Re: Wenedyk - Adjectives

 --- Isaak A. Penzew skrzypszy:

> > The comparative and superlative are built by adding the suffix
> > -iór/-iora/-iore, the superlative by adding the suffix -ym/-yma/-yme
> > to the root of the adjective:
>
> What's the reason for using Classical Latin suffixes in degrees of
> comparison? |brzewiór| was rather lofty already in times of Cicero.
Well, I'm still considering the possility of creating an alternative form of
the type "more short" and "most short". As a matter of fact, I've always been
sure that for many words it will be the only possibility (like in Polish, BTW).
I just didn't work out the forms yet.
But I would somehow be sorry if I had to abolish all the |-iór| forms. Are you
sure they had already vanished from spoken language that early? It seems to me
that some remnants of particularly the superlative forms survived in Italian
("bellissima!")

> The same concerns choice of "vocabulae" (=vocabulary items, words).
> I recognize |mañ|, |parzew|, |brzew| originating from Cl.L. _magnus_,
> _parvus_, _brevis_, but Vu.L. didn't use them. I remember that "big" is
> _grande_ and "short" is _curte_ (both from Germanic, IIRC). What's Vu.L. for
> "small"? Maybe John Cowan knows?
About |mañ| and |parzew| I agree. To be honest, that was merely a "slip of the
finger" (is that an appropriate expression when working on a computer?). But
AFAIK |brevis| survived at least in French and Italian (I don't have my books
with me and I don't know a word of Spanish), with makes me think it must have
existed in Vulgar Latin as well.
Sigh! Where can I find a decent Vulgar Latin word list? It would be much easier
than checking every Latin word in at least six dictionaries first!

> > Especially when it comes to answering this question: does the way I
> > changed Latin declension to Wenedyk look (at least a tiny little bit)
> > acceptable?
>
> It is (a tiny little bit) acceptable, though Slavic adjectives were
> developping in a different way: in modern Western and Eastern Slavic langs,
> adjective endings originate from fusion of standard noun endings ("a"-stems
> for fem., "o"-stems for mesc. & neut.) and demonstrative pronoun! Later they
> underwent certain simplification, but the process was like that:
<snip examples>

I didn't do it like that, for three reasons:
1. By the time the Romans and the Veneds got into contact with each other,
   Proto-Slavic must already have had the system you describe, probably even
   without understanding it themselves. It would be at least a bit strange if
   on the moment they started to speak Latin they would reapply this way of
   inflecting adjectives.
2. I would find it difficult to make up something credible on the basis of
   |nov-| and |ill-|. It could be tempting to try, though. Perhaps I will.
3. I didn't know all this before you pointed my attention to it ;)

> The same is true concerning "definite" declension in Serbian & Co.
> "Indefinite" declension of adjectives there coincides with one of nouns. Ask
> Ferko for details if interested! Though, Wenedyk works on the Western Slavic
> area...
Well, knowing some details about South-Slavic wouldn't hurt anybody. Ferko?

> Keep on working! Veeeery interesting!
Thank you!

> Sövmekte,
> Ysak (aka Yitzik)
Jan

NB I have been wondering which Latin word to choose for "snake" in Wenedyk:
|anguis| or |serpens|. I guess I must leave you the choice :)


=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Reply