The CBB

Jackk wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020 13:16

Salmoneus wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020 13:07 jackk: it's a verb.

Is invazaṛ from a Latin infinitive?

To the best of my (limited) knowledge, there is not an infinitive in Classical Latin corresponding to that, no...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020 19:42

Jackk wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020 13:16

Salmoneus wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020 13:07 jackk: it's a verb.

Is invazaṛ from a Latin infinitive?

To the best of my (limited) knowledge, there is not an infinitive in Classical Latin corresponding to that, no...

A suspiciously-specific answer...

Then, at least, does invazaṛ contain a morpheme that descends from a Latin infinitive morpheme?

Is s- reflexive?

Jackk wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020 00:47

Salmoneus wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020 19:42

Jackk wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020 13:16

Salmoneus wrote: ↑09 Apr 2020 13:07 jackk: it's a verb.

Is invazaṛ from a Latin infinitive?

To the best of my (limited) knowledge, there is not an infinitive in Classical Latin corresponding to that, no...

A suspiciously-specific answer...

Then, at least, does invazaṛ contain a morpheme that descends from a Latin infinitive morpheme?

It does.

I'll save a bit of time: this is the infinitive form of a verb that has been derived from a noun; to my knowledge, the root only occurs as a noun in Latin.

shimobaatar wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020 00:53 Is s- reflexive?

Good guess, but no.

So to be clear it's s-invaz-ar-um-ot when divided by morpheme right? Is s- from ex-?

qwed117 wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020 03:08 So to be clear it's s-invaz-ar-um-ot when divided by morpheme right?

It's slightly ambiguous - on some level, it's probably s-invaza-ar-um-ot, but the a-a- just ends up as -a-. And actually, 'invaza' could arguably be broken up a bit too - it depends whether we think all the morphemes present in Latin are still in some sense present even if no longer fully (or at all) productive...

Is s- from ex-?

No.

Is invaza from invasiō?
Is invaza from Latin in- plus a noun?

It is not!

Does s- descend from dis-, or for that matter dē-ex > [des] > [​s]?

Or the prefix sē- of separation?

Or sīc?

Is the stem derived from vās 'utensil'?

What does the dot under <ṛ> represent, perhaps retroflexion?

Does -òt descend from 3PL -ant, or for that matter 3PL -Vnt, probably -unt?

Is this too many questions for one post? I think I usually see people asking three at a time at most.

Ser wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020 20:50 Does s- descend from dis-, or for that matter dē-ex > [des] > [​s]?

No!

Or the prefix sē- of separation?

No.

Or sīc?

No...

Is the stem derived from vās 'utensil'?

It is not!

What does the dot under <ṛ> represent, perhaps retroflexion?

A dorsal constriction - probably just velarisation, although I've not ruled out that it might be pharyngealisation. There may also be a bit of allophonic labialisation too.

Does -òt descend from 3PL -ant, or for that matter 3PL -Vnt, probably -unt?

Nope...

Is this too many questions for one post? I think I usually see people asking three at a time at most.

Probably! I don't mind, and it does speed things up when it's a difficult word. particularly early on in the guessing process. But it does sort of tilt the playing field a little...

ok, so does the v in the 'invaza' component derive from Latin v /w/? If so does it come from invidia? If not from v, is it from Latin b?

qwed117 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 01:44 ok, so does the v in the 'invaza' component derive from Latin v /w/? If so does it come from invidia? If not from v, is it from Latin b?

It is indeed from v.

Are any of s- -um- -òt pronouns?

Salmoneus wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020 01:55

shimobaatar wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020 00:53 Is s- reflexive?

Good guess, but no.

Is it indefinite à la French "on" or Italian "si"?

shimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 02:16 Are any of s- -um- -òt pronouns?

No. At least, 'no' is the answer to the question you asked...

All4Ɇn wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 07:50

Salmoneus wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020 01:55

shimobaatar wrote: ↑10 Apr 2020 00:53 Is s- reflexive?

Good guess, but no.

Is it indefinite à la French "on" or Italian "si"?

No.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 12:49

shimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 02:16 Are any of s- -um- -òt pronouns?

No. At least, 'no' is the answer to the question you asked...

I must admit I don't know what you mean by this. Would it be asking too much for me to request some clarification?

shimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 14:22

Salmoneus wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 12:49

shimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 02:16 Are any of s- -um- -òt pronouns?

No. At least, 'no' is the answer to the question you asked...

I must admit I don't know what you mean by this. Would it be asking too much for me to request some clarification?

Edit: I don't know if this is the source of the issue, but at least for me, "any" can mean "at least one, but as many as all". This may be an idiolectal or dialectal thing.

I'm not aware of 'any' having other meanings?

But I thought maybe you meant something else. The answer to the given question is simply no: this is a verb, and pronouns are a different part of speech altogether.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 15:15

shimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 14:22

Salmoneus wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 12:49

shimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Apr 2020 02:16 Are any of s- -um- -òt pronouns?

No. At least, 'no' is the answer to the question you asked...

I must admit I don't know what you mean by this. Would it be asking too much for me to request some clarification?

Edit: I don't know if this is the source of the issue, but at least for me, "any" can mean "at least one, but as many as all". This may be an idiolectal or dialectal thing.

I'm not aware of 'any' having other meanings?

But I thought maybe you meant something else. The answer to the given question is simply no: this is a verb, and pronouns are a different part of speech altogether.

Alright.

Well yes, of course, but I thought it might be a verb phrase with an object pronoun included or something like that.