Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Probability of Article Replacement?

From:taliesin the storyteller <taliesin@...>
Date:Friday, February 28, 2003, 15:46
* Tristan said on 2003-02-28 11:40:13 +0100
> taliesin the storyteller wrote: > > >All the forms (well, not all the allowable alternates, I think I'll > >make a webpage...): > > > > | masculine | feminine | neuter | > >---------+-+---------------+----------------+-----------------+ > >singular | (en) stein | (ei) hoppe | (et) sverd | > > | steinen | hoppa | sverdet | > > | den steinen | den hoppa | det sverdet | > >---------+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+ > >plural | (flere) steiner | (flere) hopper | (flere) sverd | > > | (alle) steinene | (alle) hoppene | (alle) sverdene | > > | de steinene | de hoppene | de sverdene | > >---------+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+ > > How did this system come about? It seems really odd (the fact that the > same (modified) morpheme(?) forms the indefinite article and the > definite suffix in the singular).
Uh? The definite suffix is from a norse pronoun IIRC (hinn? -inn?), the definite standalone article is from Danish (Not using the def. suffix but using the def. article instead is somewhat correct, but very booky and snotty - and Danified) and the indefinite article is from the (norse) word for one, inflected for gender: einn (m) ein(f) eitt (n) The resemblances in writing are accidental[*]. (All IIRC as we get to learn this in high school and that's getting to be a while ago.) [*] Which means they aren't and should I put you in contact with the Norse-specialists at the uni.? :) t.