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

Strong/irregular verbs

Expand Messages
  • Chris
    Hei, me again. Another question that arouse while reading the material to FS/MS and FM, what about strong and irregular verbs? The MS and MF grammar state,
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 1 5:31 AM
      Hei, me again.
      Another question that arouse while reading the material to FS/MS and
      FM, what about strong and irregular verbs?
      The MS and MF grammar state, that there are none, exept for one(?), in
      the uberlist of FS I found evidence that FS (maybe) uses irregular
      verbforms.
      The reason I joined this group was, as you can imagine, that I'm
      interessted in creating an Intergermanic-Language (I gave up my
      solitary attempt, after I realized, that it might be a little too much
      for a single person). In all of my own versions of an IGL, I decided
      to use irregular verbforms, because I believed, they are more natural
      to learn for any speaker of a germanic language, as most of them have
      some.
      How do you other creators see that? Ingmar, why have you decided to
      let out the irregulars? Questions, questions, question...

      Greets, C.
    • David Parke
      Hi Chris The uberlist4000 file is my creation. as such it may not match the opinions of other group members such as Ingmar/Chamavian. I know the Ingmar s
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 1 6:27 PM
        Hi Chris
        The uberlist4000 file is my creation. as such it may not match the
        opinions of other group members such as Ingmar/Chamavian. I know the
        Ingmar's Middelsprake avoids just about any sort of irregular verb
        except for the verbs to have and to be.
        In my uberlist, I do have some irregular and strong verbs. The only
        verbs that are strong, are those where the cognates are strong in all 4
        branchs of the source languages -- so have a cognate strong verb in
        English, Dutch, German, and at least one scandinavian language. So for
        example, the FS word "drinke" (to drink) is strong. The past tense is
        "drank-" and the past participle is "drunken". I made "drinke" strong
        because the cognates EN drink, NL drinken, DE trinken, DA drikke, NO
        drikke, SV dricka are all strong.
        As a counter-example, FS spreke (to speak) is weak/regular. Although the
        cognates to this verb are strong in EN, NL and DE, there are no cognates
        to this verb in the scandinavian languages. It is thus not represented
        by strong cognates in all 4 source language branches. Or FS slape (to
        sleep). This has strong cognates in NL slapen and DE schlafen. But it is
        weak in EN sleep. And in scandinavian it is only cognate to SV slafa,
        which is also weak. So only strong in 2/4 of the source language branches.


        I think that in cases where a verb has strong cognates in ALL of the
        germanic source languages, it is just a easy to learn the verb as a
        strong verb, than it is to un-learn this and force a speaker to use the
        verb as weak. It's not adding much to native germanic speakers burden to
        learn the language. It makes the language more natural and provides some
        assistance or preparation for what to expect in a natural germanic
        language. I have also tried to make my strong verbs conform more closely
        to the 7 germanic strong verb classes than they do in any of the natural
        germanic languages -- making the ablaut changes for each class very
        regular. For example in Class III strong verbs, the noun ablaut always
        without exception goes from present tense "i" to past tense "a" to past
        participle "u" plus a -en pp ending.
        so drink-, drank-, drunken
        spring-, sprang, sprungen,
        bind- band-, bunden

        The cognates to these examples are strong in English but more haphazard
        in their conjugation:
        drink, drank, drunk (or drunken used in a specialised adjectival manner)
        spring, sprang, sprung
        bind, bound, bound.

        So although my FS has strong verbs, they should be easier to learn than
        the equivalent English strong verb, and are also much less in number.


        Chris wrote:

        >Hei, me again.
        >Another question that arouse while reading the material to FS/MS and
        >FM, what about strong and irregular verbs?
        >The MS and MF grammar state, that there are none, exept for one(?), in
        >the uberlist of FS I found evidence that FS (maybe) uses irregular
        >verbforms.
        >The reason I joined this group was, as you can imagine, that I'm
        >interessted in creating an Intergermanic-Language (I gave up my
        >solitary attempt, after I realized, that it might be a little too much
        >for a single person). In all of my own versions of an IGL, I decided
        >to use irregular verbforms, because I believed, they are more natural
        >to learn for any speaker of a germanic language, as most of them have
        >some.
        >How do you other creators see that? Ingmar, why have you decided to
        >let out the irregulars? Questions, questions, question...
        >
        >Greets, C.
        >
        >
        >
        >No virus found in this incoming message.
        >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
        >Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date: 1/08/2008 6:59 p.m.
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Chris
        Thank you David, for your answer. So we absolutely agree here, I used a similar way in my former IG-creation, including all strong verbs inflections that are
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 2 3:21 PM
          Thank you David, for your answer.
          So we absolutely agree here, I used a similar way in my former
          IG-creation, including all strong verbs inflections that are found in
          the majority of germanic languages.

          I have to congratulate you, your uberlist is very useful, and I guess
          a lot of time was spent creating it.
          I haven't read the whole list yet, but I'm through every entry from A
          - C. If you are interested and think it would be helpful to make FS
          better, I can give you a list of all words that I found "unintuitive"
          - words which I didn't understand without looking into the
          translations (it weren't many).

          Greets, C.



          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Chris
          > The uberlist4000 file is my creation. as such it may not match the
          > opinions of other group members such as Ingmar/Chamavian. I know the
          > Ingmar's Middelsprake avoids just about any sort of irregular verb
          > except for the verbs to have and to be.
          > In my uberlist, I do have some irregular and strong verbs. The only
          > verbs that are strong, are those where the cognates are strong in all 4
          > branchs of the source languages -- so have a cognate strong verb in
          > English, Dutch, German, and at least one scandinavian language. So for
          > example, the FS word "drinke" (to drink) is strong. The past tense is
          > "drank-" and the past participle is "drunken". I made "drinke" strong
          > because the cognates EN drink, NL drinken, DE trinken, DA drikke, NO
          > drikke, SV dricka are all strong.
          > As a counter-example, FS spreke (to speak) is weak/regular. Although
          the
          > cognates to this verb are strong in EN, NL and DE, there are no
          cognates
          > to this verb in the scandinavian languages. It is thus not represented
          > by strong cognates in all 4 source language branches. Or FS slape (to
          > sleep). This has strong cognates in NL slapen and DE schlafen. But
          it is
          > weak in EN sleep. And in scandinavian it is only cognate to SV slafa,
          > which is also weak. So only strong in 2/4 of the source language
          branches.
          >
          >
          > I think that in cases where a verb has strong cognates in ALL of the
          > germanic source languages, it is just a easy to learn the verb as a
          > strong verb, than it is to un-learn this and force a speaker to use the
          > verb as weak. It's not adding much to native germanic speakers
          burden to
          > learn the language. It makes the language more natural and provides
          some
          > assistance or preparation for what to expect in a natural germanic
          > language. I have also tried to make my strong verbs conform more
          closely
          > to the 7 germanic strong verb classes than they do in any of the
          natural
          > germanic languages -- making the ablaut changes for each class very
          > regular. For example in Class III strong verbs, the noun ablaut always
          > without exception goes from present tense "i" to past tense "a" to past
          > participle "u" plus a -en pp ending.
          > so drink-, drank-, drunken
          > spring-, sprang, sprungen,
          > bind- band-, bunden
          >
          > The cognates to these examples are strong in English but more haphazard
          > in their conjugation:
          > drink, drank, drunk (or drunken used in a specialised adjectival manner)
          > spring, sprang, sprung
          > bind, bound, bound.
          >
          > So although my FS has strong verbs, they should be easier to learn than
          > the equivalent English strong verb, and are also much less in number.
          >
          >
          > Chris wrote:
          >
          > >Hei, me again.
          > >Another question that arouse while reading the material to FS/MS and
          > >FM, what about strong and irregular verbs?
          > >The MS and MF grammar state, that there are none, exept for one(?), in
          > >the uberlist of FS I found evidence that FS (maybe) uses irregular
          > >verbforms.
          > >The reason I joined this group was, as you can imagine, that I'm
          > >interessted in creating an Intergermanic-Language (I gave up my
          > >solitary attempt, after I realized, that it might be a little too much
          > >for a single person). In all of my own versions of an IGL, I decided
          > >to use irregular verbforms, because I believed, they are more natural
          > >to learn for any speaker of a germanic language, as most of them have
          > >some.
          > >How do you other creators see that? Ingmar, why have you decided to
          > >let out the irregulars? Questions, questions, question...
          > >
          > >Greets, C.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >No virus found in this incoming message.
          > >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
          > >Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date:
          1/08/2008 6:59 p.m.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • David Parke
          Hi Chris I set the bar quite high when it comes to irregular parts of the language. Not just any kind of majority but near unanimity. Thanks for the congrats,
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 2 7:06 PM
            Hi Chris

            I set the bar quite high when it comes to irregular parts of the
            language. Not just any kind of majority but near unanimity.

            Thanks for the congrats, yes researching for the Uberlist is very time
            consuming and painstaking. I'm still adding to and refining it, and
            occasionaly I post an updated version. I'd also like to make an
            English-Folksprak version of the list, so that there is available a
            FS->EN, EN->FS dictionary, which is usable in printed form. At the
            moment, it can be used as an EN->FS dictionary only by searching the MS
            Excel file. To translate an EN word to FS, do a search in the "English
            Translations" column. This will find all the instances of that EN word,
            and thus all the FS words that match it for meaning.
            I've currently been attempting to add translations from FS into other
            major langages, such as FS->German, FS->French, FS->Russian, FS->Dutch,
            FS->Swedish. But I've found this this is really slowing down the
            progress, since each additional language adds a proportionate weight to
            the workload. It normally takes me about 20 minutes of research and
            checking and cross-checking to create a single FS word and its
            definition in English. This is because I check the meaning of cognate
            to the FS word in all the source languages and try to identify the
            shared meanings and usages. I check multiple sources for each language.
            If I also generate definitions for those other 5 languages, it takes
            more like 2 hours for a single word. Ideally fluent and preferably
            native speakers of those languages would do those translations.
            Were those unintuitive words unintuitive from your point-of-view as an
            English speaker? If so was it because the words had no cognate at all in
            English. Words such as "behaglik" or "ambet". The are quite a few of
            these. Or was it words that had a cognate in English but the English
            word meant something rather different from the Folksprak word? Words
            such as "akker", "allso", "besoeke" or "koepe"?


            Chris wrote:

            >Thank you David, for your answer.
            >So we absolutely agree here, I used a similar way in my former
            >IG-creation, including all strong verbs inflections that are found in
            >the majority of germanic languages.
            >
            >I have to congratulate you, your uberlist is very useful, and I guess
            >a lot of time was spent creating it.
            >I haven't read the whole list yet, but I'm through every entry from A
            >- C. If you are interested and think it would be helpful to make FS
            >better, I can give you a list of all words that I found "unintuitive"
            >- words which I didn't understand without looking into the
            >translations (it weren't many).
            >
            >Greets, C.
            >
            >
            >
            >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >>Hi Chris
            >>The uberlist4000 file is my creation. as such it may not match the
            >>opinions of other group members such as Ingmar/Chamavian. I know the
            >>Ingmar's Middelsprake avoids just about any sort of irregular verb
            >>except for the verbs to have and to be.
            >>In my uberlist, I do have some irregular and strong verbs. The only
            >>verbs that are strong, are those where the cognates are strong in all 4
            >>branchs of the source languages -- so have a cognate strong verb in
            >>English, Dutch, German, and at least one scandinavian language. So for
            >>example, the FS word "drinke" (to drink) is strong. The past tense is
            >>"drank-" and the past participle is "drunken". I made "drinke" strong
            >>because the cognates EN drink, NL drinken, DE trinken, DA drikke, NO
            >>drikke, SV dricka are all strong.
            >>As a counter-example, FS spreke (to speak) is weak/regular. Although
            >>
            >>
            >the
            >
            >
            >>cognates to this verb are strong in EN, NL and DE, there are no
            >>
            >>
            >cognates
            >
            >
            >>to this verb in the scandinavian languages. It is thus not represented
            >>by strong cognates in all 4 source language branches. Or FS slape (to
            >>sleep). This has strong cognates in NL slapen and DE schlafen. But
            >>
            >>
            >it is
            >
            >
            >>weak in EN sleep. And in scandinavian it is only cognate to SV slafa,
            >>which is also weak. So only strong in 2/4 of the source language
            >>
            >>
            >branches.
            >
            >
            >>I think that in cases where a verb has strong cognates in ALL of the
            >>germanic source languages, it is just a easy to learn the verb as a
            >>strong verb, than it is to un-learn this and force a speaker to use the
            >>verb as weak. It's not adding much to native germanic speakers
            >>
            >>
            >burden to
            >
            >
            >>learn the language. It makes the language more natural and provides
            >>
            >>
            >some
            >
            >
            >>assistance or preparation for what to expect in a natural germanic
            >>language. I have also tried to make my strong verbs conform more
            >>
            >>
            >closely
            >
            >
            >>to the 7 germanic strong verb classes than they do in any of the
            >>
            >>
            >natural
            >
            >
            >>germanic languages -- making the ablaut changes for each class very
            >>regular. For example in Class III strong verbs, the noun ablaut always
            >>without exception goes from present tense "i" to past tense "a" to past
            >>participle "u" plus a -en pp ending.
            >>so drink-, drank-, drunken
            >>spring-, sprang, sprungen,
            >>bind- band-, bunden
            >>
            >>The cognates to these examples are strong in English but more haphazard
            >>in their conjugation:
            >>drink, drank, drunk (or drunken used in a specialised adjectival manner)
            >>spring, sprang, sprung
            >>bind, bound, bound.
            >>
            >>So although my FS has strong verbs, they should be easier to learn than
            >>the equivalent English strong verb, and are also much less in number.
            >>
            >>
            >>Chris wrote:
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>Hei, me again.
            >>>Another question that arouse while reading the material to FS/MS and
            >>>FM, what about strong and irregular verbs?
            >>>The MS and MF grammar state, that there are none, exept for one(?), in
            >>>the uberlist of FS I found evidence that FS (maybe) uses irregular
            >>>verbforms.
            >>>The reason I joined this group was, as you can imagine, that I'm
            >>>interessted in creating an Intergermanic-Language (I gave up my
            >>>solitary attempt, after I realized, that it might be a little too much
            >>>for a single person). In all of my own versions of an IGL, I decided
            >>>to use irregular verbforms, because I believed, they are more natural
            >>>to learn for any speaker of a germanic language, as most of them have
            >>>some.
            >>>How do you other creators see that? Ingmar, why have you decided to
            >>>let out the irregulars? Questions, questions, question...
            >>>
            >>>Greets, C.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
            >>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
            >>>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date:
            >>>
            >>>
            >1/08/2008 6:59 p.m.
            >
            >
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >No virus found in this incoming message.
            >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
            >Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1587 - Release Date: 2/08/2008 5:30 p.m.
            >
            >
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Chris
            Hi David, the words that I ve found unituitive were so from the viewpoint of an english-german-swedish speaker. It have been all words, that I couldn t
            Message 5 of 6 , Aug 3 4:55 AM
              Hi David,
              the words that I've found unituitive were so from the viewpoint of an
              english-german-swedish speaker. It have been all words, that I
              couldn't identify even with the knowledge of all three languages.
              Sometimes, i had to read them out aloud, to realize that the word had
              a long-vowel in the last syllable, but typically for
              germanic-speakers, I've put the stress on the first and shortened the
              last - so the word sounded nothing like it should (Maybe using accents
              could help with that problem?) Others just had strange forms for that
              I couldn't find a reason (armatur - armour) or were inconsistent
              (ambet + beamte = they belong together, but you can't see this anymore).
              As I said, if you are interessted, I give you my whole list.
              Also, I can help you with the translation of FS->German, if you like.
              Keep up the good work!

              Greets, Chris.



              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Chris
              >
              > I set the bar quite high when it comes to irregular parts of the
              > language. Not just any kind of majority but near unanimity.
              >
              > Thanks for the congrats, yes researching for the Uberlist is very time
              > consuming and painstaking. I'm still adding to and refining it, and
              > occasionaly I post an updated version. I'd also like to make an
              > English-Folksprak version of the list, so that there is available a
              > FS->EN, EN->FS dictionary, which is usable in printed form. At the
              > moment, it can be used as an EN->FS dictionary only by searching the MS
              > Excel file. To translate an EN word to FS, do a search in the "English
              > Translations" column. This will find all the instances of that EN
              word,
              > and thus all the FS words that match it for meaning.
              > I've currently been attempting to add translations from FS into other
              > major langages, such as FS->German, FS->French, FS->Russian, FS->Dutch,
              > FS->Swedish. But I've found this this is really slowing down the
              > progress, since each additional language adds a proportionate weight to
              > the workload. It normally takes me about 20 minutes of research and
              > checking and cross-checking to create a single FS word and its
              > definition in English. This is because I check the meaning of cognate
              > to the FS word in all the source languages and try to identify the
              > shared meanings and usages. I check multiple sources for each language.
              > If I also generate definitions for those other 5 languages, it takes
              > more like 2 hours for a single word. Ideally fluent and preferably
              > native speakers of those languages would do those translations.
              > Were those unintuitive words unintuitive from your point-of-view as an
              > English speaker? If so was it because the words had no cognate at
              all in
              > English. Words such as "behaglik" or "ambet". The are quite a few of
              > these. Or was it words that had a cognate in English but the English
              > word meant something rather different from the Folksprak word? Words
              > such as "akker", "allso", "besoeke" or "koepe"?
              >
              >
              > Chris wrote:
              >
              > >Thank you David, for your answer.
              > >So we absolutely agree here, I used a similar way in my former
              > >IG-creation, including all strong verbs inflections that are found in
              > >the majority of germanic languages.
              > >
              > >I have to congratulate you, your uberlist is very useful, and I guess
              > >a lot of time was spent creating it.
              > >I haven't read the whole list yet, but I'm through every entry from A
              > >- C. If you are interested and think it would be helpful to make FS
              > >better, I can give you a list of all words that I found "unintuitive"
              > >- words which I didn't understand without looking into the
              > >translations (it weren't many).
              > >
              > >Greets, C.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > >>Hi Chris
              > >>The uberlist4000 file is my creation. as such it may not match the
              > >>opinions of other group members such as Ingmar/Chamavian. I know the
              > >>Ingmar's Middelsprake avoids just about any sort of irregular verb
              > >>except for the verbs to have and to be.
              > >>In my uberlist, I do have some irregular and strong verbs. The only
              > >>verbs that are strong, are those where the cognates are strong in
              all 4
              > >>branchs of the source languages -- so have a cognate strong verb in
              > >>English, Dutch, German, and at least one scandinavian language. So
              for
              > >>example, the FS word "drinke" (to drink) is strong. The past tense is
              > >>"drank-" and the past participle is "drunken". I made "drinke" strong
              > >>because the cognates EN drink, NL drinken, DE trinken, DA drikke, NO
              > >>drikke, SV dricka are all strong.
              > >>As a counter-example, FS spreke (to speak) is weak/regular. Although
              > >>
              > >>
              > >the
              > >
              > >
              > >>cognates to this verb are strong in EN, NL and DE, there are no
              > >>
              > >>
              > >cognates
              > >
              > >
              > >>to this verb in the scandinavian languages. It is thus not
              represented
              > >>by strong cognates in all 4 source language branches. Or FS slape (to
              > >>sleep). This has strong cognates in NL slapen and DE schlafen. But
              > >>
              > >>
              > >it is
              > >
              > >
              > >>weak in EN sleep. And in scandinavian it is only cognate to SV slafa,
              > >>which is also weak. So only strong in 2/4 of the source language
              > >>
              > >>
              > >branches.
              > >
              > >
              > >>I think that in cases where a verb has strong cognates in ALL of the
              > >>germanic source languages, it is just a easy to learn the verb as a
              > >>strong verb, than it is to un-learn this and force a speaker to
              use the
              > >>verb as weak. It's not adding much to native germanic speakers
              > >>
              > >>
              > >burden to
              > >
              > >
              > >>learn the language. It makes the language more natural and provides
              > >>
              > >>
              > >some
              > >
              > >
              > >>assistance or preparation for what to expect in a natural germanic
              > >>language. I have also tried to make my strong verbs conform more
              > >>
              > >>
              > >closely
              > >
              > >
              > >>to the 7 germanic strong verb classes than they do in any of the
              > >>
              > >>
              > >natural
              > >
              > >
              > >>germanic languages -- making the ablaut changes for each class very
              > >>regular. For example in Class III strong verbs, the noun ablaut
              always
              > >>without exception goes from present tense "i" to past tense "a" to
              past
              > >>participle "u" plus a -en pp ending.
              > >>so drink-, drank-, drunken
              > >>spring-, sprang, sprungen,
              > >>bind- band-, bunden
              > >>
              > >>The cognates to these examples are strong in English but more
              haphazard
              > >>in their conjugation:
              > >>drink, drank, drunk (or drunken used in a specialised adjectival
              manner)
              > >>spring, sprang, sprung
              > >>bind, bound, bound.
              > >>
              > >>So although my FS has strong verbs, they should be easier to learn
              than
              > >>the equivalent English strong verb, and are also much less in number.
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>Chris wrote:
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>>Hei, me again.
              > >>>Another question that arouse while reading the material to FS/MS and
              > >>>FM, what about strong and irregular verbs?
              > >>>The MS and MF grammar state, that there are none, exept for
              one(?), in
              > >>>the uberlist of FS I found evidence that FS (maybe) uses irregular
              > >>>verbforms.
              > >>>The reason I joined this group was, as you can imagine, that I'm
              > >>>interessted in creating an Intergermanic-Language (I gave up my
              > >>>solitary attempt, after I realized, that it might be a little too
              much
              > >>>for a single person). In all of my own versions of an IGL, I decided
              > >>>to use irregular verbforms, because I believed, they are more natural
              > >>>to learn for any speaker of a germanic language, as most of them have
              > >>>some.
              > >>>How do you other creators see that? Ingmar, why have you decided to
              > >>>let out the irregulars? Questions, questions, question...
              > >>>
              > >>>Greets, C.
              > >>>
              > >>>
              > >>>
              > >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
              > >>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
              > >>>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date:
              > >>>
              > >>>
              > >1/08/2008 6:59 p.m.
              > >
              > >
              > >>>
              > >>>
              > >>>
              > >>>
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >No virus found in this incoming message.
              > >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
              > >Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1587 - Release Date:
              2/08/2008 5:30 p.m.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • David Parke
              Yes, I d expect you had trouble with distinguishing long e from unstressed schwa. Words such as beger [b@ ge:r] are obviously problematic (means the same as
              Message 6 of 6 , Aug 3 6:11 AM
                Yes, I'd expect you had trouble with distinguishing long "e" from
                unstressed schwa. Words such as beger [b@"ge:r] are obviously
                problematic (means the same as DE Begehr). It could just as easily be
                interpreted to be pronounced as ["be:g@r]
                I am not really sure what to do about that problem -- I'd like to avoid
                accents.
                The trick to getting how the long/short vowels work is that short vowels
                are followed by a 2 or more consonants. Long vowels are followed by a
                single consonant. This is all OK for every vowel except "e". E is also
                used as in unstressed schwa vowel. So there are a few words where this
                can be ambiguous. For words such as "allee", "armee", "idee", "kaffee",
                I've doubled the final vowel so it can't be mistaken for a [@]. Maybe in
                the case of "beger", I should double it too and have it as "begeer".

                "Armatur" was based on the Interlingua prototype of the word. I haven't
                updated that word in a long time. I don't refer to Interlingua as a
                source language any more (substituted it with French). Maybe I'll change
                it to "armur" instead. Or scrap it entirely since it doesn't seem to be
                a very soundly researched word.


                If you can of post your own work, please do -- I'd be interested.

                I am not sure of what the best approach is for generating the FS->DE
                words. You could either translate the FS-EN list from ENglish into
                German. Or re-derive the words by checking the translations of the
                source language cognates. For example with a FS word such as "schyve" My
                English translation is " v. = shove, push, thrust, push along".
                One could either translate "shove" and "push" and "thrust", and "push
                along" into German and figure out what German words translate these
                English words best.
                Or one could go back to the source language cognates. FS schyve is based
                on EN shove, NL schuiven, DE schieben, DA skubbe, NO skubbe and skyve,
                SV skuffa. One could consult EN-DE, NL-DE, DE-DE, DA-DE, NO-DE, SV-DE
                dictionaries and find out which of the translations were common to a
                majority of the source languages. This would mirror the way I do it for
                English. In my experience this is quite practical for a FS to EN or a FS
                to DE dictionary. Or even for FS into other major European languages
                such as FS to French or FS to Russan.
                But for some of the smaller languages, it becomes quite a lot more
                difficult. Especially for Dutch and the Scandinavian languages. The
                problem is that it is (online) more difficult to find good translation
                dictionaries of Dutch into Danish or Swedish or Norwegian. Basically
                it's common to find dictionaries translating between big languages. It's
                also common to find dictionaries translating between small languages and
                big languages. But between 2 small languages, these dictionaries aren't
                as common or as good. That's not to say the resources aren't out there.
                It's just they don't exist on the internet or in my local library or
                bookshops. I could of course hop on a plane and fly 20 000km to scour
                the libraries and bookshops of Amsterdam and Copenhagen. But then again
                my boss and my bank manager and my girlfriend might have something to
                about that. For these languages, it may be more practical to base their
                FS dictionaries on translations of the bigger dictionaries rather than
                by direct derivation from the source languages.


                Chris wrote:

                >Hi David,
                >the words that I've found unituitive were so from the viewpoint of an
                >english-german-swedish speaker. It have been all words, that I
                >couldn't identify even with the knowledge of all three languages.
                >Sometimes, i had to read them out aloud, to realize that the word had
                >a long-vowel in the last syllable, but typically for
                >germanic-speakers, I've put the stress on the first and shortened the
                >last - so the word sounded nothing like it should (Maybe using accents
                >could help with that problem?) Others just had strange forms for that
                >I couldn't find a reason (armatur - armour) or were inconsistent
                >(ambet + beamte = they belong together, but you can't see this anymore).
                >As I said, if you are interessted, I give you my whole list.
                >Also, I can help you with the translation of FS->German, if you like.
                >Keep up the good work!
                >
                >Greets, Chris.
                >
                >
                >
                >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >>Hi Chris
                >>
                >>I set the bar quite high when it comes to irregular parts of the
                >>language. Not just any kind of majority but near unanimity.
                >>
                >>Thanks for the congrats, yes researching for the Uberlist is very time
                >>consuming and painstaking. I'm still adding to and refining it, and
                >>occasionaly I post an updated version. I'd also like to make an
                >>English-Folksprak version of the list, so that there is available a
                >>FS->EN, EN->FS dictionary, which is usable in printed form. At the
                >>moment, it can be used as an EN->FS dictionary only by searching the MS
                >>Excel file. To translate an EN word to FS, do a search in the "English
                >>Translations" column. This will find all the instances of that EN
                >>
                >>
                >word,
                >
                >
                >>and thus all the FS words that match it for meaning.
                >>I've currently been attempting to add translations from FS into other
                >>major langages, such as FS->German, FS->French, FS->Russian, FS->Dutch,
                >>FS->Swedish. But I've found this this is really slowing down the
                >>progress, since each additional language adds a proportionate weight to
                >>the workload. It normally takes me about 20 minutes of research and
                >>checking and cross-checking to create a single FS word and its
                >>definition in English. This is because I check the meaning of cognate
                >>to the FS word in all the source languages and try to identify the
                >>shared meanings and usages. I check multiple sources for each language.
                >>If I also generate definitions for those other 5 languages, it takes
                >>more like 2 hours for a single word. Ideally fluent and preferably
                >>native speakers of those languages would do those translations.
                >>Were those unintuitive words unintuitive from your point-of-view as an
                >>English speaker? If so was it because the words had no cognate at
                >>
                >>
                >all in
                >
                >
                >>English. Words such as "behaglik" or "ambet". The are quite a few of
                >>these. Or was it words that had a cognate in English but the English
                >>word meant something rather different from the Folksprak word? Words
                >>such as "akker", "allso", "besoeke" or "koepe"?
                >>
                >>
                >>Chris wrote:
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>>Thank you David, for your answer.
                >>>So we absolutely agree here, I used a similar way in my former
                >>>IG-creation, including all strong verbs inflections that are found in
                >>>the majority of germanic languages.
                >>>
                >>>I have to congratulate you, your uberlist is very useful, and I guess
                >>>a lot of time was spent creating it.
                >>>I haven't read the whole list yet, but I'm through every entry from A
                >>>- C. If you are interested and think it would be helpful to make FS
                >>>better, I can give you a list of all words that I found "unintuitive"
                >>>- words which I didn't understand without looking into the
                >>>translations (it weren't many).
                >>>
                >>>Greets, C.
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>Hi Chris
                >>>>The uberlist4000 file is my creation. as such it may not match the
                >>>>opinions of other group members such as Ingmar/Chamavian. I know the
                >>>>Ingmar's Middelsprake avoids just about any sort of irregular verb
                >>>>except for the verbs to have and to be.
                >>>>In my uberlist, I do have some irregular and strong verbs. The only
                >>>>verbs that are strong, are those where the cognates are strong in
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >all 4
                >
                >
                >>>>branchs of the source languages -- so have a cognate strong verb in
                >>>>English, Dutch, German, and at least one scandinavian language. So
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >for
                >
                >
                >>>>example, the FS word "drinke" (to drink) is strong. The past tense is
                >>>>"drank-" and the past participle is "drunken". I made "drinke" strong
                >>>>because the cognates EN drink, NL drinken, DE trinken, DA drikke, NO
                >>>>drikke, SV dricka are all strong.
                >>>>As a counter-example, FS spreke (to speak) is weak/regular. Although
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>the
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>cognates to this verb are strong in EN, NL and DE, there are no
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>cognates
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>to this verb in the scandinavian languages. It is thus not
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >represented
                >
                >
                >>>>by strong cognates in all 4 source language branches. Or FS slape (to
                >>>>sleep). This has strong cognates in NL slapen and DE schlafen. But
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>it is
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>weak in EN sleep. And in scandinavian it is only cognate to SV slafa,
                >>>>which is also weak. So only strong in 2/4 of the source language
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>branches.
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>I think that in cases where a verb has strong cognates in ALL of the
                >>>>germanic source languages, it is just a easy to learn the verb as a
                >>>>strong verb, than it is to un-learn this and force a speaker to
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >use the
                >
                >
                >>>>verb as weak. It's not adding much to native germanic speakers
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>burden to
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>learn the language. It makes the language more natural and provides
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>some
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>assistance or preparation for what to expect in a natural germanic
                >>>>language. I have also tried to make my strong verbs conform more
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>closely
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>to the 7 germanic strong verb classes than they do in any of the
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>natural
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>germanic languages -- making the ablaut changes for each class very
                >>>>regular. For example in Class III strong verbs, the noun ablaut
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >always
                >
                >
                >>>>without exception goes from present tense "i" to past tense "a" to
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >past
                >
                >
                >>>>participle "u" plus a -en pp ending.
                >>>>so drink-, drank-, drunken
                >>>>spring-, sprang, sprungen,
                >>>>bind- band-, bunden
                >>>>
                >>>>The cognates to these examples are strong in English but more
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >haphazard
                >
                >
                >>>>in their conjugation:
                >>>>drink, drank, drunk (or drunken used in a specialised adjectival
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >manner)
                >
                >
                >>>>spring, sprang, sprung
                >>>>bind, bound, bound.
                >>>>
                >>>>So although my FS has strong verbs, they should be easier to learn
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >than
                >
                >
                >>>>the equivalent English strong verb, and are also much less in number.
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>Chris wrote:
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>>Hei, me again.
                >>>>>Another question that arouse while reading the material to FS/MS and
                >>>>>FM, what about strong and irregular verbs?
                >>>>>The MS and MF grammar state, that there are none, exept for
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >one(?), in
                >
                >
                >>>>>the uberlist of FS I found evidence that FS (maybe) uses irregular
                >>>>>verbforms.
                >>>>>The reason I joined this group was, as you can imagine, that I'm
                >>>>>interessted in creating an Intergermanic-Language (I gave up my
                >>>>>solitary attempt, after I realized, that it might be a little too
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >much
                >
                >
                >>>>>for a single person). In all of my own versions of an IGL, I decided
                >>>>>to use irregular verbforms, because I believed, they are more natural
                >>>>>to learn for any speaker of a germanic language, as most of them have
                >>>>>some.
                >>>>>How do you other creators see that? Ingmar, why have you decided to
                >>>>>let out the irregulars? Questions, questions, question...
                >>>>>
                >>>>>Greets, C.
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
                >>>>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                >>>>>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date:
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>1/08/2008 6:59 p.m.
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
                >>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                >>>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1587 - Release Date:
                >>>
                >>>
                >2/08/2008 5:30 p.m.
                >
                >
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>
                >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >No virus found in this incoming message.
                >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                >Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1587 - Release Date: 2/08/2008 5:30 p.m.
                >
                >
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.