|Date:||Thursday, February 13, 2003, 12:46|
Christophe Grandsire wrote:> > -s after e, r, n and optionally after l. -'s (with the apostrophe) after a, i, > o and u.Is that somehow in English influence? Does it represent a now-dead sound? Is it just a random apostrophe that they shoved in because they had access to it and no better use for it? Where all inflexions once marked by it and it just fell out of favor?> -en in any other case (and optionally after -l).How can you have optionally one or the other? Is it a dialectal difference? a class-based/social difference (like English /IN/ vs /@n/)? Is one preferred in some words and the other in others? Does context make one seem more likely than the other? Tristan.
|Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>|