[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Padraic Brown skrzypszy: > 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? Good question. At this point of the language's development, I don't think so. In fact, the only candidates for such treatment would be Latin nouns with the ending -aea, but I haven't used any such words until now. Words ending with -ea behave differently: the "e" has no other effect than palatalising the preceding consonant. > Kerno, too, has its share of inherited -e words - > but it has far more that have migrated due to > analogy. Interesting. Could you give some examples? > 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. Actually, the Polish conjunctive (or subjunctive, is there any difference?) used to have more tenses as well. But other forms are completely obsolete, and in Wenedyk I have neglected them. > > 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. I would be interested to have a look at that. > Why not use the old perfect infinitive (-isse). I thought about that. The result wouldn't be too bad, I think: just removing the "v" and adding a "normal" infinitive ending: amavisse > amaszer audivisse > udzieszer rexisse > rzegszer (In Wenedyk, the e- and i-conjugations have merged into one). The problem remains, that you get two completely different sets of endings for the same tense, which in fact would mean that you still have one verb with two endings instead of two verbs. But perhaps I'll develop a dialect with this feature. I have been thinking much about dialects lately, anyway. > > creating a second set of imperatives, > > Already done! Latin has present and future > imperative. Like in "memento mori", right? Was that form still in use during the period of Vulgar Latin/Early Romance? > Bosh! Latin's system is already just screwed up > IE! ;) Yes, I just wonder how many of these Classical Latin forms were still in use in Vulgar Latin. > > 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! Yes, I think I'll do that tomorrow. But don't hesitate to post something about Kerno verbs. You show me yours, I show you mine, okay? ;))) 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