Re: with me, with you, etc.

[Andrew Smith <hobbit@mail.earthlight.co.nz>]

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.

Andrew Smith                                  <hobbit@earthlight.co.nz>
Life is short, so am I...