Hi!
Thanks for all your answers!
Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> writes:
>...
> > Brutus venit Caesarque vincit.
>
> Correct.
>
> > Brutus venit Caesar vincitque.
>
> Not correct. ...
>...
Ok! Then I conclude:
a) Latein -que == Kalaallisut -lu:
coordination of any kind, suffix to the first word of the second phrase
b) I was completely wrong of what is 'natural' and indeed intuitively
introduced quite an unnatural and unlikely way of coordination in
my conlang.
I still have the question whether there are languages that mark this
type of 'and'-coordination on the head of the second phrase? Is it
totally unnatural or does some(a) natlang (already) do it (except worse
(tm))?
**Henrik
PS:
> Brutus venit ac Caesar vincit.
Ah, ok, 'ac' is short of 'atque'.
> Brutus venit nec Caesar non vincit. [A delightful negation of a negation!]
Hehe. :-)
> neque _or_ nec.
I also did not know 'neque'. Shame on me... Should have paid more
attention in school. :-)
> and.... no one = nec... quisquam
> and....no [adj.] = nec... ullus, nec ...ulla etc
> and.... never = nec... umquam
> etc.
>
> But 'nec....non' = 'and not.....not' = 'and in fact....." :)
:-)
> Hope this helps
Yes, definitely! :-)
**Henrik