Greek comparatives and superlatives

The language will have roots derived en masse from classical Greek. Caca - bad, cala - good, agatha - good, micra - small, polla - many. Adverbs would probably be made in the same simple method. Similar to Latin, Greek had adverbial method of producing comparatives and superlatives with the following additions:

mala - very, mallon - more, malista - most

These compare to the forms derived from Latin: magne - very, magis - more, maxime - most.

Now mala means "bad" from the Latin root, it need not be used if it's too confusing. It sorta sounds like it would make good use in slang (Tauto es mala bona! - that's "hella" good).

Beyond that, there is a Greek method of adding suffixes for forming comparatives (-teros) and superlatives (-tatos). These will be confusing to incorporate, but rather Greek roots will have the same option to use the comparative ending -iore, I guess. This may end up with odd forms. I'm thinking rather that maybe there's no need to maintain the -iore ending except in those exceptions of Latin adjectives derived from prepositions (superiore, inferiore, exteriore, interiore, posteriore, priore), and the irregular forms meliore, pejore, majore, minore, and plure.

So the comparative adverbs: magis, plus, mallon. And the superlative adverbs: maxime, malista.

Comparative and superlative adjectives and adverbs

A simple method of forming comparatives and superlatives may be the use of specific adverbs, such as magis and maxime, which Latin uses already. To express "less" and "least," one can use minus and minime.

magis pulchra - more beautiful

maxime sacra - most sacred

minus bona - worse

minime acre - least sharp

(Should I also allow the possibility for plus to be used instead of magis? One would have a nice plus/minus dichotomy.)

With the above adverb, we will not need specific endings such as -ior or -issimus/-rrimus/-llimus in most cases. The endings for the superlative ( -issimus/-rrimus/-llimus) can be complicated because they change depending on the root, and it's fitting for this language to not require it. However, the comparative ending -ior is fairly standard, and I personally would keep it as an option. In this language, the ending would be -iore.

Now there are some latin exceptions, such as the following comparatives based on prepositions. Here, both the comparative and superlative forms could be acceptable, because many of the superlative forms have independent root forms.

citeriore, citima - nearer, nearest from citra (on this side)

ulteriore, ultima - farther, last from ultra (beyond)

inferiore, infima/ima - lower, lowest from infra (below), infero (low being)

propiore, proxima - nearer, next from prope (near)

superiore, suprema/summa - upper, highest from supra (over), supero (high being)

posteriore, postrema - latter/next, hindmost from post (behind, after), postero (follower, descendant)

priore, prima - previous, first from pre- (before).

interiore, intima - inner, inmost from inter (between)

exteriore, extrema - outer, outermost from extra (outside of), extero (foreigner).

There are some irregular adjectives I'd like to maintain for the roots they bring:

meliore, optima - better, best from bona (good)

pejore, pessima - worse, worst from mala (bad)

majore, maxima - greater, greatest from magna (great)

minore, minima - less, least from parva (small)

plure, plurima - more, most from multa (much, many)

Adverbs

The language would likely adopt all single-form adverbs such as mox (soon), numquam (never), semper (always), iam (already), non (not), ibi (there), hic (here), igitur (therefor), and the like.

Forming adverbs from adjectives, however, can be a complicated endeavor. In Latin, first and second declension adjectives (which in this language would end in an -a) would be formed by changing the ending to an -e (longa -> longe meaning far). But third declension adjectives (which in this language would end in -e) would be formed by adding -iter as an ending (grave -> graviter meaning heavily).

My goal is to reduce grammatical complexity while maintaining lexical root diversity. In the case of adverbs from adjectives, there is one lexical root and the grammatical division may be an additional headache. I'd prefer one simple rule.

That rule could be to change the ending to an -e in all cases. Of course this would make adverbs like longe (far), but adjectives ending with -e would simply not change. I personally don't think that's a major problem though. Many languages don't have adverbs and get by on adjectives alone. Take the example below:

Latin: Nos egimus audacter - We acted bravely. In this language, for simplicity, the only form available would be audace. So the following: Nos egi audace - "We acted brave." In english there's a difference there, but there need not be one in this language.

Also: me ivi ibi felice "I went there happy" is close enough to "I went there happily."

So in this language, it will be sufficient to use the adjective form to try to express an adverbial concept. If the adjective ends in an -a, I suppose it would be possible to change the ending to an -e if the user would like to specify, but it shouldn't be otherwise necessary. Also, I suppose there could be an optional rule to add -mente or -modo to suggest the word is used as an adverb, but only when necessary! I would continue to maintain a hyphenated word, so the roots are apparent. The use of -mente is the development we see in romance languages such as French and Spanish.

felice-mente (with a happy mind, happily)

felice-modo (in a happy way, happily)

libera-mente (with a free mind, freely)

libera-modo (in a free way, freely)

I don't think it would be a harm maintaining one irregular adverb such as bene (well) but bona (good) could also work.

Te feci bene - you did well.

Te feci bona - you did good - acceptable

The rule could be bona -> bene instead of bone.

simple universal rights translation

Here goes - totally not fancy vocabulary, but simple latin roots. I'm even uncertain if it's fully grammatically correct :P

Omne homine es nata libera et pare in dignitate et jures. Sunt praedita cum ratione et conscientia et debe agere inter se anima fraternitati.

Thoughts on simplifying verbs

So verbs will no longer require conjugations, instead preceded by simple subject markers:

me, te, e, nos, vos, illos - habe, habui, ama, amavi, dice, dixi, vide, vidi

Verbs will have two forms - a progressive and a perfect. Somehow, verbs derived from Greek will have the aorist from as their 'perfect.'

But i'll keep a simple conjugation schema to be used at times:

1st singular: For progressive verb forms, replace last syllable with -o if verb ends with -a or -e or add -o if the word ends in -i. For perfect forms, just leave alone (why so, though? would amavio instead of amavi be such an odd form? Habuio? Rexio?)

2nd sing.: Just add -s

3rd sing.: Just add -t

1st plural.: Just add -mus

2nd plural.: Just add -tis

3rd plural.: Just add -nt or -ent if the verb ends in -i.

Imperative: Just use progressive form alone

Infinitive: Just add -re

Progressive participle: Just add -nte or -ente if the verb ends in -i

Gerund: Just add -nda or -endo if the verb ends in -i (I'm not sure about the function of the gerund form yet though)

The 1st singular rule is a bit confusing I guess. It would change some verb forms: "I have" will be "habo" rather than "habeo," and "I must" will be "debo" rather than "debeo." Hopefully though this simplification will obscure a few verbs of the second conjugation, it won't entirely get it the way of comprehension of classical latin.

As for the verb "es" and that verb alone, I still suggest irregular forms: sum, es, est, sumus, estis, and sunt. But only if necessary.

The only nominative pronoun forms I would suggest are "ego" and "tu" if necessary, otherwise "me" and "te" work well, I think.

Writings

I should use this blog just to put up thoughts whenever I like, and writings:

From e.e. cummings poem

Hodie ego

ho morivi

viva sum

iterum

"i who have died am alive again today"

The nominative ego and the verb sum from me es are optional (I'll maintain the verb form for es however irregular, as an option).

The verb "to die" will be mori, morivi, mortua. In Latin it's deponent (I die is morior), but this language will attempt to make all deponent verbs into the closest active forms (so "to speak" will be loque or something like it).

Homonyms

Ab ore ad ore potami - From the-mountain to the-mouth of-the-river.

DE, reges reges mundi - Could also be DE, Te rege reges de mundo or God, You rule the-kings of the-world.

Viro es viro - Man is pestilence (haha, for the misandrist type)

New translation

From Q30:21

Et ex Ei signos es genese de caelos et gea et variatione de vestra glossas et colores - ecce, in illo es signos ad scientes.

word for word:

And from His signs is the-creation of the-heavens and the-earth and the-variation of your languages and colors - Behold, in that are signs to the-knowing.

pronounced:

e ex ei singnos es genes de cailos e gea e wariation de westra glossas e color's - ecce, in illo es singnos ad scientes.

no need for the sunt anymore. The plural verb is redundant.

Language details on new paradigm

Nouns

Derived regularly as previously mentioned.

There will be no gender for any noun.

Nouns do not have to inflect based on number: "three books" will be tre libro and tre libros would be sorta redundant. "books" will be plure libro or libros only if the context requires it.

There will be no required noun cases, only optional ones: add -m or -n to specify when a word is accusative; change a single word to a genitive form (add -i to -u and -e of short words; change -o and long word -e to -i, change -a to -ae. So now there's no -is which could be confusing) only when there are short phrases.

Adjectives

There will be no gender: all adjectives will either end in -e or -a: "good boy" will simply be bona puero

There will be no inflection based on number: "short names" will simply be breve nomine(s) rather than brevia nomines.

Nouns formed by adjectives are simply specified by changing a -a to -o or leaving an adjective ending with -e alone: "the good" is bono and the "knowing one" is still sciente.

Verbs

Conjugation is only optional.

I'll maintain two verb forms - progressive and perfect - and one passive adjective: the forms for "to read" will be lege, lexi, lecta.

I read the book - me lege libro (formally lego libro)

I have read the book - me lexi libro or me habe lecta libro

The book was read - libro fui lecta.

Progressive verbs used without subjects will be the imperative form.

Verbs can be made into infinitives by adding -re or into present participles by adding -(e)nte.

Pronunciation

No pronouncing the final -e. Nomine will be pronounced "nomin"

No pronouncing a final -t. Et will be pronounced "e"

Combining the above two rules, no pronouncing a final -te. Somate or veritate will be pronounced soma or werita. The only distinction is that the final syllable (in bold) is stressed.

Update

I've disregarded this block for two years, but not my thoughts on the language. Those thoughts are slowly evolving in the tug-of-war between the goals of the language. But what exactly are those goals?

Is the language supposed to be simple and easy of use?

I feel the best way to do this is by limiting the grammar to a minimum. But that may make it a lot harder to approach classical Latin and Greek, which both have considerable grammar rules.

Is the language supposed to serve as a tool to "get by" in classical Latin and Greek?

There'll be a large vocabulary, but the multitudes of homonyms and synonyms can be dizzying.

There may be the need for some basic grammar, but that makes the language more difficult to understand and learn.

Words must have forms that are rigidly held to, even though they may sound bad to me. Why should we have to pronounce the last syllable of words that end in -e?

Can I modify the language to live up to my own aesthetic pleasures?

What if I make some letters silent when pronounced. What about shortening words by not pronouncing the last -e in words. What about not pronouncing the last -t in words like et or aut or ut. What about not pronouncing the final -te such that words like somate or veritate would be pronounced like soma or verita?

So here's where I stand right now.

I like having a large vocabulary, and I think the homonyms and synonyms that arise from the derivational words lead to beautiful complexities.

I'm beginning to see even simple grammar requirements, such as 1) conjugation of verbs, 2) having adjectives agree in gender or number, or 3) having nominative noun forms, can be a major hold up. I would rather do away with those requirements. But I want to give people the option to do simple changes if completely regular.

I'll hold to the classical pronunciation of words, but will have regular exception rules, such as not pronouncing the final -e sound, not ending a word on a -t sound. Thus the written form will be maintained, while the spoken form will be a little different, which is okay, because no one will be speaking the language anyway :D