Re: Andrew 'fesses to a webpage update!

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

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.

Andrew Smith, Intheologus 			hobbit@earthlight.co.nz
Life is short, so am I!