So I have been studying Spanish recently (mainly verb conjugations because I'm great at constructing sentences, but still am horrible when it comes to verb conjugations), and decided to teach myself the verb conjugation for
ser (to be, used to identify something in a permanent state) in the preterite form.
However, I thought that I was getting a feeling of déjà vu because it looked sort of similar to the verb conjugation for
ir (to go) in the preterite form. I looked back at my notes to refresh myself on the conjugation of
ir in the preterite form to make sure that it was just a fake feeling of déjà vu, however, it turned out that the verb conjugations were in fact the same in the preterite form.
For anyone who wants to know, these are the verb conjugations for
ir in the preterite form:
Yo fui Tú fuiste Él/Ella/Ud. fue Nosotros fuimos Vosotros fuisteis Ell@s/Uds. fueron
This made me think: Is it usually okay for conlangs to have verbs that have the same verb conjugations, leading to the listener having to interpret what is being said entirely based on context, or should this happen more as the language evolves?
Japanese and Chinese
I bring up Japanese and Chinese because I feel like they would make good examples of where pretty much anything that is said in those two languages is interpreted based on how the listener chooses to interpret what is being said, although being natural languages and not conlangs.
|Example for Mandarin Chinese (Simplified)||Example for Japanese|
||This one is more obvious, albeit it being different from the previous example because this example is more just similar sounding words, like "参加" (
On the topic of Old Spanish
|I wasn't really able to find anything that really related to similar sounding words/verbs on the Wikipedia for Old Spanish, since the only thing that I could find to relate to this was
According to the Old Spanish Wikipedia
The Old Spanish spelling of the sibilants was identical to modern Portuguese spelling, which, unlike [modern] Spanish, still preserves most of the sounds of the medieval language, and so is still a mostly faithful representation of the spoken language. Examples of words before spelling was altered in 1815 to reflect the changed pronunciation:
osso 'bear' versus oso 'I dare' (Modern Spanish oso in both cases, cf. Portuguese urso [a borrowing from Latin], ouso)
For anyone who is wondering, "
cf." means "confer".
Is it likely that new conlangs will have verbs that will be conjugated the exact same as another verb, or should this happen more as the language evolves?
Links that I used when researching this
- Old Spanish Wikipedia
- Similar sounding words in Japanese source
- Google Translate (I usually use Google Translate to get rōmaji "ローマ字" (Literal translation to English: Roman characters) and pīnyīn "拼音" (Literal translation to English: Pinyin) if I can't remember it off of the top of my head.)
- DeepL Translate (This is more for getting an extremely accurate translation if I want to provide an example to what I am talking about, however I usually always then go to Google Translate to get the pronunciation if I can't exactly remember it)
To clear up any confusion
- I am sorry if I lost you really anywhere in my thought process, I'm good at writing short questions but I feel like whenever I try to write a long essay explaining my question, it always has seemed like I tend to more or less accidentally go off track on what my question is supposed to be about.
- This is more of an addendum to point #1, but I also feel like sometimes I also don't seem to add a whole lot of evidence to long essays that I write, so sorry if it feels like that.
- I am also sorry if any of my tags are not related to my post.