From: habarakhe4
Date: Tue Dec 31 2002 - 11:16:04 EST
--- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Isaac A. Penzev" <isaacp@u...>
wrote:
> Salve!
> I've got a couple of questions.
>
> You wrote:
> <<<Old Fortunatian
> "I" "thou" (Nominative, Genitive, Accusative)
> Sg.
> N mu' tu' [mu: tu:]
> G mi' ti' [mi: ti:]
> A me' te' [me: te:]>>>
>
> What is the origin of a strange form |mu'|? In fact, in general, all
> pronouns look suspiciously regular...
/mu/ is analagous to /tu/, a genuine latin form. /ti/ is analogous to
/mi/, a genuine latin form.
>
> <<<There are singular and plural forms of the OF verb, which agree with
> the subject of the sentence. The singular ends in -at, the plural in -
> an>>>
>
> Why did the verb lose personal agreement? All Romance natlangs have it, as
> well as Etruscan (afawk) and Berber.
Here's the new conjugation:
OF NF
1s -o: -o:
2s -aS -aS
3s -at -at
1p -amuS -aS*
2p -atiS -atS
3p -an -an
*This explains the obligatory personal pronoun.
>
> <<< (All regular verbs in OF are first declension in finite form).>>>
>
> Why? Do you mean that most verbs changed their thematic vowel, or only 1st
> conjugation verbs remained regular?
I wanted to simplify the OF verbs and maintain greater complexity in
the nouns, the opposite of Romance languages *here*. I took a tendency
in Romance languages *here* to favor first declension verbs and
extended it to its conclusion.
>
> IMHO, too much regularity makes a project look like auxlang. Does
> Fortunatian pretend to play such a role?
No. For its time, it's in the worst possible spot for such a purpose.
>
> Vale,
> Yitzik
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:19:45 EST