[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: with me, with you, etc.
On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, John Cowan wrote:
> The Classical Latin forms mecum, tecum, etc. from which Brithenig
> meg, teg, etc. probably weren't used that way in Vulgar Latin.
> Pretty consistently the scheme was "cum mecum", "cum tecum", etc.
> Spanish preserves this with conmigo (remodeled by analogy from
> earlier comigo), contigo, etc. whereas in Standard Italian the
> forms are not used, leading to "con me", "con te", etc.
These are important to preserve in Brithenig because they are the only
examples of pronominal prepositions that exist in Romance. Because
Brithenig is derived from a learned Latin I have not repeated cun - though
it comes naturally in speaking. I think the compromise forms you suggest
below make sense.
> I suggest that Brithenig follows this pattern too: cun meg,
> cun nheg (or cun teg? to soften or not to soften, that is
> the question ...)
cun nheg or cunneg. Correctly cum should cause nasalization because the
final nasal is preserved in the preposition as with _in_, I find that it
doesn't appeal to my aesthetics though.
Andrew Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Life is short, so am I...