Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>
Date:Friday, February 3, 2006, 10:10
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).
> 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 :)
> 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...


Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
R A Brown <ray@...>