[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Would it be unrealistic to have had both, but one used primarily where
the other conflicts with an existing form? That is, using a word
derived from |adsóu| for the past participle and |dsou| for everything
else.
~wright
Christian Thalmann palsalge
> 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