Re: [tied] Latin -mini 2pl passive; high-order characters in titles

I don't think I could buy this unpronounceability story. Pre-Latin speakers obviously had no problems converting active -mus into passive -mur, so they would easily have done the same with -tis or -tes (if that had been their objective) rather than resort to anything as unheard-of as having normally inflected passives for five persons and a periphrastic construction for the sixth.

As for the high-order characters -- it's really frustrating that with so many years of the "computer revolution" behind us a truly universal standard is still a problem. I have to amputate a diacritic in my own surname several times a day :)

Piotr Ga,siorowski

----- Original Message -----
From: MCLSSAA2@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:55 AM

Subject: [tied] Latin -mini 2pl passive; high-order characters in titles

--- In cybalist@......, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@......> wrote: > Unpronounceable?? What was the mysterious ending that became > unpronounceable with an "r" appended to it? ... In Celtic (e.g. Irish) this -r suffix is impersonal active and is used instead of the personal suffix, and it may have been ditto in early Latin at first. By the time its use was shifting to a passiviser in Latin, the Latin 2nd plural active ending had become *-tis or *-tes as in {amatis} = "y'all love". Here the -r passivizing suffix would have produced **{amatesr} or **{amatisr} for "y'all are loved". So they resorted to the periphrastic form *{amamenoi estes} instead, likely. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In the thread "Re: [tied] Latin -ô / -ônis endings", the accented (high-order) characters display in message titles in Yahoo's archives illegibly as raw MIME-code: Re:_[tied]_Latin_-=F4_/_-=F4nis_en