Melroch @ Random » romlangs http://blog.melroch.se Random ideas and thoughts of Benct Philip Jonsson Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:32:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 Rhodrese articles and indefinite pronouns http://blog.melroch.se/conlanging/rhodrese-articles-and-indefinite-pronouns/ http://blog.melroch.se/conlanging/rhodrese-articles-and-indefinite-pronouns/#comments Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:23:51 +0000 melroch http://blog.melroch.se/?p=48 Some while ago I had to change my mind on the shape of the plural definite article in Rhodrese. Ever since the inception of the lang I’d thought the plural definite article was il, but with the rule that unstressed e and unstressed i are pronounced alike as [ɪ] a plural il would be homophonous with the masculine el, and I can clearly not have that! Better then to have the plural article as li, with the prepositions + article contractions becoming dilli, alli, polli etc. Needless to say the plural article before words beginning in a vowel remains gl’.

This also offers a clue to the demise of distinct feminine forms, for surely the feminine plural article was originally le but became homophonous with the masculine li. The abolition of le was surely one of Bernual’s reforms.

However this rises the question whether the plural indefinite article should be ni with an old feminine ne, and a prevocalic gn’ I think it’s possible unless neque becomes [nɪ], and I think it becomes nec! ‘Not’ also most likely does not become ne [nɪ] but no [nʊ], with ‘no’ being nó [no] or even nau.

The form eun can live on with the meaning ‘some’, with n’eu(n) meaning ‘not any’ as in Tu tin eun menit? — Nó jo no tien n’eu. “Have you got some coins? — No I haven’t got any”. Of course there will also be aocú — aocune — eochéu for ‘some’ in the sense where it can’t be replaced by ‘any’: Txi daift estre aocun’ explanaçáu!

/BP 8^)>

Tags: , , , ,

Related posts

]]> http://blog.melroch.se/conlanging/rhodrese-articles-and-indefinite-pronouns/feed/ 0