On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:10:46 +0200 Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> writes:
> En réponse à Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>:
> > Prônôminnôrû: eg / tû / hac hâjic / nôs / jôs / hîdê hajdê
> > (pronouns: i / you(sg) / he she / we / you(pl) / they(m) they(f)
> Where do hac and hâjic come from?
-
From _hic_ and _haec_.
_hi:d,e:_ and _hajde:_ come from _hi: ei:dem_ and _hae eaedem_.
> > passîvâ:
> > -âtÛs
> > -âtûyÊ
> > -âtûyÊs
> > -âtîyÛm
> > -âtîjÊs
> > -âtîyÛn
> What a nice one! And as I just checked it, it has the same origin as
> the Reman form of the same voice and tense :) .
-
Cool :-)
> > Puttûrâ (future/conditional?):
> > actîvâ:
> > -âljÔ
> > -âlÎ
> > -âlÎt
> > -âlÎmû
> > -âlÎtî
> > -âljÛn
> Same origin as in other Romance langs (infinitive + habere)?
-
Almost... it's infinitive + i:re.
> > passîvâ:
> > -Âbô
> > -âbEres
> > -âbÎtû
> > -âbÎmû
> > -âbimmÎn
> > -âbÔnet
> If the future passive comes directly from the Latin form, why didn't
> you do the
> same with the active form? Or would they have been to similar?
> Unless it's by
> analogy with other verb conjugations where the future is more
> similar to other tenses?
-
The original future active was too similar to the past/perfect active,
because of the /v/ and the /B/.
> One thing I'm wondering is whether any Romance lang kept a trace of
> the Latin
> future imperative... Maybe I should keep it for my Arabo-Romance
> lang...
-
What was the future imperative used for?
All i'm working from is a dictionary that doesn't have much in the way of
explanations :-S .
> Not at all! These endings don't look longer than what you have, say,
> in Italian
> or Romanian (for what I can remember). Just one question: do you
> have a subjunctive mood, or did Jûdajcâ lose it?
-
As of this incarnation, Jûdajcâ lost the subjunctive mood.
> I long to see what has become of the other conjugations.
>
> Christophe.
-
So do i!
haven't sat down to figure them out yet.
-Stephen (Steg)
"no: t,emem de:j me:t,u: nox."
(do not fear sudden terror?)