Re: New file uploaded to folkspraak
- Just one thing before I leave:
You're correct, it should be "an", not "on". (Unfortunately Wikibooks
is offline now.)
The Wordschatt you are using is Sprak, which was formerly called
"Folksprak", and was very close to the "Folksprak" David, Ingmar and I
agreed on. But little differences like Folksprak "stae" vs. Sprak
"stoe" have occured. The Wordschatt now is "Sprak", and still very
similar to Folksprak, yet not identical.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "joe.hadoken" <joe.hadoken@...> wrote:
> Hi stephan,
> actually the text should had been a folksprak text anyway.
> And I took almost all the words and grammar from the older
> folksprak-wordschatt and grammar, where posted in wikipedia.
> I had no idea about Sprak, but now I'll going to write in sprak, so
> I've acceptet your corrections.
> Maybe thatï¿½s why you have wondered about:
> The "b" isnï¿½t morphed into "v"
> Sorry, I wasn't aware of that and I've corrected that (thanks to you).
> I'm used to the "b" like ger.: verzaubert, wich isn't morphed in the
> german language.
> So I wrote also "elb" not "elv". Sorry!
> (By the way, Iï¿½m from Germany. May I ask where are you from?)
> The i-mutated -o-
> Thanks to you. I've changed that.
> From where stems "war"?
> The answer lies in the question above. I took "war" from the older
> folksprak-wordschatt list wich means "where", like in germanic:
> "hwar", "hwara".an other form is also : "hwer", "hwï¿½r".
> So it spells in some modern germanic languages "hvor" in norwegic,
> "where" in english or in netherl.: "waar".
> Does "ringsporen" make us halucinating?
> "Sporen" means tracks. In germanic it is spelled: "spuram". Like in
> ger.: "Spur"; eng.: "spoor" (not spore), "track"; norw.: "spor" and
> netherl.: "spoor".
> Threre is also "slï¿½dï¿½", engl.: "slot", (animal track).
> So i didnï¿½t mean to describe "halucinogeneous-rings making ghosts and
> elves", but just dance tracks in ring formation. Okay?
> However, rings wich turns you "stony mahony" are really assuming.
> Sounds pretty funny anyway!! (lol)
> I used "ï¿½d" instead of "ï¿½ed", because it is written in the folksprak
> grammar to write it in that way (I thought).
> (Or did I get into a halucinating ringspor?)
> "wangen" and "maden"
> Yup! "Wangen" or "maden" means meadow, in ger. "Wiese", or "Wangen".
> Wangen is an old fashioned word of south german dialects and means a
> stubbed or cleaned area in a meadow.
> Iï¿½m not sure if I have morphed the germanic: "madwï¿½",
> "mathwï¿½" (with engl. -th-) correctly into "mad".
> Further words are: angjo (norw.: eng), wanga-, wangaz and wisï¿½.
> I've changed "sik" into "si"
> But I wonder why "si" and not "sik", "sig", "sich", "sek",
> "seg" or "sech"? Other than english, the end-consonant in all the rest
> of the standart modern-german languages is still there.
> So what's wrong with "sik"? germanic: "sik".
> Of course meal is quite better and not really "med".
> I didnï¿½t recognized that meal exists in all modern-german languages.
> mï¿½l in swedish, danish and norwegic
> Mahl in german
> meal in english
> maal in netherlandic and
> mï¿½lam, mï¿½lam in germanic
> The reason, why I took "med" was:
> Germanic: matiz, matjam
> norwegic: mat
> swedisch: mat
> icelandic: matur
> BUT I wasn't aware of the difference of
> english: meat and
> german: mett and met(met - some kind of very fine, well chopped pork
> or beef sometimes as sausage; met ï¿½ honey wine ).
> ï¿½for dee de menschen schull si wel bewareï¿½
> ï¿½ means ï¿½
> ï¿½the people should be aware ofï¿½
> Why I took teueï¿½
> germanic: "taugjan", "tauhjan", "teuhan", "tugon" or "tugjan".
> I guess then the origin of "tyg" is "tugon" or "tugjan".
> I took "tauhjan" and "taugjan" to morphe them into teue and teuge. But
> it means actually the same.
> I was thinking about to set "teuge" for take and "teu" for pull.
> What's your oninion?
> Thatï¿½s why I wrote "inteugening" and "teu"...
> By "inteugening" I ment to consume. So should I take the the loan word
> "consume" or the germanic "intakening"?
> Or just to "drink" and to "eat"?
> I agree with "bi" and "at". But why "on" and not "an"? The germanic
> word is "an" and "ana".
> I'll also go through the rest of your corrections.
> Hope you understand the context now (?).
> Well this little story is just about one of the legends and myths of
> our germanic heritage wich they were told.
> I don't really think you made any mistakes.
> Probably I have. Haven't I?
> Thanks very much for your help!
> Mid hertlik groeten,
- Oh, I get it, "bernstone" = "amber", and therefore relates to electricity (the original meaning of Greek _elektron_, and like Icelandic <rafmagn> "electricity", literally "amber-power"), so "bernstonebit" is an electron. Is "bern-" from Middle English _bernen_ "to burn"? Or something else? [oh, actually I looked up "Bernstein" in Kluge and found that "Bern-" is from Low German _bernen_ "brennen" and "Bernstein" refers to "Brennbares Baumharz"]
From: Erik <ditassp2@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:50:31 PM
Subject: [folkspraak] Re: New file uploaded to folkspraak
> This is hilarious! I can actually understand much of it, and I must say I like it! But what is a "bernstone"?Sounds like German "Bernstein", English "amber"(?)
--- In email@example.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
> This is hilarious! I can actually understand much of it, and I must say I like it! But what is a "bernstone"?
> I'm still laughing and laughing.
> From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 2:29:47 AM
> Subject: [folkspraak] Re: New file uploaded to folkspraak
> And take a look at this text !
> For most of its being, mankind did not know what things are made
> of, but could only guess. With the growth of worldken, we began
> to learn, and today we have a beholding of stuff and work that
> watching bears out, both in the workstead and in daily life.
> The underlying kinds of stuff are the *firststuffs*, which link
> together in sundry ways to give rise to the rest. Formerly we
> knew of ninety-two firststuffs, from waterstuff, the lightest and
> barest, to ymirstuff, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such
> as aegirstuff and helstuff.
> The firststuffs have their being as motes called *unclefts*.
> These are mightly small; one seedweight of waterstuff holds a
> tale of them like unto two followed by twenty-two naughts. Most
> unclefts link together to make what are called *bulkbits*. Thus,
> the waterstuff bulkbit bestands of two waterstuff unclefts, the
> sourstuff bulkbit of two sourstuff unclefts, and so on. (Some
> kinds, such as sunstuff, keep alone; others, such as iron, cling
> together in ices when in the fast standing; and there are yet
> more yokeways.) When unlike clefts link in a bulkbit, they make
> *bindings*. Thus, water is a binding of two waterstuff unclefts
> with one sourstuff uncleft, while a bulkbit of one of the
> forestuffs making up flesh may have a thousand thousand or more
> unclefts of these two firststuffs together with coalstuff and
> At first is was thought that the uncleft was a hard thing that
> could be split no further; hence the name. Now we know it is made
> up of lesser motes. There is a heavy *kernel* with a forward
> bernstonish lading, and around it one or more light motes with
> backward ladings. The least uncleft is that of ordinary
> waterstuff. Its kernel is a lone forwardladen mote called a
> *firstbit*. Outside it is a backwardladen mote called a
> *bernstonebit*. The firstbit has a heaviness about 1840-fold that
> of the bernstonebit. Early worldken folk thought bernstonebits
> swing around the kernel like the earth around the sun, but now we
> understand they are more like waves or clouds.
> In all other unclefts are found other motes as well, about as
> heavy as the firstbit but with no lading, known as *neitherbits*.
> We know a kind of waterstuff with one neitherbit in the kernel
> along with the firstbit; another kind has two neitherbits. Both
> kinds are seldom.
> The next greatest firststuff is sunstuff, which has two firstbits
> and two bernstonebits. The everyday sort also has two neitherbits
> in the kernel. If there are more or less, the uncleft will soon
> break asunder. More about this later.
> The third firststuff is stonestuff, with three firstbits, three
> bernstonebits, and its own share of neitherbits. And so it goes,
> on through such everyday stuffs as coalstuff (six firstbits) or
> iron (26) to ones more lately found. Ymirstuff (92) was the last
> until men began to make some higher still.
> It is the bernstonebits that link, and so their tale fastsets how
> a firststuff behaves and what kinds of bulkbits it can help make.
> The worldken of this behaving, in all its manifold ways, is
> called *minglingken*. Minglingers have found that as the
> uncleftish tale of the firststuffs (that is, the tale of
> firststuffs in their kernels) waxes, after a while they begin to
> show ownships not unlike those of others that went before them.
> So, for a showdeal, stonestuff (3), glasswortstuff (11),
> potashstuff (19), redstuff (37), and bluegraystuff (55) can each
> link with only one uncleft of waterstuff, while coalstuff (6),
> flintstuff (14), germanstuff (22), tin (50), and lead (82) can
> each link with four. This is readily seen when all are set forth
> in what is called the *roundaround board of the firststuffs*.
> When an uncleft or a bulkbit wins one or more bernstonebits above
> its own, it takes on a backward lading. When it loses one or
> more, it takes on a forward lading. Such a mote is called a
> *farer*, for that the drag between unlike ladings flits it. When
> bernstonebits flit by themselves, it may be as a bolt of
> lightning, a spark off some faststanding chunk, or the everyday
> flow of bernstoneness through wires.
> Coming back to the uncleft itself, the heavier it is, the more
> neitherbits as well as firstbits in its kernel. Indeed, soon the
> tale of neitherbits is the greater. Unclefts with the same tale
> of firstbits but unlike tales of neitherbits are called
> *samesteads*. Thus, everyday sourstuff has eight neitherbits with
> its eight firstbits, but there are also kinds with five, six,
> seven, nine, ten, and eleven neitherbits. A samestead is known by
> the tale of both kernel motes, so that we have sourstuff-13,
> sourstuff-14, and so on, with sourstuff-16 being by far the most
> found. Having the same number of bernstonebits, the samesteads of
> a firststuff behave almost alike minglingly. They do show some
> unlikenesses, outstandingly among the heavier ones, and these can
> be worked to sunder samesteads from each other.
> Most samesteads of every firststuff are unabiding. Their kernels
> break up, each at its own speed. This speed is written as the
> *half-life*, which is how long it takes half of any deal of the
> samestead thus to shift itself. The doing is known as
> *lightrotting*. It may happen fast or slowly, and in any of
> sundry ways, offhanging on the makeup of the kernel. A kernel may
> spit out two firstbits with two neitherbits, that is, a sunstuff
> kernel, thus leaping two steads back in the roundaround board and
> four weights back in heaviness. It may give off a bernstonebit
> from a neitherbit, which thereby becomes a firstbit and thrusts
> the uncleft one stead up in the board while keeping the same
> weight. It may give off a *forwardbit*, which is a mote with the
> same weight as a bernstonebit but a forward lading, and thereby
> spring one stead down in the board while keeping the same weight.
> Often, too, a mote is given off with neither lading nor
> heaviness, called the *weeneitherbit*. In much lightrotting, a
> mote of light with most short wavelength comes out as well.
> For although light oftenest behaves as a wave, it can be looked
> on as a mote, the *lightbit*. We have already said by the way
> that a mote of stuff can behave not only as a chunk, but as a
> wave. Down among the unclefts, things do not happen in steady
> flowings, but in leaps between bestandings that are forbidden.
> The knowledge-hunt of this is called *lump beholding*.
> Nor are stuff and work unakin. Rather, they are groundwise the
> same, and one can be shifted into the other. The kinship between
> them is that work is like unto weight manifolded by the fourside
> of the haste of light.
> By shooting motes into kernels, worldken folk have shifted
> samesteads of one firststuff into samesteads of another. Thus did
> they make ymirstuff into aegirstuff and helstuff, and they have
> afterward gone beyond these. The heavier firststuffs are all
> highly lightrottish and therefore are not found in the
> Some of the higher samesteads are *splitly*. That is, when a
> neitherbit strikes the kernel of one, as for a showdeal
> ymirstuff-235, it bursts into lesser kernels and free
> neitherbits; the latter can then split more ymirstuff-235. When
> this happens, weight shifts into work. It is not much of the
> whole, but nevertheless it is awesome.
> With enough strength, lightweight unclefts can be made to
> togethermelt. In the sun, through a row of strikings and
> lightrottings, four unclefts of waterstuff in this wise become
> one of sunstuff. Again some weight is lost as work, and again
> this is greatly big when set beside the work gotten from a
> minglingish doing such as fire.
> Today we wield both kind of uncleftish doings in weapons, and
> kernelish splitting gives us heat and bernstoneness. We hope to
> do likewise with togethermelting, which would yield an unhemmed
> wellspring of work for mankindish goodgain.
> Soothly we live in mighty years!
> --- In email@example.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
> > Nice work, Andrew, looks neat.
> > I've been 'fantasizing' about a more Germanic as well once and a while, but the outcome in my version wasn't as archaic as your Englisc
> > in pronunciation and grammar, but more like present day English without the enormous load of Romance loanwords. And probably also less Old Norse in it. I think the grammar should maybe be a little more complicated than in modern English, e.g. verb conjugation, two genders/articles etc.
> > Something like this:
> > Folkspraak is being made up as a mean Germanish tongue (a "Twixgermanish", if thou willst). Once ready, Folkspraak should be quickly to learn by any born speaker of a Germanish tongue, a group telling over 465 million born speakers (with an onfilling 300 to 900 million speaking English as a twaid tongue). After many individual forshed Folksprak varieties for over ten years, since the end of 2010 there is a kind of Standard Folksprak, withleads are ony about. Until now there are already English to Folksprak and Folksprak to English wordbooks to get. Folkspraak is not meant to be made up by any one alone, but is a samely work shapen by all interested parties, following to the charter guidelines. Thou canst draw by a word to the tongue merely by sending an e-mail listing thy word, its meaning and its shape in three other Germanish tongues (in onfilling to English). Thou canst give feedback and help shape the tongue as well.
> > Ingmar
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This email message is a notification to let you know that
> > > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the folkspraak
> > > group.
> > >
> > > File : /GRAMMAR OF ALTERNATE ENGLISC.docx
> > > Uploaded by : swartsaxon <anjarrette@>
> > > Description : Grammar of my alternate evolution of English (based on Anglian and West Saxon hybrid)
> > >
> > > You can access this file at the URL:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak/files/GRAMMAR%20OF%20ALTERNATE%20ENGLISC.docx
> > >
> > > To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> > > http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > swartsaxon <anjarrette@>
> > >
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]