[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Padraic Brown skrzypszy:
> Well, I really don't want any language _excluded_
> just because it's not "artistic".
Of course, nor would I.
> Frankly, I don't care how artless Neo-Latin may
> be: so long as its auxlang aspects are discussed
> in the appropriate list, the language itself and
> the process of creating it ought not be stifled
> here.
Agreed.
> Nor should an auxlanger be turned out just
> because he's creating an auxlang. He must be made
> aware of the Line, though, and should be reminded
> of it if he cross it too many times! :)
My point exactly.
> > Why the ablative?
>
> It's got all the oral vowels on the end, without
> any funky -m or other consonants. That the plural
> is derived from the nominative is odd, given the
> above! Neo-Latin's plurals _should_ be in -is (or
> else -ibus) if the scheme is followed properly!
That would be the case for a language that follows Romance patterns. But as I
understand it, Neo-Latin is merely meant to simplify Latin by uniting a lot of
endings.
Of course, it is equally odd that Italian takes the accusative singular, but
the nominative plural.
> > - fructu > fructus
> > (I have my doubts about the last one, though)
>
> Naturally, Romance languages have subsumed the
> -e, -i and -u stems into some other declensions.
> Of course, this is _Neo-Latin_, a language
> purportedly based on _Latin_ noun stems. The
> creator is therefore free to retain the full
> fledged declensional array.
Originally, I intended three declensions for Wenedyk, but as it turned out, in
spite of my plans the Latin fifth declension maintained itself somehow. Look
here:
"rose" "day"
sg. N. roza dziej
G. rozy dziej
D. rozie dzieje
A. roza~ dzia~
pl. N. rozy dzieje
G. rozar dziar
D. roziwy dziewy
A. rozy dzieje
> A good point. Why pick on the -i stems! I stems
> of the world unite! Fight the Iron _Turri_ of
> Anti-I-ism with _vi_! Together, we can bring a
> _fini_ to this mad _insapienti_!
LOL.
> > > > You call Cond. "tense"?!!! Dog my cats!
> >
> > In Wenedyk it is a mood rather than a tense,
>
> Obviously it's a mood! In both Kerno and
> Brithenig it's a mood. The point is that it's
> easier to introduce it amongst the tenses - as if
> it were just another tense - rather than try to
> introduce yet another mood. It's a matter of
> economy. The British Romance languages have a
> number of difficulties that are more important to
> impart (Brithenig with its mutations, Kerno with
> its case structure); a learner would simply be
> burdened with having to learn it as a mood, in my
> opinion.
Yes, on second thought, in Wenedyk it would be listed as a tense as well, but
just in order to avoid a complicated matrix structure. Complicated because
there is already a matrix-like thing between perfective and imperfective,
something like this:
Present Imperfect Future I Conjunctive/Conditional Imperative
Perfect Future II
Since the conjunctive/conditional doesn't have any tense distinction, it
doesn't really matter if we call it a mood or a tense.
BTW I have considered giving Wenedyk a full-fledged aspect system à la Polish,
based on the numerous means that Latin provides: the standard would be
imperfective, based on the Latin present tense, imperfect tense, and future I,
while the perfective aspect would get the future II as its present tense and
the perfect for past tense. After some rambling, however, I decided not to go
for that solution. Partly because I had trouble creating a second infinitive,
creating a second set of imperatives, and most of all, because it would heavily
mix up the conjugational system. Yet, the usage of imperfect/perfect and future
I/future II leans heavily on Polish.
Hmm, I think I should resume my posting about grammatical categories in
Wenedyk, because IIRC I gave info about nouns and adjectives, but never about
pronouns or verbs.
> > > Present Participle Amante
> >
> > Shouldn't that be "amanti", as the participles
> > are adjectives, too?
>
> Or nouns. I guess they'd have to change from -i
> (or -e) to some other vowel when so used?
Which would also be the case for normal adjectives when used as substantives,
like "mali" (bad) vs. "malo" (evil, noun).
> Hear hear! And anyway, only _I_ have created the
> perfect auxlang. Of course, I simply haven't
> published it as of now, lest it cause unnecessary
> shame amongst all other auxlangers, depression
> amongst Esperantists (because they've been
> wasting their time) and would naturally make
> newish auxlangers like the Great Wizzard quail in
> abject terror and fall prostrate in pantaloon
> dampening worship of the AUXLANG TO END ALL
> AUXLANGS!!!!!!
>
> Ahem. Anyway, the world just isn't ready for it,
> yet....
LOL.
Jan
=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer