Re: TAKE 2nd verb page updatedc

Hi!

R A Brown writes:
>...
> 'verbs - Part 2' is now, hopefully, completed (apart probably from
> correcting one or two typos  :)
You probably meant to add a link to that page? :-)

   http://www.carolandray.plus.com/TAKE/Verbs2.html

Just found a small typo: 'The people make_s_ laws ...'

It is again a very nice read.  For me, TAKE also serves as a very
interesting and concise introduction to Ancient Greek. :-)  And your
thorough construction of TAKE is fascinating!  I like it very much.

Altogether, some structure of TAKE look quite like Chinese to me,
e.g. the relative clauses that look just like any other attribute
(like adjectives) and the underspecification of voice.

Have you decided about derivation yet?  Because I don't think it is
*necessary* (although maybe otherwise handy) per se to drop
participles and infinitives completely if you have (agglutinative)
derivation, since these forms may become lexicalised and I think it is
justified to call them derivation instead of inflection.  It seems the
forms are not needed with the current grammar, though -- you found
elegant ways to do without them.

Speaking of derivation: I find having two stems for kállo and kaló a
bit non-(f)auxlangish -- have you noticed this and thought about
having a regular relation between them?

>...
> We now have enough of the language to be able to give specimen texts;
> but I haven't done this yet.
I can't wait to see some!

> The language has not turned out quite as I expected it would; I am,
> for example, still not altogether happy with the personal pronouns.
>
> But the experiment has been (and still is) interesting. Trying to do a
> Latino sine flexione' for ancient Greek, which had a far more complex
> morphology than Latin, and to stick more strictly to the concept of
> sine flexione' than LSF actually does is not easy    :)
Your efforts have produced a beautifully structured language, and the
web presentation is very nice, too!

**Henrik

Reply