Re: FS basics: pronouns, verbs, numerals etc
- Yikes. I have to say I didn't realise all this stuff was still so up
in the air! I think it'll be a rather long time before we have one
language. I was vaguely using something like ig/mi, du/di, he/him,
si/hir, wi/uss, ji/iu, de/dem. As for "wese" I was on "iss", "ar" and
optional "bi" for first and maybe second person singular. For the past
"war" and maybe "was" as optional singular. Also "wes" for the present
for every person would be allowable, just like I was thinking of
allowing both "swimmd" and "swamm".
--- In email@example.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
> > One solution is slight unnatural modification that
> > make the overall pronoun system more consistent.
> > What you have proposed fits my ideal for the most part, but there are
> > a few shared forms that leave some potential for ambiguity.
> > These would be "et" for both subject and object of neuter 3rd person
> > singualar
> > And "her" for both object and possessive of feminine 3rd person
> singular .
> And EN "here"...
> > Think of some way to eliminate these, and we'd have the perfect
> > I once used "hin" for objective masculine 3rd person singular. This
> > freed up "him" to be used for objective neuter 3rd person singular.
> > This was somewhat unnatural, since in the germlangs that have lost the
> > accusative/dative distinction, the objective pronoun is based on the
> > original dative form, and "hin" is based on an accusative form LOL.
> > I'd be the laughing stock of the scholars at Theudiskon ;-)
> In the beginning I also made a "dir <-> din", "him <-> hin"
> distinction. :-)
> > > No, Dutch has 'was'/'waren', German 'war'/'waren', Scandi 'var',
> > > with 'a', and Engl has 'was' and *'wur', albeit spelt with 'e', so
> > > none of our source langs has an [E:] or [e:].
> > > This can only lead to FS 'war'/'ware'
> > I was trying to make the association with *aire a bit more obvious. If
> > we have irregular verbs, we should where possible tidy them up, so
> > they follow more easily learned patterns. We can make FS irregular
> > verb easier than natural irregular verbs, with just enough
> > irregularity to capture the Germanisch Gest. I would also propose
> Shouldn't it be "geust", btw?
> > "was" [Pas] for the singular past tense of "wese". This makes it
> Me, too.
> > closer to "is", the singular present tense. That way is/was and
> > aire/waire make near symmetrical pairings. (I'm not blind, I know the
> > vowel in "is" is not the same vowel as in "was", but changing the "-r"
> > to "-s" is a step in the direction of symmetry, and we can't take this
> > pattern thing too far.)
> So, what do you think about "my" wese?
> ik is [Is], wi er [Er]
> ik was, wi was
> ik hav wesen
> (and, optionally: "dat ik wese", "dat wi wese"; "wan ik were", "wan wi
> > > mmm, we could do it in all verbs, don't you think? Except for the
> > > ones ending in a vowel
> > >
> > > ik gev
> > > du gev
> > > hi gev
> > > wi geve
> > > ji geve
> > > de geve
> > >
> > This is how I have be declining normal verbs for more than one year
> > now! Many of the potentially irregular verbs work best, more naturally
> > if they are split into singular and plural forms (eg "is" vs "aire").
> > If we extent the singular-plural verb inflexion paradigm to all verbs,
> > it has the effect of making the irregular verbs more normal/regular,
> > since all verbs then follow some part of their inflexional pattern
> This is like a step towards:
> ik gev
> du giv
> hi giv
> wi geven
> ji geve
> de geven
> I want to get aways from conjugational patterns.
> > Agreed. Hesitantly The only good reason to keep the [@] would be for
> > simplicity, keeping down the number of rules that need to be learned.
> > But learning to drop the [@] for such verbs isn't a hard rule too
> > learn since it is common sense. It's like learning to take your shoes
> > off BEFORE attempting to remove your socks. It's not a rule that needs
> > to be taught ;-)
> It would be much simpler not to have -e in present tense. And that's
> why I'm against -e in present tense.
- --- In email@example.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
> > > That's my point. So "hun" and "han" would be appropriate FS
> > > even though there are excluesively Scandy (except if somebodycan
> > > prove that they are related to DE "Huhn" and DE "Hahn").this
> > No man, because we've agreed long ago that English, German, Dutch
> > and "Scandinavian" all count as a quarter for Folksprak. So in
> > case the Scandinavian form counts for just one quarter, but theWest
> > Germanic ones for three quarters. The conclusion is obvious...I.R.
> I don't remember such an agreement. I think there isn't one.
> English, German and Dutch should be counted as "Western Germanic"
No, there is and has been for ages. It is mentioned in so many
messages the last year, you must have read that. Because of the
number of speakers, the Scandinavian languages are counted as one, so
Danish, Swedish and Norwegian together weigh as much as German, or as
Dutch, or as English.
You'll remember that for Middelsprake, I had eight source languages
that I equally weighed: English, German, Dutch, Low Saxon, Danish,
Swedish, Frisian and New Norwegian. But this number and method was
considered inadequate, so after lots of discussion changed to the
present method. I changed this because I try to find agreement and
workability, otherwise there is no way to get progression in FS.
I don't think we should discuss this kind of thinks again, and we
should try to get a majority, and not stick to our own things coute
que coute, and delay everything.
> So, still, there is "she" vs. "hun" for me.
> In either case I'm going to have my version of "she" soon. Just
> it will be needed.