[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Andrew 'fesses to a webpage update!
- To: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- Subject: Andrew 'fesses to a webpage update!
- From: Andrew Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:13:08 +1300 (NZDT)
- cc: "Raymond A. Brown" <email@example.com>, Padraic Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Andrew Smith <email@example.com>, Peter Skye <firstname.lastname@example.org>, John Schilke <email@example.com>, Frank George Valoczy <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Celticonlang List <email@example.com>, Sally Caves <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Douglas Mosier <email@example.com>, Thomas Kent <firstname.lastname@example.org>, David Russo <email@example.com>, Gilgalad Menelvagor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-Reply-To: <3634E290.56060DEA@locke.ccil.org>
Just to warn list members, and other interested parties, that at the
weekend (my time) the Brithenig pages were updated. Some changes to
Brithenig grammar were introduced:
1. nn clusters have been simplified to n. There is no change in
pronunciation, just spelling. The thought that influenced me was how
Spanish can simplify grande to gran before a noun. In Brithenig I allowed
it to become universal. Note to list members, the present participle got
affected by this, my reply below.
2. The third person plural verb ending is now -nt, although the t is
silent and there is no difference in pronunciation between that and the
first person plural verb ending. I have done this on analogy with Welsh.
3. The predicate adjective, and the adverb, no longer undergo soft
mutation. I decided that the conditions that cause this to occur in Welsh
don't necessarily occur in Brithenig and deleted this feature.
On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, John Cowan wrote:
> Padrig yscrifef:
> > There's not enough information on Brithenig to form an opinion, as the
> > participle (sneakily) ends in -n (can't tell if it's from -nd- or -nt-,
> > though) and there's no mention of a gerund. I could have sworn that last
> > week they ended in -nn (as evidenced by the Horse story, with participles
> > in -nn), which would indicate -nd- --> -nn, assuming that n follows the
> > same pattern as ng.
> It did, but it's only a spelling change (which could have happened *there*,
> since nn and n are the same in Brithenig.
It is derived from -nd-, lenited to -nn, and has now been simplified to
-n. I have never managed to successfully grok the differences between
present participles and gerunds though. Where the -nt- ending survives in
Brithenig it is usually used as a noun or an adjective.
Thank you for your patience. Normal transmission will now resume. Have a
Andrew Smith, Intheologus email@example.com
Life is short, so am I!