Re: HELP: Adding irregularities to conlangs?
|From:||Carsten Becker <post@...>|
|Date:||Friday, July 23, 2004, 10:36|
From: "David Peterson" <ThatBlueCat@AOL.COM <mailto:ThatBlueCat@...>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: HELP: Adding irregularities to conlangs?
> Philip wrote:
> <<Sounds a bit like Latin and the principal parts you have to memorise
> for verbs (IIRC, 1p.sg.indicative, 1p.sg.imperfect, and passive past
> participle), which also allow you to derive the remainder of the
> paradigm - even if one form (e.g. the infinitive alone) is not
> sufficient for this.>>
> Exactly. In my WP Morphology class we spent a lot of time on Latin
> on exactly why IA models didn't work for Latin, and then how WP models
> did a better job.
Do you mind when I post your email where you explained about all this to
the Conlang Ressource (s6.invisionfree.com/conlangresource)? It's a
place where we members of the ZBB (www.spinnoff.com/zbb
<http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb>) explain things
that one (might) need to know for conlanging and other stuff that may be
interesting for conlanging. Of course I say that it's from you and
Heh, this makes me really want to go to university and studying
Linguistics after I will have finished school in two years. What you
write, David, sounds interesting, but it's still rather difficult for me
to understand and it all looks like so damn much work. (Yes, I have
only a minimal knowledge of morphology. What I know I have learnt in
school, where I have only learnt about German, English and French.)
Sorry for not answering earlier, my family and I as well visited
the Netherlands yesterday for having a family excursion.