Re: C'ali update: Split-S cross-referencing, agentive pivot
| From: | Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, July 17, 2003, 9:08 |
|---|
En réponse à John Cowan :
>Anglophone dictionaries omit the second of these, which can (always?) be
>deduced from the citation form and the infinitive.
IIRC, there are some cases where the second form cannot be guessed in this
way. I'll have to check if I can find such an example...
> My Latin textbook
>listed the masc. fut. act. part. rather than the supine, different
>merely in being -us rather than -um, but this was not true of my father's
>Latin textbook.
I think my text books use the supine because, like the infinitive, it's an
invariable form, and thus can be considered basic. It's more direct to
describe the future active participle to be derived from the supine by
replacing -um with diverse endings, rather then the contrary.
>Useful Latin verbs with principal parts (work best in the Church Latin
>pronunciation):
>
> pigo, pigere, squili, gruntum
> flio, flire, itci, scratium
>
>The meanings are omitted as obvious.
LOL :))) .
Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.
Replies