Re: r-formant in Silindion derivation and inflection
|From:||Elliott Lash <erelion12@...>|
|Date:||Monday, March 13, 2006, 13:27|
Thanks for taking a look at it...but I think that,
unless we say there are many different formatives
here, your meaning "is [a]" is a bit too narrow. How
can a basically stative formative account for the
involuntary process verbs like "seir-" and "sar-" "to
get cut" and "to get burned". These contrast with
specifically marked stative past tenses, in Old
Silindion: "senkë" and "salda". Here the stative is
marked by the "n" suffix (<*sekw-ne, thal-na). If the
formative -r was already inherently stative, then I'd
think a change to a more specific stative suffix would
be unneeded....not only that, but the semantics of the
present tense for this verb would be off.
In other news, i think that "seir-" is going to
become "sëur-", since I think this is probably a
better reflex of *"sekw-r" than "seir-".
--- Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
> Elliott Lash wrote:
> > [lots of funky stuff snup]
> This is all very interesting and well-done. It
> boils down, I'd say, to a
> formative *-ar meaning "is (a)" as verbs ending in
> -(a)r tend to be stative
> and intransitive, and the suffix is used as a
> Thanks for sharing with us another insight into
> Silindion's grammar.
> I really admire your language for the enormous
> amount of thought and ideas
> you must have invested into it. Few artlangs I have
> seen so far display
> so much depth and complexity.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around