--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "nordslesviger" <nordslesviger@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, I think the grammar should be as simple as possibe, so I'll
> > > to provoke and stir up some dust.
> > >
> > > Verbs could be the same for all genders and numbers. Past: "ge" +
> > > verb. Future: "sal" + verb.
> > I think it should be at least inspired by the way German does
> > you shouldn't be drawing forms from other languages. If you make it
> > too different from German, it ceases to be a useful language to use
> > germany/Switzerland/Austria. I'd want to be based on on DE, but not
> > needing to learn all those cases/genders/strong verbs/irregular
> > plurals/grammatical umlaut.
> > German -- when it needs to be specific and unambiguous -- used
> > "werden" for future tense. I think we should at least base the
> > tense on this, not "sal". Don't forget German has "sollen" and it's
> > not used for the future tense.
> Yes, I agree.
> But the -ing for (below) is not used in Hard German, so don't use it
> in Light German either...
> > The -ing form could be verb + "nde". And
> > > adjectives can be created from verb with verb + "-t".
> > >
> > > As articles I suggest "de" and "en". "die" sounds wrong when der
> > > das is normal etc.
> But "de" would be pronounced [de:], and it does not exist in real
> German. Neither does "en". When you use those, you add non-German
> stuff to the lingo... I think "di" (why write it as "die"?) is
> already used automatically in Gastarbeiterdeutsch, just as it is in
Final "e" would have the same ambiguity issue in LD as in FS -- it
could be either schwa or [e:]. I think final [e:] would need to be
I would prono "de" as [d@], same as Nederlands. It's the definite
article that I use in German when I am not sure which one to use. I'm
not sure what to do to replace the German system of relative pronouns
-- which match the case/gender/number of the referred noun. For example:
Das ist der Hund, DER mich gebissen hat. (that's the dog that bit me.)
Das ist der Hund, DEN ich gebissen habe (that's the dog that I bit)
Would we replace these relative pronouns also with "de", or invent a
more specialised pronoun?
Dass ist de hund, de mir gebeisst habe (that's the dog that bit me.)
Dass ist de hund, de ich gebeisst habe (that's the dog that I bit)
Dass ist de hund, dass mir gebeisst habe (that's the dog that bit me.)
Dass ist de hund, dass ich gebeisst habe (that's the dog that I bit)
BTW I haven't decided what to do about verbs (especially "sein" and
"haben") or about word order, so in those examples, I'm still doing it
auf echt Deutsch
> > >
> > > Pronuns could be as simple as ich, du, ?, wir, sie, sie, where ?
> is a
> > > word for he, she, it. At least some constructed languages get away
> > > with it :-)
> Nein, bitte.
> One other thing I noticed: does the spelling for [ts] depend on its
> position in the word? E.g. initially 'z' but word final 'tz'. Is this
> necessary, isn't 'z' everywhere better? One sound, one sign.
Syllable final [ts] is preceded by a short vowel normally/always I
think. So the "z" would need to be doubled to mark that. But "zz"
looks like it should be [tsts]. At least with "tz", the prono can only
be [ts] and the vowel would be in a clearly closed syllable so would
be clearly short.
> And now I'd like to see a good Light German text from one of you, Bube