Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9790Re: My FS

Expand Messages
  • chamavian
    Nov 2, 2006
      Yes, I think it should be "sig" as well. *"Sik" with final -k doesn't
      even exist in one of the source langages! German sich, Dutch zich,
      and Scandinavian sig/seg, so where would one take that -k from then?

      Think of English daily, German täglich
      English naturely, German natürlich
      English ugly, German hässlich
      etc etc

      and you'll realize that E -ly and not -like is the cognate here.

      At least I never heard of "give us our daylike bread", "that's true,
      naturelike" or "what an uglike woman" ;-)

      Chambo


      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
      >
      > chamavian wrote:
      >
      > >Hei Stephan
      > >
      > >In the concrete cases were ProtoGermanic -k mutated in several or
      > >most source languages into something else, it should have a
      > >different consonant in FS as well. So:
      > >
      > >PG *ik > ich (G), I (E), jeg (D), jag (S), ik (NL) => ig (FS)
      > >
      > >PG *-lik > -lich, -ly, -lig, -lig, -lijk => -lig (FS)
      > >
      > >
      > In the case of EN, -ly is used more often as an adverb marker and
      not in
      > the manner of the equivalents in other languages. Especially not in
      a
      > productive manner.
      > But you will often find EN -like used in a manner more directly
      > equivalent to those other suffixes. And "-like" is a productive
      suffix.
      > So in the case of *-lik, I think having a -k makes more sense.
      >
      > But in other cases, I think if we use -g in the 1st person
      nominative
      > pronoun, there would be other words which should follow the same
      > pattern. So the 3rd person reflexive pronoun should be "sig" not
      *sik
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > >But not in most other cases like "spreke" or "make", because there
      > >only German mutated k into ch, the rest retained original k.
      > >
      > >Creating Folksprak, we have to learn not to think too much of
      > >ProtoGermanic, a language no-one knows or is even reconstructed
      > >completely, because that language is about just as foreign and
      > >incomprehensible for speakers of modern Germanic languages as
      Latin
      > >or Old Irish.
      > >
      > >If we want a simple FS that is easily recognizable and under-
      > >standable we have to start from what is already there with the
      > >learners, and that is the knowledge of their own Germanic language
      > >and maybe one or two others.
      > >
      > >You may think it's confusing to you when you see a sentence like
      > >
      > >"naturlig ig spreke alrede Folksprak"
      > >
      > >because it has both -g and -k from a ProtoGermanic point of view.
      > >And German has -ch here (but not in "Volk-", so it's not
      completely
      > >regular too)
      > >
      > >
      > If the second germanic consonant shift (the high german one) were
      > totally consistant, all instances of *k would become *ch. This
      doesn't
      > seem to have happened in Standard German, but some dialects have
      done it
      > more totally. This is perhaps because Standard German is somewhat
      of a
      > conlang, an artificial merging of various dialects, some of which
      have
      > more completely undergone the consonant shift than others.
      >
      >
      > >But if you look at English and Scandinavian, we find -ly and -lig,
      > >and I and jeg/jag/jei, so final -k is more confusing to speakers
      of
      > >those languages.
      > >
      > >See what I mean?
      > >
      > >And this is only about very few and very much used words, I don't
      > >think that's so confusing, for no-one but especially not for you.
      > >
      > >Cham
      > >
      > >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >>Hi Cham,
      > >>
      > >>"ig" was my first approach for "I", too, for same reasons that you
      > >>pointed out.
      > >>
      > >>But...
      > >>In Berlin we say "ick", too. :-)
      > >>
      > >>And in German and English for instance many post-vocalic "k"
      became
      > >>"ch" or "j" like in EN "-ly", DE "-lich". And PG *sk often turns
      > >>
      > >>
      > >to EN
      > >
      > >
      > >>"sh" and DE "sch".
      > >>
      > >>So this could also be FS:
      > >>"naturlich sprech ich schon folksprach"
      > >>
      > >>But this would go far too deep into the German pronunciation, so I
      > >>left it like this (which looks much more neuter to me):
      > >>"naturlik sprek ik skon folksprak"
      > >>
      > >>Something intermediate would seem too confusion too me.
      > >>
      > >>Bye,
      > >>Stephan
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>>Sorry, I couldn't open the link, only get commercial stuff.
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >Maybe you
      > >
      > >
      > >>>can just put it in our Files section?
      > >>>
      > >>>By the way, "ig" is much more representative for the major
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >living
      > >
      > >
      > >>>Germanic languages than "ik" (or "ick", "ikk"). The first
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >pronoun
      > >
      > >
      > >>>singular ending in final -k only exists in Dutch "ik".
      > >>>English I has no ending (or maybe a "j"?), German the soft ch
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >[C] and
      > >
      > >
      > >>>Scandinavian a, mostly silent, -g Da "jeg", Sw "jag",
      > >>>NorwBM "jei"(NewNorw "eg").
      > >>>
      > >>>So if we'd take an average final sound, it would be defenitely
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >not -k,
      > >
      > >
      > >>>but rather -g:
      > >>>
      > >>>English -
      > >>>German ch
      > >>>Dutch k
      > >>>Scandi g
      > >>>
      > >>>If we'd take more languages and count them all, the picture
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >won't
      > >
      > >
      > >>>change:
      > >>>
      > >>>English - (j?)
      > >>>German ch
      > >>>Dutch(+Afr) k
      > >>>Danish g
      > >>>LowSaxon k
      > >>>Icelandic g
      > >>>Norwegian - (j?)
      > >>>Swedish g
      > >>>Frisian k
      > >>>Swytzer -
      > >>>Yiddish sh
      > >>>etc.
      > >>>
      > >>>here we find 3 final k's and 3 final g's, 3 silent and 2 other,
      > >>>although most final g's are pronounced as if silent.
      > >>>The average sound of this can never be the hard k.
      > >>>But as most people here don't want to take too many source
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >languages
      > >
      > >
      > >>>into account: even if one would only take English I and Dutch
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >ik, the
      > >
      > >
      > >>>intermediate should be with final g. That's phonoLogics.
      > >>>
      > >>>For that alone, to me the FS pronoun first pers sing can only
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >be "ig".
      > >
      > >
      > >>>Something else is that in Danish and Norwegian "ikke"
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >means "not",
      > >
      > >
      > >>>which would make it confusing for Scandies if FS "ik" meant "I".
      > >>>"Ig" is immediately recognizable for everyone.
      > >>>
      > >>>Cham
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
      > >>><xipirho@> wrote:
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>>Ik witt nit ov ik hav dis forhir segd, aver ik hav en bittken
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >info
      > >
      > >
      > >>>up-
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>>an hu ik tenk FS schuld wese hir
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/
      > >
      > >
      > >>>>rsookias/myfolksprak.html . Et giv en oder two tings nu dé ik
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >tenk
      > >
      > >
      > >>>ar
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>>fremd - ik tenk "ik" iss magwes better als "ig", end "bai-
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >said" ik
      > >
      > >
      > >>>>tenk schuld "besaid" oder "bai" wese for "bai-said" iss swer
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >tu
      > >
      > >
      > >>>sege.
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>>Ok ik brauk de schraibungs "sch" end "ch" nu ...aver "sh"
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >and "h" ar
      > >
      > >
      > >>>>OK sikker.
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----
      > >
      > >No virus found in this incoming message.
      > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.22/512 - Release Date:
      1/11/2006
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic