[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Wipra£a Icyk skrzypszy:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > What's the reason for using Classical Latin suffixes in degrees of
> > comparison? |brzewi?r| was rather lofty already in times of Cicero.
>
> [...] Are you sure they had already vanished from spoken language that
> early? It seems to me that some remnants of particularly the superlative
> forms survived in Italian ("bellissima!")
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> In fact, I'm not sure. I'm not a Romance philologist. My sources say
> that compound forms became normal in IV-V cc. AD. Suffixal methode was
> productive in Old French and Old Provencal. Superlative forms are
> still nor,al in Italian in all registers of speech. (Alisova et al.
> Intro to Romance Philology. Moscow, 1987)
That's comforting enough. I had already trouble enough to get those Romans in
Slavic territory, but it would be much more trouble to keep them there for
centuries :) I think they left Venedian territory mniej wiêcej in the same
period when they left Dacia. So the |iór| forms can stay a while longer :)
> "short":
> Fr. court, bref
> It. breve, corto
> Sp. breve, corto
> Port. curto, breve
> Rom. scurt
>
> So this is Românian that confused me! Sorry! Both are possible. Still
> |breve| souds a bit bookish to me.
Well, it might have been bookish, but on Venedian territory it became popular.
Perhaps the Romans who got there were educated or so :)
How nice to be omnipotent in your own con-world! :))
On the other hand, a form based on |curtus| would be attractive as well,
especially since the Polish word is |krótki|!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Sigh! Where can I find a decent Vulgar Latin word list? It would be
> much easier than checking every Latin word in at least six dictionaries
> first!
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> I have none, but I find searching in dictionaries amusing ;)
Granted, but it's quite time-consuming as well, and time is all I have not at
the moment :(
But okay, today I had a bit of time, and now I'm sitting in front of my desk
with four dictionaries: Latin, Romanian, Italian, Portuguese.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 2. I would find it difficult to make up something credible on the
> basis of |nov-| and |ill-|. It could be tempting to try, though. Perhaps
> I will.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Românian does this, when adj. is in preposition to noun, because
> *illus became a postpositive definite article there!
> |bàrbatul frumos| versus |frumosul bàrbat| "the handsome man" (<
> *barbatus illus formosus)
Nice! But it's not the same, since in the Romanian case it's just a suffixed
article. In Wenedyk such forms would have to appear all the time, and what's
even worse, they would have to be inflected!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> NB I have been wondering which Latin word to choose for "snake" in
> Wenedyk: |anguis| or |serpens|. I guess I must leave you the choice :)
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> [...] So it may come from |serpens|, but I think smth from |vîpera| would
> please me :-))
> How it sounds? |wipierz|?
Sounds okay to me, but logically this would become |wipra| in Wenedyk. The
diminutive (admittedly I'm not that far yet) would probably be something like
|wipra£a|.
I'm not going to kill the serpent, though. |sierpiêc| could survive as a way to
insult an unpleasant woman, while |serpent| will always remain a musical
instrument.
Best regards,
Jan
=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com