Hi Ray,

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:34 AM, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Adnan,
> Did you intend this reply to be private or did you expect it
> go to the list?  I notice I didn't set the Reply-to properly
> in my second email yesterday

Sorry, my bad. I'll email the list here just in case anyone has additional
suggestions or insights!

On 02/11/2016 07:14, Adnan Majid wrote:
>> Hi Ray,
>>> BUT I really don't like the "passive participle" bit.
>> And honestly, my hack-y way of deriving the Greek
>> passive participle never sat well with me either :/
>> When Coena was forming, it was cool to see the how Latin
>>  and Sanskrit reflected one another so well regarding
>> their respective "passive participles." Both languages
>> seemed to have this special form of the verb, obviously
>> derived from the same Indo-European precursor, that
>> seemed to evolve similar roles. For instance, it seems
>> that the Sanskrit passive participle became a principle
>> way of making "past tense" statements, somewhat like how
>>  the Latin passive participle evolved that role in
>> Romance languages.
> But not, I think, with the verb "to have" as the Romance
> languages do.  In Classical Latin,, as you probably know,
> the perfect participle is normally passive in meaning,
> except for the deponent verbs.  The only perfect tenses
> formed by using the perfect participle + "to be" were:
> 1. the perfect passive tenses of transitive verbs;
> 2. the perfect active tenses of deponent verbs.
> In Vulgar Latin a different system evolved, from the which
> the modern Romance languages derive their forms.  The
> important differences were:
> a. Deponent verbs became ordinary active verbs.
> b. _all_ verbs had perfect participles: active if the verb
> was intransitive, passive if transitive.
> c. _All_ tenses of the passive, not just the perfect tenses,
> became expressed by "to be" + perfect participle (as,
> indeed, in English).
> d. The perfect active tenses were expressed by:
> - "to be" + perfect participle, with the participle agreeing
> with the subject, if the verb was transitive;
> - "to have" + perfect participle, with the participle
> agreeing with the object, if the verb was transitive.
> That last method is, in fact, found as early as Plautus
> (late 3rd, early 2nd century BC) and must have occurred in
> Vulgar Latin throughout the Classical period but is not used
> by the authors of the 'Golden' and 'Silver' Latin periods.
> I think the development in Sanskrit and the Indic languages
> was rather different.

Yes, from what I've studied, Sanskrit does work differently and instead
often uses its passive participle with its instrumental case to express
past tense concepts, essentially saying something like "By me, the man is
seen" (*mayã naro drṣṭaḥ*) to express "I have seen the man." But I
suppose I find the two methods, though structurally different, rather
conceptually similar because the latter statement strikes me as a way of
saying something like "I have [it such that] the man [is] seen."

I'm wondering though, is there any connection between the use of *habeo* to
express the perfect tense in Vulgar Latin with the use of εχω for that
purpose in modern Greek?

But alas, three's a crowd. Greek was the pesky odd
>> language out, where the Indo-European verbal adjective
>> became more limited in its use and, as you point out,
>> often did not just denote a simple passive.
> ...and if you attempt to add Classical Arabic to the mix,
> there'll be another odd one out    :)

Yes indeed

I vacillated between giving Coena's Greek-derived verbs
>> a passive participle with an ending derived from the
>> -μενοσ/-μενη/-μενον suffix (making the already irregular
>> system all the more heterogenous) or re-packaging the
>> Greek verbal adjective. The latter hack "looked" better
>> to me but came with its own troubles...
> Yes, I would advise against a mixed system in which Greek
> derived verbs form a passive participle one way and the
> Latin & Sanskrit ones another way.  IMO all verbs should be
> treated the same irrespective of their origin.
> [snip]
>> You write that "this form of the verb *is not
>>> necessary* to form passive sentences, so why have it
>>> at all - especially as the regular Greek passive
>>> participle (which still survives in the modern
>>> language) is formed quite differently.
>> And certainly, if Coena is to expand to a
>> non-Indo-European language like Arabic, I would
>> absolutely /detest/ creating a look-alike past participle
>> for the Arabic-derived verbs (by adding a /-ta /ending to
>> the Arabic verbs, for instance). Your suggestion is
>> well-taken. I might just do away with "passive
>> participle" as a specific grammatical class altogether,
>> especially since the language did end up evolving a way
>> to express passive statements without it (the particle
>> /he/)!
> TAKE doesn't have a marked passive participle:

That's a pretty cool way of doing it! I'll certainly be perusing your site
more - very mind-stimulating :)

Best wishes!