[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, Adam Walker <carrajena@y...> wrote: > > > "habarakhe4 <theophilus88@h...>" <theophilus88@h...> wrote: > --- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, Adam Walker <carrajena@y...> > wrote: > but this is mainly to post the new paradigm as it now > esixts. > > > > Infinitive > > > > > > > > serri > > > > > > > > Present tense > > > > > > > > ju sunu (or sun~u) nos sumus > > > > tu ses (or se) tus sidis > > > > vos sidi vosus sidis > > > > vosas sidis > > > > su esti sus sunts > > > > sa esti sas sunts > > > > si esti sis sunts > > > Is 'si' the neuter pronoun? > > > > > > I'm not sure I like the analogy on "sunt", but I'm pretty sure I'm > going to drop the "s" at the end of "ses" to give an (overly?) > Italianish "se". As for the sunu/sun~u problem, I may keep both > pronunciations with one seen as "correct" and the other "dialectal" > with the division probably being urban (Carthage/Tunis/(Algiers?) vs. > rural or east (Carthage/Tunis) vs west (Algiers). > > > Surely the choice here on -s and n/-u depends on the allowable final > consonants. If you forbid /ses/ for /se/, will you drop the /s/'s on > plural nouns? > > > > I'm not sure what you're referring to with n/-u, but the reason for dropping the -s on "ses" is just because that "s" would then be the only final "s" in the singular paradigm and might come to "feel" pluralish. "S" is a permited final consonant as are /d/, /t/, /n/, /m/, /N/ and perhaps a few others. <snip> > Adam Theophilus scripsit: If final /n/ is allowed, then I suppose /sun/ is acceptable. Theophilus/Tofil [t@wil]