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

R A Brown grapsa:

> Hanuman Zhang wrote:
> > on 2/2/06 8:52 PM, R A Brown at ray@CAROLANDRAY.PLUS.COM wrote:
> >
> >>taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>Graeca sine flexione, now that's a language that needs to be made!
> >>>Any takers?
Ah, how lovely! May I play in this sandbox too?

> > EEK! Eh?, Graeca sine flexione sounds bit too much like Glosa, the
> > auxlang...
>
>     :-D
>
> That was my first reaction also!
Non-euroclonic auxlangs may be fun too, if people do not occupy with
proselytizing, but treat them as artlangs...

> > then again Glosa's roots are about 1/3 Latin.
>
> Yes, there is quite a bit of Latin derived stuff there as well. Also it
> doesn't always treat Greek derivations with respect; for example _onyma_
> (gen. onymatos) becomes the almost unrecognizable _nima_ with arbitrary
> loss of initial vowel.
Now, that's sad... Then I think GSF should be more consistent.

==============

> taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> [snip]
> > Graeca sine flexione, now that's a language that needs to be made!
> > Any takers?
>
> Well, the obvious form for the nouns IMO is the modern acc. singular
> (without, of course, the final -n that Katharevousa would like us to add
> to certain forms).
Agreed.

> Obviously if there are no flexions, we have no grammatical gender
> agreement,
What about number then, if there are no flexions?

> but that poses a slight problem with adjectives. Which form
> do we take? IIRC Peano simply adopted the masc. & neuter ablative
> singular. Where the adjectives already have a common form for masc. &
> fem., the acc. singular should be taken; I guess where there is a
> difference, the common masc. & neuter sing. should prevail.
For aesthetic reasons I would have taken the fem. form, but I don't think it is
consistent, as there is a good lot of adjectives that do not distinguish
masc./neut. and fem.

> That means
> the definite article is _to_  :)
>
> Yes, I think the article should be kept - it's been around for four
> millennia, so I think it's earnt its place   :)
Agreed.

> The modern language has gone a long way in simplifying the complicated
> verbal system of ancient Greek - but I'll not go on.....
Since I know next to nothing about Modern Greek, I'd love to hear certain
considerations...

> However, I can see some possible problems over agreeing on an
> orthography & phonology     ;)
Phonology? Why? Can't it be Byzantine, if people can read e.g. the NT texts,
using it?
Orthography - skip the aspirations and unify the stresses, and here you are   ;)
The *real* problem is - what shall we do with the Genitive???

Don't take all the said above too seriously,
it's only a game :)))))))
(esp. since I'll be able to reply only after the Sabbath is over)

-- Yitzik,
in Hanumanish moods...

Replies