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 interestedin
> > aposteriori conlanging. My own ideas are already rapidly driving away fromGSF
> > to something other, like, e.g. a Greco-Romance-whatever mish-mash fantasy,
> > preserving minimal flexion as, e.g. Spanish does... I may elaborate itfurther.
> 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*
Verbs are conjugated as follows:
saltare to jump
> > A side note - I still miss plurals. The word _polý_ seems a bit overloaded.Any
> > 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'.
> > 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 ;)
sn: me / se / autó / autí
> 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
> > 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
> 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.
> 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?
With all respect,