Print

Print


On Sun, 1 Mar 1998 18:14:27 GMT, "Raymond A. Brown"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
 
>>a pronoun of any kind.  Is this really any worse than the later N use =
of
>>TU for an abstract demons pron?
>
>Probably not.  Indeed, in view of the use of 'tu', 'te' and, in some, =
'ti'
>as familiar 2nd singular pronouns in all the Romancelangs, I really am
>surprised that none of the 'revivers' has questioned Jespersen's TI, TE
>etc. =3D 'that'  ('ta' is also French for 'your'!). =20
 
Hey!!! I did so! I really dislike those forms, and I've found another
one which is even more first_sight_recognisable (at least for romance
speakers). That is TAL-. It means "such (thing)"or "so" (when pronoun)
in S, P, F (tel), and probably (I'm not sure) Italian. There is no
problem that it doesn't mean exactly "that". TAL can be replaced by
ESE/A (that) on every Sp sentence, without meaning loss. This is a
change that I sincerely recommend to James and to the NaLGa.=20
 
>>I can't use -i for the singulars, because it is not possible after a =
and
>>o: we would have LOI, LAI, which are not acceptable.
>
>Why are are LOI and LAI unacceptable?  They're easy enough to say.
 
I think so. :-?
 
>NOSI and VUSI would suggest Portuguse 'nosso', 'vosso'.
>
>> Plus I need to keep
>>-n for certain derivations from sbs in -o/a.
>
>Er - doesn't this mean that the genitive -n- is being retained??
 
It seems, indeed. :-?
 
>>> >2.7. ...tens will be formed with -enti rather
>>> >than -anti.
 
>Personally I think -anti is better & the French sound is /a~t/, i.e. it =
is
>/a/ not /e/, only the vowel is nasalized.  It's the /n/ that disappears =
in
>French!
>
>But to me both -enti and -anti look like Novial present pariciples!  One
 
Well, one of the reasons for what I like -enti is that is not a
participle ending in my Novial.
 
>Romance lang, Romanian, has abandoned this and uses analytical forms, =
e.g.
>dou@zeci =3D 20     [@ represents a-breve]
>treizeci =3D 30
>patruzeci =3D 40
>etc.
>
>....where 'zeci' is the plural of 'zece' (<-- Latin: decem /deke/) =3D =
10.
 
Is this like Esperanto's system? I liked it. Perhaps I'll recover it.
 
 
 
 
 
>>I am particularly interested in the experiences of I-aists, as you are
>>the only people whose language doesn't have an acc flexion.
>
>Most of the GR natlangs don't, at least for substantives.
 
Yes, but they (except English, which has problems with order changing,
I think) have another ways to distingish between object and subject.=20
 
 
 
 
Saludos,
Marcos