Or as the example has it

Spraak and Taal..

I suspect the literal translation of the Dutch Spraak and Taal in
English is
Speak and Tell. I will speak of things, or I will tell mother.

Mike



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Hi,

I came across the Folkspraak webpage a few days ago, and find the
idea intriguing.

While reading the grammar (0.5.2), I noticed that all possessive
forms would made by using the preposition `von', as in `der Buk von
John', rather than an analogy of `John's book'.

I would have thought that the latter way was more Germanic, the
former being more French. Is there a reason for doing it this way?

Thanks,

Richard Collins.

As with the rest of the Folkspraak grammar, I think that trial and error, or
common usage, should determine what form is used. Pros of 'von' are: used in
German, obvious to Dutch speakers, recognizable to many English speakers.
Cons: one more preposition to learn, " von " takes longer to type than "'s",
and "s" is used for the possessive in some Germanic familiy languages
(which?).

At this point, I think of Folkspraak as a type of pidgin, with
characteristics of the  Ga:starbeiterdeutsch spoken by many guest workers in
Germany, or the 'foreigner talk' used by native speakers when dealing with
tourists and others with only a rudimentary knowledge of the target language.
Only problem is, there are several target languages. Finding the common core
is the trick, and the basic principles laid down in the charter do a pretty
good job, though not a perfect one. If Folkspraak gets past the early pidgin
stage, it will stabilize in vocabulary, spelling, and grammar, and then it'll
take off. But not without the level of communication we had a year or so ago!

Brian


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

back from the brink I see.  I haven't seen any traffice on this..

Is folkspraak dead?   If its not and we could produce a anewer release
I would humur the idea of writing a simple folkpraak to english
translator.


bribri56@... wrote:
>
> As with the rest of the Folkspraak grammar, I think that trial and error, or
> common usage, should determine what form is used. Pros of 'von' are: used in
> German, obvious to Dutch speakers, recognizable to many English speakers.
> Cons: one more preposition to learn, " von " takes longer to type than "'s",
> and "s" is used for the possessive in some Germanic familiy languages
> (which?).
>
> At this point, I think of Folkspraak as a type of pidgin, with
> characteristics of the  Ga:starbeiterdeutsch spoken by many guest workers in
> Germany, or the 'foreigner talk' used by native speakers when dealing with
> tourists and others with only a rudimentary knowledge of the target language.
> Only problem is, there are several target languages. Finding the common core
> is the trick, and the basic principles laid down in the charter do a pretty
> good job, though not a perfect one. If Folkspraak gets past the early pidgin
> stage, it will stabilize in vocabulary, spelling, and grammar, and then it'll
> take off. But not without the level of communication we had a year or so ago!
>
> Brian
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
Will Beazley
Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG:    888.213.7053

on second thought judging my poor spelling maybe that would be a bad
idea :)

William Beazley wrote:
>
> back from the brink I see.  I haven't seen any traffice on this..
>
> Is folkspraak dead?   If its not and we could produce a anewer release
> I would humur the idea of writing a simple folkpraak to english
> translator.
>
> bribri56@... wrote:
> >
> > As with the rest of the Folkspraak grammar, I think that trial and error, or
> > common usage, should determine what form is used. Pros of 'von' are: used in
> > German, obvious to Dutch speakers, recognizable to many English speakers.
> > Cons: one more preposition to learn, " von " takes longer to type than "'s",
> > and "s" is used for the possessive in some Germanic familiy languages
> > (which?).
> >
> > At this point, I think of Folkspraak as a type of pidgin, with
> > characteristics of the  Ga:starbeiterdeutsch spoken by many guest workers in
> > Germany, or the 'foreigner talk' used by native speakers when dealing with
> > tourists and others with only a rudimentary knowledge of the target
language.
> > Only problem is, there are several target languages. Finding the common core
> > is the trick, and the basic principles laid down in the charter do a pretty
> > good job, though not a perfect one. If Folkspraak gets past the early pidgin
> > stage, it will stabilize in vocabulary, spelling, and grammar, and then
it'll
> > take off. But not without the level of communication we had a year or so
ago!
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> --
> Will Beazley
> Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
> FON:    512.502.2003 |EML:      mailto:beazley@...
> FAX:    512.231.8108 |PAG:      888.213.7053
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
Will Beazley
Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG:    888.213.7053

--- In folkspraak@y..., bribri56@a... wrote:
> "s" is used for the possessive in some Germanic familiy languages
> (which?).

I speak good English and German, as well as rudimentary Swedish that
I learnt from the web
(http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1290/), and it seems that
all three can and do say `John's book'. Assuming that it is also
covered in the other languages, I feel it would be good to include
such a thing in Folkspraak.

  - Richard Collins.

I wrote the grammar outline, so I can respond.  The idea is to make the
grammar as simple as possible and to pick the most basic ideas which are
common to English and German.  German has the genitive case, English does
not.  English uses "'s" German does not.  Both English and German can
understand, "das Buch von Johannes" to mean "John's book".

Dan Dawes
19900 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 1150
Irvine, California 92612
949 223 9600
dawes@...


-----Original Message-----
From: r.collins@... [mailto:r.collins@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 5:17 AM
To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [folkspraak] -'s possessive form


Hi,

I came across the Folkspraak webpage a few days ago, and find the
idea intriguing.

While reading the grammar (0.5.2), I noticed that all possessive
forms would made by using the preposition `von', as in `der Buk von
John', rather than an analogy of `John's book'.

I would have thought that the latter way was more Germanic, the
former being more French. Is there a reason for doing it this way?

Thanks,

Richard Collins.



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/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I don't think Folkspraak will ever be more than a hobby language for a few
word/grammar addicts like us, but it is fun and it makes a valid point about
creating a community with a pan-Germanic language.

If there is an international language it is English.  What we need is a
pidgin English that has some formal support so that all Europeans and others
can use.  The first thing we do is to kill the lawyers and then reform the
spelling of English to be entirely phonetic, though I admit that fonetik
English dreivs mi nutz.  Then again I am too old and am from the archaic
lost generation.  The next generation must be phonetic speakers.  Then we
ruthlessly eliminate all irregularities from the language and its grammar.
Gone forever is our favorite am, are, is . . .  I be for that.

My proposal is for a group of non-native English speakers to formulate
Folklish along the above lines and write a few Nobel Prize winner novels,
plays and books, and do all business transactions with it to make it the
language you have to use, if you want to get what you need.

Make Folklish easy for non-English speakers to learn, in other words
whatever it is the makes English difficult to learn and use as a second
language, get rid of it and put something in its place that is easy to
learn, remember and use.

Dan Dawes


-----Original Message-----
From: bribri56@... [mailto:bribri56@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 6:38 AM
To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [folkspraak] -'s possessive form


As with the rest of the Folkspraak grammar, I think that trial and error, or
common usage, should determine what form is used. Pros of 'von' are: used in
German, obvious to Dutch speakers, recognizable to many English speakers.
Cons: one more preposition to learn, " von " takes longer to type than "'s",
and "s" is used for the possessive in some Germanic familiy languages
(which?).

At this point, I think of Folkspraak as a type of pidgin, with
characteristics of the  Ga:starbeiterdeutsch spoken by many guest workers in
Germany, or the 'foreigner talk' used by native speakers when dealing with
tourists and others with only a rudimentary knowledge of the target
language.
Only problem is, there are several target languages. Finding the common core
is the trick, and the basic principles laid down in the charter do a pretty
good job, though not a perfect one. If Folkspraak gets past the early pidgin
stage, it will stabilize in vocabulary, spelling, and grammar, and then
it'll
take off. But not without the level of communication we had a year or so
ago!

Brian


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



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/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Write a translator between standard English and International English, aka
Folklish.  (Reit e transletor betwin standard English and Internashanul
English.)

Dan Dawes


-----Original Message-----
From: beazley@... [mailto:beazley@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:17 AM
To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [folkspraak] -'s possessive form


back from the brink I see.  I haven't seen any traffice on this..

Is folkspraak dead?   If its not and we could produce a anewer release
I would humur the idea of writing a simple folkpraak to english
translator.


bribri56@... wrote:
>
> As with the rest of the Folkspraak grammar, I think that trial and error,
or
> common usage, should determine what form is used. Pros of 'von' are: used
in
> German, obvious to Dutch speakers, recognizable to many English speakers.
> Cons: one more preposition to learn, " von " takes longer to type than
"'s",
> and "s" is used for the possessive in some Germanic familiy languages
> (which?).
>
> At this point, I think of Folkspraak as a type of pidgin, with
> characteristics of the  Ga:starbeiterdeutsch spoken by many guest workers
in
> Germany, or the 'foreigner talk' used by native speakers when dealing with
> tourists and others with only a rudimentary knowledge of the target
language.
> Only problem is, there are several target languages. Finding the common
core
> is the trick, and the basic principles laid down in the charter do a
pretty
> good job, though not a perfect one. If Folkspraak gets past the early
pidgin
> stage, it will stabilize in vocabulary, spelling, and grammar, and then
it'll
> take off. But not without the level of communication we had a year or so
ago!
>
> Brian
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
Will Beazley
Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG:    888.213.7053


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/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

See http://home.att.net/~pjmitrevski/download.html for a proposal of
International English.

Dan Dawes


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Dawes [mailto:dawes@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 11:23 AM
To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [folkspraak] -'s possessive form


Write a translator between standard English and International English, aka
Folklish.  (Reit e transletor betwin standard English and Internashanul
English.)

Dan Dawes


-----Original Message-----
From: beazley@... [mailto:beazley@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:17 AM
To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [folkspraak] -'s possessive form


back from the brink I see.  I haven't seen any traffice on this..

Is folkspraak dead?   If its not and we could produce a anewer release
I would humur the idea of writing a simple folkpraak to english
translator.


bribri56@... wrote:
>
> As with the rest of the Folkspraak grammar, I think that trial and error,
or
> common usage, should determine what form is used. Pros of 'von' are: used
in
> German, obvious to Dutch speakers, recognizable to many English speakers.
> Cons: one more preposition to learn, " von " takes longer to type than
"'s",
> and "s" is used for the possessive in some Germanic familiy languages
> (which?).
>
> At this point, I think of Folkspraak as a type of pidgin, with
> characteristics of the  Ga:starbeiterdeutsch spoken by many guest workers
in
> Germany, or the 'foreigner talk' used by native speakers when dealing with
> tourists and others with only a rudimentary knowledge of the target
language.
> Only problem is, there are several target languages. Finding the common
core
> is the trick, and the basic principles laid down in the charter do a
pretty
> good job, though not a perfect one. If Folkspraak gets past the early
pidgin
> stage, it will stabilize in vocabulary, spelling, and grammar, and then
it'll
> take off. But not without the level of communication we had a year or so
ago!
>
> Brian
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
Will Beazley
Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG:    888.213.7053


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/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




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/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

We could learn a few things from Tok Pisin (Pidgin-Talk), which is an
official language now in Papua New Guinea. It has a pretty good presence on
the Web (do your own research :). But the principles of Folkspraak, and of
Dan's latest proposal, match principles common to many pidgins. I found Mark
Sebba's book 'Contact Languages - Pidgins and Creoles', 1997 to be quite
readable and it unintentially has a lot to say to conlangers and auxlangers.
The section on Afrikaans (a 'creoloid' language) might be especially
interesting to Folkspraakers (or Spraakers von Folkspraak).

Brian



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

r.collins@... writes:

> --- In folkspraak@y..., bribri56@a... wrote:
> > "s" is used for the possessive in some Germanic familiy languages
> > (which?).
>
> I speak good English and German, as well as rudimentary Swedish that
> I learnt from the web
> (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1290/), and it seems that
> all three can and do say `John's book'. Assuming that it is also
> covered in the other languages, I feel it would be good to include
> such a thing in Folkspraak.

The genitive in -s is extremely common in Danish and Swedish.  In
Norwegian, it seems to be on its way out (but is certainly still
used).  Icelandic still has a real genitive case with various endings
(-s being but one).  In German, it's mostly used with names (as in
English).  I think it is very rare in Dutch, if it's used at all.

/Thomas
--
Thomas Martin Widmann,  Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333,  DK-8000 Århus C
Tel.:  7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465
<mailto:viralbus@...>     <URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus>
MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK

««
on second thought judging my poor spelling maybe that would be a bad
idea :)

William Beazley wrote:
>
> back from the brink I see.  I haven't seen any traffice on this..
>
> Is folkspraak dead?   If its not and we could produce a anewer release
> I would humur the idea of writing a simple folkpraak to english
> translator.
»»

How about the other way around?  English -> Folkspraak.  Or maybe both
directions?

««
I wrote the grammar outline, so I can respond.  The idea is to make the
grammar as simple as possible and to pick the most basic ideas which are
common to English and German.  German has the genitive case, English does
not.  English uses "'s" German does not.  Both English and German can
understand, "das Buch von Johannes" to mean "John's book".
»»

German uses -es for the genitive

««
Write a translator between standard English and International English, aka
Folklish.  (Reit e transletor betwin standard English and Internashanul
English.)
»»

/wrVjdV tr[à]ntslejdr= b@twin st[à]ndr=d INglIS [à]nd Intr=næ:SIn@l INglIS/
The problem with your idea of removing from English's grammar all the things
that make English hard to learn is that the majority of those are fun
Germanic remnants.

===
Jonathan North Washington
http://jnw.freeservers.com/

"Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
  for thou art crunchy and taste good
  with ketchup."
...


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In a perfect world you would have a bidirectional translator between English
and Folkspraak and between German and Folkspraak.  The translator should be
only an early learning tool.  If English and German speakers cannot easily
read or write Folkspraak based on their knowledge of their native language
and maybe a little information about Folkspraak, then the conlang has failed
its intended purpose as a working pan-Germanic pidkin.

With all due respect to the Scandanavian and other Germanic languages, count
the heads.  If the pidkin works for Scandanavians, but not for English and
German speakers, then you have just another entertaining internet conlang.
Quite frankly, I regret to say that at this point and for the foreseeable
future, Folkspraak is just anohter amusing internet conlang too.

Who would embarrass themselves in the real world by writing or speaking what
is going to appear as a personally made-up pidkin, Folkspraak, rather than
learning an approximation to standard English or German?  Here in California
some of us speak Spanglish, which needless to say has no literature, but is
a means whereby Hispanics and Anglos try to communicate with each other.  It
is a language which is limited to commands to do things and responses to
such commands.  Anyting more complicated than "cut that hedge" gets
expressed in either standard English or Spanish.  Comprendo hombre?  Adios
muchachos.

Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan North Washington [mailto:ivan_71270@...]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 7:13 AM
To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Digest Number 145


««
on second thought judging my poor spelling maybe that would be a bad
idea :)

William Beazley wrote:
>
> back from the brink I see.  I haven't seen any traffice on this..
>
> Is folkspraak dead?   If its not and we could produce a anewer release
> I would humur the idea of writing a simple folkpraak to english
> translator.
»»

How about the other way around?  English -> Folkspraak.  Or maybe both
directions?

««
I wrote the grammar outline, so I can respond.  The idea is to make the
grammar as simple as possible and to pick the most basic ideas which are
common to English and German.  German has the genitive case, English does
not.  English uses "'s" German does not.  Both English and German can
understand, "das Buch von Johannes" to mean "John's book".
»»

German uses -es for the genitive

««
Write a translator between standard English and International English, aka
Folklish.  (Reit e transletor betwin standard English and Internashanul
English.)
»»

/wrVjdV tr[à]ntslejdr= b@twin st[à]ndr=d INglIS [à]nd Intr=næ:SIn@l INglIS/
The problem with your idea of removing from English's grammar all the things
that make English hard to learn is that the majority of those are fun
Germanic remnants.

===
Jonathan North Washington
http://jnw.freeservers.com/

"Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
  for thou art crunchy and taste good
  with ketchup."
...

  _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Here is the thing... The way I view it is this can be a kind of neutral
in between..

You go to restaurant lets say on a ferry across the baltic run by some
Danish company or something of that order.  The menu is written in
Danish and Folkspraak.  As long as people include Folkspraak then never
have to add or revise.  This is just an argument for need not for the
actual choosing of the syntax or word choice.  But, I will say this what
is key is that it have unvarying simple rules and that the word choices
should be driven by what will make it the easiest for someone with very
limited knowledge make full use if this language, in other words, if
someone who is traveling to this region could read a pamphlet of info
and very simple rules have access to this language it is bound to work.
What I also would like is that I can read the words and be able to kind
of Sound it out.  It would be like a Texan (Like me) writing things
phonetically and people having to actually READ what I have written.

that's all for now..


Dan Dawes wrote:
>
> In a perfect world you would have a bidirectional translator between English
> and Folkspraak and between German and Folkspraak.  The translator should be
> only an early learning tool.  If English and German speakers cannot easily
> read or write Folkspraak based on their knowledge of their native language
> and maybe a little information about Folkspraak, then the conlang has failed
> its intended purpose as a working pan-Germanic pidkin.
>
> With all due respect to the Scandanavian and other Germanic languages, count
> the heads.  If the pidkin works for Scandanavians, but not for English and
> German speakers, then you have just another entertaining internet conlang.
> Quite frankly, I regret to say that at this point and for the foreseeable
> future, Folkspraak is just anohter amusing internet conlang too.
>
> Who would embarrass themselves in the real world by writing or speaking what
> is going to appear as a personally made-up pidkin, Folkspraak, rather than
> learning an approximation to standard English or German?  Here in California
> some of us speak Spanglish, which needless to say has no literature, but is
> a means whereby Hispanics and Anglos try to communicate with each other.  It
> is a language which is limited to commands to do things and responses to
> such commands.  Anyting more complicated than "cut that hedge" gets
> expressed in either standard English or Spanish.  Comprendo hombre?  Adios
> muchachos.
>
> Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan North Washington [mailto:ivan_71270@...]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 7:13 AM
> To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Digest Number 145
>
> ««
> on second thought judging my poor spelling maybe that would be a bad
> idea :)
>
> William Beazley wrote:
> >
> > back from the brink I see.  I haven't seen any traffice on this..
> >
> > Is folkspraak dead?   If its not and we could produce a anewer release
> > I would humur the idea of writing a simple folkpraak to english
> > translator.
> »»
>
> How about the other way around?  English -> Folkspraak.  Or maybe both
> directions?
>
> ««
> I wrote the grammar outline, so I can respond.  The idea is to make the
> grammar as simple as possible and to pick the most basic ideas which are
> common to English and German.  German has the genitive case, English does
> not.  English uses "'s" German does not.  Both English and German can
> understand, "das Buch von Johannes" to mean "John's book".
> »»
>
> German uses -es for the genitive
>
> ««
> Write a translator between standard English and International English, aka
> Folklish.  (Reit e transletor betwin standard English and Internashanul
> English.)
> »»
>
> /wrVjdV tr[à]ntslejdr= b@twin st[à]ndr=d INglIS [à]nd Intr=næ:SIn@l INglIS/
> The problem with your idea of removing from English's grammar all the things
> that make English hard to learn is that the majority of those are fun
> Germanic remnants.
>
> ===
> Jonathan North Washington
> http://jnw.freeservers.com/
>
> "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
>  for thou art crunchy and taste good
>  with ketchup."
> ...
>
>  _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> 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/
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
Will Beazley
Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG:    888.213.7053

As somewhat pertinent article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1235000/1235945.stm


William Beazley wrote:
>
> Here is the thing... The way I view it is this can be a kind of neutral
> in between..
>
> You go to restaurant lets say on a ferry across the baltic run by some
> Danish company or something of that order.  The menu is written in
> Danish and Folkspraak.  As long as people include Folkspraak then never
> have to add or revise.  This is just an argument for need not for the
> actual choosing of the syntax or word choice.  But, I will say this what
> is key is that it have unvarying simple rules and that the word choices
> should be driven by what will make it the easiest for someone with very
> limited knowledge make full use if this language, in other words, if
> someone who is traveling to this region could read a pamphlet of info
> and very simple rules have access to this language it is bound to work.
> What I also would like is that I can read the words and be able to kind
> of Sound it out.  It would be like a Texan (Like me) writing things
> phonetically and people having to actually READ what I have written.
>
> that's all for now..
>
> Dan Dawes wrote:
> >
> > In a perfect world you would have a bidirectional translator between English
> > and Folkspraak and between German and Folkspraak.  The translator should be
> > only an early learning tool.  If English and German speakers cannot easily
> > read or write Folkspraak based on their knowledge of their native language
> > and maybe a little information about Folkspraak, then the conlang has failed
> > its intended purpose as a working pan-Germanic pidkin.
> >
> > With all due respect to the Scandanavian and other Germanic languages, count
> > the heads.  If the pidkin works for Scandanavians, but not for English and
> > German speakers, then you have just another entertaining internet conlang.
> > Quite frankly, I regret to say that at this point and for the foreseeable
> > future, Folkspraak is just anohter amusing internet conlang too.
> >
> > Who would embarrass themselves in the real world by writing or speaking what
> > is going to appear as a personally made-up pidkin, Folkspraak, rather than
> > learning an approximation to standard English or German?  Here in California
> > some of us speak Spanglish, which needless to say has no literature, but is
> > a means whereby Hispanics and Anglos try to communicate with each other.  It
> > is a language which is limited to commands to do things and responses to
> > such commands.  Anyting more complicated than "cut that hedge" gets
> > expressed in either standard English or Spanish.  Comprendo hombre?  Adios
> > muchachos.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan North Washington [mailto:ivan_71270@...]
> > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 7:13 AM
> > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Digest Number 145
> >
> > ««
> > on second thought judging my poor spelling maybe that would be a bad
> > idea :)
> >
> > William Beazley wrote:
> > >
> > > back from the brink I see.  I haven't seen any traffice on this..
> > >
> > > Is folkspraak dead?   If its not and we could produce a anewer release
> > > I would humur the idea of writing a simple folkpraak to english
> > > translator.
> > »»
> >
> > How about the other way around?  English -> Folkspraak.  Or maybe both
> > directions?
> >
> > ««
> > I wrote the grammar outline, so I can respond.  The idea is to make the
> > grammar as simple as possible and to pick the most basic ideas which are
> > common to English and German.  German has the genitive case, English does
> > not.  English uses "'s" German does not.  Both English and German can
> > understand, "das Buch von Johannes" to mean "John's book".
> > »»
> >
> > German uses -es for the genitive
> >
> > ««
> > Write a translator between standard English and International English, aka
> > Folklish.  (Reit e transletor betwin standard English and Internashanul
> > English.)
> > »»
> >
> > /wrVjdV tr[à]ntslejdr= b@twin st[à]ndr=d INglIS [à]nd Intr=næ:SIn@l INglIS/
> > The problem with your idea of removing from English's grammar all the things
> > that make English hard to learn is that the majority of those are fun
> > Germanic remnants.
> >
> > ===
> > Jonathan North Washington
> > http://jnw.freeservers.com/
> >
> > "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
> >  for thou art crunchy and taste good
> >  with ketchup."
> > ...
> >
> >  _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> --
> Will Beazley
> Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
> FON:    512.502.2003 |EML:      mailto:beazley@...
> FAX:    512.231.8108 |PAG:      888.213.7053
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
Will Beazley
Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG:    888.213.7053

--

Will Beazley '[Image]'
Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053





   ----------

European Directive 15643/97 Common European Language.

         The European Commissioners have announced that agreement
    has been reached to adopt English as the 'preferred language' for
    European Communications rather than German, which was the other
    option.  As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government
    conceded that English spelling has some room for improvement and has
    accepted a five year phase in plan for what will be known as 'EuroEnglish'
    (Abbreviated to Euro).

         In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft
    "c". Sertainly sivil servants will reseive this news with joy.
    Also the hard "c" will be replaced by "k".  Not only will this klear
    up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one key less.

         There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year
    when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by the letter "f".  This
    will make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter.

         In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling
    kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplicated changes
    are possible.  Governments will enkourage the removal of
    "double"  letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate
    speling.Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the
    languag is disgrasful and they should go.

         In the fourth yer, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as
    replasing the leters "th" with "z" and "w" wiz "v".  During ze fifz
    yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be droped from vords kontaining "ou", and
    similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of
    leters.

         After the fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl.
    Zer vil be no mor trubls of difikultis and evri vun vil find it ezi tu
    understand ech ozer.

         ZE DREM VIL FINALI KUM TRU!!


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

Zat is a gud idea - if yu lik en gud jok! Or, in Folkspraak....Dat er en gud
forsteling.
Brian


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

Hi,

I was interested to look through the comparisons of vocabulary
between English, German, Danish etc. that is posted up, and I was
wondering if it would be possible to do something similar for
grammatical rules. For example, on endings for adjectives and adverbs:


             Adjective    Adjective    Adverb
             away from    before
             noun         noun

   English   -            -            -ly

   German    -            -e,-es...    -

   Danish    -            -,-t,-e      -t


You would need a different table (or other arrangement) for each
grammatical point. Perhaps there could also be another table with a
list of miscellaneous items as well.

Regard,

Richard Collins.

"Richard Collins" <r.collins@...> writes:

> I was interested to look through the comparisons of vocabulary
> between English, German, Danish etc. that is posted up, and I was
> wondering if it would be possible to do something similar for
> grammatical rules. For example, on endings for adjectives and adverbs:
>
>
>             Adjective    Adjective    Adverb
>             away from    before
>             noun         noun
>
>   English   -            -            -ly
>
>   German    -            -e,-es...    -
>
>   Danish    -            -,-t,-e      -t

Here's a more complete list:

Adjective in predicate position (e.g., "the bread is old"):

English:    -
German:     -
Dutch:      -
Danish:     -, -t (neuter), -e (plural)
Swedish:    -, -t (neuter), -a (plural)
Norwegian:  -, -t (neuter), -e (plural)

Adjective in attributive position with definite article (e.g., "the
old bread"):

English:    -
German:     -e, -en
Dutch:      -e
Danish:     -e
Swedish:    -e (masc.), -a (otherwise)
Norwegian:  -e

Adjective in attributive position with indefinite article (e.g., "an
old bread"):

English:    -
German:     -er, -es, -e, -en
Dutch:      - (neuter), -e (non-neuter)
Danish:     - (non-neuter), -t (neuter)
Swedish:    - (non-neuter), -t (neuter)
Norwegian:  - (non-neuter), -t (neuter)

Adjective in attributive position without article (e.g., "old bread"):

English:    -
German:     -er, -es, -e, -en, -em
Dutch:      - (neuter), -e (otherwise)
Danish:     - (non-neuter), -t (neuter), -e (plural)
Swedish:    - (non-neuter), -t (neuter), -a (plural)
Norwegian:  - (non-neuter), -t (neuter), -e (plural)

To sum up, I think it would be reasonable to use -e after the definite
article, but zero otherwise.

/Thomas
--
Thomas Martin Widmann,  Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333,  DK-8000 Århus C
Tel.:  7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465
<mailto:viralbus@...>     <URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus>
MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK

You could build comparative grammar tables with Danish etc., but I maintain
that really all that we should care about are the English and German
speakers, because the numbers do not justify catering to other germanic
speakers, as near and dear as they may be.

I contend that since most educated and younger Germans speak English and few
English speakers speak German, what we really need is a form of German which
can be handled by English speakers.  The Germans speakers will be able to
bridge the gap more than the English speakers.  We don't need a form of
English which can be handled by Germans, since they handle standard English
already quite well, danke.  Hence, it really shouldn't be called Folkspraak,
but should be called Germanlish.

Finally, I contend that Folkspraak can never be more than a hobby language
for a bunch of language freaks like us, so you might as build it out of old
Gothic and Sanskrit. Pidkins and creoles are created naturally when peoples
of different base languages collide and need to communicate with each other
and do not have the time or luxury for formal educational processes to
assimilate the language of the other.  The Germans collided with the
Americans after WWII, and as a result, English was the overlying language
impressed on German.  In the 50 years since collision, many English words
have been adopted into the German language, but there has been virtually no
impact on English, except for Fahrvernügung thanks to a VW TV commericial.
The chance of English being Germanized in our lifetimes is as likely as the
Angels winning the pennant, but that's what seems the most natural direction
to go.  Once again, maybe 500 years from now the two languages will meet in
the middle and we will indeed speak Germanlish.

In the meantime, go ahead and build comparative grammar tables with the
Scandanavian languages until exhaustion overtakes you.  Happy hobbying.

Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Collins [mailto:r.collins@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:31 AM
To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [folkspraak] Grammatical Comparisons


Hi,

I was interested to look through the comparisons of vocabulary
between English, German, Danish etc. that is posted up, and I was
wondering if it would be possible to do something similar for
grammatical rules. For example, on endings for adjectives and adverbs:


             Adjective    Adjective    Adverb
             away from    before
             noun         noun

   English   -            -            -ly

   German    -            -e,-es...    -

   Danish    -            -,-t,-e      -t


You would need a different table (or other arrangement) for each
grammatical point. Perhaps there could also be another table with a
list of miscellaneous items as well.

Regard,

Richard Collins.




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/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Ac, Dan! Dat er viel cyniclic! Vat vi moct mak er en Sprak for all de
Dutisc-Verld! Dis er en sclik [simplified, slick, smoothing-out] Sprak vit de
"Best Practices" af all de Dutsclic-Spraks. Dis Sprok vil stand en der
Under-grot-sten af Ur-Dutisc, vid sclik Regles. Dis er en Bastard, un-ehe-lic
Kind, vid manig Faders (de modern dutisclic Sproks) af der en Mader
(Ur-Dutisc)! Er dis Hybrid en frankensteinisc Sprok? Dat er OK vid mi!

Op vider See,
Brian


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

"Dan Dawes" <dawes@...> writes:

> You could build comparative grammar tables with Danish etc., but I maintain
> that really all that we should care about are the English and German
> speakers, because the numbers do not justify catering to other germanic
> speakers, as near and dear as they may be.

If you go for numbers, you could also exclude German! ;-)

English is spoken by more than 300 million people, German by less than
100 million.  Dutch is spoken by some 20 million people, and so are
the Scandinavian tongues together.  So German is just as insignificant
compared to English as the small languages compared to German.

> I contend that since most educated and younger Germans speak English and few
> English speakers speak German, what we really need is a form of German which
> can be handled by English speakers.  The Germans speakers will be able to
> bridge the gap more than the English speakers.  We don't need a form of
> English which can be handled by Germans, since they handle standard English
> already quite well, danke.  Hence, it really shouldn't be called Folkspraak,
> but should be called Germanlish.

I thought it should be a Germanic Interlingua.  I say it should be
immediately understandable to anybody who speaks two Germanic
languages, and very easy to learn for anybody with a Germanic mother
tongue.

/Thomas
--
Thomas Martin Widmann,  Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333,  DK-8000 Århus C
Tel.:  7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465
<mailto:viralbus@...>     <URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus>
MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK

> I thought it should be a Germanic Interlingua.  I say it should be
> immediately understandable to anybody who speaks two Germanic
> languages, and very easy to learn for anybody with a Germanic mother
> tongue.

That's what I thought too.  And if that is true why
not apply the same principles as Interlingua.  Use the
words the sources languages have in common for the
vocabulary and get rid of any traits that all the
source languages do not share for the grammar?

Paul




-------------------------------------------------------------
Sign up for ICQmail at http://www.icq.com/icqmail/signup.html

I agree. I've been with the group for a while now and I know this debate
continues to come up. Eventually, it seemed as if English/German won out
and I just stopped participating.

Paul, the original charter describes the process (although not in too great
a detail) for vocab and grammar selection. And it fits the idea of promoting
"common" traits while ignoring "uncommon" ones.

I would like to see this charter re-worked to strengthen the influence of
smaller germanic languages and also to see the Grammar formulated in such
a way as to promote common grammatical traits of all the source languages.


-- Original Message --

>
>> I thought it should be a Germanic Interlingua.  I say it should be
>> immediately understandable to anybody who speaks two Germanic
>> languages, and very easy to learn for anybody with a Germanic mother
>> tongue.
>
>That's what I thought too.  And if that is true why
>not apply the same principles as Interlingua.  Use the
>words the sources languages have in common for the
>vocabulary and get rid of any traits that all the
>source languages do not share for the grammar?
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Sign up for ICQmail at http://www.icq.com/icqmail/signup.html
>
>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/
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible inter-germanic
lingua franca bogs down after a promising start. While there is a solid core
of mutually intelligible cognates, much of the modern shared vocabulary is
Latin and Greek based, and the stock of mutually intelligible words from
proto-Germanic is rather limited. The biggest areas of vocabulary divergence
among the Germanic languages is in common words like the prepositions, common
adjectives, and fundamental verbs. Common idioms and other expressions vary
dramatically.

A lot of humor is based on making fun of folks with 'funny' accents whose
phrasing and word choice is (often subtly) incorrect. Remember Latka from
'Taxi'?. This would be the experience of a Folkspraaker in the Germanic
speaking countries - if the language were constructed well enough to carry on
conversations.

I'm still plugging away on my ever-growing Germanic language comparative word
lists, but I don't expect to turn out a workable language. But its still fun
to compare and contrast, and I've learned a lot over the last two years.

Brian


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

bribri56@... writes:

> Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible
> inter-germanic lingua franca bogs down after a promising start.
> While there is a solid core of mutually intelligible cognates, much
> of the modern shared vocabulary is Latin and Greek based, and the
> stock of mutually intelligible words from proto-Germanic is rather
> limited.

I wouldn't say so.  It looks like that in a dictionary, but if you
take at a real text, many of the words are common.  (It depends very
much on the genre, however.)

Of course English has lost many Germanic words, so a text will
probably never be intelligible to a monolingual English speaker.

> The biggest areas of vocabulary divergence among the Germanic
> languages is in common words like the prepositions, common
> adjectives, and fundamental verbs.

It's not too bad, I think.

> Common idioms and other expressions vary dramatically.

Dramatically, even?

I think the major difference between the Romance languages and the
Germanic ones is that lots of people know the parent language of
Romance (i.e., Latin), whereas very few know very much about
Proto-Germanic.  Furthermore, French has changed English a lot, while
the East Scandinavian languages are heavily influenced by low German.

So we won't get a language that is understandable to monolinguals
without training, but it would still be very easy.

/Thomas
--
Thomas Martin Widmann,  Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333,  DK-8000 Århus C
Tel.:  7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465
<mailto:viralbus@...>     <URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus>
MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK

Don't you think we should take a completely different approach.

English in all its forms seems to be the world default language.

So the issue of who speaks what the most is what is crucial, I think we
should focus on a way to create a germanically neutral language.

My example is you are ar vacationing in iceland and you are at a restaurant
where the Menu is in Icelandic and Folkspraak, you had a two hour lecture in
Folspraak on the flight there and
now you can get around.

It would be a shame to not include the the scandinavian tongues.

Thomas Martin Widmann wrote:

> bribri56@... writes:
>
> > Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible
> > inter-germanic lingua franca bogs down after a promising start.
> > While there is a solid core of mutually intelligible cognates, much
> > of the modern shared vocabulary is Latin and Greek based, and the
> > stock of mutually intelligible words from proto-Germanic is rather
> > limited.
>
> I wouldn't say so.  It looks like that in a dictionary, but if you
> take at a real text, many of the words are common.  (It depends very
> much on the genre, however.)
>
> Of course English has lost many Germanic words, so a text will
> probably never be intelligible to a monolingual English speaker.
>
> > The biggest areas of vocabulary divergence among the Germanic
> > languages is in common words like the prepositions, common
> > adjectives, and fundamental verbs.
>
> It's not too bad, I think.
>
> > Common idioms and other expressions vary dramatically.
>
> Dramatically, even?
>
> I think the major difference between the Romance languages and the
> Germanic ones is that lots of people know the parent language of
> Romance (i.e., Latin), whereas very few know very much about
> Proto-Germanic.  Furthermore, French has changed English a lot, while
> the East Scandinavian languages are heavily influenced by low German.
>
> So we won't get a language that is understandable to monolinguals
> without training, but it would still be very easy.
>
> /Thomas
> --
> Thomas Martin Widmann,  Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333,  DK-8000 Århus C
> Tel.:  7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465
> <mailto:viralbus@...>     <URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus>
> MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK
>
> 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/
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--

Will Beazley '[Image]'
Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053

Crap...I mean to say


> So the issue of who speaks what the most is NOT what is crucial, I think we

> should focus on a way to create a germanically neutral language.

William G Beazley wrote:

> Don't you think we should take a completely different approach.
>
> English in all its forms seems to be the world default language.
>
>

> So the issue of who speaks what the most is NOT what is crucial, I think we

> should focus on a way to create a germanically neutral language.
>
> My example is you are ar vacationing in iceland and you are at a restaurant
> where the Menu is in Icelandic and Folkspraak, you had a two hour lecture in
> Folspraak on the flight there and
> now you can get around.
>
> It would be a shame to not include the the scandinavian tongues.
>
> Thomas Martin Widmann wrote:
>
> > bribri56@... writes:
> >
> > > Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible
> > > inter-germanic lingua franca bogs down after a promising start.
> > > While there is a solid core of mutually intelligible cognates, much
> > > of the modern shared vocabulary is Latin and Greek based, and the
> > > stock of mutually intelligible words from proto-Germanic is rather
> > > limited.
> >
> > I wouldn't say so.  It looks like that in a dictionary, but if you
> > take at a real text, many of the words are common.  (It depends very
> > much on the genre, however.)
> >
> > Of course English has lost many Germanic words, so a text will
> > probably never be intelligible to a monolingual English speaker.
> >
> > > The biggest areas of vocabulary divergence among the Germanic
> > > languages is in common words like the prepositions, common
> > > adjectives, and fundamental verbs.
> >
> > It's not too bad, I think.
> >
> > > Common idioms and other expressions vary dramatically.
> >
> > Dramatically, even?
> >
> > I think the major difference between the Romance languages and the
> > Germanic ones is that lots of people know the parent language of
> > Romance (i.e., Latin), whereas very few know very much about
> > Proto-Germanic.  Furthermore, French has changed English a lot, while
> > the East Scandinavian languages are heavily influenced by low German.
> >
> > So we won't get a language that is understandable to monolinguals
> > without training, but it would still be very easy.
> >
> > /Thomas
> > --
> > Thomas Martin Widmann,  Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333,  DK-8000 Århus C
> > Tel.:  7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465
> > <mailto:viralbus@...>     <URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus>
> > MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> --
>
> Will Beazley '[Image]'
> Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
> FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
> FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
>
> 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/
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--

Will Beazley '[Image]'
Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053

I approached the divergence issue in two ways:

The divergence, when most pronounced, divids the source languages into two
or three camps; English, German/Dutch, and the Scandinavians. (When it was
only two camps you will see English/German/Dutch vs. the Scandinavians)
The German/Dutch pair tend to float between English and the Scandinavians.
Sometimes forming a visible bridge between the two extremes. The German/Dutch
pair tends to always fall closer to one of the extremes than to the other.
I would then create TWO forms. One would be the English (or Scandinavian)
form, the second would be a German/Dutch & Extreme merger.

example (perhaps not the best):

BED (English)
BETT (German)
BED (Dutch)
Sang (Swedish)
Seng (Norwegian)
Seng (Danish)

I would get two forms for this word: BEDT, and SENG

At other times I figured I could get away with a "leap of faith":

I (English)
Ich (German)
Ik (Dutch)
Jag (Swedish)
Jeg (Norwegian)
Jeg (Danish)
Eg (Icelandic)

Igk (Folksprak)... I also created a rule which put two similar consonants
together in the Folksprak word. This gave the word a unique yet universal
feel, it also allows the speaker to pronounce the word as ANY of the
combinations.
ie:

y-j would give us "J"
ght-cht-tt would give us "ht"
th-d-t would give us "T" if at start of word, "dt" if at end
ch-k-g would give us "K" if at start of word, "gk" if at end
sh-sch-sk would give "Sk" if at start of word, "sc" if at end
f-v would give us "Fv" if at start of word, "vf" if at end
w-hv would give us "Hw"
w-v would give us "W"

thus:
BEDT (bed)
JIGK (I)
FISC (fish)
FVULL (full)
NAHT (night)
JAR (year)


-- Original Message --

>Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible inter-germanic
>
>lingua franca bogs down after a promising start. While there is a solid
>core
>of mutually intelligible cognates, much of the modern shared vocabulary
>is
>Latin and Greek based, and the stock of mutually intelligible words from
>
>proto-Germanic is rather limited. The biggest areas of vocabulary divergence
>
>among the Germanic languages is in common words like the prepositions,
common
>
>adjectives, and fundamental verbs. Common idioms and other expressions
vary
>
>dramatically.
>
>A lot of humor is based on making fun of folks with 'funny' accents whose
>
>phrasing and word choice is (often subtly) incorrect. Remember Latka from
>
>'Taxi'?. This would be the experience of a Folkspraaker in the Germanic
>
>speaking countries - if the language were constructed well enough to carry
>on
>conversations.
>
>I'm still plugging away on my ever-growing Germanic language comparative
>word
>lists, but I don't expect to turn out a workable language. But its still
>fun
>to compare and contrast, and I've learned a lot over the last two years.
>
>Brian
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>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/
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>