On 20 April 2017 at 12:21, Łukasz Korczewski <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 2017-04-20 13:17 GMT+02:00 BPJ <[log in to unmask]>: > >> Den 2017-04-19 kl. 19:15, skrev Łukasz Korczewski: >> >>> Is /y/ "barbarous"? >>> >> >> Per definition not, as it occurred in Attic Greek! ;-) >> > > Good point ;) Although I had rather German on my mind ;) > > And although it's a bad joke it brings forth my point again: it's just a > bunch of cultural cliches having little to do with the linguistic realities > and in fact there are enough cultures and languages in the western world to > make us disagree on the details what's "barbaric" and what's "poetic"... > and we havn't yet asked a Mongolian or a native speaker of Igbo. And so, if > I see an introduction to a constructed language that largely relies on > attributing some personal characteristics to that language, I feel little > excitement and I tend to suspect the creator of having little expertise in > linguistics and in fact rather shallow knowledge of foreing languages. > > Is adlative "mystical"? >>> >> >> Merely misspelled; it's _allative_. >> > > I admit I'm not that much into elaborate case systems recently. I've just > desperately tried to find some justification for the form I used, but even > the sources in my mother tongue denied any excuse to me. And so I'm forced > to admit -- I made it up without proper research. Fear not! It may not be common, but there are genuine results for "adlative" as the opposite of "ablative" (synonymous with "allative") in Google Books. It appears to be used in grammars of Basque and a book on subject of clitics in general (glossing abbreviation ADLAT). -l.