[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Isaac A. Penzev" <isaacp@u...> wrote: > Salve! > I've got a couple of questions. > > You wrote: > <<<Old Fortunatian > "I" "thou" (Nominative, Genitive, Accusative) > Sg. > N mu' tu' [mu: tu:] > G mi' ti' [mi: ti:] > A me' te' [me: te:]>>> > > What is the origin of a strange form |mu'|? In fact, in general, all > pronouns look suspiciously regular... /mu/ is analagous to /tu/, a genuine latin form. /ti/ is analogous to /mi/, a genuine latin form. > > <<<There are singular and plural forms of the OF verb, which agree with > the subject of the sentence. The singular ends in -at, the plural in - > an>>> > > Why did the verb lose personal agreement? All Romance natlangs have it, as > well as Etruscan (afawk) and Berber. Here's the new conjugation: OF NF 1s -o: -o: 2s -aS -aS 3s -at -at 1p -amuS -aS* 2p -atiS -atS 3p -an -an *This explains the obligatory personal pronoun. > > <<< (All regular verbs in OF are first declension in finite form).>>> > > Why? Do you mean that most verbs changed their thematic vowel, or only 1st > conjugation verbs remained regular? I wanted to simplify the OF verbs and maintain greater complexity in the nouns, the opposite of Romance languages *here*. I took a tendency in Romance languages *here* to favor first declension verbs and extended it to its conclusion. > > IMHO, too much regularity makes a project look like auxlang. Does > Fortunatian pretend to play such a role? No. For its time, it's in the worst possible spot for such a purpose. > > Vale, > Yitzik > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~