[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [romconlang] pseudo-Latin "hinges"



Reordering the queries here ...

At 02:31 31/01/2004, Muke Tever wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:47:52 +0000, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@hidden.email>
>wrote:
> > Nom. Sing. hinges
> > Gen. Sing. hingitis
> > [...]
>
>One thing you might do is drop the 'h' (as sometimes happens, cf.
>"anser")--|inges, -itis| looks much more Latinate.
>[...]
>Third off, it's possible Grassmann's Law might apply[1]; thus it could
>possibly be |ginges| from *g(e)ngh-.
>[1] e.g. |gradior|, etc. < *ghredh-... *if* that isnt the regular outcome
>of *ghr; competing evidence is |ruo| < *ghre:u-.

Though how common is that dropping the h-?  Most of the results of initial 
PIE gh- in Latin that I can think of seem to retain initial h- ....

*ghabh-   > habere
*ghiem-   > hiems
*ghor-to- > hortus
*ghos-ti- > hostis

Under such circumstances, I'm not sure about |ginges| < *g(e)ngh- either 
.... :/

Admittedly, inges/ingitis looks much more Latinate :) and it might be worth 
making an exception in this case :)


>Second off, must it be a consonant stem and in -it- ?

Well, I don't know if it *must* be a consonant stem in -it-, but given the 
Celtic evidence -- Gaulish *cingeto- and Old Irish cing (gen. cinged) -- 
and the many links between Celtic and Italic, it seemed to me that a 
consonant stem in -it- was reasonably appropriate.  I'm not sure what a 
plausible alternative might be ...?

At 02:43 01/02/2004, Costentin Cornomorus wrote:
>If I could remember where I put Sihler, I could
>comment more on *hinges.

I'm not familiar with Sihler -- _New Comparative Grammar of Greek and 
Latin_? -- though it sounds fun :)  But then, I'm rather new to Romance 
linguistics in general!

Cheers,
Carl


--
Carl Edlund Anderson
http://www.carlaz.com/ 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]