From: habarakhe4
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 16:51:46 EST
--- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, Adam Walker <carrajena@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> "habarakhe4 <theophilus88@h...>" <theophilus88@h...> wrote:
> --- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, Adam Walker
<carrajena@y...>
> wrote:
> but this is mainly to post the new paradigm as it now
> esixts.
> >
> > Infinitive
> >
> >
> >
> > serri
> >
> >
> >
> > Present tense
> >
> >
> >
> > ju sunu (or sun~u) nos sumus
> >
> > tu ses (or se) tus sidis
> >
> > vos sidi vosus sidis
> >
> > vosas sidis
> >
> > su esti sus sunts
> >
> > sa esti sas sunts
> >
> > si esti sis sunts
> >
> Is 'si' the neuter pronoun?
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure I like the analogy on "sunt", but I'm pretty sure
I'm
> going to drop the "s" at the end of "ses" to give an (overly?)
> Italianish "se". As for the sunu/sun~u problem, I may keep both
> pronunciations with one seen as "correct" and the
other "dialectal"
> with the division probably being urban (Carthage/Tunis/(Algiers?)
vs.
> rural or east (Carthage/Tunis) vs west (Algiers).
> >
> Surely the choice here on -s and n/-u depends on the allowable
final
> consonants. If you forbid /ses/ for /se/, will you drop the /s/'s
on
> plural nouns?
> >
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to with n/-u, but the reason
for dropping the -s on "ses" is just because that "s" would then be
the only final "s" in the singular paradigm and might come to "feel"
pluralish. "S" is a permited final consonant as
are /d/, /t/, /n/, /m/, /N/ and perhaps a few others.
<snip>
> Adam
Theophilus scripsit:
If final /n/ is allowed, then I suppose /sun/ is acceptable.
Theophilus/Tofil [t@wil]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:19:45 EST