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


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

Re: [romconlang] pseudo-Latin "hinges"



On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:37:36 +0000, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@hidden.email> wrote:
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
Well, of those only *ghabh- satisfies the requirement for Grassmann's Law  
(dissimilation of aspirates) .. you wouldnt expect the others to.   
Actually the aspiration dropping only appears to happen sometimes before  
*r and *l.
There's
*ghredh- ~> gred-/grad- (as mentioned already)
*ghladh-ro- ~> glaber

competing with:
*ghrewd- ~> rūdus
*ghrōwo- ~> rāvus
*ghrēu- ~> ruo, congruo, ingruo

Under such circumstances, I'm not sure about |ginges| < *g(e)ngh- either
.... :/
I don't propose it as necessary, or even likely.  But in conlanging one  
can always appeal to an occasional bend of the rules when needed to  
produce an attractive form [it could be called dialectal, like l for d in  
lacrima, lingua, levir].
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 ...?
Dunno here either.  The only thing I could think of offhand are an  
(implausible) root noun |hinx, hingis| or an (unattractive) regular o-stem  
|hingus, -ī|.
(If this were my IE-lang family, I would use *ghn=gh-wo-s or possibly  
*ghongh-e2-wo-s, but I dont think Latin used those suffixes productively  
in that manner.  It'd be Atlantic *šoge [`SOgE] for the first or *šâŋgje  
['S@NgZE] for the second).
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 :)
That's the book.  The title may be slightly misleading: the only relation  
that Greek and Latin have is common descent from Proto-Indo-European,  
which is what the bulk of the book is actually about: PIE, from the  
perspective of its remains in Greek and Latin.

	*Muke!
--
http://frath.net/                  E jer savne zarjé mas ne
http://kohath.livejournal.com/     Se imné koone'f metha
http://kohath.deviantart.com/      Brissve mé kolé adâ.