Philip Newton wrote:
> 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"?
Yes.
>> 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?
Right - let's see.
"to mètró to to-io emé-io patró" is obviously OK
Yes, in the first version there should not be the -io in parenthesis
because the marker comes after the first element only. Thus we would have:
to mètró to to-io patró to emé-io
The postposited definite article must relate to the noun to which it is
postposited; thus the third _to_ must refer to _patró_, not to _mètró_.
I don't think the problems generated will be any greater than that
generated in English when one has several possessives together, such as
"my father's uncle's brother's wife". I guess they get unwieldy in _any_
language!
> 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_?)
You are correct. But I think we can manage without inflexions ;)
> But does it "inflect" in EAK, to give _to mètró to to-io patró to-io
> to-io paído_?
No - we want to avoid true inflexions.
> Or is only the first element
Yes.
(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_?
Yes - that's correct; and "to mètró to to-io patró to to-io paído(-laó)"
doesn't seem any more ambiguous than LSF "matre de patre de puero(s)" or
Spanish "la madre del padre de los niños."
> 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",
No, no! to mètró to to-io sofó patró
> and then you're already on the
> slippery slope from EAK to Ellèniká Met' Olígo Klísi (EMOK?).
Exactly - and in fact the so-called "Latino sine flexione" is indeed
'Latino cum pauco flexione' since besides the optional plural suffix -s,
it also has the verbal suffixes -re (infinitive) and -nte (present
participle) as well as a passive participle which must be formed from
the Latin supine, i.e. the LSF verb has principal parts!
I want to avoid any such thing in EAK. The clitic -io gets uncomfortably
close, but I think we can live with it - but not if it gets tacked onto
adjectives & nouns forming groups of words that 'agree.' No, that must
not happen.
> What do you think? Only the very first element takes -io, even in
> postposed form?
Only the very first element.
[snip]
>
>> 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?
Good point. I can see no reason why _to patró to emé_ should cause any
problem. But presumably one would use the inverted order for emphasis. I
think it would be more idiomatic to allow the option only between
article and noun.
> _To mètró to to-io emé patró_, on the other hand, seems unproblematic.
Precisely!
>> 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".)
I have thought about this. In the case of these two prepositions I am
guided by what they mean when occurring first in compounds and, in the
case of _metá_, that the preposition _sun_ (σύν) also existed. Thus:
diá = through;
metá = after;
sun = with.
But more on prepositions later :)
>> Comments?
>
>
> Looks unusual, especially "to-io",
But τοιο is Greek - Homer used it, and it was found in some dialects and
occurs in some metrical inscriptions :)
> but then, EAK != Greek. Could be workable.
>
> Cheers,
Cheers - thanks for the input.
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]