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? :-)
>
>
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.
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
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeter necessitudinem.