Re: Plural in Middlesprake
- One of the main reasons why I don't want to have -en as plural suffix
is that this -en suffix is already existing with a very different
meaning in Scandinavian, namely "the", article.
In German, the majority of plurals is in -e, then in -er, then in -
en, then in -s.
In Scandinavian, the majority of plural is in -er, then in -e, some
in -s, none - en.
In Dutch, the majority is in -en, which is pronounced as -e, and then
English has -s, a few other forms, and about two plurals in -en.
So, we could just take -s everywhere, but that is "un-Germanic" imo,
so I have -s plural in multisyllabic nouns such as appel, auto, teken
etc. Actually that is the same as in Dutch, but in MS it's become a
completely regular rule.
That is why I have this new proposal:
a noun does normally not end in -e in singular, so its plural can be
recognized by -e. Easy as hell!
--- In email@example.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
> I have thought about what sort of trouble "-en" could cause as a
> plural suffix. A word ending in "-en" in the singular could look
> a plural of another noun. Here are all the nouns I could find in my
> Uberlist that could have such a problem -- Not very many out of
> bekken n. = bassin, cymbal, pelvis
> haven n. = harbour, haven
> hÃªÄ`en n. = heathen
> hersen n. = brain
> keten n. = chain
> kiuken(fogel) n. = chicken
> kykken n. = kitchen
> kyssen n. = cushion
> laken n. = sheet
> morgen n. = morning
> regen n. = rain
> sejsen n. = scythe
> seven n. = seven, 7
> tÃªken n. = token
> wagen n. = waggon
> wÃ¢pen n. = weapon
> wesen n. = being
> wolken n. = cloud
> So "bekken" (pelvis) could be mistaken as the plural of "bekk"
> "hÃªÄ`en" (heathen) could be mistaken as the plural of "hÃªÄ`"
> although in my FS the word is "hÃªÄ`e" singular, plural "hÃªÄ`es"
> "kykken" could be assumed to be a plural by for example German
> speakers if they assume that the singular is "kykk"
> "keten" could be assumed to be the singular of "ket" if speakers of
> some languages assume this to be the cognate of "Kette" or "kÃ¤dja"
> "kjede" etc.
> Hopefully the would rather assume word for chain is *kete. In which
> case "keten" is not possible as the plural of *kete.
> "tÃªken" could be assumed to be the plural of *tÃªk but no languages
> seem to have a word like this.
> "wagen" could be assumed to be the plural of a word for wave or
> A German speaker might assume that "wÃ¢pen" is a plural of *wÃ¢p if
> assume that DE Waffe looses the -e in FS.
> "seven" could be the plural of "sev" (a sieve)
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
> > Whoops! I clicked send before I had even begun to write my post.
> > I think the problem that you are having is more to do with the
> > of you plural suffix than the form of the singular nouns.
> > Often with those examples there is no obviously massive majority
> > the forms of the source languages. Some of the source languages
> > have cognate for these words ending in a schwa, others might end
> > cognates with nothing and be just a single syllable.
> > If you look in my Uberlist file you will find a huge number of
> > where I am unsure of the majority form, there is more or less a
> > split. So I have "klass (or possibly klasse), "kirk (or possibly
> > kirke)", "strÃ¢t (or possibly strÃ¢te)", "karte (or possibly
> > Therefore whichever form you choose, be it "kirk"
or "kirke", "strat"
> > or "strate", "sprak" or "sprake", there will be a large number of
> > speakers from many languages who will not have a matching form in
> > their own language.
> > So a NL or EN speaker seeing "sprake", based on knowledge of
> > languages might assume that the singular word is "sprak"
> > is therefore a plural.
> > A DE speaker, seeing "sprake", might assume that, based on their
> > knowledge of DE Sprache, that it is a singular.
> > And the fact that MS has no inflexions of verbs or adjectives or
> > articles for number, means that there is no way to clarify the
> > situation based on other inflexions. (A German speaker can know
> > whether a noun is plural or singular based on the inflexion of the
> > verb or the form of the articles or the suffixes on the
> > I would suggest you change the plural suffix from "-e" to "-en".
> > Ingmar, I fully expect you will now explain why "-e" is a more
> > form than "-en" and is better reflective of the majority usage
> > You have every other time I have suggested this.
> > But you must see the problem that this suffix is causing right?
> > Ask yourself which problem you prefer:
> > At the moment you are considering forcing all MS nouns to not end
> > "-e" in the singular in order to make them work with you plural
> > You could change to a plural suffix that is (in your opinion)
> > less Middel but stops this problem.
> > Or you could force all your nouns into forms that are less Middel
> > Which is more unnatural and unMiddel? Forcing the potential form
> > all nouns to fit into your choice of plural? Or choosing a less
> > plural?
> > And I think that the plural in the Germlangs really have no
> > to indicate the way, so whatever plural method you use is mainly
> > arbitrary.
> > I think that the "-e" suffix could be useful for other things
> > an adjective to noun suffix. Eg genadig = adj.merciful. genadige
> > merciful person or thing. jung = adj. young. junge = n. young
> > or thing.
> > Also with nouns such as langte (length), wiidte (width), breedte
> > (breadth).
> > You are loosing the potential for those usages if you use "-e" as
> > plural (unless you keep the status quo in which case it is making
> > things very confusing).
> > --- In email@example.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
> > >
> > > To quote your Middelsprake group:
> > >
> > > Hovedworde (substantivs) ende ofte in -e in Middelsprake:
> > > sprakE, kirkE, stratE etc. Darfor de meertal is formed mid -s:
> > > sprakeS, kirkeS, strateS, fordat de regel is:
> > > wen en word have een syllabe, de meertal is -e, on wen en word
> > > have meer syllabes, de meertal is -s.
> > > Doch nu, mennig worde in eental have okso -e, darfor dat is nik
> > > klaar to se of en word is in eental oller meertal.
> > >
> > > Ig wil make en nue regel, on dat is: een hovedword in eental
> > > principe
> > > in en konsonant, nik in -e.
> > > Kirke => kirk, sprake => spraak, strate => straat; on meertal
> > > kirkes => kirke, sprakes => sprake, strates => strate.
> > >
> > > Naturlig dar schal wese ennoch enig eental worde in -e, likas
> > > garde, garage, warmte.
> > >
> > > o eental ende in konsonant, meertal in -e
> > > o late de system likas dat is nu
> > >
- Elle, I'm really beginning to like you... You seem real nice. And I'm
beginning to regret that I gave you a hard time about well you know.
Not that I think I was totally wrong about what I said, but still...
I'm sorry you're having a hard time. Life sucks sometimes, it isn't
fair. Being poor is terrible. Feeling lonely, too. Exclusion
We don't really mind whether your language is perfect or not, you
know, ours isn't either. The fact that you are so open, even if you
don't seem to want to, says you need some personal attention. That's
not so different from much of the rest here. Why the heck else would
someone spend so much time at a useless language no-one needs? Here
you're getting some attention, so that's fine. Hopefully it makes
your day a bit better
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 'Elle Müller' <ellemueller_de@...>
> benjaminsjw SPEAKS! lol
> Although, I don't know that it SHOULD be called 'aldsprak'... I
> latched onto the idea. There are a few different ways of referringto
> it, as I've said before. 'ðe alde Sprak' is just one way of doingit.
> The main difficulty has been with figuring out a way to spell all
> variations in pronuciation!el
> ald/eld/el/al/ul Sprak/sprok/sprog/spraok/spreck/sprack... lol
> It's usually consistent to the speaker, that if someone says, 'de
> Sprog' then they will also say things like 'dat is an el Mann',a
> and 'We/Wae/Wie hadden/haeden an Gesprog.'
> Either way, the ONE pronunciation that almost never shifts, or is
> elided is when an 'e' or 'a' sound pops onto the last consonant of
> word infront of most hard consonants like 'd', 'b', 'k', etc. Thethough.
> only soft consonant I'm sure of that that occurs in front of is 's'.
> ;;shrugs;; I do NOT envy any monk that ever took to pen in an
> unwritten language. Would to God someone had already done this for
> me. :P
> Thank you sir. It's nice to see some peopel are breathing here
> ;;laughs;; I admit, it's funny that the most I've written on the
> language is in the Middelsprake group, and most of the arguing
> it has been here. ^_^
> Thank you sir.