Re: Latin grammar

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:05:34 +0100, =?iso-8859-1?q?Jan=20van=20Steenbergen?=
<ijzeren_jan@...> wrote:

> --- Jeff Jones wrote:
>
>> >Very good! Romlangs are popular these days! But this is probably the
>> >first time that somebody creates a romlang based on a non-existent
>> >substratum.
>>
>> Hey! Rubaga has a non-existent substrate. Well probably -- I don't
>> actually know what it is.
>
>Interesting. I never knew Rubaga was a Romance language. Did you ever post
>something about its grammar? Or do you have a link of some kind?
Well, it's possible I never specifically said it was Latin-derived. I don't
think I've posted anything significant about the grammar yet (and anything
I might have online is obsolete). The grammar's not as well-developed as
the phonology and orthography, which are the fun parts in this case. I
started by simply copying the Latin declensions and conjugations, with a
few minor changes, and am now looking at what the sound changes do to them.
There are a number of partial homonyms, some of them significant enough to
effect grammatical change, I think. I've made some intentional changes,
tentatively, at least, such as a definite article (derived from is/ea/id),
combining dative and ablative outside of pronominal declensions, etc. and
have been monkeying with the conjugations.

>All I remember of it, is that it has nine different ways of pronouncing
>/g/, providing the language with a fair degree of Maggelity. Quite an
>achievement, I admit.
>
>Wenedyk, on the other hand, has a very low degree of Maggelity, and so do
>my other languages. I usually tend to create an orthography that fits
>pronunciation (or the other way 'round, perhaps). Slavic influence, I
>guess...
I haven't said anything , but I've been following the discussions on
Wenedyk and Jovian closely. If somebody's interested I could post some
Rubaga paradigms/examples for comparison.

>Jan
>
>=====
>"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

Reply