Re: New Conlang: Terkunan

Hi!

Roger Mills writes:
> Henrik Theiling wrote:
> > Dirk Elzinga writes:
> > >...
> > > "... the derivational system of Terkunan is still productive. It works
> > > agglutinatively, and stems never change when affixes are added."
> > >
> > > So what happened to all of the nifty stem changes from Latin?
> > > (scribere ~ scriptura, etc) I think it's a shame that it's gone, and
> > > also to my mind, slightly unrealistic.
> >
> > Indeed, all gone.  Same for the verbal system: all morphology gone.
>
> Like Dirk, I'm a lover of the Latin system, but it IS your work....
Hehe.  Believe it or not, I like the Latin system, too.  Otherwise I'd
not continue reading books about it and doing a second romlang.  But
it exists in so many romlangs and in Latin itself.  In this romlang, I
wanted a cross-over of my engelanging and romlanging outside the realm
of auxlangs ('mperi' < IMPERIUM should show clearly that that is not a
goal. :-))).  I did give up complete regularisation, because it would
not feel/sound right (e.g. there are irregular ordinals 'prime',
'sekunde', etc.).

> One way around the "problem" might be to distinguish original/inherited
> forms from later "learned" borrowings; I guess "scriptura" would be one of
> those; and all those verb forms < -cipere, **-sequere etc. will be original,
> but the derivs not??? so you might still have alternants like Span.
> recibir::recepción etc. (Or maybe not..........)
>
> The one thing that did raise my hackles a bit was "mis" for 'we, us'
> :-(((( otherwise I too quite liked the sound of the Paternoster.
The positive thing is that the pronoun system is now amazingly complex
with inclusive and exclusive 1st person and
formal/informal/represenative 2nd persons. :-)))  I quite like the
distinction between mi/no and mis/nos.  And similarly tu/vo and
tus/vos.

Maybe it would help to use 'no'/'nos' only?  Then it'd sound like
pluralis majestatis in the singular, but not *wrong*?  :-)))
But no, I'd have to give up the nice inclusive/exclusive distinction.

Note that similar to sg/pl collapse (or better regularisation),
nom/acc do collapse in pronouns in Romance: there are those that only
have 'mi/me', but not 'eo/io/...'  (Northern Italy IIRC).  Also,
regular plural in pronouns is as close as in Greek.

**Henrik