Re: Some suggestions

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

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Andrew Smith wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Raymond A. Brown wrote:
> 
> > [INDEFINITE PLURAL]
> > There seem to me three possible scenarios:
> >
> (b) is the current indefinite plural in Brithenig unos/unas > yn (+H).  It
> is a _very_ indefinite plural as it is confused with the singular.

A similar problem in K has spawned the formation of compound indefinites,
combining yn with ce (prob. borrowed from Fr) and ist/ell (def. prons.) in
varying ways to acheive a) clear singular and plural forms and b) varying
degrees of indefiniteness.
	ce(s): a, any, none in particular, some
	cyn(s): a, some, one of a selected group
	cest(s)/cell(s): one of these/those
	cestyn(s)/cellyn(s): one of a select group here/there
	ce cest(s)/cell(s): a, some, this one here, that one there
	ce cestyn(s)/cellyn(s): a, some even more indefinite than ce
	yn: the "alternative", only very rarely used alone; and in speech
frequently confused with 'ne' meaning no: 'n omm vs. n'omm (some man or no
man).

> (c)
> >        SINGULAR                 PLURAL
> >    fem.  ddla  [Fr. de la]    ) ddlo [Fr. des]
> >    masc. ddill [Fr. du]       )
> > 
> These are the best option in my opinion, with a bit of practice I might
> master pronouncing them without a schwa!  I wonder if Brithenig would go
> as far as *da, *do?  These forms exist in Breathenach.

And Kernu!  The accepted contaction of di and la is da, di and le is dil. 
As far as possession is concerned, dil and da per se can't be used to
denote possession.  A differnt sort of contraction is used wherein the di
part is left off altogether, and there is no mutation: ys defussi il pens
le ourtte (the head of the sledgehammer just flew off).  Dil and da can be
used as partitives (if I understand it aright): il yen omm dil cent (one
man of the hundred). 

Padraic.

> - andrew.