Re: nu alltr e gw alltr?

[Padraic Brown <pbrown@nova.umuc.edu>]

On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Andrew Smith wrote:

> 
> interesting message that one, is there enough evidence to suggest that
> Brithenig would develop features like nu-h-alltr and gw-h-alltr.  I like
> inclusive/exclusive marking as a language feature, but I would like a
> discussion before it is formally adopted.

I like the feature as well, but am somewhat ambivalent over whether it
ought to be inclusive/exclusive in Brithenig.  The general swing of the
correspondents on sci.lang seemed to indicate that this is no longer an
inclusive/exclusive feature of any of the three reporting languages; 
regardless of how it got started.  It's pretty clear that nos + otros = we
+ the others; indicating its inception as inclusive/exclusive.  What it
has become, though is entirely different: in Iberian, the inclusive form
has become generalised to the exclusion of the other; in (possibly
Parisian Fr), but certainly Quebeckish French, the exclusive form was
generalised, while the inclusive has become emphatic: touts nous sommes
francais, mais nous autres sommes Parisiens sort of thing. 

I've liked it enough to make the incl./excl. distinction in other
constructed Romancelang projects I've worked on; and I like it enough now
to quietly insert it into Kernu as an emphatic literary device, rather
like the French model, which is a novelty for me.  Other dialects may
vary.  At the very least, it could survive in Brithenig as a literary
device.  It would have been nice if Italian and Romanian had been
discussed in the thread as well, as one could obtain a better picture with
them included.

> 
> some other thoughts going on at the moment:
> 
> 1. on the evidence of germination in Italian, should Brithenig prep. _a_
> be followed by aspirant mutation;
> 
> ad + C > a + CC > a + Ch

Germination?  Is it planting season already? :-)  I thought that
particular prep. already aspirated, since the d of ad would have been
reduced probably to dh then h, causing a mutation:

ad casam --> adh casa --> ah chasse --> a chas or similar.

> 
> 2. with the loss of final plural -s, should Brithenig develop a more
> definite indefinite plural than just yn + aspirant mutation?

I think there's always room for more pronouns.  Either "official" or
colloquial.  Who could get along without the pronominal conglomerate "this
here whatzit thingy"?

I do definately think that lonely little "yn" may not be sufficient.  You
could try resucitating other Latin pronouns, or pronominalising a noun (a
la Kernu's "cars", a general purpose pron.) or resucitating some now
defunct nominal and/or pronominal morphology to make the distinction.
Thoughts?

> 
> 3. I'm working on the architecture of the Brithenig page, breaking each
> section down into separate pages, do readers still want a full page
> option?  Other editorial advice welcome.  New update posting in the next
> few weeks, depending on how much time I spend tidying it up.

I would still prefer a full page option, as it's not yet unwieldy enough
to require more.  Though I think it shall shortly be so, especially as you
add a picture of the flag, more texts, more historical information, etc.

Editorial advice?  Now that there is a chart of mutations at the top of
the page, perhaps the short lists of mutations that show up within the
body could be either deleted or made to conform in style with the main
chart.  Down in the timeline, there is one entry that wasn't formatted
right -- the entry for that year is not aligned with the others.  I don't
have a copy of it in front of me, so can't be more detailed at present.
I'll look at it tomorrow and work it over.

Padraic.