I think the time has come to think about the spelling rules.

In the following, V will signify a short vowel, V: a long vowel,
C a single consonant, and CC a doubled consonant.

Let us first look at the various Germanic languages.  I'll start with
the easy ones.

Dutch:

VC is written as VC.         kom     /kOm/
V:C is written as VVC.       woon    /vo:n/
VCV is written as VCCV.      kommen  /kOm@(n)/
V:CV is written as VCV.      wonen   /vo:n@(n)/

Norwegian and Swedish:

VC is written as VCC.        vann    /van(:)/
V:C is written as VC.        hus     /hü:s/
VCV is written as VCCV.      vannet  /van(:)@(t)/
V:CV is written as VCV.      huset   /hü:s@(t)/

Danish:

VC is written as VC.         vat     /vęd/
V:C is written as VC.        hus     /hu:s/
VCV is written as VCCV.      vattet  /vęd@š/
V:CV is written as VCV.      huset   /hu:s@š/

(Note: There is no general way to tell whether a monosyllable has a
short or a long vowel!  In a lot of cases, though, a silent <d> is
added, e.g., _vand_ /vęn/, _falde_ /fęl@/.)

German:

VC is written as VCC.        komm    /kOm/
V:C is written as V(V/h)C.   Hut     /hu:t/
                              wohn    /vo:n/
                              Boot    /bo:t/
VCV is written as VCCV.      kommen  /kOm@n/
V:CV is written as V(V/h)CV. Hute    /hu:t@/
                              wohnen  /vo:n@n/
                              Boote   /bo:t@/

English:

VC is written as VC(C).      hit     /hIt/
                              fill    /fIl/
V:C is written as VVC        meet    /mi:t/
                or VCe.       mate    /meit/
VCV is written as VCCV.      hitting /hItIN/
                              filling /fIlIN/
V:CV is written as VVCV      meeting /mi:tIN/
                 or VCV.      mating  /meitIN/


So, summing up (a language name in parentheses means that the language
doesn't use this way of spelling exclusively):

VC written as VC:     Dutch, Danish, (English).
VC written as VCC:    German, Swedish, Norwegian, (English).

V:C written as VVC:   Dutch, (English, German).
V:C written as VC:    Scandinavian, (German).
V:C written as VCe:   (English).

VCV written as VCCV:  All.

V:CV written as VCV:  Dutch, Scandinavian, (English, German).
V:CV written as VVCV: (English, German).

Counting this, the best result seems to be:
VC written as VCC       (full)
V:C written as VVC      (spraak)
VCCV written as VCCV    (fulle)
V:CV written as VCV     (sprake)

I'm not so happy about the last one, because it makes it much harder
to learn to spell correctly, so actually I'd go for VVCV (spraake).

Comments?

/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

cburd@... writes:

> I'm pretty much in agreement with this.

I'm glad to hear so!

> --- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I must admit that I'm not totally satisfied with the current verbal
> > morphology, so I'll try to walk through the forms...
> >
> > The infinitive:
> >
> > PG *-an
> >
> > German -en [@n], Dutch -en [@] (rarely [@n] IIRC)
> > Old Norse, Swedish, Traditional Nynorsk -a [a]
> > Danish, Bokmaal, Modern Nynorsk -e [@] (perhaps [e] in Norwegian)
> > English -0
> >
> > The existing Folkspraak -en is fine, I think (though -an would be
> > beautiful).
>
> The verb paradigm is one place where arbitrary distinctions may be
> reasonable. However, if we follow an "averaging" algorithm (either
> orth. or phon.), we get infinitives in -e. I like -an too. In fact

The problem with -e is that it is also used in many other places,
which may make the language more difficult for beginners.

> I'd like to see more work on a PG-based approach, even if we don't
> adopt it in the end.

Yes, we could try that.

> > The present tense:
> >
> > English -0, -(e)s [s/z/Iz]
> > German -e [@/0], -st, -t, -en
> > Dutch -0, -t, -en
> > Danish -er [V]
> > Swedish -ar (regular verbs), -er (irregular ones)
> > Bokmaal -er
> > Nynorsk -ar, -0
> >
> > Because there is no ending that is known in all languages, and
> > because [0] is the shortest ending that is known in several
> > languages, I'd suggest -0 for Folkspraak.  There is probably no
> > risk that it will be confused with the imperative.
>
> I'm not so happy with this. The majority of Ls have *some* ending for
> most persons (accuracy not guaranteed):
>
> En 0 -st* -s 0 0 0
> De -e -st -t -en -t -en
> Ne -e 0 -t -en ? -en
> Da -er -er -er -er -er -er
> Sv -ar -ar -ar -ar -ar -ar
>
> At least 3 persons have -a- or -e-, so I'd say -e is the general FS
> form.

In fact, until a hundred years ago, Danish and Swedish had distinctive
plural forms:

Da -er -er -er -e -e -e
Sv -ar -ar -ar -o -en -o

The old Danish plural forms at least support your suggestion.

But I would have liked to use -e for the subjunctive (if we need that
form -- e.g., "Longe leve Folkspraak!")

> It also helps distinguish nouns from verbs, e.g., "Ik besöke
> min Moder" / "Ik make en Besök til min Moder", and present tense from
> irregular past forms (if we decide to allow them), e.g., "Du komme to
> lat til de Fest" / "Du kam to lat til de Fest". (I'm capitalising
> nouns for the present, for convenience' sake.)

I don't think it will be a problem often, and with your scheme, one
might confuse the present and the infinitive instead.

> On another issue, in my sample I added -e to declined adjectives:
>
> En gode mann / De mann is god
>
> This lets us use plain adjectival stems as adverbs, as in German:
>
> Du makde dat god 'You did that well'

Good idea!

> I also used the declined form for substantialised adjectives, as in:
>
> De Vilde 'the wild thing' / En gode 'a good thing' / enige 'anything'

Very good.

> More arbitrarily, I added -er (properly speaking an agentive suffix)
> to form animates:
>
> De Vilder 'the wild one' / En goder 'a good man, person'

I'm not so happy with that, but perhaps that's mostly because it's
different from Danish.  Danish makes a distinction between _den gode_
"the good person" and _det gode_ "the good thing/property".  _Den_ and
_det_ are definite articles (common gender and neuter, respectively).
That scheme would be difficult to copy to Folkspraak because it has no
gender distinction.

> Accepting the "sexist" system that prevails in the source Ls, we
> might add a feminising ending (-in?) to create explict feminine forms:
>
> De Vild(e)rin 'the wild women' / En god(e)rin 'the good women'

I'm not so happy about this.  In most source languages, the feminine
ending is mostly used to job names and in a few other places, and it
cause endless trouble when people try to be politically correct.

> Finally, I've used -en for plurals, and -s for genitives.

-s for genitives is fine.

As for the plural, some rather arbitrary decision has to be made.

-en is common in German and Dutch, and occasionally occurs in English.

-er is common in Scandinavian, and occasionally occurs in German.

-s is common in English, occurs in quite a few Dutch and German words,
    and is used for some English loan-words in Scandinavian.

-0 is also frequently used in most languages, but is probably not a
    good idea for Folkspraak.

/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

cburd@... writes:

> --- In folkspraak@y..., wolfi.junkmail@s... wrote:
> > --- In folkspraak@y..., cburd@i... wrote:
> > > Accepting the "sexist" system that prevails in the source Ls, we
> > > might add a feminising ending (-in?) to create explict feminine
> > forms:
> >
> > Does this (admittedly) asymmetric system discriminate against males
> > or females? :) German feminists actually insist on adding the -in
> > ending when talking about females, when conventional German treats
> it
> > as optional. Apparently tastes are diffent.
> >
> > > De Vild(e)rin 'the wild women' / En god(e)rin 'the good women'
> >
> > I don't really like it. What's wrong with "de vilde man"/"die vilde
> > wif"?
>
> I think it's useful to have a way of converting adjectives to animate
> nouns, as in De "die Schoene", "ein Reicher", "die Unzuverlaessigen".

Yes, but normally there is no need to make any distinction for sex or
for animacy.  In those few cases where it is needed, _mann_ or _wiiv_
or _thing_ could be added.

> [...]
> >If you want a sex-specific ending (and why not, Germanic has
> > it), why not introduce one for both sexes to make it more regular and
> > avoid all PC objections from the start? :) German has "-erich" as a
> > male-only marker. It's seldom used, but it exists. Does it have
> > cognates in other languages?
>
> Would -erich be comprehensible to most Germans? I'd suggest -man as an
> alternative.

-erich corresponds to -rik in Danish (as in _andrik_ "male duck".
It is very rare, though.

/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

wolfi.junkmail@... writes:

> --- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> > wolfi.junkmail@s... writes:
> >
> > > --- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folkspraak -(e)t.  I'm not sure whether prefixing ge- would be a
> > > > good idea.
> > >
> > > I think it would, at least to Dutch and German speakers it signals
> > > "past participle" much more strongly than any ending alone.  As long
> > > as the ge- doesn't confuse the others ...? Middle English used to
> > > have it in the form of y-.
> >
> > But should ge- be added to all verbs?  For instance, corresponding to
> > Danish _studeret_, Dutch has _gestudeerd_ but German has _studiert_
> > without ge-.  (I don't remember the exact rules for omitting ge- in
> > German.)
> >
> > Furthermore, should ge- be inserted after a prefix?  In other words,
> > should "translated" be _oversettet_ or _overgesettet_?  German has
> > _übersetzt_ "translated", but also _übergesetzt_ "crossed".
>
> German is irregular. "Ge-" is omitted with foreign loans, and other
> prefixes omit it or shift its position. I suggest to regularise that,
> and use "ge-" all the time in the first position.

Would you really prefer _geunoversettet_ "untranslated" to
_unoversettet_?

> But only if it's not an obstacle to understanding for Scandinavians
> and Englishers, otherwhise no "ge-". Is it?

I'd say it's no problem for understanding, but people will tend to
forget it.

/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

> Counting this, the best result seems to be:
> VC written as VCC       (full)
> V:C written as VVC      (spraak)
> VCCV written as VCCV    (fulle)
> V:CV written as VCV     (sprake)
>
> I'm not so happy about the last one, because it makes it much harder
> to learn to spell correctly, so actually I'd go for VVCV (spraake).
>
> Comments?

Well that turned out to be pretty easy huh? I like it.

What is the difference in sound between long 'a' spraak and short 'a'
sprakk?

Does this mean that Dat (my dialect for English that) becomes Datt or
Daat?

I always jast gave 'aa' the sound of 'a' in father.

So.. Miin frendens, Iik tiink datt iigens aar gae guudliik.
We wil hab ons en spraak mere erlii denn latt. :)

-Duke


> /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
>
>                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>                 Start here...
>
>                    Height:
>                   ft     in
>
>                    Weight:
>                   lbs. kg.
>
>
>
>            [Image]
>
>
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> cburd@i... writes:
>
> The problem with -e is that it is also used in many other places,
> which may make the language more difficult for beginners.

We would need to mark it with a preposition, as in English. I don't
see a problem with that. German tends to use "zu" before infinitives,
even if not as regularly as English.

> >
> > I'm not so happy with this. The majority of Ls have *some* ending
for
> > most persons (accuracy not guaranteed):
> >
> > En 0 -st* -s 0 0 0
> > De -e -st -t -en -t -en
> > Ne -e 0 -t -en ? -en
> > Da -er -er -er -er -er -er
> > Sv -ar -ar -ar -ar -ar -ar
> >
> > At least 3 persons have -a- or -e-, so I'd say -e is the general
FS
> > form.
>
> In fact, until a hundred years ago, Danish and Swedish had
distinctive
> plural forms:
>
> Da -er -er -er -e -e -e
> Sv -ar -ar -ar -o -en -o
>
> The old Danish plural forms at least support your suggestion.

I'd say the -er forms do too, in a way, seeing that the -r ending has
no resonance outside Scandinavia, and given the widespread tendency
of Germanic Ls to weaken final Rs.

> But I would have liked to use -e for the subjunctive (if we need
that
> form -- e.g., "Longe leve Folkspraak!")

Maybe. But I really prefer a non-zero ending for verbs. Try
contrasting -e and nil in some spoken texts (like my "Vildren"
story). To me it sounds much better.

> > It also helps distinguish nouns from verbs, e.g., "Ik besöke
> > min Moder" / "Ik make en Besök til min Moder", and present tense
from
> > irregular past forms (if we decide to allow them), e.g., "Du
komme to
> > lat til de Fest" / "Du kam to lat til de Fest". (I'm capitalising
> > nouns for the present, for convenience' sake.)
>
> I don't think it will be a problem often, and with your scheme, one
> might confuse the present and the infinitive instead.

That's not so likely, because they're used differently, whereas past
and present forms are used in precisely the same contexts.

> > On another issue, in my sample I added -e to declined adjectives:
> >
> > En gode mann / De mann is god
> >
> > This lets us use plain adjectival stems as adverbs, as in German:
> >
> > Du makde dat god 'You did that well'
>
> Good idea!

Thanks.

> > I also used the declined form for substantialised adjectives, as
in:
> >
> > De Vilde 'the wild thing' / En gode 'a good thing' /
enige 'anything'
>
> Very good.
>
> > More arbitrarily, I added -er (properly speaking an agentive
suffix)
> > to form animates:
> >
> > De Vilder 'the wild one' / En goder 'a good man, person'
>
> I'm not so happy with that, but perhaps that's mostly because it's
> different from Danish.  Danish makes a distinction between _den
gode_
> "the good person" and _det gode_ "the good thing/property".  _Den_
and
> _det_ are definite articles (common gender and neuter,
respectively).
> That scheme would be difficult to copy to Folkspraak because it has
no
> gender distinction.
>
> > Accepting the "sexist" system that prevails in the source Ls, we
> > might add a feminising ending (-in?) to create explict feminine
forms:
> >
> > De Vild(e)rin 'the wild women' / En god(e)rin 'the good women'
>
> I'm not so happy about this.  In most source languages, the feminine
> ending is mostly used to job names and in a few other places, and it
> cause endless trouble when people try to be politically correct.

I'm ready to drop this idea due to the criticism. Now I think
perhaps "Vilde" can do for 'wild thing', 'wild person',
with "Vildman"/"Vildvif" as sexed forms. But I'd still prefer an
animate/animate distinction.

> > Finally, I've used -en for plurals, and -s for genitives.
>
> -s for genitives is fine.
>
> As for the plural, some rather arbitrary decision has to be made.
>
> -en is common in German and Dutch, and occasionally occurs in
English.

Despite its rarity, most English speakers would recognise it as a
specifically Germanic plural.

> -er is common in Scandinavian, and occasionally occurs in German.

I think -er will be an agentive suffix.

> -s is common in English, occurs in quite a few Dutch and German
words,
>    and is used for some English loan-words in Scandinavian.

Conflicts with the genitive -s, also sound too English, IMO.

> -0 is also frequently used in most languages, but is probably not a
>    good idea for Folkspraak.

Agreed.

CHeers,

Chris

> Counting this, the best result seems to be:
> VC written as VCC       (full)
> V:C written as VVC      (spraak)
> VCCV written as VCCV    (fulle)
> V:CV written as VCV     (sprake)
>
> I'm not so happy about the last one, because it makes it much harder
> to learn to spell correctly, so actually I'd go for VVCV (spraake).
>
> Comments?

Yes. I think it's OK, and indeed, VVCV (as Dutch did it so about 100 years ago
"wij koomen naar de neederlandsche bank")


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

> wolfi.junkmail@... writes:
>
> > --- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> > > wolfi.junkmail@s... writes:
> > >
> > > > --- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Folkspraak -(e)t.  I'm not sure whether prefixing ge- would be a
> > > > > good idea.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would, at least to Dutch and German speakers it signals
> > > > "past participle" much more strongly than any ending alone.  As long
> > > > as the ge- doesn't confuse the others ...? Middle English used to
> > > > have it in the form of y-.
> > >
> > > But should ge- be added to all verbs?  For instance, corresponding to
> > > Danish _studeret_, Dutch has _gestudeerd_ but German has _studiert_
> > > without ge-.  (I don't remember the exact rules for omitting ge- in
> > > German.)
> > >
> > > Furthermore, should ge- be inserted after a prefix?  In other words,
> > > should "translated" be _oversettet_ or _overgesettet_?  German has
> > > _übersetzt_ "translated", but also _übergesetzt_ "crossed".
> >
> > German is irregular. "Ge-" is omitted with foreign loans, and other
> > prefixes omit it or shift its position. I suggest to regularise that,
> > and use "ge-" all the time in the first position.
>
> Would you really prefer _geunoversettet_ "untranslated" to
> _unoversettet_?

None of them all. Let we not form this as "untranslated" but "not translated" ->
"niit geoversettet"

Btw. there needs to be developed a rule for seperating double vowels: "etten" ->
"geetted", wich is pronounced as ge:t@t now. German would place an h between
them: "gehetted", wich is unclear (does gehetted come from hetten?) Dutch would
umlaut the second e: "geėtted". Perhaps you could use the apostrophe or so:
"ge'etted" or "ge-etted", whereof the last one is used in Dutch too, sometimes
(na-aper).
One addition: should "i:" be formed as "ii" or as "ie"? I prefer the last one,
tough not regular... ;)


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

> What is the difference in sound between long 'a' spraak and short 'a'
> sprakk?
>
> Does this mean that Dat (my dialect for English that) becomes Datt or
> Daat?
Datt (it's short)

>
> I always jast gave 'aa' the sound of 'a' in father.
>

The aa does not exist in English. Try to say a short 'o', and then "unround"
your lips. For Germans it is just the a in Bahn. For Dutch' it would not be any
problem...

Daan.


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

"Daan Goedkoop" <dgoedkoop@...> writes:

> > What is the difference in sound between long 'a' spraak and short 'a'
> > sprakk?
> >
> > Does this mean that Dat (my dialect for English that) becomes Datt or
> > Daat?
> Datt (it's short)

Right.

> > I always jast gave 'aa' the sound of 'a' in father.
> >
>
> The aa does not exist in English.

It depends on the dialect.  For most, the sound of <a> in _father_
will be just fine.

> Try to say a short 'o', and then "unround" your lips.

That vowel would be very far back.

> For Germans it is just the a in Bahn. For Dutch' it would not be any
> problem...

I guess it will be quite easy to hear where Folkspraak speakers are
from...

/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

"Daan Goedkoop" <dgoedkoop@...> writes:

> > Would you really prefer _geunoversettet_ "untranslated" to
> > _unoversettet_?
>
> None of them all. Let we not form this as "untranslated" but "not
> translated" -> "niit geoversettet"

But _un-_ is a perfectly good Germanic prefix!  (English _un_, German
_un_, Swedish _o_, Danish _u_.)  I see no reason to exclude it.

> Btw. there needs to be developed a rule for seperating double
> vowels: "etten" -> "geetted", wich is pronounced as ge:t@t now.

No, it is not.  /ge:t@d/ would be spelt as "geeted" (with a single
<t>).  So when you see a double <tt>, you know that only a single
vowel can come before, so the first <e> must belong to a prefix.

> German would place an h between them: "gehetted", wich is

No.  Intrusive <h> is IIRC only found _after_ the stressed vowel.

> unclear (does gehetted come from hetten?) Dutch would umlaut the
> second e: "geėtted". Perhaps you could use the apostrophe or so:
> "ge'etted" or "ge-etted", whereof the last one is used in Dutch too,
> sometimes (na-aper).

I think "ge-etted" is fine in beginners' materials, but I don't think
the hyphen is needed for fluent speakers.

> One addition: should "i:" be formed as "ii" or as "ie"? I prefer the
> last one, tough not regular... ;)

I've been thinking about the same, but it's a difficult question
because it has to fit within the vowel system.  Expect a posting about
this soon.

/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

cburd@... writes:

> --- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> > cburd@i... writes:
> >
> > The problem with -e is that it is also used in many other places,
> > which may make the language more difficult for beginners.
>
> We would need to mark it with a preposition, as in English. I don't
> see a problem with that. German tends to use "zu" before infinitives,
> even if not as regularly as English.

And _at_ in Danish, _å_ in Norwegian, _att_ in Swedish, _aš_ in
Icelandic.  (All from Old Norse _at_ IIRC.)

> > > I'm not so happy with this. The majority of Ls have *some*
> > > ending for most persons (accuracy not guaranteed):
> > >
> > > En 0 -st* -s 0 0 0
> > > De -e -st -t -en -t -en
> > > Ne -e 0 -t -en ? -en
> > > Da -er -er -er -er -er -er
> > > Sv -ar -ar -ar -ar -ar -ar
> > >
> > > At least 3 persons have -a- or -e-, so I'd say -e is the general
> > > FS form.
> >
> > In fact, until a hundred years ago, Danish and Swedish had
> > distinctive plural forms:
> >
> > Da -er -er -er -e -e -e
> > Sv -ar -ar -ar -o -en -o
> >
> > The old Danish plural forms at least support your suggestion.
>
> I'd say the -er forms do too, in a way, seeing that the -r ending has
> no resonance outside Scandinavia, and given the widespread tendency
> of Germanic Ls to weaken final Rs.

Well, -e and -er are very different endings to a Dane (-e forms the
infinitive and -er forms the present tense), so I tend to disagree.

> > But I would have liked to use -e for the subjunctive (if we need
> > that form -- e.g., "Longe leve Folkspraak!")
>
> Maybe. But I really prefer a non-zero ending for verbs. Try
> contrasting -e and nil in some spoken texts (like my "Vildren"
> story). To me it sounds much better.

Personally, I don't feel the problem, but I don't object to -e.

> > > It also helps distinguish nouns from verbs, e.g., "Ik besöke min
> > > Moder" / "Ik make en Besök til min Moder", and present tense
> > > from irregular past forms (if we decide to allow them), e.g.,
> > > "Du komme to lat til de Fest" / "Du kam to lat til de
> > > Fest". (I'm capitalising nouns for the present, for convenience'
> > > sake.)
> >
> > I don't think it will be a problem often, and with your scheme, one
> > might confuse the present and the infinitive instead.
>
> That's not so likely, because they're used differently, whereas past
> and present forms are used in precisely the same contexts.

The past is very different.  I was talking about the infinitive.

/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

Hi!

I really cannot think of any really good solution to Folkspraak words
containing a vowel coming from Germanic *au.

Here are some different possibilities:

1: auge, raud, laupen, kaupen, daud, baun, straum, draum.
2: eage, read, leapen, keapen, dead, bean, stream, dream.
3: eege, reed, leepen, keepen, deed, been, streem, dreem.
4: euge, reud, leupen, keupen, deud, beun, streum, dreum.
5: ooge, rood, loopen, koopen, dood, boon, stroom, droom.
6: ööge, rööd, lööpen, kööpen, dööd, böön, strööm, drööm.

The same words in various Germanic languages:

EN: eye, red, leap, keep, dead, bean, stream, dream.
DE: Auge, rot, laufen, kaufen, tot, Bohne, Strohm, Traum.
SV: öga, röd, löpa, köpa, död, bönne, ström, dröm.
DA: ųje, rųd, lųbe, kųbe, dųd, bųnne, strųm, drųm.
NN: auge, raud, laupa, kaupa, daud, baune, straum, draum.
(I cannot remember all of the Dutch words, but they generally use -o-
or -oo- [o:].)

What do you all think is the best solution?

/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

Thomas Martin Widmann wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I really cannot think of any really good solution to Folkspraak words
> containing a vowel coming from Germanic *au.
>
> Here are some different possibilities:
>
> 1: auge, raud, laupen, kaupen, daud, baun, straum, draum.
> 2: eage, read, leapen, keapen, dead, bean, stream, dream.
> 3: eege, reed, leepen, keepen, deed, been, streem, dreem.
> 4: euge, reud, leupen, keupen, deud, beun, streum, dreum.
> 5: ooge, rood, loopen, koopen, dood, boon, stroom, droom.
> 6: ööge, rööd, lööpen, kööpen, dööd, böön, strööm, drööm.
>
> The same words in various Germanic languages:
>
> EN: eye, red, leap, keep, dead, bean, stream, dream.
> DE: Auge, rot, laufen, kaufen, tot, Bohne, Strohm, Traum.
> SV: öga, röd, löpa, köpa, död, bönne, ström, dröm.
> DA: ųje, rųd, lųbe, kųbe, dųd, bųnne, strųm, drųm.
> NN: auge, raud, laupa, kaupa, daud, baune, straum, draum.
> (I cannot remember all of the Dutch words, but they generally use -o-
> or -oo- [o:].)
>
> What do you all think is the best solution?

To me, the short 'u' of full and good seems like a good compromise.

I tried to analyze it in the usual way; How many use a rounded vowel,
how many front vowels and how many back vowels to try and come with
something that way. I couldn't get anything though.

-Duke




> /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
>

Daan Goedkoop wrote:
>

> The aa does not exist in English. Try to say a short 'o', and then
> "unround" your lips. For Germans it is just the a in Bahn. For Dutch'
> it would not be any problem...

Oh, Okay. In my form of English (Syracuse Upstate New York) We don't
round our lips to say short 'O' anyways.  :)

-Duke Keenan



> Daan.
>

The Keenans <makeenan@...> writes:

> Thomas Martin Widmann wrote:
> >
> > I really cannot think of any really good solution to Folkspraak words
> > containing a vowel coming from Germanic *au.
> >
> > Here are some different possibilities:
> >
> > 1: auge, raud, laupen, kaupen, daud, baun, straum, draum.
> > 2: eage, read, leapen, keapen, dead, bean, stream, dream.
> > 3: eege, reed, leepen, keepen, deed, been, streem, dreem.
> > 4: euge, reud, leupen, keupen, deud, beun, streum, dreum.
> > 5: ooge, rood, loopen, koopen, dood, boon, stroom, droom.
> > 6: ööge, rööd, lööpen, kööpen, dööd, böön, strööm, drööm.
> >
> > The same words in various Germanic languages:
> >
> > EN: eye, red, leap, keep, dead, bean, stream, dream.
> > DE: Auge, rot, laufen, kaufen, tot, Bohne, Strohm, Traum.
> > SV: öga, röd, löpa, köpa, död, bönne, ström, dröm.
> > DA: ųje, rųd, lųbe, kųbe, dųd, bųnne, strųm, drųm.
> > NN: auge, raud, laupa, kaupa, daud, baune, straum, draum.
> > (I cannot remember all of the Dutch words, but they generally use -o-
> > or -oo- [o:].)
> >
> > What do you all think is the best solution?
>
> To me, the short 'u' of full and good seems like a good compromise.

Do you mean:

7: ugge, rudd, luppen, kuppen, dudd, bunn(e), strumm, drumm
?

That sounds rather strange to me.  But of course, other short vowels
would also be possible -- I didn't think of that, e.g.,

8: egge, redd, leppen, keppen, dedd, benn(e), stremm, dremm
9: ögge, rödd, löppen, köppen, dödd, bönn(e), strömm, drömm

> I tried to analyze it in the usual way; How many use a rounded vowel,
> how many front vowels and how many back vowels to try and come with
> something that way. I couldn't get anything though.

Exactly, this one's tough.  English uses front unrounded vowels, the
Scandinavian languages front rounded vowels or diphthongs, and German
and Dutch use back rounded vowels of diphthongs.  One could argue for
front rounded vowels as a compromise (öö/ö), but I'm not sure it's
really the best solution.

Hmmm, one could also go for <oi>:

10: oige, roid, loipen, koipen, doid, boin(e), stroim, droim.

Just to take an example with context -- here's the same sentence with
difference vowels:

1:  Ik have en draum!
2:  Ik have en dream!
3:  Ik have en dreem!
4:  Ik have en dreum!
5:  Ik have en droom!
6:  Ik have en drööm!
7:  Ik have en drumm!
8:  Ik have en dremm!
9:  Ik have en drömm!
10: Ik have en droim!

/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

Thomas Martin Widmann wrote:
>
>
> Do you mean:
>
> 7: ugge, rudd, luppen, kuppen, dudd, bunn(e), strumm, drumm
> ?

Ja, daat aar die ting.

>
> That sounds rather strange to me.  But of course, other short vowels
> would also be possible -- I didn't think of that, e.g.,
>
> 8: egge, redd, leppen, keppen, dedd, benn(e), stremm, dremm
> 9: ögge, rödd, löppen, köppen, dödd, bönn(e), strömm, drömm
>

> /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
>

Gud daeg fur alle!

Ik war tinkende von die folkspraak word fur 'Horse'

Ein von ons, hier in die list, saged det die ald (old) word war 'hros'
ond det it gaed till englisc ond it bekommed horse.

Miin idee aar dis: Kanne aaren 'hoross' en gud folkspraak word aar?

Waadt alle von U tink?

Ond, kann U fersteend mi?

-Duke

--- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> Hmmm, one could also go for <oi>:
>
> 10: oige, roid, loipen, koipen, doid, boin(e), stroim, droim.

This one sounds Yiddish. I say go for it, we want to please all Gmc
languages. :)

Regards

--- In folkspraak@y..., The Keenans <makeenan@s...> wrote:

> Miin idee aar dis: Kanne aaren 'hoross' en gud folkspraak word aar?
>
> Waadt alle von U tink?

The German form is "Ross", the H sound disappeared completely. A form
where the H is so prominent might confuse the understanding for
German speakers unnecessarily. Otherwhise English "needs" it. A good
compromise might be to merge the H and the R closely without doing
away with it. Guess we arrive at "Hros" anyway, which is the original
form ...

> Ond, kann U fersteend mi?

Jep, sehr gut, aber ich kann folkspraak noch nicht aktiv :-(

Regards

--- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> "Daan Goedkoop" <dgoedkoop@g...> writes:
>
> > > Would you really prefer _geunoversettet_ "untranslated" to
> > > _unoversettet_?
> >
> > None of them all. Let we not form this as "untranslated" but "not
> > translated" -> "niit geoversettet"
>
> But _un-_ is a perfectly good Germanic prefix!  (English _un_,
German
> _un_, Swedish _o_, Danish _u_.)  I see no reason to exclude it.

To answer the first question: Why not "geunoversetted". Just glue
prefixes together, keep the rules simple. Dutch is close to that
already, isn't it? You won't always arrive at such ugly monster
words, they're extreme examples.


Regards

wolfi.junkmail@... wrote:
>
> --- In folkspraak@y..., The Keenans <makeenan@s...> wrote:
>
> > Miin idee aar dis: Kanne aaren 'hoross' en gud folkspraak word aar?
> >
> > Waadt alle von U tink?
>
> The German form is "Ross", the H sound disappeared completely. A form
> where the H is so prominent might confuse the understanding for
> German speakers unnecessarily. Otherwhise English "needs" it. A good
> compromise might be to merge the H and the R closely without doing
> away with it. Guess we arrive at "Hros" anyway, which is the original
> form ...

Hmmmmm..... Ja, wenn Iik tink von it, Iik tink dat du aar korrekt. (Aar
der en gud wor fur 'right'?)

> > Ond, kann U fersteend mi?
>
> Jep, sehr gut, aber ich kann folkspraak noch nicht aktiv :-(

Nu, datt aar truulik gud!

-Duke

wolfi.junkmail@... writes:

> --- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> > Hmmm, one could also go for <oi>:
> >
> > 10: oige, roid, loipen, koipen, doid, boin(e), stroim, droim.
>
> This one sounds Yiddish. I say go for it, we want to please all Gmc
> languages. :)

It looks like you're right.  I tried to look up the above words at
<http://www.ectaco.com/online/diction.php3?lang=15>:

YI: oig, roit, loifn, koifn, toit, -, -, -.

/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

--- Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@...> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I really cannot think of any really good solution to Folkspraak words
> containing a vowel coming from Germanic *au.
>
> Here are some different possibilities:
>
> 1: auge, raud, laupen, kaupen, daud, baun, straum, draum.
> 2: eage, read, leapen, keapen, dead, bean, stream, dream.
> 3: eege, reed, leepen, keepen, deed, been, streem, dreem.
> 4: euge, reud, leupen, keupen, deud, beun, streum, dreum.
> 5: ooge, rood, loopen, koopen, dood, boon, stroom, droom.
> 6: ööge, rööd, lööpen, kööpen, dööd, böön, strööm, drööm.
>
> The same words in various Germanic languages:
>
> EN: eye, red, leap, keep, dead, bean, stream, dream.
> DE: Auge, rot, laufen, kaufen, tot, Bohne, Strohm, Traum.
> SV: öga, röd, löpa, köpa, död, bönne, ström, dröm.
> DA: ųje, rųd, lųbe, kųbe, dųd, bųnne, strųm, drųm.
> NN: auge, raud, laupa, kaupa, daud, baune, straum, draum.
> (I cannot remember all of the Dutch words, but they generally use -o-
> or -oo- [o:].)

That would be: oog, rood, lopen, kopen, dood, boon, stroom, droom

...which indeed is all with [o:]. However, in the urban dialects of the
west of the Netherlands, this sound tends to be pronounced as a
diphtong, which sounds somewhat like "au", I would say.

> What do you all think is the best solution?

Tricky... Considering all source languages, I would say the scanian
(from Skåne, southern Sweden) pronounciation of "ö" comes closest :o)

adjyys,

Jan-Willem


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

--- Jan-Willem Benjamins <benjaminsjw@...> wrote:

> Tricky... Considering all source languages, I would say the scanian
> (from Skåne, southern Sweden) pronounciation of "ö" comes closest :o)

Oops, did I say "ö"? I meant "o:"

silly mistake

Jan-Willem


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

--- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I really cannot think of any really good solution to Folkspraak
words
> containing a vowel coming from Germanic *au.
>
> Here are some different possibilities:
>
> 1: auge, raud, laupen, kaupen, daud, baun, straum, draum.
> 2: eage, read, leapen, keapen, dead, bean, stream, dream.
> 3: eege, reed, leepen, keepen, deed, been, streem, dreem.
> 4: euge, reud, leupen, keupen, deud, beun, streum, dreum.
> 5: ooge, rood, loopen, koopen, dood, boon, stroom, droom.
> 6: ööge, rööd, lööpen, kööpen, dööd, böön, strööm, drööm.
>
> The same words in various Germanic languages:
>
> EN: eye, red, leap, keep, dead, bean, stream, dream.
> DE: Auge, rot, laufen, kaufen, tot, Bohne, Strohm, Traum.
> SV: öga, röd, löpa, köpa, död, bönne, ström, dröm.
> DA: ųje, rųd, lųbe, kųbe, dųd, bųnne, strųm, drųm.
> NN: auge, raud, laupa, kaupa, daud, baune, straum, draum.
> (I cannot remember all of the Dutch words, but they generally use -
o-
> or -oo- [o:].)
>
> What do you all think is the best solution?

First, I'd like to see what you're planning for the other PG vowels,
particularly whether PG [u:] goes to [u:], [au], or something else.
I'd prefer not to merge PG [u:] and [au]. Regardless of this, I think
the choice should be non-arbitrary. Here are some possibilities:

[au] - closest modern representative (Gode's original approach)

[o:] - as above, but ignores one-language forms ([o:] can be though
of as standing for both [au] and [o:] (resembles Gode's final
approach). Also note that many De forms are [o:] rather than [au]

OE > ö [ų] - "orthographic" approach - En, Sv, Da support the E
segment, Ne, Sv, Da support O. (This implies ö etc, "preprocessed" to
OE etc.)

[ų:] - "phonetic approach" - modern vowels analysed in terms of:
long/short/diphthong - front/centre/back - high/mid/low -
open/closed. The average is long - front - mid - closed, or [ų:]

I'd pick AU myself, it seems a waste of effort to resurrect the PG
forms if they don't leave an imprint on the language.

But my basic point is, I think we should pick principles for
standardisation rather than doing things ad hoc. It'll simply our
decision making, and likely create a more natural looking language.

Cheers,

Chris

Jan-Willem Benjamins <benjaminsjw@...> writes:

> --- Jan-Willem Benjamins <benjaminsjw@...> wrote:
>
> > Tricky... Considering all source languages, I would say the scanian
> > (from Skåne, southern Sweden) pronounciation of "ö" comes closest :o)
>
> Oops, did I say "ö"? I meant "o:"

You mean [OU]?  I don't know -- it's OK for German, Dutch and Nynorsk,
but it's pretty far off for the rest.

How about [OI] spelt <oe>?  So for example, "Ik have en droem" [Ik
'hav@ @n 'drOIm]...  (In pseudo-English: "Ick have an droim".)  I
think the spelling <oe> is reasonably close to <o>, <e> and <ų/ö>, and
the pronunciation is identical to Yiddish and not too far off from
most of the various Germanic reflexes.

/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

cburd@... writes:

> --- In folkspraak@y..., Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@d...> wrote:
> > I really cannot think of any really good solution to Folkspraak
> > words containing a vowel coming from Germanic *au.
> >
> > Here are some different possibilities:
> >
> > 1: auge, raud, laupen, kaupen, daud, baun, straum, draum.
> > 2: eage, read, leapen, keapen, dead, bean, stream, dream.
> > 3: eege, reed, leepen, keepen, deed, been, streem, dreem.
> > 4: euge, reud, leupen, keupen, deud, beun, streum, dreum.
> > 5: ooge, rood, loopen, koopen, dood, boon, stroom, droom.
> > 6: ööge, rööd, lööpen, kööpen, dööd, böön, strööm, drööm.
> >
> > The same words in various Germanic languages:
> >
> > EN: eye, red, leap, keep, dead, bean, stream, dream.
> > DE: Auge, rot, laufen, kaufen, tot, Bohne, Strohm, Traum.
> > SV: öga, röd, löpa, köpa, död, bönne, ström, dröm.
> > DA: ųje, rųd, lųbe, kųbe, dųd, bųnne, strųm, drųm.
> > NN: auge, raud, laupa, kaupa, daud, baune, straum, draum.
> > (I cannot remember all of the Dutch words, but they generally use
> > -o- or -oo- [o:].)
> >
> > What do you all think is the best solution?
>
> First, I'd like to see what you're planning for the other PG vowels,
> particularly whether PG [u:] goes to [u:], [au], or something else.

I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards [au], because this is the shared
development of the two largest Germanic languages, English and
German.  Possibly spelt <ou>, though, to make it look more familiar to
speakers of English and Scandinavian languages.

> I'd prefer not to merge PG [u:] and [au].

Agreed.

> Regardless of this, I think the choice should be non-arbitrary. Here
> are some possibilities:
>
> [au] - closest modern representative (Gode's original approach)

Yes, I think this would be the best solution if *u: becomes something
else.

> [o:] - as above, but ignores one-language forms ([o:] can be though
> of as standing for both [au] and [o:] (resembles Gode's final
> approach). Also note that many De forms are [o:] rather than [au]

Yes.  It is definitely a possibility.

> OE > ö [ų] - "orthographic" approach - En, Sv, Da support the E
> segment, Ne, Sv, Da support O. (This implies ö etc, "preprocessed" to
> OE etc.)

As I wrote in another posting, this could be spelt <oe> (not <ö>) and
pronounced [oi].  [ų] is another possible pronunciation of <oe>,
though.

> [ų:] - "phonetic approach" - modern vowels analysed in terms of:
> long/short/diphthong - front/centre/back - high/mid/low -
> open/closed. The average is long - front - mid - closed, or [ų:]

In theory, it's good, but in practice, the words look odd.  <oe> could
of course be the way to write [ų:]...

> I'd pick AU myself, it seems a waste of effort to resurrect the PG
> forms if they don't leave an imprint on the language.

I see your point.  But then *u: should probably stay [u:].

That is, either "en raude huus" or "en roede hous".

> But my basic point is, I think we should pick principles for
> standardisation rather than doing things ad hoc. It'll simply our
> decision making, and likely create a more natural looking language.

Agreed.

/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

--- Thomas Martin Widmann <viralbus@...> wrote:
> Jan-Willem Benjamins <benjaminsjw@...> writes:
>
> > --- Jan-Willem Benjamins <benjaminsjw@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Tricky... Considering all source languages, I would say the
> scanian
> > > (from Skåne, southern Sweden) pronounciation of "ö" comes closest
> :o)
> >
> > Oops, did I say "ö"? I meant "o:"
>
> You mean [OU]?  I don't know -- it's OK for German, Dutch and
> Nynorsk,
> but it's pretty far off for the rest.

I'm hardly versed in the conventions of phonetics, but if I were to
transcribe the scanian pronunciation of a word like "kronor", it would
be something like "kreonor", or "krewnor" (aren't there any true
skåningar on this list?)

Anyway, my "scanian approach" was not meant be taken this seriously.

> How about [OI] spelt <oe>?  So for example, "Ik have en droem" [Ik
> 'hav@ @n 'drOIm]...  (In pseudo-English: "Ick have an droim".)  I
> think the spelling <oe> is reasonably close to <o>, <e> and <ų/ö>,
> and
> the pronunciation is identical to Yiddish and not too far off from
> most of the various Germanic reflexes.

Yeah. Given the mess we'd otherwise find ourselves in, we'd better just
choose something. I don't think [oi]/<oe> is a bad idea.

adjyys

jan-willem


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

I strongly feel we should stick with the Roman alphabet, for ease of written
communication with a larger public (including myself). Also, Folkspraak's use
of the Roman alphabet is stated in the charter, which I have issues with at
times, but find a useful beacon when we start sailing into deeper waters.
Dipthongs and double vowels are cool, but I also have a strong preference for
single vowels as the representation for the most common vowel sounds. I'd
personally have no problem with A (ah), E (eh), I (ee), O (oh), U (oo) as the
primary vowels, with ae, au, oe, and friends helping to distinguish similar
words, or when there is majority support for those vowel representations.

til later,
Brian


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