There are 9 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. OT: Empaths?
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Translations: work slogans (was Re: Which language is this? (once
again))
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Translations: work slogans (was Re: Which language is this? (once
again))
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Alienable/inalienable possession
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 00:03:36 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT: Empaths?
As a potentially complete tangent: do any of you happen to be empaths?
Briefly (and crudely) defined, this is basically someone who feels
others' emotions in an unusually... direct way. != sympathy. You would
probably know if you are.
I know at least a couple conlangers other than me who are, and
wondering whether this was another of those odd convergences (viz. the
gay population) or just a coincidence of my acquaintance.
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 08:41:01 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)
Isaac Penzev wrote:
> 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.
That may be a more satisfactory creation. I cannot say I am really sold
on Greek with no flexions. I have just been thinking what it might look
like & what I would do if I really had to produced such a language.
[snip]
>
> 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.
Something similar went on in Greek itself last century as Katharevousa
competed with Demotiki. On the words above, Demotiki has won out. I
think the reduction of so many ancient vowels to /i/ has been partly
responsible for creating forms that avoid homophones.
[snip]
>
>>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_.
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.
[snip]
>
>>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?
I guess so.
>
>>Participles are strictly unnecessary as we can always use a relative
>>clause instead - and the MG relative pronoun _pou_ /pu/ is invariable :)
>
>
> Great.
>
>
>>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?
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 just feel that this would be compromising the 'sine flexione' notion.
BTW How does 'Latrino sine flexione' handle the passive?
[snip]
>
> 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.
Definitely only for fun.
> 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.
>Shall we have different forms for subject and object?
Why? Many eurolclone auxlangs do not do so, nor do the modern Celtic
langs ;)
============================================
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.
[snip]
> 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? ;)
==============================
Paul Bennett wrote:
[snip]
>
> 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.
[snip]
>
> 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.
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.
Maybe if the GSF thread continues, we might use it rather than continue
with our sort of ancient-modern compromise?
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:11:21 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)
Paul Bennett chi gráfi:
> Can I recommend, if you're going to romanize, that you rationalize the
> romanization a bit?
We have not yet come to consensus wrt pronunciation and, as a result of it,
spelling. So I use spontaneous presentation of the words while I'm thinking
about this or that issue: sometimes it is transcription, sometimes it is
transliteration, sometime a wild mix of both - the key is that the person who
knows Greek, will recognize the word.
> You could, for instance have b, d, g for μÏ, νÏ, γκ
> and bh, dh, gh for β, δ, γ.
As Ray has explained, the phonemic status of voiced stops in MG is controversal.
My proposals wrt consonants in GSL was explained in one of the previous msgs.
> 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.
We screw 'em up anyway. It is Graeca sine flexione, all in all...
-- Isaac
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:20:07 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)
R A Brown wrote:
> Isaac Penzev wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Understood.
> >"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.
Ok.
> >>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.
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'.
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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 13:02:18 +0100
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)
(Re-sent to the list because Ray didn't put a reply-to warning and I
didn't check before sending!)
On 2/4/06, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MG normally uses the neuter plural form as an adverb, tho a few use
> neuter sing.
I can only think of "poly" at the moment that does that.
> I guess GSF should not distinguish.
Either that, or use the neuter plural form as an adverb marker.
> > 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.
Bah. I think the position of accent is unambiguous enough - and the
ambiguous words are probably not worse than e.g. having both "invalid"
and "invalid" in English. (For example, "khoros" being either "dance"
or "place" in modern Greek, or "pisti" being either "faith" or the
subjunctive of "to be convinced".)
> 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).
Eh? No, it's the 3rd person singular, sure, but of what used to be
called the aorist subjunctive, not the normal subjunctive. "Exei
grapsei", not "Exei grafei", for example.
Though for GSF, the simple present form could be used instead -- I
just wanted to correct the misconception about GCF.
> 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.
>
> 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.
Or just ditch imperfect altogether and simply have a
future/present/past distinction. Heck, my German idiolect does without
the imperfect in quite a few cases, substituting the perfect instead.
> INFINITIVES & PARTICIPLES
> MG, as many know, has dispensed with the infinitive, using a clause
> beginning with _na_ instead.
And either the present subjunctive or the aorist subjunctive,
depending on aspect (with aorist subjunctive being more common).
> Participles are strictly unnecessary as we can always use a relative
> clause instead - and the MG relative pronoun _pou_ /pu/ is invariable :)
And the present participle is fairly dead in MG as well, at least in
adjectival use -- I think it's only used adverbially, as in "singing,
the boy entered the room" but not "the singing boy".
> 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'?
Or "become", as in German? I know that device is used to form the
passive of "receive", which is morphologically passive -- "dexomai" is
"receive", and "ginomai dektos" (literally, "become received") is "be
received".
On 2/4/06, Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> th hesitates between t and f<T, e.g.
> biblioteka, orfografiya, and, funny teologiya but feofaniya ("theophany").
Perhaps based on the date of the borrowing?
European H also seems to vary between g ~ kh, depending on the date of
the borrowing, with earlier loans having G and later ones having KH.
> To add a particle _méno_ from the participial suffix?
Sounds like an idea.
> A side note - I still miss plurals.
Yes. Even fairly analytical English has retained them, after all!
> Any alternative suggestions? Maybe to indicate it with a
> different form of the article, e.g. _tus_?
Or how about going the neuter route and using the article _ta_ and a
noun ending -a?
> Shall we have different forms for subject and object?
I say yes, on the analogy of, say, English and French.
As for position, though, I'd probably put personal pronouns after the
verb, as with normal nouns -- "ego vlepi afton" rather than "ego ton
vlepi"; "ego dini afto se sena" rather than "ego sou to dini".
> Oh yes, what about deponential verbs and verbs in -mi? I see MG mostly
> substitute them.
I'd vote to integrate the ones in -mi into ones in -o.
> Also the 3rd declension nouns have often changed to
> something more usable in MG: _polis_,
> gen. _poleos_ > _poli_. Shall we use the modeern form,
> or the ancient one?
Both!
Modern Greek typically regularised such forms based on the accusative,
so if we do the same, the result is the same. So "N polis, G poleos, A
polin" becomes simply "poli" (accustive -n's being dropped as a
general rule anyway), and "N patir, G patros, A patera" becomes
"patera". Nouns in -tis would become -tita, as in modern Greek. etc.
etc.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:31:45 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Translations: work slogans (was Re: Which language is this? (once
again))
On 2/4/06, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Reed wrote:
> > Now I"m going to play "Name That Language!" I bet I can name that
> > language in ten words! As I'll be operating with no Google, though, I
> > expect to get a lot of them wrong. :)
>
> Pretty close to an A--- except
> >
> > > Det ved jeg ikke. Jeg arbejder her bare.
> > Dutch
> NOT. Danish I suspect, maybe Norwegian; see below....
D'oh!. Should have realized that. Now that I'm paying attention, it
definitely looks like part of the Dano-Norwegio-Swedish continuum, in
which case, by process of elimination, my guess must be Danish. (IIRC,
Norsk would have "vet" rather than "ved", but I could potentially have
that backwards. In any case, Svenska has "jag" rather than "jeg" for
"I").
> > > Geen idee. Ik werk hier alleen maar.
> > Afrikaans?
> I'd say Dutch, but colloquially there may not be a lot of difference.
Yeah, I only guessed Afrikaans because I thought there was already a
Dutch entry. :)
> Two or three still don't come thru to me, so I'll give you Japanese, Chinese
> and Korean. But AFAIC they could be Georgian, Armenian, Tamil, Khmer,
> Burmese, Aramaic or Cherokee or Deseret.......;-)))
Heh. Those came through here, and kana and Hangeul make their
respective languages' identification pretty certain. Which leaves the
entry with nothing but Han characters to be Chinese by default.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 08:23:13 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Translations: work slogans (was Re: Which language is this? (once
again))
On 2/4/06, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest a translation challenge for maybe a selection of those
> work-oriented slogans. I'd like to invite you to translate the following
> into your conlangs:
>
> Discover life. (I don't know whether this was originally work-oriented,
In gzb:
zunq kax-i tru-zox mwe.
life ATT-at find-V.ACT IMP
Toki Pona:
o lukin e ali!
(Could also mean "look at everything!")
Volapük:
Letuvolöd lifi!
Le-tuv-ol-öd lif-i!
AUG-find-2-IMP life-ACC
> None of us is a strong as all of us. (Based on the original, I'd suggest a
> more or less culturally suitable thematic translation rather that a tight
> word-for-word attempt)
In gzb, fairly literal:
kix'hxu-van saxm-box kq-tq-mq muw-i max bax-box
strong-V.STATE same-ADJ 1-2-3 subset-at person zero-ADJ
txe kq-tq-mq pen miq-i.
COMP 1-2-3 all TOP-at
gzb forms "we" pronouns by compounding first-person with
second and/or third person pronouns.
Toki Pona:
jan wan li wawa lili. mi mute ali li wawa mute.
person one VERB strong little. 1P many all VERB strong much.
I'm not sure offhand how to do comparatives in Volapük.
> I don't know, I only work here. (If you don't use this at least once a
> day, you're not trying hard enough)
gzb:
ce miq-i kun-van henx. tyn koq i dxurm-zox zqoqnx.
this TOP-at know-v.STATE not. place this at work-V.ACT merely
Toki Pona:
mi sona ala. mi pali taso lon ma ni.
I know not. I work only at place this.
Volapük:
No sevob. Vobob te is.
not know-1. work-1 only here.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:48:17 +0100
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alienable/inalienable possession
Tom Chappell wrote:
> --- In [email protected], Carsten Becker
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi there,
<snip>
Tom? I know that I wrote that. There wasn't any answer
included. So, what did you want to say?
Carsten Becker
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 15:13:59 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT Graeca sine flexione (was: Greek plosives)
Isaac Penzev wrote:
> Paul Bennett chi gráfi:
>
>
>>Can I recommend, if you're going to romanize, that you rationalize the
>>romanization a bit?
>
>
> We have not yet come to consensus wrt pronunciation and, as a result of it,
> spelling.
Very true - even if we do reach more or less consensus, there'll be one
or dissatisfied. That seems to be the problem with langs developed by
ad_hoc groups.
> So I use spontaneous presentation of the words while I'm thinking
> about this or that issue: sometimes it is transcription, sometimes it is
> transliteration, sometime a wild mix of both - the key is that the person who
> knows Greek, will recognize the word.
I think, altho this is not helpful for those who know little or no
Greek, it is almost inevitable with GSF in the state it is.
>>You could, for instance have b, d, g for μÏ, νÏ, γκ
>>and bh, dh, gh for β, δ, γ.
>
> As Ray has explained, the phonemic status of voiced stops in MG is
> controversal.
> My proposals wrt consonants in GSL was explained in one of the previous msgs.
Quite so. Using |b d g| in this way might imply taking sides so to
speak. Moreover, it is not helpful IMO to write _dyo_ if we're thinking
AG, and _dhyo_ if we're thinking MG, especially as the word is written
the same way! More over if |d| sometimes represents MG [(n)d], there is
considerable scope for confusion.
I don't think there is a satisfactory solution at present unless we
adopt a strict system of transliteration.
==========================================
Isaac Penzev wrote:
[snip]
>>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.
If the AG forms are retained. Even then it is not so simple as both _es_
and _eis_ are used in the ancient language. Which do we pick, and why.
In MG _en_ and _ek_ have gone, and _es_ has become _se_ with a much
extended range of use similar to that of _a(d)_ in the modern Romance langs.
[snip]
>>I just feel that this would be compromising the 'sine flexione' notion.
>>BTW How does 'Latino 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>
Um - sine flexione??? Or may be it's agglutination - but if so, we shall
surely get some odd forms:
scribe, scribere, *scribeto*, scribente, scribe!
dormi, dormire, dormito, *dorminte*, dormi!
etc.
_scribeto_ is particularly odd. If LSF had _scripto_ then it ain't 'sine
flexione'.
>>>A side note - I still miss plurals. The word _polý_ seems a bit
overloaded.
The Chinese, who are not an inconsiderable number of speakers, get on
fine without it. As do the Japanese, and many others - seems to me that
possible 1/3 of the world's population manage without a grammatical
plural ending. Personally I do not see the problem.
I agree _poly_ would be overloaded if it came to be used as _plu_ seems
to be used in all the Glosa texts I've read. But that is _not_ something
I would advocate.
[snip]
>>If GSF is flexionless this has to be re-thought.
>
> Well, agglutinativity is not flexion, is it? ;)
I guess not. Agglutinativity was the way Volapük and Esperanto went.
Those who have devised versions of 'Esperanto sine flexione' obviously
think that E-o is sort of flexional. BTW, I do not ever recall seeing a
'Volapük sine flexione'. Does any such beast exist?
[snip]
>
> Yes, I was not clear enough. I knew those were two different groups.
> So, strike out mi-verbs, and take deponent in 3rd form? Like _dínate_?
Not me - I would assume an active form.
[snip]
>
>>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?
Yes, it has, i understand, become the de_facto standard for ASCII
notation among classicists.
>Can you enlighten us about this system?
See:
http://www.tlg.uci.edu/BetaCode.html
=========================================
Philip Newton wrote:
> (Re-sent to the list because Ray didn't put a reply-to warning and I
> didn't check before sending!)
Mea culpa! Sent it off in too much of a rush - I normally make sure my
mailer has set the reply-to correctly, hence no warning. But I forgot to
this time :=(
[snip]
>>
>>If the modern accentuation is used, then it will be necessary, just as
>>it is in the modern Greek spelling.
>
>
> Bah. I think the position of accent is unambiguous enough -
Not sure everyone would agree with you.
> and the
> ambiguous words are probably not worse than e.g. having both "invalid"
> and "invalid" in English. (For example, "khoros" being either "dance"
> or "place" in modern Greek, or "pisti" being either "faith" or the
> subjunctive of "to be convinced".)
Umm - one could do as in Russian where the acute accent in used in texts
for learners, but omitted in normal printing.
[snip]
>>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).
>
> Eh? No, it's the 3rd person singular, sure, but of what used to be
> called the aorist subjunctive, not the normal subjunctive. "Exei
> grapsei", not "Exei grafei", for example.
You're right, of course. I said I wrote the mail in a hurry :=(
> Though for GSF, the simple present form could be used instead -- I
> just wanted to correct the misconception about GCF.
OK.
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Or just ditch imperfect altogether and simply have a
> future/present/past distinction. Heck, my German idiolect does without
> the imperfect in quite a few cases, substituting the perfect instead.
Yes, many German dialects do, i understand, and IIRC so does Afrikaans.
Yes, I go along with that suggestion.
>
>>INFINITIVES & PARTICIPLES
>>MG, as many know, has dispensed with the infinitive, using a clause
>>beginning with _na_ instead.
>
> And either the present subjunctive or the aorist subjunctive,
> depending on aspect (with aorist subjunctive being more common).
Not if it's 'sine flexion' - we'll have to forget aspect, or show it
some other way, methinks.
>>Participles are strictly unnecessary as we can always use a relative
>>clause instead - and the MG relative pronoun _pou_ /pu/ is invariable :)
>
> And the present participle is fairly dead in MG as well, at least in
> adjectival use -- I think it's only used adverbially, as in "singing,
> the boy entered the room" but not "the singing boy".
It is dead as far as adjectival use is concerned (except perhaps in some
'purer than purest' Katharevousa). Personally I think the active
adverbial form would better term 'gerund' than 'participle' - but that
doesn't affect GSF.
>
>>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'?
>
> Or "become", as in German?
Yes, indeed. I quite like it.
> On 2/4/06, Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
>>Shall we have different forms for subject and object?
>
> I say yes, on the analogy of, say, English and French.
Neither language is 'sine flexione', especially French!
> As for position, though, I'd probably put personal pronouns after the
> verb, as with normal nouns -- "ego vlepi afton" rather than "ego ton
> vlepi"; "ego dini afto se sena" rather than "ego sou to dini".
I agree with that - but _not_ with separate nominative & oblique forms.
Even Latino sine flexione does not do that - nor does Welsh :)
It seems an unnecessary use of flexions, to me.
=================================
I wonder how much more milage (or kilometrage) there is to be gained
from continuing the thread in this form. I think it is unlikely we would
actually agree on all points. I think Isaac was right when he wrote:
{quote}
>Now, I find this thread particularly 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.
.......
> 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...
{unquote}
I feel we've give this quite an airing, shown how the sort of way it
could go and also thrown up some of the problems involved. I feel we
have, may be, given ideas for possible conlangs.
Like Isaac, I feel I now need a break - besides my Brsc/Piashi is
becoming more and more neglected :=(
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
