Re: nu alltr e gw alltr?

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

Raymond A. Brown wrote:

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

> I think if Brithenig were "happy" with the loss of final -s causing (most)
> nouns to have the same form for both numbers, then a similar development of
> distinct articles as in French would have to have developed.  Otherwise
> some other way of marking plurals would surely have developed?

I meant to comment on this before but forgot.  I'm not happy with
"yn afel" meaning both "an/one apple" and "some apples".  How about
"allgyn afel" for the latter sense?

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)