CRom. *apă; labialization of velar c from cs and ct to ps and pt: Lat. frixit > CRom. *fripse; gn consonant group changed to mn: Lat. lignus > CRom. *lemnu; intervocalic br and bl changed to ur and ul: Lat. stabulum > CRom. *staul; st ans sc followed by e or i became șt, șc: Lat. crescere > CRom. *creștere. Grammar retention of plural desinences -a to -e and -ora to -uri, -ure from Latin in the neutral gender, which is re-organized with masculine forms at singular and feminine at plural; reduction or disappearance of 4th and 5th declension. Common Romanian had 3 declensions, remnants of the 4th and the 5th declensions existed for example noru (cloud), dzi (day) respectively; case system reduced to Nominative-Accusative, Dative-Genitive and Vocative; enclitic definite article; the process of composing the numerals between 10 and 20 and the use of și conjunction between multiple of 10 and cardinal numbers; stressed-unstressed forms for personal pronouns in Accusative and Dative; First sample of Common Romanian text Referring to this time period, of great debate and interest is the so-called episode. In Theophylactus Simocatta Histories, ( 630), the author mentions the words . The context of this mention is a Byzantine expedition during Maurice's Balkan campaigns in 587, led by general Comentiolus, in the Haemus, against the Avars. The success of the campaign was compromised by an incident: during a night march: Nearly two centuries after Theophylactus, the same episode is retold by another Byzantine chronicler, Theophanes Confessor, in his Chronographia ( 810–814). He mentions the words [; "turn, turn brother"]: The first to identify the excerpts as examples of early Romanian was Johann Thunmann in 1774. Since then, a debate among scholars had been going on to identify whether the language in question is a sample of early Romanian, or just a Byzantine command (of Latin origin, as it appears as such–torna''–in Emperors Mauricius Strategikon), and with used as a colloquial form of address between the Byzantine soldiers. The main debate revolved around the expressions ( – Theopylactus) and ( – Theophanes), and what they actually meant. An important contribution to the debate was Nicolae Iorga's first noticing in 1905 of the duality of the term in Theophylactus text: the shouting to get the attention of the master of the animal (in the language of the country), and the misunderstanding of this by the bulk of the