[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Ah yes, the problem of prefixes...
I've had a similar problem just a few days ago, trying to find
words for "be present" and "be absent". For the former, there
was already |adsere (adsóu, adsés, adsíx...)|, which probably
should be |azere (adsóu, azés, azíx)| instead, though the -ds-
could have spread to the other forms by analogy. Jovian likes
to drop initial schwas, but then there would have been
ambiguities here: |haen side| [hEn dzi:d] "they were" and |haen
dside| [hEn dzi:d] would sound the same. Still, it would be a
small problem, since "be" and "be present" aren't that different.
However, if I try to derive "be absent" from {abesse}, I get the
forms |adsóu| (1sg), |adsume| (1pl) and |adsón| (3pl) identical
to the corresponding forms of "be present". That sucks.
On the other hand, if I use {deesse}, I get |dsou, des, dix| etc.
These are pretty spiffy, except that the past participle |dside|
would again clash with the forms derived from {esse} and
{adesse}. I guess I could replace |dsou|, |dside| etc with
|desóu|, |deside| etc, but that would feel somewhat unjovian.
Do you consider it realistic to use other Latin words as a base
for "be present" and "be absent"? |Praeesse| or |inesse| for
the former, maybe?
-- Christian Thalmann