[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Hi! Daniel Prohaska writes: > Somehow the declension of POTER(E) like PATER doesn’t “feel” right. > > PATER---------------------------------------------------- > sg. pl. > no. pater patrês/*patrî > ge./da. patrî *patrîs > ac. patre patrês > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Since the Latin infinitive also had nominal function as well, I wouldn’t be > surprised if POTER(E) weren’t a nominalised infinitive. Romanian nouns with > the old infinitive endings –are, -ere etc. are feminine… > > Perhaps something like the following would work: > > POTER(E)------------------------------------------------ > sg. pl. > no. *potêr(e) *potêrês/*potêrî > ge./da. *potêrî *potêrîs > ac. *potêre *potêrês > -------------------------------------------------------------- I just looked it up: I seem to have come to similar conclusions in Þrjótrunn: http://www.kunstsprachen.de/lex.cgi?domain=s17;c-305=1;action=infl http://www.kunstsprachen.de/lex.cgi?domain=s17;c-562=1;action=infl **Henrik