Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: [romconlang] Prepositions and case

From:R A Brown <ray@...>
Date:Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 8:26
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> In the case (ahem) of those four prepositions where the abl/acc > distinction mattered, did that distinction just get lost? Did new > prepositions appear to make up for it?
AFAIK _subter_ (beneath, below) did not survive. It's not that common in Classical Latin either. Its meanings were very similar to the simple _sub_. _sub_, or rather the forms _subs_ survive in Modern French _sous_, and _super_ survives in Modern French _sur_. I'm fairly certain these two prepositions have cognates in the other Romance languages. _in_ survives in all the modern Romance languages, though in modern French (en) its usage is much reduced, _dans_ (<-- deinde) largely, tho not wholly, replacing it. All that happened is that VL and Romance lost the distinction between 'motion towards' and 'no motion'; or, these four (or three survivors) were simply brought in line with Classical Latin prepositions like _ad_ (modern French à, It. span. port. a) which _always_ governed the accusative, whether it meant 'toward(s)' [motion to] or 'at, near' [no motion]. -- Ray ================================== ================================== Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora. [William of Ockham]