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

9791Re: My FS

Expand Messages
  • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
    Nov 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      ja. aver et iss naturALly in englisch. ;-)

      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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