[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory H. Bontrager" <GregBont@e...> wrote: > > I have looked at Latino sine Flexione/Interlingua recently, and I > can certainly understand the premise of simplifying Latin for ease > of learning for international use. To many, Latin's declension > system is a burden, so it's usually the first to go when someone has > the opportunity and skill to create their own revised form of Latin. > > However, I am almost frustrated that people like the creators of > Interlingua seem so blinded and intimidated by the complexity of > Latin's inflectional system that they overlook the marvelous economy > it brings to the language. I think one of the best things about > Latin is that so much information can often be embedded in a single > word. Amen to that! > > So, this is my response to all those simplified-Latin conlangs that > have butchered the inflectional system and forsaken lingual economy > and expediency for the sake of dull simplicity. It's an attempt to > create a happy medium between Classical Latin and Latino sine > Flexione. Three main characteristics are: 1) the five declensions > have been melded into two easily predictable declensions, 2) the > genitive case has been done away with in favor of the "de" + > ablative construction, and 3) perfect tense stems are not nearly as > arbitrary as in Classical Latin. > > > VOWEL-TERMINATION ADJECTIVE & NOUN > DECLENSION > > Singular > Masculine Feminine Neuter > Nom. bono bona bonu > Acc. bonom bonam bonum > Abl. bone bone bone > Dat. boni boni boni > > Plural > Nom. bonoi bonae bonui > Acc. bonos bonas bonus > Abl. bonibus bonibus bonibus > Dat. bonis bonis bonis > > > CONSONANT-TERMINATION ADJECTIVE & NOUN > DECLENSION > > Singular > Masculine Feminine Neuter > Nom. sapient sapient sapient > Acc. sapientem sapientem sapientem > Abl. sapiente sapiente sapiente > Dat. sapienti sapienti sapienti > > Plural > Nom. sapientes sapientes sapientes > Acc. sapienties sapienties sapienties > Abl. sapientibus sapientibus sapientibus > Dat. sapientis sapientis sapientis > > Note : Nouns of each gender decline in the same way as adjectives do > in the respective gender. > > ROLES OF THE CASES > Nominative = Subject > Accusative = Direct Object > Ablative = Prepositional Object > Dative = Indirect Object > Note: Genitive usage is indicated with "de" + ablative. Vocative > forms are always identical to the nominative. The locative case is > replaced by use of the ablative case without an accompanying > preposition. So you are privileging case over gender in the dative and ablative? Why do you favor locative as the default meaning of the abliative? Would it not be truer to the Latin predecessor to favor some form of separation as default of the ablative? (Although I do like the locative - it was one of the key cases in my second major conlang). Do all verbs take the accusative? > > INFINITIVES > Active > > Present > mostrar viver audir > > Past > mostrase vivese audise > Passive > > Present > mostrari viveri audiri > > Past > eser mostrato eser viveto eser audito > > > VERB FORMS > > Indicative > > Present > mostro vivo audo > mostras vives audis > mostrat vivet audit > mostramus vivemus audimus > mostrates vivetes audites > mostrant vivent audint > > Imperfect > mostrabam vivebam audibam > mostrabas vivebas audibas > mostrabat vivebat audibat > mostrabamus vivebamus audibamus > mostrabates vivebates audibates > mostrabant vivebant audibant > > Future Future Future > mostrabo vivebo audibo > mostrabis vivebis audibis > mostrabit vivebit audibit > mostrabimus vivebimus audibimus > mostrabites vivebites audibites > mostrabint vivebint audibint > > Perfect > mostravi vispi audivi > mostravisti vispisti audivisti > mostravit vispit audivit > mostravimus vispimus audivimus > mostraviste vispiste audiviste > mostravont vispont audivont > > Pluperfect > mostravam vispam audivam > mostravas vispas audivas > mostravat vispat audivat > mostravamus vispamus audivamus > mostravates vispates audivates > mostravant vispant audivant > > Future Perfect > mostravo vispo audivo > mostravis vispis audivis > mostravit vispit audivit > mostravimus vispimus audivimus > mostravites vispites audivites > mostravint vispint audivint > > Subjunctive > > Present Subj. Present Subj. Present Subj. > mostram vivam audam > mostres vivas audas > mostret vivat audat > mostremus vivamus audamus > mostretes vivates audates > mostrent vivant audant > > Imp. Subj. Imp. Subj. Imp. Subj. > mostrasem vivesem audisem > mostrases viveses audises > mostraset viveset audiset > mostrasemus vivesemus audisemus > mostrasetes vivesetes audisetes > mostrasent vivesent audisent > > Participles > Present Past Future > mostrante mostrato mostraturo > > Perfect System Stem Formation of ?ere Verbs > Present Stem + /s/ > But? > s + c or g = x > s + s or z = x > s + b or p = sp > s + f or v = sp > s + d or t = st > s + h = s Most of these make sense. But s + s or z = x? Surely such a combination would result in ss . Why are you using -tes instead of Classical Latin -tis as verbal ending? > > Passive Voice Formation (Non-Perfect Tenses) > 1st Person Sing.: -o = -or, -am = -ar > 2nd Person Sing.: insert /ri/ immediately before final /s/ > 3rd Person Sing.: add /or/ to the end > 1st Person Plu.: drop final /s/ and add /r/ > 2nd Person Plu.: drop final /s/ and add /ni/ > 3rd person Plu.: add /or/ to the end 1sg., 3sg., and 3pl. present appear have the same final form. Does this mean that pronouns are required? Or is the declension (amor, amaris, amator, amamur, amatini, amantor). If so, why do you favor -o- over original Latin -u-? Is there an aesthetic preference? > > > Passive Voice Formation (Perfect Tenses) > > Perfect > Present Indicative tense of "eser" + Past Participle > > Pluperfect > Imperfect Indicative tense of "eser" + Past Participle > > Future Perfect > Future Indicative tense of "eser" + Past Participle > > > I'd be very interested in feedback if anyone is willing to give it. > Has anything like this been done before? If so, how does the prior > conlang compare with this one (in as much as has been created)? > What do you think of the premise? > > I hope the columns of words stay aligned when I send this. I made > the mistake of typing this in Word without using the Tables option > and just copy-and-pasted it here. If not, anyone who's interested > can e-mail me and I'll send them an RTF or something. How about declining "eser" for us (or is it regular?)? What are the allowable final consonants? A standard text for translation is the Tower of Babel text of Genesis. > > Thanks, > > Gregory H. Bontrager