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

Re: Folksprak 2007

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.