Kwe's't: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Added note.) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
====Creation and Usage Notes==== | ====Creation and Usage Notes==== | ||
{{djpnotes|quote=I noticed that I have not been consistent in how this contraction is written. As it is here, the assumption is you have the full word [[kwe]] "what", and then cliticized forms of [[es]] "is" and [[it]] "s/he/it". A spelling of ''kw'es't'' would seem to indicate that we have the full form of [[es]] and cliticized forms of both [[kwe]] and [[it]]. It doesn't seem to make much difference here, but there are also forms like [[kw'eseith]], where it does seem like the [[kwe]] is cliticized, since [[eseith]] is much larger and retains its full pronunciation. It seems odd that both forms should it exist. It'd be a little like having "aren't and theoretical "s'not" in the same language. We do have both "I won't" and "I'll not", I suppose. Contractions are fun things. I'd love to read a full, crosslinguistic treatment of contractions some day. | {{djpnotes|quote=I noticed that I have not been consistent in how this contraction is written. As it is here, the assumption is you have the full word [[kwe]] "what", and then cliticized forms of [[es]] "is" and [[it]] "s/he/it". A spelling of ''kw'es't'' would seem to indicate that we have the full form of [[es]] and cliticized forms of both [[kwe]] and [[it]]. It doesn't seem to make much difference here, but there are also forms like [[kw'eseith]], where it does seem like the [[kwe]] is cliticized, since [[eseith]] is much larger and retains its full pronunciation. It seems odd that both forms should it exist. It'd be a little like having "aren't and theoretical "s'not" in the same language. We do have both "I won't" and "I'll not", I suppose. Contractions are fun things. I'd love to read a full, crosslinguistic treatment of contractions some day. (Stray note: It does seem like ''kw'es'' isn't right, though...) | ||
-''[[User:Djp|David J. Peterson]]'' 12:55, 19 February 2024 (PST)}} | -''[[User:Djp|David J. Peterson]]'' 12:55, 19 February 2024 (PST)}} | ||
Revision as of 12:57, 19 February 2024
Hen Linge
Etymology
Contraction of kwe es it.
Pronunciation
Orthographic Form
kwe'ss't or kw'ess't
Contraction
kwe's't (regular contraction used in normal speech)
Creation and Usage Notes
| I noticed that I have not been consistent in how this contraction is written. As it is here, the assumption is you have the full word kwe "what", and then cliticized forms of es "is" and it "s/he/it". A spelling of kw'es't would seem to indicate that we have the full form of es and cliticized forms of both kwe and it. It doesn't seem to make much difference here, but there are also forms like kw'eseith, where it does seem like the kwe is cliticized, since eseith is much larger and retains its full pronunciation. It seems odd that both forms should it exist. It'd be a little like having "aren't and theoretical "s'not" in the same language. We do have both "I won't" and "I'll not", I suppose. Contractions are fun things. I'd love to read a full, crosslinguistic treatment of contractions some day. (Stray note: It does seem like kw'es isn't right, though...)
-David J. Peterson 12:55, 19 February 2024 (PST) |