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

Re: Schwa, dictionary notation

Expand Messages
  • David Parke
    ... Like I said, often it is the manner/way English has borrowed, not just the number of borrowings. Look at the romance verbs. The continentals retain the
    Message 1 of 29 , Jan 31, 2007
      >
      > > often feel that the major difference between English and the
      > > continental germlangs isn't the QUANTITY of romance borrowings, but
      > > the QUALITY. That is, English has borrowed and assimilated them in
      > a
      > > different manner. Also we need to consider that some of students
      > of
      >
      > Yes, English is almost a Romance language.
      >
      Like I said, often it is the manner/way English has borrowed, not just
      the number of borrowings. Look at the romance verbs. The continentals
      retain the romance -er/-ir/-ar infinitive. English drops it and
      frequently borrows the past participle of the verb as the English
      infinitive. Also English applies a more natively germanic stress
      pattern to romance borrowings.
    • stefichjo
      ... just ... I noticed that, too. Now, what is your opinion about dictionary notation vs. everyday usage of ambiguous words? én en een ain dé
      Message 2 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
        > Like I said, often it is the manner/way English has borrowed, not
        just
        > the number of borrowings. Look at the romance verbs. The continentals
        > retain the romance -er/-ir/-ar infinitive. English drops it and
        > frequently borrows the past participle of the verb as the English
        > infinitive. Also English applies a more natively germanic stress
        > pattern to romance borrowings.

        I noticed that, too.

        Now, what is your opinion about "dictionary notation" vs. "everyday
        usage" of ambiguous words?

        én <-> en <-> een <-> ain
        dé <-> de <-> dee <-> dai
        té <-> ne <-> nee <-> nai
        problém <-> problem <-> probleem <-> problaim
        millionér <-> millioner <-> millioneer <-> millionair

        Greuten,
        Stephan
      • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
        Well yeah, but it s you who always complained about vokaal and stuff like that, so how is probleem better? :-)
        Message 3 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
          Well yeah, but it's you who always complained about "vokaal" and stuff
          like that, so how is "probleem" better? :-)

          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
          > <xipirho@> wrote:
          > > Yeah, well that's what I was thinking with the accents - just use
          > > them when needed, i.e. for learners and for avoiding ambiguity. Thus
          > > occasionally "de" might need the accent in everyday life to make the
          > > meaning clear, but mostly not, and words like "probl�m" and stuff
          > > would only have it for learners and prono-guides.
          >
          > In everyday life one could also write "ee" instead of "�".
          >
          > But I think, we already understood each other. :-)
          >
          > Bye,
          > Stephan
          >
        • David Parke
          ... I definitely do NOT want to see ai in romance words where it is not etymologically warranted. (ie, neither the original Latin or French has ai or a .)
          Message 4 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
            > > Like I said, often it is the manner/way English has borrowed, not
            > just
            > > the number of borrowings. Look at the romance verbs. The continentals
            > > retain the romance -er/-ir/-ar infinitive. English drops it and
            > > frequently borrows the past participle of the verb as the English
            > > infinitive. Also English applies a more natively germanic stress
            > > pattern to romance borrowings.
            >
            > I noticed that, too.
            >
            > Now, what is your opinion about "dictionary notation" vs. "everyday
            > usage" of ambiguous words?
            >
            > én <-> en <-> een <-> ain
            > dé <-> de <-> dee <-> dai
            > té <-> ne <-> nee <-> nai
            > problém <-> problem <-> probleem <-> problaim

            I definitely do NOT want to see "ai" in romance words where it is not
            etymologically warranted. (ie, neither the original Latin or French
            has "ai" or "a".)


            > millionér <-> millioner <-> millioneer <-> millionair

            But in the cases of those romance words which etymologically should
            have an "a" vowel (for recognisability) but should be prono'd with an
            [e:]/[E:], then it may be the solution. I am not 100% whether "ai"
            should be prono'd as [E:] though, since phonetically "ai" looks like
            it should be [aI]. Or maybe "ai" shouldn't be used. "ä" would be good,
            but then we get back to diacritical marks. Maybe "ae" could be use,
            although this also has implications.
            "traen", "protraet", "affaer", "detael", "retraet", "regulaer",
            "militaer".

            >
            > Greuten,
            > Stephan
            >
          • chamavian
            Would it be an idea to use Sampa notation for Folksprak from now on in stead of the regular alphabet, because the only thing we re discussing lately is how to
            Message 5 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
              Would it be an idea to use Sampa notation for Folksprak from now on
              in stead of the regular alphabet, because the only thing we're
              discussing lately is how to spell FS and what advantages or not this
              or that orthography has... Even the languages is adapted all the time
              because of this or that orthographic problem.
              But the language itself is much more important and should be leading,
              shouldn't it? Or, if not Sampa, which is of course rather unnatural
              compared to normal orthographies, we could use another simple, more
              natural, logical and regular phonetic ortho (without diacritics etc).

              e.g:

              Ik tEnk@ dAt wi: kAn@ "Sri:v@ "fOlkspra:k mId "sAmpa "spElIN.
              dAt kAn "ma:k@ @n End An de pro"ble:m PAt d@ "Sri:vPi:s Av "fOlkspra:k
              SAl "Pe:z@ fo:r nu:

              or

              Ik tenke dat wii kane schriive Folkspraak mid Sampa-speling.
              Dat kan maake en end an de probleem wat de schriivwiis av Folkspraak
              schal weeze foor nuu.

              In the latter example, vowel length is always indicated by double
              vowels etc

              Ingmar






              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
              > >
              > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
              > > > Like I said, often it is the manner/way English has borrowed,
              not
              > > just
              > > > the number of borrowings. Look at the romance verbs. The
              continentals
              > > > retain the romance -er/-ir/-ar infinitive. English drops it and
              > > > frequently borrows the past participle of the verb as the
              English
              > > > infinitive. Also English applies a more natively germanic stress
              > > > pattern to romance borrowings.
              > >
              > > I noticed that, too.
              > >
              > > Now, what is your opinion about "dictionary notation"
              vs. "everyday
              > > usage" of ambiguous words?
              > >
              > > én <-> en <-> een <-> ain
              > > dé <-> de <-> dee <-> dai
              > > té <-> ne <-> nee <-> nai
              > > problém <-> problem <-> probleem <-> problaim
              >
              > I definitely do NOT want to see "ai" in romance words where it is
              not
              > etymologically warranted. (ie, neither the original Latin or French
              > has "ai" or "a".)
              >
              >
              > > millionér <-> millioner <-> millioneer <-> millionair
              >
              > But in the cases of those romance words which etymologically should
              > have an "a" vowel (for recognisability) but should be prono'd with
              an
              > [e:]/[E:], then it may be the solution. I am not 100% whether "ai"
              > should be prono'd as [E:] though, since phonetically "ai" looks like
              > it should be [aI]. Or maybe "ai" shouldn't be used. "ä" would be
              good,
              > but then we get back to diacritical marks. Maybe "ae" could be use,
              > although this also has implications.
              > "traen", "protraet", "affaer", "detael", "retraet", "regulaer",
              > "militaer".
              >
              > >
              > > Greuten,
              > > Stephan
              > >
              >
            • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
              ... continentals ... Me neither. ... In a properly phonetic notation an should be used, but in an etymological one , (poss. with grave/accute
              Message 6 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                > >
                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                > > > Like I said, often it is the manner/way English has borrowed, not
                > > just
                > > > the number of borrowings. Look at the romance verbs. The
                continentals
                > > > retain the romance -er/-ir/-ar infinitive. English drops it and
                > > > frequently borrows the past participle of the verb as the English
                > > > infinitive. Also English applies a more natively germanic stress
                > > > pattern to romance borrowings.
                > >
                > > I noticed that, too.
                > >
                > > Now, what is your opinion about "dictionary notation" vs. "everyday
                > > usage" of ambiguous words?
                > >
                > > én <-> en <-> een <-> ain
                > > dé <-> de <-> dee <-> dai
                > > té <-> ne <-> nee <-> nai
                > > problém <-> problem <-> probleem <-> problaim
                >
                > I definitely do NOT want to see "ai" in romance words where it is not
                > etymologically warranted. (ie, neither the original Latin or French
                > has "ai" or "a".)

                Me neither.

                >
                >
                > > millionér <-> millioner <-> millioneer <-> millionair
                >
                > But in the cases of those romance words which etymologically should
                > have an "a" vowel (for recognisability) but should be prono'd with an
                > [e:]/[E:], then it may be the solution. I am not 100% whether "ai"
                > should be prono'd as [E:] though, since phonetically "ai" looks like
                > it should be [aI]. Or maybe "ai" shouldn't be used. "ä" would be good,
                > but then we get back to diacritical marks. Maybe "ae" could be use,
                > although this also has implications.
                > "traen", "protraet", "affaer", "detael", "retraet", "regulaer",
                > "militaer".

                In a properly phonetic notation an <e> should be used, but in an
                etymological one <ai>, <e> (poss. with grave/accute accents) should
                be. I'm not too keen on in betweens. That's my two-cents.
              • David Parke
                ... I assume you are playing devil s advocate with that suggestion Ingmar. I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with regard to whether e is [e:]
                Message 7 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Would it be an idea to use Sampa notation for Folksprak from now on
                  > in stead of the regular alphabet, because the only thing we're
                  > discussing lately is how to spell FS and what advantages or not this
                  > or that orthography has... Even the languages is adapted all the time
                  > because of this or that orthographic problem.
                  > But the language itself is much more important and should be leading,
                  > shouldn't it? Or, if not Sampa, which is of course rather unnatural
                  > compared to normal orthographies, we could use another simple, more
                  > natural, logical and regular phonetic ortho (without diacritics etc).
                  >
                  > e.g:
                  >
                  > Ik tEnk@ dAt wi: kAn@ "Sri:v@ "fOlkspra:k mId "sAmpa "spElIN.
                  > dAt kAn "ma:k@ @n End An de pro"ble:m PAt d@ "Sri:vPi:s Av "fOlkspra:k
                  > SAl "Pe:z@ fo:r nu:
                  >
                  > or
                  >
                  > Ik tenke dat wii kane schriive Folkspraak mid Sampa-speling.
                  > Dat kan maake en end an de probleem wat de schriivwiis av Folkspraak
                  > schal weeze foor nuu.
                  >
                  > In the latter example, vowel length is always indicated by double
                  > vowels etc
                  >
                  > Ingmar
                  >

                  I assume you are playing devil's advocate with that suggestion Ingmar.
                  I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with regard to whether
                  "e" is [e:] or [@] and get on with developing other areas of the
                  language. German, Danish, Norwegian seem to survive in spite of these
                  ambiguities. Norwegian is the only one of the those 3 that mark
                  short/long vowels consistently with doubled consonants, (German and
                  Danish have the same general principle but apply it in a more
                  haphazard manner). But even in Norwegian, you would still get the
                  bosem problem.

                  The issue of reguler/regular/regulair/regulär is a slightly different
                  issue, which needs some more debate IMHO.


                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                  > > > > Like I said, often it is the manner/way English has borrowed,
                  > not
                  > > > just
                  > > > > the number of borrowings. Look at the romance verbs. The
                  > continentals
                  > > > > retain the romance -er/-ir/-ar infinitive. English drops it and
                  > > > > frequently borrows the past participle of the verb as the
                  > English
                  > > > > infinitive. Also English applies a more natively germanic stress
                  > > > > pattern to romance borrowings.
                  > > >
                  > > > I noticed that, too.
                  > > >
                  > > > Now, what is your opinion about "dictionary notation"
                  > vs. "everyday
                  > > > usage" of ambiguous words?
                  > > >
                  > > > én <-> en <-> een <-> ain
                  > > > dé <-> de <-> dee <-> dai
                  > > > té <-> ne <-> nee <-> nai
                  > > > problém <-> problem <-> probleem <-> problaim
                  > >
                  > > I definitely do NOT want to see "ai" in romance words where it is
                  > not
                  > > etymologically warranted. (ie, neither the original Latin or French
                  > > has "ai" or "a".)
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > millionér <-> millioner <-> millioneer <-> millionair
                  > >
                  > > But in the cases of those romance words which etymologically should
                  > > have an "a" vowel (for recognisability) but should be prono'd with
                  > an
                  > > [e:]/[E:], then it may be the solution. I am not 100% whether "ai"
                  > > should be prono'd as [E:] though, since phonetically "ai" looks like
                  > > it should be [aI]. Or maybe "ai" shouldn't be used. "ä" would be
                  > good,
                  > > but then we get back to diacritical marks. Maybe "ae" could be use,
                  > > although this also has implications.
                  > > "traen", "protraet", "affaer", "detael", "retraet", "regulaer",
                  > > "militaer".
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Greuten,
                  > > > Stephan
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
                  Sounds a very good idea indeed. Or alternatively we could write it REALLY etymologically for the time-being, though that s harder work methinks. I agree
                  Message 8 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                    Sounds a very good idea indeed. Or alternatively we could write it
                    REALLY etymologically for the time-being, though that's harder work
                    methinks. I agree though, lets stop bickering about orthography for
                    now, eh?

                    dat h22r tu mi hu en seer guud/good idee. ooder vi kund Sraive/Sriive
                    et ext eetymoloogiS for de preesent, aaver dat is magvees sveerer
                    arbeed. ig tenk so dox ook, kan vi halde tu spreeke oover ortografii
                    for de nu-taid/tiid?

                    that haeur to miz ain sair good idée. other (?) wiz kund skriibe
                    hit/et eht etymologisk fur the présent, aeber that ist magwees sweerer
                    arbaid. ek/ig thenk swa thauh auk, kann wiz halde to spreeke uber
                    orthographia fur the nu-tiid. (I'm not sure if all the double vowels
                    are really neede there as PG seems to mostly have long vowels before
                    single consonants ...opinions?)

                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Would it be an idea to use Sampa notation for Folksprak from now on
                    > in stead of the regular alphabet, because the only thing we're
                    > discussing lately is how to spell FS and what advantages or not this
                    > or that orthography has... Even the languages is adapted all the time
                    > because of this or that orthographic problem.
                    > But the language itself is much more important and should be leading,
                    > shouldn't it? Or, if not Sampa, which is of course rather unnatural
                    > compared to normal orthographies, we could use another simple, more
                    > natural, logical and regular phonetic ortho (without diacritics etc).
                    >
                    > e.g:
                    >
                    > Ik tEnk@ dAt wi: kAn@ "Sri:v@ "fOlkspra:k mId "sAmpa "spElIN.
                    > dAt kAn "ma:k@ @n End An de pro"ble:m PAt d@ "Sri:vPi:s Av "fOlkspra:k
                    > SAl "Pe:z@ fo:r nu:
                    >
                    > or
                    >
                    > Ik tenke dat wii kane schriive Folkspraak mid Sampa-speling.
                    > Dat kan maake en end an de probleem wat de schriivwiis av Folkspraak
                    > schal weeze foor nuu.
                    >
                    > In the latter example, vowel length is always indicated by double
                    > vowels etc
                    >
                    > Ingmar
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                    > > > > Like I said, often it is the manner/way English has borrowed,
                    > not
                    > > > just
                    > > > > the number of borrowings. Look at the romance verbs. The
                    > continentals
                    > > > > retain the romance -er/-ir/-ar infinitive. English drops it and
                    > > > > frequently borrows the past participle of the verb as the
                    > English
                    > > > > infinitive. Also English applies a more natively germanic stress
                    > > > > pattern to romance borrowings.
                    > > >
                    > > > I noticed that, too.
                    > > >
                    > > > Now, what is your opinion about "dictionary notation"
                    > vs. "everyday
                    > > > usage" of ambiguous words?
                    > > >
                    > > > én <-> en <-> een <-> ain
                    > > > dé <-> de <-> dee <-> dai
                    > > > té <-> ne <-> nee <-> nai
                    > > > problém <-> problem <-> probleem <-> problaim
                    > >
                    > > I definitely do NOT want to see "ai" in romance words where it is
                    > not
                    > > etymologically warranted. (ie, neither the original Latin or French
                    > > has "ai" or "a".)
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > millionér <-> millioner <-> millioneer <-> millionair
                    > >
                    > > But in the cases of those romance words which etymologically should
                    > > have an "a" vowel (for recognisability) but should be prono'd with
                    > an
                    > > [e:]/[E:], then it may be the solution. I am not 100% whether "ai"
                    > > should be prono'd as [E:] though, since phonetically "ai" looks like
                    > > it should be [aI]. Or maybe "ai" shouldn't be used. "ä" would be
                    > good,
                    > > but then we get back to diacritical marks. Maybe "ae" could be use,
                    > > although this also has implications.
                    > > "traen", "protraet", "affaer", "detael", "retraet", "regulaer",
                    > > "militaer".
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Greuten,
                    > > > Stephan
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
                    ... What is there to debate? One is phonetic, one is etymological and the other two are English/Spanish and German. As I said, I d be inclined to say be
                    Message 9 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:

                      > >
                      >
                      > I assume you are playing devil's advocate with that suggestion Ingmar.
                      > I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with regard to whether
                      > "e" is [e:] or [@] and get on with developing other areas of the
                      > language. German, Danish, Norwegian seem to survive in spite of these
                      > ambiguities. Norwegian is the only one of the those 3 that mark
                      > short/long vowels consistently with doubled consonants, (German and
                      > Danish have the same general principle but apply it in a more
                      > haphazard manner). But even in Norwegian, you would still get the
                      > bosem problem.
                      >
                      > The issue of reguler/regular/regulair/regulär is a slightly
                      > different
                      > issue, which needs some more debate IMHO.

                      What is there to debate? One is phonetic, one is etymological and the
                      other two are English/Spanish and German. As I said, I'd be inclined
                      to say be allowed to either keep it etymological or phonetic - no
                      weezy devices!
                    • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
                      Maybe we COULD just have two official FS orthographies for now - one phonetic and one etymological. Then we can work out something in betweeen later if we want
                      Message 10 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                        Maybe we COULD just have two official FS orthographies for now - one
                        phonetic and one etymological. Then we can work out something in
                        betweeen later if we want - I mean people can still work on the in
                        between one, but there's no need to concentrate so much of our
                        discussion on it. and anyway, phonetically, there's only a a very few
                        issues to settle really.

                        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                        <xipirho@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Sounds a very good idea indeed. Or alternatively we could write it
                        > REALLY etymologically for the time-being, though that's harder work
                        > methinks. I agree though, lets stop bickering about orthography for
                        > now, eh?
                        >
                        > dat h22r tu mi hu en seer guud/good idee. ooder vi kund Sraive/Sriive
                        > et ext eetymoloogiS for de preesent, aaver dat is magvees sveerer
                        > arbeed. ig tenk so dox ook, kan vi halde tu spreeke oover ortografii
                        > for de nu-taid/tiid?
                        >
                        > that haeur to miz ain sair good idée. other (?) wiz kund skriibe
                        > hit/et eht etymologisk fur the présent, aeber that ist magwees sweerer
                        > arbaid. ek/ig thenk swa thauh auk, kann wiz halde to spreeke uber
                        > orthographia fur the nu-tiid. (I'm not sure if all the double vowels
                        > are really neede there as PG seems to mostly have long vowels before
                        > single consonants ...opinions?)
                        >
                        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Would it be an idea to use Sampa notation for Folksprak from now on
                        > > in stead of the regular alphabet, because the only thing we're
                        > > discussing lately is how to spell FS and what advantages or not this
                        > > or that orthography has... Even the languages is adapted all the time
                        > > because of this or that orthographic problem.
                        > > But the language itself is much more important and should be leading,
                        > > shouldn't it? Or, if not Sampa, which is of course rather unnatural
                        > > compared to normal orthographies, we could use another simple, more
                        > > natural, logical and regular phonetic ortho (without diacritics etc).
                        > >
                        > > e.g:
                        > >
                        > > Ik tEnk@ dAt wi: kAn@ "Sri:v@ "fOlkspra:k mId "sAmpa "spElIN.
                        > > dAt kAn "ma:k@ @n End An de pro"ble:m PAt d@ "Sri:vPi:s Av "fOlkspra:k
                        > > SAl "Pe:z@ fo:r nu:
                        > >
                        > > or
                        > >
                        > > Ik tenke dat wii kane schriive Folkspraak mid Sampa-speling.
                        > > Dat kan maake en end an de probleem wat de schriivwiis av Folkspraak
                        > > schal weeze foor nuu.
                        > >
                        > > In the latter example, vowel length is always indicated by double
                        > > vowels etc
                        > >
                        > > Ingmar
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                        > > > > > Like I said, often it is the manner/way English has borrowed,
                        > > not
                        > > > > just
                        > > > > > the number of borrowings. Look at the romance verbs. The
                        > > continentals
                        > > > > > retain the romance -er/-ir/-ar infinitive. English drops it and
                        > > > > > frequently borrows the past participle of the verb as the
                        > > English
                        > > > > > infinitive. Also English applies a more natively germanic stress
                        > > > > > pattern to romance borrowings.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I noticed that, too.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Now, what is your opinion about "dictionary notation"
                        > > vs. "everyday
                        > > > > usage" of ambiguous words?
                        > > > >
                        > > > > én <-> en <-> een <-> ain
                        > > > > dé <-> de <-> dee <-> dai
                        > > > > té <-> ne <-> nee <-> nai
                        > > > > problém <-> problem <-> probleem <-> problaim
                        > > >
                        > > > I definitely do NOT want to see "ai" in romance words where it is
                        > > not
                        > > > etymologically warranted. (ie, neither the original Latin or French
                        > > > has "ai" or "a".)
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > > millionér <-> millioner <-> millioneer <-> millionair
                        > > >
                        > > > But in the cases of those romance words which etymologically should
                        > > > have an "a" vowel (for recognisability) but should be prono'd with
                        > > an
                        > > > [e:]/[E:], then it may be the solution. I am not 100% whether "ai"
                        > > > should be prono'd as [E:] though, since phonetically "ai" looks like
                        > > > it should be [aI]. Or maybe "ai" shouldn't be used. "ä" would be
                        > > good,
                        > > > but then we get back to diacritical marks. Maybe "ae" could be use,
                        > > > although this also has implications.
                        > > > "traen", "protraet", "affaer", "detael", "retraet", "regulaer",
                        > > > "militaer".
                        > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Greuten,
                        > > > > Stephan
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • chamavian
                        ... on ... this ... time ... leading, ... unnatural ... more ... etc). ... Av fOlkspra:k ... Folkspraak ... Ingmar. ... whether ... these ... different ...
                        Message 11 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Would it be an idea to use Sampa notation for Folksprak from now
                          on
                          > > in stead of the regular alphabet, because the only thing we're
                          > > discussing lately is how to spell FS and what advantages or not
                          this
                          > > or that orthography has... Even the languages is adapted all the
                          time
                          > > because of this or that orthographic problem.
                          > > But the language itself is much more important and should be
                          leading,
                          > > shouldn't it? Or, if not Sampa, which is of course rather
                          unnatural
                          > > compared to normal orthographies, we could use another simple,
                          more
                          > > natural, logical and regular phonetic ortho (without diacritics
                          etc).
                          > >
                          > > e.g:
                          > >
                          > > Ik tEnk@ dAt wi: kAn@ "Sri:v@ "fOlkspra:k mId "sAmpa "spElIN.
                          > > dAt kAn "ma:k@ @n End An de pro"ble:m PAt d@ "Sri:vPi:s
                          Av "fOlkspra:k
                          > > SAl "Pe:z@ fo:r nu:
                          > >
                          > > or
                          > >
                          > > Ik tenke dat wii kane schriive Folkspraak mid Sampa-speling.
                          > > Dat kan maake en end an de probleem wat de schriivwiis av
                          Folkspraak
                          > > schal weeze foor nuu.
                          > >
                          > > In the latter example, vowel length is always indicated by double
                          > > vowels etc
                          > >
                          > > Ingmar
                          > >
                          >
                          > I assume you are playing devil's advocate with that suggestion
                          Ingmar.
                          > I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with regard to
                          whether
                          > "e" is [e:] or [@] and get on with developing other areas of the
                          > language. German, Danish, Norwegian seem to survive in spite of
                          these
                          > ambiguities. Norwegian is the only one of the those 3 that mark
                          > short/long vowels consistently with doubled consonants, (German and
                          > Danish have the same general principle but apply it in a more
                          > haphazard manner). But even in Norwegian, you would still get the
                          > bosem problem.
                          >
                          > The issue of reguler/regular/regulair/regulär is a slightly
                          different
                          > issue, which needs some more debate IMHO.

                          And who's the devil in this case?
                          But you missed my point: that there's so much talk about FS spelling
                          and so little about the language itself.

                          Ingmar
                          >
                          >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
                          wrote:
                          > > > > > Like I said, often it is the manner/way English has
                          borrowed,
                          > > not
                          > > > > just
                          > > > > > the number of borrowings. Look at the romance verbs. The
                          > > continentals
                          > > > > > retain the romance -er/-ir/-ar infinitive. English drops it
                          and
                          > > > > > frequently borrows the past participle of the verb as the
                          > > English
                          > > > > > infinitive. Also English applies a more natively germanic
                          stress
                          > > > > > pattern to romance borrowings.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I noticed that, too.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Now, what is your opinion about "dictionary notation"
                          > > vs. "everyday
                          > > > > usage" of ambiguous words?
                          > > > >
                          > > > > én <-> en <-> een <-> ain
                          > > > > dé <-> de <-> dee <-> dai
                          > > > > té <-> ne <-> nee <-> nai
                          > > > > problém <-> problem <-> probleem <-> problaim
                          > > >
                          > > > I definitely do NOT want to see "ai" in romance words where it
                          is
                          > > not
                          > > > etymologically warranted. (ie, neither the original Latin or
                          French
                          > > > has "ai" or "a".)
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > > millionér <-> millioner <-> millioneer <-> millionair
                          > > >
                          > > > But in the cases of those romance words which etymologically
                          should
                          > > > have an "a" vowel (for recognisability) but should be prono'd
                          with
                          > > an
                          > > > [e:]/[E:], then it may be the solution. I am not 100%
                          whether "ai"
                          > > > should be prono'd as [E:] though, since phonetically "ai" looks
                          like
                          > > > it should be [aI]. Or maybe "ai" shouldn't be used. "ä" would
                          be
                          > > good,
                          > > > but then we get back to diacritical marks. Maybe "ae" could be
                          use,
                          > > > although this also has implications.
                          > > > "traen", "protraet", "affaer", "detael", "retraet", "regulaer",
                          > > > "militaer".
                          > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Greuten,
                          > > > > Stephan
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • David Parke
                          ... The concept of to play the devil s advocate , is that you suggest something obviously extreme and undesirable in order to make your preferred idea seem
                          Message 12 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > > I assume you are playing devil's advocate with that suggestion
                            > Ingmar.
                            > > I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with regard to
                            > whether
                            > > "e" is [e:] or [@] and get on with developing other areas of the
                            > > language. German, Danish, Norwegian seem to survive in spite of
                            > these
                            > > ambiguities. Norwegian is the only one of the those 3 that mark
                            > > short/long vowels consistently with doubled consonants, (German and
                            > > Danish have the same general principle but apply it in a more
                            > > haphazard manner). But even in Norwegian, you would still get the
                            > > bosem problem.
                            > >
                            > > The issue of reguler/regular/regulair/regulär is a slightly
                            > different
                            > > issue, which needs some more debate IMHO.
                            >
                            > And who's the devil in this case?
                            > But you missed my point: that there's so much talk about FS spelling
                            > and so little about the language itself.
                            >
                            > Ingmar

                            The concept of "to play the devil's advocate", is that you suggest
                            something obviously extreme and undesirable in order to make your
                            preferred idea seem more reasonable by contrast. The devil in this
                            case is SAMPA.
                            I thought talk about spelling IS talk about the language. Having an
                            allgemen schrivwis is important to the future of the language. We need
                            to know that we are all writing/talking about the same thing. FS will
                            be an artificial language. It will (at least initially) be a language
                            that is written way more than it is spoken. Unlike in a natural
                            language we can allow the orthographic system dictate the phonological
                            system -- in a natural language the opposite is normally true.

                            What about the language do you wish to discuss instead? Grammar,
                            vocabulary?
                          • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
                            How about this. And seriously, please consider it. The idea is basically that we use etymological spelling (and prono too, though we can settle the two
                            Message 13 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                              How about this. And seriously, please consider it.

                              The idea is basically that we use etymological spelling (and prono
                              too, though we can settle the two separately - see below) until we
                              have settled a particular point of orthography.

                              Thus:

                              PG /u:/ and /i:/ are written <uu> and <ii> or without the doubling -
                              this might be the eventual orthography or it might not, but it really
                              doesn't matter. This is similar to the 'metavowels' of ages ago, but
                              with no accents as the concensus seems to be no accents really. You
                              could of course USE accents, but there's not much point. They would
                              also be said /u:/ and /i:/ for now at least.

                              "Problem" is thus for now written "problème". "millionaire" is written
                              "millionaire". We all know what these words are and how to use them
                              and that they'll be in FS, yet we can't use them because we're
                              obsessing about how exactly they should be spelt. ...But we can
                              probably agree on a prono despite keeping etymological orthography -
                              thus not /pRoblEm(@)/ but /prO'ble:m/ - but if we can't then we can
                              keepit French or just undecided for now.

                              Some things ARE settled though, so PG /sk/ is written "sch", as we've
                              managed to agree on that. Same goes for "ch" for PG /-h/.

                              As for PG /ai/, it can be <ee>/<e>, and if we can't agree on that then
                              leave it as <ai> for now, or change it to <ei>.

                              Other examples would be PG /T/ which we can write <d> and <t> as we've
                              managed to agree on that, and PG /au/ which would stay <au> I think as
                              we haven't agreed yet.

                              Thus we can actually WRITE stuff in FS. We WILL have a common FS. It
                              will change over time and will not be final, yes, but it will exist.
                              ...and it WOULD be nice not to discuss orthography so much anymore for
                              a while - lets start saying things! We can have a "common FS" Lord's
                              prayer even - not as a FINAL version of FS, but a provisional one.

                              What do you think? I really hope we can agree to something along these
                              lines - it's after all NOT final, so no-one need worry, but we can
                              actually start writing stuff and documenting grammar, word meaning
                              etc., which, to be honest, I think is going to be a much less
                              contentious issue mostly.




                              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > I assume you are playing devil's advocate with that suggestion
                              > > Ingmar.
                              > > > I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with regard to
                              > > whether
                              > > > "e" is [e:] or [@] and get on with developing other areas of the
                              > > > language. German, Danish, Norwegian seem to survive in spite of
                              > > these
                              > > > ambiguities. Norwegian is the only one of the those 3 that mark
                              > > > short/long vowels consistently with doubled consonants, (German and
                              > > > Danish have the same general principle but apply it in a more
                              > > > haphazard manner). But even in Norwegian, you would still get the
                              > > > bosem problem.
                              > > >
                              > > > The issue of reguler/regular/regulair/regulär is a slightly
                              > > different
                              > > > issue, which needs some more debate IMHO.
                              > >
                              > > And who's the devil in this case?
                              > > But you missed my point: that there's so much talk about FS spelling
                              > > and so little about the language itself.
                              > >
                              > > Ingmar
                              >
                              > The concept of "to play the devil's advocate", is that you suggest
                              > something obviously extreme and undesirable in order to make your
                              > preferred idea seem more reasonable by contrast. The devil in this
                              > case is SAMPA.
                              > I thought talk about spelling IS talk about the language. Having an
                              > allgemen schrivwis is important to the future of the language. We need
                              > to know that we are all writing/talking about the same thing. FS will
                              > be an artificial language. It will (at least initially) be a language
                              > that is written way more than it is spoken. Unlike in a natural
                              > language we can allow the orthographic system dictate the phonological
                              > system -- in a natural language the opposite is normally true.
                              >
                              > What about the language do you wish to discuss instead? Grammar,
                              > vocabulary?
                              >
                            • chamavian
                              So, in short, you propose: ii [i:] from PG long i uu [u:] from PG long u ee [e:] from PG ai sch [S] from PG sk ch [x] from PG h d [d] from PG th voiced in
                              Message 14 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                                So, in short, you propose:

                                ii [i:] from PG long i
                                uu [u:] from PG long u
                                ee [e:] from PG ai
                                sch [S] from PG sk
                                ch [x] from PG h
                                d [d] from PG th > voiced in all sourcelangs
                                t [t] from PG th > voiceless in half SL, voiced the other half
                                au [au] from PG au

                                and Romance and other loanwords spelt according to their original
                                ortho.

                                I agree with everything til now, except for the accent in problème

                                Ingmar

                                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                                <xipirho@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > How about this. And seriously, please consider it.
                                >
                                > The idea is basically that we use etymological spelling (and prono
                                > too, though we can settle the two separately - see below) until we
                                > have settled a particular point of orthography.
                                >
                                > Thus:
                                >
                                > PG /u:/ and /i:/ are written <uu> and <ii> or without the doubling -
                                > this might be the eventual orthography or it might not, but it
                                really
                                > doesn't matter. This is similar to the 'metavowels' of ages ago, but
                                > with no accents as the concensus seems to be no accents really. You
                                > could of course USE accents, but there's not much point. They would
                                > also be said /u:/ and /i:/ for now at least.
                                >
                                > "Problem" is thus for now written "problème". "millionaire" is
                                written
                                > "millionaire". We all know what these words are and how to use them
                                > and that they'll be in FS, yet we can't use them because we're
                                > obsessing about how exactly they should be spelt. ...But we can
                                > probably agree on a prono despite keeping etymological orthography -
                                > thus not /pRoblEm(@)/ but /prO'ble:m/ - but if we can't then we can
                                > keepit French or just undecided for now.
                                >
                                > Some things ARE settled though, so PG /sk/ is written "sch", as
                                we've
                                > managed to agree on that. Same goes for "ch" for PG /-h/.
                                >
                                > As for PG /ai/, it can be <ee>/<e>, and if we can't agree on that
                                then
                                > leave it as <ai> for now, or change it to <ei>.
                                >
                                > Other examples would be PG /T/ which we can write <d> and <t> as
                                we've
                                > managed to agree on that, and PG /au/ which would stay <au> I think
                                as
                                > we haven't agreed yet.
                                >
                                > Thus we can actually WRITE stuff in FS. We WILL have a common FS. It
                                > will change over time and will not be final, yes, but it will exist.
                                > ...and it WOULD be nice not to discuss orthography so much anymore
                                for
                                > a while - lets start saying things! We can have a "common FS" Lord's
                                > prayer even - not as a FINAL version of FS, but a provisional one.
                                >
                                > What do you think? I really hope we can agree to something along
                                these
                                > lines - it's after all NOT final, so no-one need worry, but we can
                                > actually start writing stuff and documenting grammar, word meaning
                                > etc., which, to be honest, I think is going to be a much less
                                > contentious issue mostly.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > I assume you are playing devil's advocate with that
                                suggestion
                                > > > Ingmar.
                                > > > > I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with regard
                                to
                                > > > whether
                                > > > > "e" is [e:] or [@] and get on with developing other areas of
                                the
                                > > > > language. German, Danish, Norwegian seem to survive in spite
                                of
                                > > > these
                                > > > > ambiguities. Norwegian is the only one of the those 3 that
                                mark
                                > > > > short/long vowels consistently with doubled consonants,
                                (German and
                                > > > > Danish have the same general principle but apply it in a more
                                > > > > haphazard manner). But even in Norwegian, you would still get
                                the
                                > > > > bosem problem.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > The issue of reguler/regular/regulair/regulär is a slightly
                                > > > different
                                > > > > issue, which needs some more debate IMHO.
                                > > >
                                > > > And who's the devil in this case?
                                > > > But you missed my point: that there's so much talk about FS
                                spelling
                                > > > and so little about the language itself.
                                > > >
                                > > > Ingmar
                                > >
                                > > The concept of "to play the devil's advocate", is that you suggest
                                > > something obviously extreme and undesirable in order to make your
                                > > preferred idea seem more reasonable by contrast. The devil in this
                                > > case is SAMPA.
                                > > I thought talk about spelling IS talk about the language. Having
                                an
                                > > allgemen schrivwis is important to the future of the language. We
                                need
                                > > to know that we are all writing/talking about the same thing. FS
                                will
                                > > be an artificial language. It will (at least initially) be a
                                language
                                > > that is written way more than it is spoken. Unlike in a natural
                                > > language we can allow the orthographic system dictate the
                                phonological
                                > > system -- in a natural language the opposite is normally true.
                                > >
                                > > What about the language do you wish to discuss instead? Grammar,
                                > > vocabulary?
                                > >
                                >
                              • chamavian
                                ... and ... the ... spelling ... We know the expression hij speelt de advocaat van de duivel in Dutch, too. But I was not that advocate here, because it is
                                Message 15 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > I assume you are playing devil's advocate with that suggestion
                                  > > Ingmar.
                                  > > > I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with regard to
                                  > > whether
                                  > > > "e" is [e:] or [@] and get on with developing other areas of the
                                  > > > language. German, Danish, Norwegian seem to survive in spite of
                                  > > these
                                  > > > ambiguities. Norwegian is the only one of the those 3 that mark
                                  > > > short/long vowels consistently with doubled consonants, (German
                                  and
                                  > > > Danish have the same general principle but apply it in a more
                                  > > > haphazard manner). But even in Norwegian, you would still get
                                  the
                                  > > > bosem problem.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > The issue of reguler/regular/regulair/regulär is a slightly
                                  > > different
                                  > > > issue, which needs some more debate IMHO.
                                  > >
                                  > > And who's the devil in this case?
                                  > > But you missed my point: that there's so much talk about FS
                                  spelling
                                  > > and so little about the language itself.
                                  > >
                                  > > Ingmar
                                  >
                                  > The concept of "to play the devil's advocate", is that you suggest
                                  > something obviously extreme and undesirable in order to make your
                                  > preferred idea seem more reasonable by contrast. The devil in this
                                  > case is SAMPA.

                                  We know the expression "hij speelt de advocaat van de duivel" in
                                  Dutch, too. But I was not that advocate here, because it is not my
                                  goal to get my own ideas through by proposing something undesirable.

                                  Actually, all that talk lately focused about how to spell loanwords
                                  is the undesirable thing. And as you could have read as well, I did
                                  not suggest using just Sampa, but more important, any simple way for
                                  now to write down FS, in order to get out of these endless ortho
                                  discussions, which add nothing to the language itself... imnsho

                                  > I thought talk about spelling IS talk about the language. Having an
                                  > allgemen schrivwis is important to the future of the language. We
                                  need
                                  > to know that we are all writing/talking about the same thing. FS
                                  will
                                  > be an artificial language. It will (at least initially) be a
                                  language
                                  > that is written way more than it is spoken. Unlike in a natural
                                  > language we can allow the orthographic system dictate the
                                  phonological
                                  > system -- in a natural language the opposite is normally true.

                                  So how about (y)our great example Interlingua... I don't think they
                                  spent so much time talking about its orthography all the time...

                                  I think that if the grammar, I mean: the system of pronouns, verbs,
                                  nouns, adjectives etc. etc., and the base vocabulary is ready, it is
                                  early enough to decide on the final orthography.
                                  Why am I being so annoying again? Because FS is standing still, once
                                  again

                                  Ingmar


                                  >
                                  > What about the language do you wish to discuss instead? Grammar,
                                  > vocabulary?

                                  Yep
                                  >
                                • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
                                  Basically yes, although what I actually propose is etymological spelling until we reach concensus. Hence the accent on proble`me . But if we can all agree
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Feb 2, 2007
                                    Basically yes, although what I actually propose is etymological
                                    spelling until we reach concensus. Hence the accent on "proble`me".
                                    But if we can all agree that however it ends up being spelt it won't
                                    have a grave accent, then we can drop it I spose. Does the grave
                                    actully make a difference in this case in French - would "probleme"
                                    be said with an "é" (i.e. [e] as opposed to [E]) sound? I think it
                                    probably wouldn't...

                                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > So, in short, you propose:
                                    >
                                    > ii [i:] from PG long i
                                    > uu [u:] from PG long u
                                    > ee [e:] from PG ai
                                    > sch [S] from PG sk
                                    > ch [x] from PG h
                                    > d [d] from PG th > voiced in all sourcelangs
                                    > t [t] from PG th > voiceless in half SL, voiced the other half
                                    > au [au] from PG au
                                    >
                                    > and Romance and other loanwords spelt according to their original
                                    > ortho.
                                    >
                                    > I agree with everything til now, except for the accent in problème
                                    >
                                    > Ingmar
                                    >
                                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                                    > <xipirho@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > How about this. And seriously, please consider it.
                                    > >
                                    > > The idea is basically that we use etymological spelling (and
                                    prono
                                    > > too, though we can settle the two separately - see below) until
                                    we
                                    > > have settled a particular point of orthography.
                                    > >
                                    > > Thus:
                                    > >
                                    > > PG /u:/ and /i:/ are written <uu> and <ii> or without the
                                    doubling -
                                    > > this might be the eventual orthography or it might not, but it
                                    > really
                                    > > doesn't matter. This is similar to the 'metavowels' of ages ago,
                                    but
                                    > > with no accents as the concensus seems to be no accents really.
                                    You
                                    > > could of course USE accents, but there's not much point. They
                                    would
                                    > > also be said /u:/ and /i:/ for now at least.
                                    > >
                                    > > "Problem" is thus for now written "problème". "millionaire" is
                                    > written
                                    > > "millionaire". We all know what these words are and how to use
                                    them
                                    > > and that they'll be in FS, yet we can't use them because we're
                                    > > obsessing about how exactly they should be spelt. ...But we can
                                    > > probably agree on a prono despite keeping etymological
                                    orthography -
                                    > > thus not /pRoblEm(@)/ but /prO'ble:m/ - but if we can't then we
                                    can
                                    > > keepit French or just undecided for now.
                                    > >
                                    > > Some things ARE settled though, so PG /sk/ is written "sch", as
                                    > we've
                                    > > managed to agree on that. Same goes for "ch" for PG /-h/.
                                    > >
                                    > > As for PG /ai/, it can be <ee>/<e>, and if we can't agree on
                                    that
                                    > then
                                    > > leave it as <ai> for now, or change it to <ei>.
                                    > >
                                    > > Other examples would be PG /T/ which we can write <d> and <t> as
                                    > we've
                                    > > managed to agree on that, and PG /au/ which would stay <au> I
                                    think
                                    > as
                                    > > we haven't agreed yet.
                                    > >
                                    > > Thus we can actually WRITE stuff in FS. We WILL have a common
                                    FS. It
                                    > > will change over time and will not be final, yes, but it will
                                    exist.
                                    > > ...and it WOULD be nice not to discuss orthography so much
                                    anymore
                                    > for
                                    > > a while - lets start saying things! We can have a "common FS"
                                    Lord's
                                    > > prayer even - not as a FINAL version of FS, but a provisional
                                    one.
                                    > >
                                    > > What do you think? I really hope we can agree to something along
                                    > these
                                    > > lines - it's after all NOT final, so no-one need worry, but we
                                    can
                                    > > actually start writing stuff and documenting grammar, word
                                    meaning
                                    > > etc., which, to be honest, I think is going to be a much less
                                    > > contentious issue mostly.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I assume you are playing devil's advocate with that
                                    > suggestion
                                    > > > > Ingmar.
                                    > > > > > I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with
                                    regard
                                    > to
                                    > > > > whether
                                    > > > > > "e" is [e:] or [@] and get on with developing other areas
                                    of
                                    > the
                                    > > > > > language. German, Danish, Norwegian seem to survive in
                                    spite
                                    > of
                                    > > > > these
                                    > > > > > ambiguities. Norwegian is the only one of the those 3 that
                                    > mark
                                    > > > > > short/long vowels consistently with doubled consonants,
                                    > (German and
                                    > > > > > Danish have the same general principle but apply it in a
                                    more
                                    > > > > > haphazard manner). But even in Norwegian, you would still
                                    get
                                    > the
                                    > > > > > bosem problem.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > The issue of reguler/regular/regulair/regulär is a
                                    slightly
                                    > > > > different
                                    > > > > > issue, which needs some more debate IMHO.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > And who's the devil in this case?
                                    > > > > But you missed my point: that there's so much talk about FS
                                    > spelling
                                    > > > > and so little about the language itself.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Ingmar
                                    > > >
                                    > > > The concept of "to play the devil's advocate", is that you
                                    suggest
                                    > > > something obviously extreme and undesirable in order to make
                                    your
                                    > > > preferred idea seem more reasonable by contrast. The devil in
                                    this
                                    > > > case is SAMPA.
                                    > > > I thought talk about spelling IS talk about the language.
                                    Having
                                    > an
                                    > > > allgemen schrivwis is important to the future of the language.
                                    We
                                    > need
                                    > > > to know that we are all writing/talking about the same thing.
                                    FS
                                    > will
                                    > > > be an artificial language. It will (at least initially) be a
                                    > language
                                    > > > that is written way more than it is spoken. Unlike in a natural
                                    > > > language we can allow the orthographic system dictate the
                                    > phonological
                                    > > > system -- in a natural language the opposite is normally true.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > What about the language do you wish to discuss instead?
                                    Grammar,
                                    > > > vocabulary?
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • chamavian
                                    ... won t ... Well, I m not so sure that probleme is a loan directly from FRENCH in the source languages, instead of an internation Graeco-Romance one. And
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Feb 2, 2007
                                      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                                      <xipirho@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Basically yes, although what I actually propose is etymological
                                      > spelling until we reach concensus. Hence the accent on "proble`me".
                                      > But if we can all agree that however it ends up being spelt it
                                      won't
                                      > have a grave accent, then we can drop it I spose. Does the grave
                                      > actully make a difference in this case in French - would "probleme"
                                      > be said with an "é" (i.e. [e] as opposed to [E]) sound? I think it
                                      > probably wouldn't...

                                      Well, I'm not so sure that "probleme" is a loan directly from FRENCH
                                      in the source languages, instead of an internation Graeco-Romance one.
                                      And also since there were many problèmes with accents and diacritics -
                                      that was the main reason not to use them anymore in the first place -
                                      we should just leave the accents, I think...


                                      >
                                      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > So, in short, you propose:
                                      > >
                                      > > ii [i:] from PG long i
                                      > > uu [u:] from PG long u
                                      > > ee [e:] from PG ai
                                      > > sch [S] from PG sk
                                      > > ch [x] from PG h
                                      > > d [d] from PG th > voiced in all sourcelangs
                                      > > t [t] from PG th > voiceless in half SL, voiced the other half
                                      > > au [au] from PG au
                                      > >
                                      > > and Romance and other loanwords spelt according to their original
                                      > > ortho.
                                      > >
                                      > > I agree with everything til now, except for the accent in problème
                                      > >
                                      > > Ingmar
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                                      > > <xipirho@> wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > How about this. And seriously, please consider it.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > The idea is basically that we use etymological spelling (and
                                      > prono
                                      > > > too, though we can settle the two separately - see below) until
                                      > we
                                      > > > have settled a particular point of orthography.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Thus:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > PG /u:/ and /i:/ are written <uu> and <ii> or without the
                                      > doubling -
                                      > > > this might be the eventual orthography or it might not, but it
                                      > > really
                                      > > > doesn't matter. This is similar to the 'metavowels' of ages
                                      ago,
                                      > but
                                      > > > with no accents as the concensus seems to be no accents really.
                                      > You
                                      > > > could of course USE accents, but there's not much point. They
                                      > would
                                      > > > also be said /u:/ and /i:/ for now at least.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > "Problem" is thus for now written "problème". "millionaire" is
                                      > > written
                                      > > > "millionaire". We all know what these words are and how to use
                                      > them
                                      > > > and that they'll be in FS, yet we can't use them because we're
                                      > > > obsessing about how exactly they should be spelt. ...But we can
                                      > > > probably agree on a prono despite keeping etymological
                                      > orthography -
                                      > > > thus not /pRoblEm(@)/ but /prO'ble:m/ - but if we can't then we
                                      > can
                                      > > > keepit French or just undecided for now.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Some things ARE settled though, so PG /sk/ is written "sch", as
                                      > > we've
                                      > > > managed to agree on that. Same goes for "ch" for PG /-h/.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > As for PG /ai/, it can be <ee>/<e>, and if we can't agree on
                                      > that
                                      > > then
                                      > > > leave it as <ai> for now, or change it to <ei>.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Other examples would be PG /T/ which we can write <d> and <t>
                                      as
                                      > > we've
                                      > > > managed to agree on that, and PG /au/ which would stay <au> I
                                      > think
                                      > > as
                                      > > > we haven't agreed yet.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Thus we can actually WRITE stuff in FS. We WILL have a common
                                      > FS. It
                                      > > > will change over time and will not be final, yes, but it will
                                      > exist.
                                      > > > ...and it WOULD be nice not to discuss orthography so much
                                      > anymore
                                      > > for
                                      > > > a while - lets start saying things! We can have a "common FS"
                                      > Lord's
                                      > > > prayer even - not as a FINAL version of FS, but a provisional
                                      > one.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > What do you think? I really hope we can agree to something
                                      along
                                      > > these
                                      > > > lines - it's after all NOT final, so no-one need worry, but we
                                      > can
                                      > > > actually start writing stuff and documenting grammar, word
                                      > meaning
                                      > > > etc., which, to be honest, I think is going to be a much less
                                      > > > contentious issue mostly.
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
                                      wrote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > I assume you are playing devil's advocate with that
                                      > > suggestion
                                      > > > > > Ingmar.
                                      > > > > > > I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with
                                      > regard
                                      > > to
                                      > > > > > whether
                                      > > > > > > "e" is [e:] or [@] and get on with developing other areas
                                      > of
                                      > > the
                                      > > > > > > language. German, Danish, Norwegian seem to survive in
                                      > spite
                                      > > of
                                      > > > > > these
                                      > > > > > > ambiguities. Norwegian is the only one of the those 3
                                      that
                                      > > mark
                                      > > > > > > short/long vowels consistently with doubled consonants,
                                      > > (German and
                                      > > > > > > Danish have the same general principle but apply it in a
                                      > more
                                      > > > > > > haphazard manner). But even in Norwegian, you would still
                                      > get
                                      > > the
                                      > > > > > > bosem problem.
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > The issue of reguler/regular/regulair/regulär is a
                                      > slightly
                                      > > > > > different
                                      > > > > > > issue, which needs some more debate IMHO.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > And who's the devil in this case?
                                      > > > > > But you missed my point: that there's so much talk about FS
                                      > > spelling
                                      > > > > > and so little about the language itself.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Ingmar
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > The concept of "to play the devil's advocate", is that you
                                      > suggest
                                      > > > > something obviously extreme and undesirable in order to make
                                      > your
                                      > > > > preferred idea seem more reasonable by contrast. The devil in
                                      > this
                                      > > > > case is SAMPA.
                                      > > > > I thought talk about spelling IS talk about the language.
                                      > Having
                                      > > an
                                      > > > > allgemen schrivwis is important to the future of the
                                      language.
                                      > We
                                      > > need
                                      > > > > to know that we are all writing/talking about the same thing.
                                      > FS
                                      > > will
                                      > > > > be an artificial language. It will (at least initially) be a
                                      > > language
                                      > > > > that is written way more than it is spoken. Unlike in a
                                      natural
                                      > > > > language we can allow the orthographic system dictate the
                                      > > phonological
                                      > > > > system -- in a natural language the opposite is normally
                                      true.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > What about the language do you wish to discuss instead?
                                      > Grammar,
                                      > > > > vocabulary?
                                      > > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                    • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
                                      OK.
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Feb 2, 2007
                                        OK.

                                        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                                        > <xipirho@> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > Basically yes, although what I actually propose is etymological
                                        > > spelling until we reach concensus. Hence the accent on "proble`me".
                                        > > But if we can all agree that however it ends up being spelt it
                                        > won't
                                        > > have a grave accent, then we can drop it I spose. Does the grave
                                        > > actully make a difference in this case in French - would "probleme"
                                        > > be said with an "é" (i.e. [e] as opposed to [E]) sound? I think it
                                        > > probably wouldn't...
                                        >
                                        > Well, I'm not so sure that "probleme" is a loan directly from FRENCH
                                        > in the source languages, instead of an internation Graeco-Romance one.
                                        > And also since there were many problèmes with accents and diacritics -
                                        > that was the main reason not to use them anymore in the first place -
                                        > we should just leave the accents, I think...
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > So, in short, you propose:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > ii [i:] from PG long i
                                        > > > uu [u:] from PG long u
                                        > > > ee [e:] from PG ai
                                        > > > sch [S] from PG sk
                                        > > > ch [x] from PG h
                                        > > > d [d] from PG th > voiced in all sourcelangs
                                        > > > t [t] from PG th > voiceless in half SL, voiced the other half
                                        > > > au [au] from PG au
                                        > > >
                                        > > > and Romance and other loanwords spelt according to their original
                                        > > > ortho.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > I agree with everything til now, except for the accent in problème
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Ingmar
                                        > > >
                                        > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
                                        > > > <xipirho@> wrote:
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > How about this. And seriously, please consider it.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > The idea is basically that we use etymological spelling (and
                                        > > prono
                                        > > > > too, though we can settle the two separately - see below) until
                                        > > we
                                        > > > > have settled a particular point of orthography.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Thus:
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > PG /u:/ and /i:/ are written <uu> and <ii> or without the
                                        > > doubling -
                                        > > > > this might be the eventual orthography or it might not, but it
                                        > > > really
                                        > > > > doesn't matter. This is similar to the 'metavowels' of ages
                                        > ago,
                                        > > but
                                        > > > > with no accents as the concensus seems to be no accents really.
                                        > > You
                                        > > > > could of course USE accents, but there's not much point. They
                                        > > would
                                        > > > > also be said /u:/ and /i:/ for now at least.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > "Problem" is thus for now written "problème". "millionaire" is
                                        > > > written
                                        > > > > "millionaire". We all know what these words are and how to use
                                        > > them
                                        > > > > and that they'll be in FS, yet we can't use them because we're
                                        > > > > obsessing about how exactly they should be spelt. ...But we can
                                        > > > > probably agree on a prono despite keeping etymological
                                        > > orthography -
                                        > > > > thus not /pRoblEm(@)/ but /prO'ble:m/ - but if we can't then we
                                        > > can
                                        > > > > keepit French or just undecided for now.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Some things ARE settled though, so PG /sk/ is written "sch", as
                                        > > > we've
                                        > > > > managed to agree on that. Same goes for "ch" for PG /-h/.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > As for PG /ai/, it can be <ee>/<e>, and if we can't agree on
                                        > > that
                                        > > > then
                                        > > > > leave it as <ai> for now, or change it to <ei>.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Other examples would be PG /T/ which we can write <d> and <t>
                                        > as
                                        > > > we've
                                        > > > > managed to agree on that, and PG /au/ which would stay <au> I
                                        > > think
                                        > > > as
                                        > > > > we haven't agreed yet.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Thus we can actually WRITE stuff in FS. We WILL have a common
                                        > > FS. It
                                        > > > > will change over time and will not be final, yes, but it will
                                        > > exist.
                                        > > > > ...and it WOULD be nice not to discuss orthography so much
                                        > > anymore
                                        > > > for
                                        > > > > a while - lets start saying things! We can have a "common FS"
                                        > > Lord's
                                        > > > > prayer even - not as a FINAL version of FS, but a provisional
                                        > > one.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > What do you think? I really hope we can agree to something
                                        > along
                                        > > > these
                                        > > > > lines - it's after all NOT final, so no-one need worry, but we
                                        > > can
                                        > > > > actually start writing stuff and documenting grammar, word
                                        > > meaning
                                        > > > > etc., which, to be honest, I think is going to be a much less
                                        > > > > contentious issue mostly.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
                                        > wrote:
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > I assume you are playing devil's advocate with that
                                        > > > suggestion
                                        > > > > > > Ingmar.
                                        > > > > > > > I think we just should accept a few ambiguities with
                                        > > regard
                                        > > > to
                                        > > > > > > whether
                                        > > > > > > > "e" is [e:] or [@] and get on with developing other areas
                                        > > of
                                        > > > the
                                        > > > > > > > language. German, Danish, Norwegian seem to survive in
                                        > > spite
                                        > > > of
                                        > > > > > > these
                                        > > > > > > > ambiguities. Norwegian is the only one of the those 3
                                        > that
                                        > > > mark
                                        > > > > > > > short/long vowels consistently with doubled consonants,
                                        > > > (German and
                                        > > > > > > > Danish have the same general principle but apply it in a
                                        > > more
                                        > > > > > > > haphazard manner). But even in Norwegian, you would still
                                        > > get
                                        > > > the
                                        > > > > > > > bosem problem.
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > The issue of reguler/regular/regulair/regulär is a
                                        > > slightly
                                        > > > > > > different
                                        > > > > > > > issue, which needs some more debate IMHO.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > And who's the devil in this case?
                                        > > > > > > But you missed my point: that there's so much talk about FS
                                        > > > spelling
                                        > > > > > > and so little about the language itself.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > Ingmar
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > The concept of "to play the devil's advocate", is that you
                                        > > suggest
                                        > > > > > something obviously extreme and undesirable in order to make
                                        > > your
                                        > > > > > preferred idea seem more reasonable by contrast. The devil in
                                        > > this
                                        > > > > > case is SAMPA.
                                        > > > > > I thought talk about spelling IS talk about the language.
                                        > > Having
                                        > > > an
                                        > > > > > allgemen schrivwis is important to the future of the
                                        > language.
                                        > > We
                                        > > > need
                                        > > > > > to know that we are all writing/talking about the same thing.
                                        > > FS
                                        > > > will
                                        > > > > > be an artificial language. It will (at least initially) be a
                                        > > > language
                                        > > > > > that is written way more than it is spoken. Unlike in a
                                        > natural
                                        > > > > > language we can allow the orthographic system dictate the
                                        > > > phonological
                                        > > > > > system -- in a natural language the opposite is normally
                                        > true.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > What about the language do you wish to discuss instead?
                                        > > Grammar,
                                        > > > > > vocabulary?
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.