En réponse à Pavel Iosad :
> >
> > Why is it always French which suffers from such dislikes? :((((
>
>Why, isn't that a sign that something *is* wrong with the language? ;-)
No, that there's something wrong with the rest of the world! ;)))
>*no offence meant*
No offense taken, as long as you don't take offense of my joke either ;))) .
>An anecdote from our morphology class. The teacher is, quite contrary to
>my views, a big fan of Romance languages. As we were discussing
>reduction of case systems, he quoted the Old French _roys_-type:
>
> Sg. Pl.
>Rect. roys roy
>Obliqu. roy roys
>
>(I remember I mixed it up last time I quoted it, hope it's correct now).
Correct indeed. I always found it such a strange and impractical case system.
>Looking at it, he said: 'Now this is the pinnacle of morphological
>genius, and only the Romance people could produce that'.
"Pinnacle of morphological genius"? But that's *exactly* why the case
system was eventually scrapped in French: not enough distinction between
all the forms, and a mixed thing that made people constantly make mistakes
(and feminine words had the -s as pure mark of plural already anyway).
>I and the other guy from our class who visits Mod. Irish lessons look at
>each other and say in a unison: 'Why, this is the Irish first
>declension!'
>
> Sg. Pl.
>Nom. mac mic
>Gen. mic mac
Didn't know about that! Is it still alive in Irish?
>The teacher, stroking his beard: 'Umm, yeah... well, sometimes the
>Celtic genius approaches that of the Romans' descendants...'
LOL.
>Morale: like and dislike for a language is a factor in a linguist's
>career. This is where one should quote Dirk's .sig...
Can't remember what it says :(( .
Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.