Camalic: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Nouns) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
The caland gender was made up of nouns that resulted from nominalized participles and adjectives and consisted of both animate nouns (e.g. names of professions) and inanimate nouns. Abstract nouns were usually caland. | The caland gender was made up of nouns that resulted from nominalized participles and adjectives and consisted of both animate nouns (e.g. names of professions) and inanimate nouns. Abstract nouns were usually caland. | ||
There were also three grammatical cases: agentive/instrumental, patientive and genitive. The agentive case was marked with the particle *la~li (believed to be cognate with Semitic *li- "to" and Indo-European *-(t/dʰ)lom ~ *-(t/dʰ)lis). In [[L-Arabic]] that evolved into a prefix ''a- ~ al-''. The genitive case was marked with the particle *i. In Central Camalic (e.g. [[An Bhlaoighne]] and [[L-Arabic]]), influenced by Indo-European and Semitic languages, the case particles are preposed while in Peripheral Camalic (e.g. [[Padmanābha]]), the particles evolved into suffixes in a more typically Eurasian nom-acc system. | There were also three grammatical cases: agentive/instrumental, patientive and genitive. The agentive case was marked with the particle *la~li (believed to be [[Verse:Lõis/Linguistic theories/ISC|cognate]] with Semitic *li- "to" and Indo-European *-(t/dʰ)lom ~ *-(t/dʰ)lis). In [[L-Arabic]] that evolved into a prefix ''a- ~ al-''. The genitive case was marked with the particle *i. In Central Camalic (e.g. [[An Bhlaoighne]] and [[L-Arabic]]), influenced by Indo-European and Semitic languages, the case particles are preposed while in Peripheral Camalic (e.g. [[Padmanābha]]), the particles evolved into suffixes in a more typically Eurasian nom-acc system. | ||
Proto-Camalic also had an extensive array of derivational affixes. | Proto-Camalic also had an extensive array of derivational affixes. | ||