From: Christian Thalmann (cinga@gmx.net)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 08:09:56 EST
--- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, Costentin Cornomorus
<elemtilas@y...> wrote:
> > But what about |nuolu| "no, none"? |U nuolu|
> > "a none" and |is
> > nuolu| "the none" don't make sense.
>
> Well, yeah. In English they don't make sense! In
> Kerno, we find il neyan = the no one.
>
> > The same goes for |oene| "every".
>
> Y chascyn = the every; Y h-ol (arch.)
Hmmm. True, I shouldn't think within the limitations of
English and German... I think I'm going to coin |is oene|
"the every", |u nuolu| "a none", |ni muodi| "some many"
etc. for everyday use, reserving the constructions |nuolu
u mare| "none a man" and |oene ni obe| "every by a means"
for poetic or high-brow use (for which there is plenty of
demand in Jervaine ;-).
> > Neither |ys auga| [yz awg] "of the water" nor
> > |nys auga| [nyz awg]
> > "of a water" seem to work. Of course, one
> > could define an
> > idiomatic use of either article in this
> > situation, but I
> > wonder whether it wouldn't lead to ambiguities.
>
> Naturally. You could say georrackow l' acoua;
> which leads to the "is the jar _made of_ water or
> _for the use of_ water" question.
> Common sense, however, goes quite far in
> overriding logical problems like that.
As mentioned in the previous post, I'm going to fix the
singular indefinite article as the idiomatic solution
here: |nys auga| [nyz awg] shall henceforth mean "of
water".
> > Does anyone have alternate ideas for the
> > creation of a
> > partitive article like du/des in French? I
> > can't think of a fitting Latin root...
>
> Could you use a different preposition or a
> different pronoun set even?
I would have liked to reserve a dedicated pronoun set for
this purpose, but I could find no fitting Latin pronoun that
would have been succinct enough for such an elemental role.
-- Christian Thalmann
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:19:47 EST