Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>
Date:Sunday, February 5, 2006, 16:05
Philip Newton chi gráfi:

> On 2/4/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote: > > I guess GSF should not distinguish. > > Either that, or use the neuter plural form as an adverb marker.
I would vote for - let it be _polý kalá_
> > If the modern accentuation is used, then it will be necessary, just as > > it is in the modern Greek spelling. > > Bah. I think the position of accent is unambiguous enough - 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".)
If we merge sounds according to the MG pattern, we need to distinguish e.g. between _gráfi_ 'to write' and _grafí_ 'writing' etc.
> > PAST > > MG also has a series of perfect forms, formed by using the verb "to > > have" followed by an invariant verb form (which is the same as the 3rd > > sing. of the present). > > Eh? No, it's the 3rd person singular, sure, but of what used to be > called the aorist subjunctive, not the normal subjunctive. "Exei > grapsei", not "Exei grafei", for example. > > Though for GSF, the simple present form could be used instead -- I > just wanted to correct the misconception about GCF.
Since Ray wants to eliminate aspect distinctions, _chi gráfi_ would work quite OK, I suppose.
> 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.
Nah, imperfect/perfect seems rather necessary in past.
> > INFINITIVES & PARTICIPLES > > MG, as many know, has dispensed with the infinitive, using a clause > > beginning with _na_ instead. > > And either the present subjunctive or the aorist subjunctive, > depending on aspect (with aorist subjunctive being more common).
Do you still want to preserve aspects?
> On 2/4/06, Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...> wrote: > > th hesitates between t and f<T, e.g. > > biblioteka, orfografiya, and, funny teologiya but feofaniya ("theophany"). > > Perhaps based on the date of the borrowing?
Rather on the source: /f/ directly from Greek, /t/ through Latin and/or Polish.
> > To add a particle _méno_ from the participial suffix? > > Sounds like an idea.
Glad you support the suggestion. It is meant to be a particle, not a flexion.
> > A side note - I still miss plurals. > > Yes. Even fairly analytical English has retained them, after all! > > > Any alternative suggestions? Maybe to indicate it with a > > different form of the article, e.g. _tus_? > > Or how about going the neuter route and using the article _ta_ and a > noun ending -a?
Article _ta_ is OK, but if we still need a suffix for pl. on nouns, it may well be _-s_ - see acc. pl.
> > Shall we have different forms for subject and object? > > I say yes, on the analogy of, say, English and French. > > As for position, though, I'd probably put personal pronouns after the > verb, as with normal nouns -- "ego vlepi afton" rather than "ego ton > vlepi"; "ego dini afto se sena" rather than "ego sou to dini".
Hmm, I like the French way more :(
> > Oh yes, what about deponential verbs and verbs in -mi? I see MG mostly > > substitute them. > > I'd vote to integrate the ones in -mi into ones in -o.
As the example above? AG _didomi_ > MG _dino_ > GSF _díni_? Sounds fine.
> > Also the 3rd declension nouns have often changed to > > something more usable in MG: _polis_, > > gen. _poleos_ > _poli_. Shall we use the modeern form, > > or the ancient one? > > Both! > > Modern Greek typically regularised such forms based on the accusative, > so if we do the same, the result is the same. So "N polis, G poleos, A > polin" becomes simply "poli" (accustive -n's being dropped as a > general rule anyway), and "N patir, G patros, A patera" becomes > "patera". Nouns in -tis would become -tita, as in modern Greek. etc. > etc.
Yes, the result is the same, but is the final -i in _polí_ 'city' eta or iota? Shall we still have longer stem in case "N charis, G charitos, A charin" - that is "chari" as in MG, or "charita" by analogy with "elpida"? Ta kaló tató euchís (euchás?), -- Yitzik


Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>