On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:50:43 -0500 Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]> writes: > On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Steg Belsky wrote: > >AMĀL (to love) [a'mAl] < amāre > >(active) > >amō ['amow] < įmō > >amā ['amA] < įmās > >ama ['ama] < įmat > >amāmus [a'mAmuS] < amāmus > Oo, another one that keeps [u]. > >amāti [a'mAsi] < amātis > >aman ['aman] < įmant > >(passive) > >amo ['amo] < įmor > >amāri [a'mAri] < amāris > >amātu [a'mAsu] < amātur > >amāmul [a'mAmul] < amāmur > >amāmīn [amA'mijn] < amāmķnī > >amant [a'mant(@)] < amįntur > Tres cool! J keeps the whole passive? Everyone else dumped these; > and > even Kernu only keeps a couple as impersonal forms. Is there some > kind > of adstrate influence at work (i.e., do Hebrew or Aramaic have > passives)? > Pretty neat. > Padraic. . Thanks! Yup, it's adstrate influence. Hebrew has three-and-two-halves passives (simple passive, passive-intensive, passive-causative, as well as adjectival present simple and reflexive-passive past), and Aramaic has at least one paradigm (itpa`al) which is either a true passive or a reflexive-passive. Did i get the original Latin accented syllables right? What do you think about the 1st and 4th person 'problems'? -Stephen (Steg) "repeat after me: maētāl. maētō, maētā, maēta..."