Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)

From:Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>
Date:Sunday, February 5, 2006, 16:37
I received Ray's msg already after I had sent my reply to Philip, so I need to
reply to one more msg in the thread (still in the daily quota, I suppose).

R A Brown wrote:

> I feel we've give this quite an airing, shown how the sort of way it > could go and also thrown up some of the problems involved. I feel we > have, may be, given ideas for possible conlangs.
I agree. I may stop at this stage. It was refreshing, anyway. Thanks to all participants.
> Isaac Penzev wrote: > If the AG forms are retained. Even then it is not so simple as both _es_ > and _eis_ are used in the ancient language. Which do we pick, and why.
Koine offers _eis_, does it make Koine a third source in row with AG and MG?
> In MG _en_ and _ek_ have gone, and _es_ has become _se_ with a much > extended range of use similar to that of _a(d)_ in the modern Romance langs.
Again, it depends on definition, what exactly is MG - only Dimotiki, or Katharevousa too? Because my (Neo)Greek-Russian dictionary lists both _en_ and _ek_.
> > Verbs are conjugated as follows: > > salta jumps > > saltare to jump > > saltato jumped > > saltante jumping > > salta! jump! > > </quoting> > > Um - sine flexione??? Or may be it's agglutination - but if so, we shall > surely get some odd forms: > scribe, scribere, *scribeto*, scribente, scribe! > dormi, dormire, dormito, *dorminte*, dormi! > etc. > > _scribeto_ is particularly odd. If LSF had _scripto_ then it ain't 'sine > flexione'.
Agree with all my heart. It's agglutinativity, thus producing rather odd forms.
> >>>A side note - I still miss plurals. The word _polý_ seems a bit > overloaded. > > The Chinese, who are not an inconsiderable number of speakers, get on > fine without it. As do the Japanese, and many others - seems to me that > possible 1/3 of the world's population manage without a grammatical > plural ending. Personally I do not see the problem.
Ok. Plurals are too eurocentric ;) but then Greek is still helluva European :))) All auxlangs like this must die <evil grin>.
> > Yes, I was not clear enough. I knew those were two different groups. > > So, strike out mi-verbs, and take deponent in 3rd form? Like _dínate_? > > Not me - I would assume an active form.
Turning _dynamai_ into _dyni_, pronounced the same as _dini_ 'to give'. Lotsa troubles...
> > Beta-code? > > Yes, it has, i understand, become the de_facto standard for ASCII > notation among classicists. > > >Can you enlighten us about this system? > > See: >
> Philip Newton wrote: > > and the > > ambiguous words are probably not worse than e.g. having both "invalid" > > and "invalid" in English. (For example, "khoros" being either "dance" > > or "place" in modern Greek, or "pisti" being either "faith" or the > > subjunctive of "to be convinced".) > > Umm - one could do as in Russian where the acute accent in used in texts > for learners, but omitted in normal printing.
That may solve the problem. I should only mention, that stress is used even in normal Russian (and Ukrainian) printing when there is need to disambiguate the meanings like _зáмок_ "castle" vs. _замóк_ "lock", or _большѝх_ "big.GEN.PL" vs. _бóльших "greater.GEN.PL".
> > Or just ditch imperfect altogether and simply have a > > future/present/past distinction. Heck, my German idiolect does without > > the imperfect in quite a few cases, substituting the perfect instead. > > Yes, many German dialects do, i understand, and IIRC so does Afrikaans. > Yes, I go along with that suggestion.
Yiddish does the same. Ok, it may work.
> > And either the present subjunctive or the aorist subjunctive, > > depending on aspect (with aorist subjunctive being more common). > > Not if it's 'sine flexion' - we'll have to forget aspect, or show it > some other way, methinks.
Down with aspect!
> >>ACTIVE & PASSIVE > >>here I am stuck. MG still uses synthetic passives. Obviously GSF cannot. > >>All the above, of course, is indicative - no problem. Could the passive > >>be formed using an auxiliary verb such as 'receive' or 'suffer'? > > > > Or "become", as in German? > > Yes, indeed. I quite like it.
Ok, but caveat: _ginomai_ is deponent.
> > On 2/4/06, Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...> wrote: > >>Shall we have different forms for subject and object? > > > > I say yes, on the analogy of, say, English and French. > > Neither language is 'sine flexione', especially French!
No, that was not me!!!
> Like Isaac, I feel I now need a break - besides my Brsc/Piashi is > becoming more and more neglected :=(
Let us shake hands, and wish all the best one to another. Actual conlanging is waiting, to say nothing about the Real Life™... -- Isaac Penzev aka Yitzik