At 1:18 am +0200 1/5/99, P. M. ARKTAYG wrote:
>Raymond A. Brown wrote:
>
>> [snipped, although interesting]
>>
>> In Welsh the negative is 'ni(d)' + spirant mutation & the verb is followe=
d
>> by 'ddim' if the object is indefinite or 'mo' (<-- 'ddim o') if the objec=
t
>> is definite. In speech the preceding 'ni' is generally omitted, leaving
>> only the mutation, thus, e.g.
>> Prynais i lyfrau - I bought some books.
>> Prynais i'r llyfrau - I bought the books.
>> Phynais i ddim llafrau - I didn't buy any books.
>> Phrynais i mo'r llayfrau - I didn't buy the books.
>
>Interesting. What exactly do "ddim" and "mo'r" stand for?
"ddim' /DIm/ is "dim" /dIm/ with initial 'soft mutation'. 'Dim' like the
=46rench 'rien' (<-- Latin: 'rem') once meant 'anything' but, because of its
use in negative constructions, now means: 'nothing' or 'no' (adjective, in
the sense of German 'kein' - _not_ like German 'nein') and with verbs is
used just like 'pas' in the French 'ne....pas' construction.
"Mo'r" stands for "mo yr" where "yr" =3D 'the'.
"Mo" is derived from 'ddim o' where 'o' is a preposition meaning "of" in a
strictly _partitive_ sense (can never be used to denote possession). "mo"
replaces "ddim" if the direct object is definite, e.g.
Gwelais i mo Steffan =3D I didn't see Steffan (literally: I saw nothing of
Stephen).
>Why the first time "phynais" and the second time "phrynais" (similarly
>"llafrau" and "llayfrau")? Has it something to do with "ddim" and "mo'r"?
Nah - just to do with bad typing :=3D(
Both should've been 'phrynais' and both should've been 'llyfrau'. Sorry!
>
>> BUT - none of this with the imperatives!
>> The imperatives of 'prynu' are: pryna (sing.), prynwch (plural).
>> But for negatives we must use: 'paid' (sing) or 'peidwch', the imperative=
s
>> of 'peidio' (to stop, cease) + the verbnoun, thus:
>> paid prynu! Don't buy.
>> peidwch prynu! Don't buy.
>>
>> In literary Welsh we must have '=E2' (with), which also causes spirant of
>> 'c', 'p' and 't', is used and some spoken dialects still preserve this,
>> thus:
>> paid =E2 phrynu! peidwch =E2 phrynu!
>
>I like it.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> How do other conlangers deal with this. Is it just the word for "not" +
>> the imperative, or are there some more interesting constructions among ou=
r
>> conlangs?
>
>RNIHONO:N
>
>absolutivum onu:vi 'to go, to come, to walk'
>imperativum onu:zi (<<< onu:b>zi)
>
> normal form polite form impolite form
>
>2. sing. onu:zi-thevi l.e-thevin onu:vi onu:zi
>2. pl. onu:zi-the l.e-then onu:vi onu:zi
>3. sing. onu:zi-l (not used) (not used)
>3. pl. onu:zi-rra (not used) (not used)
>2. sing. negat. onu:den-thevi l.eden-thevin onu:vi onu:den
>2. pl. negat. onu:den-the l.eden-then onu:vi onu:den
>3. sing. negat. onu:de-rn (not used) (not used)
>3. pl. negat. onu:den-irra (not used) (not used)
[snip]
I like it :)
And I seem to recall that Schleyer equipped Volapuek with three-fold
normal, polite & peremptory imperatives. This is fine in an artlang but
IMHO rather overdoing it in a conlang designed as Schleyer's was as an IAL.
Ray.