[YG Conlang Archives] > [westasianconlangs group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
As promised: Notes from various Sources on Noun Declension in Cappadocian Greek (Greco-Turkish Mixed Language; SIL: CPG) [Where previous comments made off the top of my head differ from what's listed here, this post should be considered factual, as I actually referred to my notes to come up with this post] For most dialects: - Noun classes largely based on considerations of animacy - Masculine o-stems are split in to animate and inatimate - Animate take masculine article in all cases except the nominative - Inanimate nouns take the neuter article in all cases - Plural of both cases is characterized by syncretism and reanalysis In some dialects noun morphology has a generalized agglutinative declension and the loss of grammatical gender. ---- Masculine and Neuter Nouns in General and According to Dialect ---- Neuter Nouns: Most nouns have been reanalyzed as neuter nouns in -i (with unstressed -i often disappearing). Turkish nouns ending in -C are also put in this class. Nom-Acc mat mat-ya Genitive mat-yu may-ya-yu The case ad number suffixes from this class ahve been generalized and spread to other noun classes. Ancient Masculine Nouns in -os: - split into animates and inanimates - animate nouns use the masculine article to(n) in the singular and tus in the plural - inanimate nouns use the neuter article to in the singular and ta in the plural Ancient Masculine Nouns in -is: - In most dialects have the same characteristics as masculine-animate nouns and have agglutinative endings in genitive singular and accusative plural and a syncretic nom-acc plural formally identical with the nominative Northeast Cappadocian - Inanimate nouns have the syncretic plural ending -us, from the ancient masculine accusative plural - Animate and inanimate o-stems have the separate accusative singular ending -o only if they are definite; as in Turkish, the indefinite accusative is identical with the nominative AnTropos (where the -n- has been lost): NOM aTropos aTropi ACC-INDEF aTropos aTropus ACC-DEF aTropo aTrop-yus GEN aTrop[(y)u] - Genitive singular -yu is agglutinative and taken from the neuter nouns in -i - Accusative plural is agglutinative and may be used instead of the ancient -us - Neuter inanimate nouns have no separate form for the nominative plural, it is the same as the accusative plural: milos milus milos milus milo mil-yu Central Cappadocian - Animate nouns have a syncretic plural ending -i from the ancient masculine nominative plural - Inanimate nouns have an agglutinative syncretic plural ending -ya, taken from the ancient neuter nouns in -i - Animate and inanimate o-stems have the separate accusative singular ending -o only if they are definite; as in Turkish, the indefinite accusative is identical with the nominative - Clear tendency towards syncretism in the declension of inanimate nouns: nominative/accusative singular in -os for both definite and indefinite AnTropos (where the -n- has been lost): NOM aTropos aTropi ACC-INDEF aTropos aTrop-yus ACC-DEF aTropo aTrop-yus GEN aTrop[(y)u] aTropos-yu - Genitive singular -yu is agglutinative and taken from the neuter nouns in -i - Agglutinative accusative in the plural is used exclusively (no variant -us from ancient declension) - Agglutinative genitive plural is nominative with -os ending + aggluatinative genitive -yu - At least one form of Central Cappadocian has no separate from of accusative plural; it is aTropi as in the nominative plural - Neuter-inanimate nouns in -os have an almost entirely agglutinative declension with the nom. sg. reanalyzed as a stem, and agglutinative case and number suffixes are attached to it: genitive (-yu; from neuters in -i) and plural (-ya; from neuters in -i): milos milos-ya milos milos-ya milos-yu milos-yu-ya Northwest Cappadocian - Animate nouns have a syncretic plural ending -i from the ancient masculine nominative plural - Inanimate nouns have the syncretic plural ending -us, from the ancient masculine accusative plural - Animate and inanimate o-stems have the separate accusative singular ending -o only if they are definite; as in Turkish, the indefinite accusative is identical with the nominative. In this dialect, a split is emerging based on definiteness in inanimate nouns - indefinite nominative/accusative singular in -os vs. definite nominative/accusative singular in -o - No separate form for the accusative plural NOM aTropos aTropi ACC-INDEF aTropos aTropi ACC-DEF aTropo aTropi GEN aTrop-yu - Neuter inanimate nouns have no separate form for the nominative plural, it is the same as the accusative plural: milos milus milos milus milo mil-yu Southern Cappadocian: - Both animate and inanimate nouns have become formally neuter, nominative and accusative have become conflated. The distinction between animate and inanimate nouns has disappeared and all nouns take the neuter article and use the following agglutinative paradigm: aTropos aTropos-ya aTropos-yu aTropos-ya-yu ---- Feminine Nouns in -a: ---- - In most dialects, these have a syncretic nom-acc declension and no distinction between definite and indefinite accusative, and the declension is the same of Standard Modern Greek: Nom-Acc néka nékes Gen nékas - Definite article is used exclusively in the accusative (singular ti(n) and plural ta); in the South Cappadocian, feminine nouns take the neuter article. In some dialects, the feminine nouns in -a have an agglutinative declension, with the exception of the nom-acc plural: Nom-Acc néka nékes Gen néka-yu nékes-yu Feminine nouns in -i are often declined as neuter nouns in -i ---- Greco-Armenian Conlang Idea ---- Finally, to return to my Greco-Armenian mixed language, the declension of nouns in Southern Cappadocian (which has the simplest and most agglutinative noun declension of all the dialects) gives precedent for a declension of all nouns like this (where (n)er is the Armenian agglutinative plural and -yu is the Greek neuter genitive): Direct anTropos anTropos-ner Oblique anTropos-yu anTropos-ner-yu Direct néka néka-ner Oblique néka-yu néka-ner-yu