[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [romconlang] past particple



--- Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@hidden.email> wrote:

> 
>  [loss of final -S (/z/), Verner's Law]
> 
> My understanding is that by the time Latin reached
> Germania Verner's Law had long since ceased to be
> operative, Latin -S was and remained voiceless, -S
> ought to remain in a Germano-Romance which preserves
> cases, rather as it did in Old French

You make a good argument, but that would be a major
rewrite! Although, I am curious to see what the effect
would be...

I explain the anachronism by suggesting that while the
Romans were into GERMANIA (Inf & Sup) by about 60/50
BCE *here*, they were a little earlier *there*.
Verner's law is posited as beginning during the 5th
century BCE and of course it didn't cease to be
productive the following Wednesday afternoon, so you
only have to move the Roman expansion back maybe 200
years for it to begin to look plausible. The longer
Roman presence could also account for the persistance
of a Romance tongue. If it all happens exactly as it
did *here*, you'd end up with Hochdeutsch...

> [... past participle prefix]

> At the same time CON feels somehow more realistic to
> me, including having some semantic vagueness which
> invites reinterpretation.

Unstressed it would probably also end up as ke- /k@/
which is only one position away from the German ge- 
:)


Pete