EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Feb 15, 2008 16:03:56 GMT -6
Hmm...well I read this over again and it makes alot of sense.
See, since I am more a Germanic language conniosseur it at first did not make alot of since due to German's lack of such a "subjunctive mood." We have future tense for that.
So I agree with the proposal in that it actually makes it easier to realize when to use the subjunctive mood and could actually make it easier to pick up since we have the qe as a sort of stop light saying "watch out! subjunctive!"
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 15, 2008 16:07:22 GMT -6
Exactly! It's very easy because it'll pretty much always take qe (unless it's in an "if" clause). But beware of parç qe -- which definitely does not take the subjunctive.
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Feb 16, 2008 12:01:20 GMT -6
Yes, but parç qe is easily distinguised from the simple qe. I have come to support this, it is similar to the -ë found on pre-arestada irregular verbs: a visual hint. Now, going back to some discussions earlier in this thread, I think that we should not fully embrace Latin. Face it, it is very complex, and Talossan is complex enough to the Cestourat as it is. But I digress.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 16, 2008 17:38:33 GMT -6
Hmm... I refrain from comparing it to the -ë because that was an unnecessary marker used by Ben so that he could tell which verbs were irregular, and which weren't! We've since gotten rid of that for that reason. The "qe" is indeed a visual hint, but it's not set up that way because we want to make it easier. That's just how it is in other Romance languages.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 20, 2008 3:54:16 GMT -6
Isn't Talossan also Finno-Ugric?
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 20, 2008 5:40:42 GMT -6
The word Talossa is Finnish as is Vuode. But there are actually very few words taken from Finnish. Talossa is pretty much structured as a Romance language.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Mar 8, 2008 8:58:10 GMT -6
I'm a citizen of the Republic and an Italian Native Speaker. (BTW, I'm the author of the translation of Shelley immortal first 6 verses from "Ode to the West Wind"). It's been a long time since i'm not in Talossan business, so I don't know if I'm allowed to express my view here on CUG... so in advance let me say "I'm sorry".
I've posted my opinon on the RepWitt as well, but this one is more detailled.
The lack of the Subjunctive is one of the 2 most disturbing features that as romance speaker i've always found in el glheþ, together with the lack of universal adjectival gender agreement (es: on the exemple of întençéu/întençâ there should be also roxh/roxhâ).
About your proposals, personally I agree on everyone except for
in romance view, this doesn't make sense, because it's the verb itself that requires a mood, and not is affirmative or negative usage. Non duvitarh is simply the verb duvitarh preceeded by the negative non in order to deny it's meaning, but is still duvitarh and not another verb.
So: *Non duvitéu që o parladra Talián for *Non duvitéu që o parla Talián
I've changed exemple for a reason. Let me sue that sentence because it's simpler:
Apart for the translation error, this sentence sounds "strange" to my ears, because it's or an on-going action or a future action. in this case is clearly a future one. Subjunctive in romance languages cannot exprime a future idea, verbs that usually require the subjuncitve in this case will use the indicative future:
*Aßuméu që non moartarhéu
If it's instead an on-going action, "I assume that I'm not dying", coeherently with the talossan usage of the indicative present, the sentence should have been:
*Aßuméu që non moaréu
Last remark on this one:
I agree that it's a peculiarity, and I'm not arguing on that, but it's strange the our beloved language does not make differences among different kind of hypotheses.
An important though on subjunctive: it should have also a past tense in order to respect the romance pillar of consecutio temporum.
Last one: if we use the "conditional tense" in subjunctive fashion (and I agree that we need a sujunctive), we should have also a different "conditional mood" because even if it's not present in classical latin, the tripartite compound moods indicative-subjunctive-conditional it's an identifying mark for every romance language.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 8, 2008 9:04:06 GMT -6
Don't worry! You are welcome here! As are any of the RoTers Interestingly enough, this is a point of disagreement between several romance languages. In Italian "No doubt" is subjunctive - no question. However, it Spanish it is subjunctive. We will have to look into which type of Romance language subjunctive form we want to follow here, as it is important to note that there are differences! I agree with every bit of this. There is also the subjunctive in adjectival clauses that we must work out. Do you know the store that has books? VS. Do you know a store that has books? The latter is subjunctive but the former is not.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Mar 8, 2008 10:27:13 GMT -6
In Spanish it is indicative. That's a characteristic of spanish alone, but i believe that following the spanish sistem will introduce too many complications (especially for non-romance native speakers). For exemple, if we use this solution for "doubt/no doubt", we should coherently use the opposite one for "believe/no believe": the indicative for "believe" and the subjunctive for "no believe" etc...
The Spanish subjunctive system is by far more complicated than the french and the italian one that are pretty similar. Among the most visible differences of spanish there is also the presence of the subjunctive future, that anyway it's peculiar of that language as it's not derived from latin.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 8, 2008 10:29:40 GMT -6
Ah, interesting. You're probably right. Subjunctive for both then!
What are your views on subjunctive adjectival clauses?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Mar 8, 2008 10:52:24 GMT -6
I'm a citizen of the Republic and an Italian Native Speaker. (BTW, I'm the author of the translation of Shelley immortal first 6 verses from "Ode to the West Wind"). It's been a long time since i'm not in Talossan business, so I don't know if I'm allowed to express my view here on CUG... so Üc! It is good to hear from anyone who loves the Talossan language. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will try to do the same shortly.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Mar 8, 2008 11:22:11 GMT -6
What are your views on subjunctive adjectival clauses? I'm persuaded that el glheþ should be more romance flavoured, but without beeing too complicated, especially for those who do not naturally use the subjunctive. I tend to prefer a general rule (that of course may have some irreguarity ) " it's a verb inner meaning that requires a mood in secondary clauses, and not it's particular usage in that sentence". So together with: Duvitéu që os parladrent Talián Non duvitéu që os parladrent Talián (and not **parlent) let's keep: Conheçéu/cogneçéu dels vürs që parlent Talián Non conheçéu/cogneçéu dels vürs që parlent Talián (and not **parladrent as for exemple in Italian)
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 8, 2008 15:27:33 GMT -6
I have no problem with Cognoçarh being indicative, as it does seem to make more sense. I agree.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Mar 8, 2008 15:34:53 GMT -6
modâ CünxhuntïuFormation:We should think about "Subjunctive Past" forms. Seen the evident French inspiration (btw it's the same in Italian, glh: eu parlaßéu fr: je parlasse it: io parlassi), I propose: -aß-eu parladréu tú parladrás o parladra noi parladrent voi parladretz os parladrent | eu parlaßéu tú parlaßás o parlaßa noi parlaßent (optional form parlaßeux) voi parlaßetz os parlaßent |
Usage:A) In principal clauses it may have the following value: a.1 exortative (a sort of imperative, more polite): squindadrás!a.2 optative (wish, hope or fear): Dïeu te benedicadrás!a.3 esclamative: Säpadrás që frumoaseu!a.4 dubitative: Që venadrás aici?B) In subordinate clauses it should always be introduced by the conjunction që (with the exception of if clauses). b.1 Verbs of Belief, Opinion, Persuasion (credarh, crezitarh, aceptarh, açeitarh, aðmiçarh, etc.) and sometimes verbs of Trust in the situation of positive believing (when the subject is trusting that something will happen it should take a "qe" and introduce a subjunctive clause, but when it is something as simple as "I trust you" there should be no qe and there is no subjunctive clause anyway) (trustarh, aßumarh, etc.): Credéu që las moscas menxhadrent els eiafúnts. Credéveu që las moscas menxhaßent els eiafúnts.b.2 Verbs of Wishing, Desire, Hope and Doubt (cherarh, desirarh, esperarh, etc.): Esperéu që venadra. Esperéveu që venaßa.b.3 Impersonal expressions (it's important that, it's necessary that) for the most part: C'e neceßar që parladretz C'esteva neceßar që parlaßetz. b.4 Note that verbs of Perception and Judgement (vidarë, säparë, sovenênçar, xhuxhar, etc...) always require the Indicative. C) After some Conjuctions, as: -avant që -in cauça që -svo að që -salva që -províut që -quand që (used non-habitually)
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 8, 2008 16:34:04 GMT -6
Hmm... I don't know about this. I would be for something more like:
-avr-
So: eu parlavréu tú parlavrás o parlavra noi parlavrent (optional form parlaßeux) voi parlavretz os parlavrent
this would combine the past and the subjunctive rather nicely, no?
|
|