Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:R A Brown <ray@...>
Date:Sunday, February 5, 2006, 15:11
Isaac Penzev wrote:
> Paul Bennett chi gráfi: > > >>Can I recommend, if you're going to romanize, that you rationalize the >>romanization a bit? > > > We have not yet come to consensus wrt pronunciation and, as a result of it, > spelling.
Very true - even if we do reach more or less consensus, there'll be one or dissatisfied. That seems to be the problem with langs developed by ad_hoc groups.
> So I use spontaneous presentation of the words while I'm thinking > about this or that issue: sometimes it is transcription, sometimes it is > transliteration, sometime a wild mix of both - the key is that the person who > knows Greek, will recognize the word.
I think, altho this is not helpful for those who know little or no Greek, it is almost inevitable with GSF in the state it is.
>>You could, for instance have b, d, g for μπ, ντ, γκ >>and bh, dh, gh for β, δ, γ. > > As Ray has explained, the phonemic status of voiced stops in MG is controversal. > My proposals wrt consonants in GSL was explained in one of the previous msgs.
Quite so. Using |b d g| in this way might imply taking sides so to speak. Moreover, it is not helpful IMO to write _dyo_ if we're thinking AG, and _dhyo_ if we're thinking MG, especially as the word is written the same way! More over if |d| sometimes represents MG [(n)d], there is considerable scope for confusion. I don't think there is a satisfactory solution at present unless we adopt a strict system of transliteration. ========================================== Isaac Penzev wrote: [snip] >>In the Attic dialect it was /E:n/, but in Koine we find both /e:n/ and >>/e:to/. Personally I would have preferred a CV shape particle, but _to_ >>has already been used as the definite article. > > Some prepositions will be VC, anyway: _en_, _ek_, _is_. The particle _in_ would fit the picture. 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. 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. [snip] >>I just feel that this would be compromising the 'sine flexione' notion. >>BTW How does 'Latino sine flexione' handle the passive? > > Don't know about the passive, but the site I found one day (don't remember the > URL, but I have it downloaded and saved on my comp) clearly shows LSF is *not* > purely isolating: > > <quoting> > 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'. >>>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. I agree _poly_ would be overloaded if it came to be used as _plu_ seems to be used in all the Glosa texts I've read. But that is _not_ something I would advocate. [snip] >>If GSF is flexionless this has to be re-thought. > > Well, agglutinativity is not flexion, is it? ;) I guess not. Agglutinativity was the way Volapük and Esperanto went. Those who have devised versions of 'Esperanto sine flexione' obviously think that E-o is sort of flexional. BTW, I do not ever recall seeing a 'Volapük sine flexione'. Does any such beast exist? [snip] > > 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. [snip] > >>Oh, yes - before someone writes in - yes, I do know there is a >>transliteration system adopted by those who spend all their time >>discussing Greek, but AFAIK it has not been used on this list. > > 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: > (Re-sent to the list because Ray didn't put a reply-to warning and I > didn't check before sending!) Mea culpa! Sent it off in too much of a rush - I normally make sure my mailer has set the reply-to correctly, hence no warning. But I forgot to this time :=( [snip] >> >>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 - Not sure everyone would agree with you. > 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. [snip] >>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. You're right, of course. I said I wrote the mail in a hurry :=( > Though for GSF, the simple present form could be used instead -- I > just wanted to correct the misconception about GCF. OK. >>The Tsakonian dialect forms the imperfect by using the past tense of "to >>be" with the present participle. A flexionless language does not have >>participles, of course. "was" in MG is /itan/; I suppose we could >>shorten it to /tan/ as a preverbal particle. >> >>For the invariable verb form, the obvious thing is surely to use exactly >>the same as MG does with "have", i.e. 3rd sing. of pres. indicative. > > > 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. > >>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). Not if it's 'sine flexion' - we'll have to forget aspect, or show it some other way, methinks. >>Participles are strictly unnecessary as we can always use a relative >>clause instead - and the MG relative pronoun _pou_ /pu/ is invariable :) > > And the present participle is fairly dead in MG as well, at least in > adjectival use -- I think it's only used adverbially, as in "singing, > the boy entered the room" but not "the singing boy". It is dead as far as adjectival use is concerned (except perhaps in some 'purer than purest' Katharevousa). Personally I think the active adverbial form would better term 'gerund' than 'participle' - but that doesn't affect GSF. > >>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. > On 2/4/06, Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...> wrote: [snip] > >>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! > 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". I agree with that - but _not_ with separate nominative & oblique forms. Even Latino sine flexione does not do that - nor does Welsh :) It seems an unnecessary use of flexions, to me. ================================= I wonder how much more milage (or kilometrage) there is to be gained from continuing the thread in this form. I think it is unlikely we would actually agree on all points. I think Isaac was right when he wrote: {quote} >Now, I find this thread particularly inspiring for those who are interested in > aposteriori conlanging. My own ideas are already rapidly driving away from GSF > to something other, like, e.g. a Greco-Romance-whatever mish-mash fantasy, > preserving minimal flexion as, e.g. Spanish does... I may elaborate it further. .......
> I feel the same. It was fun, it was inspiring, now I feel I need a break. Maybe > I'll try the develop the idea mentioned above: a mashed toylang, stealing most > of its vocabulary from Greek: I love creating grammar much more than pulling > words from the air...
{unquote} 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. Like Isaac, I feel I now need a break - besides my Brsc/Piashi is becoming more and more neglected :=( -- Ray ================================== ================================== MAKE POVERTY HISTORY


Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>