[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Peter Collier skrev: > If I have it correctly, VL had the following forms: > > Nom Masc Sing ILLU > ILLUS by analogy with adjectives Gen > Masc Sing ILLUIUS Dat Masc Sing ILLUI (should that be > ILLUÍ ?) > > Nom Fem Sing ILLA Gen Fem Sing ILLAEUS Dat FemSing ILLAEI > (ILLAEÍ ?) > > Can anyone tell me the VL plural forms? Grandgent gave: | .elle .ell.i .ella .ellu | | [ellujus] ell,ejus | | .ell.i [.ello] ell.ui .ell.i .elle ell,ei .ell.i | | .ellu .ello .ella .ellu .ello | | | | .ell.i .elle .ella | | ell.oru ell.uru? [ellaru] ell.oru | ell.uru? | | .ell.i(s) ell.oru .ell.i(s) | | .ello(s) .ella(s) .ella Where . and , before a vowel should be dot (closed) or hook (open) below the vowel, of course. Forms in brackets are such which (in OTL!:-) were 'not kept in Romance'. G. gave no labels in his table, and neither do I in the interest of lateral space. The order quite clearly is m. f. n. and nom. gen. dat. acc. respectively. The acc. and abl. fell together very early, so he gives no separate ablative. He doesn't give any stresses at all. I guess the diphthongal/hiatical datives could have either of the two last vowels stressed depending on dialect. In fact all of these forms seem to have been sometimes stressed on the stem, and sometimes in the ending, giving rise to duplicate forms e.g. in Spanish. If I were to make a Germano-Romance I'd have | le la lo le(s) | leus leis leus laur | leu lei leu lie | lo la lo le(s) I hope the tables line up correctly. I'm afraid I forgot to protect Pete's original table from Autoformat... /BP 8^)> -- Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*, c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)