Re: preliminary conjugation in ju:dajca

At 14:29 11/01/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>AMÂL  (to love)  [a'mAl]  <  amâre
>
>(active)
>
>amô  ['amow]  <  ámô
>amâ  ['amA]  <  ámâs
>ama  ['ama]  <  ámat
>amâmus  [a'mAmuS]  <  amâmus
>amâti  [a'mAsi]  <  amâtis
>aman  ['aman]  <  ámant
>
>(passive)
>
>amo  ['amo]  <  ámor
>amâri  [a'mAri]  <  amâris
>amâtu  [a'mAsu]  <  amâtur
>amâmul  [a'mAmul]  <  amâmur
>amâmîn  [amA'mijn]  <  amâmínî
>amant  [a'mant(@)]  <  amántur
>
        Pretty neat conjugation :) .

>Does anyone see any problems with this?  I was thinking of maybe dropping
>the -S and -R (>L) in the 4th person, leaving the "we" active and passive
>forms identical, although i'm not sure how that would be disambiguated.
        I don't think those forms could really produce confusions. Their contexts
would certainly be very different (like the absence of object for the
passive form).

>Also, the only difference between active and passive 1st person is the
>existence or lack of the offglide [w] - maybe keeping the -R (>L) ?
>
        The problem is that if you eliminate the L for amâmul, you shouldn't have
it for amo. Also, even if you keep the L, final L easily becomes an
offglide [w], which would then make both forms identical :) . And anyway,
it would make a nice parallel with the fourth person if the first was
identical in passive and active too :) .

>amô  |  amo / amol ?
>amâmus / amâmu  |  amâmul / amâmu ?
>
>
        I'd vote for amô / amo and amâmu /amâmu (do you have û? you could maybe
have amâmû / amâmu by analogy with the first person? - I may be wrong, I
don't remember the pronunciations -).

>-Stephen (Steg)
> "Eze-guvdhab wa'hrikh-a tze, / "zhoutzii wa'esh," i eze-mwe."
>
>
                                                        Christophe Grandsire
                                                |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.

"Reality is just another point of view."

homepage : http://rainbow.conlang.org