(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 08:36
Location: California über alles

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Khemehekis » Sun 22 Jul 2018, 05:07

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 04:59
Do you guys have defective nouns/verbs in your conlangs? A defective word being one that is missing certain case or tense forms that it could plausibly have. An example being how the English word can has no infinitive, so you have to say to be able, or the Latin verb inquit, which is limited to only a few forms (not to mention the noun fās, which for some reason isn't declined at all).
I have a word like this in Kankonian. The word is sen -- clipped from parisen (conveyed) it means "is/am/are all", when recounting a conversation.

Is sen, "Omo mahan ar kardass so?", yau wan sen, "So".
1s be_all really Q 2s think-PRS so then 3s be_all yes
I'm all, "Do you really think so?", and then he's all, "Yeah".

It's a verb, but there's no present tense sas nor future tense sos . . . let alone an infinitive s!
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 57,500 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by felipesnark » Sun 22 Jul 2018, 16:43

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 04:59
Do you guys have defective nouns/verbs in your conlangs? A defective word being one that is missing certain case or tense forms that it could plausibly have. An example being how the English word can has no infinitive, so you have to say to be able, or the Latin verb inquit, which is limited to only a few forms (not to mention the noun fās, which for some reason isn't declined at all).
I don't, but I've always found the idea intriguing. I would have a hard time deciding which words were defective.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Sun 22 Jul 2018, 16:46

Mine tends to go with suppletion or double-suppletion rather than leaving the paradigm defective.
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Lao Kou » Sun 22 Jul 2018, 23:12

The Géarthnuns septimal number only has distinct forms in the nominative and accusative; for the rest of the paradigm, you can only use the plural.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon 15 Feb 2016, 06:10
Location: Stanford, California

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 00:12

Thanks for your answers :) Sometimes it seems like there's a logic to the defectiveness; other times it's just bizarre, like how there's no genitive plural of the Russian word мечта, "dream". It has all the other noun forms, but apparently saying "of the dreams" is like dividing by zero. lol

I haven't created any defective words yet, but if I did I think I'd want to have some kind of logical reason behind it rather than it seem totally random.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan
User avatar
Pabappa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat 18 Nov 2017, 02:41
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Pabappa » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 01:01

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 04:59
Do you guys have defective nouns/verbs in your conlangs? A defective word being one that is missing certain case or tense forms that it could plausibly have. An example being how the English word can has no infinitive, so you have to say to be able, or the Latin verb inquit, which is limited to only a few forms (not to mention the noun fās, which for some reason isn't declined at all).
Plenty, yes. Hundreds and maybe thousands in fact, at least as I define the term.

All Poswa roots have four stems, which are shared between nouns and verbs. Any root which is missing one of the four stems is defective, because there are some derivations that cannot be formed from it. The level of irregularity is such that speakers cannot just follow patterns to fill in the missing stem, so such words are truly defective. Im not quite sure this fits, though, because a lot of the gaps are semantic. For example the C stem is used primarily to form the "possessed" forms of nouns, and there is no C stem for objects in nature such as the sun. moon, and stars.

Words for animals often have no D stem, which is used to form intransitive verbs and as a base for attaching certain rarely used derivational morphemes. Therefore there is no intransitive verb derived from the word for "seahorse". However, there is a transitive verb for it, since the transitive verbs are formed with the A stem, which is the only stem that always exists, because it is the stem used in isolation. In fact, all roots can be used as transitive verbs simply because of the fact that transitives use the A stem. Since it is possible to say "I seahorse you" but not "I seahorse", it isnt really based on semantics, so I still consider this to be a form of defective morphology.

The third category of defectives is words where the A sttems are distinct, but one or more of the other stems collides with some other word. Even though the B, C, and D stems are historically derived by adding inflections to the A stem, due to sound changes the derived stems are often shorter than the A stem. For example bemne "baby; silly person" has the monosyllabic C stem bemb-, even though this arose from a tetrasyllabic form several thousand years earlier. Similarly, the stem bamne "to eat" has the D stem bamb-, but no C stem at all, because the expected form of the C stem would also be *bamb-, which collides with another unrelated word for baby.
Image
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by felipesnark » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 02:24

eldin raigmore wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 16:46
Mine tends to go with suppletion or double-suppletion rather than leaving the paradigm defective.
"Double suppletion"? Like a paradigm being completed with three unrelated roots/stems?
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 06:11

felipesnark wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 02:24
eldin raigmore wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 16:46
Mine tends to go with suppletion or double-suppletion rather than leaving the paradigm defective.
"Double suppletion"? Like a paradigm being completed with three unrelated roots/stems?
Yes. Like Latin for “carry, bring, take, bear”. Fero, ferre, tuli, latum.

We get transfer, translate, prefer, prelate, tolerate, thole, refer, relate, etc.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10710
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 13:02

eldin raigmore wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 06:11
felipesnark wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 02:24
eldin raigmore wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 16:46
Mine tends to go with suppletion or double-suppletion rather than leaving the paradigm defective.
"Double suppletion"? Like a paradigm being completed with three unrelated roots/stems?
Yes. Like Latin for “carry, bring, take, bear”. Fero, ferre, tuli, latum.

We get transfer, translate, prefer, prelate, tolerate, thole, refer, relate, etc.
According to Wiktionary, this word's inflectional paradigm actually employs just two roots. "tulī" and "lātum" are apparently etymologically related. I'd assume that "ferō" and "ferre" are as well. Although, perhaps you'd still consider them separate roots?
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1487
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 13:33

Might depend what you mean by 'suppletion'. In the strict sense, the diachronic sense, no suppletion has taken place (and likewise in the ordinary, non-linguistic sense of the word). Suppletion is when part of a paradigm - particularly a defective part - is replaced by parts from an unrelated word. In this case, obviously, 'tuli' and 'latem' are just ordinary indo-european ablaut forms, and neither has been suppleted by the other. However, it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to extend the word into a secondary, synchronic sense, and say that most Romans probably were unaware of the regular derivation of 'latem', so that to them it appeared synchronically suppletive.

[and no, 'thole' is not descended from any of these words]


However we do have multiple suppletion in English: I am, you were, she has been.
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon 15 Feb 2016, 06:10
Location: Stanford, California

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 17:47

^But why is it not suppletion? The paradigm of "fero" has no perfect stem, so forms from "tollo" are used instead. Isn't that suppletion?

In the English example, "am" is from "hesmi", "were" is from "hwes-" and "been" is from "bhuh-". So it's one verbal paradigm that makes use of three different roots. Since "fero" makes use of two roots, isn't that suppletive?

Also, apparently "thole" is cognate with "tollo", but not descended from it.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10710
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 17:52

Salmoneus wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 13:33
Might depend what you mean by 'suppletion'. In the strict sense, the diachronic sense, no suppletion has taken place (and likewise in the ordinary, non-linguistic sense of the word). Suppletion is when part of a paradigm - particularly a defective part - is replaced by parts from an unrelated word. In this case, obviously, 'tuli' and 'latem' are just ordinary indo-european ablaut forms, and neither has been suppleted by the other. However, it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to extend the word into a secondary, synchronic sense, and say that most Romans probably were unaware of the regular derivation of 'latem', so that to them it appeared synchronically suppletive.
Very good point.
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 17:47
^But why is it not suppletion? The paradigm of "fero" has no perfect stem, so forms from "tollo" are used instead. Isn't that suppletion?
Unless I'm mistaken, it is suppletion, just not so-called double or multiple suppletion, like that seen with "to be", which has forms from 3 PIE roots.
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon 15 Feb 2016, 06:10
Location: Stanford, California

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 17:56

Oh, okay, I thought he was saying "fero" had no suppletion at all. I agree it's not double suppletive, since "latus" is from *tlatus and ultimately a form of tollo, just like "tuli". I remember I didn't get that when introduced to that verb in Latin class; I thought it had three roots and I remember thinking that was crazy.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7623
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Lambuzhao » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 18:57

Salmoneus wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 13:33
Might depend what you mean by 'suppletion'. In the strict sense, the diachronic sense, no suppletion has taken place (and likewise in the ordinary, non-linguistic sense of the word). Suppletion is when part of a paradigm - particularly a defective part - is replaced by parts from an unrelated word. In this case, obviously, 'tuli' and 'latem' are just ordinary indo-european ablaut forms, and neither has been suppleted by the other. However, it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to extend the word into a secondary, synchronic sense, and say that most Romans probably were unaware of the regular derivation of 'latem', so that to them it appeared synchronically suppletive.

[and no, 'thole' is not descended from any of these words]
Thole is not a descendant, but it is cognate to tuli & latum.

BTW
latemlatem

:?: [:(]

I don't think there's any form of /ferro/, suppleted or otherwise, that would be *latem.

It'd be lātum.

Maybe for a second you were thinking of lateō, latēre, latuī ?
:wat:
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 19:11

shimobaatar wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 13:02
eldin raigmore wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 06:11
felipesnark wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 02:24
eldin raigmore wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 16:46
Mine tends to go with suppletion or double-suppletion rather than leaving the paradigm defective.
"Double suppletion"? Like a paradigm being completed with three unrelated roots/stems?
Yes. Like Latin for “carry, bring, take, bear”. Fero, ferre, tuli, latum.

We get transfer, translate, prefer, prelate, tolerate, thole, refer, relate, etc.
According to Wiktionary, this word's inflectional paradigm actually employs just two roots. "tulī" and "lātum" are apparently etymologically related. I'd assume that "ferō" and "ferre" are as well. Although, perhaps you'd still consider them separate roots?
I had read that it was doubly-suppletive and just trusted that source.
English verbs have three “principal parts”; Greek verbs have six; Latin verbs have four.
That verb’s principal parts are those four, “fero, ferre, tuli, latum”.
Fero and ferre are clearly phonologically similar, from which I inferred they came from the same root.
Tuli and latum don’t look nor sound that similar; I never bothered to look up their more ancient etymology.

—————

So this brings up a question; what is the “root” in a paradigm?
And, for verbs’ conjugations, is there a cross-linguistic theory-neutral way to define “principal parts”?
And how does one decide whether two of some verb’s “principal parts” are from the same root or are different enough to count as suppletive?

And BTW, do nouns’ declensions have “principal parts” too?

—————

But I think it still illustrates the idea of “doubly suppletive” —— doesn’t it?
If it doesn’t, English’s copula verb “is, was, been” is at least doubly-suppletive, maybe triply-suppletive.
—————

Some 3Cons have some “hollow roots”.
For a paradigm with a “hollow root” to be non-defective, it must be irregular somehow.
Sometimes that means suppletion.

Some 3Cons have some “doubly hollow” roots.
I don’t know that it for sure happens in a natlang, but I’d expect that a paradigm with a doubly-hollow root could escape being defective, by being doubly-suppletive; (perhaps among other means).

AFMCL some roots might be “triply hollow”. Some of them might be doubly-suppletive and yet still defective. Don’t know if that ever happens in a natlang.

—————

BTW @Salmoneus (and responders to his post and to those responses and so on): Good points!
I’m pretty sure the notion of “derived from a common root” that is being used when discussing suppletion, is the synchronic one.
At any rate, now that you’ve made me think about it, I’m sure it’s the one I meant.

After all, diachronically speaking, there’s no way to prove that every surviving word in every surviving language aren’t all descended from a single word in Pre-Proto-World!

(Although it is highly doubtful!)

———
Edit: before English’s “go, went, gone” stole “went” from “wend”, it was already suppletive;
its principal parts apparently were “go, eode, gone”, or something similar.
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by felipesnark » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 21:14

eldin raigmore wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 19:11
I had read that it was doubly-suppletive and just trusted that source.
English verbs have three “principal parts”; Greek verbs have six; Latin verbs have four.
That verb’s principal parts are those four, “fero, ferre, tuli, latum”.
Fero and ferre are clearly phonologically similar, from which I inferred they came from the same root.
Tuli and latum don’t look nor sound that similar; I never bothered to look up their more ancient etymology.

—————

So this brings up a question; what is the “root” in a paradigm?
And, for verbs’ conjugations, is there a cross-linguistic theory-neutral way to define “principal parts”?
And how does one decide whether two of some verb’s “principal parts” are from the same root or are different enough to count as suppletive?

And BTW, do nouns’ declensions have “principal parts” too?

—————

But I think it still illustrates the idea of “doubly suppletive” —— doesn’t it?
If it doesn’t, English’s copula verb “is, was, been” is at least doubly-suppletive, maybe triply-suppletive.
—————

Some 3Cons have some “hollow roots”.
For a paradigm with a “hollow root” to be non-defective, it must be irregular somehow.
Sometimes that means suppletion.

Some 3Cons have some “doubly hollow” roots.
I don’t know that it for sure happens in a natlang, but I’d expect that a paradigm with a doubly-hollow root could escape being defective, by being doubly-suppletive; (perhaps among other means).

AFMCL some roots might be “triply hollow”. Some of them might be doubly-suppletive and yet still defective. Don’t know if that ever happens in a natlang.

—————

BTW @Salmoneus (and responders to his post and to those responses and so on): Good points!
I’m pretty sure the notion of “derived from a common root” that is being used when discussing suppletion, is the synchronic one.
At any rate, now that you’ve made me think about it, I’m sure it’s the one I meant.

After all, diachronically speaking, there’s no way to prove that every surviving word in every surviving language aren’t all descended from a single word in Pre-Proto-World!

(Although it is highly doubtful!)

———
Edit: before English’s “go, went, gone” stole “went” from “wend”, it was already suppletive;
its principal parts apparently were “go, eode, gone”, or something similar.
I can't address everything, but I can talk about a couple of the things:

"Principal parts" are the forms of the verb (and I suppose noun, though I am not sure if another term is used for nouns) are the fewest forms you generally need to derive all other forms of the paradigm. For most English verbs, you need the infinitive, the past tense form, and the past participle. For Latin nouns, you need the nominative singular and the genitive singular.

English "to be" comes from three roots, as someone mentioned above, so it is "doubly suppletive".
the
The old past of English "go", "eode" may have not been suppletive; -(o)de was one the regular past tense endings for some weak verbs, I believe. Perhaps someone with a greater knowledge of the development of Old English can illuminate.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3114
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 21:24

felipesnark wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 21:14
eldin raigmore wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 19:11
I had read that it was doubly-suppletive and just trusted that source.
English verbs have three “principal parts”; Greek verbs have six; Latin verbs have four.
That verb’s principal parts are those four, “fero, ferre, tuli, latum”.
Fero and ferre are clearly phonologically similar, from which I inferred they came from the same root.
Tuli and latum don’t look nor sound that similar; I never bothered to look up their more ancient etymology.

—————

So this brings up a question; what is the “root” in a paradigm?
And, for verbs’ conjugations, is there a cross-linguistic theory-neutral way to define “principal parts”?
And how does one decide whether two of some verb’s “principal parts” are from the same root or are different enough to count as suppletive?

And BTW, do nouns’ declensions have “principal parts” too?

—————

But I think it still illustrates the idea of “doubly suppletive” —— doesn’t it?
If it doesn’t, English’s copula verb “is, was, been” is at least doubly-suppletive, maybe triply-suppletive.
—————

Some 3Cons have some “hollow roots”.
For a paradigm with a “hollow root” to be non-defective, it must be irregular somehow.
Sometimes that means suppletion.

Some 3Cons have some “doubly hollow” roots.
I don’t know that it for sure happens in a natlang, but I’d expect that a paradigm with a doubly-hollow root could escape being defective, by being doubly-suppletive; (perhaps among other means).

AFMCL some roots might be “triply hollow”. Some of them might be doubly-suppletive and yet still defective. Don’t know if that ever happens in a natlang.

—————

BTW @Salmoneus (and responders to his post and to those responses and so on): Good points!
I’m pretty sure the notion of “derived from a common root” that is being used when discussing suppletion, is the synchronic one.
At any rate, now that you’ve made me think about it, I’m sure it’s the one I meant.

After all, diachronically speaking, there’s no way to prove that every surviving word in every surviving language aren’t all descended from a single word in Pre-Proto-World!

(Although it is highly doubtful!)

———
Edit: before English’s “go, went, gone” stole “went” from “wend”, it was already suppletive;
its principal parts apparently were “go, eode, gone”, or something similar.
I can't address everything, but I can talk about a couple of the things:

"Principal parts" are the forms of the verb (and I suppose noun, though I am not sure if another term is used for nouns) are the fewest forms you generally need to derive all other forms of the paradigm. For most English verbs, you need the infinitive, the past tense form, and the past participle. For Latin nouns, you need the nominative singular and the genitive singular.

English "to be" comes from three roots, as someone mentioned above, so it is "doubly suppletive".
the
The old past of English "go", "eode" may have not been suppletive; -(o)de was one the regular past tense endings for some weak verbs, I believe. Perhaps someone with a greater knowledge of the development of Old English can illuminate.
Apparently it derives ultimately from PIE *h₁e-h₁óy-e ~ *h₁e-h₁y-ḗr , so ēode would be a suppletive form.

The only "doubly suppletive" forms I can think of off the top of my head are words for "go" in French, where the present and future forms of the verb come from two different roots, while the rest come from a third root, or something like that.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon 15 Feb 2016, 06:10
Location: Stanford, California

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 21:46

"Principal parts" is mostly a Greco-Latin term; I'm not sure how much it's even used outside those two languages. It's really a teaching tool more than it's a concrete cross-linguistic concept. In the case of Latin and Greek, the parts derive from the PIE system which had different stems for the different aspects: perfective (aorist), imperfective (present), and stative (perfect).

PIE would build verbs and nouns from basic roots. Take weyd-, for example. This root meant "see" (source of Latin "video", Greek "eidon", English "wit"). The verb would be built around this basic root, ablauting and adding affixes as applicable. Add the nasal infix to the zero-grade to form the present stem (*wined-), zero-grade with no affix for the aorist (*wid-), full-grade + -se for the desiderative (*weydse-), etc.

Similarly, IE nouns generally had two stems, strong and weak. These are similar to principal parts (the term seems to be reserved for verbs, but the idea is the same in that it's a set of stems or words that can be used to build the entire paradigm). Nominative/vocative/accusative built off the strong stem and the other cases built off the weak.

I probably just made everything more confusing [>_<] But you can see how the main point is that a PIE (and thus, Greek and Latin) verbal paradigm is made up a few different stems, originally corresponding to aspect. Principal parts provide all the stems you need to complete the verbal paradigm. Some verbs formed their stems from a single semantic root. Some verbs make use of multiple roots (like fero, tuli, etc.).
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 24 Jul 2018, 02:11

It is beginning to seem to me, that the term “root”, when discussing the diachronic processes of language evolution, and the genetic relatedness of languages in the same family, means something different, from the term “root”, when discussing the synchronic processes of inflection and morphological derivation, and suchlike morphological processes.

So, or not so?
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7623
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Lambuzhao » Wed 25 Jul 2018, 16:02

Another little tidbit about ferro, et al.

I was thinking that maybe in Old :lat: fero's 3rd part was *feferi or *fhefherei, sort of like pario, peperi, or facio, *fhefhakei.

I was barking up the wrong tree, but I did find that Old :lat: actually had a reduplicated tetuli, which later became tuli.

:wat:
Post Reply