Re: [romanceconlang] "Roumant", or maybe Narbonósc . Part VII
|From:||Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>|
|Date:||Monday, January 1, 2001, 22:40|
En réponse à BP Jonsson <bpj@...>:
> At 00:57 2000-12-29 +0100, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> >This time I won't bother you with verbal paradigms (unless you want to,
> >have a lot to show, especially about 4th and 5th conjugations verbs :)
> You might always recap for us who don't have a clue how you ended up
> one conjugation more than Latin has! 8^)>
Easy! by taking a few scholar-monks together to write a grammar of the language
of the uneducated people :) . In fact, the first four conjugations of Narbonósc
match more or less the four conjugations of Latin:
- the 1st conjugation contains the verbs in -âre,
- the 2nd conjugation contains the verbs in -êre,
- the 3rd conjugation contains the verbs in -îre featuring an augment -iss,
- the 4th conjugation contains the other verbs in -îre.
To those four conjugations must be added a 5th one, containing the auxiliaries
stêre: to be and avôre: to have, the verbs in -ôre, the verbs like volle: to
want, and the very irregular verbs like îre: to go or fâre: to do, to make. Due
to their endings, the auxiliaries and irregular verbs could be considered part
of one or the other of the first four conjugations, but it seems that the
scholars wanted to keep the verbs considered highly irregular from the first
four groupings of verbs, containing verbs more or less regular.
> >Finally, there are also the words douem /dwE~/ and douêne /dwEn/ (same
> >origin as dom and dône, but with the addition of a diphtongation.
> >Personnally I think they come from a different dialect of "Roumant"
> >the main dialect I'm describing, and they were borrowed in the main
> >dialect with different meanings than their counterparts).
> Maybe the long forms were formed from the accusatives DOMINUM and
> while the short ones derive from the vocative singulars DOMINE and
> DOMINA. In Vulgar Latin the _i_ in -min- would be lost, giving DONNE,
> which may have been shortened to DON exceptionally early, with the short
> feminine back-formed from this shortened vocative masculine.
That's possible too, yes... Frankly I don't have a clue what's the real origin
of this separation.