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

Re: [folkspraak] Off topic comments - was: MS/MSF

Expand Messages
  • Matt Emson
    ... Dude, if we can t get people to stop top and bottom posting and over quoting messages, I don t see something as complex, in comparison to deleting unwanted
    Message 1 of 130 , Nov 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      nordslesviger wrote:
      > But first of all I would suggest something that makes it much more
      > easy to follow interesting threads and to ignore lesser interesting
      > ones. Change the subject line so it says something about the contents
      > in the message. It is really difficult for newcommers like me to go
      > back in the messages and read old discussions.
      Dude, if we can't get people to stop top and bottom posting and over
      quoting messages, I don't see something as complex, in comparison to
      deleting unwanted text, as changing the subject line would work out very
      well. I'd far rather see people quote properly in emails than worry
      about threading. I guess you use thread view in Thunderbird or Outlook?

      <rant>Thread view is annoying and only appropriate within the contexts
      of the USENET. </rant>

      I thank you,

      M
    • David Parke
      ... 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 doubled. I would
      Message 130 of 130 , Nov 9, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "nordslesviger" <nordslesviger@>
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Well, I think the grammar should be as simple as possibe, so I'll
        > try
        > > > 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
        > things,
        > > 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
        > in
        > > 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
        > future
        > > 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
        > or
        > > > 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
        > Afrikaans.
        >

        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
        doubled.

        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?
        eg
        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)

        OR maybe
        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
        >
        > Ingmar
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.