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

Orthography "-ee"

Expand Messages
  • stefichjo
    Hi David and Ingmar, After David said I m not going to use this , which was about the ortho -ee , I thought about it. -ee has in fact a flaw. For instance,
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi David and Ingmar,

      After David said "I'm not going to use this", which was about the
      ortho "-ee", I thought about it. "-ee" has in fact a flaw. For
      instance, if you have "ee" (DE "eh", "Ehe"), you don't know, for
      instance, if this is a denominalisation of an adjective ("the eternal
      one") "ee" (two sillables" or the noun itself "ee". The plural of the
      noun "ee" would be "een" (two sillables), which resembles the numeral
      "een".
      You may not have this ortho for this word, David and Ingmar, but
      that's the first word that came into my mind for this issue.

      Often "-ej" was proposed, which would yield:

      * dej, ej, ejn, fej, klej, nej, sej, snej, tej, wej

      But this causes clashes with "ej" (egg), "fej" (fairy, fay), "sej"
      (see) and "tej" (toe).

      But we could use "German" Dehnungs-h, because -h doesn't appear at the
      end of a stem. It would be either "j" or "w". So:

      * deh, eh, ehn, feh, kleh, neh, seh, sneh, teh, weh

      (Not sure about "ehn", maybe "ejn" or "een"?)

      Or nothing:

      * de, e, en, fe, kle, ne, se, sne, te, we

      Risking ambiguous forms (i.e. "de" and "en").

      What would be the best to do?

      Stephan
    • stefichjo
      Ooops, it should be After _Ingmar_ said. Sorry.
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Ooops, it should be "After _Ingmar_ said." Sorry.

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi David and Ingmar,
        >
        > After David said "I'm not going to use this", which was about the
        > ortho "-ee", I thought about it. "-ee" has in fact a flaw. For
        > instance, if you have "ee" (DE "eh", "Ehe"), you don't know, for
        > instance, if this is a denominalisation of an adjective ("the eternal
        > one") "ee" (two sillables" or the noun itself "ee". The plural of the
        > noun "ee" would be "een" (two sillables), which resembles the numeral
        > "een".
        > You may not have this ortho for this word, David and Ingmar, but
        > that's the first word that came into my mind for this issue.
        >
        > Often "-ej" was proposed, which would yield:
        >
        > * dej, ej, ejn, fej, klej, nej, sej, snej, tej, wej
        >
        > But this causes clashes with "ej" (egg), "fej" (fairy, fay), "sej"
        > (see) and "tej" (toe).
        >
        > But we could use "German" Dehnungs-h, because -h doesn't appear at the
        > end of a stem. It would be either "j" or "w". So:
        >
        > * deh, eh, ehn, feh, kleh, neh, seh, sneh, teh, weh
        >
        > (Not sure about "ehn", maybe "ejn" or "een"?)
        >
        > Or nothing:
        >
        > * de, e, en, fe, kle, ne, se, sne, te, we
        >
        > Risking ambiguous forms (i.e. "de" and "en").
        >
        > What would be the best to do?
        >
        > Stephan
        >
      • chamavian
        ... eternal ... the ... numeral ... at the ... in some of your examples: nothing de = the, en = a, se = see in others, depending on what the source langs have:
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
          >
          > Ooops, it should be "After _Ingmar_ said." Sorry.
          >
          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi David and Ingmar,
          > >
          > > After David said "I'm not going to use this", which was about the
          > > ortho "-ee", I thought about it. "-ee" has in fact a flaw. For
          > > instance, if you have "ee" (DE "eh", "Ehe"), you don't know, for
          > > instance, if this is a denominalisation of an adjective ("the
          eternal
          > > one") "ee" (two sillables" or the noun itself "ee". The plural of
          the
          > > noun "ee" would be "een" (two sillables), which resembles the
          numeral
          > > "een".
          > > You may not have this ortho for this word, David and Ingmar, but
          > > that's the first word that came into my mind for this issue.
          > >
          > > Often "-ej" was proposed, which would yield:
          > >
          > > * dej, ej, ejn, fej, klej, nej, sej, snej, tej, wej
          > >
          > > But this causes clashes with "ej" (egg), "fej" (fairy, fay), "sej"
          > > (see) and "tej" (toe).
          > >
          > > But we could use "German" Dehnungs-h, because -h doesn't appear
          at the
          > > end of a stem. It would be either "j" or "w". So:
          > >
          > > * deh, eh, ehn, feh, kleh, neh, seh, sneh, teh, weh
          > >
          > > (Not sure about "ehn", maybe "ejn" or "een"?)
          > >
          > > Or nothing:
          > >
          > > * de, e, en, fe, kle, ne, se, sne, te, we
          > >
          > > Risking ambiguous forms (i.e. "de" and "en").
          > >
          > > What would be the best to do?
          > >
          > > Stephan

          in some of your examples: nothing

          de = the, en = a, se = see

          in others, depending on what the source langs have: ei

          ei = egg, nei = no

          or eo/ew

          sneo/snew = snow etc


          de and en may have two pronos, with [@] and [e:], but we can chose to
          have always [e:], too. In German and most other source langs, for
          both 'a' and 'one' the same word is used, and for 'the' and 'THE' as
          well.

          If we'd have a rule: final -e in a monosyllabic is always [e:], the
          problem is solved.

          And if we'd have 'ee', then why not 'aa', 'oo', 'uu' etc as well?
          The ortho must be congruent
        • stefichjo
          ... Yes. I suggest to write ej , though (like David). ... How would you pronounce w after front vowel? I intentionally decided to drop w after front
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Ooops, it should be "After _Ingmar_ said." Sorry.
            > >
            > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Hi David and Ingmar,
            > > >
            > > > After David said "I'm not going to use this", which was about the
            > > > ortho "-ee", I thought about it. "-ee" has in fact a flaw. For
            > > > instance, if you have "ee" (DE "eh", "Ehe"), you don't know, for
            > > > instance, if this is a denominalisation of an adjective ("the
            > eternal
            > > > one") "ee" (two sillables" or the noun itself "ee". The plural of
            > the
            > > > noun "ee" would be "een" (two sillables), which resembles the
            > numeral
            > > > "een".
            > > > You may not have this ortho for this word, David and Ingmar, but
            > > > that's the first word that came into my mind for this issue.
            > > >
            > > > Often "-ej" was proposed, which would yield:
            > > >
            > > > * dej, ej, ejn, fej, klej, nej, sej, snej, tej, wej
            > > >
            > > > But this causes clashes with "ej" (egg), "fej" (fairy, fay), "sej"
            > > > (see) and "tej" (toe).
            > > >
            > > > But we could use "German" Dehnungs-h, because -h doesn't appear
            > at the
            > > > end of a stem. It would be either "j" or "w". So:
            > > >
            > > > * deh, eh, ehn, feh, kleh, neh, seh, sneh, teh, weh
            > > >
            > > > (Not sure about "ehn", maybe "ejn" or "een"?)
            > > >
            > > > Or nothing:
            > > >
            > > > * de, e, en, fe, kle, ne, se, sne, te, we
            > > >
            > > > Risking ambiguous forms (i.e. "de" and "en").
            > > >
            > > > What would be the best to do?
            > > >
            > > > Stephan
            >
            > in some of your examples: nothing
            >
            > de = the, en = a, se = see
            >
            > in others, depending on what the source langs have: ei
            >
            > ei = egg, nei = no

            Yes. I suggest to write "ej", though (like David).

            > or eo/ew
            >
            > sneo/snew = snow etc

            How would you pronounce "w" after front vowel?
            I intentionally decided to drop "w" after front vowel, because it is
            rather difficult to pronounce.

            brye (to brew), seel (soul), snie (to snow)
            vs. blaw (blue), dow (dew)


            > de and en may have two pronos, with [@] and [e:], but we can chose to
            > have always [e:], too. In German and most other source langs, for
            > both 'a' and 'one' the same word is used, and for 'the' and 'THE' as
            > well.

            Yes. This reminds me of particles vs. prepositions like "up":

            De sonn go up. (With a long "u" in "up". - particle)
            De ball ligg up de tak. (With a short "u" in "up". - preposition)

            > If we'd have a rule: final -e in a monosyllabic is always [e:], the
            > problem is solved.

            Indeed. Plain and simple.

            > And if we'd have 'ee', then why not 'aa', 'oo', 'uu' etc as well?
            > The ortho must be congruent

            "ee" would occur only in this case, but I agree that the ortho should
            be congruent, and that's why "ee" started to bug me.

            Thanks for answering, and sorry for thanking. ;-)

            Stephan
          • Matt Emson
            ... Well, as W in this circumstance would be a semivowel in English, I would suggest like the UE in the English word CLUE, but shorter and as if it ended with
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              stefichjo wrote:
              >> or eo/ew
              >>
              >> sneo/snew = snow etc
              >>
              >
              > How would you pronounce "w" after front vowel?
              > I intentionally decided to drop "w" after front vowel, because it is
              > rather difficult to pronounce.
              >
              > brye (to brew), seel (soul), snie (to snow)
              > vs. blaw (blue), dow (dew)
              >
              Well, as W in this circumstance would be a semivowel in English, I would
              suggest like the UE in the English word CLUE, but shorter and as if it
              ended with a W. Like "Oooh" in English. Like "Woow".

              So, Snew, would be "sneh'-oow"

              Maybe this is just a simpler cluster for an English speaker to
              pronounce. Stephen is right to avoid it if so.

              M
            • chamavian
              In at least English, Dutch and Danish, these diphthongs ending in [u] are very common, I don t see any difficulties here. When you speak English, you don t
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                In at least English, Dutch and Danish, these diphthongs ending in [u]
                are very common, I don't see any difficulties here. When you speak
                English, you don't drop em either, do you?

                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                > >
                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Ooops, it should be "After _Ingmar_ said." Sorry.
                > > >
                > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Hi David and Ingmar,
                > > > >
                > > > > After David said "I'm not going to use this", which was about
                the
                > > > > ortho "-ee", I thought about it. "-ee" has in fact a flaw. For
                > > > > instance, if you have "ee" (DE "eh", "Ehe"), you don't know,
                for
                > > > > instance, if this is a denominalisation of an adjective
                ("the
                > > eternal
                > > > > one") "ee" (two sillables" or the noun itself "ee". The
                plural of
                > > the
                > > > > noun "ee" would be "een" (two sillables), which resembles the
                > > numeral
                > > > > "een".
                > > > > You may not have this ortho for this word, David and Ingmar,
                but
                > > > > that's the first word that came into my mind for this issue.
                > > > >
                > > > > Often "-ej" was proposed, which would yield:
                > > > >
                > > > > * dej, ej, ejn, fej, klej, nej, sej, snej, tej, wej
                > > > >
                > > > > But this causes clashes with "ej" (egg), "fej" (fairy,
                fay), "sej"
                > > > > (see) and "tej" (toe).
                > > > >
                > > > > But we could use "German" Dehnungs-h, because -h doesn't
                appear
                > > at the
                > > > > end of a stem. It would be either "j" or "w". So:
                > > > >
                > > > > * deh, eh, ehn, feh, kleh, neh, seh, sneh, teh, weh
                > > > >
                > > > > (Not sure about "ehn", maybe "ejn" or "een"?)
                > > > >
                > > > > Or nothing:
                > > > >
                > > > > * de, e, en, fe, kle, ne, se, sne, te, we
                > > > >
                > > > > Risking ambiguous forms (i.e. "de" and "en").
                > > > >
                > > > > What would be the best to do?
                > > > >
                > > > > Stephan
                > >
                > > in some of your examples: nothing
                > >
                > > de = the, en = a, se = see
                > >
                > > in others, depending on what the source langs have: ei
                > >
                > > ei = egg, nei = no
                >
                > Yes. I suggest to write "ej", though (like David).
                >
                > > or eo/ew
                > >
                > > sneo/snew = snow etc
                >
                > How would you pronounce "w" after front vowel?
                > I intentionally decided to drop "w" after front vowel, because it is
                > rather difficult to pronounce.
                >
                > brye (to brew), seel (soul), snie (to snow)
                > vs. blaw (blue), dow (dew)
                >
                >
                > > de and en may have two pronos, with [@] and [e:], but we can
                chose to
                > > have always [e:], too. In German and most other source langs, for
                > > both 'a' and 'one' the same word is used, and for 'the' and 'THE'
                as
                > > well.
                >
                > Yes. This reminds me of particles vs. prepositions like "up":
                >
                > De sonn go up. (With a long "u" in "up". - particle)
                > De ball ligg up de tak. (With a short "u" in "up". - preposition)
                >
                > > If we'd have a rule: final -e in a monosyllabic is always [e:],
                the
                > > problem is solved.
                >
                > Indeed. Plain and simple.
                >
                > > And if we'd have 'ee', then why not 'aa', 'oo', 'uu' etc as well?
                > > The ortho must be congruent
                >
                > "ee" would occur only in this case, but I agree that the ortho
                should
                > be congruent, and that's why "ee" started to bug me.
                >
                > Thanks for answering, and sorry for thanking. ;-)
                >
                > Stephan
                >
              • stefichjo
                When we spoke about snow , for instance... DE Schnee NL sneeuw EN snow DA sne I felt like dropping the w (PG *snai-w-az), as in these words, too: seel
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  When we spoke about "snow", for instance...

                  DE Schnee
                  NL sneeuw
                  EN snow
                  DA sne

                  I felt like dropping the "w" (PG *snai-w-az), as in these words, too:

                  seel (instead of "sewel", EN "soul")
                  snie (instead of "sniwe", EN "to snow")
                  Tisdag (instead of "Tiwsdag", EN "Tuesday")
                  tiene (instead of "tiwene", EN "to serve", DE "dienen")
                  try (instead of "tryw", EN "true")


                  But when I speak with my verrie Dschörmän Äkzent, then I drop the "w"
                  in words like "snow" and "so" indeed. :-D

                  I guess it is my German background that makes me want to drop the "-w"
                  after front vowel. But a "w" would be handy in "eighed" (ewighed), on
                  the other hand.

                  Hm, hm, hm...

                  Stephan


                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > In at least English, Dutch and Danish, these diphthongs ending in [u]
                  > are very common, I don't see any difficulties here. When you speak
                  > English, you don't drop em either, do you?
                  >
                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Ooops, it should be "After _Ingmar_ said." Sorry.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Hi David and Ingmar,
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > After David said "I'm not going to use this", which was about
                  > the
                  > > > > > ortho "-ee", I thought about it. "-ee" has in fact a flaw. For
                  > > > > > instance, if you have "ee" (DE "eh", "Ehe"), you don't know,
                  > for
                  > > > > > instance, if this is a denominalisation of an adjective
                  > ("the
                  > > > eternal
                  > > > > > one") "ee" (two sillables" or the noun itself "ee". The
                  > plural of
                  > > > the
                  > > > > > noun "ee" would be "een" (two sillables), which resembles the
                  > > > numeral
                  > > > > > "een".
                  > > > > > You may not have this ortho for this word, David and Ingmar,
                  > but
                  > > > > > that's the first word that came into my mind for this issue.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Often "-ej" was proposed, which would yield:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > * dej, ej, ejn, fej, klej, nej, sej, snej, tej, wej
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > But this causes clashes with "ej" (egg), "fej" (fairy,
                  > fay), "sej"
                  > > > > > (see) and "tej" (toe).
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > But we could use "German" Dehnungs-h, because -h doesn't
                  > appear
                  > > > at the
                  > > > > > end of a stem. It would be either "j" or "w". So:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > * deh, eh, ehn, feh, kleh, neh, seh, sneh, teh, weh
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > (Not sure about "ehn", maybe "ejn" or "een"?)
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Or nothing:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > * de, e, en, fe, kle, ne, se, sne, te, we
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Risking ambiguous forms (i.e. "de" and "en").
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > What would be the best to do?
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Stephan
                  > > >
                  > > > in some of your examples: nothing
                  > > >
                  > > > de = the, en = a, se = see
                  > > >
                  > > > in others, depending on what the source langs have: ei
                  > > >
                  > > > ei = egg, nei = no
                  > >
                  > > Yes. I suggest to write "ej", though (like David).
                  > >
                  > > > or eo/ew
                  > > >
                  > > > sneo/snew = snow etc
                  > >
                  > > How would you pronounce "w" after front vowel?
                  > > I intentionally decided to drop "w" after front vowel, because it is
                  > > rather difficult to pronounce.
                  > >
                  > > brye (to brew), seel (soul), snie (to snow)
                  > > vs. blaw (blue), dow (dew)
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > de and en may have two pronos, with [@] and [e:], but we can
                  > chose to
                  > > > have always [e:], too. In German and most other source langs, for
                  > > > both 'a' and 'one' the same word is used, and for 'the' and 'THE'
                  > as
                  > > > well.
                  > >
                  > > Yes. This reminds me of particles vs. prepositions like "up":
                  > >
                  > > De sonn go up. (With a long "u" in "up". - particle)
                  > > De ball ligg up de tak. (With a short "u" in "up". - preposition)
                  > >
                  > > > If we'd have a rule: final -e in a monosyllabic is always [e:],
                  > the
                  > > > problem is solved.
                  > >
                  > > Indeed. Plain and simple.
                  > >
                  > > > And if we'd have 'ee', then why not 'aa', 'oo', 'uu' etc as well?
                  > > > The ortho must be congruent
                  > >
                  > > "ee" would occur only in this case, but I agree that the ortho
                  > should
                  > > be congruent, and that's why "ee" started to bug me.
                  > >
                  > > Thanks for answering, and sorry for thanking. ;-)
                  > >
                  > > Stephan
                  > >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.