Re: Thylean, continued

En réponse à Oskar Gudlaugsson <hr_oskar@...>:

>
> THE FUTURE AND PLUPERFECT TENSES
>
> The old CL conjugations are retained, but reanalyzed for more
> simplicity.
> The future perfect no longer exists in simple form, as it came to
> conflict
> with the past subjunctives after various sound changes.
>
> The future simple sic coniugatur,
>
>        1st conj.    2nd conj.    3rd conj.   4th conj.     mixed conj.
> sing.
> 1.p.   amabu        monibu       regebu      audibu        capebu
> 2.p.   amabes       monibes      regebes     audibes       capebes
> 3.p.   amabe        monibe       regebe      audibe        capebe
> pl.
> 1.p.   amabemos     monibemos    regebemos   audibemos     capebemos
> 2.p.   amabetes     monibetes    regebetes   audibetes     capebetes
> 3.p.   amabon       monibon      regebon     audibon       capebon
>
> NB
> * the 3rd, 4th, and mixed conjugations have been completely reanalyzed
> to
> match the -b- conj. of the first two.
> * 'b' is pronounced [v], same as 'v'; the spelling is etymological.
> * with the imperfect -b- and perfect -v- out of the way, the -b-
> morpheme
> now only serves the future simple, making it more distinctive and
> stable.
>
Nice and logical. I've been really boring by keeping in "Roumant" the normal
Western Romance tongues future: infinitive + "to have" endings. But I like it
this way :) .

> The -b- infix yields a new future infinitive:
>
>        amabe        monibe        regebe     audibe        capebe
>
> Which paves the way for a future continuous, using 'ducere',
>
>        amabe ducu = I will be loving
>        monibe ducu = I will be waiting
>
> There is no trunkated version of this, as there is for past and present
> continuous.
>
Nice idea :) . I also find the use of 'ducere' as an auxiliary for continuous
aspect really neat. In my Reman, the story is a little different: "esse" was
slowly restricted only to the use as continuous aspect auxiliary (with the
infinitive) which has now the form 'esi'. It seems that everything comes from
the appearance of nominal sentences in the language, yielding to less and less
use of "esse" as a copula.

> And the pluperfect,
>
>        1st conj.    2nd conj.    3rd conj.   4th conj.     mixed conj.
> sing.
> 1.p.   amara        monira       reixera     audira        ceipra
> 2.p.   amaras
> 3.p.   amara        etc          etc         etc           etc
> pl.
> 1.p.   amaramos
> 2.p.   amarates     etc          etc         etc           etc
> 3.p.   amaran
>
Nice to keep synthetic forms instead of creating analytic ones.

> THE SUBJUNCTIVE MODE
>
> Thylean conserves present, perfect, and pluperfect subjunctives, as well
> as
> inventing a future subjunctive.
>
Just like I do in Reman and "Roumant" :)) . It seems that the subjunctive future
is very popular (by the way, Reman has a really strange tense system, completely
different from other Romance languages, but not quite different from Thylean. In
Reman, Indicative and Subjunctive have both three and only three tenses:
present, past and future. No imperfect, no pluperfect and others, no conditional
mood, and the subjunctive future seems to come from the latin future participle.
Also, tenses in subclauses are relative to the tense of reference of the
principal clause (instead of absolute like in other Romance languages), which
explains the disappearance of tenses like the pluperfect, future perfect and
others...).

>
> Pluperfect subjunctive,
>
>        1st conj.    2nd conj.    3rd conj.   4th conj.     mixed conj.
> sing.
> 1.p.   amasse       monisse      reixesse    audisse       ceipesse
> 2.p.   amassis
> 3.p.   amasse       etc          etc         etc           etc
> pl.
> 1.p.   amassimos
> 2.p.   amassites    etc          etc         etc           etc
> 3.p.   amassen
>
Nicely done, to keep the value of the old Latin pluperfect, instead of putting
it to replace the perfect like in French. Thylean is definitely very
conservative, despite all its creations :) .

>
> THE MIDDLE VOICE
>
> Thylean conserves most of the old passive conjugation of CL, though with
> some reanalyzes. The conjugation is now, however, more strictly middle
> voice only. So, present indicative middle conjugates
>
So if the passive has become middle voice, how do you mark passive? Or did you
discard completely the passive voice in Thylean?

Christophe.