- A brief summary first:
The language is a High German development of Latin. After those sound
changes have nicely messed up the Latin declensions I have three cases
(direct, genetive and dative), two genders (masc & fem) and two numbers
The definite article may come form ILLE, or maybe from IPSE (I haven't
decided yet) but that doesn't really affect the declension. I end up with
the following (based on ILLE, change the /l/ to /s/ for IPSE):
Ms Fs Mp Fp
Dir /le:/ /la:/ /li:/ /le:/
Gen /lai/ /lai/ /lu:re/ /la:r/
Dat /li:/ /li:/ /li:/ /li:/
No problems with the direct or genetive cases - except perhaps Dir. Mp -
but, as you can see the dative all ends up in the same place, regardless of
gender or number, due to a loss of final /s/ at some point earlier in the
I am minded to lose the gender distinction for the plurals, for no other
reason than German has done so and if I do the same it simplifies the
problem a little. I can also use the original accusative rather than
nominative form for the direct plural, which leaves me here:
M F P
Dir /le:/ /la:/ /lu:/
Gen /lai/ /lai/ /lu:re/
Dat /li:/ /li:/ /li:/
Any idea how I could mark that dative plural? In some declensions it will be
apparent in the noun itself due to the original -IBVS ending which collapses
to /-p/, but not all. Extend -IBVS to all declensons by analogy (not ideal,
as I really don't like the way that word final <b> looks when I do have
it!)? Use something other than ILLÍS (what?), add some kind of clitic to the
noun to ensure it has a distinctive ending in all declensions (I added SVVM
to all gen. sing early on for similar reasons) - what though?
Any suggestions gratefully received!
Henrik, any suggestions from the land of the frozen vines?
- Daniel Prohaska <daniel@...> wrote:
> The stressed vowel in WGmc *watar was short. Length in English, Dutch andWell, that blows me out of the *watar then - I can't give a consistent explanation. I have two sources telling me /t/[V] after short /a/ didn't change, and /watar/ > /vass@r/ showing otherwise.
> Low Saxon is owing to different developments of lengthening.
I'll put it down to being a novel feature IMOC for now, but I'd love to know how the discrepancy slipped in. Must be some other conditioning feature I'm unaware of, or I've managed to misunderstand two different books! I feel some more study coming on when I return home.
The irony of all this is, I actually prefer /pasr/ to /patr/.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]