stefichjo wrote:

>I have tried out a new concept for rendering PG *au in Folksprak.
>
>- PG *au is FS "o".
>- The denominalization to a verb causes i-mutation, and PG *au + *ij
>turns to FS "eu".
>
>PG *draugiz > FS drog (EN dry, DE trocken)
>FS dreuge (EN to drain, DE trocknen)
>
>
I don't really agree. In Dutch, English and Scandy, for the most part,
there seems to be little difference between i-mutated and original
versions of *au. The difference in English seems to have merged. That
is, PG *au and PG *au+i haved ended up with the same sound. Ditto for
Scandy, most instances of *au have become ö/ø. And in Dutch, it's always
"oo". So only in German is there this strange (and to me inexplicable)
split into "oh" and "au". I really don't know why the vowels in "Bohne"
and "Baum" are different. Also there is a very wide range of sounds
between the EN evolution of *au as "ea" and the German evolution as
oh/au. With such a wide range of sounds, to me [2:] seems to straddle
the mean sound better than [o:]. Also if PG *au becomes [o:], it would
merge with a very common vowel sound and possibly produce more homonyms
than merging with PG *ô + i would. It would be merging with PG *u (in
cases where this becomes long -- such as FS open, over, bog) and PG ô
and Romance "o". I'd suspect this would create more homonyms unless you
can evolve some of those proto-vowels into something else. (Such as
maybe PG ô becomes [u:]).



>PG *fullaz > FS foll (EN full, DE voll)
>PG *fullijan > FS fylle (EN to fill, DE füllen)
>
>PG *kamba- > FS kamm (EN comb, DE Kamm)
>PG *kambijan > FS kemme (EN to comb, DE kämmen)
>
>
Interesting: The Old English ancester of "to comb" was "cemban". In
Middle English this merged with the noun version. But the past
participle survived in  fossilised form in the  adjective "unkempt"

>PG *lausaz > FS los (EN loose, DE lose)
>FS leuse (EN to lease, DE lösen)
>
>PG *luftuz > FS luft (EN air, cf. loft, DE Luft)
>PG *luftijan > FS lyfte (EN to lift, DE lüften)
>
>PG *marka > FS mark (EN mark)
>PG *markijan > FS merke (EN to remark, DE merken)
>
>PG *rasto > FS rast (EN rest, DE Rast)
>PG *rastjo > FS reste (EN to rest, DE rasten)
>
>PG *rekhtaz > FS recht (EN right, DE Recht)
>PG *rekhtijan > FS rechte / richte (EN to judge, DE richten)
>
>PG *reukan > FS ryke, rok, roken (EN to smell (percieve), DE riechen)
>PG *raukaz > FS rok (EN smoke, reek, DE Rauch)
>FS reuke (EN to smoke, DE rauchen)
>
>PG *smerwa > FS smer (EN fat?, DE Schmer)
>PG *smerwijan > FS smere / smire (EN to smear, DE schmieren)
>
>PG *snaiwaz > FS snee (EN snow, DE Schnee)
>PG *sniw- > FS snie (EN to snow, DE scheien)
>
>PG *thakan > FS tak (EN thatch, DE Dach)
>PG *thakijan > FS teke / tecke (EN to cover, cf. deck, DE decken)
>
>PG *talo > FS tal (EN tale, DE Zahl)
>PG *taljan > FS tele / telle (EN to tell, DE zählen)
>
>PG *wunsk > FS wunsch (EN wish, DE Wunsch)
>PG *wunskijan > FS wynsche (EN to wish, DE wünschen)
>
>
Some/Most of these are OK. But I don't think it should necessarily be a
systematic rule for FS. Whether the vowel is i-mutated or not, should be
determined by the majority evolutions, not by a rule. For example, I
know that German is  "Kuss" (noun) and "küssen" (verb). And yes, this is
reflecting how the orignal *u vowel has been affect by i-mutation when a
suffix has been applied to the verb form. But not in the real world
germlangs, this doesn't happen all the time. Example: English has "kiss"
(noun) and "to kiss" (verb). Middle English DID have "coss" and "kiss",
but in modern English, the two forms have merged. Same for Dutch, there
is no *kos/kussen difference. And neither in Swedish is there *kuss/kyssa.
So where the majority of the source language really do have a difference
between i-mutant and un-mutant versions of the PG vowels, by all means,
make the distinction. (EN full/to fill is a good example) But don't make
it an active, productive part of FS. (That seems too much like a complex
grammatical rule that need learning).
And there are some proto-vowels that probably shouldn't be subject to
i-mutation in FS at all because in the majority of modern germlangs, the
distinction is not there. (Either there never was a distinction, or the
i-mutant has merged back with un-mutant.) . I think probably not PG *ai
or *î or *au.


>
>The combination PG *lj is FS "ll", so it should be FS telle (EN to
>tell), but I'm trying something more regular, i. e. assuming that the
>suffix -ij- is used instead, not shortening the stem vowel; but a
>variety of denominalization suffixes (-ij-, -j-, -oj-) should be taken
>into consideration always, having i-mutation _with_ stem shortening
>(-j-) and i-mutation _without_ stem shortening (-ij-). The suffix -oj-
>seems not to i-mutate a stem's "a".
>
>I'm also trying to sort of i-mutate PG *ai to FS "i", like in FS
>"snee", "snie" (EN snow, to snow). This could be generalized for every
>FS "e" (FS smer, smire?, FS recht, richte?).
>
>So, both "boom" and "to beam", and "loop" and "to leap" could exist in
>FS: bom/beume, lop/leupe. Then it looks as if in EN the denominalized
>verb "beume" (to beam) has been denominalized to a noun again (the
>beam). I say "it looks as if". But it's a sort of linguistical
>conspiracy theory that might might explain both forms, and justifying
>both stems in FS.
>
>A simplification of the language would consist in not i-mutating in
>these cases, having "wunsch" and "wunsche" (not *"wynsche*) and so on.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Bye,
>Stephan
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.0/819 - Release Date: 26/05/2007 10:47
a.m.
>
>

For what it's worth, some English dialects still retain a wider meaning for
'starve'. e.g.: 'he starved from the cold'. Although it is still basically
limited to hunger and cold only. I suppose the sense is still there
somewhat.

Having both words would not be bad and would probably be OK for English
speakers, but what about Scandy speakers? They do not seem to retain this
word at all.

Greets,
-Markus

2007/5/26, stefichjo <sts@...>:
>
>   If both words would coexist in FS, so both "sterve" and "deue", then I
> would expect "sterve" to be less direct than "deue". Another register,
> like euphemistic.
>
> Stephan
>
>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com <folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think "sterve" would be more problematic than "deue", since there is
> > no DE/NL word like "töen"/"dooen" (?). But, on the other hand, a FS
> > "deue" would be ok with other FS words:
> >
> > deue = to die
> > deued = died
> > (formerly "dod") deud = death
> > (formerly "dod") deud = dead
> > deude = to kill, cf. to deaden (?)
> >
> > "deude" is transitive, like "fasten" and "tighten".
> >
> > I'm using "werde" in order to express the passive, and I think it's
> > the word to use for "become" as well.
> >
> > Dee er deud. = They are dead.
> > Dee deu. = They die.
> > Dee werd deud. = They die. / "They go dead."
> > Dee werd deuded. = They are being killed. (is this correct in EN?)
> >
> > "sterve" would come from "to become / to be stiff" and is related with
> > "stern" and "star".
> >
> > A word like "sterve" itself wouldn't be very usefull then, given the
> > word "deue". On the other hand, what about DE "sterblich",
> > "Sterblichkeit"? In EN they are "mortal" and "mortality", which are of
> > Romance origin.
> >
> > "deudelig" in DA means both "mortal" and "deadly". In my opinion the
> > meaning should be narrowed to "deadly" (DE "tödlich"), if possible, FS
> > "deudlik".
> > "stervlik" would be "mortal" then. "stervlikhed" = "mortality".
> >
> > Stephan
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com <folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, David
> Parke <parked@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well most of the source languages have words like
> > > "deaden/doden/töten/döda meaning "to kill", so FS deude, should
> > likewise
> > > mean "to kill", "to make dead".
> > > I guess something like "become dead" would also work as a phrase for
> > "to
> > > die". FS deud werde perhaps. "To become" itself is a problematic
> > > concept for FS. Try finding words for "to change into the state of
> > > being..." among the Germanic languages. NL worden and DE werden are
> > > related, as is the archaic EN worth.
> > >
> > > Peter Collier wrote:
> > >
> > > >Sounds reasonable to me. However, given the other forms, shouldn't
> > the verb
> > > >'deude' be 'to die'? The verb 'to kill' would need something else,
> > if you
> > > >wanted to keep the link with 'deue' then perhaps something along
> > the lines
> > > >of 'to bring/send to death' or 'to cause to die'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Pete C.
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "David Parke" <parked@>
> > > >To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com <folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > >Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:32 AM
> > > >Subject: [folkspraak] Die or Starve?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>So I think on the basis of it representation in at least some
> form in
> > > >>ALL the Germanic source languages, and it being unambiguous in
> meaning
> > > >>in those languages (not having potentially differing meanings such
> > as EN
> > > >>starve vs NL sterven), that something bases on *daujan would be
> > the best
> > > >>verb for this concept.
> > > >>I would propose FS deue (as spelt in my "nyw ortografi"). This
> > would go
> > > >>with deud a. = dead, deud n. = death, deude v. = to kill.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > >Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date:
> > 23/05/2007 3:59 p.m.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Welcome! I have been/am quite a professional lurker myself. Although
sometimes it is hard to resist the temptation to comment on old threads, I
somehow resist and leave them buried. ;)

-Markus

2007/5/26, stefichjo <sts@...>:
>
>   Hi Pete,
> Welcome to the group. / Welkomen to de grupp.
>
> Stephan
>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com <folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "peter21691" <petecollier@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Just joined the group and thought it polite to say hello. I will now
> > go and lurk until I have a better feel for what is going on and have
> > something of use to contribute!
> >
> >
> > ~Pete.
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As I said, I'd prefer the word "deue". So I wouldn't use "sterve".
Does this answer your question?

Bye,
Stephan

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Martin" <archwyrm@...> wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, some English dialects still retain a wider
meaning for
> 'starve'. e.g.: 'he starved from the cold'. Although it is still
basically
> limited to hunger and cold only. I suppose the sense is still there
> somewhat.
>
> Having both words would not be bad and would probably be OK for English
> speakers, but what about Scandy speakers? They do not seem to retain
this
> word at all.
>
> Greets,
> -Markus
>
> 2007/5/26, stefichjo <sts@...>:
> >
> >   If both words would coexist in FS, so both "sterve" and "deue",
then I
> > would expect "sterve" to be less direct than "deue". Another register,
> > like euphemistic.
> >
> > Stephan
> >
> >
> > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com <folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think "sterve" would be more problematic than "deue", since
there is
> > > no DE/NL word like "töen"/"dooen" (?). But, on the other hand, a FS
> > > "deue" would be ok with other FS words:
> > >
> > > deue = to die
> > > deued = died
> > > (formerly "dod") deud = death
> > > (formerly "dod") deud = dead
> > > deude = to kill, cf. to deaden (?)
> > >
> > > "deude" is transitive, like "fasten" and "tighten".
> > >
> > > I'm using "werde" in order to express the passive, and I think it's
> > > the word to use for "become" as well.
> > >
> > > Dee er deud. = They are dead.
> > > Dee deu. = They die.
> > > Dee werd deud. = They die. / "They go dead."
> > > Dee werd deuded. = They are being killed. (is this correct in EN?)
> > >
> > > "sterve" would come from "to become / to be stiff" and is
related with
> > > "stern" and "star".
> > >
> > > A word like "sterve" itself wouldn't be very usefull then, given the
> > > word "deue". On the other hand, what about DE "sterblich",
> > > "Sterblichkeit"? In EN they are "mortal" and "mortality", which
are of
> > > Romance origin.
> > >
> > > "deudelig" in DA means both "mortal" and "deadly". In my opinion the
> > > meaning should be narrowed to "deadly" (DE "tödlich"), if
possible, FS
> > > "deudlik".
> > > "stervlik" would be "mortal" then. "stervlikhed" = "mortality".
> > >
> > > Stephan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
<folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, David
> > Parke <parked@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well most of the source languages have words like
> > > > "deaden/doden/töten/döda meaning "to kill", so FS deude, should
> > > likewise
> > > > mean "to kill", "to make dead".
> > > > I guess something like "become dead" would also work as a
phrase for
> > > "to
> > > > die". FS deud werde perhaps. "To become" itself is a problematic
> > > > concept for FS. Try finding words for "to change into the state of
> > > > being..." among the Germanic languages. NL worden and DE
werden are
> > > > related, as is the archaic EN worth.
> > > >
> > > > Peter Collier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Sounds reasonable to me. However, given the other forms,
shouldn't
> > > the verb
> > > > >'deude' be 'to die'? The verb 'to kill' would need something
else,
> > > if you
> > > > >wanted to keep the link with 'deue' then perhaps something along
> > > the lines
> > > > >of 'to bring/send to death' or 'to cause to die'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Pete C.
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "David Parke" <parked@>
> > > > >To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com <folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > >Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:32 AM
> > > > >Subject: [folkspraak] Die or Starve?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>So I think on the basis of it representation in at least some
> > form in
> > > > >>ALL the Germanic source languages, and it being unambiguous in
> > meaning
> > > > >>in those languages (not having potentially differing
meanings such
> > > as EN
> > > > >>starve vs NL sterven), that something bases on *daujan would be
> > > the best
> > > > >>verb for this concept.
> > > > >>I would propose FS deue (as spelt in my "nyw ortografi"). This
> > > would go
> > > > >>with deud a. = dead, deud n. = death, deude v. = to kill.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > >Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date:
> > > 23/05/2007 3:59 p.m.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
>
> stefichjo wrote:
>
> >I have tried out a new concept for rendering PG *au in Folksprak.
> >
> >- PG *au is FS "o".
> >- The denominalization to a verb causes i-mutation, and PG *au + *ij
> >turns to FS "eu".
> >
> >PG *draugiz > FS drog (EN dry, DE trocken)
> >FS dreuge (EN to drain, DE trocknen)
> >
> >
> I don't really agree.

> In Dutch, English and Scandy, for the most part,
> there seems to be little difference between i-mutated and original
> versions of *au. The difference in English seems to have merged.

I agree.

> That
> is, PG *au and PG *au+i haved ended up with the same sound. Ditto for
> Scandy, most instances of *au have become ö/ø. And in Dutch, it's
always
> "oo". So only in German is there this strange (and to me inexplicable)
> split into "oh" and "au".

I don't think its inexplicable. The vowel shift from "au" to "o"
happens in Romance languages as well. I call this auflautung.

LA aurum -> IT oro
LA claustrum -> DE Kloster
LA calidus -> IT caldo -> FR chaud (pronounced /So:/).

> I really don't know why the vowels in "Bohne"
> and "Baum" are different.

Neither do I. In Berlin we say "Boom" instead of "Baum" anyway, "ooch"
instead of "auch", "loofen" instead of "laufen", "broochen" instead of
"brauchen" and so on.
The difference between "au" and "oo" (my coining: auflautung) is not
so important (to me) like the question of being i-mutated or not...

> Also there is a very wide range of sounds
> between the EN evolution of *au as "ea" and the German evolution as
> oh/au. With such a wide range of sounds, to me [2:] seems to straddle
> the mean sound better than [o:].

... so *au has a variety of i-mutated and non-i-mutated sounds in
modern germlangs. I would subsummarize the i-mutated sounds with FS
"eu" and the non-i-mutated sounds with FS "o". In my opintion, the
mean sound of these two is merely an [@:].

> Also if PG *au becomes [o:], it would
> merge with a very common vowel sound and possibly produce more homonyms
> than merging with PG *ô + i would.

I have tried both [o:] and [2:], and I haven't found so many homonyms
so far in both cases. Do you have any in mind? ... I can think of
"greute" (EN to greet) which would be a homonym to *grautaz, unless we
leave "great" in FS unmutated: "grot".

> It would be merging with PG *u (in
> cases where this becomes long -- such as FS open, over, bog) and PG ô
> and Romance "o". I'd suspect this would create more homonyms unless you
> can evolve some of those proto-vowels into something else. (Such as
> maybe PG ô becomes [u:]).

This isn't neccessary. Homonyms are no problem in this case.


> >PG *fullaz > FS foll (EN full, DE voll)
> >PG *fullijan > FS fylle (EN to fill, DE füllen)
> >
> >PG *kamba- > FS kamm (EN comb, DE Kamm)
> >PG *kambijan > FS kemme (EN to comb, DE kämmen)
> >
> >
> Interesting: The Old English ancester of "to comb" was "cemban". In
> Middle English this merged with the noun version. But the past
> participle survived in  fossilised form in the  adjective "unkempt"

Which would be your FS words in this case?

> >PG *lausaz > FS los (EN loose, DE lose)
> >FS leuse (EN to lease, DE lösen)
> >
> >PG *luftuz > FS luft (EN air, cf. loft, DE Luft)
> >PG *luftijan > FS lyfte (EN to lift, DE lüften)
> >
> >PG *marka > FS mark (EN mark)
> >PG *markijan > FS merke (EN to remark, DE merken)
> >
> >PG *rasto > FS rast (EN rest, DE Rast)
> >PG *rastjo > FS reste (EN to rest, DE rasten)
> >
> >PG *rekhtaz > FS recht (EN right, DE Recht)
> >PG *rekhtijan > FS rechte / richte (EN to judge, DE richten)
> >
> >PG *reukan > FS ryke, rok, roken (EN to smell (percieve), DE riechen)
> >PG *raukaz > FS rok (EN smoke, reek, DE Rauch)
> >FS reuke (EN to smoke, DE rauchen)
> >
> >PG *smerwa > FS smer (EN fat?, DE Schmer)
> >PG *smerwijan > FS smere / smire (EN to smear, DE schmieren)
> >
> >PG *snaiwaz > FS snee (EN snow, DE Schnee)
> >PG *sniw- > FS snie (EN to snow, DE scheien)
> >
> >PG *thakan > FS tak (EN thatch, DE Dach)
> >PG *thakijan > FS teke / tecke (EN to cover, cf. deck, DE decken)
> >
> >PG *talo > FS tal (EN tale, DE Zahl)
> >PG *taljan > FS tele / telle (EN to tell, DE zählen)
> >
> >PG *wunsk > FS wunsch (EN wish, DE Wunsch)
> >PG *wunskijan > FS wynsche (EN to wish, DE wünschen)
> >
> >
> Some/Most of these are OK. But I don't think it should necessarily be a
> systematic rule for FS. Whether the vowel is i-mutated or not,
should be
> determined by the majority evolutions, not by a rule.

Then these words would have to be learned word by word, which
increases the effort of learning the language. At least, with a
slightly sophisticated rule, one might be able to facilitate this.

> For example, I
> know that German is  "Kuss" (noun) and "küssen" (verb). And yes,
this is
> reflecting how the orignal *u vowel has been affect by i-mutation
when a
> suffix has been applied to the verb form. But not in the real world
> germlangs, this doesn't happen all the time. Example: English has
"kiss"
> (noun) and "to kiss" (verb).
> Middle English DID have "coss" and "kiss",
> but in modern English, the two forms have merged.

This might have happened due to nominalization from the verb "to kiss"
to a noun, supplanting the original "coss". No info.

> Same for Dutch, there
> is no *kos/kussen difference. And neither in Swedish is there
*kuss/kyssa.

But you cannot merge "kuss", "küss" and "kiss" to "k@ss".
I find it preferable to have both i-mutated and not i-mutated forms
with this rule of denominalization: "kuss", "kysse".

> So where the majority of the source language really do have a
difference
> between i-mutant and un-mutant versions of the PG vowels, by all means,
> make the distinction. (EN full/to fill is a good example) But don't
make
> it an active, productive part of FS. (That seems too much like a
complex
> grammatical rule that need learning).

If it is too complex to learn that "fill" comes from "full", then you
are still free to learn both words independently, which is the status
quo at the moment. You don't have to learn this rule (or "observation").

I think we need both forms in FS, with and without i-mutation, and we
need to provide both forms a reason of existence. This
denominalization is very common in DE and therefore it is only
probable that I make the proposal for such a denominalization rule. My
aim is not to DE-ize FS, but to integrate both forms into FS, since
merging is impossible.

> And there are some proto-vowels that probably shouldn't be subject to
> i-mutation in FS at all because in the majority of modern germlangs,
the
> distinction is not there. (Either there never was a distinction, or the
> i-mutant has merged back with un-mutant.) . I think probably not PG *ai
> or *î or *au.

Hm, you cannot i-mutate *î. What do you mean? And you always i-mutate
*au...

Thank you for your comments.

Bye,
Stephan

Hi (what's your name?),

Welcome to the group. Let me give you some feed-back:

These are features that I don't agree with, I have already thought about
them before and decided another way for my version of FS.


You use the ending "-e" for verbs. I use this, too, but for infinitives,
not for the normal present tense. "ik kom", "kome" - "I come", "to come".

You use "te". I use this, too, but only in order to have an unstressed
form of "to": "to testyre" - "to destroy" (DE "zerstören")

You use capital letters for nouns, I don't, as this isn't neccessary and
German only.

Apparently you write "-aa" at the end of a word ("fraa"). I write "-o"
then (at the end of a word: ik go, ik sto, so, fro, ...).

I use the plural ending "-en". "-e" is used for nominalisation: "god -
de gode" - "good - the good one".


A text with less propper names would be more adequate to discuss basic
orthography issues.


Bye,
Stephan




atamskuuk schrieb:
> "Potet (Solanum tuberosum) er en Rotfrutt dat hore te de Famili
> Potetplante. De Nam Potet komme fraa de Spenishes papa dat vider komme
> fraa De Kuechua (Fr. pomme de terre; Ertepel). In nort Svearik er di
> kaldet pärer. Okk in de sudlikest dele fon Svearik (Skåne od västra
> Blekinge) habe di en likartig Nam, pärer od kunne in dise bide enig
> okk bien kaldet pantoffler."
>
>
>

I actually removed the post before you answered, but ah, well.

Anyway, could you link me to the most recent list of words that you
guys have made? Is it the one at the Folkspråk Institute website?

Oh, and "jag heter Adam", and I'm from Sweden.

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Stephan Schneider <sts@...> wrote:
>
> Hi (what's your name?),
>
> Welcome to the group. Let me give you some feed-back:
>
> These are features that I don't agree with, I have already thought
about
> them before and decided another way for my version of FS.
>
>
> You use the ending "-e" for verbs. I use this, too, but for
infinitives,
> not for the normal present tense. "ik kom", "kome" - "I come", "to
come".
>
> You use "te". I use this, too, but only in order to have an unstressed
> form of "to": "to testyre" - "to destroy" (DE "zerstören")
>
> You use capital letters for nouns, I don't, as this isn't neccessary
and
> German only.
>
> Apparently you write "-aa" at the end of a word ("fraa"). I write "-o"
> then (at the end of a word: ik go, ik sto, so, fro, ...).
>
> I use the plural ending "-en". "-e" is used for nominalisation: "god -
> de gode" - "good - the good one".
>
>
> A text with less propper names would be more adequate to discuss basic
> orthography issues.
>
>
> Bye,
> Stephan
>
>
>
>
> atamskuuk schrieb:
> > "Potet (Solanum tuberosum) er en Rotfrutt dat hore te de Famili
> > Potetplante. De Nam Potet komme fraa de Spenishes papa dat vider komme
> > fraa De Kuechua (Fr. pomme de terre; Ertepel). In nort Svearik er di
> > kaldet pärer. Okk in de sudlikest dele fon Svearik (Skåne od västra
> > Blekinge) habe di en likartig Nam, pärer od kunne in dise bide enig
> > okk bien kaldet pantoffler."
> >
> >
> >
>

I actually removed this before you answered, but ah, well.

Anyway, could you like me to the most recent list of words you guys
have written? Is it the one at the Folkspraak Institute website?

Oh, and "jag heter Adam", and I'm from Sweden.

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Stephan Schneider <sts@...> wrote:
>
> Hi (what's your name?),
>
> Welcome to the group. Let me give you some feed-back:
>
> These are features that I don't agree with, I have already thought
about
> them before and decided another way for my version of FS.
>
>
> You use the ending "-e" for verbs. I use this, too, but for
infinitives,
> not for the normal present tense. "ik kom", "kome" - "I come", "to
come".
>
> You use "te". I use this, too, but only in order to have an unstressed
> form of "to": "to testyre" - "to destroy" (DE "zerstören")
>
> You use capital letters for nouns, I don't, as this isn't neccessary
and
> German only.
>
> Apparently you write "-aa" at the end of a word ("fraa"). I write "-o"
> then (at the end of a word: ik go, ik sto, so, fro, ...).
>
> I use the plural ending "-en". "-e" is used for nominalisation: "god -
> de gode" - "good - the good one".
>
>
> A text with less propper names would be more adequate to discuss basic
> orthography issues.
>
>
> Bye,
> Stephan
>
>
>
>
> atamskuuk schrieb:
> > "Potet (Solanum tuberosum) er en Rotfrutt dat hore te de Famili
> > Potetplante. De Nam Potet komme fraa de Spenishes papa dat vider komme
> > fraa De Kuechua (Fr. pomme de terre; Ertepel). In nort Svearik er di
> > kaldet pärer. Okk in de sudlikest dele fon Svearik (Skåne od västra
> > Blekinge) habe di en likartig Nam, pärer od kunne in dise bide enig
> > okk bien kaldet pantoffler."
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Adam,

The so called Folkspraak Institute is out of date. The development and
discussion of this project takes place only in this group.

This is a set of sentences that Ingmar, David and Stephan (me) agreed on:
http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak/_Kurs


This is my word list:
http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak/_Wortschatz
http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak/_Wortschatz/_Fremdw%C3%B6rter


(One for mainly Germanic roots, one for mainly Romance roots.)


David's word list can be found in the files section ("Ueberlist").


Have fun!
Stephan




atamskuuk schrieb:
> I actually removed the post before you answered, but ah, well.
>
> Anyway, could you link me to the most recent list of words that you
> guys have made? Is it the one at the Folkspråk Institute website?
>
> Oh, and "jag heter Adam", and I'm from Sweden.
>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Stephan Schneider <sts@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi (what's your name?),
>>
>> Welcome to the group. Let me give you some feed-back:
>>
>> These are features that I don't agree with, I have already thought
>>
> about
>
>> them before and decided another way for my version of FS.
>>
>>
>> You use the ending "-e" for verbs. I use this, too, but for
>>
> infinitives,
>
>> not for the normal present tense. "ik kom", "kome" - "I come", "to
>>
> come".
>
>> You use "te". I use this, too, but only in order to have an unstressed
>> form of "to": "to testyre" - "to destroy" (DE "zerstören")
>>
>> You use capital letters for nouns, I don't, as this isn't neccessary
>>
> and
>
>> German only.
>>
>> Apparently you write "-aa" at the end of a word ("fraa"). I write "-o"
>> then (at the end of a word: ik go, ik sto, so, fro, ...).
>>
>> I use the plural ending "-en". "-e" is used for nominalisation: "god -
>> de gode" - "good - the good one".
>>
>>
>> A text with less propper names would be more adequate to discuss basic
>> orthography issues.
>>
>>
>> Bye,
>> Stephan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> atamskuuk schrieb:
>>
>>> "Potet (Solanum tuberosum) er en Rotfrutt dat hore te de Famili
>>> Potetplante. De Nam Potet komme fraa de Spenishes papa dat vider komme
>>> fraa De Kuechua (Fr. pomme de terre; Ertepel). In nort Svearik er di
>>> kaldet pärer. Okk in de sudlikest dele fon Svearik (Skåne od västra
>>> Blekinge) habe di en likartig Nam, pärer od kunne in dise bide enig
>>> okk bien kaldet pantoffler."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> Browse the draft word lists!
> http://www.onelist.com/files/folkspraak/
> http://www.langmaker.com/folkspraak/volcab.html
>
> Browse Folkspraak-related links!
> http://www.onelist.com/links/folkspraak/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkspraak

This article has been deleted. :-/

Stephan

Bugger.. I was afraid that this was going to happen and I meant to copy the
text of the article page. But I suppose it will be just as fine to start a
new article from scratch when the time is right.

Still, this is a sad day indeed. As I originally found out about Folkspraak
from Wikipedia. =(

Hopefully word of mouth will still generate some interest.
-Markus

2007/6/30, stefichjo <sts@...>:
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkspraak
>
> This article has been deleted. :-/
>
> Stephan
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello again.

I haven't really looked at the most recent list of the vocabulary or
anything, but I did take a look at the way you guys "make up" words of
the Folkspråk vocabulary.

So some of the words I try to "folkspråkize" here may already be a
part of the vocabulary, but then we could perhaps see this as a topic
for discussing these certain words.

A word that has caught my interest is the word that in English is
"or". In Scandy it's "eller", in Faroese it's "ella", in Icelandic
it's "eğa", and in German and Dutch it's "oder" and "of".

As you see, it's "oder" in German and "eğa" in Icelandic. They both
have the d/ğ. In Swedish, Norweigan and Danish, it's "eller", so they
have the beginning e of the Icelandic eğa and the ending er of the
German oder.

This made me wonder if the word earlier has been something like "eğer"
or "eder" in Scandy before, which would bring it closer to the German
"oder", but still sustain the characteristics of the Icelandic "eğa"
(as modern Icelandic looks almost thesame as all the Nordic Languages
did a long time ago).

The English "or", could be thought of as a short version of German
oder, thus "o'r", which is even easier explained if it was earlier
pronounced "oğer", which makes it easier to skip the d/ğ.

I don't know why it became l instead of d/ğ in Scandy, but the fact
that it also appears in Faroese is probably because of its influence
by Danish, thus a Scandy language. Now, ğ is not that far from l; you
only have to move your tounge a little when pronouncing ğ to make it
turn into an l, which could explain the Scandy transformation and
strengthen my theory of old Scandy "eğer" or such.

Then we have the Dutch, which instead has got an f, neither a d/ğ or
an l, which I really have no explaination at all for, so I'll just say
they're a little alien, and we shouldn't care about them when
comparing the words to make a new one, as it's the only one with the
f, which makes us count Dutch out.

Thus we have this:

Two languages where it starts with an o; English (or) and German (oder)
Three languages where it starts with an e; Scandy (eller), Icelandic
(eğa) and Faroese (ella)

I know the Scandy all count as one, but I wouldn't count Icelandic or
Faroese into their group, as they've changed less over time, and as
you see both are diffrent.

Then we have two languages where the consonant that follows is a d/ğ;
German and Icelandic. I'd count the English as a short version of "oğer".
And two languages with l; Scandy and Faroese.

Then we have two languages where it ends with er; German and Scandy
(I'll count in English because of the same reason this time as well).
And two where it ends with an a; Icelandic and Faroese.

As it is, the "parts" are: o/e, d/l, a/er.

First of all, I believe a German person would have a harder time
understanding something like "olla" than a Scandy person would
understand something like "eder", so I think I've come to a
conclusion, which is a mix most of the people would probably
understand, at least in a context: "eder".

Now, this topic should work thesame for everyone else of y'all. You
pick a certain word and have a look at it, to come up with a good
Folkspråk equivalent. Of course you can "folkspråkize" several words
in one post.

And you should obviously comment other's suggestions if you want to.

I've never considered the etymoloy of  "or," so I may be talking out of ther
wrong orifice here, but I had always imagined de "oder" and en
"other/either" to be cognate, the 3 would both also fit quite nicely with ic
"eğa". No idea where "or" fits into that.

The nl "of" (/of/, /ov/ ?) may have come from /oT/ or /oD/,which would tie
in with the above (again, i don't know - just guessing). I believe /f/ < >
/T/ is quite a common sound change. That would have to predate dutch's /T/ >
/d/ shift of course.

No idea about a /d/ < > /l/ relationship. Seems unlikely to me because the
articulation is so different, although stranger things have happened. My
starting asumption would be eller/ella aren't related to the others. /l/ and
/r/ are are little closer - maybe there's a link between eller and or? Quite
a few English words of Norse origin thanks to the Danelaw.



----- Original Message -----
From: "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...>
To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:53 PM
Subject: [folkspraak] Vocabulary


A word that has caught my interest is the word that in English is
"or". In Scandy it's "eller", in Faroese it's "ella", in Icelandic
it's "eğa", and in German and Dutch it's "oder" and "of".

As you see, it's "oder" in German and "eğa" in Icelandic. They both
have the d/ğ. In Swedish, Norweigan and Danish, it's "eller", so they
have the beginning e of the Icelandic eğa and the ending er of the
German oder.

This made me wonder if the word earlier has been something like "eğer"
or "eder" in Scandy before, which would bring it closer to the German
"oder", but still sustain the characteristics of the Icelandic "eğa"
(as modern Icelandic looks almost thesame as all the Nordic Languages
did a long time ago).

The English "or", could be thought of as a short version of German
oder, thus "o'r", which is even easier explained if it was earlier
pronounced "oğer", which makes it easier to skip the d/ğ.

I don't know why it became l instead of d/ğ in Scandy, but the fact
that it also appears in Faroese is probably because of its influence
by Danish, thus a Scandy language. Now, ğ is not that far from l; you
only have to move your tounge a little when pronouncing ğ to make it
turn into an l, which could explain the Scandy transformation and
strengthen my theory of old Scandy "eğer" or such.

Then we have the Dutch, which instead has got an f, neither a d/ğ or
an l, which I really have no explaination at all for, so I'll just say
they're a little alien, and we shouldn't care about them when
comparing the words to make a new one, as it's the only one with the
f, which makes us count Dutch out.

Thus we have this:

Two languages where it starts with an o; English (or) and German (oder)
Three languages where it starts with an e; Scandy (eller), Icelandic
(eğa) and Faroese (ella)

I know the Scandy all count as one, but I wouldn't count Icelandic or
Faroese into their group, as they've changed less over time, and as
you see both are diffrent.

Then we have two languages where the consonant that follows is a d/ğ;
German and Icelandic. I'd count the English as a short version of "oğer".
And two languages with l; Scandy and Faroese.

Then we have two languages where it ends with er; German and Scandy
(I'll count in English because of the same reason this time as well).
And two where it ends with an a; Icelandic and Faroese.

As it is, the "parts" are: o/e, d/l, a/er.

Well, do you think "eder" would be a good Folkspråk version?

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Collier" <petecollier@...>
wrote:
>
> I've never considered the etymoloy of  "or," so I may be talking out
of ther
> wrong orifice here, but I had always imagined de "oder" and en
> "other/either" to be cognate, the 3 would both also fit quite nicely
with ic
> "eğa". No idea where "or" fits into that.
>
> The nl "of" (/of/, /ov/ ?) may have come from /oT/ or /oD/,which
would tie
> in with the above (again, i don't know - just guessing). I believe
/f/ < >
> /T/ is quite a common sound change. That would have to predate
dutch's /T/ >
> /d/ shift of course.
>
> No idea about a /d/ < > /l/ relationship. Seems unlikely to me
because the
> articulation is so different, although stranger things have
happened. My
> starting asumption would be eller/ella aren't related to the others.
/l/ and
> /r/ are are little closer - maybe there's a link between eller and
or? Quite
> a few English words of Norse origin thanks to the Danelaw.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...>
> To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:53 PM
> Subject: [folkspraak] Vocabulary
>
>
> A word that has caught my interest is the word that in English is
> "or". In Scandy it's "eller", in Faroese it's "ella", in Icelandic
> it's "eğa", and in German and Dutch it's "oder" and "of".
>
> As you see, it's "oder" in German and "eğa" in Icelandic. They both
> have the d/ğ. In Swedish, Norweigan and Danish, it's "eller", so they
> have the beginning e of the Icelandic eğa and the ending er of the
> German oder.
>
> This made me wonder if the word earlier has been something like "eğer"
> or "eder" in Scandy before, which would bring it closer to the German
> "oder", but still sustain the characteristics of the Icelandic "eğa"
> (as modern Icelandic looks almost thesame as all the Nordic Languages
> did a long time ago).
>
> The English "or", could be thought of as a short version of German
> oder, thus "o'r", which is even easier explained if it was earlier
> pronounced "oğer", which makes it easier to skip the d/ğ.
>
> I don't know why it became l instead of d/ğ in Scandy, but the fact
> that it also appears in Faroese is probably because of its influence
> by Danish, thus a Scandy language. Now, ğ is not that far from l; you
> only have to move your tounge a little when pronouncing ğ to make it
> turn into an l, which could explain the Scandy transformation and
> strengthen my theory of old Scandy "eğer" or such.
>
> Then we have the Dutch, which instead has got an f, neither a d/ğ or
> an l, which I really have no explaination at all for, so I'll just say
> they're a little alien, and we shouldn't care about them when
> comparing the words to make a new one, as it's the only one with the
> f, which makes us count Dutch out.
>
> Thus we have this:
>
> Two languages where it starts with an o; English (or) and German (oder)
> Three languages where it starts with an e; Scandy (eller), Icelandic
> (eğa) and Faroese (ella)
>
> I know the Scandy all count as one, but I wouldn't count Icelandic or
> Faroese into their group, as they've changed less over time, and as
> you see both are diffrent.
>
> Then we have two languages where the consonant that follows is a d/ğ;
> German and Icelandic. I'd count the English as a short version of
"oğer".
> And two languages with l; Scandy and Faroese.
>
> Then we have two languages where it ends with er; German and Scandy
> (I'll count in English because of the same reason this time as well).
> And two where it ends with an a; Icelandic and Faroese.
>
> As it is, the "parts" are: o/e, d/l, a/er.
>

I should point out that the Danish is "tårn" (allthough taarn is
exactly thesame), but that å in this case (and in most cases) can be
considered as the letter o, which makes in torn as well.

By the way, I don't think you should write words apart in Folkspråk,
so that it'd be "Der Babeltorn" and not "Der babel Torn".

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Henning"
<Jeffrey@xxxxxxx.xxxx wrote:
>
> To test the Folkspraak grammar, we need to put together a lexicon
for the
> Babel text.  If you could grab some dictionaries and post some words
to this
> list, it would be appreciated.  I'll start it off with "tower":
>
> FS Torn
>
> !! tower
>
> EN tower
>
> SW torn
>
> DA* Taarn
>
> DU toren
>
> GE Turm
>
> OE torr
>
> So, "the Babel tower" = der babel Torn
>
> Nouns are capitalized (Torn for "tower"), but adjectives are not (e.g.,
> babel for "Babel").
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeffrey
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...>
To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:16 PM
Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Vocabulary


Well, do you think "eder" would be a good Folkspråk version?



If my inane assumptions regarding the cognates are close to reality, I
suppose so - that or /eDer/.  Not sure whether this group goes with the
original Gmc /D/ or the /d/ that developed in high and low German?

What's the difference?

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Collier" <petecollier@...>
wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...>
> To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:16 PM
> Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Vocabulary
>
>
> Well, do you think "eder" would be a good Folkspråk version?
>
>
>
> If my inane assumptions regarding the cognates are close to reality, I
> suppose so - that or /eDer/.  Not sure whether this group goes with the
> original Gmc /D/ or the /d/ that developed in high and low German?
>

/D/ and /T/ are xsampa symbols, used in place of the IPA which is hard to
reproduce on email.  IPA for /D/ is a barred d, /T/ is the IPA theta.

/D/ is a voiced fricative, the phoneme at the start of English words like
"then" and "that".
/d/ is a voiced plosive, the phoneme at he start of words like "day" and
"Dortmund".

The unvoiced phonemes are /T/ ("think", "thin") and /t/ ("trinken", "table")

There was a sound shift in High German (German, Swiss, Luxemburgish) an Low
German (Low Saxon, Dutch) that saw /T/ change to /d/, which didn't affect
the other Germanic languages.



----- Original Message -----
From: "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...>
To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:51 PM
Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Vocabulary


What's the difference?

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Collier" <petecollier@...>
wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...>
> To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:16 PM
> Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Vocabulary
>
>
> Well, do you think "eder" would be a good Folkspråk version?
>
>
>
> If my inane assumptions regarding the cognates are close to reality, I
> suppose so - that or /eDer/.  Not sure whether this group goes with the
> original Gmc /D/ or the /d/ that developed in high and low German?
>




Browse the draft word lists!
http://www.onelist.com/files/folkspraak/
http://www.langmaker.com/folkspraak/volcab.html

Browse Folkspraak-related links!
http://www.onelist.com/links/folkspraak/

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh, as I thought then. Well, I don't think we should use /D/ unless we
have a speciall symbol for it, like icelandic ğ. Then I think we
should rather use a normal /d/, spelled d.

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Collier" <petecollier@...>
wrote:
>
> /D/ and /T/ are xsampa symbols, used in place of the IPA which is
hard to
> reproduce on email.  IPA for /D/ is a barred d, /T/ is the IPA theta.
>
> /D/ is a voiced fricative, the phoneme at the start of English words
like
> "then" and "that".
> /d/ is a voiced plosive, the phoneme at he start of words like "day"
and
> "Dortmund".
>
> The unvoiced phonemes are /T/ ("think", "thin") and /t/ ("trinken",
"table")
>
> There was a sound shift in High German (German, Swiss, Luxemburgish)
an Low
> German (Low Saxon, Dutch) that saw /T/ change to /d/, which didn't
affect
> the other Germanic languages.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...>
> To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:51 PM
> Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Vocabulary
>
>
> What's the difference?
>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Collier" <petecollier@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@>
> > To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:16 PM
> > Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Vocabulary
> >
> >
> > Well, do you think "eder" would be a good Folkspråk version?
> >
> >
> >
> > If my inane assumptions regarding the cognates are close to reality, I
> > suppose so - that or /eDer/.  Not sure whether this group goes
with the
> > original Gmc /D/ or the /d/ that developed in high and low German?
> >
>
>
>
>
> Browse the draft word lists!
> http://www.onelist.com/files/folkspraak/
> http://www.langmaker.com/folkspraak/volcab.html
>
> Browse Folkspraak-related links!
> http://www.onelist.com/links/folkspraak/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Well my preference is for only basing Folkspaak words on words that
share an etymological relationship. I know some other members make
words from mixes of various words which are not related -- the
"crosswords" of Ingmar Roerdinkholder's Middelsprake are a good example.

My objection to "crosswords", is where do they end? Often a language
will have multiple words for the same meaning, and words with multiple
meanings that only partially overlap with the cognate words in the
other germanic languages.
For example take the English word "room". You could also say
"chamber". And German has words such as "Zimmer", "Raum", "Kammer" and
"Saal". EN room is directly cognate (shares an etymological
relationship with) DE Raum. But EN room and DE Raum do not mean
exactly the same thing, although in some areas they are equivalent.
Often DE Raum would be better translated into EN "space".

When making an FS cross word for "room", which words do I mix
together? Room and Zimmer producing "Zoomer" or "Rimmer"? Or Raum and
Chamber producing "Rumber"? Or perhaps Room and Chamber and Zimmer and
Raum and Kammer and Saal all together producing Ruzimberl?

Crosswords appear to me to be based on very superficial examination of
languages and their vocabulary. (For example looking up "Room" in an
English-German dictionary and taking only the first word you see --
likely to be Zimmer). It doesn't examine the way word related words
have complicated differences and overlaps in meaning. And it doesn't
examine the way words often have multiple meanings or idioms. For
example DE Kammer is related to EN chamber (but maybe used with a
subtly different meaning or context in the two languages). DE Zimmer
is in fact directly cognate to EN timber which has a very different
meaning -- except in the context of DE Zimmermann, meaning carpenter.

So when I "invent" words for FS, I look for groups of cognate words
that are shared across of a majority of the source languages. An
example would be EN room, NL ruim, DE Raum, SV rum. These are all
evolutions from Proto-Germanic *rûman. I then look for the meanings
that are shared across the group of shared words. If there is little
or no shared meaning, then a word based on that set of cognates
probably will not be suitable for FS.

The FS word will have the meanings shared by majority of source
languages. So for the FS word rûm, the EN translation would be
something like "n. = room, chamber, compartment of space marked off by
walls within a building, hall, space, two- or three-dimensional area".


As regarding the word for "or". Of the examples you have cited, only
EN or and DE oder have a definite etymological connexion. By throwing
NL "of" into the mix, it ignores that NL "of" is actually directly
cognate to EN if and DE ob. NL "of" can, in addition to being used
like EN or, be used like DE ob and EN if (when used in the sense of
"whether"). The Scandinavian words are related to EN else.
I would normally allow words that are represented only by English and
German forms, even if not represented in other Germlangs, because
these 2 languages are by far the largest and widest know languages.
This is a fairly rare occurrence, because if a word is represented in
both German and English, there is normally a very good chance that
there will be a related word in other Germanic languages.
The case of "or" would be one of those cases where, I would allow a
word based on just DE and EN. So my suggest word for "or" would be
"oder" or perhaps "o'er"

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...> wrote:
>
> Hello again.
>
> I haven't really looked at the most recent list of the vocabulary or
> anything, but I did take a look at the way you guys "make up" words of
> the Folkspråk vocabulary.
>
> So some of the words I try to "folkspråkize" here may already be a
> part of the vocabulary, but then we could perhaps see this as a topic
> for discussing these certain words.
>
> A word that has caught my interest is the word that in English is
> "or". In Scandy it's "eller", in Faroese it's "ella", in Icelandic
> it's "eğa", and in German and Dutch it's "oder" and "of".
>
> As you see, it's "oder" in German and "eğa" in Icelandic. They both
> have the d/ğ. In Swedish, Norweigan and Danish, it's "eller", so they
> have the beginning e of the Icelandic eğa and the ending er of the
> German oder.
>
> This made me wonder if the word earlier has been something like "eğer"
> or "eder" in Scandy before, which would bring it closer to the German
> "oder", but still sustain the characteristics of the Icelandic "eğa"
> (as modern Icelandic looks almost thesame as all the Nordic Languages
> did a long time ago).
>
> The English "or", could be thought of as a short version of German
> oder, thus "o'r", which is even easier explained if it was earlier
> pronounced "oğer", which makes it easier to skip the d/ğ.
>
> I don't know why it became l instead of d/ğ in Scandy, but the fact
> that it also appears in Faroese is probably because of its influence
> by Danish, thus a Scandy language. Now, ğ is not that far from l; you
> only have to move your tounge a little when pronouncing ğ to make it
> turn into an l, which could explain the Scandy transformation and
> strengthen my theory of old Scandy "eğer" or such.
>
> Then we have the Dutch, which instead has got an f, neither a d/ğ or
> an l, which I really have no explaination at all for, so I'll just say
> they're a little alien, and we shouldn't care about them when
> comparing the words to make a new one, as it's the only one with the
> f, which makes us count Dutch out.
>
> Thus we have this:
>
> Two languages where it starts with an o; English (or) and German (oder)
> Three languages where it starts with an e; Scandy (eller), Icelandic
> (eğa) and Faroese (ella)
>
> I know the Scandy all count as one, but I wouldn't count Icelandic or
> Faroese into their group, as they've changed less over time, and as
> you see both are diffrent.
>
> Then we have two languages where the consonant that follows is a d/ğ;
> German and Icelandic. I'd count the English as a short version of
"oğer".
> And two languages with l; Scandy and Faroese.
>
> Then we have two languages where it ends with er; German and Scandy
> (I'll count in English because of the same reason this time as well).
> And two where it ends with an a; Icelandic and Faroese.
>
> As it is, the "parts" are: o/e, d/l, a/er.
>
> First of all, I believe a German person would have a harder time
> understanding something like "olla" than a Scandy person would
> understand something like "eder", so I think I've come to a
> conclusion, which is a mix most of the people would probably
> understand, at least in a context: "eder".
>
> Now, this topic should work thesame for everyone else of y'all. You
> pick a certain word and have a look at it, to come up with a good
> Folkspråk equivalent. Of course you can "folkspråkize" several words
> in one post.
>
> And you should obviously comment other's suggestions if you want to.
>

To a great extent of course, how any language is *written* is irrelevant.
All the spelling shows you is how various monks half a millenium ago though
it best to try and write a Germanic sound with a Roman letter. What is
important is the underlying sounds, hence the use of  /f@'netik
tran'skrip,Snz/ .

With regards to /D/, the icelandic ğ (eth) is the character in icelandic,
Old English and a few others. Modern English of course uses the grapheme th
for that sound (as well as /T/), some languages use dh.

Reproducing Eth is only a problem if you don't have an icelandic keyboard
:).  However, it would look strange to most eyes these days, as icelandic is
the only language which has retained the letter. Same goes  for the letter
thorn (ş), which icelandic has also kept but nowhere else has. Shame, as it
would be quite useful in modern English.

You need to match your writing system to the sounds of the language, not the
other way around. But if you want a one-to-one phoneme/grapheme
correspondence, you're going to need a heck of a lot more letters than 26
letters for your average Germanic language.  Including diphthongs and
triphthongs, English has alone about 20 vowels(?)!

PMC

----- Original Message -----
From: "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...>
To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:20 PM
Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Vocabulary


Oh, as I thought then. Well, I don't think we should use /D/ unless we
have a speciall symbol for it, like icelandic ğ. Then I think we
should rather use a normal /d/, spelled d.

If you read the end of the post, I also tried to make it as easy as
possible to understand in a context for a speaker of any Germanic
language.

In Swedish, "rum" has thesame meaning as English room, while in Danish
and Norweigan it means space, like in German. Swedish has a similar
word for this - rymd. Probably based on an umlaut.

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
>
> Well my preference is for only basing Folkspaak words on words that
> share an etymological relationship. I know some other members make
> words from mixes of various words which are not related -- the
> "crosswords" of Ingmar Roerdinkholder's Middelsprake are a good example.
>
> My objection to "crosswords", is where do they end? Often a language
> will have multiple words for the same meaning, and words with multiple
> meanings that only partially overlap with the cognate words in the
> other germanic languages.
> For example take the English word "room". You could also say
> "chamber". And German has words such as "Zimmer", "Raum", "Kammer" and
> "Saal". EN room is directly cognate (shares an etymological
> relationship with) DE Raum. But EN room and DE Raum do not mean
> exactly the same thing, although in some areas they are equivalent.
> Often DE Raum would be better translated into EN "space".
>
> When making an FS cross word for "room", which words do I mix
> together? Room and Zimmer producing "Zoomer" or "Rimmer"? Or Raum and
> Chamber producing "Rumber"? Or perhaps Room and Chamber and Zimmer and
> Raum and Kammer and Saal all together producing Ruzimberl?
>
> Crosswords appear to me to be based on very superficial examination of
> languages and their vocabulary. (For example looking up "Room" in an
> English-German dictionary and taking only the first word you see --
> likely to be Zimmer). It doesn't examine the way word related words
> have complicated differences and overlaps in meaning. And it doesn't
> examine the way words often have multiple meanings or idioms. For
> example DE Kammer is related to EN chamber (but maybe used with a
> subtly different meaning or context in the two languages). DE Zimmer
> is in fact directly cognate to EN timber which has a very different
> meaning -- except in the context of DE Zimmermann, meaning carpenter.
>
> So when I "invent" words for FS, I look for groups of cognate words
> that are shared across of a majority of the source languages. An
> example would be EN room, NL ruim, DE Raum, SV rum. These are all
> evolutions from Proto-Germanic *rûman. I then look for the meanings
> that are shared across the group of shared words. If there is little
> or no shared meaning, then a word based on that set of cognates
> probably will not be suitable for FS.
>
> The FS word will have the meanings shared by majority of source
> languages. So for the FS word rûm, the EN translation would be
> something like "n. = room, chamber, compartment of space marked off by
> walls within a building, hall, space, two- or three-dimensional area".
>
>
> As regarding the word for "or". Of the examples you have cited, only
> EN or and DE oder have a definite etymological connexion. By throwing
> NL "of" into the mix, it ignores that NL "of" is actually directly
> cognate to EN if and DE ob. NL "of" can, in addition to being used
> like EN or, be used like DE ob and EN if (when used in the sense of
> "whether"). The Scandinavian words are related to EN else.
> I would normally allow words that are represented only by English and
> German forms, even if not represented in other Germlangs, because
> these 2 languages are by far the largest and widest know languages.
> This is a fairly rare occurrence, because if a word is represented in
> both German and English, there is normally a very good chance that
> there will be a related word in other Germanic languages.
> The case of "or" would be one of those cases where, I would allow a
> word based on just DE and EN. So my suggest word for "or" would be
> "oder" or perhaps "o'er"
>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello again.
> >
> > I haven't really looked at the most recent list of the vocabulary or
> > anything, but I did take a look at the way you guys "make up" words of
> > the Folkspråk vocabulary.
> >
> > So some of the words I try to "folkspråkize" here may already be a
> > part of the vocabulary, but then we could perhaps see this as a topic
> > for discussing these certain words.
> >
> > A word that has caught my interest is the word that in English is
> > "or". In Scandy it's "eller", in Faroese it's "ella", in Icelandic
> > it's "eğa", and in German and Dutch it's "oder" and "of".
> >
> > As you see, it's "oder" in German and "eğa" in Icelandic. They both
> > have the d/ğ. In Swedish, Norweigan and Danish, it's "eller", so they
> > have the beginning e of the Icelandic eğa and the ending er of the
> > German oder.
> >
> > This made me wonder if the word earlier has been something like "eğer"
> > or "eder" in Scandy before, which would bring it closer to the German
> > "oder", but still sustain the characteristics of the Icelandic "eğa"
> > (as modern Icelandic looks almost thesame as all the Nordic Languages
> > did a long time ago).
> >
> > The English "or", could be thought of as a short version of German
> > oder, thus "o'r", which is even easier explained if it was earlier
> > pronounced "oğer", which makes it easier to skip the d/ğ.
> >
> > I don't know why it became l instead of d/ğ in Scandy, but the fact
> > that it also appears in Faroese is probably because of its influence
> > by Danish, thus a Scandy language. Now, ğ is not that far from l; you
> > only have to move your tounge a little when pronouncing ğ to make it
> > turn into an l, which could explain the Scandy transformation and
> > strengthen my theory of old Scandy "eğer" or such.
> >
> > Then we have the Dutch, which instead has got an f, neither a d/ğ or
> > an l, which I really have no explaination at all for, so I'll just say
> > they're a little alien, and we shouldn't care about them when
> > comparing the words to make a new one, as it's the only one with the
> > f, which makes us count Dutch out.
> >
> > Thus we have this:
> >
> > Two languages where it starts with an o; English (or) and German
(oder)
> > Three languages where it starts with an e; Scandy (eller), Icelandic
> > (eğa) and Faroese (ella)
> >
> > I know the Scandy all count as one, but I wouldn't count Icelandic or
> > Faroese into their group, as they've changed less over time, and as
> > you see both are diffrent.
> >
> > Then we have two languages where the consonant that follows is a d/ğ;
> > German and Icelandic. I'd count the English as a short version of
> "oğer".
> > And two languages with l; Scandy and Faroese.
> >
> > Then we have two languages where it ends with er; German and Scandy
> > (I'll count in English because of the same reason this time as well).
> > And two where it ends with an a; Icelandic and Faroese.
> >
> > As it is, the "parts" are: o/e, d/l, a/er.
> >
> > First of all, I believe a German person would have a harder time
> > understanding something like "olla" than a Scandy person would
> > understand something like "eder", so I think I've come to a
> > conclusion, which is a mix most of the people would probably
> > understand, at least in a context: "eder".
> >
> > Now, this topic should work thesame for everyone else of y'all. You
> > pick a certain word and have a look at it, to come up with a good
> > Folkspråk equivalent. Of course you can "folkspråkize" several words
> > in one post.
> >
> > And you should obviously comment other's suggestions if you want to.
> >
>

Actually, there are more languages using both eth and thorn or at
least one of them. There are also some languages using an eth where
the lower case form looks like a normal d of the font with a line in
it, rather than the more "bent" one.

But if we were to use (if we already aren't) consonant combinations
for the sounds eth and thorn make, we should at least use both dh and
th, unlike English where you can't tell them apart.

Thus we get "edher"?
--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Collier" <petecollier@...>
wrote:
>
> To a great extent of course, how any language is *written* is
irrelevant.
> All the spelling shows you is how various monks half a millenium ago
though
> it best to try and write a Germanic sound with a Roman letter. What is
> important is the underlying sounds, hence the use of  /f@'netik
> tran'skrip,Snz/ .
>
> With regards to /D/, the icelandic ğ (eth) is the character in
icelandic,
> Old English and a few others. Modern English of course uses the
grapheme th
> for that sound (as well as /T/), some languages use dh.
>
> Reproducing Eth is only a problem if you don't have an icelandic
keyboard
> :).  However, it would look strange to most eyes these days, as
icelandic is
> the only language which has retained the letter. Same goes  for the
letter
> thorn (ş), which icelandic has also kept but nowhere else has.
Shame, as it
> would be quite useful in modern English.
>
> You need to match your writing system to the sounds of the language,
not the
> other way around. But if you want a one-to-one phoneme/grapheme
> correspondence, you're going to need a heck of a lot more letters
than 26
> letters for your average Germanic language.  Including diphthongs and
> triphthongs, English has alone about 20 vowels(?)!
>
> PMC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...>
> To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:20 PM
> Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Vocabulary
>
>
> Oh, as I thought then. Well, I don't think we should use /D/ unless we
> have a speciall symbol for it, like icelandic ğ. Then I think we
> should rather use a normal /d/, spelled d.
>

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...> wrote:
>
> Hello again.

Hi Adam.


> The English "or", could be thought of as a short version of German
> oder, thus "o'r", which is even easier explained if it was earlier
> pronounced "oğer", which makes it easier to skip the d/ğ.


These links might be interesting for you:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=other&searchmode=none
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=or&searchmode=none

This confirms your theory. :-)

> I don't know why it became l instead of d/ğ in Scandy, but the fact
> that it also appears in Faroese is probably because of its influence
> by Danish, thus a Scandy language. Now, ğ is not that far from l; you
> only have to move your tounge a little when pronouncing ğ to make it
> turn into an l, which could explain the Scandy transformation and
> strengthen my theory of old Scandy "eğer" or such.

Maybe (d -> l). In Danish "det" is pronounced almost like "del" (det
-> ded -> değ -> del, apparently).

I don't write this consonant shift in Folksprak, and I don't create
word mixes either. Therefore my word for "or" is "oder" in Folksprak,
which coincidentally resembles "oder" in German.

> Oh, as I thought then. Well, I don't think we should use /D/ unless we
> have a speciall symbol for it, like icelandic ğ. Then I think we
> should rather use a normal /d/, spelled d.

We have agreed on using the Latin alphabet only, like English.

A more differentiated and etymology-based way of writing Folksprak is
Fůlkspræk (an invention of mine, so nothing "official"). Using the
Fůlkspræk alphabet "oder" is written "ođĕr". Since this way of
writing
is rather awquard, I thought, why not reduce the Folksprak alphabet to
the Latin alphabet right from the start? And apparently, it works.

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:

> When making an FS cross word for "room", which words do I mix
> together? Room and Zimmer producing "Zoomer" or "Rimmer"? Or Raum and
> Chamber producing "Rumber"? Or perhaps Room and Chamber and Zimmer and
> Raum and Kammer and Saal all together producing Ruzimberl?

Hi David.

That's my point, too. And that's why I don't crosswords either.

Crosswording could end in forms like you have described. This way of
forming words reminds me of a set of words in Esperanto. The stem of
the verb meaning "to glide" (DE "schlittern") is "glit". I don't want
to have this kind of words in Folksprak, simply because I think this
is not neccessary.

> So when I "invent" words for FS, I look for groups of cognate words
> that are shared across of a majority of the source languages. An
> example would be EN room, NL ruim, DE Raum, SV rum. These are all
> evolutions from Proto-Germanic *rûman. I then look for the meanings
> that are shared across the group of shared words. If there is little
> or no shared meaning, then a word based on that set of cognates
> probably will not be suitable for FS.

I think these words ("rum" and "timmer") should be Folksprak words. We
need to define their meaning if neccessary. But we shouldn't drop
those words.

> I would normally allow words that are represented only by English and
> German forms, even if not represented in other Germlangs, because
> these 2 languages are by far the largest and widest know languages.


I must admit, English and German are the most importan languages in
opinion, too. :-D

Yet having a cognate among all Germlangs is perfect as a criterion.

> This is a fairly rare occurrence, because if a word is represented in
> both German and English, there is normally a very good chance that
> there will be a related word in other Germanic languages.
> The case of "or" would be one of those cases where, I would allow a
> word based on just DE and EN. So my suggest word for "or" would be
> "oder" or perhaps "o'er"


I think a word like "o'er" would be a sort of Folksprak slang. So, why
not...

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...> wrote:
>
> But if we were to use (if we already aren't) consonant combinations
> for the sounds eth and thorn make, we should at least use both dh and
> th, unlike English where you can't tell them apart.

They are easy to distinguish. Any "th-" at the beginning of a pronoun
or a combination with a pronoun is pronounced "dh-" /D/, whereas the
rest is pronounced /T/.

thou
these
them
though

But I write "t" and "d" in Folksprak.


Bye,
Stephan

Heh. :]

I took a thought about what you said about "other" having something to
do with it as well. "You other me" > "You, otherwise me". "Otherwise"
is actually "ellers" in Norweigan, and or is "eller".

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello again.
>
> Hi Adam.
>
>
> > The English "or", could be thought of as a short version of German
> > oder, thus "o'r", which is even easier explained if it was earlier
> > pronounced "oğer", which makes it easier to skip the d/ğ.
>
>
> These links might be interesting for you:
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=other&searchmode=none
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=or&searchmode=none
>
> This confirms your theory. :-)
>
> > I don't know why it became l instead of d/ğ in Scandy, but the fact
> > that it also appears in Faroese is probably because of its influence
> > by Danish, thus a Scandy language. Now, ğ is not that far from l; you
> > only have to move your tounge a little when pronouncing ğ to make it
> > turn into an l, which could explain the Scandy transformation and
> > strengthen my theory of old Scandy "eğer" or such.
>
> Maybe (d -> l). In Danish "det" is pronounced almost like "del" (det
> -> ded -> değ -> del, apparently).
>
> I don't write this consonant shift in Folksprak, and I don't create
> word mixes either. Therefore my word for "or" is "oder" in Folksprak,
> which coincidentally resembles "oder" in German.
>
> > Oh, as I thought then. Well, I don't think we should use /D/ unless we
> > have a speciall symbol for it, like icelandic ğ. Then I think we
> > should rather use a normal /d/, spelled d.
>
> We have agreed on using the Latin alphabet only, like English.
>
> A more differentiated and etymology-based way of writing Folksprak is
> Fůlkspræk (an invention of mine, so nothing "official"). Using the
> Fůlkspræk alphabet "oder" is written "ođĕr". Since
this way of writing
> is rather awquard, I thought, why not reduce the Folksprak alphabet to
> the Latin alphabet right from the start? And apparently, it works.
>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
>
> > When making an FS cross word for "room", which words do I mix
> > together? Room and Zimmer producing "Zoomer" or "Rimmer"? Or Raum and
> > Chamber producing "Rumber"? Or perhaps Room and Chamber and Zimmer and
> > Raum and Kammer and Saal all together producing Ruzimberl?
>
> Hi David.
>
> That's my point, too. And that's why I don't crosswords either.
>
> Crosswording could end in forms like you have described. This way of
> forming words reminds me of a set of words in Esperanto. The stem of
> the verb meaning "to glide" (DE "schlittern") is "glit". I don't want
> to have this kind of words in Folksprak, simply because I think this
> is not neccessary.
>
> > So when I "invent" words for FS, I look for groups of cognate words
> > that are shared across of a majority of the source languages. An
> > example would be EN room, NL ruim, DE Raum, SV rum. These are all
> > evolutions from Proto-Germanic *rûman. I then look for the meanings
> > that are shared across the group of shared words. If there is little
> > or no shared meaning, then a word based on that set of cognates
> > probably will not be suitable for FS.
>
> I think these words ("rum" and "timmer") should be Folksprak words. We
> need to define their meaning if neccessary. But we shouldn't drop
> those words.
>
> > I would normally allow words that are represented only by English and
> > German forms, even if not represented in other Germlangs, because
> > these 2 languages are by far the largest and widest know languages.
>
>
> I must admit, English and German are the most importan languages in
> opinion, too. :-D
>
> Yet having a cognate among all Germlangs is perfect as a criterion.
>
> > This is a fairly rare occurrence, because if a word is represented in
> > both German and English, there is normally a very good chance that
> > there will be a related word in other Germanic languages.
> > The case of "or" would be one of those cases where, I would allow a
> > word based on just DE and EN. So my suggest word for "or" would be
> > "oder" or perhaps "o'er"
>
>
> I think a word like "o'er" would be a sort of Folksprak slang. So, why
> not...
>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@> wrote:
> >
> > But if we were to use (if we already aren't) consonant combinations
> > for the sounds eth and thorn make, we should at least use both dh and
> > th, unlike English where you can't tell them apart.
>
> They are easy to distinguish. Any "th-" at the beginning of a pronoun
> or a combination with a pronoun is pronounced "dh-" /D/, whereas the
> rest is pronounced /T/.
>
> thou
> these
> them
> though
>
> But I write "t" and "d" in Folksprak.
>
>
> Bye,
> Stephan
>

>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
>
> > When making an FS cross word for "room", which words do I mix
> > together? Room and Zimmer producing "Zoomer" or "Rimmer"? Or Raum and
> > Chamber producing "Rumber"? Or perhaps Room and Chamber and Zimmer and
> > Raum and Kammer and Saal all together producing Ruzimberl?
>
> Hi David.
>
> That's my point, too. And that's why I don't crosswords either.
>
> Crosswording could end in forms like you have described. This way of
> forming words reminds me of a set of words in Esperanto. The stem of
> the verb meaning "to glide" (DE "schlittern") is "glit". I don't want
> to have this kind of words in Folksprak, simply because I think this
> is not neccessary.

Hi Stefan.

There is one place where cross-words may have their place, and that is
with onomatopoeic words. There are words that sound like what they
describe (such as EN "pop" or "woof"). Often with these words you find
a bunch of words in the germlangs with an obscure etymological
relationship that mostly resemble each other because they resemble the
same sound. In such cases, probably cross-wording would be OK.


>
> > So when I "invent" words for FS, I look for groups of cognate words
> > that are shared across of a majority of the source languages. An
> > example would be EN room, NL ruim, DE Raum, SV rum. These are all
> > evolutions from Proto-Germanic *rûman. I then look for the meanings
> > that are shared across the group of shared words. If there is little
> > or no shared meaning, then a word based on that set of cognates
> > probably will not be suitable for FS.
>
> I think these words ("rum" and "timmer") should be Folksprak words. We
> need to define their meaning if neccessary. But we shouldn't drop
> those words.

"Rum" should definitely be in FS, but it might not mean exactly the
same as in English Room or German Raum (but probably similar to both).
FS timmer should probably mean something like "wood", but not like DE
Zimmer. (except in the sense of in Zimmermann)
"Timmer" would probably the best candidate of a FS word for "wood"
since the other alternatives are not as common among the germlangs.
Scand tre/trä/trae is cognate to EN tree with a different (yet
overlapping meaning). DE Holz and NL hout are cognate. EN wood seems
to have no cognates in the other germlangs. So nothing is represented
in the majority. Timmer/Zimmer/Timber etc are represented in most of
the germlangs yet with differing meanings/contexts but the commonest
under-lying thread of meaning seems to be "wood".

>
> > I would normally allow words that are represented only by English and
> > German forms, even if not represented in other Germlangs, because
> > these 2 languages are by far the largest and widest know languages.
>
>
> I must admit, English and German are the most importan languages in
> opinion, too. :-D
>
> Yet having a cognate among all Germlangs is perfect as a criterion.

Nice when it happens, sadly not always possible.

>
> > This is a fairly rare occurrence, because if a word is represented in
> > both German and English, there is normally a very good chance that
> > there will be a related word in other Germanic languages.
> > The case of "or" would be one of those cases where, I would allow a
> > word based on just DE and EN. So my suggest word for "or" would be
> > "oder" or perhaps "o'er"
>
>
> I think a word like "o'er" would be a sort of Folksprak slang. So, why
> not...
>

I'm really in favour of "oder". Coincidentally just like the German
word. But often I find FS words which are exactly like the Dutch word,
or the norwegian word, of English word for example.


> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@> wrote:
> >
> > But if we were to use (if we already aren't) consonant combinations
> > for the sounds eth and thorn make, we should at least use both dh and
> > th, unlike English where you can't tell them apart.
>
> They are easy to distinguish. Any "th-" at the beginning of a pronoun
> or a combination with a pronoun is pronounced "dh-" /D/, whereas the
> rest is pronounced /T/.
>
> thou
> these
> them
> though
>
> But I write "t" and "d" in Folksprak.
>
>
> Bye,
> Stephan
>

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...> wrote:
>
> Heh. :]
>
> I took a thought about what you said about "other" having something to
> do with it as well. "You other me" > "You, otherwise me". "Otherwise"
> is actually "ellers" in Norweigan, and or is "eller".

EN Other is directly cognate to DE ander, NL ander, Scandy andre/andra
etc. It's lost the "n" due to the North Sea Germanic nasal spirant change.

I think the scandy "eller" is in fact cognate with EN else.

>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello again.
> >
> > Hi Adam.
> >
> >
> > > The English "or", could be thought of as a short version of German
> > > oder, thus "o'r", which is even easier explained if it was earlier
> > > pronounced "oğer", which makes it easier to skip the d/ğ.
> >
> >
> > These links might be interesting for you:
> >
> > http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=other&searchmode=none
> > http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=or&searchmode=none
> >
> > This confirms your theory. :-)
> >
> > > I don't know why it became l instead of d/ğ in Scandy, but the fact
> > > that it also appears in Faroese is probably because of its influence
> > > by Danish, thus a Scandy language. Now, ğ is not that far from
l; you
> > > only have to move your tounge a little when pronouncing ğ to make it
> > > turn into an l, which could explain the Scandy transformation and
> > > strengthen my theory of old Scandy "eğer" or such.
> >
> > Maybe (d -> l). In Danish "det" is pronounced almost like "del" (det
> > -> ded -> değ -> del, apparently).
> >
> > I don't write this consonant shift in Folksprak, and I don't create
> > word mixes either. Therefore my word for "or" is "oder" in Folksprak,
> > which coincidentally resembles "oder" in German.
> >
> > > Oh, as I thought then. Well, I don't think we should use /D/
unless we
> > > have a speciall symbol for it, like icelandic ğ. Then I think we
> > > should rather use a normal /d/, spelled d.
> >
> > We have agreed on using the Latin alphabet only, like English.
> >
> > A more differentiated and etymology-based way of writing Folksprak is
> > Fůlkspræk (an invention of mine, so nothing "official").
Using the
> > Fůlkspræk alphabet "oder" is written "ođĕr". Since
> this way of writing
> > is rather awquard, I thought, why not reduce the Folksprak alphabet to
> > the Latin alphabet right from the start? And apparently, it works.
> >
> > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
> >
> > > When making an FS cross word for "room", which words do I mix
> > > together? Room and Zimmer producing "Zoomer" or "Rimmer"? Or
Raum and
> > > Chamber producing "Rumber"? Or perhaps Room and Chamber and
Zimmer and
> > > Raum and Kammer and Saal all together producing Ruzimberl?
> >
> > Hi David.
> >
> > That's my point, too. And that's why I don't crosswords either.
> >
> > Crosswording could end in forms like you have described. This way of
> > forming words reminds me of a set of words in Esperanto. The stem of
> > the verb meaning "to glide" (DE "schlittern") is "glit". I don't want
> > to have this kind of words in Folksprak, simply because I think this
> > is not neccessary.
> >
> > > So when I "invent" words for FS, I look for groups of cognate words
> > > that are shared across of a majority of the source languages. An
> > > example would be EN room, NL ruim, DE Raum, SV rum. These are all
> > > evolutions from Proto-Germanic *rûman. I then look for the meanings
> > > that are shared across the group of shared words. If there is little
> > > or no shared meaning, then a word based on that set of cognates
> > > probably will not be suitable for FS.
> >
> > I think these words ("rum" and "timmer") should be Folksprak words. We
> > need to define their meaning if neccessary. But we shouldn't drop
> > those words.
> >
> > > I would normally allow words that are represented only by
English and
> > > German forms, even if not represented in other Germlangs, because
> > > these 2 languages are by far the largest and widest know languages.
> >
> >
> > I must admit, English and German are the most importan languages in
> > opinion, too. :-D
> >
> > Yet having a cognate among all Germlangs is perfect as a criterion.
> >
> > > This is a fairly rare occurrence, because if a word is
represented in
> > > both German and English, there is normally a very good chance that
> > > there will be a related word in other Germanic languages.
> > > The case of "or" would be one of those cases where, I would allow a
> > > word based on just DE and EN. So my suggest word for "or" would be
> > > "oder" or perhaps "o'er"
> >
> >
> > I think a word like "o'er" would be a sort of Folksprak slang. So, why
> > not...
> >
> > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@> wrote:
> > >
> > > But if we were to use (if we already aren't) consonant combinations
> > > for the sounds eth and thorn make, we should at least use both
dh and
> > > th, unlike English where you can't tell them apart.
> >
> > They are easy to distinguish. Any "th-" at the beginning of a pronoun
> > or a combination with a pronoun is pronounced "dh-" /D/, whereas the
> > rest is pronounced /T/.
> >
> > thou
> > these
> > them
> > though
> >
> > But I write "t" and "d" in Folksprak.
> >
> >
> > Bye,
> > Stephan
> >
>

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
> "Rum" should definitely be in FS, but it might not mean exactly the
> same as in English Room or German Raum (but probably similar to both).
> FS timmer should probably mean something like "wood", but not like DE
> Zimmer. (except in the sense of in Zimmermann)
> "Timmer" would probably the best candidate of a FS word for "wood"
> since the other alternatives are not as common among the germlangs.
> Scand tre/trä/trae is cognate to EN tree with a different (yet
> overlapping meaning). DE Holz and NL hout are cognate. EN wood seems
> to have no cognates in the other germlangs. So nothing is represented
> in the majority. Timmer/Zimmer/Timber etc are represented in most of
> the germlangs yet with differing meanings/contexts but the commonest
> under-lying thread of meaning seems to be "wood".
>

I believe timmer means a speciall type of wood in Swedish.


> I'm really in favour of "oder". Coincidentally just like the German
> word. But often I find FS words which are exactly like the Dutch word,
> or the norwegian word, of English word for example.

I found "Dis is to dyr" in the wordlist before. I had a good laugh at
that, since it looks like a Swedish person joking with English, as it
looks like "This is too dyr", where "dyr" is the only Swedish word and
the rest are English. xD

> > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@> wrote:
> > >
> > > But if we were to use (if we already aren't) consonant combinations
> > > for the sounds eth and thorn make, we should at least use both
dh and
> > > th, unlike English where you can't tell them apart.
> >
> > They are easy to distinguish. Any "th-" at the beginning of a pronoun
> > or a combination with a pronoun is pronounced "dh-" /D/, whereas the
> > rest is pronounced /T/.
> >
> > thou
> > these
> > them
> > though
> >
> > But I write "t" and "d" in Folksprak.

So it would still be oder/eder, and not odher/edher?

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@...> wrote:
>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
> > "Rum" should definitely be in FS, but it might not mean exactly the
> > same as in English Room or German Raum (but probably similar to both).
> > FS timmer should probably mean something like "wood", but not like DE
> > Zimmer. (except in the sense of in Zimmermann)
> > "Timmer" would probably the best candidate of a FS word for "wood"
> > since the other alternatives are not as common among the germlangs.
> > Scand tre/trä/trae is cognate to EN tree with a different (yet
> > overlapping meaning). DE Holz and NL hout are cognate. EN wood seems
> > to have no cognates in the other germlangs. So nothing is represented
> > in the majority. Timmer/Zimmer/Timber etc are represented in most of
> > the germlangs yet with differing meanings/contexts but the commonest
> > under-lying thread of meaning seems to be "wood".
> >
>
> I believe timmer means a speciall type of wood in Swedish.
>
>
> > I'm really in favour of "oder". Coincidentally just like the German
> > word. But often I find FS words which are exactly like the Dutch word,
> > or the norwegian word, of English word for example.
>
> I found "Dis is to dyr" in the wordlist before. I had a good laugh at
> that, since it looks like a Swedish person joking with English, as it
> looks like "This is too dyr", where "dyr" is the only Swedish word and
> the rest are English. xD

If it's my dialect of FS (which it may be since those are all valid
words in my dialect), then it might look English but would be
pronounced somewhat differently:
[di:s Is to: dy:r].

Incidentally, "is" is also used in Dutch in almost the exact same way
as in English. And "dyr" is also used in Danish (but means both "dear"
and "animal", unlike in SV where they are two distinct words).


>
> > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But if we were to use (if we already aren't) consonant
combinations
> > > > for the sounds eth and thorn make, we should at least use both
> dh and
> > > > th, unlike English where you can't tell them apart.
> > >
> > > They are easy to distinguish. Any "th-" at the beginning of a
pronoun
> > > or a combination with a pronoun is pronounced "dh-" /D/, whereas the
> > > rest is pronounced /T/.
> > >
> > > thou
> > > these
> > > them
> > > though
> > >
> > > But I write "t" and "d" in Folksprak.
>
> So it would still be oder/eder, and not odher/edher?
>

--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
>
> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "atamskuuk" <adam_skoog5@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
> > > "Rum" should definitely be in FS, but it might not mean exactly the
> > > same as in English Room or German Raum (but probably similar to
both).
> > > FS timmer should probably mean something like "wood", but not
like DE
> > > Zimmer. (except in the sense of in Zimmermann)
> > > "Timmer" would probably the best candidate of a FS word for "wood"
> > > since the other alternatives are not as common among the germlangs.
> > > Scand tre/trä/trae is cognate to EN tree with a different (yet
> > > overlapping meaning). DE Holz and NL hout are cognate. EN wood seems
> > > to have no cognates in the other germlangs. So nothing is
represented
> > > in the majority. Timmer/Zimmer/Timber etc are represented in most of
> > > the germlangs yet with differing meanings/contexts but the commonest
> > > under-lying thread of meaning seems to be "wood".
> > >
> >
> > I believe timmer means a speciall type of wood in Swedish.
> >
> >
> > > I'm really in favour of "oder". Coincidentally just like the German
> > > word. But often I find FS words which are exactly like the Dutch
word,
> > > or the norwegian word, of English word for example.
> >
> > I found "Dis is to dyr" in the wordlist before. I had a good laugh at
> > that, since it looks like a Swedish person joking with English, as it
> > looks like "This is too dyr", where "dyr" is the only Swedish word and
> > the rest are English. xD
>
> If it's my dialect of FS (which it may be since those are all valid
> words in my dialect), then it might look English but would be
> pronounced somewhat differently:
> [di:s Is to: dy:r].
>
> Incidentally, "is" is also used in Dutch in almost the exact same way
> as in English. And "dyr" is also used in Danish (but means both "dear"
> and "animal", unlike in SV where they are two distinct words).

I know very well about that, since that is an interesting phenomena
I've thought about. Between Germanic languages, consonant + y tend to
turn into consonant + ju.

Some examples are between Swedish and Norweigan (Swedish is the ones
with ju instead of y): mjuk - myk, djur - dyr, sjuk - syk, ljud - lyd,
ljus - lys, tjuv - tyv.

These also appear between English and Scandy; the English words "new"
and "view" are pronounced in a way which would make them written "nju"
and "vju" with Scandy rules, while the Scandy equivalents are "ny" and
"vy".