[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
----- Original Message ----- From: "Henrik Theiling" <theiling@hidden.email>
To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [romconlang] past particple
Hi! What exactly is the problem with that? The typical -at- morpheme is still there, just the case inflection dropped. I think that's perfect. It's that -t- that is the sign of that participle (of regular verbs), so if you don't loose it, everything is fine. (French looses it and is still fine...) BTW, in my Terkunan, the ending is -at, so 'amat' is in fact perfect Terkunan. :-) **Henrik
No *great* problem, but I was just wondering if there were any Romlangs that had done it differently - it starts to look a bit mad when everything ends up too similar! There are a lot of -s and-t morphemes once you start losing the final Latin syllable, and then of course -t > -(s)s, so we ends ups wheres a lots of nouns and verbs haves a wholes lots of esses.... And if it's not -s, it's -e. You'd get used to it, I suppose. :)
<FACERE Infinitive: tacher (should be *tacker, but all other forms have -ch-) Perfect:tacht (preceding [C] prevents the t > ss change) could become *tache� or *tachs by analogy with regular verbs)
Present: Preterite: Jo tache Jo tieche Zu t�ch Zu tiechischte Le t�chs Le tiecht Nu t�chem Nu tiechim Vu t�chs Vu tiechischt Lie tachunt Lie tiechrunt <PERDONARE Infinitive: Pertoner Perfect: pertona� Present: Preterite: Jo pertone Jo perton�f Zu pertone Zu perton�fschte Le pirtunt Le pertonaft Nu pertonam Nu perton�fem Vu pertona� Vu perton�fscht Lie pirtunt Lie pertonafernt