Re: EAK - two problems

On 5/21/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> I am proposing abstracting io (ιο) /jO/ (I had a week or so back decided
> that iota before an initial vowel should be [j]) as a possessive
> particle. It would come after the element in a possessive phrase,
Is that supposed to be "after the _first_ element in a possessive phrase"?

> e.g.
> to eme-io patró = my father
> to to-io eme-io patró mètró = my father's mother
After the article, too, hm? Interesting look.

I suppose it would be the following in the "inverted"/postposed form?

to patró to emé-io

to mètró to to-io patró to(-io?) emé-io; to mètró to to-io emé-io patró

Hm. What _about_ the -io I put in parentheses there?

In Ancient Greek, the corresponding word would be inflected (hè mètèr
hè tou patrós tou emoú -- I think also in case such as _hè mètèr hè
tou patrós tou tòn paídòn_ "the mother of the father of the children,
it would be _tou_, yes?, not _tou patrós to tòn paídòn_?).

But does it "inflect" in EAK, to give _to mètró to to-io patró to-io
to-io paído_? Or is only the first element (i.e. the first of the two
articles, the one before the noun rather than after it) thus
"inflected", giving _to mètró to to-io patró to to-io paído_?

It would seem so, otherwise one could expect that also the entire noun
phrase take the clitic, giving _to mètró to to-io sofó-io patró-io_
"the mother of the wise father", and then you're already on the
slippery slope from EAK to Ellèniká Met' Olígo Klísi (EMOK?).

What do you think? Only the very first element takes -io, even in
postposed form? Or both articles, since they're both "the same thing"?

I'm not even sure off-hand whether leaving the -io off the second
article introduces much more ambiguity.

> I think one might also add that -io could be omitted after the 1st & 2nd
> pers. if one wished, especially if the connexion was close; e.g. to emé
> patró.
Similarly with inversion: _to patró to emé_? And _to mètró to to-io
patró to(-io?) emé_? Or is the omission only licit when the pronoun is
between the article and the possessed noun?

_To mètró to to-io emé patró_, on the other hand, seems unproblematic.

> Thus the opening phrase of the Lord's Prayer might then be:
> to emé-laó patró to en to ouranó
Which also throws up the interesting question, what will we do with
prepositions that change their meaning based on the case they take?
(Often movement from/movement towards/location at, but sometimes more
subtle, e.g. _diá_ "for; by, through" or _metá_ "after; with".)

> Comments?
Looks unusual, especially "to-io", but then, EAK != Greek. Could be workable.

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

Reply