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

Re: Source Langs

Expand Messages
  • David Parke
    I don t particularly want these words, but they are words that are made possible with this criterion. Like I said, often there are situations within the
    Message 1 of 23 , Aug 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't particularly want these words, but they are words that are
      made possible with this criterion. Like I said, often there are
      situations within the germanic languages where there isn't a clear
      majority, looking beyond the germanic languages at what might be more
      internationally recognized, gives another indication of which way to go.

      Not every student of FS will be a native germanic language speaker. It
      may be of interest to people outside the germanic region, who want an
      easy access to germanic languages.

      The idea of international recognition is that maybe a FS student will
      think "I don't recognize that word from any of the Germanic languages
      that I know, but it looks a little bit like a word I know from
      French/Russian, maybe it means the same"


      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Point taken, there aren't very many slavic borrowings into the
      > > germlangs. But there are a few instances where having Russian would
      > > allow in a word that otherwise I wouldn't allow.
      >
      > I see. But is that the reason to have Russian as a "half source
      > lang", just because you want these particular few words in Folksprak?
      > You can have them anyway in your variety if you want, it's your
      > choice, isn't it?
      > I myself think FS can do without these examples, because there are
      > easier ways.
      >
      > Instead of "tolke", which doesn't ring any bells for German or
      > English speakers, we can use an equivalent of Dutch "vertalen" or
      > German "übersetzen".

      There is also German "dolmetchen" which is obscurely related to
      tolken/tolke/tolka/tolkovat'. And I didn't suggest that this word
      would be used instead of "oversette", but as an addition.


      >
      > Instead of "lyden", which means nothing to English or Scandinavian
      > speakers, we can have "folk", or just the plural of "mennisch" (man,
      > human being).

      This would be in addition to "folk". And it may even have a subtly
      different meaning.





      >
      > For whip it's a bit more complicated, Dutch has "zweep", that's the
      > English word + s-, so "swip"?, both too different from "Peitsche".
      > But Dutch also has "gesel", verb "geselen" (stress 1st syll), and I
      > suppose that word will have cognates in German and Scandinavian too.
      > Another solution is to call it "hitting rope" or something like
      > that.

      This is a good example of an instance where the germanic languages are
      split, but looking beyond them gives us an indication.



      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > > Examples:
      > > FS pitsch, n. = whip, scourge
      > > cf DE Peitsche, DA/NO/SV pisk, Russian bič
      > >
      > > FS tolke, v. = interpret
      > > cf NL tolken, DA/NO tolke, SV tolke, Russian tolkovat'
      > >
      > > FS lyden, n., plural = people.
      > > cf NL lieden, lui, luitjes, DE Leute, Russian ljudi
      > >
      > > Admittedly the case of Germanic-Slavic the traffic is mostly in the
      > > other direction and there are many words of germanic origin in
      > > Russian. In some cases these give extra support to a word that has
      > > cognates in only 2 of the germanic source languages.
      > >
      > > Example:
      > > FS kartoffel n. = potato
      > > cf DE Kartoffel, DA kartoffel, Russian kartofel'
      > >
      > > And don't ignore the fact that Romance languages also borrow words
      > > from germanic languages -- French especially.
      > >
      > > The point is I'm more interested in the overlap in vocabulary than
      > who
      > > borrowed from whom.
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > French (and Latin/Romance in general) is an important source of
      > > > borrowings for Germanic, yes, but Russian (or Slavonic)?
      > Important?
      > > > No, Greek is far more important then, or even Arabic...
      > > > And the Russian words that could support certain Germanic
      > sources,
      > > > are usually borrowed themselves from French/Latin/Greek or
      > > > other "internationalisms".
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > My primary aim is still pan-germanic recognition, and with 4/5
      > of
      > > > the
      > > > > sources being Germanic, that's what is likely to be the result.
      > > > However,
      > > > > often there is no clear majority in the germanic languages and
      > thus
      > > > no
      > > > > clear indication of which way FS should go. By adding a
      > secondary
      > > > > criteria of wider international recognition, I have another
      > > > indication
      > > > > of which way to go when the germanic languages are split. And I
      > > > chose
      > > > > French and Russian because they are important borrowers from
      > > > germanic
      > > > > languages and sources of borrowings into germanic languages. If
      > I
      > > > had
      > > > > chosen Chinese or Arabic, it would have added very little to
      > the
      > > > > analysis because they have little influence over the germanic
      > > > languages
      > > > > nor are they influenced by them. French and Russian (or
      > formerly IL
      > > > and
      > > > > Slovio) were chosen because they are "compatible" with our
      > germanic
      > > > > source languages, part of the same Sprachbund you could say. I
      > > > realise
      > > > > this would make my FS have greater proportion of borrowings
      > from
      > > > Romance
      > > > > or Slavic sources than if it used just the germanic source
      > > > languages.
      > > > > But germanic languages borrowing from especially Romance (also
      > > > Slavic)
      > > > > is not a wholely unknown phenomenon!
      > > > >
      > > > > I have noticed Russian has a large number of words in it's
      > > > vocabulary
      > > > > that are cognate to words in our Germanic languages. This can
      > be
      > > > for a
      > > > > number of reasons;
      > > > > Borrowing from a common source (especially Romance or Greek),
      > > > церковь /
      > > > > cerkov' (kerk), kuhnja (kitchen), logika (logik), mentalitet
      > > > (mentaliteit)
      > > > > Slavic borrowing from Germanic such as delit' (delen) or kupit'
      > > > (köpa)
      > > > > or hleb (loaf) or or luk (Lauch)
      > > > > Germanic borrowing from Slavic such as granica (Grenze) or bič
      > > > (pisk)
      > > > > Common Indo-European heritage such as serebro (zilver) or
      > tysjača
      > > > > (thousand), ljubit' (lieben)
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > chamavian wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > >Every Dutchman knows what a 'pisang' is, right, a banana, we
      > > > borrowed
      > > > > >it from Malay as well, not only Afrikaans did. There are not
      > so
      > > > many
      > > > > >words of African origin in Afrikaans, but of course there are
      > a
      > > > few,
      > > > > >at least more than in Standard Dutch.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >I'm not sure if and what this French and Russian connection
      > adds
      > > > to a
      > > > > >Germanic conlang. You've got that from Interlingua, I guess,
      > which
      > > > > >has German and Russian as "controle source languages" (and
      > English
      > > > as
      > > > > >one of its main source languages), but Interlingua is meant to
      > be
      > > > an
      > > > > >international, widely understood language, not only a Pan
      > Romance.
      > > > > >And that is not the same with Folksprak, is it?
      > > > > >
      > > > > >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>I think there are some other influences on Afrikaans, the
      > word
      > > > for
      > > > > >>banana is "piesang", which is I believe of Indonesian origin.
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >Plenty of
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>African words too I guess.
      > > > > >>If I did sample Afrikaans, I would count it in the same
      > grouping
      > > > as
      > > > > >>Dutch, so that together they'd count for a maximum of one
      > fifth
      > > > of
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >my
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>reckoning (EN, DE, Dutch, Scandy French+Russian) each
      > counting as
      > > > a
      > > > > >>fifth part of my reckoning.
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>I almost forgot, French and Russian do not count as two
      > separate
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >votes
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>-- if a feature is shared by both, it only counts as one. So
      > I
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >wouldn't
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>allow a word present in only one germanic language plus both
      > > > French
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >and
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>Russian. For example the Sams- in DE Samstag is cognate with
      > the
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >Sam in
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>French samedi and Russian
      > �`�`�'ббо�`‚а /
      > > > subbota. I wouldn't say
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >this adds up
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>to 3 cognates, since French and Russian can count for a
      > maximum
      > > > of
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >one.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>chamavian wrote:
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>>Flemish is not a language, it's only the name often used for
      > > > Dutch
      > > > > >>>spoken in "Flanders", the Northern half of Belgium by about
      > 6
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >million
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>people. The official language is Standard Dutch, same as in
      > The
      > > > > >>>Netherlands. Of the rest of the Belgians, about half a
      > million
      > > > are
      > > > > >>>bilingual Dutch/French in Brussels, about two hundred
      > thousands
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >speak
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>German, and the so called Walloons speak French and Walloon
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >dialects.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>More specific, Flemish also means: the Dutch dialects of the
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >Belgian
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>provinces of West Flanders and East Flanders, and the Dutch
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >dialect
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>of French Flanders in N W France, and the Dutch dialect of
      > the
      > > > > >>>Southernmost area of the Dutch province of Zeeland.
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>Afrikaans is seen as a seperate language, but actually an
      > > > offshoot
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >of
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>300 yrs old Dutch, so considering the Germanic stock,
      > there's
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >nothing
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>in Afrikaans that can't be found in Dutch or Dutch dialects,
      > or
      > > > > >>>sometimes in English. A Dutchman can understand any
      > Afrikaans
      > > > text
      > > > > >>>without problems, but not always without laughing out loud ;-
      > )
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>Anyway, they can be counted as one, as Dutch
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>Chamavian
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Nightvid F. Cole"
      > <ncole@>
      > > > > >>>wrote:
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>Just a curiosity, are you counting Flemish, (standard
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >netherlandic)
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>Dutch and Afrikaans as a unit also?
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>-Nightvid
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>----- Original Message -----
      > > > > >>>>From: David Parke <parked@>
      > > > > >>>>Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:32 am
      > > > > >>>>Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: Source Langs
      > > > > >>>>To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>>Speaking of source languages, I might as well anounce an
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>important
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>(but
      > > > > >>>>>subtle) change to mine.
      > > > > >>>>>Up until now, I have had as my primary source languages,
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >English,
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>Dutch,
      > > > > >>>>>German Danish+Norwegian+Swedish (treated as one unit). I
      > also
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >had
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>2
      > > > > >>>>>secondary source languages which were non-germanic (and
      > > > > >>>>>artificial);
      > > > > >>>>>Interlingua and Slovio.
      > > > > >>>>>My scheme was that a word could be in FS if there were
      > > > cognates
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>in
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>at
      > > > > >>>>>least 3 of the primary source languages. OR in at least 2
      > of
      > > > the
      > > > > >>>>>primary
      > > > > >>>>>source languages PLUS cognates in either IL or Slovio. So
      > a
      > > > word
      > > > > >>>>>that
      > > > > >>>>>was present in just 2 germanic languages but was also
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >represented
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>in
      > > > > >>>>>several widely spoken other languages was preferable to a
      > word
      > > > > >>>>>just
      > > > > >>>>>present in 2 germanic languages.
      > > > > >>>>>ALSO there was the English + German trump card, where a
      > word
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>could
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>be in
      > > > > >>>>>FS with cognates in only German and English.
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>I have, after much pondering, had a change of mind on this
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>scheme.
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>Because IL has English and German as source languages, I
      > would
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >be
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>counting them more than once (in addition to the trump
      > card).
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >And
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>Russian was also represented in IL and in Slovio. Also I
      > have
      > > > > >>>>>decided
      > > > > >>>>>that I am not so keen on Slovio as a conlang -- it seems
      > too
      > > > > >>>>>artificial.
      > > > > >>>>>What changed my mind about Slovio was when I discovered
      > that
      > > > > >>>>>Slovio's
      > > > > >>>>>word for "botany" was "botan-ia" when EVERY natural slavic
      > > > > >>>>>language was
      > > > > >>>>>using "botanika" (or a cyrillic equivalent).
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>So I will not longer use IL and Slovio, but I will be
      > using
      > > > > >>>>>instead the
      > > > > >>>>>natural languages, French and Russian. These two languages
      > are
      > > > > >>>>>important
      > > > > >>>>>borrowers and lenders to and from Germanic languages. They
      > are
      > > > > >>>>>also very
      > > > > >>>>>widely internationally recognised. So my scheme now is
      > that a
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>word
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>can
      > > > > >>>>>be in FS, if it has cognates present in just 2 of the
      > primary
      > > > > >>>>>source
      > > > > >>>>>languages plus at least one of French or Russian. The
      > effect
      > > > of
      > > > > >>>>>this
      > > > > >>>>>change is fairly subtle. But it does for example allow in
      > > > > >>>>>"kartoffel" as
      > > > > >>>>>an alternative word for "potato". So my FS now has "potat"
      > > > based
      > > > > >>>>>on EN
      > > > > >>>>>potato, NL patat, NO potet, SV potatis or alternatively
      > > > > >>>>>"kartoffel"
      > > > > >>>>>based on DE Kartoffel, DA kartoffel and RU ÚÐà â
      > > > ÞäÕÛì
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >(kartofel')
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>"potat" used to be "patat", when I was using IL as one of
      > the
      > > > > >>>>>source
      > > > > >>>>>languages, which has "patata". With the IL word out of the
      > > > > >>>>>picture, the
      > > > > >>>>>centre of gravity shifts more from "patat" to "potat".
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>chamavian wrote:
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>Yes, you're right, I think. As a native Low Saxon (LS)
      > > > speaker
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >I
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>feel
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>kind of sorry to leave it out as a source language, but
      > the
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>funny
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>thing is that any result of creating Folksprak turns out
      > to
      > > > be
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>closer
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>to Low Saxon ("Low German") than to any other Germanic
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>language ;-)
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>I think because LS is in certain ways a natural FS, being
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>closest
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>related to all other Germ langs: Low Saxon is the closest
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>relative of
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>the three big West Germanic languages Dutch (very close),
      > to
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>German
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>(pretty close) and to English (together with Frisian, the
      > > > name
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>Anglo-
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>Saxon says it already); but from a Scandinavian point of
      > > > view,
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>LS
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>is
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>also the closest relative. Low Saxon had an enormous
      > > > influence
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>to
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>the
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>Scandinavian languages in the past, a huge part of Scandy
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>vocabulary
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>was borrowed from LS originally.
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>Actually your (David's) variety, not having LS as a
      > source
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>language,
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>is even closer to it than mine, which had it...
      > > > > >>>>>>That's probably because you counted the three
      > Scandinavian
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>languages
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>Swedish/Danish/Norwegian as one quarter together, whereas
      > for
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >me
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>>Danish/Swedish/NewNorwegian made up three eighths of the
      > > > total,
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>so my
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>turned out to be a bit more Northern orientated...
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>Chamavian
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke"
      > <parked@>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>wrote:
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>I think with EN, DE ,NL, DA/NO/SV we have a wide
      > sampling of
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>the
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>variation among the Germanic languages. There would be
      > > > little
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>in
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>those
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>small languages which we leave out, which are not
      > > > represented
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>in at
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>least one of our source languages. The biggest
      > ommission, by
      > > > > >>>>>>>population, I could say would be Low German/Platt/Low
      > Saxon.
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>This is
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>language community is probably at least as big as Danish
      > or
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>Norwegian.
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>But whereas it is a not a small language community it is
      > a
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>minority
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>language, and almost all the speakers would be
      > bilingually
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>fluent in
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>one of our source languages -- Dutch or German (or
      > Russian
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>even!)
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>Also FS will have some resemblance to Low Saxon, for
      > > > example,
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>even
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>if
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>we don't include it as a source language, simply because
      > Low
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>Saxon
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>is
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>a germanic language and we are sampling other closely
      > > > related
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>Germanic
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>languages. The creators of Interlingua did not refer to
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >Catalan
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>or
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>Occitan or Romanian or Rhaeto-Romance yet Interlingua
      > still
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >has
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>some
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>similarities to these languages -- it's probably just as
      > > > close
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>to
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>Catalan as it is to a primary sample language such as
      > French
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >or
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>Italian.
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>And the issue of effort is definitely a biggie. With
      > some of
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>those
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>small languages, there are less easily available
      > resources
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>(detailed
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>online dictionaries in particular). So it's even greater
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >effort
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>to
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>service increasingly small communities.
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc"
      > > > <entrelenga@>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>wrote:
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>If we consider English alone, we have 73% of the
      > Germlang
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>native
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>speakers;
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>If we add German, we have 90%;
      > > > > >>>>>>>>Plus Dutch and the three "Scandies", we have almost
      > 98%;
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>At this point, we have left out Afrikaans, Yiddish,
      > Scots,
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>Frisian,
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>Icelandic and Faroese; yet they account for less than
      > 3% of
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>the
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>Germlang native speakers;
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>Question: does it pay to have this extra effort (as
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>considering
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>these
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>minor languages) if we have so little gain (roughly
      > 0.37%
      > > > per
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>new
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>language... Icelandic itself accounts for 0.006%)?
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>How "international"
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>is such a decision?
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------
      > ----
      > > > --
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >-
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>-
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>>>------
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > > > >>>>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > > > > >>>>>>Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.10/976 -
      > Release
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >Date:
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>27/08/2007 6:20 p.m.
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>>
      > > > > >>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>-------------------------------------------------------------
      > ----
      > > > --
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >-----
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > > > >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > > > > >>>Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.10/976 - Release
      > Date:
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >27/08/2007 6:20 p.m.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------
      > ----
      > > > -----
      > > > > >
      > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > > > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > > > > >Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.10/977 - Release
      > Date:
      > > > 28/08/2007 4:29 p.m.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.