On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 20:07:12 +0100, Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
wrote:
>Latin 'singularis' BTW was for earlier *singulalis - the suffix became
>-aris by dissimilation; so, really, all these words have the -al suffix,
as
>does 'paucal' which has already been mentioned.
<...>
>Yep - and -ive is a common ending for case names, so using forms like
>'abessive' or 'omissive' for the zero _number_ is rather misleading, I
>think.
Just can't stop playing with this:
haudessival
deprivatual
:)
>>Mostly unrelated: Lewis & Short tell me that singuli < simul + ni. How
>>does that work? (Ray?)
>
>I suspect very much that it doesn't! Lewis & Short's etymologies are too
>often unsound.
Do you have a Walde to hand?
Basilius