[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@hidden.email>
wrote:
> > 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.
Exactly, so it's sensible to take the case that
has the least baggage. By in large, it is
equivalent with the stem.
> 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
Yeah. You've got a relic of the -e declension
there. Question is: have any words been drawn
into it by analogy, or is dziej singular in its
declension?
Kerno, too, has its share of inherited -e words -
but it has far more that have migrated due to
analogy.
> > 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.
Quite. I wish I had made this clearer at the
first! If I wrote out a matrix, as you call it,
set up for tense v. mood, I'd have indic., subj.,
cond., imper. across the top and all the tenses
along the side. Only the indic. and subj. would
have more than one tense. No, I take that back,
the imperative has two tenses. Anyway, both of
these moods are kept separate from the tense/mood
matrix and listed separately.
> 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.
Hm. I think I need to see this laid out
somewhere. I have just finished with the schemes
for the "regular" -ar, -er and -ir verbs.
Everything else is too irregular and would
require a "501 Kerno Verbs" sort of deal to make
any sense.
> 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,
Why not use the old perfect infinitive (-isse).
> creating a second set of imperatives,
Already done! Latin has present and future
imperative.
> and most of all, because it would heavily
> mix up the conjugational system.
Bosh! Latin's system is already just screwed up
IE! ;)
> 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.
An excellent idea!
Padraic.
=====
Passe lê tempeor po rizer; passe lê tempeor pois Ddé.
-- per tradicièn Niponor
.