R A Brown wrote:
> But we also have αλεκτοριδεύ (chick) and αλωπεκιδεύ (fox-cub), correctly 
> derived from ancient forms, but formed with the suffix -ιδεύ (the 
> 'ancestor' of Esperanto's -id-) which is normally used as a patronymic 
> (rather like 'mac-' in Gaelic names, or -son in English surnames); it is 
> rather as though we were to say in English 'Cockson' (or in US English 
> 'Roosterson') and 'Foxson'!


Another senior moment   :(

The ancient Greek patronymic suffix was -(ί)δης, _not_ -ιδεύς. Therefore 
AG ἀλεκτοριδεύς and ἀλωπεκιδεύς are certainly not like "cockson" and 
"foxson"! Indeed, it would seem, looking carefully, that -ιδεύς did 
denote 'the young of'.

Philip Newton wrote:
 > 2008/12/15 R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>:
 >> In the calendar, we have the suffix -άριο in ζωάριο (little 
animal[s]), and
 >> -ίσκο in αιλουρίσκο (kitten) and χηνίσκο (gosling). ζωάριο and χηνίσκο
 >> derive from actually attested ancient forms; αιλουρίσκο is AFAIK a TAKE
 >> neologism, but quite reasonably formed.
 > Yes, IIRC it's a form I made up. (Also χηνίσκο, strictly speaking; my
 > dictionary only gave a certain prow shape on a boat as the meaning for
 > that word, not "gosling".)

Yes, on checking again, you're right. It's merely listed in Liddell & 
Scott as a diminutive of χήν (goose), but the only attested uses of the 
word are six instances where it denotes the top of a ship's stern-post 
in the shape of a goose's head and neck, one instance where it refers to 
an ornament on a bowl, and one where it refers to a part of a machine 
(presumably because the part resembled the shape of a goose) - but *no* 
instances where it actually meant a gosling!

However, I find that χηνιδεύς (gosling) is actually attested. So, sorry, 
the TAKE gosling must be χηνιδεύ.

 >> Now, remembering that Josephos Peanou *there* was somewhat more 
radical than
 >> Giuseppe Peano was *here* as regards verb forms, would JP be more 
 >> and adopt a more strictly 'auxlangy' attitude to these suffixes in TAKE?
 >> What I mean is, would he have give:
 >> -ίο (or possibly) -άριο - diminutive suffix (little)
 > If he did go the simplifying route, I wonder whether he would have use
 > only -ίο or only ΄-ιο, or whether he would have mixed the two
 > depending on what was actually used in Ancient Greek

He would not have mixed the two if he were going along the simplifying 
route. My own feeling is that he'd probably have settled for -άριον, but 
I haven't been able to check that out yet    ;)

 >> If he adopted a strict use of suffixes, would he have retained those 
 >> where the young has a different word from the adult (like, e.g. in 
 >> we have 'sheep' ~ 'lamb')? I.e. should 'lamb' be αρνό (as given on the
 >> calendar) or προβατίσκο <-- πρόβατο (sheep). _My_ inclination is to 
 >> αρνό - but I'm not JP   ;)
 > I just had a thought that one might have a doublet αρνό "Lamb" (in a
 > religious context) ~ προβάτιο/προβατίσκο "lamb" (in a secular
 > context)... but then I thought that would be plausible in a natlang
 > but less so in an auxlang, which is what JP was trying to create.

Yes - but I'm now fairly certain that with certain domestic animals 
where there was a separate word for the young, as in the case of 'lamb', 
JP would retain the separate word; it's only where derivation is used 
that he might regularize the suffix.

I've checked more closely on παιδίσκος/ παιδίσκη (young boy/ young girl) 
and νεανίσκος/ νεανίσκη (young man/ young lady). They are essentially 
diminutive as they do convey ideas of endearment (usually) or contempt, 
e.g. παιδίσκη is found meaning 'whore' as well as 'maiden, lass'!

I find no examples, in fact, where ίσκ- specifically denotes 'the young 
of'. We have seen that TAKE for 'gosling' is in fact χηνιδεύ - likewise 
I now confidently declare that TAKE for 'kitten' is αιλουριδεύ.

I'll check with JP on the others   :)

Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]

Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]