Re: Wenedyk - Nouns

--- In conlang@y..., Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@Y...> wrote:

> In this case, those two forms -u and -i can be justified in two ways:
> - either it is the rather strong influence of the fourth declension (-us, gen.
> -us, dat. -ui)
> - or those early Slavs could be blamed for messing up Latin -i/-u with their
> own -u/-i :)
I didn't know about the Slav cases, but they seem to justify the
change well.  As for cross-declension leveling, I did the same in
Jovian:  The -a declination (e.g. |maenca| "machine") adopted |-i|
for the genitive singular from the -u/-un declination (e.g. |doemu|
"master", |coelun| "sky"), thereby reducing the ambiguity of the
ending -ae.  The -un declination has received the |-us| in the
accusative plural from the -u declination, while in Latin the form
used to be identical to the nominative.



> BTW In Wenedyk that would be: Mi p£acze [mi pwat_s`E]
Is that a retroflex affricate?  I didn't know slavlangs had
retroflexes...  or is that a unique feature of Wenedyk?


-- Christian Thalmann

Replies