Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: TAKE 2nd verb page updatedc

From:R A Brown <ray@...>
Date:Thursday, November 1, 2007, 20:12
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> 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? :-) > > > > Just found a small typo: 'The people make_s_ laws ...'
A literal translation of the Greek, I fear, in which ὁ δῆμος is singular. Actually 'people' can be found used as singular in English, but this usage does sound strange in contemporary 21st century usage. Also, of course, if I were treating 'people' as a singular collective I should have written 'The people makes laws for itself' - but I've changed the verb to "make' :)
> 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.
Thank you.
> 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)
Yes, but there are good _Greek_ precedents for that. In Classical Greek more often than note a _participle_ phrase is preferred, and this must be attributive. Thus rather than "the house that Jack built" one could quite well have "the by Jack built house". I believe such constructions also in in literary German. As I wrote the use of the definite article instead of a relative pronoun is found in Homer & some dialects. Arguably such clause are adjectival and attributive. Certain this construction is found in medieval Greek, e.g. τὰ βουίδα τὰ ἐλάβετε the oxen the you-took, i.e. the oxen [which] you took εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ὁ Θεὸς σὲ ἔδωκεν into the+ACC place the+ACC the+NOM God you gave into the place which God gave you In both instances the clause is treated exactly the same way as a postposited attributive adjective. This construction apparently remained in living use until the 16th century .
> and the underspecification of voice.
Once all endings are removed this seems the only logical conclusion.
> 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.
Only when lexicalized. There may well be a few former participles with derived meanings which are retained as _deverbal adjectives_, not verbal adjectives.
> It seems the > forms are not needed with the current grammar, though -- you found > elegant ways to do without them.
Thank you. I am trying to be as strict as possible about the 'no inflexions" business and am not prepared to compromise with things like LSF's -re and -nte.
> 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?
I have noticed it. I haven't thought much about derivation. Do I keep form derived from the ancient language (which is what I believe Peano did with LSF and Latin), or do I regularize the whole derivational apparatus?
>>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!
I shan't do very much to start with in case modifications of the language prove necessary. but I'll probably put a draft version of the Pater Noster on line soon. [snip]
>>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!
Thank you - it's encouraging to know :) -------------------------------- MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote: [snip] > Another typo: > /Some people mediopassive/Some people use mediopassive / Thanks for point it out - I have now amended it. -- Ray ================================== ================================== Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitudinem.


Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>