Re: EAK numerals (reply-to corrected!)

(The Reply-To appears to have reverted; resetting to the list manually.)

On 8/30/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> > I forget how EAK does [possession]
>
> You haven't forgotten how EAK does possession, because I don't know yet  :)
>
> If you recall, we had a thread about this some while back before I put
> any stuff in my website, but no conclusions were reached.
*nods* I recall two attempts involving -ιο and -θεν or similar, but no
conclusion.

> > Your word δύριοι/δύριο appears to have a breathing, rather than an
> > accent, on the upsilon. (Twice.)
>
> Oops - so it is! I've changed it.
I rather like the word, though! And your clever note about δηφ :)

> > IIRC, both word orders (ADJ-NOUN and NOUN-ADJ) are licit in Ancient
> > Greek;
>
> Certainly both occur in NT Greek - but that might be Semitic influence.
> Goodwin's Greek Grammar is unclear about this. In one place it even
> suggests that NOUN-ART-ADJ would be used!
That brings to mind binomial biological names in Greek, which are
formed that way TTBOMK; a hypothetical big-eyed camel, _Camelus
megalops_, would be κάμηλος η μεγάλωψ. I don't think I've come across
it anywhere else, though.

> > what made you forbid one of them? Simplicity in an (for Peanos)
> > auxlang?
>
> Yes - although I have no intention of pushing EAK as an auxlang, in WHAT
> Peanou was doing just that   :)
*nod* That's what I tried to allude to by writing "(for Peanos)" --
that it was his intention, not yours, though you were doing the
documenting for the language he had designed.

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

Reply