Am 05/24 23:53 Padraic Brown yscrifef:
> On Fri, 25 May 2001, Dan Jones wrote:
> >*Please* can we have ill porch -> llo phyrch? Just a few irregular nouns
> >would make Brithenig more interesting.
>
> This is certainly an old argument. I'd certainly like to see irregular
> forms all over the place; but the regularity of the nouns at least was
> established some years ago. A few irregular verbs have appeared since
> I started with Brithenig, though. Perhaps some irregular nounds will
> yet be coaxed out.
>
The problem being that sound changes in Brithenig plurals followed the
pattern of llos porcos -> lloh porchoh -> llo phorch. I-mutation has
never had a look in. The conditions from these endings for i-mutation
didn't occur.
Now if I find information on Brythonic collective nouns or start playing
around with words as KAM has suggested then something might emerge. But
that awaits the discovery of information on those features of the
language.
> >Hmm. Old French didn't have "escargot", it had limaçon, augmentive of VL
> >"limacea", CL limax. That'd be Brithenig llefag' or llefagen. That's what
> >I've used for Jelbäzech, limäch. The Arvorec for snail is malwon, slug is
> >levaec.
> >
That's a possibility. Di llo llefag' per lla guin, galch yn? I wonder
if there is a connect with Italian lumaca. I haven't been able to find
any good resource on Italian.
- andrew.
--
Andrew Smith, Intheologus hobbit@griffler.co.nz
http://hobbit.griffler.co.nz/homepage.html
Your voice has been heard.