Re: 'and' clitic in Latin (-que) and Kalaallisut (-lu)
|From:||Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, April 15, 2004, 9:59|
Thanks for all your answers!
Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> writes:
> > Brutus venit Caesarque vincit.
> > 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
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
> Brutus venit ac Caesar vincit.
Ah, ok, 'ac' is short of 'atque'.
> Brutus venit nec Caesar non vincit. [A delightful negation of a negation!]
> 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
> But 'nec....non' = 'and not.....not' = 'and in fact....." :)
> Hope this helps
Yes, definitely! :-)