Print

Print


In a message dated Tue, 16 Oct 2001  5:33:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> In a message dated 10/15/01 7:36:46 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << Somehow, I would like to derive a system in which in a later stage of the
> language, there is an opposition between singular NOM and GEN and plural
> COMM. That is, somehow I want to get rid of much of the case system. What I
> thought to do was take forms from either the Genitive or the Nominative
> plural for the new plural form based on whether or not that form is most
> different from the singular Nominative. >>
>
>     The change you're proposing isn't unheard of, but isn't common on such a
> large scale; it isn't that regular.  However, it seems like you're suggesting
> something different with your last example:
>
> <<q'dol, q'doll  >  qell'
>
> dhjed', dhidax > dhjen'q
>
> d'rma, d'rmax > draq
>
> rrach, rr'chax > rrech'
>
> mje, mjex > man'q
>
> ngor, ngorsh > nigr'>>
>
>     I this (if I'm reading it right) you just lose the genitive plural, no?
> Or is it that those two merge into the latter...?  Bah!  It's too late for
> me...
>
> -David

The examples which you snipped gave the language as it is now, that is, with a full opposition between NOM S, GEN S, and NOM P, GEN P. The example which you term "the last example" is the language as I would like it to evolve. That is with an opposition between NOM S, GEN S, and COMM P. The genitive plural is not just dropped. The common plural is derived from either the genitive OR the nominative plural.

ELLIOTT