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

Re: [folkspraak] Re: Sprak Wordschatt united

Expand Messages
  • Matt Emson
    ... It looks like shat because of the double consonant. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shat It s a bit like shite , oddly like the German
    Message 1 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      stefichjo wrote:
      >> words' chat? word shat?
      >>
      >
      > I shat many, many words.
      > Please prono "Wordschatt" with [a], anyway.
      >
      >
      It looks like "shat" because of the double consonant.

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shat

      It's a bit like "shite", oddly like the German word isn't it? Isn't the
      German "Scheisse" or something like that? Which also sounds like Shyster.

      On the dictionary front - as A Brit, I say DIC-SHERN-REE.

      Anyhoo..

      M
    • chamavian
      ... united ... thing, ... My trivIAL way is: ig bite ig bitede ig ha bited ChamavIAL
      Message 2 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Matt Emson <Memsom@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > stefichjo wrote:
        > > > > Hi!
        > > > >
        > > > > I want to inform you that my Wordschatt (dictionary) has been
        united
        > > > > with the list of loans (mainly Latin based loans)
        > > > OT: Though this is entirely puerile, every time I read the word
        > > > "Wordschatt" I giggle to myself. Maybe it's just a British
        thing,
        > > does
        > > > anyone else see the joke?
        > > >
        > > > M
        > > >
        > >
        > > words' chat? word shat?
        >
        > I shat many, many words.
        > Please prono "Wordschatt" with [a], anyway.
        >
        > BTW, the strong conjugaton of "schite" is (in Sprak):
        >
        > schite: ik schit, ik schitt, ik hav schitten
        >
        >
        > Alternatively, I could speak about another verb, "bite":
        >
        > bite: ik bit, ik bitt, ik hav bitten
        > -> en bitt, en bittke
        >
        >
        > (Other verbs with this pattern are denoted with "[i-i-i]".)
        > http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak/_Sprak/_Wortschatz
        >
        >
        > How would you render such verbs? (Except of the "trivial solution":
        > "bite, bited, bited".)
        >
        > Bye,
        > Stephan
        >

        My 'trivIAL' way is:

        ig bite
        ig bitede
        ig ha bited

        ChamavIAL
      • stefichjo
        ... Any non-trivial way, too? BTW: One thing I like very much about strong verbs is the denominalisation: ik bit, ik bitt - en bitt ik sprek, ik sprak - en
        Message 3 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
          > >
          > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Matt Emson <Memsom@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > stefichjo wrote:
          > > > > > Hi!
          > > > > >
          > > > > > I want to inform you that my Wordschatt (dictionary) has been
          > united
          > > > > > with the list of loans (mainly Latin based loans)
          > > > > OT: Though this is entirely puerile, every time I read the word
          > > > > "Wordschatt" I giggle to myself. Maybe it's just a British
          > thing,
          > > > does
          > > > > anyone else see the joke?
          > > > >
          > > > > M
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > > words' chat? word shat?
          > >
          > > I shat many, many words.
          > > Please prono "Wordschatt" with [a], anyway.
          > >
          > > BTW, the strong conjugaton of "schite" is (in Sprak):
          > >
          > > schite: ik schit, ik schitt, ik hav schitten
          > >
          > >
          > > Alternatively, I could speak about another verb, "bite":
          > >
          > > bite: ik bit, ik bitt, ik hav bitten
          > > -> en bitt, en bittke
          > >
          > >
          > > (Other verbs with this pattern are denoted with "[i-i-i]".)
          > > http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak/_Sprak/_Wortschatz
          > >
          > >
          > > How would you render such verbs? (Except of the "trivial solution":
          > > "bite, bited, bited".)
          > >
          > > Bye,
          > > Stephan
          > >
          >
          > My 'trivIAL' way is:
          >
          > ig bite
          > ig bitede
          > ig ha bited
          >
          > ChamavIAL
          >


          Any non-trivial way, too?

          BTW: One thing I like very much about strong verbs is the
          denominalisation:

          ik bit, ik bitt -> en bitt
          ik sprek, ik sprak -> en sprak
          ik gev, ik hav -> en gav


          StephIAL
        • chamavian
          ... the ... Shyster. ... Well, we can see the level of humor is pretty high in Little Britain
          Message 4 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Matt Emson <Memsom@...> wrote:
            >
            > stefichjo wrote:
            > >> words' chat? word shat?
            > >>
            > >
            > > I shat many, many words.
            > > Please prono "Wordschatt" with [a], anyway.
            > >
            > >
            > It looks like "shat" because of the double consonant.
            >
            > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shat
            >
            > It's a bit like "shite", oddly like the German word isn't it? Isn't
            the
            > German "Scheisse" or something like that? Which also sounds like
            Shyster.
            >
            > On the dictionary front - as A Brit, I say DIC-SHERN-REE.
            >
            > Anyhoo..
            >
            > M
            >

            Well, we can see the level of humor is pretty high in Little Britain
          • clayton_rc
            ig beite, ig bit, ig hav bitten Ig will een bit av brood.
            Message 5 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              ig beite, ig bit, ig hav bitten

              Ig will een bit av brood.
            • stefichjo
              ... Any rule behind it, or just an arbitrary choice of words? Stephan
              Message 6 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@...> wrote:
                >
                > ig beite, ig bit, ig hav bitten
                >
                > Ig will een bit av brood.
                >

                Any rule behind it, or just an arbitrary choice of words?

                Stephan
              • chamavian
                ... The rules needed for so called strong or irregular verbs will always be too arbitrary and too complicated for an IAL that FS is supposed to be. It is
                Message 7 of 23 , Oct 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:

                  The rules needed for so called strong or irregular verbs will always be
                  too arbitrary and too complicated for an IAL that FS is supposed to be.

                  It is possible to have very simple, easy and unambiguous rules for the
                  verb tenses: regular rules, the ones you called 'trivial', based on the
                  regular verbs in our source languages.

                  infinitive:
                  bite

                  present: same as infinitive:
                  ig bite, du bite, he bite, wi bite, ji bite, dei bite

                  past: infinitive + -de
                  ig bitede, du bitede, si bitede, wi bitede, ji bitede, dei bitede

                  perfect: infinitive + -d
                  ig ha bited, du ha bited etc.


                  I know this step is hard to make for some of you, but this actually
                  still surprises me a lot when I see what the rest of your dialects
                  looks like in other subjects.


                  Ingmar






                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > ig beite, ig bit, ig hav bitten
                  > >
                  > > Ig will een bit av brood.
                  > >
                  >
                  > Any rule behind it, or just an arbitrary choice of words?
                  >
                  > Stephan
                  >
                • Matt Emson
                  ... Yer, but no, but, yeah, but, Janice Pollard, did it wiv Gavin Smith behind Tescos.. she did,, even though Carry Jones were his bird, like, yeah, but like.
                  Message 8 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    chamavian wrote:
                    > Well, we can see the level of humor is pretty high in Little Britain
                    >
                    Yer, but no, but, yeah, but, Janice Pollard, did it wiv Gavin Smith
                    behind Tescos.. she did,, even though Carry Jones were his bird, like,
                    yeah, but like. Laterz.
                  • stefichjo
                    I must apologize. When I said * ik bit, ik bited, ik hav bited is trivial , I meant it would be a trivial solution in the mathematical sense. I didn t mean
                    Message 9 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I must apologize. When I said

                      * ik bit, ik bited, ik hav bited

                      is "trivial", I meant it would be a "trivial solution" in the
                      mathematical sense. I didn't mean that this solution is "of little
                      value or importance". On the contrary, this is _the_ solution for FS
                      in my opinion.


                      infinitive:
                      bite

                      imperative:
                      bit!

                      present tense:
                      ik bit, du bit, hi bit, wi bit, ji bit, de bit

                      past tense: + ed
                      ik bited, du bited, hi bited, wi bited, ji bited, de bited

                      future tense: + schall
                      ik schall bite, du schall bite, hi schall bite, wi schall bite, ji
                      schall bite, de schall bite

                      present perfect: hav + ed
                      ik hav bited, du hav bited, hi hav bited, wi hav bited, ji hav bited,
                      de hav bited

                      past perfect: had + ed
                      ik had bited, du had bited, hi had bited, wi had bited, ji had bited,
                      de had bited

                      future perfect: schall + have + ed
                      ik schall have bited, du schall have bited, hi schall have bited, wi
                      schall have bited, ji schall have bited, de schall have bited


                      The ending "-e" has a specific function in Sprak, the subjunctive. I
                      don't think it should be used in FS, though. Therefore I don't think
                      the ending "-e" should be used at all in conjugation.

                      Unfortunately I can explain the subjunctive only with the German
                      Konjunktiv:

                      "du have bited" - "du habest gebissen"
                      "du hav bited" - "du hast gebissen"

                      "du bite" - "du beißest"
                      "du bit" - "du beißt"

                      "ik bited" - "ich biss"
                      "ik bitede" - "ich bisse"



                      For the sake of completeness, I add the subjunctive forms, too.


                      present tense subjunctive: + e
                      ik bite, du bite, hi bite, wi bite, ji bite, de bite

                      past tense subjunctive: + ed + e
                      ik bitede, du bitede, hi bitede, wi bitede, ji bitede, de bitede

                      future tense subjunctive: + schall + e
                      ik schalle bite, du schalle bite, hi schalle bite, wi schalle bite, ji
                      schalle bite, de schalle bite

                      present perfect subjunctive: hav + e + ed
                      ik have bited, du have bited, hi have bited, wi have bited, ji have
                      bited, de have bited

                      past perfect subjunctive: had + e + ed
                      ik hade bited, du hade bited, hi hade bited, wi hade bited, ji hade
                      bited, de hade bited

                      future perfect subjunctive: schall + e + have + ed
                      ik schalle have bited, du schalle have bited, hi schalle have bited,
                      wi schalle have bited, ji schalle have bited, de schalle have bited



                      What do you mean, it still surprises you a lot when you see what the
                      rest of our dialects look like in other subjects? Do you mean other
                      aspects of ours dialects are so well done, only the verbs are not? ;-)
                      No, really, I don't understand, please explain.


                      Now you might ask why I have mentioned

                      * ik bit, ik bitt, ik hav bitten

                      at all. It's just a "what if" question, then. BUT, in this
                      what-if-scenario the past tense form "ik bitt" ("I bit") should be the
                      same as the denominalisation "en bitt" (EN "a bit"). So, nonetheless
                      the question is, what should the denominalisation of "bite" look like
                      in FS?


                      OT: the word "Shattner" just came in mind to me...
                      Stephan



                      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                      >
                      > The rules needed for so called strong or irregular verbs will always be
                      > too arbitrary and too complicated for an IAL that FS is supposed to be.
                      >
                      > It is possible to have very simple, easy and unambiguous rules for the
                      > verb tenses: regular rules, the ones you called 'trivial', based on the
                      > regular verbs in our source languages.
                      >
                      > infinitive:
                      > bite
                      >
                      > present: same as infinitive:
                      > ig bite, du bite, he bite, wi bite, ji bite, dei bite
                      >
                      > past: infinitive + -de
                      > ig bitede, du bitede, si bitede, wi bitede, ji bitede, dei bitede
                      >
                      > perfect: infinitive + -d
                      > ig ha bited, du ha bited etc.
                      >
                      >
                      > I know this step is hard to make for some of you, but this actually
                      > still surprises me a lot when I see what the rest of your dialects
                      > looks like in other subjects.
                      >
                      >
                      > Ingmar
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > ig beite, ig bit, ig hav bitten
                      > > >
                      > > > Ig will een bit av brood.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > Any rule behind it, or just an arbitrary choice of words?
                      > >
                      > > Stephan
                      > >
                      >
                    • chamavian
                      I knowwww.... ... Britain ... like,
                      Message 10 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I knowwww....

                        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Matt Emson <Memsom@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > chamavian wrote:
                        > > Well, we can see the level of humor is pretty high in Little
                        Britain
                        > >
                        > Yer, but no, but, yeah, but, Janice Pollard, did it wiv Gavin Smith
                        > behind Tescos.. she did,, even though Carry Jones were his bird,
                        like,
                        > yeah, but like. Laterz.
                        >
                      • chamavian
                        ... I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn t seem to be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind of plural, leaving
                        Message 11 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:

                          > What do you mean, it still surprises you a lot when you see what the
                          > rest of our dialects look like in other subjects? Do you mean other
                          > aspects of ours dialects are so well done, only the verbs are not? ;-)
                          > No, really, I don't understand, please explain.

                          I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn't seem to
                          be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind of
                          plural, leaving out umlauts, and all kind of other 'ornaments', but
                          when it comes to strong verbs, all of a sudden all these complicated
                          and unpredictable patterns seem to be indispensable. Can't see why...
                        • stefichjo
                          ... OK, now I understand. As you can see, I m pro regularity in this case, too. I wouldn t see why either. But, what about en bitt (EN a bit )? Do you
                          Message 12 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                            >
                            > > What do you mean, it still surprises you a lot when you see what the
                            > > rest of our dialects look like in other subjects? Do you mean other
                            > > aspects of ours dialects are so well done, only the verbs are not? ;-)
                            > > No, really, I don't understand, please explain.
                            >
                            > I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn't seem to
                            > be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind of
                            > plural, leaving out umlauts, and all kind of other 'ornaments', but
                            > when it comes to strong verbs, all of a sudden all these complicated
                            > and unpredictable patterns seem to be indispensable. Can't see why...

                            OK, now I understand. As you can see, I'm pro regularity in this case,
                            too. I wouldn't "see why" either.

                            But, what about "en bitt" (EN "a bit")? Do you agree this word should
                            exist? I think it should exist and that it is an irregularity, or
                            something that simply has to be learnt in FS, that there is a verb
                            "bite" and a cognate word "bitt", and there was no way of telling
                            (knowing the word "bite") that the word should be "bitt", or "bet" or
                            whatsoever.
                            Same with "spreke" and "en sprak". Just two different words, and no
                            grammatical frame that keeps them together. Just two items of
                            vocabulary that need to be learnt, period.

                            Stephan
                          • clayton_rc
                            ... - English has a single gender; - Dutch plural is mostly regular - Dutch leaves out most umlauts ... - not one Germlang is free from strong verbs So I bring
                            Message 13 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn't seem to
                              > be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind of
                              > plural, leaving out umlauts, and all kind of other 'ornaments', but
                              > when it comes to strong verbs, all of a sudden all these complicated
                              > and unpredictable patterns seem to be indispensable. Can't see why...
                              >

                              - English has a single gender;
                              - Dutch plural is mostly regular
                              - Dutch leaves out most umlauts
                              ...
                              - not one Germlang is free from strong verbs


                              So I bring back an old issue... what would be the intended "niche" of
                              Folkspraak?
                              Is it designed to frontally compete with other IALs?
                              Or does it follow a slightly (or totally) different direction?

                              I may sound stubborn about it, but once we have settled this, many
                              eventual decisions will be easier to be taken.


                              Clayton
                            • chamavian
                              ... case, ... should ... or ... En bitt could be synonymous to en lyttel . Next to its core meaning, a bite . Ig had en bitt broed - I had a bit of bread =
                              Message 14 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > OK, now I understand. As you can see, I'm pro regularity in this
                                case,
                                > too. I wouldn't "see why" either.
                                >
                                > But, what about "en bitt" (EN "a bit")? Do you agree this word
                                should
                                > exist? I think it should exist and that it is an irregularity, or
                                > something that simply has to be learnt in FS, that there is a verb
                                > "bite" and a cognate word "bitt", and there was no way of telling
                                > (knowing the word "bite") that the word should be "bitt", or "bet"
                                or
                                > whatsoever.
                                > Same with "spreke" and "en sprak". Just two different words, and no
                                > grammatical frame that keeps them together. Just two items of
                                > vocabulary that need to be learnt, period.
                                >
                                > Stephan
                                >

                                "En bitt" could be synonymous to "en lyttel".
                                Next to its core meaning, "a bite".

                                Ig had en bitt broed - I had a bit of bread = ig had en lyttel broed
                                Ig had en bitt af de broed - I had a bit of the (this) bread
                                Ig had en bitt af de broed - I had a bite of the bread
                              • stefichjo
                                ... seem to ... Hi Clayton. I don t understand your question and why you raise it, i.e. what s the connection with strong verbs. What do you mean niche ?
                                Message 15 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn't
                                  seem to
                                  > > be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind of
                                  > > plural, leaving out umlauts, and all kind of other 'ornaments', but
                                  > > when it comes to strong verbs, all of a sudden all these complicated
                                  > > and unpredictable patterns seem to be indispensable. Can't see why...
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > - English has a single gender;
                                  > - Dutch plural is mostly regular
                                  > - Dutch leaves out most umlauts
                                  > ...
                                  > - not one Germlang is free from strong verbs
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > So I bring back an old issue... what would be the intended "niche" of
                                  > Folkspraak?
                                  > Is it designed to frontally compete with other IALs?
                                  > Or does it follow a slightly (or totally) different direction?
                                  >
                                  > I may sound stubborn about it, but once we have settled this, many
                                  > eventual decisions will be easier to be taken.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Clayton

                                  Hi Clayton.
                                  I don't understand your question and why you raise it, i.e. what's the
                                  connection with strong verbs. What do you mean "niche"?

                                  Stephan
                                • chamavian
                                  ... seem to ... of ... but ... complicated ... why... ... of ... The niche could be that there has been no serious artificial germanic based language until
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Oct 5, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > I meant, for other things, being as regular as possible doesn't
                                    seem to
                                    > > be a problem, e.g. having one single gender, having a fixed kind
                                    of
                                    > > plural, leaving out umlauts, and all kind of other 'ornaments',
                                    but
                                    > > when it comes to strong verbs, all of a sudden all these
                                    complicated
                                    > > and unpredictable patterns seem to be indispensable. Can't see
                                    why...
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > - English has a single gender
                                    > - Dutch plural is mostly regular
                                    > - Dutch leaves out most umlauts
                                    > ...
                                    > - not one Germlang is free from strong verbs
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > So I bring back an old issue... what would be the intended "niche"
                                    of
                                    > Folkspraak?

                                    The niche could be that there has been no serious artificial germanic
                                    based language until now. And there is e.g. Interlingua for Romance,
                                    Slovia for Slavonic etc.


                                    > Is it designed to frontally compete with other IALs?

                                    No, not really, but maybe to compete with other lingua francas like
                                    English


                                    > Or does it follow a slightly (or totally) different direction?

                                    For the Germanic speaking area (maybe excluding the English speaking
                                    area), Folksprak could theoretically serve as a common language

                                    >
                                    > I may sound stubborn about it, but once we have settled this, many
                                    > eventual decisions will be easier to be taken.

                                    You mean, settled the goals of FS?


                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Clayton
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.