Re: My first romlang sentence

----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>

> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:43:20 -0500, Paul Bennett <paul-
> bennett@NC.RR.COM>> wrote:
> >
> > > Posting here for general approval before taking it to the
> romlang group
> > > where it belongs...
> > >
> > > La agilleta, purra hualpa suilet serca nesigia ncaña.
> > > /la agil_jeta pura walpa silet se4ka nesidZa N_0an_ja/
>
> Or later version:
>
> > > Lo agilleto purro hualpo suilet serca lo desigius cañus.
> > > /lo adZil_jeto pura walpo silet se4ka lo desidZus kan_jus/
Gah! Typo! The CXS should say /puro/

> > > ART ADJ-m:nom:sg ADJ-m:nom:sg N-m:nom:sg V-3:s:present PREP ART
> > > ADJ-m:obl:sg N-m:obl:sg
> > >
> At risk of revealing obtuseness, cluelessness or (gasp) ignorance,
> may I ask
> for a gloss? Only "serca" and "lo" ring a bells.  "Hualp(oa)"
> looks vaguely
> Quechua............
>
> OTOH, never mind....Suddenly _me cakatikas_ 'to-me flash-of-
> insight': it's
> "The quick brown fox...."; Duh!!
It is indeed.

> In that case add agilleto, that
> Quechuaword, and cañus to the list. Etymologies for the others???
agilitas purpurea vulpes circumsilire desidiosus canis

Note that this language takes reduplicated syllables, and de-duplicates them. This
I think is going to be a general tendency, and is reflected in my Cicero
translation in progress.

> Semantic shift in "serca"???
Indeed, plus the split of a compound into verb + preposition.

> Sound changes?
Yes, but they're largely ad-hoc at this stage. I'm playing it by ear until I get
some idea of what the rules are. What I presented is very much in the league of
the rough draft.

> Why does masc. cañus have -ñ-, which
> IIRC is more the sign of the fem. form (Ital. cane, cagna)
As I understand it, canis is a feminine noun in Latin. The masculine is formed
based upon it, quite primitively -- i.e. by chopping off the -i of the feminine
oblique and adding the -us of the masculine oblique. This might change, but I
plan to play fast and loose with gender assignments.



Paul

Reply