Explorations in Aromanian Morpho‑Syntax: NPs, Prepositional Contexts and Infinitives

: The main topic of this article is the relationship between morphosyntactic contexts and nominal inflections in Aromanian varieties of southern Albania. These varieties have a specialized inflection in the plural definite and feminine singular nouns, associated with genitive, dative, and prepositional contexts, where it is preceded by a Possessive Introducer. We present a detailed picture of the microvariation that characterizes the different systems. The broad syncretism that emerges suggests a rethinking of the syntactic status of inflections and the notion of Case. Our approach assumes that morphology is based on Merge within the syntactic computation and that sub‑word elements are provided with interpretable content. This theoretical model will also guide us in the study of prepositions and their distribution.


Introduction
This article focuses on the morphosyntax of nouns and prepositional phrases in the varieties of Aromanian spoken in southern Albania, which include the variety of Myzeqeja (Musachia), Rëmën, and that of the Gjirokastër and Korça areas, Fërshërot. 1 In general, Aromanian shows the features of heritage languages, insofar as its transmission and use involve family members, friends, or the village circle, and is influenced by contact with Albanian, the official language.In North Macedonia and Albania, Aromanian is assigned the status of a linguistic minority with the legal forms of protection.Stoica (2021) provides an important sociolinguistic investigation based on a number of oral histories collected through interviews with Aromanian informants of the region of Korça.Her research highlights the relevant identity factors that regulate the use of Aromanian, such as indexicality, the role of gender, local occasioning, in particular contact and borrowings, and positioning, understood as the confrontation with other groups of speakers.The image that is drawn is that of an identity language subject to the typical mechanisms of minority nonstandardized varieties in situations of contact and social competition.
The discussion is based on data collected in an extensive field research with native speakers during several field surveys in the Aromanian communities in southern Albania, the last of which was on 4-8 July 2023. 2 The exact variety of the examples is noted for each set of data through the name of the town or village from which the informant comes.The focus of our analysis is the distribution of case exponents of nouns in relation to syntactic contexts.What emerges is that the exponents of the case cover different interpretations and contexts and show a pervasive syncretism.As for the noun morphology, Aromanian has a paradigm of post-nominal exponents, traditionally treated as enclitic articles (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006), which, in addition to definiteness and gender/noun class properties, distinguish the direct and oblique case in plural definite nouns and, in the singular, in a subset of nouns, as in (1a,b).Comparatively, Daco-Romanian separates the direct case, for subject and object, and the indirect case, for the beneficiary and other oblique contexts (Dobrovie-Sorin and Giurgea 2013), as in (2a) for the direct form and (2b) for the oblique.In Aromanian, obliques, occurring in possession and locative contexts, must be introduced by the so-called PI (Possessive Introducer), unlike Daco-Romanian.This difference is highlighted by the comparison between Daco-Romanian (in standard writing) and Aromanian datives in (3a) and genitives in (3b).We note that in what follows enclitic exponents are identified with inflectional morphemes.There are many factors that argue for the inflectional status of enclitic articles, as discussed and motivated by Ledgeway (2017) for Daco-Romanian.Indeed, these elements cannot be separated from the stem, and, in addition to or independently from definiteness, express gender, number and case, as the nominal paradigms of Latin and, although with considerable differences, of the other Romance languages.Moreover, enclitics can combine with specialized definiteness elements in pre-nominal position.Aromanian and Daco-Romanian are very similar to Albanian, where post-posed inflections realize gender, number, case (and definiteness), with similar phenomena of syncretism and category overlappings.
( The system of full pronouns distinguishes nominative/accusative and oblique; object clitics (OCls), in turn, show distinct forms of accusative and dative.Possessives follow the head noun with which they agree, and are preceded by the PI a, as in (4) (4) Libofshë libr-a a mɛ-u/a ta-u /a nɔst(әr) book-FSG PI my.FSG/PI your.FSG / PI our 'My/your/our book' Interestingly, simple prepositions, including the elementary relator di 'of, by', introduce direct (nominative/accusative) forms.The locative prepositions tu, kәt, a, Ga/la 'at, to' are sensitive to the referential ranking of the place, according to animacy/ human properties of the referent, like in other Romance languages.In complex PPs, the lexical item specifying the place, the Axial Part in the sense of Svenonius (2006), is followed by di (the part-whole relation operator) followed by the noun in the direct form, or alternatively by the PI followed by the oblique form of the noun, as illustrated by the comparison between (5a) and (5b).
dǝninti o fitʃor-ʎ-u /o mujɛr-ʎ-u before of boy-DEF-PL/woman-DEF-PL before PI boy-DEF-OBL /PI women-DEF-OBL 'Before the boys/the women' 'Before the boys/the women' Finally, the analysis of prepositions leads us to address the contexts where the relators di 'of' and ti 'for' introduce the infinitival sentences, as in (6a) and (6b), respectively.'Before the boys/the women' Finally, the analysis of prepositions leads us to address the contexts where the relators di 'of' and ti 'for' introduce the infinitival sentences, as in (6a) and (6b), respectively.( 6 The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009).Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems schematized in single tables, from which some interesting types of syncretism emerge.Section 4 illustrates the possessive constructs, where the preposition di and the PI alternate, and Section 4.1 the pronominal systems, the possessive elements included.Section 5 is devoted to the description of prepositional contexts.Sections 6 and 6.1 examine the case properties.Section 7 outlines an analysis of the infinitives introduced by di/ti.The examples from Aromanian dialects are reported in a broad IPA transcription.

The Nominal System: A Comparison between Dialects
As a first step, let us consider the nominal paradigms.The data have been collected through field research in Myzeqeja, in Libofshë, L, and Divjakë, D-Rëmën 3 , and in the regions of Gjirokastër (Këllez, K) and Korça (Plasë, P)-Fërshërot.The Aromanian data differentiate the direct form, occurring in nominative or accusative contexts, from the oblique form.The latter shows a specialized inflection only in a subset of nouns and, needs to be introduced by the PI.In what follows, we collate the systems of direct and oblique definite and indefinite forms, in the singular and in the plural.We begin with the dialects The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009).Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems schematized in single tables, from which some interesting types of syncretism emerge.Section 4 illustrates the possessive constructs, where the preposition di and the PI alternate, and Section 4.1 the pronominal systems, the possessive elements included.Section 5 is devoted to the description of prepositional contexts.Sections 6 and 6.1 examine the case properties.Section 7 outlines an analysis of the infinitives introduced by di/ti.The examples from Aromanian dialects are reported in a broad IPA transcription.

The Nominal System: A Comparison between Dialects
As a first step, let us consider the nominal paradigms.The data have been collected through field research in Myzeqeja, in Libofshë, L, and Divjakë, D-Rëmën 3 , and in the regions of Gjirokastër (Këllez, K) and Korça (Plasë, P)-Fërshërot.The Aromanian data differentiate the direct form, occurring in nominative or accusative contexts, from the oblique form.The latter shows a specialized inflection only in a subset of nouns and, needs to be introduced by the PI.In what follows, we collate the systems of direct and oblique definite and indefinite forms, in the singular and in the plural.We begin with the dialects of Libofshë and Divjakë (Muzakea), in ( 7)-( 14), and proceed with Fërshërot, (15)-( 18 Genitive and dative contexts are introduced by the PI (cf.Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006).In some Aromanian varieties, this morphological element combines with a morpheme agreeing with the embedded noun, as in Rëmën of Libofshë and Divjakë.In the glosses, the inflectional exponents have the following descriptive labels: -u = MSG/OBL, -a = FSG, -ʎ/l-= DEF, -i = PL/SG/OBL, -ur-₌ OBL.PL.The nature of the inflections will be reconsidered in subsequent sections as the discussion progresses.(5) Libofshë a. dǝninti di fitʃor-ʎ-i/mujɛr-l-i b. dǝninti o fitʃor-ʎ-u /o mujɛr-ʎ-u before of boy-DEF-PL/woman-DEF-PL before PI boy-DEF-OBL /PI women-DEF-OBL 'Before the boys/the women' 'Before the boys/the women' Finally, the analysis of prepositions leads us to address the contexts where the relators di 'of' and ti 'for' introduce the infinitival sentences, as in (6a) and (6b), respectively.( 6 The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems schematized in single tables, from which some interesting types of syncretism emerge.Section 4 illustrates the possessive constructs, where the preposition di and the PI alternate, and Section 4.1 the pronominal systems, the possessive elements included.Section 5 is devoted to the description of prepositional contexts.Sections 6 and 6.1 examine the case properties.Section 7 outlines an analysis of the infinitives introduced by di/ti.The examples from Aromanian dialects are reported in a broad IPA transcription.

The Nominal System: A Comparison between Dialects
As a first step, let us consider the nominal paradigms.The data have been collected through field research in Myzeqeja, in Libofshë, L, and Divjakë, D-Rëmën 3 , and in the regions of Gjirokastër (Këllez, K) and Korça (Plasë, P)-Fërshërot.The Aromanian data differentiate the direct form, occurring in nominative or accusative contexts, from the oblique form.The latter shows a specialized inflection only in a subset of nouns and, needs to be introduced by the PI.In what follows, we collate the systems of direct and oblique definite and indefinite forms, in the singular and in the plural.We begin with the dialects vinәrә /vәdzui fәtʃor-je /bәrbats-je /fɛtә-l-i they.came/I.saw boy-PL.DEF /man-PL.DEF /girl-DEF-PL 'The boys/the men/the girls came', 'I saw the boys/the men/the girls' b.
(5) Libofshë a. dǝninti di fitʃor-ʎ-i/mujɛr-l-i b. dǝninti o fitʃor-ʎ-u /o mujɛr-ʎ-u before of boy-DEF-PL/woman-DEF-PL before PI boy-DEF-OBL /PI women-DEF-OBL 'Before the boys/the women' 'Before the boys/the women' Finally, the analysis of prepositions leads us to address the contexts where the relators di 'of' and ti 'for' introduce the infinitival sentences, as in (6a) and (6b), respectively.( 6 The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems schematized in single tables, from which some interesting types of syncretism emerge.Section 4 illustrates the possessive constructs, where the preposition di and the PI alternate, and Section 4.1 the pronominal systems, the possessive elements included.Section 5 is devoted to the description of prepositional contexts.Sections 6 and 6.1 examine the case properties.Section 7 outlines an analysis of the infinitives introduced by di/ti.The examples from Aromanian dialects are reported in a broad IPA transcription.

The Nominal System: A Comparison between Dialects
As a first step, let us consider the nominal paradigms.The data have been collected through field research in Myzeqeja, in Libofshë, L, and Divjakë, D-Rëmën 3 , and in the regions of Gjirokastër (Këllez, K) and Korça (Plasë, P)-Fërshërot.The Aromanian data differentiate the direct form, occurring in nominative or accusative contexts, from the oblique form.The latter shows a specialized inflection only in a subset of nouns and, needs to be introduced by the PI.In what follows, we collate the systems of direct and oblique definite and indefinite forms, in the singular and in the plural.We begin with the dialects   Korça-Plasë and -u in Këllëz (cf. Poçi 2009).The feminine has the exponent -i in the plural and the singular oblique.The result is that in the singular -i is doubled in definite forms, as in (17a) and (21a); additionally, it is inserted as the plural in definite forms, as in (16a,b) and (20a,b).Definite singular forms insert -u in the masculine and -a in the feminine singular, in (15a) and (19a), while in the plural, the exponent -l-occurs, palatalized in -j-in the masculine, in (16a) and (20a).Unlike Rëmën, in Fërshërot, the indefinite article has the oblique inflection -ui in the masculine and -ei in the feminine, which combines with the simple stem of masculine nouns or the inflected oblique of feminine nouns, as in (17b) and (21b).The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009) The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in (5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems schematized in single tables, from which some interesting types of syncretism emerge.Section 4 illustrates the possessive constructs, where the preposition di and the PI alternate, and Section 4.1 the pronominal systems, the possessive elements included.Section 5 is devoted to the description of prepositional contexts.Sections 6 and 6.1 examine the case properties.Section 7 outlines an analysis of the infinitives introduced by di/ti.The examples from Aromanian dialects are reported in a broad IPA transcription.

The Nominal System: A Comparison between Dialects
As a first step, let us consider the nominal paradigms.The data have been collected The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in (5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems schematized in single tables, from which some interesting types of syncretism emerge.Section 4 illustrates the possessive constructs, where the preposition di and the PI alternate, and Section 4.1 the pronominal systems, the possessive elements included.Section 5 is devoted to the description of prepositional contexts.Sections 6 and 6.1 examine the case properties.Section 7 outlines an analysis of the infinitives introduced by di/ti.The examples from Aromanian dialects are reported in a broad IPA transcription.In the noun class deriving from the third declination of Latin (class III), a different paradigm is realized.Indeed, in this class, -i occurs also in masculine stems.For the sake of brevity, this class is exemplified in ( 23)-( 26) for Libofshë and in ( 27)-( 30 of boy-DEF-PL/woman-DEF-PL before PI boy-DEF-OBL /PI women-DEF-OBL 'Before the boys/the women' 'Before the boys/the women' Finally, the analysis of prepositions leads us to address the contexts where the relators di 'of' and ti 'for' introduce the infinitival sentences, as in (6a) and ( 6b The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems schematized in single tables, from which some interesting types of syncretism emerge.Section 4 illustrates the possessive constructs, where the preposition di and the PI alternate, and Section 4.1 the pronominal systems, the possessive elements included.The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems In the class in ( 23)-( 30), -i characterizes the indefinite singular direct and indirect forms, in (23b)/(25b) and (27b)/(29b).The inflection -l-i appears in the masculine singular in (23a) and (27a).
We synthesize the data concerning the distribution of inflections in the following tables.Table (31) summarizes the examples in ( 7)-( 14) of Rëmën, where inflections are linked to syntactic contexts, descriptively indicated by case labels; Pal = palatalization of the final C. (31a) illustrates definite contexts, (31b) the indefinite contexts, and (31c) PI alternants.

Definite paradigm
An extensive syncretism is shown by the preceding data, which affects both the distinction between direct and oblique, and that between definite and indefinite.In fact, the definite direct contexts show the enclitic definite exponents -u or -l-i for the masculine singular and, in the feminine singular, the definite exponent -a, as in (a).The indefinite masculine singular forms have no exponent except for -i in the class III nouns, while in the feminine, the indefinite exponents -ә in (31b) and (32b), -e in (32b), and -i in (33b)/(34b) are inserted.In the oblique, the singular oblique, definite or indefinite, has the inflection -i in all classes.In the definite plural direct contexts in (31a), and (32a), both masculine and feminine nouns present a specialized plural inflection, -ʎ/l-(from Latin demonstrative *ille 'that'), which can be associated with definiteness.In some dialects, the inflection -je occurs, cf.(34a).The masculine nouns show the palatalization of the final obstruent or nasal, as for instance in the case of bәrbat/bәrbats 'man/men', mult/mults 'much/many', kɛn/kɛñ 'dog/dogs', etc.In indefinite contexts, the feminine plural has -i, an exponent that we also find in masculine nouns, as in (31b).
In the plural, definite oblique contexts show a specialized inflection in which -u combines with the plural formative -ʎ-, -r-, in (31a) and (33a), in the Libofshë dialect, and - -in (31a), in the Divjakë dialect; in Fërshërot, we find -l-or in (32a) and (34a), and -l-u in (32a).In indefinite context, the simple form of plural emerges, (cf.Pană Dindelegan 2013; Pană Dindelegan et al. 2019).In all contexts, the realization of the oblique morphology is associated with the PI preceding the DP, namely o for the masculine singular and the plural and a li for the feminine singular, regardless of the definite or indefinite nature of the DP, in Rëmën varieties in (31c)/(33c).In Fërshërot, PIs are a and variably a li before the singular feminine and a ì/a before masculines, as in (32c)/(34c).

Pronoun Systems
In the Aromanian pronominal paradigms, the nominative and accusative of the first and second singular coincide in the original accusative form.In (35a), we classify these forms as direct.The oblique forms, specifically the dative in (35b,c), are preceded by the introducer PI.In some dialects, nɛs is restricted to prepositional contexts, as we will see in Section 4.1.

Possessive Constructs
In genitive contexts, the possessor is introduced by the noun with the oblique inflection preceded by the PI, like in dative, as in (37a) and (38a) for nominal contexts and (37b) and (38b) for predicative occurrences, respectively from Libofshë and Divjakë.The genitive of first and second person is the possessive element, as illustrated for Libofshë in (41a,b) for the feminine and masculine singular and in (41a',b') for the feminine and masculine plural (Baldi and Savoia 2021).These forms agree with the noun designating the possessum, the head noun of DP, or the subject in predicative contexts.The agreement inflection is indicated in the glosses and includes both the change in the lexical base, as mɛ-feminine vs. ñe-masculine, and the nominal exponents, such as, for instance, -l/ʎ-for the plural.The third person possessors are lexicalized by the oblique forms of third person pronouns, so that dative and genitive coincide in the same forms, o Gui/a jei/o Gorә 'of him/her/them' in (41c), exactly as in nominal structures (Manzini and Savoia 2018;Baldi and Savoia 2021).In (42a-b'), the data of Korça-Plasë are provided.The examples in (43) illustrate the possessives in predicative contexts.The PI a precedes the possessive in all contexts, differently from Daco-Romanian where PI occurs only in indefinite contexts (Dobrovie-Sorin and Giurgea 2013).It is of note that the inflectional part of the possessive includes the definiteness element -l-that we find in nominal paradigms.In Rëmën, the original -l has been velarized into -u in the final position, as in (41a,b)/(42a,b), while in the masculine plural, it palatalizes in -ʎ.Fërshërot shows the realization -ì, cf.(43a,a') 4 .
On a par with Daco-Romanian, enclitic possessives characterize kinship terms, as illustrated in (44) for Libofshë and (45) for Këllez.(44a,b) and (45a) attest the possibility of duplicating the possessive element by means of the postnominal form.The enclitic form is reduced and is followed by the definite inflection; the lexical base may in turn include the gender/noun class inflection, as in the example in (45b).The enclitic incorporates the nominal inflection, as shown by all the examples in ( 44) and ( 45).The occurrence of a in dative and genitive recalls the fact that Romance languages also have inherent possession datives as in Italian Ho lavato i capelli a Maria, lit.: 'I have washed the hair to Mary', i.e., 'I washed Mary's hair'.Moreover, in Southern Italian dialects, a can also introduce the possessor (Rohlfs 1954 As discussed in Baldi and Savoia (2021), exactly as in Daco-Romanian, the structures Prep + article + possessive show the agreement with the head noun.

Prepositional Contexts
Prepositional contexts contribute to circumscribing the distribution of nominal and pronominal forms; moreover, they provide evidence for a more adequate hypothesis on the status of the PI and other prepositions.An important point with respect to the case system of Aromanian is that oblique morphology of nouns is only selected in PI o/a/ali contexts, which cover possession and dative 5 .In the contexts introduced by the lexical prepositions, the direct morphology is realized, as shown by the data in (48a,b)-(51a,b) with the prepositions a 'at',

Object Clitics
Like in most Romance languages, Aromanian can express the internal argument by a set of object clitics that distinguish accusative, in (88a), and dative, in (88b), both in the first/second person and third person elements.In our data, the third person singular accusative has two phonological alternants, u vs. o.The reflexive is illustrated in (88c).The object clitics occur in the pre-verbal position except for the imperative, where they are enclitic; in the clusters, in (88d), the order is accusative+dative.In the plural, we find different alternants, ʎ-u, ɣ -u and l-u (cf.Poçi 2009, p. 131), as illustrated in (88e).In the dialect of Korça-Plasë, the third person accusative can not be realized in the cluster with the third person dative, as in (88f, f'), a possibility that is, however, attested in the object clitic systems of the Southern Italian clitics (Manzini and Savoia 2005, § 4 a/ja/la 'at, to', tu 'in', ti 'for', ku 'with', etc.In particular, simple state-in or motion prepositions manifest a human/animacy split between low and highranked referents, as in (48a)-(51a).Low-ranked referents, in (48b)-(51b), are associated with the locative a 'at, to', tu 'at, in', and, variably, la 'to', whereas high-ranked referents, namely humans and first/second person pronouns, in (48a)-(51a), are introduced by the locative bərbats-ur-u⊆

Object Clitics
Like in most Romance languages, Aromanian can express the internal argument by a set of object clitics that distinguish accusative, in (88a), and dative, in (88b), both in the first/second person and third person elements.In our data, the third person singular accusative has two phonological alternants, u vs. o.The reflexive is illustrated in (88c).The object clitics occur in the pre-verbal position except for the imperative, where they are enclitic; in the clusters, in (88d), the order is accusative+dative.In the plural, we find different alternants, ʎ-u, ɣ -u and l-u (cf.Poçi 2009, p. 131), as illustrated in (88e).
In the dialect of Korça-Plasë, the third person accusative can not be realized in the cluster with the third person dative, as in (88f, f'), a possibility that is, however, attested in the object clitic systems of the Southern Italian clitics (Manzini and Savoia 2005 Other simple prepositions exclude the animacy split, as in the case of comitative in (52a)-(54a), instrumental in (54a'), temporal elements in (52b), and benefactive element in (52c)-(54c).(54d) illustrates the preposition piʃti 'on'.It is interesting to note that some informants of Libofshë alternate di with ti in benefactive contexts, as in (52c) With locative and benefactive prepositions, the noun can occur in the indefinite form, as in particular for the low-ranked referents in (50b)-(53b), except for when the noun is followed by the possessive or preceded by the demonstrative, for instance in (54c), in addition to personal pronouns.This structure is attested both in old and current Romanian (cf.Stan 2016, p. 305); it is also present in Albanian, where prepositions can select the indefinite form of the noun. 6

The Introducer Di
The prepositional introducer di covers relational, agentive, and sentential occurrences.Let us consider first the different kinds of possession relation.We see that di 'of' is in complementary distribution with the PI both in possessive contexts, where the PI with the oblique alternates with the preposition di followed by the direct form of the noun (Savoia et al. 2020).The latter possibility is attested in old Romanian (cf.Nedelcu 2013, p. 56).In possessive contexts, di generally combines with the indefinite form of the noun, giving rise to a reading indicating a generic or typical possession, as in the examples in ( 55)-( 57 Complex prepositions, encompassing locative, temporal, and instrumental meanings, include a lexical item specifying place, direction, and time in relation to the discourse (the Axial part), and the DP associated with the point of reference, i.e., the whole of which the axial expression is a part.The DP is introduced either as an oblique preceded by the PI, as in (58a)-(61a), or, alternatively, by the preposition di followed by the noun in direct form, as in (58b)-(61b).In these constructs, pronominal referents are realized as feminine possessives, in (a.iii), alternating with di 'of' followed by the pronoun, in (b.iii).The distribution of the third person element nɛs varies according to the dialect.Thus, while in Korça-Plasëan it occurs both in prepositional contexts, in (62a), and direct ones, in (62b,c), in the Këllëz dialect, it occurs only in prepositional contexts, as in (63) As regards these constructs, Dobrovie-Sorin and Nedelcu (2013, p. 341) note that 'The semantic effect triggered by the presence of de preceding the genitive is not partitivity, but rather 'anti-uniqueness''.So, di specifies a partitive-like reading over the possessive structure introduced by PI.

Theoretical Framework
The data we have presented crucially concern the workspace of DP or P+DP, and imply inflectional properties.Inflected words are yielded by Merge, which takes roots and affixes, i.e., sub-word elements, and combines them into a complex syntactic object.This procedure encompasses the 'head raising', the classic movement of the head, i.e., the mechanism that combines nominal or verbal heads with affixes in the cartographic approach.Chomsky's most recent papers (Chomsky 2019(Chomsky , 2020(Chomsky , 2021) ) criticize the head movement as a genuine syntactic rule on the basis of the Probe-Goal φ-feature matching in affixation.Chomsky (2019, p. 268) notes that 'head raising is problematic insofar as it does not entail semantic effects and, structurally, it is counter-cyclic', and proposes 'simply to drop the condition that Internal Merge (Movement) has to be triggered, so it's free, like External Merge'. 7As to the syntactic nature of morphology, Chomsky (2021, pp. 30, 36 ff.) assumes that Merge creates complex words via amalgamation of morphemes.Thus, in inflected verbs, the amalgamation yields complex forms such as [INFL [v, Root]], which realize the properties of the C/T Phase.The idea that inflection of the verb can satisfy in T the features of v is discussed by Chomsky (2021, pp. 30, 36 ff.), who notes that 'The first step in a derivation must select two items from the lexicon, presumably a root R and a categorizer CT, forming {CT, R}, which undergoes amalgamation under externalization, possibly inducing ordering effects […].With head movement eliminated, v need no longer be at the edge of the vP phase but can be within the domains of PIC and Transfer, which can be unified.EA is interpreted at the next phase'.
In keeping with this conceptualization of the morphology-syntax relationship, the traditional head movement involving post-nominal articles and the gender/number/case inflection in NPs can in turn be seen as a type of amalgamation.The category-less root of nouns is interpreted as a predicate with one open argument place, which is ultimately bound by a D/Q operator (Higginbotham 1985).It is natural to assume that nominal specifications such as gender, and number (and classifiers) apply to and restrict the argument of the Root (cf.Manzini and Savoia 2018).
Categorizers such as v, n can be conceptualized as the bundles of φ-features entering into the agreement operations (Manzini 2021;Savoia andBaldi 2022, 2023).In this model, heads (inflections, roots, prepositions) are amalgamated based on the content properties and selection constraints of these lexical elements.As for gender, in DM approaches, such as that of Kramer (2015), it coincides with the noun class.In fact, gender seems rather to be a property encoded in nouns, governing the selection of the exponents of the agreement.Its relation to semantic content can emerge; for example, in many Romance languages, -a seems to imply interpretive properties, as discussed in Manzini et al. (2020).We will not address this issue, as it is not relevant to the phenomena we deal with.
As is well-known, some current morphological approaches identify morphology as an autonomous component.In Distributed Morphology, sub-word elements (affixes and clitics) are 'dissociated morphemes', which convey information 'separated from the original locus of that information in the phrase marker' (Embick and Noyer 2001, p. 557) and involve post-syntactic rules of Local dislocation (Embick and Noyer 2001).Thus, agreement and case morphemes are not represented in syntax but are added post-syntactically 'during Morphology' through the Late-insertion mechanism. 8We adopt a different model, in which morphological operations are part of the syntactic computation and there is no specialized component for the morphological structure of words (Manzini and Savoia 2011;Manzini et al. 2020; see also Collins and Kayne 2021;Marantz 2001).Lexical elements, including morphemes, are endowed with interpretive content.This hypothesis excludes powerful tools such as Late insertion (Halle and Marantz 1993) and the manipulation of terminal nodes with which Distributed Morphology deals with complex phenomena such as syncretism. 9The agreement in sentence and within the DP is accounted for as the manifestation of the identity between referential feature sets corresponding to the same arguments.

Elementary Relators
Genitives, datives, and locatives in many natural languages are realized by the same cases or adpositions, i.e., non-spatial obliques, giving rise to a syncretic semantic space.This also applies to Aromanian, in which genitives and datives share the same syntactic construct where the PI combines with the possessor/recipient.Moreover, we saw that di 'of' can replace the possessive construct both in possession and in locative contexts.In keeping with Franco and Manzini (2017), we pursue the idea that prepositions are instantiations of the basic relation part-whole, i.e., inclusion [⊆], in the sense discussed in Belvin and Den Dikken (1997, p. 170), according to which 'entities have various zones associated with them, such that an object or eventuality may be included in a zone associated with an entity without being physically contained in that entity… The type of zones which may be associated with an entity will vary with the entity'.
Hence, possession on a par with location can be understood as a type of 'zonal inclusion' (Manzini andSavoia 2011, 2018).The crucial example is provided by di, which includes apparently diverse readings as illustrated in Section 4.1.Moreover, it can combine with different types of lexical elements of which it realizes the relationship with some type of possessor/whole, as in the complex prepositions in ( 58)-( 61).On the basis of such a distribution, di can be analyzed as the elementary operator [⊆], as in (69) (Savoia et al. 2020), where it interprets the relation involved in oblique contexts as the inclusion of a part in a whole.(69) di: ⊆ In the terms of this proposal, di, and in general prepositions, are predicates introducing a relation between the argument they select and another argument/event.In the derivation in (70), R is the lexical root and φ is an abbreviation for nominal features, here definite plural.The axial element, namely the locative noun, merges with (70a), yielding the complex construct in (70b), associated with the syntactic domain in (70c), where the locative extends the event of v.
The idea, discussed by Savoia et al. (2020), is that in the complex PPs, the locative item (Axial Part) is associated with a 'possessor'; more precisely, its 'zonal inclusion' fixed by the noun, in (70) fitʃorʎi 'the boys'.According to Franco and Manzini (2017), the motion or state-in interpretation is derived from the type of locative event introduced by the verb in conjunction with the locative noun.This is confirmed by the fact that the same prepositions can occur with different verbs.Moreover, prepositions are selected by different place nouns, specifically, as noticed, as regards their animacy properties, as illustrated in ( 48)-( 51).We may think that simple prepositions specialized for locative reading realize a spatial restriction on the elementary relator as in (71a).The sequence di la (cf.( 67)) supports this analysis, as it provides an analytical representation of (67a) in which the relator is realized independently of locative specification, as in (71b).We note that di la someway recalls the Italian preposition da, arguably deriving from di+ad/ab (Rohlfs 1954, § 833).
la/ja/G G Ga: The DOM effect, contrasting

Object Clitics
Like in most Romance languages, Aromanian can express the internal argument b a set of object clitics that distinguish accusative, in (88a), and dative, in (88b), both in th first/second person and third person elements.In our data, the third person singul accusative has two phonological alternants, u vs. o.The reflexive is illustrated in (88c).Th object clitics occur in the pre-verbal position except for the imperative, where they a enclitic; in the clusters, in (88d), the order is accusative+dative.In the plural, we fin different alternants, ʎ-u, ɣ -u and l-u (cf.Poçi 2009, p. 131), as illustrated in (88e).In the dialect of Korça-Plasë, the third person accusative can not be realized in the clust with the third person dative, as in (88f, f'), a possibility that is, however, attested in th object clitic systems of the Southern Italian clitics (Manzini and Savoia 2005, § 4.6) The clitics paradigm highlights the overlapping between the third plural and dativ forms on (-)i.This pattern, shown by many Italian varieties and by Albanian, argues for common interpretive property underlying the dative and plural.As to the dative forms, is natural to analyze them as combining the part-whole relator with the root, as [[ɲ1SG] i 'to me'.The stressed pronoun requires the explicit relator a, as in (75).
Aromanian shows clitic doubling limited to contexts where the personal pronoun the object, as in (89a,b), or the dative, in (89c).This construct is variable in old Romania (Pană Dindelegan 2016) but generalized in standard Daco-Romanian (Pană Dindelega 2013; Rîpeanu Reinheimer et al. 2013).In our data, clitic doubling is systematic only wi first and second person pronouns, differently from the third person, as in (89a'), where a/la/kǝt and a/tu, can be attributed to the lexical properties of these prepositions, selecting the animacy/deicticity (first/second person) of the complement.In fact, natural languages tend to conceptualize highly ranked (animate) referents as atomic individuals with a surrounding 'inclusion zone', as opposed to extended surfaces, locations, and objects in the space introduced by prepositions such as tu.The human/animacy split in locative prepositions characterizes many languages and is very clear in Romance languages (Luraghi 2011), where it affects both simple and complex prepositions.For instance, in Romance languages, there are different ways of introducing animate locations, such as chez in French, da in Italian, and ddu 'where' in Southern Italian varieties.In the terms of a functionalist explanation, Luraghi (2011, p. 210) attributes the split to the fact that human beings are not typical 'landmarks of local expressions' because they are mobile and exclude the spatial coincidence with other entities.Thus, specialized spatial elements are required.Franco et al. (2021, p. 163) note that […] the ontology of natural languages treats them as atomic individuals, as opposed to extended surfaces, unless some appropriate specifications are added.In Romance there are at least three different ways of introducing animate locations.One is through a (dedicated) AxPart, such as French chez; another strategy is the wh-pronoun for where, […].
In Aromanian, the split separates the human/animate locative la from a/tu, referring to specific places and surfaces.
The examples in ( 64)-( 66) highlight the ability of di to introduce the substance in (b), the part of a whole in (b'), and the agent in passives, as in (c).While the part of a set is a relationship easily traceable to (67), the other two readings require some consideration.In the case of the substance, such as di dʒam 'of glass', we can still treat the mass noun, here dʒam, as the whole of which aist 'this' is a part.In this framework, other uses of di, such as alternating with ti in (66d), can be traced back to the interaction between the elementary relator and the lexical meaning of the verb.
The agentive is only apparently more problematic insofar as the causative reading is added by the passive structure, substantially by the past participle, which, as is usual in Romance languages, has an unaccusative interpretation, whereby the PP agrees with the Internal Argument of the verb.For example, in Italian, the agent is introduced by the locative preposition da 'by/at/to', as in questo è stato fatto da lui 'this has been made by him' vs. Gianni è da lui 'John is at his house/with him'.We can think that the simple relator is sufficient to introduce an argument selected by the PP, as in (72), which is interpreted as the Causer in v.As regards the derivation of passive structures, we can think that the PP is inserted within the vP, as a realization of VP.In the PP, the verbal root is expanded by the Thematic Vowel, a morpheme that introduces an argumental variable bound associated with the Internal Argument (see Savoia and Baldi 2022, for this analysis), and by the formative -t-, associated with aspectual properties.The DP, introduced as the possessor of the event, fulfills the agent role of v, while the agreement of the PP identifies the IA, as in (72d) for kәmeʃә-l-i sәn la-t-i di nɛs 'the shirts are washed by him' (cf.( 66c)).The derivation combines the root and the agreement morphology, as in ( 72a,b,c).
At this point, we must take into account the PIs, trying to provide a hypothesis compatible with its alternation with di and, in general, with its ability to introduce dative and genitive interpretations.The introducers of oblique contexts are etymologically related to the Daco-Romanian so-called possessive articles al/a/ai/ale preceding genitive DPs (Dobrovie-Sorin and Giurgea 2013).In Daco-Romanian, possessive articles only occur in genitives, while datives are realized by the case morphology or by the preposition la (Dobrovie-Sorin and Giurgea 2013; Pană Dindelegan et al. 2019).According to some analyses, PIs combine the nominal invariable base a with the definite article, whereby al is essentially an agreement head, taking a genitive in Spec (Giurgea 2012;Dobrovie-Sorin and Giurgea 2013).Cornilescu (1995, pp. 126-27) treats al as a case D marker.Another explanation assumes that al includes the preposition a with the enclitic article (cf.Grosu 1994;Cornilescu and Nicolae 2011).Actually, the invariable form a is attested in Old Romanian.Hence, if a corresponds to the Latin preposition ad, this explains why in Old Romanian a was also admitted with datives (Pană Dindelegan 2016).
Our data show that a can introduce both dative and genitive, as in ( 3)-( 4), ( 7)-( 8), and ( 37)-( 40); moreover, a can realize a locative reading in contexts where the noun of place is indefinite, as a kasә 'in the house'.The partial agreement with the possessor, alternating a l/a ì/o with the masculines and plural and a li with the feminine can be seen as the combination of a with the definiteness base l-from the Latin *ille, on which Romance articles are generally based.If we are on the right track, the structure of datives and genitives is something like ( 73). ( 73) a (article) noun-Oblique The fact that a is associated with the part-whole reading of genitives, datives, and complex locatives leads the conclusion that its content is similar to that of di 'of'.We, hence, assume that in (73), a is a specialized realization of the elementary relation [⊆], followed by the definite article, when requested, and by a fully quantificationally specified form of the noun.As a result, di and a tend to be in complementary distribution, save for deictics, first/second person pronouns, and demonstratives, where the selection restrictions are vacuously applied, as suggested by the Elsewhere order in (74a,b).A crucial point is that a selects fully determined or quantified nouns, excluding simple indefinites, associated with di, cf. ( 55)-( 57).Moreover, a requires a specialized inflection, the oblique.This analysis can be also applied to other basic prepositions, such as ti 'for', which attributes the quality 'beneficiary' to the recipient/possessor, [[⊆], (beneficiary)].
The third person pronouns nɛs/nɛs-ɛ/nɛʃ/nɛs-i are typical of Aromanian, as noted by Capidan (1932) andCaragiu Marioţeanu (1975).In some varieties, for example, the Fërshërot of Këllëz, this form is limited only to prepositional contexts (Poçi 2009, p. 130), as illustrated in particular in (62a) and ( 63).In other varieties, for example in the dialect of Korça-Plasë, it also occurs as a subject or a direct object, as in (62b,c).Etymology helps us to account for the distributional restrictions of nɛs.Rosetti (1986, p. 336) explains these forms as derived from the combination of Latin ipse 'he', with a preceding preposition with a final nasal, such as in 'in', con 'with'.Thus, we can decompose n-ɛs into a prefixed prepositional element n followed by the third person morpheme, something like [n ⊆ [ɛs 3ps ]], where the initial n-introduces the part-whole relator.In some dialects, this lexical property operates in limiting the occurrence of nɛs to prepositional contexts, as suggested in (70').
(70') n-ɛs ←→ Preposition __ Some varieties associate a pre-posed article with a, at least in some contexts.More precisely, in a subset of the relevant contexts of a, the articles l MSG and l-i FSG must or may be inserted, agreeing with the following noun, as suggested in (75a,a').In these dialects, a is replaced by o before nouns (Rëmën) or by a ì before masculine nouns (Fërshërot).Thus, (74a) must be rewritten as in (75), where the alternants (a,b,c) are assigned to their contexts.(74) highlights the difference between the two elementary operators.The operator di is in itself able to introduce the inclusion relation, whereby it generally allows possessors to be realized as indefinite.The lexical content of the verb and the possessor are sufficient to identify the referent, exactly like in Italian PPs of the type sono in casa 'They are at home', where the reference is based on the lexical content of the noun casa 'house' and the verb 'to be' (in relation to the universe of discourse) (cf.Longobardi 1995Longobardi , 1996)).Manzini and Savoia (2011) discuss some cases in Albanian where the locative relation is determined without the definiteness elements of the noun.
The operator associated with a can be thought of as weak, in the sense that it needs to be accompanied by the referential tools of DP to lead to a correct interpretation.In the locative context as a kasә 'at/to (the) house', the lexical restriction [locative] specifies the relation; in oblique contexts, quantificational or deictic specifications and/or the specialized case inflection are necessary, as we will see in more detail in Section 6.

The Morpho-Syntax of the Case
The exponent -i in the class III nouns covers three fundamental readings: the indefinite singular, Nom/Acc and Oblique, in (33b) and (34b), the definite singular in Nom/Acc and Oblique, in (33a) and (34a), and variably, the definite and indefinite plural, in ( 33) and ( 34), with exclusion of the definite plural Oblique in (33a) and (34a), where the formatives -l/ʎu/-l-or occur.In the literature, -i in the feminine singular is considered as the only exponent of the case associated with indefinite forms (Maiden et al. 2021, 75 ff.),whereas the case is generally expressed by the definiteness enclitic element.These data could suggest that the specialized oblique exponent -i of the singular is not so much gender-based as linked to the morpho-phonological properties of the inflectional system.
As to plurality, in keeping with Chierchia (1998aChierchia ( , 1998b) ) and Manzini andSavoia (2014, 2018), we can think of plurality as a subset relationship of sets of individuals.The sub-set-of relation can be traced to the operator [⊆], by its conceptual similarity with the part-whole relationship.This property can be also connected with the oblique (genitive/dative), the content of which can be identified with the primitive operator [⊆] (Manzini and Savoia 2014).It is reasonable, indeed, to assume that genitive and dative have the same semantic properties as the oblique introducers of, to.The analysis of the inflectional system of Latin and its complex syncretism case/plural, specifically on the exponents -i and -s, leads Manzini andSavoia (2010, 2014) to conclude that plural and oblique can be traced back to specialized readings of the same predicate [⊆], as suggested in (76a,b): As a property of the noun, plurality isolates a subset of the set of all things to which the noun (its Root) can be predicated (Chierchia 1998a(Chierchia , 1998b) ) In genitive/dative contexts, the inclusion is read as subset-of-possessor relationship, and its scope is either sentential, applying to the internal argument of the verb, or, in genitives, DP-internal.(Manzini and Savoia 2014, p. 422) Thus, we must conclude that inflectional exponents associated with the part-whole relation can be specialized for one or another reading, or, possibly for both.We will express this in terms of the selection constraints in (83), although we imagine that a more sophisticated semantic representation is possible.

Inflections, Case, and Oblique Constructs
Coming to the notion of case, we know that this feature, a classic category of the cartographic model, has a spurious status in the sense that it is nothing but a manifestation of the agreement; inherent cases put other descriptive problems interacting with prepositions and the morpho-syntactic organization of the sentence.It is no accident that Chomsky (2021, p. 16) concludes that 'Case doesn't enter into semantic interpretation' and is part of externalization.Actually, the distribution of nominal inflections and the syncretism exemplified in Section 2, suggest that what is called case must be identified with nominal properties such as number, definiteness or syntactic operators.
Thus, if we take the sentence i o ded o bәrbats-ur-u 'I gave it to the men' (cf.(4a), L), the free application of Merge (Chomsky 2019(Chomsky , 2021) ) yields the amalgamation between the root and the definite inflection, marked by -ur-, in (77a), characterized as DEF, PL, with which -u ⊆ is combined, yielding the complex noun in (77b).
(77) a. < The occurrence of the oblique inflection requires the introducer, here o (cf.( 31)), as in (78a); the insertion of sub-word elements depends on subcategorization restrictions such as in (78b) and (78c).Merge is based on the agreement between the syntactic features, including ⊆, both within the noun and DP.
-ur DEF,⊆ ←→ R M __ c. - The inflected noun realizes the referential properties associated with D in the DP, i.e., the class, definiteness, and number specifications applying to the noun, (79), within the Phase DP (hypothesizing that there is one), without assuming head-raising.The alternant o realizes the preposition that connects the noun to the event in the role of the beneficiary.bәrbats-ur-u DEF.M /⊆, D has been characterized in different ways; in particular, it has been assigned the case feature K and, among other hypotheses, the Definiteness, a prototypical property of determiners (Giusti Forthcoming).However, we follow a very different path, identifying the case with the referential features of nouns.In the type of syntactic structures discussed here, a fundamental role is played by the part-whole operator and by agreement (class, definiteness) morphology.We see that in terms of a usual morphological mechanism in languages, the relevant relation is duplicated both on the preposition and on the noun, here the operator [⊆].The analysis in (78b,c) assumes that the latter property is also duplicated within the noun: indeed, both -ur and -u contribute to externalizing the oblique.
Genitival contexts present a+possessive, as illustrated in (80) for (42a'), mɛñ-l-i a mɛ-li 'my hands' G, where the part-whole reading has a lexical realization by the possessive element in (80a), in addition to the preposition a, as in (80b).In these contexts, the simple preposition a occurs in all varieties, as in the constraint in (74a), where the deictic reference of first and second person is able to fully meet the referential requirements in the context of a. Hence, the possessive satisfies the referential properties associated with D in the Phase of DP, as in (80c). (80 In datives, the same result with the first/second person pronouns appears.Interestingly, they have a specialized inflection for the oblique, as in (81a,b) for … a ñ-ia 'to me' (cf.(32b)).( 81 The nature of the specialized inflections in oblique contexts remains to be better understood.For the sake of clarity, we repeat the paradigm of the nouns mujɛK-'woman' and kɛn-'dog' of class III for the Fërshërot of Këllëz,in (82).Note that un-is the indefinite article, ndau/ndoi are the feminine and masculine indefinite quantifier 'some', and dau/doi are the numeral 'two'.
Our idea is that no traditional case specification is externalized by the exponents in (82) and that nominal inflections belong to very elementary semantic primitives associated with referentiality.The paradigms show such a high degree of syncretism that there is no clearly specialized morpheme for oblique contexts, maybe except for -or, in (69).The oblique plural l-u, r-u, and ʎ-u, however, include, in turn, the exponent -u that occurs in the definite masculine singular, as in ( 72) and ( 73).Thus, apart from -a, for the definite singular feminine in direct contexts, and the liquid bases, -l/ʎ/r-, for definiteness, the other inflections encompass diverse interpretations.We obtain a set of selection constraints Elsewhere ordered and descriptively labeled as in ( 83).
i ⊆ ←→ R __ or l __ Something like that may apply to -u, which covers the plural in obliques and the definiteness in the masculine singular of the type fitʃor-u 'the boy' in (67).Interestingly, Manzini and Savoia (2010, p. 422), dealing with the transition from the Latin case system to Romance nominal systems, characterize the standard Daco-Romanian inflection -i, oblique singular and the nominative plural (masculine), as 'essentially like Latin -i, as a Q element […] it will have the plural reading when taking scope over the words -or the possessive (dative/genitive) reading when taking sentential scope'.The idea that plural and oblique rely on the same conceptual content, adopted by us in many works on the Romance inflection (Manzini et al. 2020), can account for the data discussed in this article.
Both -u and -i can introduce plurality, as in the plural oblique, and the reference to a singularity, as -i in the paradigms in ( 75) and ( 70), and -u in definite masculine singular.This pattern is not exceptional: just think of the syncretism in Latin case inflections, analyzed in Halle and Vaux (1997), where, for instance, -i realizes the masculine plural and the genitive and dative singular, and similarly, -e (<*ai) feminine plural and genitive and dative singular, and so on.Also, in Italian, -i, typically associated with the plural, can characterize the third singular person pronouns, cf.egl-i/lu-i/le-i 'he/she' colu-i 'he', and, in addition, the dative gl-i 'to him/her/them', the oblique including also the genitive, a/di cu-i 'to/of which', altru-i 'of others'.What we mean is that if plurality coincides with the sub-set relation, a subset including a single individual is admitted (Chierchia 1998a(Chierchia , 1998b)).Usually, languages have the singular for this, but there are uses of the generic plural that admit a singular interpretation, such as They are knocking at the door.(It's Peter.) or How many came?Just one (cf.Manzini and Savoia 2014, p. 222).Thus, we conclude that the part-whole relationship can satisfy the definite singular reference, as suggested in (85).We have seen that even the specialized oblique inflection of person pronouns in ( 31) and ( 32), and of plural nouns, such as -l-or in ( 67) and ( 69), are not able to license the partwhole relationship alone, but they must be combined with the prepositional element a (cf, (31c) and ( 32c)).a can combine with forms non-specialized for the oblique, such as a fitʃoru/a un fitʃor 'to/of the boy/a boy ', in (3a,b), and a li mujɛr-i 'to/of Art woman' in (25a) (L).However, a is compatible with the specialized oblique form, if available, as in the plural and in the singular, cf.a li fɛt-i 'to/of the girl', a un-ei fɛt-i 'to/of one-Obl girl' in (17a,b) (G), etc.In other words, -i ⊆/ -u ⊆/ -or ⊆ do not have the strength to introduce the part-whole interpretation over DPs, unlike the preposition di 'of' or a.We may express this restriction by assuming that the specialized forms require a, as suggested in ( 86).
(86) -ur ⊆ -←→ a (Art) Q [N __ Thus, a plural oblique such as (87a) cannot license a dative reading on DPs.It is, now, only a plural allomorph selected in the PIs contexts, as (86).Only merging with the preposition a gives rise to the oblique interpretation, as in (87b), and its externalization, in (87c).

Object Clitics
Like in most Romance languages, Aromanian can express the internal argument by a set of object clitics that distinguish accusative, in (88a), and dative, in (88b), both in the first/second person and third person elements.In our data, the third person singular accusative has two phonological alternants, u vs. o.The reflexive is illustrated in (88c).The object clitics occur in the pre-verbal position except for the imperative, where they are enclitic; in the clusters, in (88d), the order is accusative+dative.In the plural, we find different alternants, ʎ-u,

Object Clitics
Like in most Romance languages, Aromanian can express the internal argument by a set of object clitics that distinguish accusative, in (88a), and dative, in (88b), both in the first/second person and third person elements.In our data, the third person singular accusative has two phonological alternants, u vs. o.The reflexive is illustrated in (88c).The object clitics occur in the pre-verbal position except for the imperative, where they are enclitic; in the clusters, in (88d), the order is accusative+dative.In the plural, we find different alternants, ʎ-u, ɣ -u and l-u (cf.Poçi 2009, p. 131), as illustrated in (88e).In the dialect of Korça-Plasë, the third person accusative can not be realized in the cluster with the third person dative, as in (88f, f'), a possibility that is, however, attested in the object clitic systems of the Southern Italian clitics (Manzini and Savoia 2005, § 4.6) -u and l-u (cf. Poçi 2009, p. 131), as illustrated in (88e).In the dialect of Korça-Plasë, the third person accusative can not be realized in the cluster with the third person dative, as in (88f, f'), a possibility that is, however, attested in the object clitic systems of the Southern Italian clitics (Manzini and Savoia 2005, § 4.6).Along with doubling, DOM can also turn out, as in (84a), whereby the first and second person objects are variably introduced by the specialized preposition pi (< *per), recalling the DOM present in Daco-Romanian (Dobrovie-Sorin 1990) and attested in Spanish (Jaeggli 1981) and Southern Italian dialects (Manzini and Savoia 2005).As is well-known, in the GB and cartographic literature, Clitic doubling questions the movement theory of object clitics, specifically the usual complementarity between object NPs and OCls.Resuming Kayne's generalization whereby doubling occurs only if the object NP is preceded by a preposition, Jaeggli (1981, p. 20) concludes that OCls absorb the verb's government, not allowing for a complement NP; the latter can be still saved by a preposition that assigns it the case.Dobrovie-Sorin (1990) notes that this analysis does not work for indirect object doubling in Daco-Romanian because morphological datives would be different from PPs; her idea is that datives are inherently case-marked and, therefore, escape the verb's government-interestingly, in Aromanian, datives require a prepositional element.Obviously, these problems depend on a cartographic concept of syntactic relations, and indeed, (89a) shows that doubling a direct object is possible and usual, therefore weakening Kayne's generalization.
In our model, inflections have interpretive content, like any other lexical element, and Merge applies freely.In this line, clitics can be thought of as a specialized realization of the agreement properties of T/v (cf.also Roberts 2010), and therefore as part of the inflected verb in T, as suggested in (90a) for the cluster i u/o, and (90b) (from (89a)) for the doubling of person pronouns.
In this light, doubling is only a type of externalization 10 , where an argument has more realizations that agree, namely sharing referential features.Finally, the distribution of pi manifests a DOM reading, in which high-ranked accusatives, regularly first/second person, must be interpreted as a sort of dative/possessor of the event, here lexicalized by pi. 11

The Domain of the DP
In (64a), we have seen that a, at least in a subset of oblique contexts, requires a defined article: in the examples, the glosses are 'to/of Art'.The occurrence of the pre-posed article is compatible with both the definite form of the noun in (91a) and the quantified DP, as in (91b): The distribution of the oblique inflections in the workspace of the DP shows that the noun can lack the definiteness morphology, as in the examples in (91a), and the pre-posed article can realize it.In Aromanian, DPs can variably realize complete inflectional morphology on the only element on the left, be it the noun or a modifier.In the case of oblique inflection, the examples in (93a,a') and (95a) show that the demonstrative preceding the noun takes on the inflectional marks of oblique, while the noun occurs in the indefinite form, plural in (93a) and singular in (93a') and (95a).With modifiers such as alant 'other' that can precede or follow the noun, the latter lacks the inflection of the oblique when following the modifier.This is exemplified in (94b) and (95b), where the oblique is realized on the We may expect some type of morpho-syntactic split between functional and lexical elements in the domain of the DP.Asymmetric distribution of plural and other referential features in languages can be related to the fact that they are preferably attached to the element responsible for the semantic interpretation, that is, the determiner or the modifier, introducing the referential properties (cf.Costa and Silva 2002;Manzini et al. 2020).For the sake of precision, we assume that the structure of DPs is [ Determiner [Modifier [Quantifier [Noun]]]].Obviously, inflectional elements are merged with the modifier/quantifier or the noun root, as suggested in (97a) and (97b).In ( 93)-( 95), an example of complementary distribution is shown, whereby the classic area of D is the privileged anchor for the agreement inflections, as in (97a) for the order modifier-noun and (97b) for the opposite order.
The DP requires the identification between the argument slots of the noun and its modifiers, which, in Aromanian, are ultimately satisfied by the specifications of the noun, represented in (98a,b) by the post-nominal definite and oblique inflection.If we assimilate the workspace of the DP to a Phase, as already suggested, we see that the amalgam lexical item+oblique inflection -ui/-u MSG⊆ can satisfy the features of D, relating the noun to the sentence (the event).It is interesting to note that possessives and adjectives, which follow the noun, do not mark oblique, but agree in gender and number, as in (98a) for possessives and (98b) for postnominal adjectives.It should be noted that the more conservative uses insert a demonstrative element between the noun and the adjective as a sort of linker, as in (98b) (cf.Manzini and Savoia 2018), that is, a sort of D that agrees with the head noun.If so, in (98d), Merge combines the demonstrative with the following adjective based on the referential features of the noun with which they agree (cf.Manzini 2021).
A special case is the encliticization of the possessive on the noun, as in ( 46)-( 45).Generally, the definite inflection of the noun is not realized; more precisely, the possessive is adjacent to the root, as in (99a), and the inflectional elements are merged to this sequence, yielding the complex form, as in (99b).
We assume that enclitic elements are part of the inflectional structure of the word, within which they are inserted on the basis of selection constraints of the type in (99c) (for this approach to enclisis, cf.Savoia and Baldi 2023).We note that the inflectional mark that is introduced, here -u, does not correspond to the class of the noun, in (99) the class III, nor to the inflectional system of the possessive.We may find forms in which inflection precedes and follows the possessive, as in tat-u-t-u 'tour father' in (43a), as we can expect if enclitics are inflectional heads.

di/ti + Infinitive
Aromanian varieties retain the full form of the infinitive, i.e., with the inflection -VTri (where TV = thematic vowel), as generally in the other Romance languages, and correspond to Early Romanian more closely than Daco-Romanian.Thus, the contact with Tosk Albanian, a infinitive-less language, did not influence the development of Aromanian syntax.In Early Romanian, -re infinitives were introduced by a, and de could precede.In the cartographic approach applied by Hill (2013aHill ( , 2013b) ) based on Rizzi's (1997) model of the left periphery, the elements a and de are identified with the position Fin; where the two co-occur, the Fin position is split into two, with de in the higher Fin and a in the lower.Naturally, we agree with Hill and Rizzi that the sentence introducers are connected with the finiteness of the sentence.Nevertheless, we do not follow the implied conclusion that elements like Aromanian ti/di are associated with the double categorization P and C (Fin).
The infinitive occurs in canonical control contexts, either by an antecedent or so-called arbitrary control, in alternation with the finite sentences introduced by complementizers such as kә/ta and tsi.Control environments include complements of aspectual, modal, and attitude verbs, as well as infinitival relatives.The infinitive is introduced by the prepositions ti 'for' or di 'of', unlike old Romanian, where the infinitive is selected by the preposition a (Pană Dindelegan 2016); moreover, it generally excludes the object clitic, both in preand post-verbal positions.The examples illustrate the following contexts: (100a) aspectual verbs, (100b) order/request verbs, (94c) motion verbs + infinitive, (100d) implicit relatives, (100e) causatives, and (100f) prepositions.In (100), the corresponding structures with the inflected verb are exemplified where the complementizer tsi is followed by the modal introducer s and the inflected verb agreeing with an argument of the matrix sentence.The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems schematized in single tables, from which some interesting types of syncretism emerge.Section 4 illustrates the possessive constructs, where the preposition di and the PI alternate, and Section 4.1 the pronominal systems, the possessive elements included.Section 5 is devoted to the description of prepositional contexts.Sections 6 and 6.1 examine the case properties.Section 7 outlines an analysis of the infinitives introduced by di/ti.The examples from Aromanian dialects are reported in a broad IPA transcription.

The Nominal System: A Comparison between Dialects
As a first step, let us consider the nominal paradigms.The data have been collected through field research in Myzeqeja, in Libofshë, L, and Divjakë, D-Rëmën 3 , and in the regions of Gjirokastër (Këllez, K) and Korça (Plasë, P)-Fërshërot.The Aromanian data differentiate the direct form, occurring in nominative or accusative contexts, from the oblique form.The latter shows a specialized inflection only in a subset of nouns and, needs to be introduced by the PI.In what follows, we collate the systems of direct and oblique definite and indefinite forms, in the singular and in the plural.We begin with the dialects The central topic of the article is the oblique context, which in Aromanian dialects is introduced by the Possessive Introducer (PI), as seen in ( 5).In genitive, dative, and complex locative prepositions, nouns show a specialized inflection (Capidan 1932;Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975, 2006;Poçi 2009). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975, p. 237) assimilates these constructs to those of other Romance languages where dative and genitive require a prepositional introducer, although, in Aromanian, nouns can actually display a specialized inflection, unlike other Romance varieties.This particular morphology, which we descriptively label case, provides a test benchmark for the nature of this category, its role in syntax, and its relationship with the other inflectional properties.Such a behavior differs from the original conditions witnessed in ancient texts, as illustrated in Pană Dindelegan et al. (2019) and Maiden et al. (2021), in which datives and genitives are not introduced by the PI.
Theoretically, our analysis follows the strong minimalist approach to morphosyntax based on the Merge operation, as defined in Chomsky (2019Chomsky ( , 2021)).Functional morphemes are endowed with interpretable content.As a consequence, syncretism must be traceable to the semantic properties of the elements involved.From this perspective, the Aromanian data discussed in this paper provide a relevant test bench for this theoretical approach.If our hypothesis on the nature of nominal inflection is (sufficiently) adequate, the distribution of case/number and definiteness exponents can find a possible explanation.In this sense, this article can contribute to deepening the relation between inflectional properties of nouns and syntactic organization, a link traditionally disregarded as unessential or possibly assigned to an ancillary morphological component, such as DM.
The article is organized as follows: The data regarding the nominal paradigms of Rëmën and Fërshërot are detailed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the inflectional systems schematized in single tables, from which some interesting types of syncretism emerge.Section 4 illustrates the possessive constructs, where the preposition di and the PI alternate, and Section 4.1 the pronominal systems, the possessive elements included.Section 5 is devoted to the description of prepositional contexts.Sections 6 and 6.1 examine the case properties.Section 7 outlines an analysis of the infinitives introduced by di/ti.The examples from Aromanian dialects are reported in a broad IPA transcription.We note that the elements that introduce infinitives in Romance are oblique markers.Manzini and Savoia (2018, sect. 1.4) explain these structures recalling that the standard minimalist Case licensing via Agree only applies to direct cases; however, this would be problematic, because 'CPs cannot enter into Agree relations with v, I probes because of their lack of phi-features ' (p. 198).However, obliques and P embedding do not involve the Agree relation.These considerations lead to the conclusion that Romance languages, given the impossibility of licensing sentential constituents via Agree, avoid this problem by introducing these sentences with the prepositions 'of' (genitive), 'to/for' (dative), or 'with' (instrumental).

The Nominal System: A Comparison between Dialects
The interpretation of control contexts can be traced to the ability of the infinitive to introduce a variable corresponding to the EPP argument of the sentence, triggering the control by a higher argument.This hypothesis is inspired by the predication theory of control, whereby infinitives realize a property and do not correspond to a clause; in other words, they are VP, a sort of nominalized verbal form, as proposed in Chierchia (1984).The infinitive preserves its ability to license an object, exactly as other nominal forms of the verb.We can associate the variable bound by an argument of the matrix sentence with the specialized morphology of these forms, more precisely the TV (cf.Savoia and Baldi 2022) as in (102a,b).Be that as it may, the role of an argument variable in control contexts is independently supported by languages such as Aromanian and Albanian, in which the embedded verb can occur in finite form, as in the example in (100b,d), where the particle tsi introduces the subjunctive.Manzini and Savoia (2018, p. 292) propose that the Prts tә of Albanian and tsi of Aromanian correspond to a variable specifying the subject of the embedded sentence.This analysis is also supported by the lexical nature of the introducers: for instance, tsi is the wh-element 'what', in itself a nominal variable (N), in (103).While the Prt is necessary to enable control in finite sentences, non-finite sentences have a variable EPP argument anyway, making the Prt redundant.On the basis of the analysis of prepositional contexts in Section 5, we conclude that the relational content [⊆] of di/ti is available to establish the relationship between the matrix and the dependent events, as in (104).The gist of this proposal is that the embedded infinitive is treated as the inclusion zone or the beneficiary of the matrix event, exactly like the head noun of genitives or benefactives.In other words, the epistemic, 'tell', or motion verbs are depicted as associated with the semantic space of the embedded event.

Conclusions
Aromanian's nominal inflection shows some types of syncretism, which we have associated with interpretive properties such as definiteness, gender (masculine and feminine), number, and part-whole relation (possessee-possessor).The hypothesis that the case corresponds to bundles of nominal or other semantic features allows us to bring to light the relationship between oblique and plural as realizations of similar semantic properties.A set of selection constraints expresses the distribution of the inflectional morphemes in various contexts.This also applies to the specialized oblique forms, introduced by the PI, analyzed as the preposition a, possibly followed by the definiteness element -l(i).In oblique contexts, the nominal inflection specialized for oblique contexts is not able to introduce the inclusion relation on its own and the preposition is necessary.The analysis of di and other An anonymous reviewer wonders why the relation between inflection and meaning 'could simply not be dealt within […] Distributed Morphology, since it is the building blocks that bring interpretational components not the inflectional elements themselves.'This is, indeed, a crucial point.In Distributed Morphology, the insertion of morphemes is successive to syntax (Late insertion); it is based on a mechanism in which sub-word elements (affixes and clitics) are understood as 'dissociated morphemes' (see the discussion in the text).The separation between syntax and morphology has the consequence of admitting morphological elements devoid of interpretive content.This is true in the case of thematic vowels of Romance languages, identified with 'ornamental pieces of morphology' by Embick (2010).What is more, agreement and case morphemes are not represented in syntax but are added post-syntactically, 'during Morphology', by virtue of the 'Late insertion' mechanism.The latter allows the featural content of syntactic terminals to be manipulated by adjustment rules such as Impoverishment with the effect of obscuring the relation between syntax and interpretation.This mechanism does not meet the requirement of the Inclusiveness Condition, whereby, between the lexical items and the heads that they project, there is no distinction (Chomsky 1995, p. 228).It is no accident that Chomsky refuses Late Merge, as discussed in fn.10.Concluding, our basic question is why the grammar should obscure what it generates.This holds for morpho-syntax, but also for phonology, from which Morris Halle seems to derive the DM model.The solution we adoptedseems to us not only more natural and adequate but also now in accordance with the Chomskyan approach to the learnability of language structures.9 Late Insertion is a costly descriptive tool, to which we can assimilate the notion and the use of Late Merge, which Chomsky (2019, p. 267) criticizes as 'a complex operation of substitution of the newly Merged element in exactly in the place where it originally appeared'.Chomsky (2019, pp. 266-67) concludes that 'everything which is done with what is called Late Merge: it's completely unacceptable, because it involves operations that are complex, unmotivated, […]'.10 A very common doubling is subject-verb inflection, as already discussed in Rizzi (1982), which, within the GB framework, proposes to characterize the inflection as [-pronoun].
11 An anonymous reviewer asks why we discuss clitic doubling and the related DOM phenomenon in this article.The phenomenon seems to us relevant in relation to the way that pronominal elements realize case/arguments properties in the sentence.Specifically, although direct morphology of pronouns of first/second person do not distinguish between nominative and accusative, nevertheless, the accusative interpretation is expressed by clitic doubling and (variably) preposition.Again, preposition does not select the oblique but it is itself able to introduce a specialized meaning, just like in the other prepositional contexts.
12 For instance, in Gjirokastër variety, the doubling of nominal specifications on prenominal demonstratives and nouns can occur as in (i): (i) ata burr-a-t 'Those men' that.PL.NOM/ACC man-PL-DEF.NOM/ACC pǝrpara at-yrɛ burr-a-vɛ 'Before those men' before that-PL.OBL man-PL-OBL ia ðatʃ asaj vaiz-ɛ-s 'I gave it to that girl' to.her it I.gavethat.FSG.OBL girl-FSG-OBL 13 An anonymous reviewer asks for more information about the contact between Aromanian and Albanian.The topic seems to go beyond the limits of this article.We only note that both Aromanian and Albanian share some important Balkan features, such as the enclitic article and the reduced use of infinitive.The data we have discussed show some borrowings from Albanian, such as, for instance, the aspectual verb mbǝ/ur-ɛ-ri 'stop', as in (100), from Albanian mbaroj 'I stop', as in (i) (i) ɛ mbarOva sǝ ŋgrǝn-i it I.stopped Art.GEN eat.PP-GEN 'I stopped eating it' During the discussion, we have highlighted other types of convergence, such as the agreement within the DP and the use of indefinite noun forms in prepositional contexts.
/I.saw woman-SG-FSG.DEF /dog-DEF-SG 'The woman/the dog has come', 'I have seen the woman/the dog' b. vini /vidzui unә mujɛr-i /un kɛn-i (s)he.came/I.saw a woman-SG /a dog-SG 'A woman/a dog has come', 'I have seen a woman/a dog' (28) Korça-Plasë a. guages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 38 Manzini and Savoia 2011;Baldi and Savoia 2021)Savoia 2021), as in (46) for a North-Apulian variety: Southern Italian dialects also provide examples of possessive structures introduced by di comparable with the possessives introduced by a in Aromanian and Daco-Romanian, as, for example, in the Calabrian variety of Morano in (47).
a/la 'at/to'.The element kǝt 'at, to' is admitted with both kinds of referents.
), where di+N is compared with PI+definite N.
Indefinite DPs admit di to be inserted before PI and the following possessive, with the usual agreement with the head noun, as in (68a).The structure appears also in Daco-Romanian (Dobrovie-Sorin and Nedelcu 2013), as in (68b).
Finally, the analysis of prepositions leads us to address the contexts where the relators di 'of' and ti 'for' introduce the infinitival sentences, as in (6a) and (6b), respectively.
Poçi 2009).Caragiu M of other Romance languages wh although, in Aromanian, nouns Romance varieties.This particul test benchmark for the nature of other inflectional properties.Suc ancient texts, as illustrated in Pan datives and genitives are not intr Theoretically, our analysis based on the Merge operation, a are endowed with interpretabl to the semantic properties of th data discussed in this paper pr