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

Re: Schwa, dictionary notation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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 2 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 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 6 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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 7 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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 9 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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 11 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > 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 12 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 29 , Feb 1, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- 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 15 of 29 , Feb 2, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 29 , Feb 2, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- 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 17 of 29 , Feb 2, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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.