Re: [romconlang] Prepositions and case

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
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]