[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Andrew 'fesses to a webpage update!
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, John Cowan wrote:
> Okay! Was this a change *within* the Brithenig Universe, or *to* it?
> In other words, did King G. promulgate a spelling reform in late
> 1998, or did Andrew get a new and improved interdimensional
> viewing machine?
Andrew got a new and improved interdimensional viewing machine. A change
*to* the Brithenig Universe.
> Easy. If it's functioning as an adjective, it's a participle.
> If it's functioning as a noun it's a gerund. Latin had different
> but similar forms (gerund in -nd with 2nd declension endings,
> participle in "ns/nt-" with 3rd declension endings) for these.
Ok, let me keep thinking on that until it comes naturally to me.
> > Where the -nt- ending survives in
> > Brithenig it is usually used as a noun or an adjective.
> IOW the Brithenig present participle, like the English one, functions
> as both. No problem. In Middle Scots, though, the true participle
> (adjective) ended in "-and" vs. the gerund (noun) in "-ing". This
> may survive in Scots over *there*.
I recall Thomas Leigh saying on Conlang that it is still a feature of
modern Scots. I think one difference in Brithenig is that -nt is not
productive, neologisms with this ending are looked on with askance,
although I am still discovering palaeologisms. The participle is more
productive but I have not found much recourse to it so far.
Better remember to note that down for another update.
Andrew Smith, Intheologus email@example.com
Life is short, so am I!