[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: nu alltr e gw alltr?
Raymond A. Brown wrote:
> >2. with the loss of final plural -s, should Brithenig develop a more
> >definite indefinite plural than just yn + aspirant mutation?
> I think if Brithenig were "happy" with the loss of final -s causing (most)
> nouns to have the same form for both numbers, then a similar development of
> distinct articles as in French would have to have developed. Otherwise
> some other way of marking plurals would surely have developed?
I meant to comment on this before but forgot. I'm not happy with
"yn afel" meaning both "an/one apple" and "some apples". How about
"allgyn afel" for the latter sense?
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)