’ from the Alava 

dialect (also by crossing with BETA), and Sampson (No. 13) gives the 

Mozarabic forms blita and billita besides bleto for ‘blite’ or ‘beetroot’. 

x) Going further afield, Rohlfs (§384) gives some Italian developments: 

Calab. accia ‘wild celery’ from APIA ‘ditto’, Neap. farra < FARRA ‘spelt’ 

(standard It. farro), and also, from what was apparently a local plural form in -a, 

dial. risa, rizza ‘curl on a chestnut’ (cf. standard It. riccio ‘curl’, from riccio 

‘hedgehog’, ‘chestnut husk’; cf. also Sp. rizo, riza, Ptg. riço, riça, modelled on 

the Italian), and Neap. vrenna ‘chaff’, ‘bran’, origin unknown but cf. OFr. 

bren/bran, Prov., OSp. bren. Another local formation is seen in OFr. blee 

‘wheatfield’, originally the plural of blé ‘wheat’ (taken from Frankish), echoed 

by Prov. blada beside blat (Catalan only has blat), modern It. biada ‘corn’, 

‘oats’ (also taken into Sursilvan) beside OIt. biado (forms with a v, like ONIt. 

blava, Friul. blave, Eng. blaeva, have been borrowed from Old French). The 

words for ‘chicory’ and ‘endive’, too, are derived from plural forms, though not 

necessarily by popular transmission. For the former (Latin pl. CICHOR-EA/-IA) 

we have Rum. cicoare, It. cicor-ia/-ea, Rh. cicoria (and Eng. cicorgia) from 

Italian, Fr. chicorée (a Norman-Picard form replacing cicorée, which has given 

Engl. succory), Prov. fem. cicòrio ‘head’ beside masc. cicòri and derivative 

cicourèio ‘chicory’, Cat. xicoira, Sp. (a)chicoria (OArag. chicoira), Ptg. 

chicoria. For the latter (from Greek pl. entýbia, via Arabic?) we find It. 

indivia/endivia (Rh. endivia and Sard. indivia are from Italian), Fr. endive, Prov.,

104 

SCat. endivia, Sp. endibia, Ptg. endivia/endiva. A contrary development 

affecting dialectal Tuscan and Rhaeto-Romance has given Tusc. erbo for erba 

‘herb’ and Eng. erv/erb ‘blade of grass’ from erva/erba ‘grass’ (in another 

connection, which we will look at in a moment, Meyer-Lübke suggests a cross 

between HERBA and ERVUM/ERVUS (attested in Ven. Fort.)), and in the same way 

Spanish has created escobo ‘brushwood’ from escoba ‘plant from which brooms 

are made’ (Lat. SCOPA). Similary in Rhaeto-Romance we find Eng. fev, Surs. fav 

‘bean’ formed from feva, fava (Lat. FABA), which now have the collective 

meaning of ‘legumes’, like the Calab. fava. The existence in Latin of the 

multiple forms SPICUS/SPICUM (pl. SPICA)/SPICA ‘ear of corn’, ‘spike’ led to 

much confusion in Romance (as did also the existence of SPINA ‘thorn’ beside 

SPINUS ‘thornbush’), so that we find Rum. spic, pl. spice, ‘ear of corn’, spică 

(collective) ‘ears’, It. spigo/spiga (the northern type of formation, alongside 

spico/spica with specialized meanings; Rohlfs, §384, not realizing that spigo 

goes back to Latin, tries to explain it as a new formation based apparently on 

taking spiga to be a plural form, cf. midolla, orecchia), Friul. spic, Eng. 

spih/spia, Surs. spitg/spigia, Fr. épi, Prov., Cat. espic/espiga, Sp., Ptg. espiga, 

Log. ispiga, Camp. spigu/spiga. Finally, as we are talking about plants, we may 

include late Latin HORTA ‘gardens’, which has given Prov. orta, Cat. horta, Sp. 

huerta, Ptg. horta ‘kitchen-garden’, ‘market-garden’ (all bigger than ort, hort, 

huerto, hôrto ‘garden’, cf. Rh. üert); here, as plurals for the It. orto, we find 

Cors. orte, SIt. ortora, ortore, and Lombard Latin ortoras. All these names of 

plants show us that it was easy for the collective plurals to be apprehended as 

singulars when they refer to items that are not usually thought of individually. 

10. The -ORA plurals. 

a) As in the case of ortora just now, I have from time to time quoted 

104

105 

105 

Italian plurals in -ora and Rumanian plurals in -uri without speaking of their 

origin, and I think the time has now come to deal with these plurals as a 

specific category. The endings do in fact come from a Latin segment -ORA, 

extracted from forms like TEMPORA, the plural of TEMPUS ‘time’, where 

TEMPOR- is the stem and -A alone the ending; when the singular became 

reduced to an invariable form in -US (as we saw in §4c), the -ORA of the plural 

was seen as a plural ending. Similar words that have come down to Romance 

are CORPUS ‘body’, PECTUS ‘breast’, PECUS ‘herd’, ‘flock’, PIGNUS ‘gage’, 

FRIGUS ‘cold’, STERCUS ‘dung’, LITUS ‘shore’ (earlier also ROBUS ‘oak’, 

‘strength’, which later became ROBUR), and, with -ERA in the plural, ONUS 

‘burden’, OPUS ‘work’, ‘necessity’, LATUS ‘side’, GLOMUS ‘ball of thread’, 

VELLUS ‘fleece’. Though Rumanian now has -uri, the earlier ending was -ure, 

or, in Istro-Rumanian, -ură, as in piepture, kl’eptură ‘breasts’, so it can be seen 

that -uri developed out of -ORA in the same way as the plurals in -e came from 

those in -A (in some Italian dialects too the -a, -ora endings became -e, -ore), 

with the further change from -e to -i seen elsewhere in feminine plurals such as 

Ńări, seri, veri, guri, linguri. Though the nouns with plurals in -ORA were very 

limited in number in Latin, the ending was distinctive, and, as we have seen in 

§5a,c, lent itself to extension in Eastern Romance (we may note a similar 

extension of the cognate -er in German); in this language zone the plural was 

formed by substituting a different vowel for the final vowel of the singular 

(unlike the situation in Western Romance, where the ending -s was added to the 

unchanged singular form), so that the more clearly marked -ORA ending would 

recommend itself as a substitute for -A, and eventually even for -I, if the sense 

of -ORA’s being a “neuter” ending was lost. We find the extension already 

taking place in the 4th century, and in §4d I gave examples of new 

3rd-delension neuter forms declined as TEMPUS or OPUS: ARMORA, CIBORA, 

ERVUS, FUNDUS, CINUS, PULVERA, FIMUS, and possibly CAPUS, to which I can 

add ARCORA ‘bows’ quoted from the 5th century by Meyer-Lübke (Schicks.).

106 

Later we have FUNDORA and COLFORA ‘gulfs’ from Ravenna in the 7th century, 

and then the numerous Lombard Latin forms dating back to the 8th century 

(see §4e). 

In Eastern Romance the -S of the singular forms was lost by the regular 

process of phonetic change, and in Western Romance might also be lost by 

being regarded as the plural ending, but in Sardinian at least the singular forms 

with the -US maintained are well preserved: tempus, corpus, pettus, Log. onus, 

Log., Camp. pegus, obus, ladus, Camp. frius, Sulcis tšinus, OLog. pinnus, now 

pindzus with Italian influence. Elsewhere, also with the -S, we have Fr. temps, 

corps, OFr. piz, ues, lez, giens < GENUS ‘kind’ (in “ne...giens”, ‘not at all’), Prov. 

tems, cors, peitz, ops, latz, penhs, ge(n)s, Cat. tems, cos, gens, OCat. pits, ops, 

(l)lats, OSp. tiempos, Cuerpos Christi, pechos, uebos, al lados de, peños, OPtg. 

tempos, corpos, peitos, lados, empenhos, OGal. pennos (the Old Spanish and 

Portuguese forms in -os are mere idiomatic relics, as the -s was apprehended as 

the plural suffix and the singular was reformed in -o; but note that Spanish and 

Portuguese still keep the -S of MINUS, as do other Western Romance languages). 

In Rhaeto-Romance the only forms with -s are Surs. temps, pèz, and an old 

pens quoted by Meyer-Lübke (Schicks.), together with adverbial latz in Friulian. 

Otherwise we find Surs. tgierp, Eng. temp, chuerp, pet, pain, Friul. timp, cuarp 

(Surs., Eng. Friul. pegn seems to be an Italianized form; compare also Surs. 

meins as against Eng. main from MINUS). From the other words which joined 

this class later we have, with the -S still preserved, OFr. ars from ARMUS 

‘shoulder of an animal’, Fr., Prov. ers from ERVUS ‘cultivated vetch’, OFr. fontz 

(now fonds), Prov., Cat. fons, Surs. funz/funs, UEng. fuonz (but LEng. fuond), 

Friul. fonz from FUNDUS ‘estate’, OFr. fiens, Prov., OCat. fems from FIMUS 

(*FEMUS) ‘dung’, OFr., Prov. pous, Cat. pols, OSp. polvos, OPtg. po(vo)s from 

PULVUS ‘dust’. Neuter forms *NODUS/*NUDUS ‘knot’ may also be required to 

106

107 

107 

account for Prov. nos (beside no(t)), Cat. nus (earlier flanked by nu); here the 

Engl. noose also suggests that the OFr. nom. nous may similarly have served as 

an invariable form beside oblique nou. Anglade also says that Prov. gras beside 

gra(t) points to a neuter *GRADUS ‘step’, while Meyer-Lübke (Schicks.) says 

that Old French has an invariable gues beside gué (cf. Prov. g(u)as, g(u)a(t), 

and Cat. place-name Rec del Gaus), which requires a neuter *VADUS ‘ford’. On 

the other hand, however, the Provençal forms with -s may reflect an 

intervocalic D > z, and the DCVB says that nus has come from the plural form. 

Again, Anglade maintains that Prov. potz comes from a neuter *PUTEUS ‘well’ 

(no reasons given), while Meyer-Lübke feels that the South Italian forms 

fetu/fietu point to neuter *FETUS ‘offspring’, an idea that may in fact find 

support in the Prov. fes quoted by Mistral (s.v. fetus) and the Sardinian forms 

given below in §10e. These are only shadowy hypotheses, but in general we 

may say that one factor tending to confirm them is the fact that -ORA plurals for 

these words can be found in Italian and Rumanian (for that matter we could 

equally compare Prov. nis, ni(t) ‘nest’ and Lombard Latin NIDORA, It. dial. 

ne(d)ora, nidura/-re). 

b) With regard to the plural forms, the use of the -ORA ending is, as I 

have just said, a mark of Eastern Romance, and Rohlfs says (§370) that in spite 

of such forms being used in medieval documents in Lombardy they are hardly 

found in North Italian; the few examples he quotes are OLomb. stercora and 

tenpore and modern fossilized forms such as Moden. lògher (a new singular 

based on a variant of OIt. locora), Romagn. égur (cf. the plural forms OTusc. 

agora, SIt. acora). Even in Old Tuscan they do not occur much in the literary 

language, though they appear with greater frequency in non-literary writings. 

But as we go south we meet with more and more examples, which we will look 

at in a moment. Before doing so, however, let us look at the core of words that

108 

have come down from the Latin 3rd declension and see what has happened to 

them, first in Italian and Rumanian, which preserved -ORA as a plural ending 

(also substituting it for -ERA and certain other anomalous endings), and then in 

the other languages, which only preserved secondary traces. 

From TEMPORA we get It. dial. tempora (also artificially preserved in 

the standard language as an ecclesiastical term for ‘ember days’) and tempore, 

Rum. timpuri (we have already looked at the various developments of 

TEMPORA ‘temples’, already used by Chiro as an invariable form “de tempora”). 

CORPORA gives OTusc. corpora and dial. cuorpure, Rum. corpuri. For 

PECTORA we have OIt. pettora, Rum piepturi (and piepŃi ‘shirt-fronts’, as It. 

petti, which can also have the same meaning). LATERA, become *LATORA, gives 

latora in Lombard Latin and Old Tuscan, and laturi in Rumanian, from which a 

new feminine singular lature was created, which, in its turn, formed a new 

plural lături in accordance with the practice of mutating the stem vowels of 

feminine plurals in -i. From PECORA we have the isolated Rumanian fem. pl. 

păcure ‘cattle’ (so păcurar, as It. pecoraio) and It. pecora ‘sheep’, which is 

plural in the southern dialects but then passes through the stage of being a 

collective singular for ‘flock’ to becoming, in the standard language and the 

north, the word for an individual ‘sheep’, replacing peco, pl. peco (from the 4th 

declension); the standard plural is therefore pecore, but pecora, pegora are also 

found in the areas which have plurals of the type la capra (Rohlfs, §363). (Also 

pecora, being feminine, is taken as denoting a ‘ewe’, giving the dial. pecoro 

‘wether’.) STERCORA has given the OLomb. stercora just quoted, and Mac. 

Rum. ştercuri. 

c) After this Italian and Rumanian part company. PIGNORA and LITORA 

are represented by OIt. pegnora and lidora, but the words have not survived in 

Rumanian. FRIGORA gives Rum. friguri ‘fever’; the noun only exists in Old 

108

109 

109 

Italian as the Latinism frigo. In the case of OPUS, Rum. opuri ‘literary works’ is 

a modern formation, and the word was only handed down traditionally in the 

singular form in collocations like ORum. opŭ este ‘it is necessary’ and cognate 

forms elsewhere, such as It. è uopo (the reflexes of OPERA have come from the 

singular noun). From GLOMUS (pl. GLOMERA), Rumanian has ghemuri, where 

Italian has basically ghiomo, ghiomi, though other forms with -r- appear, such 

as SIt. gliommero, gliuommeru and Tusc. gnomero. VELLUS was prone to be 

confused with VILLU ‘shaggy hair’, and for Italian I have found only vello 

(which, like Ptg. velo, combines both meanings), with no -r- forms; the word 

appears to be absent from Rumanian, but instead we have the word văl ‘veil’, pl. 

văluri, with an -l- which can only come from Latin -LL-, so seemingly coming 

from VELU × VILLU, *VILLORA (with ă from a Latin close ē). Going further afield 

and taking the other Latin R-stems which appear with neuter forms, in the case 

of FULGUR ‘lightning’ we find Old Italian has folgora as a feminine singular 

beside folgore, where Rumanian has the “neuter” pl. fulgeri or fulgere from 

fulger (the stem used by Lucretius). MARMORA ‘marble’ appears as the Rum. 

fem. marmură, and is similarly seen in Lecc. marmura (M.-L., Schicks.), where 

standard Italian has marmo. FURFURA ‘scurf’ survives in It. forfora. Other cases 

are more doubtful. Both Meyer-Lübke and Rohlfs quote North Italian feminine 

singulars like ro(u)ra, rugura from ROBUR ‘oak’ (where we have seen that 

ROBORA survived in Rhaeto-Romance as a collective), corresponding to 

standard Italian rovere (masc. or fem.), but this form, and acera from areas 

further south, may simply have resulted from gender characterization. 

PULVERA/*PULVORA, ‘dust’ which has survived in other languages, is also 

represented in many Italian dialects in forms like pôlvra, porva, pórbia, purbara, 

though the standard language only has the fem. polvere, where Rumanian has 

similar pulbere. In the same way Italian only has the fem. cenere where other 

languages have forms apparently going back to *CINERA ‘ashes’. We may also 

for convenience include here some -ORA forms created for other proparoxytone

110 

3rd-declension neuters: Lomb. Lat., SIt. capora, SIt. capure, Rum. capuri 

(beside It. capita, Rum. capete), where the declension of late Latin CAPUS ‘head’ 

is uncertain but could possibly represent this type, OIt. nomora, where ORum. 

has numere < NOMINA ‘names’ (Densunianu, Histoire de la Langue Roumaine, 

Vol. 2, §53), perhaps by dissimilation, and OIt. lumora, where Campidanian 

preserves LUMINA ‘lights’ as a singular in the phrase a una lumina ‘one-eyed’. 

(Similarly EXAMINA ‘swarms’ is preserved as a singular in Calab. sámina, Surs. 

schaumna.) Other -uri forms in Rumanian are arămuri ‘copperware’ for 

AERAMINA (also alămuri ‘brassware’), legumuri ‘vegetables’ for LEGUMINA, and 

Ńărmuri ‘banks’, ‘borders’ for TERMINA ‘boundaries’, with the derivative 

Ńărmurean ‘borderer’ and a new sing. Ńărmure alongside Ńărm. As we have 

already seen in §4c, stems in -IN-, like TERMIN-, also tended to develop forms in 

-IT-, thus from *TERMIT- have come the mascs. Neap. tirmete, Friul. tiarmit, Fr. 

tertre, and we may perhaps see a late neuter form in -IT-, *GURGITA ‘whirlpools’, 

leading to a *GURGURA, which seems to have underlain the Lombard Latin 

gurguras, if this corresponds to standard It. gorgo, pl. gorghi. 

d) At this point let us just take a brief look also at the outcome of -ORA, 

or forms containing -OR-, elsewhere. TEMPORA, with an added pluralizing -S, 

has been preserved in church use for ‘ember days’ in Rhaeto-Romance (Surs. 

quatertempras, but Eng. has quatember from German), Provençal, Catalan, 

Spanish, Portuguese and Sardinian; in Old French the extended stem appears 

only in the adv. tempre(s) ‘early’ from TEMPORE. The stem CORPOR- has left no 

popular reflexes, though the classical stem has been used for creating popular 

forms such as Fr. corporu, Prov. courpourut. PECTORA/PECTORE are seen in the 

Prov. masc. pitro/pitre, fem. pitro ‘breast’ (Mist., Vää.), and probably also in 

Sard. pettórra, pettúrra ‘breast’; the stem also occurs in derivatives such as Fr. 

poitrine, Prov. peitrina, Cat. pitral, Sp. petral > pretal, Ptg. peitoral, apêrto, 

110

111 

111 

Sard. pettorale. PIGNORA is found more widely as a singular: Prov. 

penhora/pignora, OCat. pennora/pignora, now penyora (accented on the o as if 

a back-formation from penyorar, but it may originally have been the classical 

PIGNORA used as a legal term), OSp. peñora > peindra, now prenda, also 

borrowed into Portuguese, which has the native penhor(a) as a back-formation 

from the verb penhorar (but note OGal. pennora); Sard. pindzóra (Nuor.), 

piñóra (Log., Camp.) have the stem affected by It. pegno, as compared with 

OSard. pinnus, and may also reflect Cat. penyora (Wagner suggests also that 

-ora may have been changed to -óra because of the rarity of the proparoxytones 

in -ora and the frequency of forms in -óra; the only -ora forms he quotes are 

rivora, fruttora and pumora, the last two surviving as singular collectives, and 

rivora only being found in names, but to these we may add ingressuras quoted 

by Aebischer as an example of Lombard Latin from this area). The stem of 

LATERA is seen in Sp. (l)adral, Ptg. dial. ladral ‘sideboard of a truck’. PECORA 

is seen in the Friul. sing. piore ‘sheep’, to which compare also the Misocco 

pieira quoted by Meyer-Lübke and the pl. pire in the Vegliot piece transcribed 

by Bartoli, as well as Gal. prega ‘head of cattle’ (Wart.); Meyer-Lübke also 

quotes (Schicks.) Log. pecora, Sass. pegura, where Wagner gives Gall. pécura, 

Sass. péggura ‘sheep’ but cites Log., Camp. pècora ‘a bad lot’ as an Italianism. 

Elsewhere the form appears as a loan from Italian: Fr. pécore, Prov. pecoro, Sp., 

Ptg. pécora, as against native forms, Prov. pec, pego/peco ‘fool(ish)’, Cat. pec, 

pega ‘foolish’, Ptg. pego (this is given by Hall but I have not been able to 

confirm it), formations which are similar to the Sard. pl. pegos, re-formed on 

the sing. pegus; inherited derivatives are Rh. (Friul.?) piorar, Ast. pregueiro, 

Ptg. pegureiro. STERCORA is represented by estércora in Old Portuguese 

(DCELC), and cf. estercoreiro ‘dung-beetle’; the extended stem is also found in 

OPtg. estércure and in Sp. estiércol, which follows the pattern of dissimilation 

seen in mármol, and estercolero (cf. also Lomb. stercol), as against OAst. 

estierco, Leon, istiercu and modern Ptg. esterco (cf. It. sterco). The stem of

112 

FRIGORA appears in Fr. frileux, Prov. frigourous, Sp. friolento, Ptg. friorento 

(FR1GUS is not to be seen in tener frío/ter frio, where frío/frio (OSp. frido) go 

back to FRIGIDU). PULVERA/*PULVORA has given the collective singular forms 

Surs. puorla, Eng. puolvra, Fr. poudre, Prov. polvera/porba/proba/poldra, Cat. 

pólvora (OCat. pólvera), and Sp., Ptg. pólvora, which the DCELC says are 

taken from Catalan (but cf. Ast. pólvoro). From *CINERA we have Surs. 

tschendra (Laus., §312), Fr. cendre and Cat. cendra (also borrowed into 

Spanish), but on the whole other cognate forms in -A have been introduced, so 

Rum. cenuşă, It. cinigia (and old cianugia), Friul. sinize, EFr. cenise, Prov. 

ceniza, Sp. ceniza, Ptg. cinza, Sard. kinisa > kisina > kižina. ROBORA, as we 

saw in §9n, has given the Sursilvan collective ruvra, but otherwise only 

masculine forms are found in the various langages. From FULGUR too the earlier 

forms are masculine, so OFr. fuildre, Prov. folzer/foldre, though Fr. foudre is 

now feminine, and there is a feminine Provençal form fousèro. GLOMUS is 

represented in Sardinian by forms with the extended stem: Log. lorumu ( < 

* lomuru), Camp. lomburu; the late Latin extended stem of FIMUS is seen in the 

derivatives OFr. fembrier, Prov. femorier (fum-), but, as noted in §4c, there was 

also a pl. *FEMITA from which have come Fr. fiente, Prov. fenta/-da, Cat. 

fempta/fenta, femna, Sp. hienda, with a Gal. fento corresponding to masc. forms 

also found elsewhere (there are also sing. forms derived from FEMUS). We may 

perhaps see VELLORA in Moz. véllora (Wart.), though modern Andal. vellora 

has a change of accent; the extended stem is seen in OFr., Fr.-Prov. veaure 

(masc.), Mirand. veldre. (Fr., Prov. gen(d)re from GENERE have all the 

appearance of being popular, but the chances are against the oblique case — as 

opposed to the plural — of a noun in -US becoming popularized, and the forms 

in the other languages are clearly learned.) 

e) Taking now the other words I quoted earlier — ARMUS, ERVUS, 

112

113 

113 

FUNDUS, ARCUS, COLFUS, NODUS, GRADUS, PUTEUS, VADUS, FETUS — we find 

firstly Rum. pl. armuri (with a new sing, armur(e) alongside arm), and ierburi 

‘herbs’, ‘small flowering plants’ as the plural of iarbă ‘grass’, ‘herb’. Here 

Italian has no -ora forms for either, as far as I have been able to discover, unless 

the Lombard Latin gerboras (“inter gerboras et terra arva”) is this word; ERVUS 

appears as lero or learned ervo (and note also the erbo quoted above), but we 

find erbor- or erbol- in derivatives of erba such as erborare, and I will discuss 

this in a minute. For FUNDUS we have Rum. pl. funduri and Lomb. Lat. fundora; 

I have not found such a form quoted from later writings, but the extended stem 

is seen in OIt. sfondolare. In the case of ARCUS we have Rum. pl. arcuri as well 

as old arce, Lomb. Lat. arcora, with the same form continued in Old Tuscan, 

and for COLFUS the modern Rum. golfuri, which happens to balance the 

COLFORA recorded at Ravenna. NODUS is represented by Rum. pl. noduri and 

adj. noduros, OTusc. nodora, Calab. nudura, adj. nodoruto (thus lending 

support to the idea of a neuter *NODUS surviving in Gallo-Romance), and 

GRADUS by Lomb. Lat. and OIt. gradora (Rum. grad, pl. grade, is modern). For 

PUTEUS we have Rum. pl. puŃuri, It. dial. pozzora, puzzure, for VADUS Rum. pl. 

vaduri and Lomb. Lat. vadora, and for FETUS Lomb. Lat., Neap. fetora (here 

Rumanian has masc. făt, pl. feŃi, as in Făt Frumos ‘Prince Charming’). 

Elsewhere the extended stem of ARMUS is found in Sp. enarmorarse 

‘rear up’, and then we come to ERVUS, about which Meyer-Lübke has an 

interesting theory, though this is called into question by Corominas. His idea 

(already expressed in Schicks.) is that Rum. ierburi, It. erborare not orginally 

connected with HERBA, but come from 3rd-declension ERVUS, attested in 

Venantius Fortunatus and backed up by Fr., Prov., Cat. ers; Corominas, however, 

argues that this last-named form has come from the plural, saying that in 

Spanish the pl. yeros is the form normally used. On the other hand, we find the 

root HERBOR- diffused everywhere, It. erbor-, erbol-, Fr. herbor-, herbol-, Prov.

114 

erbour-, erboul-, Cat., Sp., Ptg. herbor-, herbol-, and there is no accounting for 

it on the basis of any Latin derivatives of HERBA, the usual explanation given 

being the influence of ARBOR, with the -l- forms taken as derived from 

HERBULA, so I find Meyer-Lübke’s thesis attractive (with the -l- forms 

explained as resulting from dissimilation). In the case of FUNDUS we have 

evidence of the extended stem in Surs. sfundrar, UEng. sfundrer, LEng 

sfu(o)ndrar, Fr. effondrer, modern Occ. esfoundra, afoundra, enfoundra 

(enfrounda), Cat. esfondrar, enfondrar. For ARCUS I have found no other traces 

of -OR- forms, but a neut. pl. *ARCA is attested by Surs. arca/artga, Eng. archa 

‘sheet of paper’ (for which the German is Bogen = ‘bow’), Fr. arche, Prov. arca 

‘arch’, and perhaps Cat. Arca for a site with dolmens; I will return to this point 

in a minute. Corresponding to COLFORA we have forms with -r- in Fr. gouffre 

and Gasc. goufre, though these are masculine; other forms with -r-, such OGen. 

gorfo, Cat. gorf, Sp. (Ast.) gorfo, seem to show a phonetic change from l to r. 

Alongside Lomb. Lat. fetora we have Sard. (Gall.) edóra ‘mob of boys’ from 

fedu (OSard. fetu) ‘offspring’, with the same displacement of accent we have 

observed before; it is also worth noting that two of the other Sardinian words 

with -ora, fruttora and rivora, have counterparts in the Lomb. Lat. fructora and 

ri(b)ora, Rum. frupturi (Schicks., p. 51), râuri and derivative râurean. The 

meagre number of examples I have been able to turn up shows what very few 

traces remain of -ORA outside Eastern Romance. 

f) Let us now see if we can observe any pattern at all underlying the 

spread of -ORA as a plural ending in Rumanian and Italian. Excluding the 

classical masculine 3rd-declension nouns which already had -R- in their oblique 

forms, such as PULVIS, CINIS, and certain neuters, such as CAPUT, NOMEN, the 

words we have looked at so far are a pretty mixed bag; there are (see §4d) the 

2nd-decl. mascs. ARMUS, CIBUS (with early 4th-decl. forms), ERVUS, FUNDUS 

(and late FUNDUM), NODUS (only attested in Romance), RIVUS, with COLFUS 

114

115 

115 

from a late Greek form kólphos, masc. or neut. PUTE-US/-UM, VAD-US/-UM, and 

the 4th-decl. mascs. ARCUS, FETUS, FRUCTUS, GRADUS, all with early 

2nd-declension forms. If we add the further words I quoted in §4e as having 

parallel forms in Rumanian and Lombard Latin, we have 2nd-decl. mascs. 

CAMPUS, LOCUS (which also had a neut. pl. LOCA), RAMUS (with late pl. RAMA), 

VENTUS, 2nd-decl. neut. PAVIMENTUM, and 4th-decl. mascs. CURSUS, LACUS. 

What are we to make of this? For a start, there is one group which I alluded to 

earlier in §3. This consists of the 4th-declension masculine deverbal nouns in 

-TUS, -SUS, such as ACTUS, VISUS, which came to be paralleled by forms derived 

from the nominal use of the neuter of the past participle, as ACTUM, VISUM; this 

also led to other new formations such as FRUCTUM, GUSTUM, PASSUM (cf. 

“passa” for ‘fords’ quoted by Du Cange, s.v. passum), and to the appearance of 

forms like PRATUS, FURTUS, FATUS, no doubt intended to be corrections of 

supposedly mistaken neuter forms (note the parallel with LECTUS (2 and 4) and 

late LECTUM). We thus have a situation where there was widespread fluctuation 

between masculine 4th-declension forms and neuter 2nd-declension forms, and 

later evidence shows that this development affected all the 4th-declension 

masculines (including those that showed 4th-declension forms at one stage or 

another), giving forms like the ARCORA, CIBORA, GRADORA, LACORA quoted 

before, and Lomb. Lat. lectora, portora, pratora, Rum. gusturi, porturi, sânuri, 

visuri, also geruri, cornuri (beside coarne) from the neuters GELU, CORNU; 

further, as a later development perhaps, Istro-Rum. acur (Schicks., p. 53), It. 

dial. acora/agora (beside which Rohlfs, §370, quotes a Latin ACURA), ficora 

from the feminines ACUS, FICUS (which also were used as masculines, with a 

neuter FICUM also appearing; cf. also the development of PECUS), and even dial. 

(Salent.) manure from MANUS, which has no history of masculinity. 

g) Having established the point that these nouns became neuters, the 

next question we face is why they should have adopted the -ORA rather than the

116 

-A type of plural. Here the only possibility I can suggest is that these nouns, 

having -U, and even -Ū, rather than -O as their stem vowel, were felt to have a 

greater affinity with the neuter nouns in -US, which likewise had no -O forms (cf. 

the contrary move to the 4th declension evidenced by the southern Italian 

plurals le peco, le capo), though I fear this argument does not carry much 

weight when one considers firstly that the Italian remnants of the 4th-declension 

plurals end in -o, and further that the neuter nouns in -US also show early traces 

of -O forms, such as CORPO in the Pereg. (Grandgent, §356.3), to which 

compare also the PECTUM in an inscription from Italy (Bour., §218b). Anyway, 

the fact is that the 4th-declension masculines all became neuters, and in many 

cases adopted -ORA rather than -A as the plural ending; here we find many 

examples of abstract nouns in Lombard Latin, such as the praeceptora, 

ingressora, scriptora, mansoras, traversoras I quoted earlier, and similar 

formations such as Rum. aluaturi, drepturi, salturi, vânaturi, viersuri, 

Istro-Rum. traveršur (Schicks., p. 53), It. dial. peccatərə, pərtosərə, reposora 

(Wartburg, Raccolta, 37:548). Once established, this type may be supposed to 

have attracted to itself firstly the 2nd-declension nouns in -TUS, -TUM, giving 

forms like Lomb. Lat. (h)ortora, pavimentora, tectora, ventora, as well as the 

lectora, pratora just quoted, Rum. pământuri, vânturi; of the former, ortora, 

tettora, lettora and pratora have survived in modern Italian, and been joined by 

others like detərə (DIGITA), vutura (VOTA). These were also joined by other 

2nd-declension neuters (including those that became neuter at a later stage), 

giving forms like Lomb. Lat., OIt. locora, Rum. locuri, or Lomb. Lat. 

extromentora (= INSTRUMENTA), ferroras, modiora, poiora (PODIA), ramora, 

stariora (SEXTARIA), vadora, paralleled by Rum. aiuri, ajunuri, arginturi, 

aururi, ceruri, chiaguri, coturi, cuiuri, dosuri, fânuri, frâiuri, fusuri, 

genunchiuri, grâiuri, juguri, lucruri, meiuri, nasuri, ochiuri, prânzuri, preŃuri, 

ramuri, schimburi, scuturi, seuri, somnuri, spicuri, stauluri, vâscuri, veninuri, 

vinuri and so on, to which we find occasional Italian correspondences in forms 

116

117 

117 

like cambiora, digiunora, fusora, ginocchiora, granora, occhiora, ramora, 

scudora, sonnora, vinora; other such forms are bagnora, vrazzora, donora, 

filora, gaiora, lignora, ossora, regnora, sassora. Besides these we have certain 

2nd-declension masculines and other formations for which there is early 

evidence of -ora forms in Lombard Latin, and which perhaps became neuter in 

late Latin because of their collective signification: arbustora, campora, domora, 

nidora, planora, rivora, vicora and so on (some of them still continued later), 

with other forms like fornora, fuocora, nerbora appearing in Old Italian, to 

which we find correspondences in Rum. câmpuri, focuri, while modern Italian 

dialects also have jocura, trondra/tronola, saccure corresponding to Rum. 

jocuri, tunuri, sacuri (so M.-L., Schicks.), besides others like anellora, 

cappellora, pugnora, solcora. (In the case of Rumanian it will have been 

observed that there is often more than one form, so that the -uri form may often 

be a modern development, and the argument of parallel development should not 

be pressed too far.) 

h) Apart from these, there have been other developments which can 

only be local, some of which were noted in §4. Thus in Lombard Latin and 

Old Italian we find the ending extended to certain loanwords, while in 

Rumanian it has become virtually the standard plural ending for any 

monosyllabic loanword denoting an inanimate object, or words ending in a 

foreign suffix like -iş, -ug, as well as many others. In Italian dialects, 

especially those in which the feminine ending -e changed phonetically to -i, 

this -ora ending was extended to many masculine nouns (with feminine 

article) to distinguish them from the corresponding feminine ones, as noted in 

§5c, and even to a few feminines (for examples, see Rohlfs, §370). Standard 

Rumanian has not added -uri to masculine nouns, though, as noted in §5c, it 

has added it to some feminine nouns, especially mass nouns, giving the idea of 

‘kinds of...’ (perhaps starting out from forms like arămuri, legumuri), but

118 

Meyer-Lübke (Schicks., pp. 52-53) gives examples of its extension in 

Istro-Rumanian, where it would seem that -e and -i have fallen together, to 

masculine nouns denoting animate beings (apparently keeping masculine 

concord) alongside forms in -i, this being the case with amic, frate, porc, preot. 

The last development to be noted is that of new singulars formed from the 

plural stem; here we have already observed Rum. lature, Ńărmure, ramură and 

armur(e), while Italian has, besides the plural forms used as singulars, such as 

pecora, dial. ficora, acura, new singular forms such as Calab. amuru ‘hook’ 

from amora, tripuru, grubbaru ‘hole’ from tripura, grubbura, and Moden. 

logher, Ancon. nodero, Romagn. egur from locora, nodora, acora. All in all, 

we can say that the -ORA ending has enjoyed a wide lexical extension within a 

limited geographical area, becoming a rival to -i and -e in Rumanian, where it 

almost constitutes a new neuter gender, and being used as an alternative 

masculine ending in southern Italian dialects. That its extension beyond its 

original territory goes back to common Romance times is shown first by the 

creation of new neuter nouns in -US, -ORA in late Latin, and secondly by the 

agreement between Lombard Latin and Rumanian over a certain core of new 

formations such as campora, ventora, câmpuri, vânturi. Not much can be 

learnt from the Western Romance languages, which only have scant traces of 

-ORA forms used as singulars or of derivatives based on the extended stem 

containing -R-, including derivatives of those words which joined the -US, 

-ORA type in late Latin. 

11. Neuters in -MENTA, -ALIA etc. 

a) Having looked at -ORA, this would seem to be a good point at which 

we may examine other neuters which can be classified according to their 

formation, namely those formed with collective morphemes such as -MENTA, 

-ALIA, -ILIA, -ARIA, -ORIA, -ANEA (of which the reflexes have not always come 

118

119 

119 

down by purely popular transmission). Of these, the first type accords closely 

with our primary pattern, being preserved as a plural in Rumanian and partly so 

in Italian, and being used as a collective singular elsewhere. I have only found 

one case where the forms are found across the board — VESTIMENTA ‘clothing’: 

Rum. pl. veş(t)minte, It. le vestimenta, dial. vestimente, with Pied. vestimanta as 

a singular, Rh. (Eng.) vestimainta, now a collective singular but formerly with 

plural concord (“la vestimainta sun cuvertas da la tridezza”, see §6b), elsewhere 

the collectives OFr. vestemente, Prov., Cat., Ptg. vestimenta, OSp. vestimienta 

(now vestimenta with adaptation to the Latin form), Sard. bestimenta. The lack 

of syncope of the -I- in the French and other forms points to a learned origin, at 

least in part, and this may also be the case in other words with this formation. 

Another word, apparently not represented in Rumanian, is FERRAMENTA 

‘ironwork’: It. le ferramenta ‘ironware’, Eng. fierramainta, Surs. ferramenta 

(these two rivalled by ferradüra, ferradira from the fem. *FERRATURA), OFr. 

ferremente, Prov., Cat., Ptg., Sard. ferramenta, Sp. herramienta ‘tools’, 

‘ironwork’. Another word widely found is *OSSAMENTA ‘bones’: Rum. pl. 

oseminte, OFr. ossemente, Prov., Cat., Ptg., Sard. ossamenta, Sp. learned 

osamenta beside osambre (this from *OSSAMEN, which has given It. ossame, 

Eng., Surs. ossam; another rival form is *OSSATURA, It. ossatura, Eng. ossadüra, 

Surs. ossadira). TORMENTA ‘instruments of torture’, perhaps by poetical 

transmission, has become the word for ‘storm’, It., Prov., Cat., Sp., Ptg. 

tormenta, Fr. tourmente (but NIt. turmanta ‘trouble’). CALCIAMENTA ‘footwear’ 

has given Rum. încălŃăminte (a collective feminine singular, like îmbrăcăminte 

‘clothing’, formed from îmbrăca, cognate with It. imbracare, Fr. embrayer, Sp. 

embragar ‘truss’, ‘sling’, all based on a Gaulish root), Surs. calzamenta, Eng. 

chüzzamainta, OFr. chaucemente, Prov. caussamenta (cf. OIt. calciamento, 

OCat. calçament from the singular). From FUNDAMENTA ‘foundations’ we have 

the It. pl. fondamenta (singular in Ven., for ‘a paved street alongside a canal’), 

Eng. fundamainta, Prov. fondamenta, OSp. fondamienta (like the old

120 

fondamiento from the singular). Less widely represented are *CORNUAMENTA 

‘horns’, Sp., Ptg. cornamenta, Sard. corramenta; ARMENTA (Glos. Cass. 

ARMENTAS) ‘herds’, Rum. armînturi (hapax leg.), Bellun. armenta, Friul. 

armente ‘cow’, Central Rh. armainta with a new sing. armaint (also in Eng.), 

Ptg. armenta (REW); PIGMENTA ‘colouring matter’, Prov., Ptg. pimenta, Sp. 

pimienta ‘pepper’; *VITIAMENTA ‘instances of spoiling or corrupting’, Rum. pl. 

învăŃăminte ‘teachings’, OIt. (Rom.) veçamenta ‘tricks’; *VASCELLAMENTA 

‘vessels’, OIt. vasellamenta, OFr. vaissellemente; SENTIMENTA ‘feelings’, Rum. 

(modern) simŃiminte, OIt. sentimenta. Other similar formations found in the 

various languages are Rum. pl. acoperăminte, apărăminte, căzăminte, 

crezăminte, jurăminte, legăminte, morminte together with old and dial. 

mormânturi, (a)stâmpărăminte, fem. sing. rugăminte; so also OIt. 

sagramenta/saramenta/seramenta/sagramente, comandamenta/comannamente, 

guarnimenta, elemente, momenta, pedamenta, piacimenta, tradimenta, 

sengnamente, with filamenta and fem. gimenta ‘female donkey’, ‘mare’ still in 

use (cf. also dial. sing. sarmenta/sarmanta from SARMENTA ‘twigs’ and 

armenta/romenta from RAMENTA ‘shavings’); Surs. paramenta, schelmamenta, 

scroccamenta, cauramenta, ladramenta, lumpamenta, Eng. schelmamainta, 

chavramainta, ledramainta (LEng. la-), lumpamainta, guargimainta, 

chindlamainta, narramainta (note the tendency in these dialects to create new 

words denoting groups of animals or people, as cauramenta, chavramainta 

‘herd of goats’, ladramenta, ledramainta ‘band of thieves’); OFr. crassemente, 

lamente (and note fem. jument corresponding to It. giumenta); Prov. ornamenta, 

ramenta; Cat. bastimenta; OSp. sacamienta; Ptg. curtimenta; Sard. armamenta, 

foddžimenta, loramenta, isterrimenta, pagamenta, pannamenta, paskimenta 

(HWS, §54), all denoting groups of things. 

b) We can see from the fact that -MENTA has survived in Rumanian and 

Sardinian that this formation belonged to the popular stratum, though not all the 

120

121 

121 

examples I have given above can be called popular. When we come to our next 

group, the formations in -ALIA and -ILIA, we find not only that we have a 

mixture of popular and literary words, or those which Menéndez Pidal calls 

“voces semicultas o exóticas”, but also that these words have everywhere 

become feminine singulars; they were all in origin the neuter plural forms of 

adjectives, some of which, like ANIMALIA, CUBILIA, were already used as nouns 

in classical times, though the greater number became nominalized at a later date 

and are often the ones that have come down to modern times in a literary or 

semi-popular form. At the same time we also sometimes find that words which 

seem to be eminently popular, because they are also preserved in Rumanian and 

Sardinian, may take a semi-literary form. A case in point is BATTUALIA 

‘gladiatorial contests’, which has given the word for ‘battle’ in many languages: 

Rum. bătaie ‘beating’ (also bătălie ‘battle’, from Italian, with adaptation to the 

-ie ending, see 11g), It., Rh. battaglia, Fr. bataille. Prov. batalha, Cat., Sp. 

batalla (and batalia in Spanish Latin), Ptg. batalha, Sard. (Log.) battadza, 

(Camp.) battalla ‘uproar’ (and battaglia ‘battle’ from Italian). Here Spanish has 

-alla for the expected -aja, as found in certain other words, raising several 

possibilities. Firstly, BATTUALIA may not have been preserved as a popular word 

in this area, and batalla may have been introduced from Gallo-Romance 

(raising the question of whether Ptg. batalha is also a loan); alternatively an 

earlier *bataja may have been overlaid by the more “international” 

Gallo-Romance form (introduction into Castilian from other Spanish dialects 

would seem unlikely) or the ending -aja may have been replaced by the more 

common -alla of the semi-literary words, just as -ança, -ença, -azón etc. gave 

way to -ancia, -encia, -ación and so on. (Some manuals quote a form bataja as 

if this represents the true Castilian outcome, but they seem to be basing 

themselves on forms like the bataia of Alex. O 573b, 607c, which is an example 

of Leonese “yeismo”.)

122 

c) The only other word common to standard Rumanian and the other 

languages is late Latin MINUTALIA, which also appears in the form *MINUTIALIA; 

here we have Rum. măruntaie ‘entrails’, It. minutaglia, minuzzaglia ‘trifles’, Fr. 

menuaille, menuisaille ‘ditto’, Prov. menudaio, menusaio, Cat. menudalla (and 

old menudall, menussall), Arag. menudallas (which García de Diego glosses as 

‘menudajas’, a form I have not found elsewhere), Ptg. miuçalhas (in this sense 

Sardinian has the words pispisadza, pispisalla and pimpirinalla; HWS, §46). 

The only other Rumanian formations given by Meyer-Lübke (Schicks.) are 

răpaie and fluăraie, which I have not been able to trace in other sources, but 

there is one more word, given by Corominas in the DCELC as being used in the 

Banat, which is derived from ANIMALIA, a form that has a widespread progeny, 

rivalling ANIMAL(E) as a term for a single beast. Here the Banat form is nămaie 

‘small horned animal’, ‘sheep’, ‘head of cattle’, showing a purely popular 

development. But elsewhere the formations are sometimes popular, sometimes 

only semi-popular. Italian has old animaglia/animalia, Sic. armalia (and armali 

from the singular, like Veril. alimali) ‘animal’, and Lucan. armagnə ‘wild 

animal’ (in many dialects ‘animal’ means ‘pig’). Friulian has magne ‘snake’ (if 

this is connected) beside nemal ‘ox’ from the singular, where Tyrolean has 

created a new fem. animala ‘cow’. Lower Engadinian has limargia ‘pig’; apart 

from this, new singulars have been created by cutting off the -a, so LEng. limari, 

UEng. al(i)meri ‘pig’, ‘beast’, and Surs. glimari ‘beast’ beside armal < ANIMAL 

‘head of cattle’ (cf. also Val. Antr. rimari, Val Ses. arümaj, given by R.R. Posner 

in Consonantal Dissimilation in the Romance Languages, Oxford, 1961). 

Besides these, it seems that we should possibly include here a group of 

Rhaeto-Romance words referred to MOBILIA in the REW, but containing the 

stem vowel -a-; these are Surs., Eng. muaglia ‘cattle’, for which Upper 

Engadinian has created a new sing. muagl for ‘a head of cattle’, though 

elsewhere muvel is the form used, pointing clearly to MOBILE and suggesting 

that perhaps muaglia has arisen out of a fusion of MOBILIA and ANIMALIA (but 

122

123 

123 

note that -egl- > -agl- is a regular phonetic change in Engadinian, cf. arvaglia < 

ERVILIA in §9w above). Old French has almaille/aumaille ‘animals’, ‘cattle’ 

(once as a plural with a numeral, “cent almaille”, later also with an -s, as “XL 

aumailles”); the form armaille (Franco-Provençal?) is still used in Switzerland. 

Provençal has almalha/armalha, now aumaio, armalho and other forms, besides 

EProv. arimau < ANIMAL (Posner, op. cit.), while in Old Catalan we find 

animalia and alimanya. Similarly Old Spanish has animalia/ 

animalla/alimania/alimaria, with alimaña still in use for ‘an animal which 

destroys the game’; there is also an Alavés almaje, which Corominas says 

suggests an earlier *almaja. Old Portuguese has animalia/alimalia, while the 

modern language has alimária ‘dumb animal’ and almalha or Minh. armalha 

‘heifer’, from which have been formed almalho, armalho (Gal. -llo) ‘young 

bull’. 

d) I spoke just now of the expected occurrence of -aja in Castilian, and 

there are a certain number of words found over a wide area in which this is the 

case. First we have late Latin MEDALIA ‘half-denarii’, ‘half-coins’, apparently 

for MEDIALIA ‘halves’, which came to mean ‘a half-denarius coin’, so It., Rh. 

medaglia, OFr. meaille, now maille, Prov. me(z)alha, Cat. mealla, Moz. 

medalya, Arag. mealla/mialla, Sp. meaja/miaja, Ptg. mealha, OLog. metagia 

(evidently with interference from METALLEA; the regularly formed Log. meadza, 

rustic Camp. mialla are measures of capacity); the Italian word was borrowed 

everywhere in the sense of ‘medal’, so even Rum. medalie. Another word is 

*SONALIA ‘bell’ (not *SONACULA, as shown by the Sardinian forms), which 

has given It. sonaglio (a new singular; cf. sonaglia in Du Cange) and similar 

Eng. sunagl, Fr. sonnaille, Prov. sonalha (and sonalh), Cat. sonalla, Sp. sonaja, 

Ptg. soalha, Sard. (Log.) sonadza, (Camp.) sonalla. Parallel to this is MORTALIA 

‘grave clothes’, giving (with the meanings varying from language to language) 

UEng., Surs. murtaglia, OFr. mortaille, Prov. mortalha, Cat. mortalla, Sp.

124 

mortaja, Ptg. mortalha, Sard. mortadza, mortalla. Another parallel between 

Sardinian and Spanish is seen in a word in -ILIA, AQUATILIA ‘watery things’, 

which gives Sard. (Nuor.) abbatidza, Sp. aguadija, Ast. aguadía, Ptg. aguadilha 

for various concentrations of watery fluid in the body. One more example of Sp. 

-aja is found in the case of SPONSALIA ‘betrothal’, which gives OIt. sponsaglia 

(with introduction of Latinizing -n-), Fr. épousailles, Prov. esposalhas, Cat. 

esposalles, Sp. desposajas and old learned esponsalias, Leon. esposayas, OPtg. 

learned esponsalias. (I also incline to referring the words for ‘sheep’, ‘ewe’ to *OVĬLIA 

‘sheep in groups’, used like ANIMALIA, for a single animal. rather than to the 

conventional OVICULA, so as to include Rum. oaie; the forms found elsewhere are OIt. 

oveglia, Fr. oeille > ouaille, Prov. ovelha, Cat. ovella, Sp. oveja (Arag. güella), Ptg. 

ovelha; the chief support for my hypothesis comes from the absence in Italian of any 

*ovecchia.) 

e) Other words in -ALIA, -ILIA have left no traces in Rumanian, and so 

may be of later adoption or creation. One of those with a wide distribution is 

MIRABILIA ‘marvels’ (feminine singular in late Latin), where the modern 

reflexes nearly all have e or a in the first syllable, rather than the expected i (a 

notable exception is Eng. müraveglia, and I have found one example of 

miraveglia from Bologna in Monaci, mirabilla in MS. A of Berceo’s Milagros, 

and a modern Limousin verb miravilha quoted by Mistral). The forms 

concerned are: standard Italian meraviglia, also maraviglia and old meraveglia, 

maraveglia and meraveia (NIt.), Surs. marveglia, Eng. müraveglia/müravaglia, 

Fr. merveille (also occasional old marveille), Prov. meravelha, meravilha (also 

-lh and modern forms with mara-), Cat. meravella, also old maravella, Sp. 

maravilla, old (esp. Berceo) maravella, Leon. maraviia, meraviia in Alex. O, 

also maraveia quoted by Pellegrini, Ptg. maravilha, Sard. (Log.) meravidza, 

(Camp.) meravilla, merevilla. Can we suppose a common form *MĬRABĬLIA, 

with attraction of the first vowel to the second (here the Battisti and Alessio 

124

125 

125 

dictionary ascribes the Italian form to Oscan influence)? And was the resulting e 

then changed to an a independently in each area, by a process which commonly 

changed er to ar? And can we attribute the other common change of e to i in the 

stressed syllable to attraction to the words of the -ĪLIA class? I have been 

tempted to see diffusion from a single source, such as Gallo-Romance (thus 

accounting for the Spanish -lla ending, though this could also be explained as 

being due to the semi-learned adoption of the word), yet the forms found in each 

area are not inconsistent with independent development. By contrast, 

*LATRONALIA ‘group of thieves’ has a limited range of distribution, being seen 

only in It. ladronaglia (also ladronaia, with popular vocalization of the gli), 

Surs. ladernaglia, Fr. lairrenaille and Occ. laironalho, larronaio; this word 

shows a typical use of the suffix to form the name of a group of persons or 

things, often with a pejorative sense. In other cases, such as that of MURALIA 

‘city walls’, Italian has been specifically pointed to as the source of the Spanish 

and Portuguese forms; here we have It. muraglia, Surs. miraglia, Eng. müraglia, 

Fr. muraille, Prov. muralha, Cat. muralla (also found in placenames, suggesting 

that it is not of late introduction), Sp. muralla, Ptg. muralha. In another case, 

where the forms correspond to *CANALIA, the origin is clearly to be traced 

solely to the Italian group-noun canaglia, ‘pack of dogs’, then ‘rabble’, from 

which have come Rh. canaglia, Fr. canaille (but also chiennaille), Prov. 

canalha, Cat., Sp. canalla, Ptg. canalha (cf. indigenous calha ‘millrace’, 

‘channel’ from *CANALIA for CANALIS). The same must be said for other forms 

of a more limited extension: It. boscaglia ‘undergrowth’, Surs. bos-caglia, Eng. 

bos-chaglia, OFr. boisc(h)aille, Occ. bouscaio, Cat. dial. boscalla ‘chip’; It. 

ferraglia ‘scrap iron’, Fr. ferraille, Occ. ferraio, Cat. ferralla (cf. also Rum. 

fierătaie and Prov. ferratalha); It. marmaglia ‘rabble’, Rh. marmaglia, Fr. 

marmaille, Occ. marmaio, Cat. marmalla; It. (Pied.) pulaja, ‘poultry’, Fr. 

poulaille, Prov. polalha, Cat. pollalla; It. (rare) pietraglia ‘heap of stones (and 

petraia, dial.?)’, Pied. praja, Fr. pierraille, (Occ. peiralh, peirilho), Cat. pedralla; It.

126 

(Trent.) coraia, ‘entrails’, Surs. coraglia, Eng. curaglia, OFr. coraille, Prov coralha. 

An example of a word that has come down by semi-popular transmission is 

VICTUALIA (also late Latin VICTUALIAE) ‘victuals’: It. vettovaglia, old vittuaglia, 

vettu(v)aglia, Surs. victualias, Eng. victuaglia, OFr. vitaille, now victuailles, Prov. 

vit(o)alha, OCat. vitalla, now vitualles, Sp. vituallas, Ptg. vitualhas, OLog. vituagia, 

now ittuadza, with Log., Camp. vittuaglia from Italian (the word is now generally 

pluralized, but traces of the collective singular still remain). Similarly 

VOLATILIA ‘birds’ has given Judaeo-It. volatilio, Fr. volaille, old voleille, volile, 

volatille, voletille, Prov. volatilha, Cat. volatilia, Judaeo-Sp. volatilla, voladilla, with 

Gl. Sil. volatilias (cf. also Eng. volaglia). Other words with local diffusion are: 

from *MIC(C)ALIA ‘crumbs’, ‘scraps’, Occ. micaio, Sp. migaja, Ptg. migalha; from 

*VARALIA (so DCELC) Prov. baralha ‘scuffle’, Cat., Arag. baralla, Sp. baraja, Ptg. 

baralha; from VITALIA ‘vital parts of the head’, OFr. viailles ‘temples’, Prov. 

vialhas (now vialho ‘cheek’), Ast. bidaya; from *FUNERALIA ‘funeral’, Fr. 

funerailles, Prov. funeralhas, OSp. funeralias; from *ANTIQUALIA, It. anticaglia 

‘antique’, Sp. antigualla, Ptg. antig(u)alha; we have already looked at the reflexes 

of INTRALIA (§6h) and *GRANALIA (§9v). A political term that found wide 

currency in the Middle Ages and has continued in use is *REPREHENSALIA, from 

which come OIt. ripresaglia, now rappresaglia ‘reprisal’, Rh. represalias, Fr. 

représaille, old reprisaille, Prov. represalha, OCat. represalla, now represalia, Sp. 

represalia, Ptg. represália. 

f) Examples of group-words formed in this way are OIt. pedonaglia 

‘foot-soldiers’, OFr. peonaille, Prov. pezonalha, Cat. peonalla; It. poveraglia 

‘poor people’, Ven. poeragia, OFr. povraille, Occ. pauralho (and paurilho), Cat. 

pobralla, Log. poberadza, Camp. poberitalla; It. gentaglia ‘rabble’, Cat. gentalla, 

Sp. gent(u)alla, Ptg. gentalha, Camp. gentalla; It. frataglia ‘crowd of monks’, 

Prov. frairalha, Ptg. fradalhada, cf. Fr. frocaille, Log. padradza (from Sp. padre) 

126

127 

127 

with the same meaning. This way of forming nouns indicating groups of 

persons or things, often with a pejorative meaning, is common in Italian and 

Sardinian, and Rhaeto-Romance also has its share, thus Surs. utschleglia, Eng. 

utschellaglia (birds, cf. It. uccellaia), Surs. vermaneglia, Eng. vermiglia (vermin, 

cf. It. verminaia; formerly with plural concord, see §6b), Surs., Eng. plebaglia, 

also Eng. racaglia (‘rabble’, cf. It. plebaglia), Surs. pastreglia, Eng. pastriglia 

(shepherds, cf. Camp. pastoralla), Surs. mattatschaglia, Eng. mattanaglia, 

mattaniglia (boys, cf. It. ragazzaglia, Log. pittsinadza, Camp. pittšokkalla), Surs. 

laudavaglias, Eng. lodavaglias (‘fulsome praise’), Surs. ferdaglia, Eng. fradaglia 

(‘intense cold’), Eng. frus-chaglia (‘dry twigs’, cf. Fr. broussailles, Camp. 

fustigalla); one interesting development has likewise affected both Italian and 

Rhaeto-Romance, and that is the treatment of It. famiglia ‘family’, Surs. 

fumeglia, Eng. famaglia (fameglia) as collectives, and the creation from them of 

famiglio, fumegl and famagl respectively for a ‘servant’. One more example of 

a formation from a local area is the Cat. serralla, Sp. cerraja, Ptg. serralha 

‘sow-thistle’ from Spanish Latin SERRALIA, which I take to be a plural form. 

Then there are the reflexes of a word referred to a different kind of etymon 

ending in -ACULA, namely TENACULA ‘holding instruments’, but which 

behave, notably the Sardinian forms, as if they come from *TENALIA (cf. 

*SONALIA above): these are It. tanaglia (tenaglia) ‘pincers’, Tyrol. tanaia, Friul. 

tana(i)e, Fr. tenailles, Prov. tenalhas, Cat. estenalles, Sp. (an-/en-)tenalla, Log. 

tenadzas, Camp, tenallas (cf. Log. tenayu ‘petiole’, from TENACULU, HWS, §30). 

Another form in -CULA is *CERNICULA ‘partings in the hair’, which has given 

LEng. tschernaglia/tscharnaglia ‘lock’, ‘tress’, Sp. cerneja ‘fetlock’, Ptg. 

cernelha ‘withers’, the connection seemingly being in the meaning of ‘tufts of 

hair’, cf. It. cernecchio ‘lock of ruffled hair’, Friul. cernè$li (M.-L., Schicks.); 

the Latin word also survives in Sard. (Cent.) kerrikru, (Log.) kerrigu, (Camp.) 

tšerrigu ‘sieve’. Other groups of words of similar formation but uncertain 

origin are Fr. limaille, Occ. limalho, Cat. llimalla, Sp. limalla, Ptg. limalha

128 

‘filings’, Fr. rocaille ‘pebbles’, Occ. roncalho, (Cat. rocall), Sp. rocalla 

‘pebbles’, ‘beads’, Ptg. rocalha ‘beads’, Sp. quebraja ‘crack’, Ptg. 

quebralhão ‘a bad lot’, Sp. barbajas, Ptg. barbalhos ‘rootlets’. 

g) Apart from the forms in -ILIA (with both long and short vowel) that 

we have already looked at (including VIRILIA in §6h and ERVILIA in §9w), there 

are a number of others to be noted, though in general this formation has been 

less productive than -ALIA, and there is always the problem of sorting out which 

of the modern forms go back to -ILIA and which to a feminine singular -ICULA. 

*IACILIA ‘beds’ gives Prov. jazilha, OCat. jailla, now jeia, and Sp. yacija, to 

which we may compare It. giaciglio, evidently newly formed from *giaciglia. A 

similar SEDILIA ‘seats’ has given Prov. sezilha (and sezilh), OCat. se(z)illa, OSp. 

seija (appearing as seyia in Berceo, S. Dom., 45d), Ptg. silha ‘(base for) a row 

of beehives’. Greek CONCHYLIA ‘shellfish’, Latinized as *CONQUILIA, has 

yielded It. co(n)chiglia (with Neap. sconciglie direct from the Greek), Fr. 

coquille, Prov. cauquilha, now couquiho, Cat. conquilla, Sp. alconcilla (from 

Mozarabic); other forms from the Latin singular are Algarve conquilho, Log. 

konkidzu, Camp, konkillu. The HWS (§48) quotes two Sardinian forms with 

cognates elsewhere. Firstly, we have Log. binkidza < *VINCILIA ‘withy’, ‘bond’ 

(for which the DCELC gives binzillu as the Campidanian equivalent), which 

corresponds to OIt. vinciglia, later vinciglio, Friul. vinseie, Occ. vinciho, 

venciho, ‘clematis’, and to the masculine forms Béarn. vensilh, bencilh, Cat. 

vencill, Sp. vencejo, Ptg. vincilho (vencelho). The other word is kiskidza ‘dead 

twig’from QUISQUILIA, a byform of QUISQUILIAE ‘refuse’ which is the source of 

the learned It. quisqui(g)lia ‘trifles’ and Sp. quisquilla ‘quibble’. For Rumanian, 

Meyer-Lübke (Schicks.) quotes Macedo-Rumanian forms which preserve the 

palatalized l lost in standard Rumanian: kurvaril’e (-ăr-?), frătsil’e, mbugutsil’e. 

The first two seem to correspond to curvărie ‘prostitution’ and frăŃie 

128

129 

129 

‘brotherhood’, and the last may be the equivalent of bogăŃie ‘wealth’ (the 

Mac.-Rum. adjectival form is imbugat = Rum. bogat); if so, this points to -ILIA 

as being the origin of the productive abstract ending -ie (cf. sărăcie ‘poverty’, 

veselie ‘gaiety’, bărbăŃie ‘manhood’), perhaps with support from the Greek -ía. 

In Italian, -iglia has become a collective ending like -aglia, so mondiglia 

‘siftings’, OIt. scoviglia ‘sweepings’, from late Latin SCOPILIA(E) formed as 

QUISQUILIA(E), which is matched by OFr. (Comté) esquevilles, Prov. 

escobilha/escombrilha, Cat. escobilla/escubia/escombrilles, Sp. escobilla, Ptg. 

escovilha. MOBILIA ‘movables’ appears as the learned formations mobilia, 

mobília ‘furniture’ in Italian and Portuguese; Rhaeto-Romance also has learned 

mobi(g)lia, but besides this the popular muaglia ‘cattle’ (with a sing. muvel) 

which we looked at previously. An -ILIA form may also underlie Sp. vasija, Ptg. 

vasilha, for which collective meanings are given beside the basic one of ‘cask’. 

There are also traces of a similar -ULIA in words like Log. kimudza ‘kindling’, 

farfarudza ‘crumb’, Log. funduludza, Camp. fundurulla ‘dregs’, It. cespuglio 

‘thicket’, rimasuglio ‘residue’, Mil. fregüj ‘crumbs’ (what is the origin of Surs. 

ratatuglia, Eng. rattatuglia ‘rabble’, Fr. ratatouille?). 

12. Adjectival neuters. 

a) At this point it may be good to continue to look at the old adjectival 

neuters, which include the forms in -ARIA, -ORIA and -ANEA that I spoke of at 

the beginning of §11. Three of them, GRANDIA, VIRIDIA and FRONDEA/FRONDIA, 

we have already examined in §9a,w. Of the others, the most notable is FORTIA, 

which already appears in the form “per fortiam” in the 8th-century Formulae 

Senonenses, and has given the words for ‘strength’ in the various languages: It. 

forza, Friul. fuarze, Rh. forza, Fr. force, Prov. forsa, Cat. força, Sp. fuerza (Moz. 

força), Ptg. força (Rum. forŃă is a modern borrowing, and Sard. fortsa has been 

taken from Italian). Another plural from this declension, DULCIA, appears in It.

130 

dolcia ‘pig’s blood’, and may underlie the feminine forms of the adjective 

found elsewhere, e.g. Surs. dultscha, Eng. dutscha, Fr. douce, Prov. doussa, Cat. 

dolça, which appear from earliest times. There may also be certain traces of 

-ACIA plural forms from adjectives in -AX, perhaps crossed with -ACEA forms 

from those in -ACEUS, in such words as Sp. tenazas, OPtg. tenaças ‘pincers’, Sp. 

capaza, capacha ‘frail’, together with mordaza ‘gag’, which is flanked by Ptg. 

mordaça, Surs. murdetscha, Prov., Cat. mordassa, Fr. mordache (evidently a 

northern form) and It. mordacchia, which seems to represent MORDACEA × 

TENACULA. (For other -ACEA forms see 13c.) An -ICIA form is seen in the words 

for ‘sausage’, which are taken from FARTA SALSICIA ‘salted sausages’; here we 

have It. salsiccia, also salciccia, influenced by ciccia, the child’s word for 

‘meat’, Fr. saucisse, Prov. salsissa, saucissa, OCat. salciça, OSp. salciça, 

salciza, Sard. salsitsa, the modern Cat. salsitxa having been taken, like the Sp., 

Ptg. salchicha, from Italian. BONA can be seen in Rum. bunuri, Prov. bona, 

OSp. buena and OPtg. boas ‘goods’, ‘property’ (the Surs. buna ‘kiss’, Eng. 

buna ‘joke’ seem to be substantivized feminines); NOVA in It. nuova or pl. 

nuove ‘news’, Surs. nova(s), Cat. noves, Sp. nuevas, Ptg. novas, with echoes in 

OIt. novella, Fr. nouvelles. From PLANA (which might, however, be a feminine 

singular, for TERRA PLANA, though against this we have the Lombard Latin pl. 

planora) come It. piana ‘plain’, (Surs. plauna means ‘chasuble’), Fr. plaine, 

Prov., Cat. plana, Sp. llana, Ptg. chã (the words meaning a ‘plane’ or similar 

tool are deverbals). From *PLATTA we have SIt. pl. piattərə ‘plates’, ‘dishes’, 

and otherwise the singulars It. piatta ‘pontoon’, earlier ‘punt’, Rh. platta ‘plate’, 

Fr. platte ‘punt’, earlier ‘thin sheet of metal’, Prov. plata ‘metal plate’, ‘silver’, 

Cat. plata ‘dish’, ‘silver’, Sp. chata ‘lighter’ (evidently a western form), plata 

‘silver’ (from Prov.), Ptg. chata ‘lighter’, prata ‘silver’ (from Prov.; the Sard. 

pratta is from Spanish). Another form widely represented is FESTA (already a 

feminine sing. in late Latin): It. festa ‘festival’, Friul. fieste, Surs. fiasta, Eng. 

festa, OFr. feste, now fête, Prov., Cat. festa, Sp. fiesta, Ptg. festa, Sard. festa, 

130

131 

131 

Vegl. fyasta (the Rum. festă ‘trick’ is a borrowing). Another word which may 

have started as a neuter plural but appears as a feminine singular for ‘anguish’ 

in Dracontius in the 5th century is ANXIA; here the reflexes are not all popular 

— It., Cat., Sp. ansia, Ptg. ânsia, OFr. ainse, Prov. aisa (Log. ans(i)a is from 

Italian). Another adjective from late Latin is *GRASSIA, perhaps formed from 

the neuter of the comparative, CRASSIUS (cf. Laus., §682); here we have It. 

grascia ‘victuals’ as a plural, otherwise the singulars Surs., Eng. grascha 

‘manure’ (‘fat’ in OEng.), Fr. graisse ‘fat’, ‘grease’, Prov. graissa, OCat. greixa, 

Sp. grasa (from *GRASSA), Ptg. gra(i)xa ‘ditto’ (the DES gives Sard. rassa 

‘fattening’ as a deverbal). 

b) In other cases it is not so clear whether the original form is a neuter 

plural or a feminine singular. This is the case with the late Latin forms 

*CAMPANEA and *MONTANEA for ‘flat country’ and ‘mountainous country’ 

possibly understood with TERRA ; here we have Rum. câmpie, It. campagna, 

montagna, Friul. cjampagne, montagne, Surs. campagna, muntogna, Eng. 

champagna (LEng. champogna), muntagna, Fr. champagne, montagne, Prov. 

campagna, montagna, Cat. campanya, montanya, Sp. campaña, montaña, Ptg. 

campanha, montanha, Camp. Muntandža. Even more difficult is -ARIA, which 

we have already met in the case of tree names. Here we have forms like 

CALDARIA, OVARIA, LUMINARIA, *CARRARIA, BRACHIARIA, RIPARIA; also 

PANARIA, which I overlooked at this stage of writing and have dealt with later in 

15d. Of these, CALDARIA, *CARRARIA, BRACHIARIA and RIPARIA are almost 

certainly feminines. From OVARIA we have a Rum. pl. oare ‘poultry’, showing 

that this is indeed an old neuter, but the feminine forms found elsewhere for 

‘ovary’ seem to be unconnected with this. LUMINARIA is the plural of LUMINARE 

used substantivally to mean a ‘window’, as in Sp. lumbrera, Ptg. 

lumeeira/lumieira ‘skylight’, lumeira ‘transom’; these words also have 

meanings connected with the emitting of light, as do the cognate Rum.

132 

lumănare ‘candle’, OIt. luminaria/lum(in)iera ‘light’, ‘lantern’, Surs. glimera, 

Eng. glümera ‘daylight’, Fr. lumière ‘light’, Prov. lum(i)niera ‘ditto’, Cat. 

llumanera ‘lamp’. One form surviving in a plural function is OIt. telaia, Neap. 

telara ‘looms’ from *TELARIA. Another plural from an -ARE noun, ALTARIA 

‘altars’, did not itself survive, but gave rise to a new singular ALTARIU, of which 

the modern reflexes are Rum. altar (of which the pl. altare may in fact continue 

ALTARIA, cf. căldare, cărare from CALDARIA, *CARRARIA), ONeap. altaro, Val 

Breg. alteir, Val Gard. outere (Schicks.), OFr. altier, Prov. altari (but Cat. alter, 

Sp. otero, Ptg. outeiro ‘hillock’ are now referred to ALTUS). Another -ARIU form 

which developed from -ARE is *COCHLEARIU ‘spoon’; here the modern 

languages have forms derived from either *COCHLEARE or *COCHLEARIU, often 

with change to the feminine gender and a feminine ending added: It. 

cucchiaio/cucchiaia/cucchiara, Fr. cuiller/cuillère, Prov. culher/culhera, Cat. 

cullera, Sp. cuchar (OSp., fem.)/cuchara, Ptg. colhar (OPtg., fem.; M.-L., 

Schicks., also gives an old cochar)/colher (fem.), Sard. (Nuor.) kokariu, (Log.) 

kogardzu, (Camp.) krogalla. Two other plural forms in -ARIA are CENTENARIA 

and MILIARIA, which have survived as plurals in It. centinaia ‘hundreds’ and 

migliaia ‘thousands’, but these are are unsupported by feminine forms 

elsewhere, unless Ptg. milheiras ‘roe’ corresponds, rather than being formed 

from milho ‘millet’. In Rumanian, nouns of the -ARE class were incorporated 

into the -ARIU class, with the ending -ar, and any nouns with this ending that do 

not refer to animate beings have joined the “mixed” declension, so that in this 

sense the -ARIA form is still preserved in a plural function. Thus we have 

grânare ‘granaries’, mădulare ‘limbs’, amnare ‘steels (for striking fire)’, 

cuibare ‘nests’, ziare ‘newspapers’, ‘journals’, ştergare ‘towels’, pătrare 

‘quarters’, numerare ‘ready cash’, sertare ‘drawers’, with neologisms like 

dicŃionare ‘dictionaries’, sanctuare ‘sanctuaries’, vestiare ‘cloakrooms’, 

itinerare ‘itineraries’, onorare ‘fees’, exemplare ‘copies of a book’. There are 

also other neologisms in -ariu belonging to the same declension, such as salariu 

132

133 

133 

‘salary’, and in these the plural combination -ie has been replaced by -ii, as 

salarii (with article -le). 

c) A similar -ORIA formation is seen in TONSORIA, *CISORIA, which may 

well be plurals, considering their use to mean ‘shears’, ‘scissors’; here we have 

It. cesoia, cesoie (and old cisoie) ‘shears’, Pavia tezoira (with vowel 

dissimilation), Romagn. tuzura (and cf. the old verb tosorare), Friul. sizore, OFr. 

cisoires, Upper Maine tousoires, Prov. tosoira and tesoiras with dissimilation, 

cisoiras, OCat. tosoras, tesores, now tisores, and cisores, Sp. tijeras (with -er- < 

-uer- < -oir-), Gal. tosoira, Ptg. tesoira, tesoura (and old tisoura; cf. also Gal. 

cezoiro, Ptg. cisoiro ‘strap’, given by Wartburg); related forms are Rum. 

tunsoare ‘shearing’ (re-formed on tunde) and Log. tusordzu ‘shearing place and 

time’. For *COOPERTORIA, if this belongs here, we have It. copertoia, Sp. 

cobertera, Ptg. cobertoura ‘lid’, all flanked by other forms in -o, but this may 

be a case of a later formation of masculine and feminine pairs, which we shall 

look at in due course. In general the -ORIA forms are as difficult to classify as 

the -ARIA ones, though Meyer-Lübke (Schicks.) lists all the present-day 

feminine forms as if they had come from neuters. As in the case of -ARIU > -ar, 

Rumanian has mixed-declension nouns in -or < -ORIU (this -ORIU also replaced 

-ORE in masculine agent nouns, just as -ARIU replaced -ARE), with the result that 

we find -oare as the corresponding plural form representing the plural -ORIA, 

just as it represents the feminine singular -ORIA in other cases. Examples of 

such plurals are cuptoare ‘ovens’ (< *COCTORIA), ajutoare ‘aid’, dormitoare 

‘bedrooms’, and many neologisms like motoare, generatoare, transformatoare, 

acumulatoare, condensatoare, carburatoare and so on; there are also new 

mixed-declension forms in -oriu, with pl. -orii, like those in -ariu, -arii, as 

auditoriu, abatoriu ‘abattoir’, consistoriu, refectoriu, repertoriu, territoriu. In 

the Romance languages in general, the form resulting from -ORIU (and 

sometimes -ORE) is used to make nouns denoting a place where something is

134 

done or the name of a tool, while the corresponding -ORIA form generally 

denotes a tool. These modern feminines denoting tools can surely hardly be 

traced back to old plural forms, and are often flanked by masculines; an 

example is seen in Rum. strecurătoare ‘strainer’, ‘colander’ (the verb strecura 

corresponds to It. trascolare) beside It. colatoio (cf. colatore ‘drainage 

channel’), Rh. culader, Fr. couloir/couloire, Occ. couladou, Cat. colador, Sp. 

coladero/colador/coladera, Ptg. coadouro/coador/coadeira (with change of 

suffix; so also Sp., or is this a case of -er- < -uer-?), Log. koladordzu/koladore, 

Camp. koladrožu/koladori. 

d) Further examples of adjectival neuters are provided by the gerundive 

and the participles, among which the past participle is preeminent. (For the 

transference of such forms from plural to singular, cf. the fate of words like 

agenda and data in present-day English.) Here again, it is not always easy to 

determine whether the original Latin form was a neuter plural or a feminine 

singular, but in one case at least Rumanian provides a plural form. From 

MERENDA ‘things to be earned’ we have Rum. merinde ‘provisions’; elsewhere 

the word has become a singular meaning a ‘light meal’, so It. merenda, Rh. 

marenda, OFr. marende/merande, Prov. merenda, Cat. berena, Sp. merienda, 

Ptg. merenda, Sard. merenda, Vegl. marjanda. Similarly FAC(I)ENDA ‘things to 

be done’ gives It. faccenda ‘business’, ‘work to do’, Surs. fatschenta, Eng. 

fatschenda, Prov. fasenda, OCat. faena, now feina, Sp. hacienda, Ptg. fazenda, 

and a similar form underlies OFr. fesandier (the Sard. fattšenda is from Italian). 

From the Western church word OFFERENDA ‘offering’ we have OIt. offerenda, 

Surs. unfrenda, Fr. offrande, Prov. of(e)renda, ufrenda etc., Cat. ofrena, Sp. 

ofrenda (shown by its stressed vowel to be either borrowed or semi-learned), 

Ptg. oferenda, offrenda. Another Western church word is LEGENDA ‘the story of 

a saint’s life etc. to be read on his saint’s day’, which became the word for a 

‘legend’: It. leggenda (borrowed into Rum. as legendă; also OIt. lienda), Rh. 

134

135 

135 

legenda, Fr. (learned) légende, Prov. ligenda/legenda, OCat. ligenda, now 

llegenda (also learned), Sp. leyenda, Ptg. lenda, and cf. Sard. lenda 

‘information’. From MOLENDA ‘corn to be ground’ we get It. molenda ‘multure’, 

Sav. molanda, Dauph. molenda, Land. moulendo, Béarn. moulende ‘ditto’, Sp. 

molienda ‘(a) grinding’, Ptg. moenda ‘ditto’. VIVENDA ‘things necessary for 

life’ has given Fr. viande, formerly meaning ‘food’ in general (‘viands’) but 

now specialized to mean ‘meat’ (cf. the similar specialization of the Engl. 

meat); this form was evidently borrowed elsewhere, as we find It. vivanda, NIt. 

vianda, Surs. vivonda, Eng. vivanda, Prov. vi(v)anda, Cat., Sp., Ptg. vianda, 

Camp. vianda (from Genoese). But indigenous forms are also found: Prov. 

vivenda ‘food’, Sp. vivienda, Ptg. vivenda ‘dwelling-place’ (Rohlfs, §1098, also 

speaks of an OIt. vivenda preceding vivanda, but I have not found it quoted 

elsewhere). Similarly BIBENDA ‘things for drinking’ gives OGen. bevenda, Sic. 

vivenna (‘weak wine’), OFr. buvande, Prov., Cat. bevenda, OSp. bebienda; 

French influence is seen in It. bevanda, Surs. buonda, Eng. bavanda (variants 

of bubronda, bavranda, formed from the verbs bubrar, bavrer), Prov. bevanda. 

From PRAEBENDA ‘things to be supplied’, sometimes with change of prefix, we 

get Rum. premândă, It. provenda/profenda/provianda (and old prevenda) 

‘provender’, earlier also ‘prebend (ecclesiastical office or stipend)’Surs. 

pervenda, Eng. prevenda ‘ditto’, OFr. provend(r)e ‘provender’, ‘prebend’, Prov. 

pre-/per-/pro-venda, Cat. Latin “cum ipso meo provenerio”, OPtg., Sard. 

provenda. The same word is also found as a learned borrowing for denoting the 

office of ‘prebend’ (not the person): Rum. prebendă, It. prebenda, Fr. prébende, 

Prov., Cat., Sp., Ptg. prebenda. Then there are other isolated formations. For 

Italian, Rohlfs (§§1098-99) gives chiudenda or serranda ‘oven-door’ 

(CLAUDENDA, SERANDA ‘to be closed’), tregenda ‘horde of witches’ and dial. 

tresenda/tresanda ‘lane’ from TRANSIENDA ‘to be passed’, dialect forms 

batenda/batanda ‘threshing (season)’, metenda ‘harvest’, sovenda (SEQUENDA) 

‘logging chute (runway)’; however these may not all have come from plural

136 

forms. There is also another word, mudande ‘drawers’, ‘trunks’, from MUTANDA 

‘things to be changed’, which has counterparts in Eng. müdandas, OFr. muande, 

Occ. mu(d)ando. Other Italian forms have counterparts in derivatives, so It. 

(also Eng.) filanda ‘spinning-mill’ beside Surs. filantaria, Fr. filandière, Occ. 

fi(e)landiero, Cat. filanera, Sp. hilandera, Ptg. fiandeira, or It. lavanda, with 

Surs., LEng. lavonda, UEng. lavanda, beside Fr. lavandière (cf. Engl. launder), 

Occ. lavandiero, Cat. llavanera, Sp. lavandera, Ptg. lavandeira (note also Fr. 

buandière, where other languages only have forms based on the past participle 

of this verb, see below). Compare also Occ. teissendier ‘weaver’, which is also 

used as a name, Tissandier, and has a cognate in the Cat. place name Teixiner. 

One more learned form widely used is REPRIMENDA, which gives the words for 

‘reprimand’, Rum. reprimandă (from Fr.?), It., Cat., Sp., Ptg. reprimenda, Rh. 

reprimanda, Fr. réprimande (and old reprimende), Occ. reprimendo/ 

reprimando. 

e) In the case of the present participle, the neuter plural forms, if they 

survived, would be indistinguishable from the nouns in -TIA, and the same 

thing can be said for the future participle forms in -TURA, -SURA; however, we 

may perhaps see an old plural ADVENTURA ‘things to come’ in It. avventura 

‘adventure’, ‘chance’, ‘luck’, Surs. ventira, Eng. ventüra (these two only with 

the meaning of ‘luck’), Fr. aventure, Prov., Cat., Sp., Ptg. aventura. It is when 

we come to the past participle, though, that we can find sure traces of 

developments out of neuter forms, in which Rumanian is also involved, though 

even here we are not on absolutely certain ground. The problem, as before, is 

that we need to distinguish between forms that go back to old neuters and 

others that represent old feminine singulars; as examples of the latter we may 

quote It. armata and its cognates, which have probably come from CLASSIS 

ARMATA, or Fr. corvée, Prov. corroada, derived from OPERA CORROGATA, while 

136

137 

137 

the widespread forms corresponding to TRA(NS)VERSA probably represent VIA 

(TRABS) TRANSVERSA. There has been much dispute over the origin of the 

modern feminine forms down the years, and I have turned up two articles 

referred to by Grandgent in his Introduction to Vulgar Latin, p. 21, which 

reinforce my own views; one is by C. Collin in Archiv für lateinische 

Lexicographie und Grammatik, XIII, pp. 453 sqq., and the other by L.H. 

Alexander, “Participial Substantives of the -ata type in the Romance 

languages” (Columbia University Press, 1912), in which he summarizes 

Collin’s conclusions and then gives a comprehensive listing of the French 

forms using the -ATA suffix, categorized according to the class of meaning. 

Collin, after giving a synopsis of the views of his predecessors, takes up the 

point that I have referred to earlier, namely the tendency in late Latin for the 

4th-declension deverbals in -TUS, -SUS to be supplanted by the substantivized 

neuter forms of the past participles. He points first to a number of participial 

neuter nouns found in classical Latin, whose plurals appear in late Latin as 

feminine singulars; among them are DEBITA, DICTA, FACTA, MERITA, PECCATA, 

PLACITA, PRAECEPTA, PROMISSA, SCRIPTA. He then gives other late Latin 

participial feminine nouns with active meanings, corresponding to classical 

forms in -TIO, -SIO, and points out that in general the nouns in -IO were literary, 

while those in -TUS, -SUS were preferred in popular usage (and were, as we 

have seen, subject to replacement by those in -TUM, -SUM, -TA, -SA); these 

include ACCESSA (RE-), ASCENSA, CENSA, COLLECTA (only found in classical 

Latin in the sense of PECUNIA COLLECTA or, as a plural, for OPERA COLLECTA), 

CONSULTA, DEFENSA (OF-), DEPRENSA, EXPENSA (DIS-, IM-), MISSA, REMISSA 

(both as singular and as plural), PUNCTA (‘prick’), TINCTA (‘stroke of the pen’). 

Collin gives it as his opinion that in view of the interchange between the -TUS, 

-SUS and -TUM, -SUM forms and the tendency for the neuter plurals to become 

used as feminine singulars (and he quotes other neuter nouns to back up his 

argument) it is most likely that the widespread formation in Romance of

138 

feminine nouns based on participial stems has its origin in neuter plural forms 

such as those given above (I note that such feminine forms are rare in 

Rumanian, and in Sardinian have generally been introduced from outside). 

Typical modern forms are those for ‘harvest’, It. (rac)colta (beside colletta for 

‘collection (in church)’), Surm. culetga, Fr. cueillette (OFr. coilloite), Prov. 

culhita, Cat. collita, Sp. cosecha (Ast. collecha), Ptg. colheita, Sard. goddetta; 

for ‘expense’, It. spesa, Friul. speze, Surs. spesa, Eng. spaisa, OFr. (d)espoise, 

Prov., Cat. despesa, OSp. espesa, Ptg. despesa, Sard. ispesa, spesa from 

Italian; for ‘point’, ‘tip’, It. punta, Friul. ponte, Surs. puntga, Eng. punta, pütta, 

Fr. pointe, Prov. punta, poncha, Cat., Sp. punta, Ptg. ponta, Sard. punta; for 

‘tint’ or ‘ink’, It. tinta, Surs. tenta, Eng. tinta, Fr. teinte, Prov. tinta (tenta), 

tencha, Cat., Sp., Ptg. tinta; for ‘taking’, It., Surs. presa, Eng. praisa, Fr. prise, 

Prov., Cat., Sp., Ptg. presa; for ‘promise’, It. promessa, Fr. promesse, Prov. 

promessa, Sp. promesa, Ptg. promessa, Sard. promissa (and Log. promitta); for 

‘debt’ (with a more limited range), OIt. detta, Fr. dette, Prov. deuta beside 

more usual masc. deute, Sp. deuda, Ptg. dívida, elsewhere masculine forms. 

Similar forms can be found as the outcomes of many of the other participles 

given above, together with countless others, such as DIVISA, *CONQUISTA/ 

*CONQUESTA, PRESSA, RESPONSA/*RESPOSTA, *OFFERTA, SALSA, *RENDITA, 

PERDITA, VENDITA, IUNCTA, SUSPECTA, while for ideas such as ‘entrance’, ‘exit’, 

‘rise’, ‘fall’, ‘coming’, ‘going’ the various languages similarly have feminine 

participial forms, though not necessarily based on the same root. 

f) Here let me take the formations in -ATA, and specifically those 

indicating an amount, especially the amount contained in something, of which I 

have found one single example in Rumanian. Thus *BUCCATA ‘things held in the 

mouth’ has given the modern words for ‘mouthful’: Rum. bucată (which has 

now lost its original signification and become the general word for ‘piece’, 

though the pl. bucate means ‘food’; for the semantic development, cf. Fr. 

138

139 

139 

morceau, Engl. bit), It. boccata, Surs. buccada, UEng. bucheda, LEng. boccada, 

Fr. bouchée, Prov., Cat., OSp., OPtg. bocada (as against modern Sp., Ptg. 

bocado), Sard. buccada. This last word is only used for liquids, whereas for 

solids the word is mossada, formed from mossa < MORSA, perhaps a plural for 

‘things bitten off’; the cognates elsewhere are It. morsa, Surs. morsa/miersa, 

UEng. müersa, LEng. morsa, OFr. morse, Prov. mo(r)sa, Cat. mossa, (OSp. 

only muesso), Ptg. mossa. A slightly similar form to *BUCCATA is *BUCA-TU/-TA 

from a Germanic root meaning ‘lye’, which has given It. bucato ‘washing’, Fr. 

buée ‘steam’ (cf. buandière above), OSp. bugada ‘lye’. From PENSATA ‘things 

weighed’ we get the words for a ‘weighing’, It. pesata, Fr. pesée, Occ. pesado, 

Cat., Sp., Ptg. pesada, cf. Sard. pesada ‘a raising’. *PUGNATA has given the 

words for ‘handful’ (as well as for ‘a blow with the fist’), so It. pugnata, Surs. 

pugnada, Eng. pugneda, Fr. poignée, Pr. ponhada, Cat. punyada; the Sp. 

puñada and Ptg. punhada only have the latter meaning, and for the former 

puñado, punhado are used. Among later formations, for a ‘cartload’ we have It. 

carrettata, Fr. charretée, Prov., Cat., Sp. carretada, Ptg. carr(et)ada; cf. also 

Surs. cargada, UEng. chargeda, LEng. chargiada, Occ. cargado, Cat. 

carregada. For a ‘boatload’ there are the similar It. barcata, Fr. barquée, Occ. 

barcado, Cat., Sp., Ptg. barcada. For a ‘brood’ there are various words based 

either on NIDUS or on CUBARE: It. nidiata, covata, Surs. gnivada, cuada, UEng. 

gnieveda, cuveda, LEng. gnieuada, cuvada, Fr. nichée, couvée, Occ. ni(s)ado, 

couvado, Cat. ni(u)ada, covada, Sp. nidada, Ptg. ninhada, Sard. niada. I have 

boldly listed all these forms as going back to old neuters though, as I have said, 

it may only be the type of formation itself that is neuter in origin. As is shown 

by Alexander’s examples taken from French, the number of -ATA forms is legion, 

and their range of signification very varied, other typical fomations being 

illustrated by It. gelata, ‘frost’, gettata ‘throw’, cavalcata ‘ride on horseback’, 

‘cavalcade’, pescata ‘catch of fish’, giornata ‘space of a day’, ‘a day’s journey’, 

with cognates elsewhere.

140 

g) I have not yet spoken of the forms of this type which are still 

preserved in a plural function in Rumanian and sporadically in Italian, often 

with singular forms elsewhere. Here we have, from PECCATA ‘sins’, Rum. 

păcate, OIt. peccata/peccate, SIt. peccatərə, to which compare the isolated Sp. 

“por pecada” in Alex. P 335a, and OSard. peccada, said to have been taken from 

Italian; from FACTA ‘deeds’, Rum. pl. fapte, It. sing. fatta ‘sort’, Surs. fatga, Eng. 

fatta ‘affair’, OFr. faite ‘sort’, malefaite ‘misdeed’, Occ. fato/facho ‘deed’, 

‘affair’, Prov. malafacha ‘misdeed’, Cat. feita ‘sort’, OSp. hecha, Ptg. feita 

‘deed’, ‘occasion’; from VOTA ‘vows’, SIt. pl. vutura, to which correspond the 

singulars OFr. veue (in maleveue ‘disaster’), Prov. voda/vota ‘vow’, ‘festival’, 

Cat., Sp., Ptg. boda ‘wedding’; from RISA ‘laughs’, Rum. râsuri (and Collin 

gives a form râse), It. risa (also singular in dialect), and the singulars Sp., Ptg. 

risa (cf. also the cognate singulars It. risata, Surs. risada, Eng. riseda, Fr. risée, 

Prov., Cat. dial., Sp., Ptg. risada, where Rumanian has a pl. râsete, see below); 

from PEDITA ‘farts’, It. (Neap.) pl. pedətə, and the singulars Fr. dial. pète(s), Occ. 

peto ‘animal droppings’, Ptg. peida ‘arse’; from VERSA ‘verses’, Rum. viersuri, 

OIt. versa, OPtg. versas; Collin also gives Calab., Sic. vestita ‘clothes’, and It. 

gesta ‘feats’, which, also appearing as it does as a singular, is rather, here as 

elsewhere, to be considered as a borrowing from Fr. geste, which is itself of 

learned introduction from Latin. In Italian we also find the old plural forms 

precepta, merta (as PRAECEPTA, MERITA above), cantora ‘songs’ (or is this the 

other word ‘corners’ ?) and sensora ‘senses’, given by Meyer-Lübke (Schicks.), 

as well as tetta or tettora ‘roofs’, this last still preserved in southérn dialects, 

with a parallel Occ. (Dauph.) sing. techo, while Rumanian has the isolated 

cuvinte ‘words’, sing. cuvânt < CONVENTU, the process of semantic change 

being from ‘meeting’ via ‘dialogue’. We may also for convenience include here 

another 4th-declension noun which was attracted to this pattern, and that is 

QUIRITUS, a deverbal from QUIRITARE ‘cry aloud’; in many of the modern 

140

141 

141 

languages the first consonant appears as a g, and here, in Sursilvan at least, there 

might be crossing with GARRITUS, cf. grir < GARRIRE. Italian has grida (and SIt. 

gride) as a collective plural, as opposed to gridi for individual utterances, and 

similar forms are found for other words for ‘cries’, strida, stridi, and urla, urli, 

while Rumanian has the similarly formed strigăte, Ńipete for ‘cries’. Elsewhere 

we only find collective singulars, as Surs. grida, Eng. crida, Cat. crida, Sp., Ptg. 

grita; there are other similar forms, like OFr. crie, Prov. crida, meaning a 

‘proclamation’, but these are deverbals corresponding to the It. sing. grida. We 

also find a correspondence between Rum. pl. fremete ‘rustlings’ and the 

singulars OFr. friente and Sard. fremida ‘roar’, and a similar agreement in the 

kind of participial formation used is seen in Log. náskida, Camp. nášida and It. 

nascita. These last can hardly be plural forms in origin, but Bitti imbórvita, Log. 

imbórbida ‘offerings wrapped in cloths’, from *INVOLVITA would certainly seem 

to be, as do Log. prémidas ‘dysentery’ from *PREMITA and Log. (g)émida 

‘groan’ from GEMITA. 

h) Other forms that we have looked at already are OIt. pərtosərə 

(pertosa is also found), reposora, passa, Rum. pasuri, as well as the numerous 

other Rumanian formations, old and new, quoted in §4e and §10g, such as 

visuri, drepturi, vânaturi, dusuri, scrisuri (note that among them we find plurals 

like cursuri ‘flows’, ‘courses’, răspunsuri ‘answers’ corresponding to feminine 

singulars elsewhere). It will be recalled that some of the Rumanian -uri forms 

were paralleled by Lombard Latin forms, some of which echo the late Latin 

forms given above: praeceptora, censora, accessora, scriptora, ingressora (e-, 

re-)/-uras, mansoras, traversoras (perhaps partly negating what I said above 

with regard to TRANSVERSA), cursoras, mercatora, and tectora anticipating the 

tettora above. There are also Rumanian plurals in -e, like the new formations 

acte, subiecte, procese I quoted in §5c, and other words denoting sounds, 

similar to the proparoxytonic fremete, strigăte above, such as sunete ‘sounds’,

142 

mugete ‘bellowings’, suflete ‘breathings’, ‘lives’, ‘souls’, and râsete ‘bursts of 

laughter’, this perhaps a deverbal of RISITARE, as cuget-e ‘thought-s’ is of 

COGITARE. There are also some similar formations in -ate, as cântate ‘singings’, 

lătrate ‘barkings’, şuierate ‘whistlings’, ‘hissings’. All in all, the fact that 

Rumanian has so many participial formations of “mixed” declension 

corresponding to the Latin neuters, where the other languages have feminine 

forms, seems to me a strong argument for believing with Collin that the genesis 

of these latter formations, at least, lies with the old neuter plurals, which in their 

turn are based on concepts like ‘things collected’, ‘things spent’, ‘things 

promised’. 

13. Miscellaneous neuters surviving with a plural function. 

a) I have come to the end of the words which can be grouped together 

in classes, and am left with quite a number of miscellaneous words which have 

no special common link. Of these, some still retain their plural function in 

Rumanian and/or Italian, while others only survive as feminine singulars 

throughout the Romance-speaking area. So let me take the former group first, 

noting that it includes not only classical Latin neuter nouns, but also others that 

adopted neuter forms in late Latin. I am basing myself here on Italian forms 

listed by Rohlfs (§§368-370), and they constitute quite a formidable collection. 

Thus from PRATA ‘meadows’ we get the Italian dialectal plurals prata, prade, 

pratora and pratola (with dissimilation); there is also a singular form prata 

(and pl. pratas in Lombard Latin), and to this correspond Surs., LEng. prada, 

UEng. preda, OFr. pree, Prov. prada, OCat. prada and the place name Prades 

(Lausberg and others quote a Rum. praturi, but Rumanian scholars say no such 

form exists). VASA ‘vessels’ survives as a plural in Rum., OIt. vase, and as a 

feminine in Friul. vaze, Surs., OSp. vasa; Buck also gives VASA CAMPANA 

‘Campanian bronze instruments’ as the source of It. campana ‘bell’, which also 

142

143 

143 

spread to the Iberian Peninsula. The diminutive VASCELLA is also found as a 

plural form vascella in Old Italian, and otherwise appears widely as a 

collective feminine singular for ‘dishes’ in Surs. vischala (old vaschalla) with 

unitary vischi, Eng. vaschella with unitary vaschè, Fr. vaisselle, Prov. vaissella, 

Cat. vaixella, Sp. vajilla (evidently not of purely Castilian origin), Ptg. baixela 

(Sard. vašella is from Catalan). OSTIA ‘doors’, which was also a feminine 

singular as a place name, appears as a plural only in OIt. uscia, and otherwise 

has become a singular, so Rum. uşă/uşe, Surs. collective escha ‘doors’ with 

unitary esch, OFr. huisse, Prov. ussa. The collective sense of FERRA ‘irons’ can 

be seen in Rum. fiare ‘irons’, ‘chains’ (beside the regular plural fiere), similar 

to the OIt. ferra (and Lombard Latin ferroras), whereas OFr. ferre (hapax) 

‘ironwork’, Prov. ferra ‘ditto’ are singulars (in Catalan there is only one 

doubtful example of fera recorded, seemingly for masc. ferre, but the phrase en 

ferres could equally well come from the feminine as from the masculine); the 

Am. Sp. hierra and Ptg. ferra ‘branding’ are evidently deverbals, but Ptg. ferra 

‘shovel’ would seem to have developed out of the idea of ‘fire-irons’. Again, 

SIGNA ‘signs’ (feminine in late Latin) has given Rum. semne and OIt. (Sic.) 

singna (Monaci, No. 41) as plurals, and, as singulars, OFr. seingne (hapax), 

Prov. senha, OCat. senya, Sp. seña, Ptg. senha, Sard. sinna. The cognate 

INSIGNIA ‘insignia’ appears as a plural in OIt. insegna (in a manuscript variant 

of singna), but otherwise only as a singular in It. insegna ‘badge’, ‘signboard’, 

‘standard’, ‘ensign’, and similar Fr. enseigne, Prov. ensenha, Cat. ensenya, Sp. 

enseña (Portuguese only has the learned insignia); the Surs. enzenna/ansenna, 

Eng. insaina/insegna (Italianized) ‘sign’ also seem to be crossed with this form. 

FILA ‘threads’ is continued as a plural in Rum. fire and the It. collective fila as 

opposed to individual fili and also in Calab. filure; the Sp. sing. hila ‘lint (for a 

wound)’ would also seem to be a continuation of this, though in other senses it 

is more likely to be a deverbal of hilar, following the pattern of Fr. file ‘file’, 

‘row’, ‘line’, which has spread to other areas as well. CASTELLA ‘castles’

144 

(which also appears as castellas in Lombard Latin) is used by Dante as a plural 

castella, and this is flanked by castelle in other dialects; elsewhere it is only 

known as a place name, Sp. Castilla (and from Mozarabic the local place 

names Cazalla in Seville and Murcia and Cacella in Portugal), Prov., Cat., Ptg. 

Castella (Rum. pl. castele is a modern borrowing; the Portuguese form became 

the name of the Japanese kasutera cake). Italian has an old plural form mulina 

(and diminutive mulinella) from MOLINA ‘mill’ (actually an adjectival form 

coming from SAXA MOLINA ‘millstones’), which appears as a feminine in Prov., 

Cat., Sp. molina and Ptg. moina. SAXA ‘stones’ itself (feminine sing. in late 

Latin) is represented by the It. dial. pls. sasse, sassəra and Eng. collective 

sassa. Another adjectival form that replaced an earlier noun (unless it is a 

deverbal) is *IEIUNA for IEIUNIA ‘fasts’ (seemingly adjectivalized in “le ieiunia 

quattuor tempora” in the “Umbrian Confession”), which has given the It. dial. 

pls. jagiuna (ONeap.), digiune, digiunora, to which corresponds the Rum. 

ajunuri ‘eves’; singular forms are Surs. gigina, Eng. gegüna, OFr. jeune (fem. 

as well as masc.), Sp. en ayunas. A mysterious form *BOKJA or *BOTTJA 

appears in the Rum. pl. boŃuri ‘lumps’ (and in the fem. boaŃă, ‘pellet’ ?), and as 

a singular in It. bozza ‘boss’, ‘nautical stopper’ (I suspect that the similar 

boccia ‘bud’, ‘ball for bowling’, ‘head’ has been re-formed from *bocca on the 

pl. bocce and is therefore unconnected with bozza, cf. Rum. boacă ‘ball for 

bowling’, ‘head’, ‘turnip’; but the reverse may be the case, as we find the Surs. 

collective botscha for ‘hemp panicle’, ‘balls for bowling’, ‘round stones’), Fr. 

bosse, Prov. bossa ‘ditto’, Cat. bossoga ‘boss’, bossa ‘stopper’ (there is also a 

boç ‘muzzle’), Sp. boza, Ptg. boça ‘stopper’. For COAGULA ‘rennet’ we have 

Rum. pl. chiaguri (with metathesis) and the singulars Fr. dial. (Anjou) caille 

‘rennet’, ‘curds’, Fr.-Prov. (Forez.) calhas ‘buttermilk’, Sp. cuaja ‘slime 

collected in a dried-up pond’. CAPISTRA ‘halters’ has given the Rum. pl. 

căpestre (sing. căpăstru) and a form chavestra which Meyer-Lübke (Schicks., 

p. 135) labels “Ladin”; it may be Dolomitic, as it is not found in 

144

145 

145 

Rhaeto-Romance. From VINCULA ‘bonds’ comes OProv. Vincla ‘feast of St. 

Peter in Chains’. 

b) Other Rumanian and Italian pairs of words are Rum. linŃolii(le), 

‘winding-sheets’ (for the ending -ii cf. salarii, auditorii etc.), and It. collective 

pl. lenzuola, dial. lenzuole ‘sheets’ from LINTEOLA ‘small linen cloths’. From 

SCUTA ‘shields’ come Rum. scuturi and It. (OGen.) scue, (OMarch.) scudura, 

and similarly from VINA ‘wines’ Rum. vinuri, It. (Sic.) vinura. Parallel learned 

forms are Rum. servicii(le) and It. (OPied.) servixie from SERVITIA ‘services’, 

Rum. vestigii(le), It. vestigia, vestig(g)e (in Dante) from VESTIGIA ‘footprints’, 

and Rum. palate, OIt. palaza from PALATIA ‘palaces’ (though the Rumanian 

form is clearly not inherited; perhaps a borrowing from Bulgarian). SUSPIRIA 

‘sighs’ appears in re-formed Rum. suspine, It. dial. sospire. From AUGURIA 

‘auguries’ we get Rum. ogururi ‘omens’ (via Turkish) and OIt. agura, agurie 

‘ditto’ (sciagura ‘misfortune’ is a deverbal from sciagurare < *EXA(U)GURARE), 

Sard. sings. bonaura, malaura (dis-); in general only the sing. A(U)GURIU 

survived, but it may be that this is because in almost every area we find 

reflexes of IN BONA (MALA) HORA, which would effectively drive out A(U)GURIA. 

From CRIBRA ‘sieves’ we have Rum. ciure, It. dial. (Calab.) crivura, and as 

singulars Sic. criva, OCat. griva, and Sp. criba, Ptg. criva beside cribo, crivo, 

and from TRIBULA ‘threshing-sledges’ Rum. pl. trioare ‘flails’ beside the 

singulars It. tribbia ‘flail’ (and old tribbio), Calab. trilla, Sp. trilla (beside 

trillo) ‘threshing-harrow’ (this can also be a deverbal meaning ‘threshing’, like 

the Ptg. trilha, beside the masc. trilho ‘thresher’, and Log. triula, Camp. treula). 

VALLA ‘earth walls’, ‘ramparts’ gives the Rum. pl. valuri and the singulars Sp. 

valla ‘entrenchment’, Ptg. vala ‘ditch’. From UBERA ‘udders’, Rumanian has 

the pl. ugere and Old Italian the pl. ubera. The Lombard Latin sigillora ‘seals’ 

has its counterpart in Rum. sugele/sugie ‘whitlows’ (with u, as It. suggello 

‘seal’), but there is no Rumanian form corresponding to Lombard Latin

146 

sepolchrora ‘sepulchres’. The Celtic CAMBIA ‘exchanges’ finds a counterpart in 

OIt. cambiora; here Rumanian has schimburi, evidently a deverbal like OFr. 

change and OSp., Sard. cambia beside cambio, cambiu. SCAMNA ‘stools’ has 

given the Rum. pl. scaune ‘chairs’ and the OFr. sing. eschame and possibly the 

doubtful Catalan form escauna; the parallel *SCAMNIA has given Prov. escanha 

‘reeling machine’ and ONFr. escaigne, now écagne ‘skein’ (the origin of the 

English word; for the semantic change cf. écheveau ‘skein’ from SCABELLU 

‘stool’). A similar SCRINIA ‘caskets’ is the indirect source of Rum. sicrie 

‘coffins’ (via Hungarian) and of modern scrine ‘chests-of-drawers’; in the case 

of OIt. scrigne, Meyer-Lübke (Schicks.) lists the word as if a plural of scrigno 

‘casket’, though the Cambridge It. Dic. quotes an old sing. scrigna (in the case 

of a similar travaglie, travaglia ‘travails’, this word, and cognates elsewhere, is 

evidently a deverbal). We may also include here LOCA and IOCA, which are 

found in classical Latin alongside LOCI and IOCI; from LOCA ‘places’ we have 

Rum. locuri (old locure) ‘ditto’ and mijloace ‘means’, Lombard Latin locas and 

locora, OTusc. luogora, OUmbr. l(u)ocora, ORom. locora, SIt. lokəra, locura, 

locore, and the Prov. sing. l(u)oga/lu(e)ga, now l(i)ogo/luego, while from IOCA 

‘jokes’ we have Rum. jocuri, It. (Sic.) jocura, Occ. sing. jogo/juego ‘piece that 

one performs’ (a deverbal ?). We have already looked at VADA in the section on 

the -ORA plurals, §10e. 

c) Some of the forms with plural function are limited to Rumanian. 

Thus we have lucruri (old lucrure) ‘things’ from LUCRA ‘gains’, cuiburi ‘nests’, 

apparently from *CUBIA though there is some doubt about this (the Mac.-Rum. 

form is cul’b), and seuri as the plural of seu < SEBUM ‘tallow’. From the plant 

world (not included earlier) we have the plurals aiuri, fânuri, meiuri, 

oarze/orzuri, vâscuri from the reflexes of ALLIUM ‘garlic’ (cf. Ptg. alhas 

‘cloves of garlic’), FENUM ‘hay’, MILIUM ‘millet’, HORDEUM ‘barley’ and 

146

147 

147 

VISCUM ‘mistletoe’. From LICIA ‘threads of a warp’ comes the Rum. pl. iŃe 

‘spun yarn’ (with the rare sings. iŃ and iŃă, re-formed from the plural); 

elsewhere we find the sings. Fr. lice/lisse, Prov. liça ‘warp’, Arag. liza ‘string’ 

and Ptg. liça ‘heddle’. From IUDICIA ‘judgments’ comes judeŃe ‘districts’, and 

from HOSPITIA ‘entertainments’, ‘lodgings’ ospeŃe ‘feasts’. Similar forms are 

seen in fâneŃe ‘hayfields’ (sing. fânaŃ) from *FENACEA ‘cereal grasses’, which 

elsewhere has given the sings. Pied. fnasa, Fr. fenasse, Occ. fenasso, Cat. 

fenassa ‘cereal grasses’, and in vineŃe ‘vineyards’ (sing, vinaŃ) from VINACEA 

‘refuse from wine-pressing’, which elsewhere has given the sings. It. vinaccia 

‘ditto’, Surs. collective vinatscha ‘barberries’, Fr. vinasse, Prov., Cat. vinassa, 

Sp. vinaza, Ptg. vinhaça, Cent. Sard. vinattha, Log. binatta, Camp. binattsa, 

either with the Italian meaning or with that of ‘the last wine drawn from the 

dregs’. FRENA ‘reins’ is continued as frâne, frâie and frâiuri, VENENA ‘poisons’ 

as veninuri and PRANDIA ‘lunches’ as prânzuri. BALTEA, beside BALTEI, ‘belts’, 

‘terrace walls in an amphitheatre’, has given Rum. balŃuri ‘veils wound around 

brides’ heads’, while for ‘animals with a band of colour’ the words are balŃi 

(masc.) or balŃe (fem.) according to the sex; as singular forms we find It. balza 

‘band of colour’, ‘flag of the Republic of Siena (striped?)’ (cf. balzo ‘terrace’, 

‘small escarpment’), Occ. balse, bauso ‘escarpment’, ‘grass terrace’, OSp. 

balza, OPtg. balça ‘flag of the Templars’, and apparently also Ptg. balça, Minh. 

bouça ‘thicket’, ‘protected forest’. The Rum. cântece ‘songs’ from CANTICA is 

clearly of popular origin, but the sings. It. cantica and Sp., Ptg. cantiga are 

semi-learned. An Eastern Romance word is condeie ‘pens’ from Greek 

kondýlia ‘little knuckles’, and another is farmece ‘charms’ from phármaka 

‘drugs’. “Mixed” plurals in -e are also found in certain modern borrowings, 

such as animale ‘animals’, centre ‘centres’, capitole ‘chapters’ and secole 

‘centuries’. (For other special Rumanian formations see the plurals in -ORA.)

148 

d) On the other hand, various forms are preserved in Italy and 

elsewhere which are not found in Rumanian. Thus from DONA ‘gifts’ we have 

OIt. pl. donora ‘betrothal gifts’ beside the sings. OFr. do(u)ne, Prov., OSp. 

dona, OPtg. doa ‘ditto’. Similarly from PODIA ‘platforms’, ‘balconies’ 

(Lombard Latin poiora) we get popular Tuscan i poggia ‘hillocks’, with the 

same masculine article as seen earlier in Dante’s i capella; elsewhere we have 

the sings. Cent. Rh. (Bergün) puozza ‘prop’ (Wart.), OFr. puie ‘parapet’, 

‘balcony’, Occ. poujo ‘waste land crossed by a road’ (in the case of Cat. forn 

de puja, Sp. horno de poya, Ptg. forno de poia ‘public oven’ the words in 

question are apparently deverbals, though the Michaelis dictionary defines poia 

as ‘large flat loaf’, ‘cowpat’). Other Italian forms with the article i are popular 

Tuscan i becia ‘kisses’ (so Rohlfs, §368; a misprint for bacia ?), and i regna 

‘kingdoms’ (an ORom. regnora is also found for this word), i dimonia 

‘demons’, i peccata ‘sins’, i miglaia ‘thousands’, i vestimenta ‘clothes’ 

(Schicks.); such forms may have given impetus to the tendency to create plural 

forms in -a for masculine nouns that we looked at in §5c. From BALNEA ‘baths’ 

come OIt. pl. bagnora ‘baths’ and NIt. sing. bagna ‘sauce’, bagna cauda ‘a 

kind of hot savoury’ (the Rum. baie ‘baths’ has come via Slavonic); seemingly 

related words are Occ. Bagno (the name of a river), Sp. baña ‘pond for 

mountain animals to bathe in’ (a deverbal?), Ptg. banha ‘lard’ (Sard. baña 

‘sauce’ is from Italian). An old pl. gaiora from the Abruzzi (Mon., No. 171) is 

equated by Monaci with GAUDIA ‘joys’, where standard Italian has the singular 

form gioia taken from the Fr. sing. joie; however, this word is in rhyme with 

lenguaiora ‘languages’, and from the same central region comes a similar old 

coraiora ‘hearts’ from coraggio (the context is unclear to me), so I woder if 

gaiora is not in fact the plural of gaggio ‘pledge’. Other isolated Italian forms 

are OMil. spudha ‘spittings’ from SPUTA (a similar li sputi is found in another 

piece), old t(u)orla ‘yolks’ from TORULA, old suola ‘pieces of ground’ from 

SOLA, SIt. gigghia ‘lilies’ from LILIA (another plant name that I missed); there 

148

149 

149 

are also forms without classical originals, fora (in Dante) ‘wounds’ (apparently 

a deverbal from FORARE ‘pierce’), old fastella ‘bundles’ from *FASCELLA, and 

old quadrella and quadrelle ‘quarrels (arrows)’, ‘square tiles’ from 

*QUADRELLA, cf. the singulars Occ. cairello ‘arrow’, Sp. cuadrilla, OPtg. 

quadrella ‘squadron of soldiers’, ‘quadrille’. From FLAGELLA ‘whips’, with the 

similar suffix -ELLA, has come OIt. flagella, paralleled by Sard. frogedda(s) 

‘flexible twig(s) for making baskets’. There are also certain old plural forms in 

-e for nouns in -o which go back to Greek neuters, such as idole ‘idols’ (cf. the 

fem. sings. Fr. idole, OSp. idola) and vangel(i)e/guagnele/guagielie ‘gospels’. 

And while I am on the subject of isolated forms let me mention the Sard. 

(Log.) mundza ‘toil’, (Camp.) mundža ‘housework’ from MUNIA ‘civic duties’, 

though these, as feminine singulars, belong properly in the next section. 

d) Besides these forms from classical Latin neuters there are also a 

number coming from old masculines which adopted neuter forms in late Latin; 

many of these have already been dealt with in earlier sections, but some remain. 

Thus from late FUSA ‘spindles’ come the plurals Rum. fuse, fusuri and old and 

dialectal It. fusa, dial. fuse, fusəra, fusuri, the collective singulars Surs. fisa, 

Cent. Rh. foisa, feisa ‘vanes of a mandrel (spindle)’, and the individual 

singulars old and dialectal Fr. fuse ‘axle’, Occ. fuso, and from *ANELLA ‘rings’ 

(cf. “hoc anulum” in Plautus) Rum. pl. inele ‘rings’, It. collective pl. anella, 

formerly ‘rings’ now ‘curls’, dial. anelle (old) and anelləra, flanked by the 

sings. Surs. niala ‘curl’, Occ. anello ‘large ring’, Cat. anella ‘link’, Sp. anilla 

‘ditto’, Sard. anedda (so Hall, but the DES gives aneddu or anella, anel’a from 

Cat.); Portuguese is not represented, as it uses the indigenous elo for ‘link’, 

having the loanword anel for ‘ring’. In its plural function Latin PUTEA ‘wells’ 

has given way to -ORA forms in Rum. puŃuri, SIt. pozzərə, puzzuri, but it is 

preserved as a singular in It. pozza, Friul. poze, Sp. poza, Ptg. poça ‘puddle’,

150 

Cat. dial. poua ‘well of ice’ (the SEFr. puise, Occ. pouso ‘well-bucket’ are 

deverbals). The unattested *MURA ‘walls’ appears in Mac.-Rum. mură (with -ă 

for -e after r) and It. collective mura, dial. mure, as opposed to individual muri; 

here Friulian has muris as the plural of mur, seemingly representing *MURAS, 

as -is is the outcome of -AS (cf. brazzis, zenolis, lavris, timplis above), and 

there is also an Occ. muro ‘walls in ruins’ and OSard. mura ‘walls’. Equally 

there seems to have been a form *POPULA ‘peoples’ to have given Rum. pl. 

popoare ‘ditto’, though the fem. sings. OFr. peuple, peuble, Béarn. Poublo, Cat. 

Pobla, Sp. Puebla, Ptg. Povoa, all indicating settlements, are reckoned to be 

deverbals. From the late CIRCA and CIRCULA ‘circles’ we get Rum. cercuri (sing. 

cerc) ‘circles’, ‘hoops’, It. cerchia, originally a plural (“dua cercla bona”, 

Rohlfs, §248 n.) but now a singular meaning ‘circle (of walls)’ (cerca seems 

only to be found as a deverbal), the OFr. fem. sing. cercle ‘circle’ (cerche is a 

deverbal), Occ. cieuclo for a kind of goldfish with double-crescent markings 

(cerco is a deverbal, as is Cat. cerca), Sp. cerca ‘encircling wall’, ‘enclosure’, 

cercha ‘circular rule’ (given by Menéndez Pidal as < CIRCULA, but the DCELC 

says it is taken from French), Ptg. cerca (as Spanish). FOCI ‘fires’ followed the 

pattern of LOCA and IOCA, giving Rum. focuri (Istro-Rum. focură), OIt. 

f(u)ocora, SIt. fuocore. FURNl/FORNI ‘ovens’ also developed a neuter form, 

found in Isidore, and appears in Old Tuscan as fornora, in Neapolitan as forna, 

and in the south as fornuri, furnure; there are also the sings. OFr. fourne 

(hapax) ‘baking’, Occ. fourno ‘baker’s peel’ and Ast. forna ‘oven’. Late 

CULTELLA ‘knives’ has given the OIt. pl. coltella (Rumanian has cuŃite, from a 

p.p. meaning ‘honed’), and the sings. V. Antrona curtela, Surs. cuntiala ‘blade’, 

Fr. coutelle ‘sculptor’s chisel’, Prov. coutela, OCat. coltella, Sp. cuchilla, Ptg. 

cutela ‘large knife’. In the case of MARTELLI ‘hammers’, OIt. pls. martella and 

martielgle (Old Umbrian) are matched by Cat. dial. martella ‘sledge hammer’; 

Latian cappelləra ‘hats’ for late Latin CAPPELLI ‘headwear’ is probably a recent 

formation. For PALI ‘stakes’ there is a SIt. palure, and the Schönkron dictionary 

150

151 

151 

also lists Rum. par as “n.”, though I can find no support for this elsewhere; for 

SOMNI ‘sleeps’ there are -ORA forms in both areas, Rum. somnuri and It. dial. 

sonnora, while the similar SONI ‘sounds’ appears in OIt. suonora, Sic. sonira. 

Late CUNEA ‘wedges’ has given Rum. cuie ‘nails’; we have seen that It. cogna 

‘measures of wine’ comes from CONGIA, not CUNEA, which only appears as a 

feminine singular in Cosenza, Sic. cugna ‘coining die’ (for ‘wedge’ It. uses the 

learned cuneo). Another Italian measure of capacity that I have chanced to turn 

up is OCampan. pl. tomela (from tomolo; Monaci, No. 23). 

e) From the late plural LAQUEA ‘nooses’ (also found as a fem. sing.), 

which developed as *LACIA, have come Rum. pl. laŃuri ‘nooses’ and the sings. 

NIt. (Imola) laza ‘string’, Fr. lasse ‘silk cord’ and Cat. llaça ‘disc (pad) of 

rope’, while a similar *MALLEA ‘hammers’ (cf. Caper’s condemnation of 

MALLEUM for MALLEUS) has given Rum. pl. maiuri, regional maie ‘mauls’ and 

the sings. MFr. maille, Occ. malho, maio ‘mallet’, and perhaps the Sp. maja 

‘pestle’, though Ptg. malha ‘beating’ is clearly a deverbal. Also PILI ‘hairs’ is 

represented by a Sic. pila, though in Rumanian the usual plural is the masc. 

peri, with neuter păruri only rarely found. The Greek noun AER ‘air’ had a pl. 

AERA in late Latin (and also earlier in poetry), and this has survived as a plural 

in Rum. aere, and otherwise as a singular in OIt. aira, now aria (also adopted 

into Rhaeto-Romance and virtually replacing native ajer, er), OFr. aire, now 

absorbed by air, and Sard. (Cent.) áera (ágera). We have already looked at the 

-ORA forms for CAMPI ‘fields’, Rum. câmpuri, Lombard Latin campora(s), 

continued in Old Tuscan and in place names like Campora, Campori; apart 

from these you have Sp. tierra campa, Ptg. terra campa ‘treeless land’ and Ptg. 

campa dos mouros ‘ancient grave sites’, from which campa ‘gravestone’. For 

PANNI ‘cloths’, Meyer-Lübke (Schicks.) quotes It. pannora, and Monaci (No. 

131) has an OTusc. sing. panoro formed from this and meaning ‘a measure of

152 

land’, while Wartburg quotes a sing. panna ‘sails’ (in panna means ‘hove to’) 

and refers panna ‘cream’, with Friul. pane, to the same source; other forms are 

OFr. panne, Prov. panna ‘cloth’, while Rumanian has the cognate pânză as a 

collective singular ‘linen cloth’ (the modern Fr. panne ‘shag’, from which 

come Cat., Sp. pana, is referred to PINNA ‘feather’). Other sketchy remains are 

OIt. solca, SIt. solkərə ‘furrows’ for SULCI, where Occitan has souco ‘ridge 

between two furrows’, OIt. amora ‘fish-hooks’ for HAMI, with a new Calab. 

sing. amuru, and Lombard Latin vicoras ‘hamlets’ for VICI, with Neap. vecole 

‘alleys’. On the Rumanian side we have numere ‘numbers’ (sing. număr) for 

NUMERI, beside which there was a late Latin NUMERA ‘cohorts’ (Du Cange), 

and cufere ‘coffers’ (sing. cufăr) for COPHINI ‘baskets’. Also caşuri beside masc. 

caşi ‘cheeses’, where CASEA was found for CASEI in early and late Latin. Late 

LECTA ‘beds’ gives Lombard Latin lectora, with OIt. letta and SIt. lettəra, lettrə. 

For RIVI ‘rivers’, besides the RIVORA and râuri we have already looked at in 

§4e, which are paralleled by Lomb. Lat. riora(s), Sic. riola and Sard. Rivora, 

we may note Sp., Ptg. ria ‘estuary’, and for NIDI ‘nests’, besides Lomb. Lat. 

nidora, It. dial. ne(d)ora, nidura/-re (already noted in 10a, g), there are the OIt. 

nida and the OSp. (Burg.) nia. There are also a certain number of 

4th-declension nouns that we have partly looked at in connection with the -ORA 

forms. From late GRADA ‘steps’, besides the modern Rum. grade (a loanword) 

and OIt. grada (DES), Lomb. Lat., OIt. gradora, we have the singular forms 

OIt. grada, Prov. graza, OCat. graa and Sp. grada (from which Sard. grada) 

for a ‘step’ in a staircase. For LACUS ‘lakes’ (Lomb. Lat. lacora), where 

Rumanian has pl. lacuri and Old Tuscan lagora, Occitan has the sing. laco 

‘little lagoon’ and Catalan llaca ‘mud deposited after heavy rain or flooding’, 

and for TONITRUS ‘thunderclaps’, where Italian dialects have trondrə, tronola, 

we may compare the Occ. sing. trouno ‘sound of thunder’, Cat. dial. trona 

‘thunderclaps’, ‘pistol’, Rum. pl. tunete ‘thunderclaps’, tunuri ‘cannons’, and 

Leon. (Luarca) sing. tona ‘thunder’ (Men. Pid., Dial. Leon., §3.2). In the case 

152

153 

153 

of ACUS ‘needles’, where Italian dialects have pls. acora, aghərə, acure, acola 

etc. (and a sing. aca, aga), Rumanian has pl. ace and Istro-Rumanian acur. We 

have already seen that GUSTUS ‘taste’ became GUSTUM in late Latin, so that 

Rum. gusturi ‘tastes’ is parallel to furturi from FURTA ‘thefts’, where classical 

FURTUM was flanked by a late form FURTUS; 4th-decl. SINGULTUS ‘sob’ was 

replaced by *SUBGLUTTIU, the plural of which has given Rum. sughiŃuri. The 

forms for ARCUS, FETUS, MANUS, PASSUS, PORTUS and SINUS have already been 

looked at (the -A forms corresponding to FETUS, such as Rum. fată ‘girl’, Friul. 

fede, NIt., Rh. (hapax), Prov., Rouss. feda ‘sheep’, and Montañese jeda ‘cow 

that has calved’ are presumably newly-formed feminines). Finally, from 

5th-declension MERIDIES ‘noon’ we have the OIt. pl. meriggia ‘shady places’ (a 

deverbal?). 

14. Miscellaneous neuters which only survive as feminine singulars. 

a) We are left with a great number of words which have in general only 

survived as feminine singulars, even in Rumanian, for the most part only with 

a unitary meaning, thus confirming what we have already seen in late Latin. As 

we saw in §4, many of these words already appeared as singulars in late Latin, 

though it is not always clear in what sense they were used. The most 

commonly quoted examples of this change taking place in Latin are OPERA and 

ARMA, the implication being that these words were found as singulars in 

classical Latin; this is certainly true for OPERA ‘work’, but ARMA ‘weapons’ 

only appears as a feminine at a much later date. Here the modern forms are 

Rum. operă (newly introduced), armă, It. opera, arma ‘arm (branch) of the 

forces’, arme ‘weapon’ (formerly plural, as in all’arme! ‘to arms!’), Friul. uare, 

arme, Rh. ovra/oura, arma (used as a collective in en arma, portar/purter 

arma), Fr. oeuvre, arme (with an OFr. pl. “s’oste ses arme”; alarme is from the 

Italian), Prov., Cat. obra, arma, Sp. huebra ‘the extent ploughed by a yoke of

154 

oxen in a day’/obra ‘work’ (no doubt influenced by the rhizotonic forms of 

obrar, which are not diphthongized, perhaps following the model of sobrar), 

arma, Ptg. obra, arma, Sard. opera/obera ‘a day’s work’, arma. Another 

feminine form that puts in an early appearance in Latin is MENDA ‘fault’, 

giving It., Surs., Eng. menda, OFr. mende, Prov. menda, Cat. dial. mena (as 

against Log. mendu < MENDUM). A word that appears everywhere is PRIMA 

VERA ‘spring’ (found in a late inscription), Rum. primăvară (and vară 

‘summer’), It. primavera (ONeap. vera ‘summer’, cf. Sp. verano, Ptg. verăo), 

Friul. primevere, Surs. primavera, Eng. prümavaira, OFr. primevoire, Prov., 

Cat., Sp., Ptg., Sard. primavera (this last said to be from Italian); we also find 

Rum. iarnă ‘winter’, It. inverna ‘winter wind’, Ptg. inverna ‘hard winter’, 

which may echo HIBERNA (the Rumanian certainly so). Latin VELA ‘sails’ 

(found as VELAS in late Latin), the plural of VELUM ‘sail’, ‘curtain’, ‘veil’, 

became the word for a ‘sail’: It., Surs. vela, Eng. vaila, Fr. voile, Prov., Cat., Sp. 

vela, OPtg. vea, later replaced by vela to avoid homonymy with veia < VENA 

‘vein’; the singular remained everywhere as the word for ‘veil’, appearing also 

in Rumanian as văl pl. văluri, with a suspicious l that we discussed earlier in 

connection with VILLUS (but it may simply be a loanword from Italian, like 

velă ‘sail’). VERBA ‘words’ as a singular has generally retained the collective 

sense of ‘words’, ‘speech’ (cf. German Worte, as opposed to individual Wörter), 

as in OIt. verba, Surs. viarva, OEng. verva, Prov., OCat. verba, OSp. vierba; 

the Fr. verve originally meant ‘a form of expression’, then ‘empty chatter’, 

‘whim’ and finally ‘vigour’, while modern Cat. (Maj.) berba means ‘joke’ and 

Ptg. verba ‘an item on a list’, ‘an appropriation of money’. In this case, too, the 

sing. VERBUM ‘word’ has left its reflexes as in It. verbo, Surs. vierv, OEng. 

vierf, OSp. vierbo, OPtg. verbo, Sard. berbu, with pl. berbos ‘magic words’. 

Another widespread word is FATA ‘the Fates’ (with a late abl. FATABUS 

suggesting a change of declension, or at least of gender), which is used once by 

Dante (artificially?) as a plural in its original meaning, but in general has 

154

155 

155 

become a singular meaning ‘fairy’: It. fata, UEng. feda, LEng. fada, Fr. fée, 

Prov., Cat. fada, Sp. hada, Ptg., Sard. (Log.) fada (cf. the sings. It. fato, Sp. 

hado, Log. fadu ‘fate’, Ptg. fado ‘fate’, ‘fado’). Equally widespread (though 

not by a popular development) is AERA ‘bronzes’, which came to be used as a 

way of counting the years, so modern Rum. eră, It., Rh. era, Fr. ère, Prov., Cat., 

Sp., Ptg. era, all for ‘era’. 

b) From among a handful of neuters in -STRUM we have first 

CLAUSTRA ‘enclosed places’, which has given alternative forms of the words 

for ‘cloister’ alongside the masculine forms developed from ecclesiastical 

CLAUSTRUM: It. chiostra (now ‘an enclosed space’), Surs. claustra, Eng. clostra, 

OFr. clostre, Prov., Cat., OSp., OPtg. claustra (and OPtg. chostra, crasta). 

From CANISTRA ‘baskets’ we have It. canestra, Surs. canastra, Eng. 

chana(i)stra, Cent. Rh. tganastra, Cat. canast(r)a, Sp. canasta and Ptg. 

canastra (also old canasta; the medial n may have come by crossing with 

CANNA). (EM)PLASTRA ‘plasters’ has given It. piastra ‘metal plate’, Cat. 

emplast(r)a ‘plaster’ as an occasional variant of masc. emplastre (so “algunes 

emplastes”), Ptg. lastra ‘spot on a plant’ (Rh. implastra occurs as a feminine 

corresponding to the masc. implaster ‘feckless fellow’). COLOSTRA ‘beestings’ 

has given Rum. corast(r)ă, curast(r)ă and, by dissimilation, the current 

colastră. Sp. rastra in the senses ‘harrow’, ‘sled’ seems to represent RASTRA 

‘harrows’, though in other senses it must be a deverbal. Other words have the 

-ULUM ending. From SABULA ‘sands’ come It. sabbia ‘sand’ and OFr. fem. sable, 

Prov. sabla, saula ‘ditto’, which appear early, though Wartburg says that Occ. 

sablo, saulo ‘sand’, like the Fr. masc. sable, are late forms preceded by sablon, 

cf. Rh. sablun, Cat. sabló, sauló. (For ‘sand’ the fem. SABURRA ‘ballast’ (cf. It. 

zavorra, old saborra) is used in some areas, so Prov. saorra, Cat. sorra (old 

saorra), Arag. zaborra (Sp. zahorra, sorra ‘ballast’ are from Catalan), Ptg.

156 

saburra ‘fur on the tongue’.) From STABULA ‘stables’, ‘stalls’ come Rum. pl. 

stauluri/staur-, Fr. étable, Prov., Cat. estable, OSard. pl. centu istabla. From 

CINGULA ‘girths’, ‘belts’ (also fem. sing. in late Latin) we have Rum. chingă 

(by metathesis, cf. Meglen. cl’ingă) and cingă (by attraction to the verb 

cinge ?), It. cinghia and popular cigna, Neap. chienga/chienca (cf. Surs. 

tschinclar ‘surround’ beside tschengel ‘grass bank’), Val Gard. adj. cendl, 

cendla ‘banded with stripes’, Fr. cengle > sangle, Prov. singla/sengla, Cat., 

Arag. cingla, Sp. (Vizc.) cella ‘iron hoop round a wheel’, Ptg. cilha (old cinlha), 

Sard. (Cent.) kingra, kringa, NLog. kindža, Camp. tšingra. (Cf. also, from the 

singular, It. cinghio (as cinghia), Veron. sengio ‘mountain-girt meadow’, Cat. 

cingle ‘abyss’, Sp. ceño and cello (old cenllo), Ptg. cenho for a kind of ‘hoof 

disease’; the Franco-Provençal dialects also have many feminine forms 

showing the same development of palatalized n and l (preceded by a nasal 

vowel) from -NGL-.) From the associated *CINCTULA come It. cintola, Log. 

kintula and Sp. cincha (from which Cat. cinxa), Ptg. cincha (the DCELC 

supposes cincha < CINGULA, via *cinlla, as Ptg. funcho from *funlho, but I can 

find no evidence for the latter but rather fiolho < *FENUCULU and f(i)uncho < 

*FENUNCULU). CAPULA ‘halters’, ‘hilts’, ‘handles’, late *CAPPULA, has become 

OIt. cappia ‘horseshoe’, Sp. cacha ‘razor handle’ (in S. America ‘knife 

handle’), Gal. cacha (Gar.). CAPITULUM is mostly only preserved as a learned 

word, but popular reflexes of CAPITULA ‘little heads’ are seen in Occ. cabelho 

‘ear of maize’, ‘top of a tree’, and Upper Arag. (Sallent) capilla ‘ear of corn’. 

c) A number of the plurals end in -IA or -EA. Thus RETIA ‘nets’ can be 

seen in Neap. rezza, Calab., Sic. rizza, Sard. retta, rettha, (ar)rettsa ‘net’ (the 

same palatalized root appears in Fr. réseau, Prov. reza(i)lh, Cat. r(ez)all, Sard. 

rettola; Rum. reŃea is generally stated to have come from *RETELLA, but 

*RETIELLA seems to me more likely, as the gender reflects the -A of RETIA). 

156

157 

157 

From LINTEA ‘linen cloths’ we have It. lenza ‘linen bandage’, ‘fishing-line’, 

Occ. lenço, Cat. llença ‘fishing-line’, Sp. lienza ‘strip of cloth’, OLog. lintha, 

linza ‘strip of land’. According to Wartburg (though this is not generally 

accepted), Fr. souille ‘wallowing place’, Prov. sueilha ‘cesspool’ come from 

SOLIA ‘tubs’ (cf. It. soglio ‘liquid measure’; SOLIUM also meant ‘seat’, hence It. 

soglio ‘throne’). A similar OIt. suola ‘lands’ (Monaci, No. 113) comes from 

SOLA ‘pieces of ground’. The various forms apparently corresponding to 

SPOLIA ‘spoils’ (fem. sing. in late Latin), such as It., Eng. spoglia, OFr. espoille, 

Prov. espolha, OSp. espoja, are rather to be regarded as deverbals. From late 

DOLIA ‘pains’ we have It. doglia ‘pain’, and Meyer-Lübke also quotes 

cordoglie as a plural of cordoglio ‘anguish’. TESTIMONIA ‘testimonies’ (fem. 

sing, in late Latin) gives Ptg. testemunha (there is also testemunho from the 

singular). From *SAGIA, the adjectival form of SAGA ‘military cloaks’ (glossed 

as “una tela in cortinis” in the Gl. Reich.), we have It. saia ‘twill’ (cf. saio 

‘gown’), Fr. saie ‘sagum’, Occ. saio ‘smock’, Cat. saia ‘serge’, Sp. saya, Ptg. 

saia ‘skirt’, ‘(ancient) gown’ (and cf. Sp. sayo ‘smock’; García de Diego also 

gives Gal. sa < SAGA). From BISACCIA ‘saddlebags’ come It. bisaccia 

‘saddlebag’, ‘beggar’s wallet’, Surs. bissacca, UEng. busacha (× SACCU) 

‘palliasse’, Fr. besace ‘wallet’, Prov. beassa (now biasso, besaço etc.) 

‘saddlebag’, Cat. pl. beaces (OCat. beassa, besaces) ‘saddlebags’, Sp. bizaza 

(and old biaza, badaza) ‘saddlebag’ (in the Gl. Reich., the sing. “bisatia” is 

used to gloss SARCINA ‘bundle’). From PRAEMIA ‘rewards’ (a late Latin fem. 

sing.) come Surs. premia, Eng. premgia ‘reward’ (the Fr. prime, and from it 

Cat., Sp. prima ‘premium’, are adaptations of the Engl. premium). Italian has 

uggia ‘gloom’, ‘annoyance’ from ODIA ‘hates’, seccia ‘stubble’ from 

(FENl)SICCIA ‘mown hay’, and gregna ‘stook’ from GREMIA ‘faggots’. From late 

Latin FIMBRIA ‘fibres’, metathesized to *FRIMBIA, come Rum. frânghie, 

frâmbie ‘cord’, ONIt. franbe ‘tufts’, Fr. frenge > frange ‘fringe’ (whence It. 

frangia, Occ. franjo, Cat., Sp., Ptg. franja), Prov. fremnha, fremja ‘ditto’, while

158 

Cat. fimbria is apparently a popular outcome of the original Latin form. 

MALANDRIA ‘malanders’ has given It. malandr(i)a, Fr. malandre, Occ. 

malandro. Another word which was used as a neuter by Cato is URCEU 

‘pitcher’, and here we have OIt. orcia beside the current orcio, OFr. orce, Prov. 

orsa, Cat. orça, Sp. orza and also old orço (there is also an old orçuela from 

URCEOLU, to which compare the Rum. neuter urcior, pl. urcioare, OCat. orçor; 

a similar orzuelo ‘rabbit-trap’, ‘bird-trap’, corresponding to Ptg. ichó (masc. 

and fem.), comes from *USTIOLU, ‘little door’ and so is parallel to Rum. neuter 

uşor/uşcior/uscior, It. usciolo, Eng. uschöl, OFr. uisole, Prov. u(i)ssol). Finally 

I will include here two words which both have masculine and feminine forms 

in Romance, although it is not clear to me whether the latter go back to a neuter 

plural; the Latin forms postulated are given as neuters — *CAVANEUM and 

*CAPACEUM, both for types of ‘basket’. Here we have for the first the It. 

cavagno and cavagna, the latter used in the north and south, V. Breg. cavagn, 

cavagna, UEng. chavagn, chavagna, LEng. chavogn, chavogna (the latter 

denoting a bigger object), Occ. cavan/cavanh and cavagno, and a Ptg. cabano 

(also cavanejo) quoted by Michaelis; the second gives LEng. champatsch, Prov. 

cabas, cabassa, said to be the source of the similar north Italian forms and the 

cabas, cabasse found in northern French, Cat. cabàs, cabassa (larger) and Ptg. 

cabaz, while Spanish has capazo, capaza (perhaps with p from CAPPA) and also 

capacho (found in Portuguese as well), capacha, evidently of Mozarabic 

origin. 

d) A certain number of words of this type are of Greek origin, some of 

them coming via a popular route, others not. Firstly, from SCHIDIA ‘splinter’ 

come Rum. ştează ‘little sticks with which to keep the meshes of a net apart’, It. 

scheggia ‘splinter’ and Friul. scleze (have these come from *SCHLIDIA ?); then 

there is Fr. esquille ‘a bone splinter’, a learned borrowing which then passed 

into Occitanian as esquirla, esquiho, and from this have come Sp. esquirla, Ptg. 

158

159 

159 

esquírola ‘ditto’. From STADIA ‘furlongs’ have come It. staggia ‘measuring rod’ 

(this word has fallen in with staggio ‘prop’, from the same Germanic root as 

Engl. stay), Imola, Trento stadza, Mil. stasgia, Ven. staza, Friul. staze, Surs. 

stagia ‘boundary-stake’, UEng. stedgia, LEng. staja ‘pole’, Lyon. estase 

‘upper crossbar of a loom’. From EXARTIA ‘rigging’ come It. sartie ‘shrouds’, 

‘rigging’, OFr. sarties, essarcie, sarchie, sarce from Prov. sartia, sarsia (now 

sarti, masc. and fem.), OCat. exartsia, Cat. (e)xarcia, xarxa, Sp. jarcia, Ptg. 

enxárcia. Another Greek nautical word is pódia (pódeia), used for pódes 

‘lower corners of the sails’, ‘clews’, which has given It. poggia, SIt. poja 

‘dipping-line (for tacking)’, ‘leeward side’ (and cf. orzapoza ‘tackle 

amidships’), OFr. po(u)ge ‘starboard’ (< It.), Occ. poujo, poucho ‘ditto’, 

puecho ‘stay’, Cat. puja, Sp. poja, puja (from Italian and Catalan), Ptg. poja 

‘clew’. (The other nautical words for the ‘windward side’, It. orza, orcia, OFr. 

orce, Occ. orso, Cat. orsa, orça, Sp. orza, Ptg. orça, have been said to be from 

the Greek masc. orthias ‘lower part of a mast’, though Corominas gives the 

source as the verb *ORTIARE ‘raise’.) BlBLIA ‘books’ has given Rum. Biblie, It. 

Bibbia, Surs., LEng. Bibla, UEng. Bibgia, Fr. Bible, Prov. Bibla, Cat. Bíblia, 

Sp. Biblia, Ptg. Bíblia ‘Bible’, and SANDALIA ‘sandals’ Surs. sandala, Fr. 

sandale, Prov. sandala, Cat. sandália, Sp. sandalia, Ptg. sandália ‘sandal’. 

e) From DAMNA ‘losses’ we have Rum. daună, OFr. damme ‘damage’. 

From SERA ‘wheys’, with an obscure consonantal change, Rumanian has the 

fem. zară “buttermilk”, beside zer (pl. zeruri) ‘whey’ from the sing. SERUM. 

FERETRA ‘biers’ has given OIt. (Turin) fertra, OFr. fertre. As we saw in §10d, 

late *FEMITA/*FEMINA ‘dung’ is the source of Fr. fiente, Prov. fenta/fenda, Cat. 

fempta/fenta/femna and Sp. hienda (there are also masculine forms as Fr. fient, 

Sp. hiendo, Gal. fento, as well as forms from the sing., OFr. fiens, Prov., Cat. 

fems, Sp. fiemo, from late FEMUS). TARMITA/*TARMINA ‘woodworms’ has given

160 

words for this insect or for the clothes-moth, in some cases with change or loss 

of the initial consonant; It. tarma, OVen. tarmena, V. Anz. tarla, Friul. tarme, 

UEng. tarma, tarna, MFr. art(r)e, arde, tarle, Prov. tarma, tarna, tarla, (d)arta, 

arda, (d)arna, arnha, now (d)arno, argno, arto, ardo, Gasc. arlo, Cat. arna. 

From *LIMITA ‘boundaries’, which became neuter by crossing with LIMINA 

‘thresholds’ (from which ONorm. Fr. fem. lime ‘threshold’), we get V. Sass. 

limeda ‘edge of a field’, V. Canobb. lünda ‘hedge on ditto’, Friul. linde ‘eaves’, 

Fr.-Prov. linda ‘strip of land’, Occ. linto ‘wale of a ship’, OCat. llinda 

‘boundary’, Ast., Ptg. linda ‘ditto’ (also linde, lindo, where Cast. has only 

linde). Late LENDINA/*LENDITA was discussed at the end of §6, and 

TERMINA/*TERMITA and *GURGITA in §10c. 

f) In this category we also have an interesting example of a classical 

masculine noun which developed neuter forms later. This is RADII ‘spokes’, 

‘rays’, ‘radii’, for which late RADIA is also attested in glosses (cf. also the two 

forms RADIOLUS/RADIOLUM). Here the modern forms are Rum. rază ‘ray’, 

‘spoke’, ‘radius’, It. razza, NIt. raža, raza ‘spoke’, OIt. “come [dà] la rag(g)ia 

albore” (Monaci, No. 81), beside masc. razzo ‘spoke’ (and earlier ‘ray’), raggio 

(and old raio) ‘ray’, ‘spoke’, ‘radius’, then Friul. raze ‘hand of a clock’, ‘dial’, 

beside masc. rai ‘ray’, OFr. raie ‘rays’, beside rai(s) ‘ray’, ‘spoke’, Prov. raia 

‘rays’, now raio, rajo, beside rai/ra(i)g/raj ‘ray’, ‘jet’, ‘spoke’, Cat. dial. 

raia/raya/raja ‘rays’ beside raig/dial. rai ‘ray’, ‘jet’, ‘spoke’, Sp. raza ‘ray’, 

‘cleft in a hoof’ beside rayo ‘ray’, ‘spoke’, ‘radius’, Ptg. raça beside raio, as 

Spanish (for the phonological development of raza, raça compare bazo, baço 

‘bay-coloured’ from BADIU); for Sardinian the DES quotes the Italianism radza 

‘thorny ivy’ (cf. Cors. razza, Tusc. ragia, Calab. raja) beside Cent. rayu, Log. 

radzu, Camp, (ar)radžu ‘ray’, ‘spoke’, as well as raya and ral’a from Spanish 

and Catalan (see below). The related verbs have developed other meanings. 

160

161 

161 

Rum. răza is ‘scrape’, and It. razzare ‘scrape’, ‘scratch’, and, in the passive, 

‘be streaked’, as well as ‘shine’, like raggiare, old raiare (Dante); modern Fr. 

rayer is ‘scratch’, ‘cross out’ (cf. the new verb radier in the same sense), 

‘stripe’, ‘streak’, ‘rule (lines on paper)’, ‘rifle (a gun)’; Occ. raia/raja/reia have 

the same range of meaning as the Fr. rayer, as well as others like ‘radiate’ 

(modern Fr. rayonner), ‘dart out’, ‘spurt’, ‘flow’; Catalan has ratllar (old and 

dial. rallar/raiar) ‘stripe’, ‘streak’, ‘rule (lines)’, ‘cross out’, ‘rifle’ beside rajar 

‘gush forth’, ‘flow out’, and, in old and dialectal Catalan, ‘radiate’ (there is also 

another ratllar ‘grate’ from RALLARE); Spanish has rayar as Cat. ratllar beside 

rajar ‘split’ and razado ‘streaky’, while Portuguese has raiar ‘radiate’, ‘stripe’, 

‘streak’, ‘rifle’ and rajar ‘stripe’, ‘streak’, ‘intermix’. Dialectal French rayer 

and Occ. raja (arraja) also have the meaning ‘spread (hay) to dry in the sun’, 

like Aran. arraja-s ‘sun oneself’ (and cf. Occ. reia, which can mean ‘feed 

animals’), and this is also the meaning of Surs. rasar, Eng. raser (these 

languages only have the mascs. radi, raz for ‘ray’), though it is hard to 

determine whether these represent RADIARE or rather *RASARE, widely found 

with the senses of ‘scrape’, ‘graze’, ‘level (off, to the ground)’. Given such 

widespread occurrence, it seems that the idea of ‘scratch’, ‘streak’ developed 

early, perhaps through crossing with *RASARE. In Western Romance we also 

find noun forms with related meanings, thus modern French raie ‘line’, 

‘furrow’, ‘stroke’, ‘streak’, ‘stripe’, ‘parting in the hair’, Occ. raio, Gasc. racho, 

which Mistral primarily glosses as ‘raie’, adding synonyms and other meanings 

such as ‘train rail’ and ‘line formed by a chain of mountains’, Cat. ratlla (old 

and dial. ralla, raia) ‘line’, ‘stripe’, ‘streak’, ‘boundary’, Sp. raya ‘ditto’ and 

‘parting’, raja ‘split’, Ptg. raia ‘line’, ‘streak’, ‘boundary’, raja ‘stripe’, 

‘streak’ (the Catalan ratlla, and the verb ratllar, present phonological 

difficulties which I will return to in a minute).

162 

The key words in this case are Fr. raie and rayer, which are not the 

continuators of OFr. raie and raier, these two having been superseded by 

rayon(nement) and rayonner; OFr. raie meant only ‘rays’ (“la raie du soleil”) or 

‘embroidery’ (“raie de soie”), cf. the meanings of Occ. raio, rajo, while raier 

meant ‘radiate’, ‘spurt’, ‘flow’, which are among the meanings of Occ. raia, 

raja. The meanings of ‘streak’, ‘stripe’, ‘cross out’, belong to OFr. roier, which 

basically meant ‘make a furrow’, and the corresponding noun roie meant 

‘furrow’, ‘measure of land’, ‘line’, ‘stripe’, ‘wrinkle’, and also ‘boundary’, 

‘frontier’, senses which have much in common with the meanings of Occ. raio, 

Gasc. racho, Cat. ratlla, Sp. raya and Ptg. raia. Roie, which later became raie 

(cf. roide > raide ‘stiff’), comes from the Celtic *RĬCA ‘furrow’ (note that Fr. 

sillon, besides meaning ‘furrow’, can also mean ‘line’, ‘streak’, while ‘line (of 

plants)’, ‘row’ is one of the meanings of rayon). This *RĬCA is confined to 

Gallo-Romance, the Provençal and Catalan forms being rega (Sp. riego and Ptg. 

rego go back to RIGARE ‘water’, but there would appear to be some crossing 

with *RĬCA, as the words can mean ‘dry furrow’ as well as ‘water channel’). 

The modern Occ. rego/rejo/reio/reo etc. have the same basic range of meanings 

as OFr. roie, but the forms rejo/reio appear to show the influence of rajo/raio; 

as for the verb forms, Mistral lists reia under raia, giving ‘turn over with the 

plough’ as one of the meanings, and gives rega as equivalent to raia, besides 

having the meanings ‘furrow’, ‘plant in rows’. The modern Cat. rega means 

‘furrow’, ‘wrinkle’, ‘ruled line’, ‘ladder in a stocking’; the verb regar basically 

represents RIGARE ‘water’, like Sp., Ptg. regar, but in Capcir (a region 

bordering France) it has the same meanings as ratllar, as well as that of 

‘furrow’. In Italian we find the similar forms riga and rigare, but in this case 

the REW assigns them to a different etymon, Lombard *RĪGA; riga means 

‘line’, ‘row’, ‘stripe’, ‘streak’, ‘parting’, and rigare ‘stripe’, ‘streak’, ‘rule 

(lines)’, ‘rifle’, as well as ‘furrow’, besides having the meaning ‘water’ coming 

from RIGARE. (Sursilvan also has a verb rigar ‘dig ditches’, apparently a 

162

163 

163 

combination of meanings; in this connection I also note that Cat. rasa < RASA 

means ‘ditch’ or ‘channel’.) It will be seen that the range of meanings of the 

Italian forms is so close to those found elsewhere that, if the etymon was 

indeed different, there was at least a common development. In all the areas 

there has clearly been crossing between the various roots, and this would seem 

to have taken place independently of the French change from roie to raie, 

which is relatively recent (I note that Levy, Prov. Suppl. Wört., gives an 

example of raya in the sense ‘line of mountains’, though I cannot be sure of the 

date of this). In the case of Cat. ratlla, which is first found as ralla, raia, I 

suspect that it was, like Sp. raya and Ptg. raia, a loan from Provençal 

(supposing that Prov. raia at some point became confused with Fr. roie/raie, 

perhaps starting out as a deverbal from indigenous raiar, which had already 

developed the senses of ‘scratch’, ‘streak’, like It. razzare), and then the 

infrequently found segment [aj] was equated with the familiar [aλ] (which often 

underwent “yeismo” in medieval Catalan, cf. tayar for tallar), and the [λ] was 

later doubled. 

One more set of forms which evidently go back to an old masculine are 

those referrable to late Latin CALAMELLUS, a diminutive of CALAMUS ‘reed’, 

which is also found in glosses in the forms CALAMAULA, CANNAMALA, and has 

given the words for various kinds of rustic musical pipes. Here we have It. 

caramella, ciaramella ‘kind of bagpipe’, OFr. chalemel(l)e, canem(i)elle, 

chalemie, canemie, ‘reed-pipe’, ‘shawm’, ‘flageolet’, ‘bagpipe’, and similarly 

Prov. calamella, calamina, now calamello, calamino, also forms beginning 

with cara-, chala-, chara-, Cat. caramella, xeremia, OAst. chiaramia, Ptg. 

charamela (transported to Japan as charumera ‘street-vendor’s pipe’), where 

Spanish has the masc. caramillo ‘flageolet’; the forms with cia-, xe-, ch(i)a- 

have clearly been taken from Gallo-Romance. Finally we may note that Rum. 

păduche, corresponding to PEDUCULA ‘lice’, has become the unitary singular

164 

form for ‘louse’, with masculine gender. 

15. Associated developments. 

a) This brings me to the end of the words I have collected that go back 

to Latin neuter plural forms, and it only remains for me now to note certain 

other associated developments. The first is the predilection of Rhaeto-Romance 

for “collective singulars”, words with a feminine singular form but a plural 

meaning, forming a kind of collective plural for cognate masculine nouns with 

a unitary meaning, like the bratscha ‘arms’, detta/dainta ‘fingers’ (correspond- 

ing to bratsch, det/daint) that we have already looked at. We have already paid 

due attention to certain group words like ladramenta/ledramainta, 

cauramenta/chavramainta, racaglia, pastriglia, mattanaglia/mattaniglia, with 

the -MENTA, -ALIA, -ILIA endings. Others are words for ‘rocks’, Surs. greppa, 

greppaglia, Eng. grippa, cripla, spelma, crappa, while for ‘peaks’ Sursilvan 

has pezza where Engadinian has pizza. Meyer-Lübke (Gramm.) quotes a certain 

number of examples from Sursilvan, some of which we have already examined, 

while others turn out on inspection to be merely examples of parallel masculine 

and feminine forms, though Surs. fela, Eng. feila beside fel, feil ‘gall’, Lat. 

FEL-LA, surely involves an old plural, as does Surs. frusta ‘pieces’ beside frust, 

Eng. fruost < FRUSTUM ‘piece’ (and cf. It. frusto ‘piece’, frusta ‘baguette’). 

Others of interest here are the collectives brutga, bruia beside Surs. brutg, Eng. 

bruoch, bruoi ‘heather’, cotgla, cotla beside Surs. cotgel, Eng. chottel ‘coal’, 

dascha beside dasch ‘fir twig’, farcaglia beside farcagl ‘hemp stalk’, filappa 

beside filap ‘linen thread’. Other examples from Engadinian, provided by 

Velleman, are rüzcha, rüzchaglia ‘odds and ends’ (no masc. sing.), marocca 

‘discarded things’ (no masc. sing.), zuondra ‘woodland’ beside zuonder ‘Swiss 

mountain pine’, where Surs. zundra has the latter meaning. There are also some 

cases where the collective noun, while still being used in its collective sense, 

164

165 

165 

has at the same time become used for the individual object; thus Eng. föglia 

can mean both ‘leaf’ and ‘foliage’ (fögl means ‘sheet of paper’), and üsaglia 

‘tool’ as well as ‘tools’ (here Sursilvan distinguishes between fegl and feglia, 

isegl and iseglia). 

b) Another development we have met with as we have gone along is 

that in which various Latin feminine singulars have been taken to be neuter 

plurals and had new “singulars” formed from them. Here I will collect them 

together, and add a few other examples. I mentioned early on (§4e) that 

PALPEBRA ‘eyelid’ appeared as a neuter PALPEBRUM in late Latin, and this, as 

well as other forms like PALPETRA, PALFEBRA, is reflected in the modern 

languages. Rumanian only has the fem. pleoapă, but Old Italian has palpebro, 

palpiro beside the modern palpebra, and in the north we find such forms as 

palpeider beside palpèra (par-), parpella, palpedra. Elsewhere we have Friul. 

fems. palpiere, papele, Surs. masc. palpader (-ped-), fem. palpe(b)ra, Eng. 

masc. palperi, OFr. masc. paup(i)er, fem. palpere, modern paupière, Prov. 

mascs. palpre, palpel(h) (par-), palpet, fems. palpella (par-), palperla, 

palpelha (par-), palpiera, Béarn. masc. perpet, fem. perpèro, Cat. mascs. 

parpell, pàrpol, pàlpet (pàr-), parpre, fem. parpella (pal-), Sp. mascs. párpalo 

(old), párpado, fem. pálpebra, Gal. masc. párparo, fem. pérfeb(r)a, Ptg. masc. 

párpado (old), fem. pálpebra, Sard. (Log.) masc. párparo, fem. párpala, 

(Camp.) fem. prapedda (the DES says that the Sardinian forms come from 

Catalan or Spanish). I also noted in the same section that OIt. orecchia ‘ear’ 

had been apprehended as a plural, and the present-day form is orecchio, with pl. 

orecchi; orecchia is now confined to dialectal use, idioms and figurative 

meanings. Another word we looked at in connection with parts of the body was 

MATTEA ‘savoury meat dish’, from Greek mattýe, which has given Rum. maŃe, 

It. dial. mazza and Sard. matta ‘intestines’; here the Rum. maŃe is a plural, with

166 

a new singular maŃ for one of the intestines. A similar form is Dante’s le 

minugia ‘guts’, from late MINUTIA ‘small thing’ (for the meaning cf. Rum. 

măruntaie ‘guts’ from MINUTALIA, and Sp. menudos, Ptg. miudos ‘giblets’ from 

MINUTU). Besides le orecchia, Meyer-Lübke (Gramm.) also gives as new 

formations le unghia ‘nails’, le mascella ‘jaws’, le nocca ‘knuckles’, le 

guancia ‘cheeks’ (I have found corroboration for the first three of these in the 

Grande Diz. della Ling. It.), and an earlier (unrecorded) le coscia ‘thighs’ can 

also be inferred from coscio ‘leg of meat’ (see also §6j above). (In the case of 

unghia we find the masc. diminutives unghiello, unghiolo, and it would be easy 

for plural forms in -a to arise in the dialect areas where nouns in -a remain 

unchanged in the plural. Other Italian plurals taken from singular forms in -a 

are found in all areas in combination with a numeral (see §7), thus OTusc. tre 

fiata, Mil. doa fiada, OBol. dua fiada, OLomb. quatro volta (so also today 

standard qualche volta), Roman. tre ora, cf. Rohlfs, §643.) Just before quoting 

the forms like unghia, mascella (in §6j) I gave the many forms developed from 

*MEDULLU, taken from MEDULLA ‘marrow’ regarded as a plural form, which 

are generally flanked by other forms coming from MEDULLA (for the details see 

§6j). The standard example is It. midollo (with old pl. le midolla), and in the 

section where he quotes it (§384) Rohlfs also gives, among other examples of 

the same kind of development, the old candelo for candela ‘candle’, and the 

translator of the Italian edition adds in a note the non-Tuscan tavolo for tavola. 

Rohlfs also cites (§353) crino ‘horsehair’, ‘a single horsehair’ as an example of 

an alteration of crine to characterize the gender, whereas Meyer-Lübke 

(Gramm.) gives it as formed from a new pl. crina (which also appears as a 

feminine singular for ‘tresses’). 

c) When we came to the plant world (§9) I noted first (in 9e) that Eng. 

ü(j)a ‘grapes’ from UVA (a collective, like It. uva) had given rise to a new form 

166

167 

167 

üj ‘grape’. Similarly ERVILIA (see 9w) has given Surs. arveglia, Eng. arvaglia 

‘peas’, and from these have been formed arvegl, arvagl ‘pea’. In the same way 

FAVA ‘bean’ (see 9x) has become Surs. fava, Eng. feva ‘legumes’, and the new 

words for ‘bean’ are fav, fev, while Calab. fava is also a collective). Besides 

these we noted the Tuscan erbo for erba ‘herb’ and Eng. erv/erb ‘blade of 

grass’ from erva/erba ‘grass’ (note too that It. erba and Eng. erva/erba, like the 

other reflexes of HERBA, can have both the collective meaning of ‘grass’ and 

the unitary meaning of ‘herb’, ‘small flowering plant’ — cf. the reflexes of 

MONETA meaning ‘money’ or ‘a coin’ — so that in this case we see a 

differentiated development of a word into collective and unitary meanings). In 

Spanish a new word escobo ‘brushwood’ developed out of escoba ‘plant from 

which brooms are made’ (Lat. SCOPAE ‘twigs tied together to make a broom’), 

though this appears to be a different kind of development. Finally, Rum. paie 

‘straw’, which has developed regularly from Lat. PALEA, has become regarded 

as a plural, giving a new sing. paiu ‘a straw’. (There are a number of examples 

of masculine forms replacing feminines in tree names, such as the It. tiglio 

‘lime’ beside tiglia, dial. bidollo ‘birch’ beside betulla, so also Rum. teiu, Sp. 

abedul, but the impulse in this case came from the change of gender from 

feminine to masculine in ARBOR ‘tree’ and the trees in -US, like POPULUS 

‘poplar’, FRAXINUS ‘ash’.) 

In §11f we looked at FAMILIA, taken as a collective, and the development 

from it of the Italian and Rhaeto-Romance unitary masculine words for a 

‘servant’. A similar development is seen in Surs. biestg, Eng. bes-ch ‘a sheep’ 

from biestga, bes-cha, which have come from the Lat. BESTIA ‘beast’ but have 

taken on the collective meaning ‘sheep (pl.)’. (The masculine forms appearing 

elsewhere, such as Tusc. dial. biscio ‘snake’, Sp., Ptg. bicho ‘grub’ are pure 

cases of change of gender, a change which is already found in late Lat. 

BESTIUS.) Other Rhaeto-Romance forms provided by Meyer-Lübke are crest

168 

‘hill’ from cresta ‘cock’s comb’, ‘ridge of hills’ (Lat. CRISTA ‘tuft’, ‘plume’), 

and atsch ‘skein of hemp or flax’ from atscha ‘spun hemp or flax’ (Lat. ACIA 

‘thread’, cf. Rum. aŃă ‘ditto’, It. accia (as atscha), OWallon. a(i)che, Gasc. asso 

‘skein of hemp or flax’). 

d) I have also come across four examples that I have not treated up to 

now, where a -U form had already developed out of a singular -A form in late 

Latin. These are ORUM from ORA ‘border’ (itself said to have come from ORA 

‘mouths’), MATERIUM from MATERIA (for MATERIES) ‘timber’, ‘matter’, 

CALDARIU, found in the Gl. Kass., for CALDARIA ‘cauldron’ (and cf. CALDARIUM 

‘hot bath’), and TELUM for TELA ‘web’ (we also find that COPULUM, beside 

COPULA ‘tie’, has left reflexes in Gallo-Romance). The first has led to forms like 

Ven. oro, Calab. urru, Friul. or, Surs., Eng. ur, OFr. or/ur/eur, Prov. or, Sard. 

oru, beside others developed from ORA, like OFr. ore, Prov., Cat. vora, and a 

wide range of derivatives such as It. orlo, OVen. orel, V. Ses. orell, OFr. orel, 

Fr.-Prov. orle, Cat., Sp., Ptg. orla, Sp. orillo and orilla, Ptg. ourelo and ourela, 

Log., Camp. orulu, Log. oridžu. From the second we have words referring to a 

single piece of timber, where the reflexes of MATERIA denote collective timber: 

Tusc. mateo, LEng. mader, Prov. madier, Cat. madis (from a pl. *madirs ?), Sp. 

madero, Ptg. madeiro. From the third we have the parallel forms It. caldaio, 

caldaia, Prov. caudier, caudiera, Cat. calder, caldera, Sp. caldero, caldera, Ptg. 

caldeiro, caldeira, the feminine forms Rum. căldare, Surs. caldera, Eng. 

chaldera (chüd-), Fr. chaudière, and masc. Sard. (Log.) keddardžu, (Camp.) 

kardažu, (NCamp.) kaddardžu. From the fourth we have It. telo ‘length of cloth’ 

beside tela ‘cloth’, so also Friul. tel, tele, Sard. telu, tela, and Cat. tel ‘film’, tela 

‘cloth’, like UArag., Murc. telo ‘skin on boiled milk’, tela ‘cloth’. (In the case 

of the masculine forms corresponding to TEGULA ‘tile’ and referring to various 

kinds of tile, I suspect that they have no connection with the Latin neuter 

TEGULUM ‘roofing’ but have been formed later from the corresponding 

168

169 

169 

feminines; examples are It. tegolo, Prov. teule, Sp. tejo, Ptg. telho.) 

As I suggested in the case of -ORIU and -ORIA, it seems to me likely that 

parallel forms in -ARIU and -ARIA were created at the Latin stage; so Portuguese 

has both peneiro and peneira ‘sieve’ from *PINNARIU, -IA × PANN- (so the 

REW, without giving any gloss or explanation), while PANARIU, -IA 

‘bread–basket(s)’ (which I overlooked when preparing the relevent section, see 

§12b) appear variously as words for ‘basket’ in Surs. paner, panera, Fr. panier, 

panière (dial.), Occ. paniè, paniero (whence It. paniere, paniera), Cat. paner, 

panera, Sp. panera, Ptg. paneiro (with n reintroduced), Log. panardza. We have 

also had occasion to note other parallel masculine and feminine forms in Latin, 

such as SPICU, SPICA and SPINU, SPINA, which have come down to Romance, 

sometimes with certain adjustments in their roles (e.g. Ptg. espinho means a 

‘thorn’). Other such are SITULU, SITULA ‘bucket’, which have given It. secchio, 

secchia, V. Gard. sedla, Friul. sele, Fr. seil (Poit.), seille, Prov. selh, selha, Ptg. 

selha, and late CAPPELLU ‘head covering’, CAPPELLA ‘little cape’, which have 

given the various words for ‘hat’ and ‘chapel’ (the original sanctuary being 

devoted to the preservation of the cloak (“cappella”) of St. Martin), together 

with *BANCU and *BANCA from Germanic, which have given the various words 

for ‘bench’ and ‘(money)bank’ (with varying distribution of meaning), so It., 

Sp., Ptg. banco, banca, Surs. baun, banca, UEng. baunch, bauncha, banca, 

LEng. banc, banca, Fr. banc, banque, Occ. banc, banco, Cat. banc, banca. 

Another pair, formed independently of each other, is MANICUS (once in a gloss) 

‘handle’ and MANICA ‘sleeve’, which are widely found: Rum. mânecă, (but 

mâner for ‘handle’), It. manico, manica, Surs. moni, mongia, UEng. manch, 

mangia, LEng. monch, mongia, Fr. manche masc. and fem., Prov. 

man(e)gue/margue, man(e)ga/marga, Cat. mànec, mànega/màniga, Sp., Ptg. 

mango, manga, Sard. (Cent.) manika, (Log., Camp.) maniga in both senses, but 

Sass. mániggu, Gall. mániku for ‘handle’.

170 

e) Besides all the parallel masculine and feminine forms I have just 

listed in this section, we also need to recall the others that have been referred to 

elsewhere. Because I have concentrated on giving the reflexes of the old neuter 

plurals, I have not always mentioned the fact that the singulars have also 

continued in a separate function, but this point needs to be made here before I 

come to the final development in Romance. Thus we have seen that 

LIGNU/LIGNA and FRUCTU/FRUCTA have come down in contrasting forms 

referring to the individual and collective objects respectively, while in other 

cases, such as those of BRACCHIU/-A, CORNU/-UA, OVU/-A, CILIU/-A, CAPITIU/-A, 

CEREBELLU/-A, RAMU/-A, FOLIU/-A, -ETU/-A, GRANU/-A, HORTU/-A, 

VESTIMENTU/-A, PRATU/-A, GRADU/-A, VALLU/-A, VELU/-A, VERBU/-A, LINTEU/-A, 

RADIU/-A, CANASTRU/-A, separate singular forms have developed, generally 

with distinct meanings related to the difference of number in Latin, though this 

is not always the case. In certain cases we can see a distinction in size, thus OFr. 

pree < PRATA is wider in expanse than pré < PRATU, and Sp. huerta, Ptg. horta, 

Prov. orta, Cat. horta are big gardens, while huerto, hôrto, ort and hort are only 

small ones; Prov., Cat., Sp., Ptg. saca and Fr.-Prov. sachi are bigger sacks than 

saco, sac, It. coltella, Prov. coutela, OCat. coltella, Sp. cuchilla and Ptg. cutela 

refer to knives bigger than those denoted by the corresponding masculine forms, 

and the same is true of the various words for ‘basket’ noted above, It. canestra, 

Rh. canastra, chana(i)stra, tganastra, Eng. chavagna (-ogna), Cat. cabassa; in 

Spanish cuerna means ‘antler’ and cuerno ‘horn’, and a rama is a main bough 

while a ramo is only a smaller branch, and equally, in Occitanian, anello 

denotes a large ring, as opposed to anèu, which is an ordinary ring, while It. 

cucchiaia means ‘ladle’ and cucchiaio ‘spoon’. In the same way, in the case of 

the words we have just looked at, the reflexes of CALDARIA and PANARIA 

generally denote larger objects than those of CALDARIU and PANARIU. From this 

has come the tendency to develop a new Romance masculine noun from a 

170

171 

171 

feminine noun which has neither been a neuter plural in Latin nor developed a 

collective meaning in Romance. This development is noted by both Nunes 

(Gram. Hist. Port., p. 223) and Rohlfs (§386); Rohlfs specifically refers to the 

question of size, though he takes most of his examples only from the above 

words, but Nunes sees no special distinction in meaning. 

f) Though some of the forms concerned are only of local occurrence, 

others are found over quite a wide area, suggesting that this process took place 

early enough for its effect to spread from one region to another. Among the 

words with a wide territory we find CUPA ‘barrel’, ‘tub’ and its modified form 

CUPPA ‘goblet’, with corresponding -O forms. From the former we have Neap. 

cupə (masc.) ‘hive’ beside Ven. cuba ‘cupola’, Fr. cuve ‘tub’, Prov., Cat. cup, 

cuba ‘ditto’, Sp., Ptg. cubo ‘bucket’, cuba ‘tub’, Sard. (Cent.) cupa, (Log., 

Camp.) cuba ‘tub’ (we can see that the Sp., Ptg. cubo is distinctly smaller than 

the cuba). CUPPA and its offshoot *CUPPO have given Rum. cupă ‘goblet’, It. 

coppo ‘jar’, ‘skull’, ‘fishing-net on a pole’, ‘acorn-cup’, coppa ‘goblet’, ‘cup 

(trophy)’, ‘pan (in scales)’, ‘cranium’ (the distinctions in meaning are evidently 

not related to size), Friul., Misox. cop ‘skimming-spoon’, Surs. cup, Eng. cop 

‘bowl’, ‘goblet’, Surs. cuppa, Eng. coppa ‘large bowl’, ‘basin’, ‘skull’, OFr. 

cop ‘head’, Fr. coupe ‘cup’, ‘bowl’, ‘basin’, ‘cupola’, Prov. cop ‘mortar’, 

‘crown of the head or of a tree or hat’, ‘acorn-cup’, ‘fishing-net on a pole’, copa 

‘cup’, ‘bowl’, ‘basin’, ‘brazier’, Cat. cop ‘vat’, ‘fishing-net’, copa ‘cup’, ‘glass’, 

Sp. copo ‘head of fibres on the top of a distaff’, ‘purse-net (for fishing)’, copa 

‘wine-glass’, ‘cup (trophy)’, ‘goblet’, ‘crown of a tree or hat’, ‘brazier’, Ptg. 

copo, as Spanish and also ‘glass’ (the source of Japanese koppu), copa ‘cup’, 

‘goblet’, ‘(cupboard for) crockery’, ‘crown of a tree or hat’, Log. kuppu ‘head 

of a cabbage’, Camp. kuppu ‘tub’ (Log. koppa, Camp. kuppa ‘brazier’ have 

been taken from Spanish); it will be seen that the distribution of meanings

172 

between the two forms has varied from language to language. From the Greek 

kístē, Latinized as cista ‘chest’, we have It., Sp., Ptg. cesta and cesto for kinds 

of ‘basket’, the latter being generally smaller in the case of Italian, but not so in 

Spanish and Portuguese. *MATTEA ‘club’ has given first the words for ‘club’, 

‘mace’, ‘stamper’, It. mazza, Friul. mazze, Fr. mace, Prov. massa, Cat. 

maça/massa, Sp. maza, Ptg. maça, and then mascs. It. mazzo ‘rammer’, 

‘bundle’, ‘bunch (of flower, keys etc.)’, Fr. (Lower Maine) mas, Prov. mas 

‘bunch of flowers’, Cat. maç/mas ‘bundle’, ‘bunch’, earlier ‘mallet’, Sp. mazo 

‘mallet’, ‘bundle’, ‘bunch of keys’, Ptg. maço ‘rammer’, ‘mallet’, ‘bundle’. 

CLAVICULA ‘peg’, which often developed as *CAVICULA, has given the expected 

forms in all areas except Rumania, and besides these OFr. chevil/Norm. kevil 

‘peg’, ‘ankle’, It. cavicchio ‘tuning-peg’ (but caviglio, formed from caviglia < 

Prov. cavilha, means a ‘large peg’), Sp. cabillo ‘flower stalk’ from cabilla, 

again taken from Provençal, Ptg. chavelho ‘horn of an ox’ beside chavelha 

‘peg’, and cravelho ‘wooden peg’ beside cravelha ‘tuning-peg’ (Spanish has the 

one form clavija for both meanings; Ptg. cavilha from Provençal has no 

masculine counterpart). Italian, Spanish and Portuguese all have barco beside 

barca from a late Latin BARCA ‘bark’, both denoting kinds of boats. 

The forms corresponding to FOSSU all seem to have developed later 

from FOSSA ‘ditch’, later ‘grave’: It. fosso ‘ditch’, fossa ‘grave’, and similarly 

Surs., Eng. foss, fossa, Occ. Fos, fosso, OCat. fos, Cat. fossa, Sp. foso, fosa 

(from Italian?; cf. huesa in §6e above), Ptg. fosso, fossa, Sard. fossu, fossa. In 

the same way Italian, Spanish and Portuguese all have toldo, tolda for an 

‘awning’, evidently from Fr. taud, taude, though the latter is not attested until 

the 19th century. BULLA ‘bubble’, ‘round object’ has left a number of forms 

which are not easy to disentangle. We have the direct forms It. bolla ‘bubble’, 

‘blister’, ‘seal’, Surs., Eng. buola ‘swelling’, ‘blister’, ‘bubble’ (for this last the 

Surs. form is bulla), Fr. boule ‘ball’, ‘bowl (for bowling)’, Occ. boulo ‘ditto’, 

172

173 

173 

Cat. bolla ‘seal on cloth’ (taken into Occ. as boulho), Sp. bolla ‘seal on Catalan 

cloth’ (replaced by ampolla in the sense of ‘bubble’, ‘blister’), Ast. bolla ‘small 

cake’, OPtg. bolla ‘seal’, bôla ‘small cake’, Ptg. bolha ‘bubble’, ‘blister’ (from 

Spanish?), Log. budda ‘entrails’; Catalan, Spanish and Portuguese also have 

bola from Provençal in the sense of ‘ball’, ‘bowl’, ‘soap-bubble’. Among the 

masculine forms are It. bollo ‘seal’, Surs. bul, Eng. buol ‘ditto’, OFr. boul 

‘heap’, Occ. boul ‘seal’, Cat. boll ‘husk’, Sp. bollo ‘small cake’, ‘swelling’, Ptg. 

bôlo ‘small cake', Log., Camp. bullu ‘seal’. Another group of words that is 

difficult to disentangle is the reflexes of the Germanic flaska ‘bottle’, which 

appears in late Latin as FLASCO-NIS; the basic forms seem to be feminine, but 

there are also masculines formed with the -U or -ONE ending. Here we have It. 

fiasca and fiasco/-cone (bigger than fiasca!), Friul. flascje, Surs. flescha, flesch 

(with an e that appears in Dutch vles(ch)), UEng. flas-cha, flas-ch, flascun, 

LEng. flescha/flascha, flasch, OFr. flasche, MFr. flasque (masc.), modern 

flacon, Prov. flasca, flascon and flasco, now flascou, perhaps formed from 

flasco(n) by a change of accent, similarly Cat. flasco or flascó with OCat. flasca 

as a collective for ‘kitchen utensils’, OArag. flascón, Sp. flasco (old)/frasco 

with frasca (hapax) as Catalan, Ptg. frasco, frasca as Spanish, Sard. flascu (old), 

frasku, fiasku. 

g) Other masculine formations are of limited extension. From late Latin 

CAPANNA ‘hut’ (cf. “cavanna” in the Gl. Reich., glossing TUGURIUM) we have It. 

capanno ‘bird-shooting hide’ beside capanna ‘hut’, with Lomb. (Verzasca) 

caman, Surs. camon ‘Alpine sheep-cote’ beside camona ‘hut’ (Engadinian only 

has chama(u)na), Occ. caban ‘wretched hut’ beside cabano ‘hut’ (from which 

Fr. cabane), but elsewhere only -A forms, Cat. caban(y)a, UArag. capana, Sp. 

cabana, Ptg. cabana (the DES says Sard. kabannu, kabanna are borrowed 

forms). From STELLA ‘star’ we have the occasional Cors. stellu for stella, and

174 

similarly NCalab. stillu, while a distinction in size underlies Cat. estel/dial. 

estrel beside estrella/OCat. estela, rarely estella, and Sard. isteddu as against 

istedda. From SPINULA ‘little thorn’, later ‘pin’, It. spillo ‘pin’ beside spilla 

‘brooch’, ‘tie-pin’ has a parallel in Camp. spindulu. Some formations are purely 

Italian, thus campano ‘cow-bell’ beside campana ‘bell’, buco ‘small hole’ 

beside buca ‘hole’, pezzo ‘piece’, ‘fragment’ with a different range of meaning 

from pezza (perhaps fulfilling the function of Sp. pedazo, Ptg. pedaço, which 

have no counterpart in standard Italian but only in southern forms like Calab., 

Sic. pit(t)azzu, Neap. pətaccia), masso ‘boulder’, specialized from massa ‘mass 

(of rock)’ in a unitary sense, mestolo ‘wooden cooking-spoon’, smaller than 

mestola ‘ladle’, ragno ‘spider’, created because ragna has come to mean 

‘spider’s web’, scalo ‘port of call’, differentiated from scala ‘stair’, ‘ladder’, 

where Spanish and Portuguese use escala for both, gambo ‘stalk’, ‘shank’ 

beside gamba ‘leg’; for other formations see Rohlfs, §386. Certain words for 

‘rock’, Fr. roc, roche, Prov., Cat. roc, roca (differentiated into unitary and 

collective in Catalan), of unknown derivation, are said to have originated in this 

Gallo-Romance region and spread out from there, giving It. rocca (also found 

in Logudorian), roccia, Sp. roca, Ptg. roca, rocha. Spanish and Portuguese have 

in common bolso ‘purse’, bôlso ‘pocket’ beside bolsa, bôlsa ‘purse’, from late 

Latin BURSA, taken from Greek býrsa ‘leather bag’; here Sursilvan has the 

corresponding pairs buors ‘shoulder-bag’, buorsa ‘purse’. Similarly Spanish 

and Portuguese have mosco, môsco ‘mosquito’ formed from mosca, môsca ‘fly’, 

Latin MUSCA. Again, the two languages have zapato, sapato ‘shoe’ from zapata, 

sapata ‘laced boot’, corresponding to It. ciabatta ‘mule (slipper)’, ‘old shoe’, Fr. 

savate, Occ. sabato ‘ditto’, Cat. sabata ‘shoe’, from Turkish çabata ‘kind of 

shoe’ (cf. Rum. ciobotă); other masculine forms are Trent. ciavat ‘toad’ and 

Surs. tschavat, Eng. tschavatt ‘bungler’, ‘sloven’ (corresponding to It. 

ciabattone) beside Eng. tschavatta ‘mule (slipper)’. Portuguese is alone in 

having veio ‘vein (of ore, in marble)’, ‘grain in wood’, created from veia ‘vein’, 

174

175 

175 

Lat. VENA. Spanish seems to have reversed the process in creating naba ‘swede 

(rutabaga)’ for a larger version of the nabo ‘turnip’. 

This concludes my observations on the secondary developments, though 

doubtless I have not exhausted all the possible examples, and marks the end of 

my survey of the Latin neuter plurals in Romance. I fear also that I have not 

exhausted the subject, limited as I am by working in Japan, but I trust that this 

survey will provide a good working basis for any future research. 

Principal works of reference cited in the text 

Aebischer, P., “Les pluriels analogiques en -ora en Italie”, ALMA, VIII, 1933. 

Alvar, M., & B. Pottier, Morphlogía Histórica del Español, Madrid, 1983. 

Anglade, J., Grammaire de l’ancien Provençal, Paris, 1921. 

Appel, E., De genere neutro intereunte in lingua latina, Erlangen, 1883. 

Ascoli, G.I., “Saggi ladini “ in AGI, Vol. 1, 1875. 

Audollent, A., Defixionum Tabellae, Paris, 1904. 

Badía Margarit, A., Gramática Histórica Catalana, Barcelona, 1961. 

Battisti, C., & G.. Alessio, ed., Dizionario Etimologico Italiano, Florence, 

1950-57. 

Bec, P., Manuel Pratique de Philologie Romane, Vol. 1, Paris. 1970, Vol. 2, 

Paris, 1971. 

Bourciez, É., Éléments de Linguistique Romane, 5th ed., Paris, 1967. 

Buck, C.D., Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Chicago, 1933. 

Cambridge Italian Dictionary (CID), ed. B. Reynolds, Cambridge, 1962. 

Carnoy, A., Le latin d’Espagne d’après les inscriptions, Brussels, 1906.

176 

Corominas, J., Diccionario Crítico-Etimológico de la Lengua Castellana 

(DCELC), Madrid, 1954-57. 

Diccionari Català-Valencià-Balear (DCVB), ed. A.M. Alcover & F. de B. 

Moll, Palma de Mallorca, 1930-63. 

Dicziunari Rumantsch-Grischun (DRC), ed. C. Pult et al., Chur, 1939-. 

Densunianu, O., Histoire de la Langue Roumaine, Paris, 1901-14. 

Du Cange, Ch., Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, Paris, 1687, 

reprinted at Graz, 1954-56. 

Elcock, W.D., The Romance Languages, London, 1960. 

Ernout, A., Morphologie historique du latin, 3rd. ed., Paris, 1953. 

Gaffiot, F., Dictionnaire Illustré Latin-Français, Paris, 1934. 

García de Diego, V., Manual de Dialectología Española, Madrid, 1967. 

Gili, J., Catalan Grammar, 3rd ed., Oxford, 1967. 

Godefroy, F., Dictionnaire de l’Ancienne Langue Française, 1880-1904. 

Grafström, A., Étude sur la Morphologie des plus Anciennes Chartes 

Languedociennes, Stockholm, 1968. 

Grande Dizionario della Ligua Italiana, Turin, 1998-2002. 

Grandgent, C.H., Introduction to Vulgar Latin, New York, 1934, repr. 1962. 

Gröber, G., ed., Grundriss der romanischen Philologie, 2nd ed., Strassburg, 

1904-06. 

Kennedy, B.H., The Revised Latin Primer, London, 1930. 

Lausberg, H., Romanische Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, 1962-69. 

Lewis, C.T., & T. Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford, 1879. 

Levy, E., Provenzalisches Supplement-Wörterbuch, Leipzig, 1894-1924. 

Menéndez Pidal, R., Manual de Gramática Histórica Española, 13th ed., 

Madrid, 1968; El dialecto Leonés, Oviedo, 1962. 

Meyer-Lübke, W., Die Schicksale des lateinischen Neutrums im Romanischen, 

Halle, 1883; Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, Leipzig, 1894; 

Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft, 3rd ed., 

176

177 

177 

Heidelberg, 1920; Romanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (REW), 3rd 

ed., Heidelberg, 1930-35; “Die lateinische Sprache in den romanischen 

Ländern”, in Gröber, Grundriss. 

Michaelis, H., Português e Inglês Dicionário, New York, 1945. 

Mistral, F., Lou Tresor dóu Felibrige, Avignon, 1878-86. 

Moll, F. de B., Gramática Histórica Catalana, Madrid, 1952. 

Monaci, E., Crestomazia Italiana dei Primi Secoli, new ed. by F. Arese, Rome, 

1955. 

Muller, H. F., & P. Taylor, A Chrestomathy of Vulgar Latin, Paris, 1937. 

Nelson, D. A., ed., El Libro de Alexandre, Madrid, 1979. 

Nunes, J.J., Compêndio de Gramática Histórica Portuguêsa, Lisbon, 1945. 

Nyrop, K.R., Grammaire historique de la lamgue française, Vol. 2, 

Copenhagen, 1903. 

Pellegrini, G. B., Grammatica Storica Spagnola, Bari, 1966. 

Pop, S., Grammaire Roumaine, Bern, 1948. 

Pope, M. K., From Latin to Modern French, revised ed., Manchester, 1952. 

Puşcariu, S., Etymologisches Wörterbuch der rumänischen Sprache, 

Heidelberg, 1905. 

Rohlfs, G., Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihrer 

Mundarten, Bern, 1949-54 (Vo1. II in the Italian translation, Turin, 

1968). 

Russell-Gebbett, P., Mediaeval Catalan Linguistic Texts, Oxford, 1965. 

Sampson, R., Early Romance Texts: An Anthology, Cambridge, 1980. 

Sas, L. F., The noun declension system in Merovingian Latin, Paris, 1937. 

Schönkron, M., ed., Rumanian-English and English-Rumanian Dictionary, 

New York, 1952. 

Souter, A., A Glossary of Later Latin, Oxford, 1949, repr. 1957. 

Thesaurus linguae Latinae, Leipzig, 1900-.

178 

Tobler, A., & E. Lommatzsch, Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch, Berlin- 

Wiesbaden, 1915-1995. 

Väänänen, V., Introduction au Latin Vulgaire, Paris, 1967. 

Velázquez de la Cadena, M., Spanish and English Dictionary, Chicago, 1967. 

Velleman, A, Gramatica teoretica, pratica ed istorica della lingua ladina 

d’Engiadin’ Ota, Zurich, 1924. 

Wagner, M.L., “Flessione Nominale e Verbale del Sardo Antico e 

Moderno”, in Italia Dialettale, Vols. 14 & 15, Pisa, 1938-39; La 

Lingua Sarda, Bern, 1951; Historische Wortbildungslehre des 

Sardischen (HWS), Bern, 1952; Dizionario Etimologico Sardo (DES), 

Heidelberg, 1960. 

Wartburg, W. von, Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Basle, 1922; 

Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachräume, Bern, 1950; 

Raccolta di testi antichi italiani, Bern, 1961. 

***** 

This is a slightly edited version of a paper originally published in 

Ronshu, Nos.26-32 (Tokyo, Aoyama Gakuin University, 1985-91). 

178

The Latin Neuter Plurals in Romance - Page ON

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?