Re: EAK nouns

Are you replying to a private mail from Ray here?
I can't find what you are responding to, but I would
want to listen in! :-)

/BP

Philip Newton skrev:
> On 5/10/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>> It now seems
>> to me that a more satisfactory solution, and more in keeping with the
>> spirit of "Latino sine flexione" would be to use the _dative_ singular
>> (dropping the 'iota subscript' of the 1st & 2nd declensions).
>
> Ah! Clever, if that works the way you want it.
>
>> Note:
>> i. [e] = epicene (masc. or feminine)
>> ii. The ancient forms are give *for convenience* with the modern
>> monotonic diacritics. Lest anyone is tempted to 'correct' me, I would
>> point out that I am very aware of the polytonic accents & breathings
>> (I've known them for half a century!) - but there seemed little point in
>> making the email more complicated.
>
> That's only relevant for the first column, though, right? IIRC, EAK is
> written in the monotonic system, anyway, since breathings are
> irrelevant since EAK is psilotic and the pitch accent had given way to
> a (uniform) stress accent.
>
> (Are you going to be writing an accent on monosyllables? Either all,
> or specific ones for disambiguation of homophones, à la French ou/où
> or MG που/πού?)
>
> Cheers,

Reply