[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
>>So you are privileging case over gender in the dative and ablative?<< Yes. >>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?<< This is kind of hard to explain, but I think it just seemed the most efficient way to design the ablative/locative case. Since the locative differs from the ablative only in the masculine and feminine singular of the first and second declensions, it seemed almost natural that the distinct locative case (already very much endangered in Classical Latin) would disappear completely into the ablative case in a hypothetical modern form. >>Do all verbs take the accusative?<< Certainly not. Transitive verbs take the accusative. Intransitive verbs, if they have an object at all, take the dative. "I give my mom flowers," for example, would be "Do matri mi flories." "Flowers" is in the accusative but "mother" is in the dative. >>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?<< Very true. However, one of the design principles is phonetic simplicity, so I'm trying to avoid double consonants altogether. The "tes" ending in the 2nd person plural is due to a slight Vulgar Latin influence (which is also responsible for the nominative singular -o ending instead of -us). >>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?<< You have just conjugated "amar" correctly in the present indicative passive voice according to the basics I've set forth. The -tor instead of -tur is an aesthetic preference. The sound of /ur/ just sounds awkward to me, which means I should probably change the 1pl. form to dropping the /us/ and adding /or/, now that I think about it. I almost replaced all the u's with o's, (i.e. "bonibus" instead of "bonibus" just for the sake of having a few odd morphological attributes, but I don't like using /o/ or /a/ at the end of words that don't reflect gender, since /o/ tends to imply if not denote masculinity and /a/ tends to imply if not denote femininity. Plus I needed a gender-neutral vowel for the ending of neuter words. However, I may yet reverse this decision in the name of a more consistent morphology. What would your recommendation be? >>How about declining "eser" for us (or is it regular?)?<< "eser" is, in my opinion, one of those verbs that would be really hard to justifiably make regular. Keeping in mind the aforementioned o/u dilemma, here's what I'm thinking for forms of "eser" Present Indicative som somus es estes est sont Present Subjunctive sim simus sis sites sit sint Perfect Stem: fu- Imperfect & Future Stem: er- Present Participle: sent Past Participle: sito/a/u Future Participle: futuro/a/u >>What are the allowable final consonants?<< Most commonly, /t/, /l/, and /r/ FYI: When I was revising this as I went along, I forgot to remove the final /e/ from regular present participles. The nominative singular present participle of "mostrar" should be "mostrant" not "mostrante." Thanks for the feedback! If you have anymore based on my responses, feel free to reply. Gregory H. Bontrager