Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>
Date:Sunday, February 5, 2006, 10:21
R A Brown wrote:

> Isaac Penzev wrote: > > Now, I find this thread particulary inspiring for those who are interested
> > aposteriori conlanging. My own ideas are already rapidly driving away from
> > 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
> > That may be a more satisfactory creation. I cannot say I am really sold > on Greek with no flexions.
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...
> I have just been thinking what it might look > like & what I would do if I really had to produced such a language.
> >"Was" in AG was _e:n_, so I would keep the form _in_. > > 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.
> > OK. Shall we use the particle after modal verbs? > > I guess so.
> >>All the above, of course, is indicative - no problem. Could the passive > >>be formed using an auxiliary verb such as 'receive' or 'suffer'? > > > > To add a particle _méno_ from the participial suffix? > > Doesn't that make _méno_ a flexion? Introducing participle by the back > door. If it were added to the 'invariant' form, we would get some very > un-Greek formation, e.g. grafimeno = written. OK, GSF is already quite > un-Greek looking, but.....
I give up :(
> I just feel that this would be compromising the 'sine flexione' notion. > BTW How does 'Latrino 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>
> > A side note - I still miss plurals. The word _polý_ seems a bit overloaded.
> > alternative suggestions? Maybe to indicate it with a different form of the > > article, e.g. _tus_? > > to ~ ta - but that's another move away from 'sine flexione'.
Yes :(
> > Oh yes, if we stick to modern pronunciation, 1pl and 2pl pronouns collapse. > > Shall we follow the laid path of MG? > > That thought occurred to me also. But I have kept quiet. yes, in the > modern language, the plurals are derived from the singular _by flexion_ ;) > > If GSF is flexionless this has to be re-thought.
Well, agglutinativity is not flexion, is it? ;)
> >Shall we have different forms for subject and object? > > Why? Many eurolclone auxlangs do not do so, nor do the modern Celtic > langs ;)
So, sn: me / se / autó / autí pl: ???
> Isaac Penzev wrote: > > Oh yes, what about deponential verbs and verbs in -mi? > > Deponent verbs ended in -mai, as they still do in modern Greek. The -mi > verbs were a very small group and clearly destined to be reformed as, > indeed, they have been. It would IMO be perverse to re-introduce after > they've disappeared for some 2 thousand years.
Yes, I was not clear enough. I knew those were two different groups. So, strike out mi-verbs, and take deponent in 3sn form? Like _dínate_?
> > Also the 3rd declension nouns have often changed to something more > usable in MG: > > _polis_, gen. _poleos_ > _poli_. Shall we use the modern form, or the > ancient > > one? > > We take the accusative with the final -n, i.e. _poli_. The question is > whether the final -i is spelled with iota in the ancient fashion or eta > in the modern fashion. Also are we happy with _poli_ and _poly_ being > homophones? ;)
I don't know. I think I need to try smth else.
> Paul Bennett wrote: > > > > Can I recommend, if you're going to romanize, that you rationalize the > > romanization a bit? > > The problem is, of course, that we're still fluctuating between ancient > spelling and modern pronunciation. I think if we were doing this as a > serious exercise we would be better adopting a strict system of > _transliteration_ with notes on the (probable) ancient pronunciation and > the modern one.
Yes, I'd rather go with _transliteration_.
> > I don't know whether to recommend rationalizing the vowels. I just > > don't know Greek to know how much it would screw up paradigms and > whatnot. > > Exactly - for example, in Isaac's 'polis' example, it really would be > preferable IMO to have a system whereby eta and iota are not both > written as |i| as we discuss which form to adopt.
Mea culpa.
> 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? Can you enlighten us about this system?
> Maybe if the GSF thread continues, we might use it rather than continue > with our sort of ancient-modern compromise?
I agree. With all respect, -- Isaac