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

Re: Folksprak 2007

Expand Messages
  • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
    I hope you re right! :-) I think, after pondering, it d be: Lykkig niu jar Gud dag / gud-dag Folksprak But it s tricky to decide to scrap the ge- . Whatever
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 9, 2007
      I hope you're right! :-)
      I think, after pondering, it'd be:

      Lykkig niu jar
      Gud dag / gud-dag
      Folksprak

      But it's tricky to decide to scrap the "ge-".
      Whatever the orthography, my preferred would be of the proto-germanic
      form:

      lykk~ik neuw jær
      go(o)d dag
      folkspræk

      ...where "y" means i-mutated short "u".
      ...and "o" before double consonant (i.e. short "o") means a-mutated
      "u".


      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
      >
      > Gelycklik ny jar!
      >
      > I think we are going to have a Folksprak before this year is out. I
      > would like to explain according to which criteria this might get
      done.
      >
      > Folksprak will be a language by the moment that at least two
      Folksprak
      > developers use it. A developer is a Folkspraker that has already
      > developed a grammar and a dictionary that allows them to form sample
      > phrases in FS. I don't want to work on the very text of the grammar
      > and the dictionary itself together with you guys, but on samples.
      When
      > two FS developers agree that the other one's usage of FS is actual
      FS,
      > then we have an agreement, i. e. a language. Each of the agreeing FS
      > developers may update their own grammar in order to memorize what
      they
      > have agreed upon. And I would save also the sample texts in my
      > Wikibook, in order to have a documentation of our achievements.
      >
      > One thing I don't discuss now is, if "agere", "actere", "acte" is
      the
      > correct FS form, or if "klen" should mean "clean" or "small".
      > Important is that these words are grammatically correct FS words, if
      > we agree so.
      >
      > I don't know if this is really the best approach, but for me it
      would
      > work for now, so, if you agree, FS developers, please tell me how
      you
      > write these sentences (or if you accept these sentences as
      > orthographically / grammatically correct sentences):
      >
      > - gelycklik ny jar
      > - god dag
      > - Folksprak
      >
      > Regards,
      > Stephan
      >
    • stefichjo
      Hi Roly, If you stick to Protogermanic, then you should write fulkspraek . Why do you scrap the ge- ? What about geleuve (to believe)? Do you have a
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 9, 2007
        Hi Roly,

        If you stick to Protogermanic, then you should write "fulkspraek". Why
        do you scrap the "ge-"? What about "geleuve" (to believe)?

        Do you have a summary of your orthography (Proto Germanic -> Folksprak)?

        Regards,
        Stephan

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
        <xipirho@...> wrote:
        >
        > I hope you're right! :-)
        > I think, after pondering, it'd be:
        >
        > Lykkig niu jar
        > Gud dag / gud-dag
        > Folksprak
        >
        > But it's tricky to decide to scrap the "ge-".
        > Whatever the orthography, my preferred would be of the proto-germanic
        > form:
        >
        > lykk~ik neuw jær
        > go(o)d dag
        > folkspræk
        >
        > ...where "y" means i-mutated short "u".
        > ...and "o" before double consonant (i.e. short "o") means a-mutated
        > "u".
        >
        >
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Gelycklik ny jar!
        > >
        > > I think we are going to have a Folksprak before this year is out. I
        > > would like to explain according to which criteria this might get
        > done.
        > >
        > > Folksprak will be a language by the moment that at least two
        > Folksprak
        > > developers use it. A developer is a Folkspraker that has already
        > > developed a grammar and a dictionary that allows them to form sample
        > > phrases in FS. I don't want to work on the very text of the grammar
        > > and the dictionary itself together with you guys, but on samples.
        > When
        > > two FS developers agree that the other one's usage of FS is actual
        > FS,
        > > then we have an agreement, i. e. a language. Each of the agreeing FS
        > > developers may update their own grammar in order to memorize what
        > they
        > > have agreed upon. And I would save also the sample texts in my
        > > Wikibook, in order to have a documentation of our achievements.
        > >
        > > One thing I don't discuss now is, if "agere", "actere", "acte" is
        > the
        > > correct FS form, or if "klen" should mean "clean" or "small".
        > > Important is that these words are grammatically correct FS words, if
        > > we agree so.
        > >
        > > I don't know if this is really the best approach, but for me it
        > would
        > > work for now, so, if you agree, FS developers, please tell me how
        > you
        > > write these sentences (or if you accept these sentences as
        > > orthographically / grammatically correct sentences):
        > >
        > > - gelycklik ny jar
        > > - god dag
        > > - Folksprak
        > >
        > > Regards,
        > > Stephan
        > >
        >
      • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
        1) I use o in that orthography FOR a-mutated u - there was no short o in PG as far as I know 2)I scrap the ge- because it s scrapped in English and
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 9, 2007
          1) I use "o" in that orthography FOR a-mutated "u" - there was no
          short "o" in PG as far as I know
          2)I scrap the "ge-" because it's scrapped in English and Swedish
          (other Scandy too I would imagine!!). It makes the word shorter too!
          3)I'd keep the "ge-" in "ge~laub~an" because English has the "be-"
          prefix here.
          4)Kind of - just what was on my website. I put it on frath wiki -
          http://wiki.frath.net/Folksprak .


          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Roly,
          >
          > If you stick to Protogermanic, then you should write "fulkspraek".
          Why
          > do you scrap the "ge-"? What about "geleuve" (to believe)?
          >
          > Do you have a summary of your orthography (Proto Germanic ->
          Folksprak)?
          >
          > Regards,
          > Stephan
          >
          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
          > <xipirho@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I hope you're right! :-)
          > > I think, after pondering, it'd be:
          > >
          > > Lykkig niu jar
          > > Gud dag / gud-dag
          > > Folksprak
          > >
          > > But it's tricky to decide to scrap the "ge-".
          > > Whatever the orthography, my preferred would be of the proto-
          germanic
          > > form:
          > >
          > > lykk~ik neuw jær
          > > go(o)d dag
          > > folkspræk
          > >
          > > ...where "y" means i-mutated short "u".
          > > ...and "o" before double consonant (i.e. short "o") means a-
          mutated
          > > "u".
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Gelycklik ny jar!
          > > >
          > > > I think we are going to have a Folksprak before this year is
          out. I
          > > > would like to explain according to which criteria this might
          get
          > > done.
          > > >
          > > > Folksprak will be a language by the moment that at least two
          > > Folksprak
          > > > developers use it. A developer is a Folkspraker that has already
          > > > developed a grammar and a dictionary that allows them to form
          sample
          > > > phrases in FS. I don't want to work on the very text of the
          grammar
          > > > and the dictionary itself together with you guys, but on
          samples.
          > > When
          > > > two FS developers agree that the other one's usage of FS is
          actual
          > > FS,
          > > > then we have an agreement, i. e. a language. Each of the
          agreeing FS
          > > > developers may update their own grammar in order to memorize
          what
          > > they
          > > > have agreed upon. And I would save also the sample texts in my
          > > > Wikibook, in order to have a documentation of our achievements.
          > > >
          > > > One thing I don't discuss now is, if "agere", "actere", "acte"
          is
          > > the
          > > > correct FS form, or if "klen" should mean "clean" or "small".
          > > > Important is that these words are grammatically correct FS
          words, if
          > > > we agree so.
          > > >
          > > > I don't know if this is really the best approach, but for me it
          > > would
          > > > work for now, so, if you agree, FS developers, please tell me
          how
          > > you
          > > > write these sentences (or if you accept these sentences as
          > > > orthographically / grammatically correct sentences):
          > > >
          > > > - gelycklik ny jar
          > > > - god dag
          > > > - Folksprak
          > > >
          > > > Regards,
          > > > Stephan
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • stefichjo
          ... Thank you. The most unexplored prefix in FS is ge- , I guess. I will certainly have to think about it again. Regards, Stephan
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 9, 2007
            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
            <xipirho@...> wrote:
            >
            > 1) I use "o" in that orthography FOR a-mutated "u" - there was no
            > short "o" in PG as far as I know
            > 2)I scrap the "ge-" because it's scrapped in English and Swedish
            > (other Scandy too I would imagine!!). It makes the word shorter too!
            > 3)I'd keep the "ge-" in "ge~laub~an" because English has the "be-"
            > prefix here.
            > 4)Kind of - just what was on my website. I put it on frath wiki -
            > http://wiki.frath.net/Folksprak .

            Thank you.
            The most unexplored prefix in FS is "ge-", I guess. I will certainly
            have to think about it again.

            Regards,
            Stephan
          • David Parke
            ... I am in favour of keeping ge- in most instances. I would NOT use it as a past particple marker like German or Dutch, but in other places I would tend to
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 9, 2007
              stefichjo wrote:

              >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
              ><xipirho@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >>1) I use "o" in that orthography FOR a-mutated "u" - there was no
              >>short "o" in PG as far as I know
              >>2)I scrap the "ge-" because it's scrapped in English and Swedish
              >>(other Scandy too I would imagine!!). It makes the word shorter too!
              >>3)I'd keep the "ge-" in "ge~laub~an" because English has the "be-"
              >>prefix here.
              >>4)Kind of - just what was on my website. I put it on frath wiki -
              >>http://wiki.frath.net/Folksprak .
              >>
              >>
              >
              >Thank you.
              >The most unexplored prefix in FS is "ge-", I guess. I will certainly
              >have to think about it again.
              >
              >
              >
              I am in favour of keeping "ge-" in most instances. I would NOT use it as
              a past particple marker like German or Dutch, but in other places I
              would tend to keep it. English has not completely lost it -- it is still
              present in "enough" and "alike" "aware" or has been changed to "be-" in
              "believe". Scandinavian has the word in a few relatively recent
              borrowings from German (SV gevär, gestalt)
              I don't think that "ge-" shouldn't have any real meaning or productive
              usage but should be used in FS words in cases where German and Dutch
              have the suffix, especially in cases where to drop the suffix would
              change the meaning for Dutch/German speakers. One interesting example
              would be DE brauchen (to need) vs gebrauchen (to use). NL has gebruiken
              and Scandy has bruge/bruke/bruka which mean the same as DE gebrauchen.
              NL does NOT have *bruiken. If we were to drop the "ge-" as a systematic
              rule, then the FS word for "use" would be *bruke which would be very
              confusing to DE speakers. (and slightly less instantly recognisable to
              NL speakers). If we have *gebruke, then this is not unambiguous to DE
              speakers, almost perfect for NL speakers, and only slightly less
              recognisable for Scandy speakers. Scandy speakers can be taught that as
              a general rule, they should ignore the "ge-" when trying to recognise
              the Scandy equivalent to FS words.
              I think because this prefix is meaningless, it is less likely to cause
              to confusion to speakers of languages that don't have "ge-". But to drop
              the "ge-" can be the cause of confusion to speakers of languages to do
              have it.
              Also in German this suffix has sometimes become fused to the stem to
              such an extent that it is not recognisable as a "ge-" suffix anymore
              (glauben, Glück, gleich). In these cases "geleuve" and "gelyck" and
              "gelik" are more recognisable than *leuve, *lyck, *lik. It's one thing
              to tell German speakers that FS has lost the "ge-" suffix, but in those
              examples, "g-" isn't a real suffix anymore. A German speaker is less
              likely to realise that they need to drop the "g" in Glück than the "ge"-
              in Gefahr

              It also gives us some flexibility with forming words since we can use it
              to artificially to distinguish between two words that might otherwise be
              homonyms We can use it as one means to derive a new word from a stem.
              Think of "gelud" (n. = noise) versus lud (a. = sound)

              So in short, I'd prefer "ge-lyckig" to "lyckig". Also it is 50/50
              whether the suffix is "-lik" ("-lig" if your name is Ingmar) or "-ig".
              EN lucky, NL gelukkig vs DE glücklich, Scandy lykkelig/lycklig. In the
              case of a 50/50 split, I would examine which version looks the "best",
              that is, the most logical and regular and common sense.

              I think that the "-lik" suffix should mean "having the characteristics
              or properties or qualities of..."
              I think that the "-ig" suffix should mean "characterised by
              having/containing a significant/marked quantity of..."

              For example:

              De barrakudafisch is wormig = The barracuda has lots of worms/parasites
              infesting it.
              De alfisch is wormlik = The eel has the form of a worm, looks like a worm.

              I think that the concept of *gelyckig/*gelycklik means having lots of
              luck/good fortune/happiness. It doesn't mean having a similar
              form/quality to good fortune/happiness. I think that "-ig" is the more
              logical suffix for this concept.

              Of course in cases where there is a clear majority that use an
              "illogical" construction, then we should probably follow the way of the
              majority. For example NL pijnlijk, DE peinlich, DA/NO pinlig should
              probably mean "painfull" (characterised by a lot of pain). Hmmm It would
              logically mean "coniferous" (like a pine tree).

              SO for me: "gelyckig" is the best word. not gelycklik/lyckig/lycklik

              >Regards,
              >Stephan
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              >No virus found in this incoming message.
              >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              >Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 9/01/2007
              >
              >
            • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
              My only objection is it seems rather odd to have /ge|bruuk|an/ and / ge|lykk/ and no /bruuk|an/, and /lykk/. But then hey, real things are odd! ... too! ...
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 9, 2007
                My only objection is it seems rather odd to have /ge|bruuk|an/ and /
                ge|lykk/ and no /bruuk|an/, and /lykk/. But then hey, real things are
                odd!

                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                >
                > stefichjo wrote:
                >
                > >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                > ><xipirho@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >>1) I use "o" in that orthography FOR a-mutated "u" - there was no
                > >>short "o" in PG as far as I know
                > >>2)I scrap the "ge-" because it's scrapped in English and Swedish
                > >>(other Scandy too I would imagine!!). It makes the word shorter
                too!
                > >>3)I'd keep the "ge-" in "ge~laub~an" because English has the "be-
                "
                > >>prefix here.
                > >>4)Kind of - just what was on my website. I put it on frath wiki -
                > >>http://wiki.frath.net/Folksprak .
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >Thank you.
                > >The most unexplored prefix in FS is "ge-", I guess. I will
                certainly
                > >have to think about it again.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > I am in favour of keeping "ge-" in most instances. I would NOT use
                it as
                > a past particple marker like German or Dutch, but in other places I
                > would tend to keep it. English has not completely lost it -- it is
                still
                > present in "enough" and "alike" "aware" or has been changed to "be-
                " in
                > "believe". Scandinavian has the word in a few relatively recent
                > borrowings from German (SV gevär, gestalt)
                > I don't think that "ge-" shouldn't have any real meaning or
                productive
                > usage but should be used in FS words in cases where German and
                Dutch
                > have the suffix, especially in cases where to drop the suffix would
                > change the meaning for Dutch/German speakers. One interesting
                example
                > would be DE brauchen (to need) vs gebrauchen (to use). NL has
                gebruiken
                > and Scandy has bruge/bruke/bruka which mean the same as DE
                gebrauchen.
                > NL does NOT have *bruiken. If we were to drop the "ge-" as a
                systematic
                > rule, then the FS word for "use" would be *bruke which would be
                very
                > confusing to DE speakers. (and slightly less instantly recognisable
                to
                > NL speakers). If we have *gebruke, then this is not unambiguous to
                DE
                > speakers, almost perfect for NL speakers, and only slightly less
                > recognisable for Scandy speakers. Scandy speakers can be taught
                that as
                > a general rule, they should ignore the "ge-" when trying to
                recognise
                > the Scandy equivalent to FS words.
                > I think because this prefix is meaningless, it is less likely to
                cause
                > to confusion to speakers of languages that don't have "ge-". But to
                drop
                > the "ge-" can be the cause of confusion to speakers of languages to
                do
                > have it.
                > Also in German this suffix has sometimes become fused to the stem
                to
                > such an extent that it is not recognisable as a "ge-" suffix
                anymore
                > (glauben, Glück, gleich). In these cases "geleuve" and "gelyck" and
                > "gelik" are more recognisable than *leuve, *lyck, *lik. It's one
                thing
                > to tell German speakers that FS has lost the "ge-" suffix, but in
                those
                > examples, "g-" isn't a real suffix anymore. A German speaker is
                less
                > likely to realise that they need to drop the "g" in Glück than the
                "ge"-
                > in Gefahr
                >
                > It also gives us some flexibility with forming words since we can
                use it
                > to artificially to distinguish between two words that might
                otherwise be
                > homonyms We can use it as one means to derive a new word from a
                stem.
                > Think of "gelud" (n. = noise) versus lud (a. = sound)
                >
                > So in short, I'd prefer "ge-lyckig" to "lyckig". Also it is 50/50
                > whether the suffix is "-lik" ("-lig" if your name is Ingmar) or "-
                ig".
                > EN lucky, NL gelukkig vs DE glücklich, Scandy lykkelig/lycklig. In
                the
                > case of a 50/50 split, I would examine which version looks the
                "best",
                > that is, the most logical and regular and common sense.
                >
                > I think that the "-lik" suffix should mean "having the
                characteristics
                > or properties or qualities of..."
                > I think that the "-ig" suffix should mean "characterised by
                > having/containing a significant/marked quantity of..."
                >
                > For example:
                >
                > De barrakudafisch is wormig = The barracuda has lots of worms/
                parasites
                > infesting it.
                > De alfisch is wormlik = The eel has the form of a worm, looks like
                a worm.
                >
                > I think that the concept of *gelyckig/*gelycklik means having lots
                of
                > luck/good fortune/happiness. It doesn't mean having a similar
                > form/quality to good fortune/happiness. I think that "-ig" is the
                more
                > logical suffix for this concept.
                >
                > Of course in cases where there is a clear majority that use an
                > "illogical" construction, then we should probably follow the way of
                the
                > majority. For example NL pijnlijk, DE peinlich, DA/NO pinlig should
                > probably mean "painfull" (characterised by a lot of pain). Hmmm It
                would
                > logically mean "coniferous" (like a pine tree).
                >
                > SO for me: "gelyckig" is the best word. not gelycklik/lyckig/lycklik
                >
                > >Regards,
                > >Stephan
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
                -----
                > >
                > >No virus found in this incoming message.
                > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                > >Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 9/
                01/2007
                > >
                > >
                >
              • stefichjo
                Wow. I agree. xcept: - ge- might have a meaning that we just didn t get ge-ware of and we might find out later. I really appreciate that you systematically
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 9, 2007
                  Wow. I agree. 'xcept:

                  - "ge-" might have a meaning that we just didn't get ge-ware of and we
                  might find out later.

                  I really appreciate that you systematically distinguish between -lik
                  and -ig. I have the same definitions for these cases.

                  "gelyckig" is a more logical word than "gelycklik". And it's the first
                  time, as far as I remember, that this means that I change a word (from
                  "gelycklik" to "gelyckig") because your argument is about logic and
                  not about being natural. :-)

                  Regards,
                  Stephan

                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > stefichjo wrote:
                  >
                  > >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                  > ><xipirho@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >>1) I use "o" in that orthography FOR a-mutated "u" - there was no
                  > >>short "o" in PG as far as I know
                  > >>2)I scrap the "ge-" because it's scrapped in English and Swedish
                  > >>(other Scandy too I would imagine!!). It makes the word shorter too!
                  > >>3)I'd keep the "ge-" in "ge~laub~an" because English has the "be-"
                  > >>prefix here.
                  > >>4)Kind of - just what was on my website. I put it on frath wiki -
                  > >>http://wiki.frath.net/Folksprak .
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > >Thank you.
                  > >The most unexplored prefix in FS is "ge-", I guess. I will certainly
                  > >have to think about it again.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > I am in favour of keeping "ge-" in most instances. I would NOT use
                  it as
                  > a past particple marker like German or Dutch, but in other places I
                  > would tend to keep it. English has not completely lost it -- it is
                  still
                  > present in "enough" and "alike" "aware" or has been changed to "be-" in
                  > "believe". Scandinavian has the word in a few relatively recent
                  > borrowings from German (SV gevär, gestalt)
                  > I don't think that "ge-" shouldn't have any real meaning or productive
                  > usage but should be used in FS words in cases where German and Dutch
                  > have the suffix, especially in cases where to drop the suffix would
                  > change the meaning for Dutch/German speakers. One interesting example
                  > would be DE brauchen (to need) vs gebrauchen (to use). NL has gebruiken
                  > and Scandy has bruge/bruke/bruka which mean the same as DE gebrauchen.
                  > NL does NOT have *bruiken. If we were to drop the "ge-" as a systematic
                  > rule, then the FS word for "use" would be *bruke which would be very
                  > confusing to DE speakers. (and slightly less instantly recognisable to
                  > NL speakers). If we have *gebruke, then this is not unambiguous to DE
                  > speakers, almost perfect for NL speakers, and only slightly less
                  > recognisable for Scandy speakers. Scandy speakers can be taught that as
                  > a general rule, they should ignore the "ge-" when trying to recognise
                  > the Scandy equivalent to FS words.
                  > I think because this prefix is meaningless, it is less likely to cause
                  > to confusion to speakers of languages that don't have "ge-". But to
                  drop
                  > the "ge-" can be the cause of confusion to speakers of languages to do
                  > have it.
                  > Also in German this suffix has sometimes become fused to the stem to
                  > such an extent that it is not recognisable as a "ge-" suffix anymore
                  > (glauben, Glück, gleich). In these cases "geleuve" and "gelyck" and
                  > "gelik" are more recognisable than *leuve, *lyck, *lik. It's one thing
                  > to tell German speakers that FS has lost the "ge-" suffix, but in those
                  > examples, "g-" isn't a real suffix anymore. A German speaker is less
                  > likely to realise that they need to drop the "g" in Glück than the
                  "ge"-
                  > in Gefahr
                  >
                  > It also gives us some flexibility with forming words since we can
                  use it
                  > to artificially to distinguish between two words that might
                  otherwise be
                  > homonyms We can use it as one means to derive a new word from a stem.
                  > Think of "gelud" (n. = noise) versus lud (a. = sound)
                  >
                  > So in short, I'd prefer "ge-lyckig" to "lyckig". Also it is 50/50
                  > whether the suffix is "-lik" ("-lig" if your name is Ingmar) or "-ig".
                  > EN lucky, NL gelukkig vs DE glücklich, Scandy lykkelig/lycklig. In the
                  > case of a 50/50 split, I would examine which version looks the "best",
                  > that is, the most logical and regular and common sense.
                  >
                  > I think that the "-lik" suffix should mean "having the characteristics
                  > or properties or qualities of..."
                  > I think that the "-ig" suffix should mean "characterised by
                  > having/containing a significant/marked quantity of..."
                  >
                  > For example:
                  >
                  > De barrakudafisch is wormig = The barracuda has lots of worms/parasites
                  > infesting it.
                  > De alfisch is wormlik = The eel has the form of a worm, looks like a
                  worm.
                  >
                  > I think that the concept of *gelyckig/*gelycklik means having lots of
                  > luck/good fortune/happiness. It doesn't mean having a similar
                  > form/quality to good fortune/happiness. I think that "-ig" is the more
                  > logical suffix for this concept.
                  >
                  > Of course in cases where there is a clear majority that use an
                  > "illogical" construction, then we should probably follow the way of the
                  > majority. For example NL pijnlijk, DE peinlich, DA/NO pinlig should
                  > probably mean "painfull" (characterised by a lot of pain). Hmmm It
                  would
                  > logically mean "coniferous" (like a pine tree).
                  >
                  > SO for me: "gelyckig" is the best word. not gelycklik/lyckig/lycklik
                  >
                  > >Regards,
                  > >Stephan
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > >No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                  > >Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date:
                  9/01/2007
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • David Parke
                  ... -ig and -lik would be what I call productive suffixes. That is, they can be actively used by FS users to create/derive new words from existing stems.
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 9, 2007
                    stefichjo wrote:

                    >Wow. I agree. 'xcept:
                    >
                    >- "ge-" might have a meaning that we just didn't get ge-ware of and we
                    >might find out later.
                    >
                    >I really appreciate that you systematically distinguish between -lik
                    >and -ig. I have the same definitions for these cases.
                    >
                    >
                    "-ig" and "-lik" would be what I call "productive" suffixes. That is,
                    they can be actively used by FS users to create/derive new words from
                    existing stems. Because they are "productive" (as opposed to
                    unproductive prefixes/suffixes such as ge-/be-/fer-/-el) they should
                    have the meaning/usage defined relatively strictly. But the difference
                    in meaning/usage between -lisk and -isch could be a bit vague as could
                    the difference between -ig and -sam and -full and the difference between
                    -hed and -niss and -dom. I guess having some fuzziness allows us to
                    derive FS words from words in the source languages that are not strictly
                    and totally cognate. For example EN painFUL, NL pijnLIJK, DE peinLICH,
                    DA/NO pinLIG, SV pinSAM can be compared and we can establish a FS word
                    with the meanings shared between these words and then use the commonest
                    choice of suffix. So:
                    FS PINLIK, a. = awkward, embarrassing, full of sadness, grievous,
                    pained, painful


                    >"gelyckig" is a more logical word than "gelycklik". And it's the first
                    >time, as far as I remember, that this means that I change a word (from
                    >"gelycklik" to "gelyckig") because your argument is about logic and
                    >not about being natural. :-)
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    Yes, in this case *gelyckig is equally natural as *gelycklik, so with
                    this being equal, I chose based on which was the more logical. Maybe FS
                    should also have "gelycklik" but with a subtly difference meaning.
                    Perhaps meaning "determined or ruled by luck/chance".

                    "Spelkartweddingleunen are gelycklik." = The income from gambling with
                    card games is determined by good luck.

                    >Regards,
                    >Stephan
                    >
                    >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >>stefichjo wrote:
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                    >>><xipirho@> wrote:
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>>1) I use "o" in that orthography FOR a-mutated "u" - there was no
                    >>>>short "o" in PG as far as I know
                    >>>>2)I scrap the "ge-" because it's scrapped in English and Swedish
                    >>>>(other Scandy too I would imagine!!). It makes the word shorter too!
                    >>>>3)I'd keep the "ge-" in "ge~laub~an" because English has the "be-"
                    >>>>prefix here.
                    >>>>4)Kind of - just what was on my website. I put it on frath wiki -
                    >>>>http://wiki.frath.net/Folksprak .
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>Thank you.
                    >>>The most unexplored prefix in FS is "ge-", I guess. I will certainly
                    >>>have to think about it again.
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>I am in favour of keeping "ge-" in most instances. I would NOT use
                    >>
                    >>
                    >it as
                    >
                    >
                    >>a past particple marker like German or Dutch, but in other places I
                    >>would tend to keep it. English has not completely lost it -- it is
                    >>
                    >>
                    >still
                    >
                    >
                    >>present in "enough" and "alike" "aware" or has been changed to "be-" in
                    >>"believe". Scandinavian has the word in a few relatively recent
                    >>borrowings from German (SV gevär, gestalt)
                    >>I don't think that "ge-" shouldn't have any real meaning or productive
                    >>usage but should be used in FS words in cases where German and Dutch
                    >>have the suffix, especially in cases where to drop the suffix would
                    >>change the meaning for Dutch/German speakers. One interesting example
                    >>would be DE brauchen (to need) vs gebrauchen (to use). NL has gebruiken
                    >>and Scandy has bruge/bruke/bruka which mean the same as DE gebrauchen.
                    >>NL does NOT have *bruiken. If we were to drop the "ge-" as a systematic
                    >>rule, then the FS word for "use" would be *bruke which would be very
                    >>confusing to DE speakers. (and slightly less instantly recognisable to
                    >>NL speakers). If we have *gebruke, then this is not unambiguous to DE
                    >>speakers, almost perfect for NL speakers, and only slightly less
                    >>recognisable for Scandy speakers. Scandy speakers can be taught that as
                    >>a general rule, they should ignore the "ge-" when trying to recognise
                    >>the Scandy equivalent to FS words.
                    >>I think because this prefix is meaningless, it is less likely to cause
                    >>to confusion to speakers of languages that don't have "ge-". But to
                    >>
                    >>
                    >drop
                    >
                    >
                    >>the "ge-" can be the cause of confusion to speakers of languages to do
                    >>have it.
                    >>Also in German this suffix has sometimes become fused to the stem to
                    >>such an extent that it is not recognisable as a "ge-" suffix anymore
                    >>(glauben, Glück, gleich). In these cases "geleuve" and "gelyck" and
                    >>"gelik" are more recognisable than *leuve, *lyck, *lik. It's one thing
                    >>to tell German speakers that FS has lost the "ge-" suffix, but in those
                    >>examples, "g-" isn't a real suffix anymore. A German speaker is less
                    >>likely to realise that they need to drop the "g" in Glück than the
                    >>
                    >>
                    >"ge"-
                    >
                    >
                    >>in Gefahr
                    >>
                    >>It also gives us some flexibility with forming words since we can
                    >>
                    >>
                    >use it
                    >
                    >
                    >>to artificially to distinguish between two words that might
                    >>
                    >>
                    >otherwise be
                    >
                    >
                    >>homonyms We can use it as one means to derive a new word from a stem.
                    >>Think of "gelud" (n. = noise) versus lud (a. = sound)
                    >>
                    >>So in short, I'd prefer "ge-lyckig" to "lyckig". Also it is 50/50
                    >>whether the suffix is "-lik" ("-lig" if your name is Ingmar) or "-ig".
                    >>EN lucky, NL gelukkig vs DE glücklich, Scandy lykkelig/lycklig. In the
                    >>case of a 50/50 split, I would examine which version looks the "best",
                    >>that is, the most logical and regular and common sense.
                    >>
                    >>I think that the "-lik" suffix should mean "having the characteristics
                    >>or properties or qualities of..."
                    >>I think that the "-ig" suffix should mean "characterised by
                    >>having/containing a significant/marked quantity of..."
                    >>
                    >>For example:
                    >>
                    >>De barrakudafisch is wormig = The barracuda has lots of worms/parasites
                    >>infesting it.
                    >>De alfisch is wormlik = The eel has the form of a worm, looks like a
                    >>
                    >>
                    >worm.
                    >
                    >
                    >>I think that the concept of *gelyckig/*gelycklik means having lots of
                    >>luck/good fortune/happiness. It doesn't mean having a similar
                    >>form/quality to good fortune/happiness. I think that "-ig" is the more
                    >>logical suffix for this concept.
                    >>
                    >>Of course in cases where there is a clear majority that use an
                    >>"illogical" construction, then we should probably follow the way of the
                    >>majority. For example NL pijnlijk, DE peinlich, DA/NO pinlig should
                    >>probably mean "painfull" (characterised by a lot of pain). Hmmm It
                    >>
                    >>
                    >would
                    >
                    >
                    >>logically mean "coniferous" (like a pine tree).
                    >>
                    >>SO for me: "gelyckig" is the best word. not gelycklik/lyckig/lycklik
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>Regards,
                    >>>Stephan
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
                    >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                    >>>Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date:
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >9/01/2007
                    >
                    >
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    >No virus found in this incoming message.
                    >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                    >Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 9/01/2007
                    >
                    >
                  • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
                    Difference between -isk and -isch?!?!? Aren t they the same suffix but spelt differently!? ... and we ... lik ... is, ... from ... should ... difference ...
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 10, 2007
                      Difference between -isk and -isch?!?!? Aren't they the same suffix
                      but spelt differently!?

                      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > stefichjo wrote:
                      >
                      > >Wow. I agree. 'xcept:
                      > >
                      > >- "ge-" might have a meaning that we just didn't get ge-ware of
                      and we
                      > >might find out later.
                      > >
                      > >I really appreciate that you systematically distinguish between -
                      lik
                      > >and -ig. I have the same definitions for these cases.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > "-ig" and "-lik" would be what I call "productive" suffixes. That
                      is,
                      > they can be actively used by FS users to create/derive new words
                      from
                      > existing stems. Because they are "productive" (as opposed to
                      > unproductive prefixes/suffixes such as ge-/be-/fer-/-el) they
                      should
                      > have the meaning/usage defined relatively strictly. But the
                      difference
                      > in meaning/usage between -lisk and -isch could be a bit vague as
                      could
                      > the difference between -ig and -sam and -full and the difference
                      between
                      > -hed and -niss and -dom. I guess having some fuzziness allows us to
                      > derive FS words from words in the source languages that are not
                      strictly
                      > and totally cognate. For example EN painFUL, NL pijnLIJK, DE
                      peinLICH,
                      > DA/NO pinLIG, SV pinSAM can be compared and we can establish a FS
                      word
                      > with the meanings shared between these words and then use the
                      commonest
                      > choice of suffix. So:
                      > FS PINLIK, a. = awkward, embarrassing, full of sadness, grievous,
                      > pained, painful
                      >
                      >
                      > >"gelyckig" is a more logical word than "gelycklik". And it's the
                      first
                      > >time, as far as I remember, that this means that I change a word
                      (from
                      > >"gelycklik" to "gelyckig") because your argument is about logic and
                      > >not about being natural. :-)
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > Yes, in this case *gelyckig is equally natural as *gelycklik, so
                      with
                      > this being equal, I chose based on which was the more logical.
                      Maybe FS
                      > should also have "gelycklik" but with a subtly difference meaning.
                      > Perhaps meaning "determined or ruled by luck/chance".
                      >
                      > "Spelkartweddingleunen are gelycklik." = The income from gambling
                      with
                      > card games is determined by good luck.
                      >
                      > >Regards,
                      > >Stephan
                      > >
                      > >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>stefichjo wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                      > >>><xipirho@> wrote:
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>>1) I use "o" in that orthography FOR a-mutated "u" - there was
                      no
                      > >>>>short "o" in PG as far as I know
                      > >>>>2)I scrap the "ge-" because it's scrapped in English and
                      Swedish
                      > >>>>(other Scandy too I would imagine!!). It makes the word shorter
                      too!
                      > >>>>3)I'd keep the "ge-" in "ge~laub~an" because English has the
                      "be-"
                      > >>>>prefix here.
                      > >>>>4)Kind of - just what was on my website. I put it on frath wiki
                      -
                      > >>>>http://wiki.frath.net/Folksprak .
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>Thank you.
                      > >>>The most unexplored prefix in FS is "ge-", I guess. I will
                      certainly
                      > >>>have to think about it again.
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>I am in favour of keeping "ge-" in most instances. I would NOT use
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >it as
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>a past particple marker like German or Dutch, but in other places
                      I
                      > >>would tend to keep it. English has not completely lost it -- it is
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >still
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>present in "enough" and "alike" "aware" or has been changed to
                      "be-" in
                      > >>"believe". Scandinavian has the word in a few relatively recent
                      > >>borrowings from German (SV gevär, gestalt)
                      > >>I don't think that "ge-" shouldn't have any real meaning or
                      productive
                      > >>usage but should be used in FS words in cases where German and
                      Dutch
                      > >>have the suffix, especially in cases where to drop the suffix
                      would
                      > >>change the meaning for Dutch/German speakers. One interesting
                      example
                      > >>would be DE brauchen (to need) vs gebrauchen (to use). NL has
                      gebruiken
                      > >>and Scandy has bruge/bruke/bruka which mean the same as DE
                      gebrauchen.
                      > >>NL does NOT have *bruiken. If we were to drop the "ge-" as a
                      systematic
                      > >>rule, then the FS word for "use" would be *bruke which would be
                      very
                      > >>confusing to DE speakers. (and slightly less instantly
                      recognisable to
                      > >>NL speakers). If we have *gebruke, then this is not unambiguous
                      to DE
                      > >>speakers, almost perfect for NL speakers, and only slightly less
                      > >>recognisable for Scandy speakers. Scandy speakers can be taught
                      that as
                      > >>a general rule, they should ignore the "ge-" when trying to
                      recognise
                      > >>the Scandy equivalent to FS words.
                      > >>I think because this prefix is meaningless, it is less likely to
                      cause
                      > >>to confusion to speakers of languages that don't have "ge-". But
                      to
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >drop
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>the "ge-" can be the cause of confusion to speakers of languages
                      to do
                      > >>have it.
                      > >>Also in German this suffix has sometimes become fused to the stem
                      to
                      > >>such an extent that it is not recognisable as a "ge-" suffix
                      anymore
                      > >>(glauben, Glück, gleich). In these cases "geleuve" and "gelyck"
                      and
                      > >>"gelik" are more recognisable than *leuve, *lyck, *lik. It's one
                      thing
                      > >>to tell German speakers that FS has lost the "ge-" suffix, but in
                      those
                      > >>examples, "g-" isn't a real suffix anymore. A German speaker is
                      less
                      > >>likely to realise that they need to drop the "g" in Glück than the
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >"ge"-
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>in Gefahr
                      > >>
                      > >>It also gives us some flexibility with forming words since we can
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >use it
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>to artificially to distinguish between two words that might
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >otherwise be
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>homonyms We can use it as one means to derive a new word from a
                      stem.
                      > >>Think of "gelud" (n. = noise) versus lud (a. = sound)
                      > >>
                      > >>So in short, I'd prefer "ge-lyckig" to "lyckig". Also it is 50/50
                      > >>whether the suffix is "-lik" ("-lig" if your name is Ingmar) or "-
                      ig".
                      > >>EN lucky, NL gelukkig vs DE glücklich, Scandy lykkelig/lycklig.
                      In the
                      > >>case of a 50/50 split, I would examine which version looks the
                      "best",
                      > >>that is, the most logical and regular and common sense.
                      > >>
                      > >>I think that the "-lik" suffix should mean "having the
                      characteristics
                      > >>or properties or qualities of..."
                      > >>I think that the "-ig" suffix should mean "characterised by
                      > >>having/containing a significant/marked quantity of..."
                      > >>
                      > >>For example:
                      > >>
                      > >>De barrakudafisch is wormig = The barracuda has lots of worms/
                      parasites
                      > >>infesting it.
                      > >>De alfisch is wormlik = The eel has the form of a worm, looks
                      like a
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >worm.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>I think that the concept of *gelyckig/*gelycklik means having
                      lots of
                      > >>luck/good fortune/happiness. It doesn't mean having a similar
                      > >>form/quality to good fortune/happiness. I think that "-ig" is
                      the more
                      > >>logical suffix for this concept.
                      > >>
                      > >>Of course in cases where there is a clear majority that use an
                      > >>"illogical" construction, then we should probably follow the way
                      of the
                      > >>majority. For example NL pijnlijk, DE peinlich, DA/NO pinlig
                      should
                      > >>probably mean "painfull" (characterised by a lot of pain). Hmmm It
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >would
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>logically mean "coniferous" (like a pine tree).
                      > >>
                      > >>SO for me: "gelyckig" is the best word. not gelycklik/lyckig/
                      lycklik
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>Regards,
                      > >>>Stephan
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>------------------------------------------------------------------
                      ------
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
                      > >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                      > >>>Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date:
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >9/01/2007
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
                      -----
                      > >
                      > >No virus found in this incoming message.
                      > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                      > >Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 9/
                      01/2007
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • David Parke
                      Sorry I meant difference between -lik and -isch
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 10, 2007
                        Sorry I meant difference between -lik and -isch

                        Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius wrote:

                        >Difference between -isk and -isch?!?!? Aren't they the same suffix
                        >but spelt differently!?
                        >
                        >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >>stefichjo wrote:
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>>Wow. I agree. 'xcept:
                        >>>
                        >>>- "ge-" might have a meaning that we just didn't get ge-ware of
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >and we
                        >
                        >
                        >>>might find out later.
                        >>>
                        >>>I really appreciate that you systematically distinguish between -
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >lik
                        >
                        >
                        >>>and -ig. I have the same definitions for these cases.
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>"-ig" and "-lik" would be what I call "productive" suffixes. That
                        >>
                        >>
                        >is,
                        >
                        >
                        >>they can be actively used by FS users to create/derive new words
                        >>
                        >>
                        >from
                        >
                        >
                        >>existing stems. Because they are "productive" (as opposed to
                        >>unproductive prefixes/suffixes such as ge-/be-/fer-/-el) they
                        >>
                        >>
                        >should
                        >
                        >
                        >>have the meaning/usage defined relatively strictly. But the
                        >>
                        >>
                        >difference
                        >
                        >
                        >>in meaning/usage between -lisk and -isch could be a bit vague as
                        >>
                        >>
                        >could
                        >
                        >
                        >>the difference between -ig and -sam and -full and the difference
                        >>
                        >>
                        >between
                        >
                        >
                        >>-hed and -niss and -dom. I guess having some fuzziness allows us to
                        >>derive FS words from words in the source languages that are not
                        >>
                        >>
                        >strictly
                        >
                        >
                        >>and totally cognate. For example EN painFUL, NL pijnLIJK, DE
                        >>
                        >>
                        >peinLICH,
                        >
                        >
                        >>DA/NO pinLIG, SV pinSAM can be compared and we can establish a FS
                        >>
                        >>
                        >word
                        >
                        >
                        >>with the meanings shared between these words and then use the
                        >>
                        >>
                        >commonest
                        >
                        >
                        >>choice of suffix. So:
                        >>FS PINLIK, a. = awkward, embarrassing, full of sadness, grievous,
                        >>pained, painful
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>>"gelyckig" is a more logical word than "gelycklik". And it's the
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >first
                        >
                        >
                        >>>time, as far as I remember, that this means that I change a word
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >(from
                        >
                        >
                        >>>"gelycklik" to "gelyckig") because your argument is about logic and
                        >>>not about being natural. :-)
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>Yes, in this case *gelyckig is equally natural as *gelycklik, so
                        >>
                        >>
                        >with
                        >
                        >
                        >>this being equal, I chose based on which was the more logical.
                        >>
                        >>
                        >Maybe FS
                        >
                        >
                        >>should also have "gelycklik" but with a subtly difference meaning.
                        >>Perhaps meaning "determined or ruled by luck/chance".
                        >>
                        >>"Spelkartweddingleunen are gelycklik." = The income from gambling
                        >>
                        >>
                        >with
                        >
                        >
                        >>card games is determined by good luck.
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>>Regards,
                        >>>Stephan
                        >>>
                        >>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>>stefichjo wrote:
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                        >>>>><xipirho@> wrote:
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>>1) I use "o" in that orthography FOR a-mutated "u" - there was
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>>
                        >no
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>>>short "o" in PG as far as I know
                        >>>>>>2)I scrap the "ge-" because it's scrapped in English and
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>>
                        >Swedish
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>>>(other Scandy too I would imagine!!). It makes the word shorter
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>>
                        >too!
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>>>3)I'd keep the "ge-" in "ge~laub~an" because English has the
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>>
                        >"be-"
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>>>prefix here.
                        >>>>>>4)Kind of - just what was on my website. I put it on frath wiki
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>>
                        >-
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>>>http://wiki.frath.net/Folksprak .
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>>
                        >>>>>Thank you.
                        >>>>>The most unexplored prefix in FS is "ge-", I guess. I will
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >certainly
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>>have to think about it again.
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>I am in favour of keeping "ge-" in most instances. I would NOT use
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>it as
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>>a past particple marker like German or Dutch, but in other places
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >I
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>would tend to keep it. English has not completely lost it -- it is
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>still
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>>present in "enough" and "alike" "aware" or has been changed to
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >"be-" in
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>"believe". Scandinavian has the word in a few relatively recent
                        >>>>borrowings from German (SV gevär, gestalt)
                        >>>>I don't think that "ge-" shouldn't have any real meaning or
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >productive
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>usage but should be used in FS words in cases where German and
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >Dutch
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>have the suffix, especially in cases where to drop the suffix
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >would
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>change the meaning for Dutch/German speakers. One interesting
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >example
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>would be DE brauchen (to need) vs gebrauchen (to use). NL has
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >gebruiken
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>and Scandy has bruge/bruke/bruka which mean the same as DE
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >gebrauchen.
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>NL does NOT have *bruiken. If we were to drop the "ge-" as a
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >systematic
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>rule, then the FS word for "use" would be *bruke which would be
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >very
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>confusing to DE speakers. (and slightly less instantly
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >recognisable to
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>NL speakers). If we have *gebruke, then this is not unambiguous
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >to DE
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>speakers, almost perfect for NL speakers, and only slightly less
                        >>>>recognisable for Scandy speakers. Scandy speakers can be taught
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >that as
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>a general rule, they should ignore the "ge-" when trying to
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >recognise
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>the Scandy equivalent to FS words.
                        >>>>I think because this prefix is meaningless, it is less likely to
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >cause
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>to confusion to speakers of languages that don't have "ge-". But
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >to
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>drop
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>>the "ge-" can be the cause of confusion to speakers of languages
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >to do
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>have it.
                        >>>>Also in German this suffix has sometimes become fused to the stem
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >to
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>such an extent that it is not recognisable as a "ge-" suffix
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >anymore
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>(glauben, Glück, gleich). In these cases "geleuve" and "gelyck"
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >and
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>"gelik" are more recognisable than *leuve, *lyck, *lik. It's one
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >thing
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>to tell German speakers that FS has lost the "ge-" suffix, but in
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >those
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>examples, "g-" isn't a real suffix anymore. A German speaker is
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >less
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>likely to realise that they need to drop the "g" in Glück than the
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>"ge"-
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>>in Gefahr
                        >>>>
                        >>>>It also gives us some flexibility with forming words since we can
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>use it
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>>to artificially to distinguish between two words that might
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>otherwise be
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>>homonyms We can use it as one means to derive a new word from a
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >stem.
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>Think of "gelud" (n. = noise) versus lud (a. = sound)
                        >>>>
                        >>>>So in short, I'd prefer "ge-lyckig" to "lyckig". Also it is 50/50
                        >>>>whether the suffix is "-lik" ("-lig" if your name is Ingmar) or "-
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >ig".
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>EN lucky, NL gelukkig vs DE glücklich, Scandy lykkelig/lycklig.
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >In the
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>case of a 50/50 split, I would examine which version looks the
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >"best",
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>that is, the most logical and regular and common sense.
                        >>>>
                        >>>>I think that the "-lik" suffix should mean "having the
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >characteristics
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>or properties or qualities of..."
                        >>>>I think that the "-ig" suffix should mean "characterised by
                        >>>>having/containing a significant/marked quantity of..."
                        >>>>
                        >>>>For example:
                        >>>>
                        >>>>De barrakudafisch is wormig = The barracuda has lots of worms/
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >parasites
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>infesting it.
                        >>>>De alfisch is wormlik = The eel has the form of a worm, looks
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >like a
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>worm.
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>>I think that the concept of *gelyckig/*gelycklik means having
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >lots of
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>luck/good fortune/happiness. It doesn't mean having a similar
                        >>>>form/quality to good fortune/happiness. I think that "-ig" is
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >the more
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>logical suffix for this concept.
                        >>>>
                        >>>>Of course in cases where there is a clear majority that use an
                        >>>>"illogical" construction, then we should probably follow the way
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >of the
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>majority. For example NL pijnlijk, DE peinlich, DA/NO pinlig
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >should
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>probably mean "painfull" (characterised by a lot of pain). Hmmm It
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>would
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>>logically mean "coniferous" (like a pine tree).
                        >>>>
                        >>>>SO for me: "gelyckig" is the best word. not gelycklik/lyckig/
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >lycklik
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>>Regards,
                        >>>>>Stephan
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >------
                        >
                        >
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
                        >>>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                        >>>>>Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date:
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>9/01/2007
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >-----
                        >
                        >
                        >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
                        >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                        >>>Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 9/
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >01/2007
                        >
                        >
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        >
                        >No virus found in this incoming message.
                        >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                        >Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 9/01/2007
                        >
                        >
                      • stefichjo
                        I agree that ge- shouldn t be productive. But may have a meaning none the less, a bit like -t / -d . Can you give examples with -lisch and -isk ? I know
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 10, 2007
                          I agree that "ge-" shouldn't be productive. But may have a meaning
                          none the less, a bit like "-t"/"-d".

                          Can you give examples with "-lisch" and "-isk"? I know -ig, -lik
                          and -isk, but not "lisch".

                          gelyckig
                          luvlik
                          mennisk

                          Regards,
                          Stephan


                          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > stefichjo wrote:
                          >
                          > >Wow. I agree. 'xcept:
                          > >
                          > >- "ge-" might have a meaning that we just didn't get ge-ware of
                          and we
                          > >might find out later.
                          > >
                          > >I really appreciate that you systematically distinguish between -
                          lik
                          > >and -ig. I have the same definitions for these cases.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > "-ig" and "-lik" would be what I call "productive" suffixes. That
                          is,
                          > they can be actively used by FS users to create/derive new words
                          from
                          > existing stems. Because they are "productive" (as opposed to
                          > unproductive prefixes/suffixes such as ge-/be-/fer-/-el) they
                          should
                          > have the meaning/usage defined relatively strictly. But the
                          difference
                          > in meaning/usage between -lisk and -isch could be a bit vague as
                          could
                          > the difference between -ig and -sam and -full and the difference
                          between
                          > -hed and -niss and -dom. I guess having some fuzziness allows us
                          to
                          > derive FS words from words in the source languages that are not
                          strictly
                          > and totally cognate. For example EN painFUL, NL pijnLIJK, DE
                          peinLICH,
                          > DA/NO pinLIG, SV pinSAM can be compared and we can establish a FS
                          word
                          > with the meanings shared between these words and then use the
                          commonest
                          > choice of suffix. So:
                          > FS PINLIK, a. = awkward, embarrassing, full of sadness, grievous,
                          > pained, painful
                          >
                          >
                          > >"gelyckig" is a more logical word than "gelycklik". And it's the
                          first
                          > >time, as far as I remember, that this means that I change a word
                          (from
                          > >"gelycklik" to "gelyckig") because your argument is about logic
                          and
                          > >not about being natural. :-)
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > Yes, in this case *gelyckig is equally natural as *gelycklik, so
                          with
                          > this being equal, I chose based on which was the more logical.
                          Maybe FS
                          > should also have "gelycklik" but with a subtly difference meaning.
                          > Perhaps meaning "determined or ruled by luck/chance".
                          >
                          > "Spelkartweddingleunen are gelycklik." = The income from gambling
                          with
                          > card games is determined by good luck.
                          >
                          > >Regards,
                          > >Stephan
                          > >
                          > >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>stefichjo wrote:
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                          > >>><xipirho@> wrote:
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>>1) I use "o" in that orthography FOR a-mutated "u" - there was
                          no
                          > >>>>short "o" in PG as far as I know
                          > >>>>2)I scrap the "ge-" because it's scrapped in English and
                          Swedish
                          > >>>>(other Scandy too I would imagine!!). It makes the word
                          shorter too!
                          > >>>>3)I'd keep the "ge-" in "ge~laub~an" because English has
                          the "be-"
                          > >>>>prefix here.
                          > >>>>4)Kind of - just what was on my website. I put it on frath
                          wiki -
                          > >>>>http://wiki.frath.net/Folksprak .
                          > >>>>
                          > >>>>
                          > >>>>
                          > >>>>
                          > >>>Thank you.
                          > >>>The most unexplored prefix in FS is "ge-", I guess. I will
                          certainly
                          > >>>have to think about it again.
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>I am in favour of keeping "ge-" in most instances. I would NOT
                          use
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >it as
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>a past particple marker like German or Dutch, but in other
                          places I
                          > >>would tend to keep it. English has not completely lost it -- it
                          is
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >still
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>present in "enough" and "alike" "aware" or has been changed
                          to "be-" in
                          > >>"believe". Scandinavian has the word in a few relatively recent
                          > >>borrowings from German (SV gevär, gestalt)
                          > >>I don't think that "ge-" shouldn't have any real meaning or
                          productive
                          > >>usage but should be used in FS words in cases where German and
                          Dutch
                          > >>have the suffix, especially in cases where to drop the suffix
                          would
                          > >>change the meaning for Dutch/German speakers. One interesting
                          example
                          > >>would be DE brauchen (to need) vs gebrauchen (to use). NL has
                          gebruiken
                          > >>and Scandy has bruge/bruke/bruka which mean the same as DE
                          gebrauchen.
                          > >>NL does NOT have *bruiken. If we were to drop the "ge-" as a
                          systematic
                          > >>rule, then the FS word for "use" would be *bruke which would be
                          very
                          > >>confusing to DE speakers. (and slightly less instantly
                          recognisable to
                          > >>NL speakers). If we have *gebruke, then this is not unambiguous
                          to DE
                          > >>speakers, almost perfect for NL speakers, and only slightly less
                          > >>recognisable for Scandy speakers. Scandy speakers can be taught
                          that as
                          > >>a general rule, they should ignore the "ge-" when trying to
                          recognise
                          > >>the Scandy equivalent to FS words.
                          > >>I think because this prefix is meaningless, it is less likely to
                          cause
                          > >>to confusion to speakers of languages that don't have "ge-". But
                          to
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >drop
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>the "ge-" can be the cause of confusion to speakers of languages
                          to do
                          > >>have it.
                          > >>Also in German this suffix has sometimes become fused to the
                          stem to
                          > >>such an extent that it is not recognisable as a "ge-" suffix
                          anymore
                          > >>(glauben, Glück, gleich). In these cases "geleuve" and "gelyck"
                          and
                          > >>"gelik" are more recognisable than *leuve, *lyck, *lik. It's one
                          thing
                          > >>to tell German speakers that FS has lost the "ge-" suffix, but
                          in those
                          > >>examples, "g-" isn't a real suffix anymore. A German speaker is
                          less
                          > >>likely to realise that they need to drop the "g" in Glück than
                          the
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >"ge"-
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>in Gefahr
                          > >>
                          > >>It also gives us some flexibility with forming words since we can
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >use it
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>to artificially to distinguish between two words that might
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >otherwise be
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>homonyms We can use it as one means to derive a new word from a
                          stem.
                          > >>Think of "gelud" (n. = noise) versus lud (a. = sound)
                          > >>
                          > >>So in short, I'd prefer "ge-lyckig" to "lyckig". Also it is
                          50/50
                          > >>whether the suffix is "-lik" ("-lig" if your name is Ingmar)
                          or "-ig".
                          > >>EN lucky, NL gelukkig vs DE glücklich, Scandy lykkelig/lycklig.
                          In the
                          > >>case of a 50/50 split, I would examine which version looks
                          the "best",
                          > >>that is, the most logical and regular and common sense.
                          > >>
                          > >>I think that the "-lik" suffix should mean "having the
                          characteristics
                          > >>or properties or qualities of..."
                          > >>I think that the "-ig" suffix should mean "characterised by
                          > >>having/containing a significant/marked quantity of..."
                          > >>
                          > >>For example:
                          > >>
                          > >>De barrakudafisch is wormig = The barracuda has lots of
                          worms/parasites
                          > >>infesting it.
                          > >>De alfisch is wormlik = The eel has the form of a worm, looks
                          like a
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >worm.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>I think that the concept of *gelyckig/*gelycklik means having
                          lots of
                          > >>luck/good fortune/happiness. It doesn't mean having a similar
                          > >>form/quality to good fortune/happiness. I think that "-ig" is
                          the more
                          > >>logical suffix for this concept.
                          > >>
                          > >>Of course in cases where there is a clear majority that use an
                          > >>"illogical" construction, then we should probably follow the way
                          of the
                          > >>majority. For example NL pijnlijk, DE peinlich, DA/NO pinlig
                          should
                          > >>probably mean "painfull" (characterised by a lot of pain). Hmmm
                          It
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >would
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>logically mean "coniferous" (like a pine tree).
                          > >>
                          > >>SO for me: "gelyckig" is the best word. not
                          gelycklik/lyckig/lycklik
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >>>Regards,
                          > >>>Stephan
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          -------
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
                          > >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                          > >>>Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date:
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >9/01/2007
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >------------------------------------------------------------------
                          ------
                          > >
                          > >No virus found in this incoming message.
                          > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                          > >Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date:
                          9/01/2007
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
                          Ah, actually I kinda realised after having said that! Sorry.:-D ... to ... and ... meaning. ... was ... shorter ... wiki ... use ... places ... is ... less ...
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 10, 2007
                            Ah, actually I kinda realised after having said that! Sorry.:-D

                            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Sorry I meant difference between -lik and -isch
                            >
                            > Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius wrote:
                            >
                            > >Difference between -isk and -isch?!?!? Aren't they the same suffix
                            > >but spelt differently!?
                            > >
                            > >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>stefichjo wrote:
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>>Wow. I agree. 'xcept:
                            > >>>
                            > >>>- "ge-" might have a meaning that we just didn't get ge-ware of
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >and we
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>might find out later.
                            > >>>
                            > >>>I really appreciate that you systematically distinguish between -
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >lik
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>and -ig. I have the same definitions for these cases.
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>"-ig" and "-lik" would be what I call "productive" suffixes. That
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >is,
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>they can be actively used by FS users to create/derive new words
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >from
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>existing stems. Because they are "productive" (as opposed to
                            > >>unproductive prefixes/suffixes such as ge-/be-/fer-/-el) they
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >should
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>have the meaning/usage defined relatively strictly. But the
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >difference
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>in meaning/usage between -lisk and -isch could be a bit vague as
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >could
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>the difference between -ig and -sam and -full and the difference
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >between
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>-hed and -niss and -dom. I guess having some fuzziness allows us
                            to
                            > >>derive FS words from words in the source languages that are not
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >strictly
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>and totally cognate. For example EN painFUL, NL pijnLIJK, DE
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >peinLICH,
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>DA/NO pinLIG, SV pinSAM can be compared and we can establish a FS
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >word
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>with the meanings shared between these words and then use the
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >commonest
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>choice of suffix. So:
                            > >>FS PINLIK, a. = awkward, embarrassing, full of sadness, grievous,
                            > >>pained, painful
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>>"gelyckig" is a more logical word than "gelycklik". And it's the
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >first
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>time, as far as I remember, that this means that I change a word
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >(from
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>"gelycklik" to "gelyckig") because your argument is about logic
                            and
                            > >>>not about being natural. :-)
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>Yes, in this case *gelyckig is equally natural as *gelycklik, so
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >with
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>this being equal, I chose based on which was the more logical.
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >Maybe FS
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>should also have "gelycklik" but with a subtly difference
                            meaning.
                            > >>Perhaps meaning "determined or ruled by luck/chance".
                            > >>
                            > >>"Spelkartweddingleunen are gelycklik." = The income from gambling
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >with
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>card games is determined by good luck.
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>>Regards,
                            > >>>Stephan
                            > >>>
                            > >>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>>stefichjo wrote:
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                            > >>>>><xipirho@> wrote:
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>>1) I use "o" in that orthography FOR a-mutated "u" - there
                            was
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >no
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>>>short "o" in PG as far as I know
                            > >>>>>>2)I scrap the "ge-" because it's scrapped in English and
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >Swedish
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>>>(other Scandy too I would imagine!!). It makes the word
                            shorter
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >too!
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>>>3)I'd keep the "ge-" in "ge~laub~an" because English has the
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >"be-"
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>>>prefix here.
                            > >>>>>>4)Kind of - just what was on my website. I put it on frath
                            wiki
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >-
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>>>http://wiki.frath.net/Folksprak .
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>>
                            > >>>>>Thank you.
                            > >>>>>The most unexplored prefix in FS is "ge-", I guess. I will
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >certainly
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>>have to think about it again.
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>I am in favour of keeping "ge-" in most instances. I would NOT
                            use
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>it as
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>>a past particple marker like German or Dutch, but in other
                            places
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >I
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>would tend to keep it. English has not completely lost it -- it
                            is
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>still
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>>present in "enough" and "alike" "aware" or has been changed to
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >"be-" in
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>"believe". Scandinavian has the word in a few relatively recent
                            > >>>>borrowings from German (SV gevär, gestalt)
                            > >>>>I don't think that "ge-" shouldn't have any real meaning or
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >productive
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>usage but should be used in FS words in cases where German and
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >Dutch
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>have the suffix, especially in cases where to drop the suffix
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >would
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>change the meaning for Dutch/German speakers. One interesting
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >example
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>would be DE brauchen (to need) vs gebrauchen (to use). NL has
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >gebruiken
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>and Scandy has bruge/bruke/bruka which mean the same as DE
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >gebrauchen.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>NL does NOT have *bruiken. If we were to drop the "ge-" as a
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >systematic
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>rule, then the FS word for "use" would be *bruke which would be
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >very
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>confusing to DE speakers. (and slightly less instantly
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >recognisable to
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>NL speakers). If we have *gebruke, then this is not unambiguous
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >to DE
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>speakers, almost perfect for NL speakers, and only slightly
                            less
                            > >>>>recognisable for Scandy speakers. Scandy speakers can be taught
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >that as
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>a general rule, they should ignore the "ge-" when trying to
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >recognise
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>the Scandy equivalent to FS words.
                            > >>>>I think because this prefix is meaningless, it is less likely
                            to
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >cause
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>to confusion to speakers of languages that don't have "ge-".
                            But
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >to
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>drop
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>>the "ge-" can be the cause of confusion to speakers of
                            languages
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >to do
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>have it.
                            > >>>>Also in German this suffix has sometimes become fused to the
                            stem
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >to
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>such an extent that it is not recognisable as a "ge-" suffix
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >anymore
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>(glauben, Glück, gleich). In these cases "geleuve" and "gelyck"
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >and
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>"gelik" are more recognisable than *leuve, *lyck, *lik. It's
                            one
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >thing
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>to tell German speakers that FS has lost the "ge-" suffix, but
                            in
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >those
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>examples, "g-" isn't a real suffix anymore. A German speaker is
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >less
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>likely to realise that they need to drop the "g" in Glück than
                            the
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>"ge"-
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>>in Gefahr
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>It also gives us some flexibility with forming words since we
                            can
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>use it
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>>to artificially to distinguish between two words that might
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>otherwise be
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>>homonyms We can use it as one means to derive a new word from
                            a
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >stem.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>Think of "gelud" (n. = noise) versus lud (a. = sound)
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>So in short, I'd prefer "ge-lyckig" to "lyckig". Also it is 50/
                            50
                            > >>>>whether the suffix is "-lik" ("-lig" if your name is Ingmar) or
                            "-
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >ig".
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>EN lucky, NL gelukkig vs DE glücklich, Scandy lykkelig/lycklig.
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >In the
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>case of a 50/50 split, I would examine which version looks the
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >"best",
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>that is, the most logical and regular and common sense.
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>I think that the "-lik" suffix should mean "having the
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >characteristics
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>or properties or qualities of..."
                            > >>>>I think that the "-ig" suffix should mean "characterised by
                            > >>>>having/containing a significant/marked quantity of..."
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>For example:
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>De barrakudafisch is wormig = The barracuda has lots of worms/
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >parasites
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>infesting it.
                            > >>>>De alfisch is wormlik = The eel has the form of a worm, looks
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >like a
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>worm.
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>>I think that the concept of *gelyckig/*gelycklik means having
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >lots of
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>luck/good fortune/happiness. It doesn't mean having a similar
                            > >>>>form/quality to good fortune/happiness. I think that "-ig" is
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >the more
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>logical suffix for this concept.
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>Of course in cases where there is a clear majority that use an
                            > >>>>"illogical" construction, then we should probably follow the
                            way
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >of the
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>majority. For example NL pijnlijk, DE peinlich, DA/NO pinlig
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >should
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>probably mean "painfull" (characterised by a lot of pain). Hmmm
                            It
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>would
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>>logically mean "coniferous" (like a pine tree).
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>SO for me: "gelyckig" is the best word. not gelycklik/lyckig/
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >lycklik
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>>Regards,
                            > >>>>>Stephan
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>----------------------------------------------------------------
                            --
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >------
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>
                            > >>>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
                            > >>>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                            > >>>>>Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date:
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>9/01/2007
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
                            --
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >-----
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
                            > >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                            > >>>Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date:
                            9/
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >01/2007
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
                            -----
                            > >
                            > >No virus found in this incoming message.
                            > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                            > >Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 9/
                            01/2007
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.