14-01-2018, 08:19 PM
farmerjohn wrote:
The rest, although contain correct / existed roots, have incorrect word structure, which are hardly could exist.
The word You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.is a real word, but how you can explain the suffix -urus (-ura) in the word caudicariura? If you mean that the root is caudex (caudic-), and the suffixes are -ari-, -ura, there must be general rules of that language, recorded in some existed source, for that last morpheme. For example, for the mentioned word, I could find only one rational explanation, if it would be caudicariorum (plural genitive of caudicarius).
The same with the word execorularum. If it is a noun in genitive plural, which may be translated as an adjective (meaning the ends -arum and -orum of Latin), then the basical form of the word (noun) is execorula (non existed). For example, epistola or epistula - in genitive plural: epistolarum, epistularum, (meaning of messages). As well, there are no word bimanorus or, even, manorus, if it is not Toba-Batak, but manorum and bimanorum exist as (again) the plural genitive form of the words: manus and bimanus. Bimanus, in this case, means bimanous (meaning a human).
There is no conjunction or preposition in the sentence. Generally, the grammar structure of the sentence is wrong.
I think, you need to know.
Quote:Patratum aperium jocionum apertum partus tabelli, caudicariura aeque exec orularum bimanorusPatratum, apertum, partus, tabelli, aeque are real words in Latin and in some its variations.
The rest, although contain correct / existed roots, have incorrect word structure, which are hardly could exist.
The word You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.is a real word, but how you can explain the suffix -urus (-ura) in the word caudicariura? If you mean that the root is caudex (caudic-), and the suffixes are -ari-, -ura, there must be general rules of that language, recorded in some existed source, for that last morpheme. For example, for the mentioned word, I could find only one rational explanation, if it would be caudicariorum (plural genitive of caudicarius).
The same with the word execorularum. If it is a noun in genitive plural, which may be translated as an adjective (meaning the ends -arum and -orum of Latin), then the basical form of the word (noun) is execorula (non existed). For example, epistola or epistula - in genitive plural: epistolarum, epistularum, (meaning of messages). As well, there are no word bimanorus or, even, manorus, if it is not Toba-Batak, but manorum and bimanorum exist as (again) the plural genitive form of the words: manus and bimanus. Bimanus, in this case, means bimanous (meaning a human).
There is no conjunction or preposition in the sentence. Generally, the grammar structure of the sentence is wrong.
I think, you need to know.