Isaac Penzev wrote:

> Hanuman Zhang egrapse:
>>on 2/3/06 8:03 PM, R A Brown at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>I think that one of the fundamental things that would need to be decided
>>>in a "Graeca sine flexione" is whether the 'Graeca' is (essentially)
>>>ancient or modern.
>>Oh why not a dogged, mongrel-mutt Greco-mix of both commonly recognizable
>>roots ancient and modern?

That's the way it has been going, certainly. 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.

> ====================
> R A Brown egrapsei:
>>Isaac Penzev wrote:
>>>Ah, how lovely! May I play in this sandbox too?
>>I assume it's open to everyone.
> Poly kala! (will it be "poly kalo" in GSF?) Shall we distinguish between adj.
> 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.


>>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.

> 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.

it can easily be
> typed from US-Int or Spanish keyboard layout.


>>Yes, I was not clear what Isaac meant, and rather fancied he meant the
> I meant the Modern Greek approach.
See above.

>>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'  :)

> ========
> Too much to comment after the whole day of conversation.
> What shall we do with the verbs, then??
> Anyway, it is real fun! Sas eucharisto poly!

Personal endings obviously go, as they have in some modern European 
langs. Subject is expressed by a noun or pronoun.

OK - MG has abandoned the future & perfect tense systems of AG, so we 
drop them also.

It keeps the distinction between 'present stem' & 'aorist stem' tenses; 
this is aspectual, similar to the imperfective ~ perfective distinction 
in the Slav langs. We cannot do this in a flexionless lang, but we'll 
consider it when we consider tenses below.

(The pluses below are 'white space', of course)
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, but 
many of us might feel this is complication. I suggest a single future:
Subject + Ta + invariable verb

MG has only one indicative form (identical with the subjunctive BTW). I 
Subject + invariable verb

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 'passť composť 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.

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.

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.

Participles are strictly unnecessary as we can always use a relative 
clause instead - and the MG relative pronoun _pou_ /pu/ is invariable  :)

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'?

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   ;)

[log in to unmask]