Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>
Date:Saturday, February 4, 2006, 22:05
Now, I find this thread particulary 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.

R A Brown chi gráfi:

> Isaac Penzev wrote: > > But when we are confronted > by AG es ~ MG se, which one wins out? > > > I expected it to be mostly ancient. > > Maybe - tho surely it is sensible to use those reductions that the > modern language has already made.
Makes sense. When I said "ancient variants", I meant first of all nouns, verbs et al., not the structural particles. I would prefer _to (o)íno_, _to (o)íko_, instead of _to krasi_, _to spiti_ etc.
> > R A Brown egrapsei: > > > > > >>Isaac Penzev wrote: > > > > Poly kala! (will it be "poly kalo" in GSF?) Shall we distinguish between
> > and adv.? Maybe again, in Romance manner: "poly kalo-tropo"? > > MG normally uses the neuter plural form as an adverb, tho a few use > neuter sing. I guess GSF should not distinguish.
Agreed. Polý kaló.
> >>That's OK if people have no objections to: > >>- including sounds such as [T], [D] and [G]; > > > > We may come to a compromise: I would suggest modern vowels, but ancient > > consonants, except, probably, making ph [f], th [T] and ch [x]. At least
this is
> > the way people read Greek here, in Slavic lands ;) > > That means that eta, which is traditionally Romanized as _e_ gets > pronounced /i/. But > if you allow ph [f], th [T] and ch [x], you might just as well IMO have > the full modern pronunciation - it is at least Greek.
You may know better. I'm just judging by the form Greek loans have in Russian. b/d/g remain intact, ph/ch > f/x, th hesitates between t and f<T, e.g. biblioteka, orfografiya, and, funny teologiya but feofaniya ("theophany").
> > Roman alphabet may be an optional alternative. Just using the traditional > > transliteration. To mark stress with an acute (if necessary) - > > If the modern accentuation is used, then it will be necessary, just as > it is in the modern Greek spelling.
Let it be so.
> >>There is no dative in modern Greek and, yes, they have employed "es/eis" > >>for some its uses, except that in the modern language the preposition > >>has become 'se'. > > > > > > This is THE way :)) > > Yes, it must be if it is 'sine flexione' :)
Since the prep. "eis" will be used mostly before the article, it can easily contract to 's, as it indeed does in MG. To contract "apó" is not so easy - I would suggest _apó to_ > _pot'_
> > What shall we do with the verbs, then?? > > Personal endings obviously go, as they have in some modern European > langs. Subject is expressed by a noun or pronoun.
Is the stem form 3sn then? Gráfi, agapá etc.?
> (The pluses below are 'white space', of course) > FUTURE > MG forms the future by using the particle /Ta/ followed by the non-past > form (traditionally called 'subjunctive') of either the 'present' or > 'aorist' depending upon whether we want an imperfective or perfective > meaning. Now, obviously Isaac is quite at home with the two futures,
Indeed I am :)))
> but > many of us might feel this is complication. I suggest a single future: > Subject + Ta + invariable verb
> PRESENT > MG has only one indicative form (identical with the subjunctive BTW). I > suggest: > Subject + invariable verb
> PAST > MG has two synthetic past tenses: imperfect and aorist. These are, in > fact, the past tense forms of the two aspectual stems. Many languages > make similar distinctions and I think GSF should also do. It would seem > logical to use a particle in a similar way to /Ta/ for the future. But what? > 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). As we may want to keep the full form of "have' > with its proper meaning 'to possess', I suggest a shortened /xi/ [Ci] > which has the same CV shape as the future particle /Ta/. I suggest that: > subject + /xi/ + invariant verb - has the same two meaning that the > French 'passé composé has', i.e. xi grafi = wrote/ has written.
> 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.
I feel pity for the participles :( Russian has 4 of them, plus 2 converbs. But since Ukrainian has only 1 particple ("past passive"), I can live with the way you suggest. "Was" in AG was _e:n_, so I would keep the form _in_.
> 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.
> INFINITIVES & PARTICIPLES > MG, as many know, has dispensed with the infinitive, using a clause > beginning with _na_ instead. Clearly, if we are to remain flexionless, > we must do the same.
OK. Shall we use the particle after modal verbs?
> Participles are strictly unnecessary as we can always use a relative > clause instead - and the MG relative pronoun _pou_ /pu/ is invariable :)
> 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'?
To add a particle _méno_ from the participial suffix?
> BTW Isaac wrote: > [[[ in Reply to Andreas Johansson: > Isn't there a Slavic-derived > auxlang too? Called Slovio or some such? > > - It is, and as a L1-Slavic speaker, I find it really really ugly. ]]] > > Methinks, a L1-Greek speaker may well find GSF really ugly ;)
> Ray
Ray, you did a great job! The outline seems very reasonable. I feel it may work (for fun, of course). The term "fauxlang" fits it. 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_? Oh yes, if we stick to modern pronunciation, 1pl and 2pl pronouns collapse. Shall we follow the laid path of MG? Shall we have different forms for subject and object? -- Isaac (aka Yitzik)


Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>
R A Brown <ray@...>