Re: EAK - preliminary thoughts on verbs

On 5/27/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> One query: according to the above, "have" should be _sxe_ (σχε) /sxE/,
> rather than _éxe_ (έχε) /'ExE/. But, although the stems are
> diachronically variants of *segh-, would the stems _skh-_ and _ekh_ have
> felt _synchronically_ variants of the same stem to the ancient Greeks,
> or would the verb have seemed suppletive to them? I am inclined to have
> _éxe_ in EAK.
As would I.

FWIW, when working on GSF verbs, I usually used a form based on the
aorist stem, but used the present stem for some verbs which, in my
opinion, were usually used in the imperfective aspect.

This is one such candidate -- or would have been, had MG retained the
aorist stem of this verb in the first place! (It still survives in
compounds, e.g. paréxò, na parásxò.) So _éxe_ feels more natural to
me, too. (But that's my feelings, not following a particular method.)

> If the verb is suppletive, then an arbitrary choice has to be made; in
> this I am guided by forms used in compounds and by survivals in
> post-Classical Greek). For example, I propose the following:
> fére (φέρε) = bear, carry [rather than _énegke_]
> lége = say [rather than _eípe_]
> fáge = eat [rather than _ésthie_]
All sounds very good to me.

> Undecided suppletives:
> _érxe_ or _élthe_ "come"?
Hm. Based on usage in compounds, I can't think of a compound with
-elth-, but one with -erx-: erxomós, arrival, coming. But using the
aorist stem feels more appropriate somehow.

> ASPECT
> On the other hand, aspect was more developed, there being four:
> imperfective ('present stem'), perfective ('aorist'), perfect* and
> futuritive. In the modern language only imperfective and perfective
> remain; but they play an important part in the language. I propose that
> we do something similar to modern Chinese, i.e.
> - the simple verb form is unmarked with regard to aspect, but:
> - we may mark aspect if we wish.
> I propose to keep only a optional imperfective ~ perfective distinction,
> but have yet decided on the markers
This is also something I'm struggling with a little in GSF. I have, so
far, dropped the imperfective ~ perfective distinction (having
present, past, future, and compound tenses past-in-the-past and
past-in-the-future), but am considering introducing it again somehow.
I'm undecided how best to go about it, though, or what marker to use.
(For fun, one possibility I'm toying with comes from Maltese....)

> VOICE
> The array of 'tenses' were repeated in the middle and passive voices for
> the imperfective and perfective aspects, but only in a single
> medio-passive voice for the perfective and futuritive aspects. EAK will
> have no inflexions to denote voice. Middle voice will be expressed by
> appropriate periphrases (usually a reflexive form). I have not yet
> decided on how the passive will be expressed, except that it will be by
> an analytic construction.
Is influence from another language a possibility? I'm thinking of
Maltese, which borrowed one way of forming the passive from Italian
(viz., using "to come" + passive participle). As you know, "to be" and
"to become" are also popular auxiliary verbs, if that's the way you
take.

(For GSF, I took the common passive ending -thi (< -thei) and made a
separate postposed, invariable particle out of it: mena agapisi, I
love; mena agapisi thi, I am loved.)

> [NON_FINITE VERB]
> In ancient Greek these were infinitives and participles. The infinitives
> have disappeared from the modern language, being replaced by nominal
> clauses.
or the subjunctive, e.g. "I want to come" -> "I want that I come".
(Mut "I like singing" -> "I like the that-I-sing" or something even
more nominal, e.g. "I like the singing" or "I like the song".)

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

Reply