Post by gariceir on Sept 7, 2004 6:55:40 GMT -6
Repost:
Azul!
Tomás wrote:
> Talossan cognates of Latin words with the prefix con- end up in Talossan
> with several different variants: com-, con-, cum-, cun. Do you think it
> would be worth going through these and perhaps regularizing a bit? For
> example, comtribuçar and comvimçar I find rather grating -- cuntribuçar
> and cunvinçar would feel more Talossan to me.
I've thought about this one myself... I really like cün- as the prefix, but early Talossan materials had com- (with the odd 'm') and so that attracts me as well... It might be a little late to standardize all this, I wonder.
> Past participles. The Latin/Sardinian one is -at, which as far as I can
> tell is more common that -escù in modern Talossan anyway. Personally,
> I'd be in favor of officially deprecating -escù and making -at the form
> that should be used. However, several of the irregular verbs -- estarë,<br>> irë, säparë, starë, tirë, vëlarë -- have only -escù (interestingly, irë<br>> has only venescù, but vienarë has both venescù and vienat). So how would
> you feel about forms such as estat, säpat, stat or stânat, tenat or
> tienat, vëlat?
Personally, I think having the -escu as an option is a good idea, as so many documents use it. As for having -at always being available, hmmm... I wouldn't be averse to making it an option, but I'd never use it in the irregular verbs, it just looks weird to me.
> Also, what did we end up deciding -- if we ever did, I can't remember --
> about the rd/rð/dr/ðr thing, and the in/im/în/îm thing?
For the former, rd/dr are now always pronounced [rD]/[Dr] (as in Spanish) and so the eth is suppressed. I'm not sure we ever completely worked out the in/im/în/îm thing. For a long time I've grown weary of the sound [î] and I'd be comfortable abolishing it completely or (better yet) leaving it as an optional variant pronunciation of i before n or m. In words where the sound appears independently (i.e. not under the influence of n or m) it should probably remain. And the graph î should stay in some historic words like în (the preposition). And of course in the present participle where it's pronounced .
Use of î/i before n and m is hopelessly irregular (worse than our reflexes of Latin com- !) and needs fixing. I'm open to dialogue on the con-/com- etc. issue too.
Ben
Azul!
Tomás wrote:
> Talossan cognates of Latin words with the prefix con- end up in Talossan
> with several different variants: com-, con-, cum-, cun. Do you think it
> would be worth going through these and perhaps regularizing a bit? For
> example, comtribuçar and comvimçar I find rather grating -- cuntribuçar
> and cunvinçar would feel more Talossan to me.
I've thought about this one myself... I really like cün- as the prefix, but early Talossan materials had com- (with the odd 'm') and so that attracts me as well... It might be a little late to standardize all this, I wonder.
> Past participles. The Latin/Sardinian one is -at, which as far as I can
> tell is more common that -escù in modern Talossan anyway. Personally,
> I'd be in favor of officially deprecating -escù and making -at the form
> that should be used. However, several of the irregular verbs -- estarë,<br>> irë, säparë, starë, tirë, vëlarë -- have only -escù (interestingly, irë<br>> has only venescù, but vienarë has both venescù and vienat). So how would
> you feel about forms such as estat, säpat, stat or stânat, tenat or
> tienat, vëlat?
Personally, I think having the -escu as an option is a good idea, as so many documents use it. As for having -at always being available, hmmm... I wouldn't be averse to making it an option, but I'd never use it in the irregular verbs, it just looks weird to me.
> Also, what did we end up deciding -- if we ever did, I can't remember --
> about the rd/rð/dr/ðr thing, and the in/im/în/îm thing?
For the former, rd/dr are now always pronounced [rD]/[Dr] (as in Spanish) and so the eth is suppressed. I'm not sure we ever completely worked out the in/im/în/îm thing. For a long time I've grown weary of the sound [î] and I'd be comfortable abolishing it completely or (better yet) leaving it as an optional variant pronunciation of i before n or m. In words where the sound appears independently (i.e. not under the influence of n or m) it should probably remain. And the graph î should stay in some historic words like în (the preposition). And of course in the present participle where it's pronounced .
Use of î/i before n and m is hopelessly irregular (worse than our reflexes of Latin com- !) and needs fixing. I'm open to dialogue on the con-/com- etc. issue too.
Ben
