Re: Ok, here we go
|From:||Barry Garcia <barry_garcia@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, February 1, 2003, 19:53|
>You mean that here the root is "ligas" or "liligas"?
>> Hmmm actually this may not be an infix afterall. I might have to fix
>Well, it could be described as two things:
>- a prefix necessitating an augment in front of it to complete it, the
>being a repetition of the first syllable (or maybe only the first
>consonant+vowel of this first syllable, I don't know how it goes with
>initial syllables, if they can happen at all),
>- an infix going after the first vowel and necessitating to repeat the
>syllable after it.
>In both cases, it means that the full form of the affix depends on the
>the first syllable of the word. Hey, why not? :))
>I personally prefer the second explanation, because calling something a
>when it's actually never the first thing in front of the word sounds a bit
>strange to me. It may behave strangely by this phenomenon of
>the term "infix" still fits better its behaviour than the term "prefix".
There we go :). I think i like the second explanantion as well. Would
explain why it's the only infix, i'd think (the actual reason is i wanted
one. Just one :))
>Well, actually it looks pretty regular to me :)) . Those alternations are
>nothing that can be called "irregular", especially when they are purely
>phonetic :)) .
Well,i should have said to someone just looking at the language, it seems
irregular. Not that it is. Sort of how certain Spanish verbs seem to be
different from other forms, but really are the result of a regular and
predictable change from Vulgar Latin.
>Hehe, I know the trick you mean (at school I had to write my reports in
>because LaTeX wasn't installed on the computers :(( ). Needless to say,
>nothing compared to LaTeX ;)) .
Well, i have neither the time nor the patience to learn LaTeX :).
I might one day. But for now, Word suffices and it looks good. I'm up to
twenty pages on the grammar (which is probably more like 10 - 15 in
reality if i filled the pages completely).