[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: nu alltr e gw alltr?
On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Raymond A. Brown wrote:
> Maybe - but almost unknown in European languages. Although the Spanish
> nosotros & vosotros may have developed from some suc distinctions, they are
> not used that way in modern Spanish. It's certainly not a feature either
> of insular Celtic or of Gallic Romance so if the aim is still to present
> Brithenig as a _plausible_ development from Brito-Romance then the evidence
> is surely against any such development.
That sounds reasonable (for B not to make an inclusive/exclusive
distinction). What do you think about its manifestation in other ways, as
for example, emphasis or perhaps politeness. Such as the older Spanish
distinctions of tu (intimate s.) / vos (polite address of the monarch, now
an intimate s. in some places) / usted (polite s.) / vosotros (intimate
pl. in Lat. Am. where used, common in Spain) / ustedes (formal pl. in Lat.
Am. where vosotros is used, gen. pl. elsewhere, not too common in Spain).
> >some other thoughts going on at the moment:
> >1. on the evidence of germination in Italian, should Brithenig prep. _a_
> >be followed by aspirant mutation;
> >ad + C > a + CC > a + Ch
> Modern Italian merely perpetuates the habits of spoken Latin of more than
> 2000 years ago. It's quite clear from spellings in Roman authors and from
> what graffiti remain that the the -d at the end of ad was fully assimilated
> to the following consonant, the /d/ being retain only before vowels. This
> is exactly the modern Italian practice - the only difference is that the
> Romans & Italians used different spelling conventions.
> So the question is: Do Latin geminated plosives generally shift to
> fricatives? I'm not aware of that in Romance generally or in Brithenig.
> I thought the spirant mutation was caused, as in the modern Brittonic
> languages, by the loss of syllable final /s/ which became [h] (as in modern
> Andalusian & medieval French) before finally disappearing. The prevocalic
> [h] caused the mutation in both the modern Brittonic langs & in Brithening.
> Thus Latin 'trans' would give 'tra'+ spirant mutation. But I don't see how
> a(d) would have caused that mutation (or, indeed, any mutation).
If the final /d/ became [h] (like Andalucian and many Lat. Am. dialects
(la ciuda de Madri, for ex.)); I would think that that [h] would cause
the mutation as well as the other. Or is there some mechanism that
determines which kinds of [h] will spawn mutations?