[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [romconlang] Declension trouble
Sorry for late answer. I had a test and a deadline...
But an answer worth waiting for! I hope the test went well.
Would the Vulgar Latin dative singular forms m. ILLUI and f. ILLAEI develop differently in your GMP? I could imagine LUI > lüü > löü > loi (_leu_). LAEI might fall together with your genitive, but seeing how the genitive and dative singular were identical in the first noun declension already in Latin that doesn't strike me as any great calamity. The resulting great similarity to Rhodrese pronouns is a bit embarrassing, tho not unlikely when starting from the same raw material:
Yes, they would. This is where lack of (any) familiarity with VL lets me
down! I would end up with:
'N.Lat.' Pr.N. Rom. Old Mid Mod
< ILLUI /lui:/ /lui/ /lui/ /ly-\e/
/ly:/ < lü >
<ILLAEI /le:i:/ /le:i/ /li-\ei/ /li-\ee/
/li:e/ < lie(e) >
The VL dative plural forms would have been ILLUIS and ILLAEIS ?
<AFMOCL>
'AFMOCL' ?
>[...word final <b>...] Why not let it become -f/-v like in Franconian (Rhenisch) dialects?
hey, good!
It is interesting to see how in German all forms of the definite article occur in more than one slot in the declension, der in particular being ambiguous, so that it is in practice the combination of endings on the article and noun, combined with lexical knowledge what gender the noun is, which enables the listener/reader to determine which case and number a given instance of article + noun represents. A certain amount of vagueness and ambiguity is a part of language after all -- indeed what punsters and poets make profit off.
Yes. I spent a long time contemplating that very thought as I leafed back and forth through Hammer&Durrell for the zillionth time. Duplication is fine for me as long as there is some variation, but when case number and gender are all completely lost, it's time to stop and think! Some good thoughts and ideas there, BP, thanks! Pete