Print

Print


I wrote:

>The old CL conjugations are retained, but reanalyzed for more simplicity.
>The future perfect no longer exists in simple form, as it came to conflict
>with the past subjunctives after various sound changes.

But I'm wrong. The future perfect need not conflict with any subjunctives
at all. Thus it is retained (hehe). But hey, it's really not that hard,
it's *logical*...

       1st conj.    2nd conj.    3rd conj.   4th conj.     mixed conj.
sing.
1.p.   amaru        moniru       reixeru     audiru        ceiperu
2.p.   amares       monires      reixeres
3.p.   amare        monire       reixere     etc           etc
pl.
1.p.   amaremos     moniremos
2.p.   amaretes     moniretes    etc         etc           etc
3.p.   amaren       moniren

Compare it to this:

>And the pluperfect,
>
>       1st conj.    2nd conj.    3rd conj.   4th conj.     mixed conj.
>sing.
>1.p.   amara        monira       reixera     audira        ceipra
>2.p.   amaras
>3.p.   amara        etc          etc         etc           etc
>pl.
>1.p.   amaramos
>2.p.   amarates     etc          etc         etc           etc
>3.p.   amaran

And consider the future form and a "hypothetical imperfect form" of 'esse'
(which I am now presenting:

       fut           *imp
sing.
1.p.   eru           *era
2.p.   eres          *eras
3.p.   ere           *era
pl.
1.p.   eremos        *eramos
2.p.   eretes        *erates
3.p.   eren          *eran

NB:
* "hypothetical" because the imperfect tense does not exist in Thylean. If
it would, it would look like this, given sound changes.
* The forms above explain the endings of the pluperfect and future perfect.
The same trick works in CL, pretty much. So if you're having trouble
memorizing your darn Latin conjugs, keep this in mind :)

Óskar