The Brazilian Indefinite Article

MAORA   Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:38 am GMT
Why is the article always o and a (and not lo and la)?
MAORA   Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:57 am GMT
You're right, I've keep ignoring the Portuguese.
MAORA   Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:46 am GMT
Why uma, um and not un and una.

o (for male nouns) os (for plural)
a (for female nouns) as (for plural)
Why did this language get rid of the L
MAORA   Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:48 am GMT
why is the plural of um, uns? (and not uns).
IT doesn't make any sense.
Guest   Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:14 am GMT
Portuguese articles are very regular and easy
greg   Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:13 am GMT
C'est vrai que pour les articles définis portugais le <l> initial s'est effacé partout. Je n'en connais pas la raison.





Pourtant il en reste une trace dans <pelo> & <pela>, respectivement issus de <per lo> & <per la>.

Si j'ai bien compris — mais je parle sous le contrôle vigilant de nos amis lusophones —, voici ce qui se passe :
<por> + <o> → <pelo> ← <per lo>
<por> + <a> → <pela> ← <per la>.
La flèche pointée à droite (→) signifie que <pel(o/a)> est une contraction de <por> + <o/a>. La flèche pointée à gauche (←) signifie que <pel(o/a)> est étymologiquement issu de <per> + <l(o/a)>.

Je ne sais pas si <por> + <(o/a)s> donne lieu à une contraction (comme au singulier) ou si au contraire la contraction est impossible au pluriel.





En cherchant un peu, j'ai trouvé une région portugaise septentrionale qui s'apelle <Trás-os-Montes>, près de Bragance (Bragança). Le nom de cette région en ancien portugais *aurait* été <Trallosmontes>, ce qui montre la présence du <l>, d'ailleurs redoublée.

Vocable en contexte : « Trallosmontes — Associação Valorização de Produtos Agroalimentares de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro ».
furrykef   Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:34 am GMT
<< Why uma, um and not un and una.

o (for male nouns) os (for plural)
a (for female nouns) as (for plural)
Why did this language get rid of the L >>

You might as well ask why Latin "ille" and "illa" became "el/lo" and "la" in the first place.

- Kef
Guest   Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:37 am GMT
Those latin "ille and "illa are well preserved in italian contracted preposition allo, alla, nello, nella, etc
Guest   Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:10 am GMT
Probably because it's easier to pronounce.
Milton   Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:00 am GMT
Colloquial Brazilian Portuguese still has L for clarity (when O is a clitic):

EU AMO ELE (I love him)
instead of EU AMO-O or EU O AMO

both EU AMO-O and EU O AMO are pronounced like [EU AMO]
so, Brazilian usage keeps the full pronoun instead of weak clitic, for clarity, the same usage found in Archaic Portuguese...


As for
UNA it is an adjective meaning UNIQUE (uno, una...unique)
UM, UMA are indefinite articles
(UMA coexists with U'A (M is silent) in some Brazilian dialects)
Guest   Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:42 am GMT
^I didn't get your example... Could you explain again, where's the L in O?

ELE is not the same as LO.
Guest   Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:35 am GMT
"Probably because it's easier to pronounce".

If you are referring to the pronunciation of nello and dallo and so on, it's not that easy to pronounce because this is a geminate LL quite different from single L

Spanish en la, de la are totally regular and a breeze to pronounce!

What? Why don't you turn on you brain before speaking??
Milton   Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:11 pm GMT
''ELE is not the same as LO.''

Both have the same Latin origin: ILLE.


ILLE-->ELE(-->LO-->O)

(are formalisms and/or lusitanisms)

Vou encontrar ele. (Informal Brazilian Portuguese)
Vou encontrá-lo. (Formal Brazilian Portuguese)
Vou-o encontrar. (Lusitanism)
Guest   Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:55 pm GMT
**Vou-o encontrar. (Lusitanism)**

that's not right. It should be "Vou encontrá-lo", from the old "Vou encontrar a ele".
In this case, no one would say "Vou a ele encontrar", even though the meaning is understood.


So I see what you mean, but there's a difference.
"ELe" evolved from the Latin "Ille", as you said.
But "O" evolved from the Latin "Illu", then the Archaic "Lo".

The clitics "O" or "Lo" are always a contraction of "a ele", so I think it's hard to apply that directly to the question MAORA was asking since it only happens with this pronoun.
Still, the archaic probably had some influence and it was a very interesting input^^


As for the articles and the drop of the L, I still maintain it probably happened for pronunciation purposes.
**If you are referring to the pronunciation of nello and dallo and so on, it's not that easy to pronounce because this is a geminate LL quite different from single L **

No, of course I'm not referring to those, neither to regular or irregular usage. The LL don't even exist in Portuguese.
Portuguese language has a slightly different accent than Spanish, so what works well, it's easy to pronounce and sounds good in Spanish not always happen the same way in Portuguese.
So yeah, you might want to turn on your brain before starting making stupid assumptions.
OïL   Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:13 am GMT
La tendance à éliminer le 'L' des articles définis existe aussi en italien (le pluriel de <il> est <i>), plus encore dans certains dialectes italiques, spécialement le corse:

sing. <u>, <a> (presque comme en portugais)
plur. <i>, <e>

En corse, le 'L' ne réapparaît que dans quelques cas:
- devant les mots commençant par une voyelle, tous les art. définis deviennent <l'>,
- généralement après la conjonction <a> (ital. <al suo> = corse <a lu so> ; par contre ital. <del> = corse <di u>)
- en position de pronom clitique postposé (ital. <farlo> = corse <farlu>