|From:||Edgard Bikelis <bikelis@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 22:35|
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Lars Finsen <lars.finsen@...> wrote:
> 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 guess I try to be too light / cheerful sometimes. Brugmann's method is
excelent, his way of showing the data is very good indeed, and I think he
did the best anyone could do with the evidence he had. And he is exhaustive.
The Delbrück's volume about syntax is pretty much the most recent one on the
> 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.
Well, if you are going to be canonical... verbs can be thematic or
athematic. Thematic with fixed accent, athematic with movable accent.
Thematics with e-grade, or in accented -sk'e/o- or -e/o- &c &c to the zero
grade. Athematics with nasal infix, reduplication... and so on. Where is the
> 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...
It's fun. IE inflexion is just too cool to miss ; ).
> You mean Reading Greek? Not good... at all.
> Not exactly a reference grammar. But I've found some use for it
> occasionally. Other suggestions?
Does you know <http://www.textkit.com> ? Smyth's grammar is good enough...