Re: Beekes.

Den 27. jul. 2008 kl. 20.25 skreiv Edgard Bikelis:

> We do indeed, but it's kind of a classic on the field though, now
> else would one understand something like "how brugmannian of
> you"? ; ).
In fact, I have never had anyone asking me that question...

>> I should like something on how to classify verbs. So far,
>> Thurneysen's
>> classification of Old Irish verbs is the best lead I got.
>
> Classify by morphology?
Yes, in order to predict, or construct, how a particular verb in my
conlang would be conjugated.

> There is the indian classification, but it's not that accurate.
Maybe not, but seems useful, though.

> I have to myself that each root have a standard aspect,
> normally durative or aorist, and the other aspect is made by
> marking it
> somehow. Like √yuj, yunákti, aorist áyujam: present with nasal
> infix,
> radical aorist. But of course it's not that simple, as for instance
> in vedic we have áyaukṣam... a sigmatic aorist, too, but no root
> present... *yójmi or *yójāmi to go with it. Latin does the same
> thing: iungō, iunxī, iunctus. The present has the nasal infix, but
> the perfect both it and an -s-, and still iugum and con-iux. Many
> verbs mark aspect in more than one way... in -nā-, -no-, -na-,
> reduplication in -a- or -i-... so, good luck with that ; ).
Yes, the IE verb is not a field for those that like it tidy. For my
part I think it's thrilling with quirks like this. But not easy to
handle...

>> A greek grammar would not hurt either... but I'm still to decide
>> which one is clear enough.
>>>
>>
>> I have an old one published by the Joint Association of Classical
>> Teachers.
>> Seems useful enough.
>
> You mean Reading Greek? Not good... at all.
Not exactly a reference grammar. But I've found some use for it
occasionally. Other suggestions?

LEF

Reply