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

Plural Latin Words

Expand Messages
  • David Parke
    The germanic source languages have a lot of Latin originated words. Sorry to state the obvious. I ve notices that in many cases, the latin word has been
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 24, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The germanic source languages have a lot of Latin originated words. Sorry to state the
      obvious.
      I've notices that in many cases, the latin word has been borrowed intact with the latin
      grammatical ending. However this isn't necessary common accross the germlangs for any
      single particular Latin borrowing.
      eg 1 EN territory vs DE Territorium
      eg 2 EN cone vs DE Konus
      eg 3 EN scheme vs DE Schema
      eg 4 EN pendulum vs DE Pendel.

      It seems to me that the continental germlangs are even more likely than EN to borrow
      Latin words with the -us, -um, -a endings intact. I think that the majority form should be
      the basis of the FS word. Eg if the majority of the source languages have a latin borrowing
      ending in -us, then the FS word should end in -us. If the majority of the source languages
      have dropped the Latin -us, -um, -a suffixes then the FS word should do likewise.

      So it's clear to me that FS will have a large number of words of Latin origin that end in -um
      or -us or -a.

      Now the question is: How do we do the plural for these words????
      Let's say FS has a word such as konus or territorium. Should the plural follow the regualar
      plural (whatever that might be -- we can't agree on that)
      So is the plural of konus *konusen? Is the plural of territorium *territoriumen?

      Or do we have a scheme that is more respectful of the latin original, and recognise that
      the -us, -um endings aren't really part of the word stem. And have some ending that
      shaves off the -us or -um and replaces it with a plural suffix.
      So should the plural of konus be *koni? Or perhaps *konen? Or *konien?
      Should the plural of territorium be *territoria? or Perhaps *territorien? Or *territoren?

      Any ideas or opinions?
    • David Parke
      Forgot to mention my other suggestion for these words: Loose the -us, -um endings and replace them with schwas in just about every instance -even if the
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 24, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Forgot to mention my other suggestion for these words:

        Loose the -us, -um endings and replace them with schwas in just about
        every instance -even if the majority of the germlangs have those
        endings for a particular latin word.

        So instead of "konus" have "kone"
        Instead of "territorium" have "territorie"
        Instead of "kriterium" have "kriterie"

        Rather than making a special pluralization rule for words with these
        endings -- just loose the endings. They're basically redundant
        grammatical junk in any case, because they are only applicable in
        Latin for certain grammatical cases and numbers. Loosing the endings
        makes them work better within simple pluralization rules.
        Maybe we should loose all of these endings if ANY ONE of the source
        languages has lost them. Only retain them if EVERY SINGLE ONE of the
        source languages retains them. That would eliminate 90% of them. For
        the small number that remained, a regular plural ending could be
        applied to the -us, -um. Because they would be very rare, they would
        be unlikely to offend people with a knowledge and repect of Latin.

        It would also make the stress rules for Romance borrowings easier to
        follow, since these are typically stressed on the syllable before the
        final consonant. With, -us and -um words, we need to make an exception
        to this rule for them, since we should not be stressing the -us or
        -um, but the root before it.
        Get rid of those -us and -um suffixes and this exception goes away.




        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
        >
        > The germanic source languages have a lot of Latin originated words.
        Sorry to state the
        > obvious.
        > I've notices that in many cases, the latin word has been borrowed
        intact with the latin
        > grammatical ending. However this isn't necessary common accross the
        germlangs for any
        > single particular Latin borrowing.
        > eg 1 EN territory vs DE Territorium
        > eg 2 EN cone vs DE Konus
        > eg 3 EN scheme vs DE Schema
        > eg 4 EN pendulum vs DE Pendel.
        >
        > It seems to me that the continental germlangs are even more likely
        than EN to borrow
        > Latin words with the -us, -um, -a endings intact. I think that the
        majority form should be
        > the basis of the FS word. Eg if the majority of the source languages
        have a latin borrowing
        > ending in -us, then the FS word should end in -us. If the majority
        of the source languages
        > have dropped the Latin -us, -um, -a suffixes then the FS word should
        do likewise.
        >
        > So it's clear to me that FS will have a large number of words of
        Latin origin that end in -um
        > or -us or -a.
        >
        > Now the question is: How do we do the plural for these words????
        > Let's say FS has a word such as konus or territorium. Should the
        plural follow the regualar
        > plural (whatever that might be -- we can't agree on that)
        > So is the plural of konus *konusen? Is the plural of territorium
        *territoriumen?
        >
        > Or do we have a scheme that is more respectful of the latin
        original, and recognise that
        > the -us, -um endings aren't really part of the word stem. And have
        some ending that
        > shaves off the -us or -um and replaces it with a plural suffix.
        > So should the plural of konus be *koni? Or perhaps *konen? Or *konien?
        > Should the plural of territorium be *territoria? or Perhaps
        *territorien? Or *territoren?
        >
        > Any ideas or opinions?
        >
      • chamavian
        Hei David Loosing endings like -um, -us, -a when just ONE of the sorce langs doesn t have them, wouldn t that be against the principles? Why change that for
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 26, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Hei David

          Loosing endings like -um, -us, -a when just ONE of the sorce langs
          doesn't have them, wouldn't that be against the principles? Why
          change that for those Latin borrowings? For the sake of plurals?

          Plural just should be -s here: museums, konuses, schemas.

          In colloquial Dutch we say "museums" too instead of official "musea".

          Ingmar

          and you think we should work at FS together again?

          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
          >
          > Forgot to mention my other suggestion for these words:
          >
          > Loose the -us, -um endings and replace them with schwas in just
          about
          > every instance -even if the majority of the germlangs have those
          > endings for a particular latin word.
          >
          > So instead of "konus" have "kone"
          > Instead of "territorium" have "territorie"
          > Instead of "kriterium" have "kriterie"
          >
          > Rather than making a special pluralization rule for words with these
          > endings -- just loose the endings. They're basically redundant
          > grammatical junk in any case, because they are only applicable in
          > Latin for certain grammatical cases and numbers. Loosing the endings
          > makes them work better within simple pluralization rules.
          > Maybe we should loose all of these endings if ANY ONE of the source
          > languages has lost them. Only retain them if EVERY SINGLE ONE of the
          > source languages retains them. That would eliminate 90% of them. For
          > the small number that remained, a regular plural ending could be
          > applied to the -us, -um. Because they would be very rare, they would
          > be unlikely to offend people with a knowledge and repect of Latin.
          >
          > It would also make the stress rules for Romance borrowings easier to
          > follow, since these are typically stressed on the syllable before
          the
          > final consonant. With, -us and -um words, we need to make an
          exception
          > to this rule for them, since we should not be stressing the -us or
          > -um, but the root before it.
          > Get rid of those -us and -um suffixes and this exception goes away.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
          > >
          > > The germanic source languages have a lot of Latin originated
          words.
          > Sorry to state the
          > > obvious.
          > > I've notices that in many cases, the latin word has been borrowed
          > intact with the latin
          > > grammatical ending. However this isn't necessary common accross
          the
          > germlangs for any
          > > single particular Latin borrowing.
          > > eg 1 EN territory vs DE Territorium
          > > eg 2 EN cone vs DE Konus
          > > eg 3 EN scheme vs DE Schema
          > > eg 4 EN pendulum vs DE Pendel.
          > >
          > > It seems to me that the continental germlangs are even more likely
          > than EN to borrow
          > > Latin words with the -us, -um, -a endings intact. I think that the
          > majority form should be
          > > the basis of the FS word. Eg if the majority of the source
          languages
          > have a latin borrowing
          > > ending in -us, then the FS word should end in -us. If the majority
          > of the source languages
          > > have dropped the Latin -us, -um, -a suffixes then the FS word
          should
          > do likewise.
          > >
          > > So it's clear to me that FS will have a large number of words of
          > Latin origin that end in -um
          > > or -us or -a.
          > >
          > > Now the question is: How do we do the plural for these words????
          > > Let's say FS has a word such as konus or territorium. Should the
          > plural follow the regualar
          > > plural (whatever that might be -- we can't agree on that)
          > > So is the plural of konus *konusen? Is the plural of territorium
          > *territoriumen?
          > >
          > > Or do we have a scheme that is more respectful of the latin
          > original, and recognise that
          > > the -us, -um endings aren't really part of the word stem. And have
          > some ending that
          > > shaves off the -us or -um and replaces it with a plural suffix.
          > > So should the plural of konus be *koni? Or perhaps *konen? Or
          *konien?
          > > Should the plural of territorium be *territoria? or Perhaps
          > *territorien? Or *territoren?
          > >
          > > Any ideas or opinions?
          > >
          >
        • Doug Casey
          I like the idea of loosing the latin endings; it would pull Folkspraak more to the Germanic side of things.  However, I think your point is a valid one if the
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 26, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I like the idea of loosing the latin endings; it would pull Folkspraak more to the Germanic side of things.  However, I think your point is a valid one if the goal Folkspraak is to allow quick learning by Germanic language speakers/readers. 

            -Rolf

            --- On Fri, 9/26/08, chamavian <roerd096@...> wrote:
            From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
            Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Plural Latin Words
            To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 2:59 PM











            Hei David



            Loosing endings like -um, -us, -a when just ONE of the sorce langs

            doesn't have them, wouldn't that be against the principles? Why

            change that for those Latin borrowings? For the sake of plurals?



            Plural just should be -s here: museums, konuses, schemas.



            In colloquial Dutch we say "museums" too instead of official "musea".



            Ingmar



            and you think we should work at FS together again?



            --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:

            >

            > Forgot to mention my other suggestion for these words:

            >

            > Loose the -us, -um endings and replace them with schwas in just

            about

            > every instance -even if the majority of the germlangs have those

            > endings for a particular latin word.

            >

            > So instead of "konus" have "kone"

            > Instead of "territorium" have "territorie"

            > Instead of "kriterium" have "kriterie"

            >

            > Rather than making a special pluralization rule for words with these

            > endings -- just loose the endings. They're basically redundant

            > grammatical junk in any case, because they are only applicable in

            > Latin for certain grammatical cases and numbers. Loosing the endings

            > makes them work better within simple pluralization rules.

            > Maybe we should loose all of these endings if ANY ONE of the source

            > languages has lost them. Only retain them if EVERY SINGLE ONE of the

            > source languages retains them. That would eliminate 90% of them. For

            > the small number that remained, a regular plural ending could be

            > applied to the -us, -um. Because they would be very rare, they would

            > be unlikely to offend people with a knowledge and repect of Latin.

            >

            > It would also make the stress rules for Romance borrowings easier to

            > follow, since these are typically stressed on the syllable before

            the

            > final consonant. With, -us and -um words, we need to make an

            exception

            > to this rule for them, since we should not be stressing the -us or

            > -um, but the root before it.

            > Get rid of those -us and -um suffixes and this exception goes away.

            >

            >

            >

            >

            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:

            > >

            > > The germanic source languages have a lot of Latin originated

            words.

            > Sorry to state the

            > > obvious.

            > > I've notices that in many cases, the latin word has been borrowed

            > intact with the latin

            > > grammatical ending. However this isn't necessary common accross

            the

            > germlangs for any

            > > single particular Latin borrowing.

            > > eg 1 EN territory vs DE Territorium

            > > eg 2 EN cone vs DE Konus

            > > eg 3 EN scheme vs DE Schema

            > > eg 4 EN pendulum vs DE Pendel.

            > >

            > > It seems to me that the continental germlangs are even more likely

            > than EN to borrow

            > > Latin words with the -us, -um, -a endings intact. I think that the

            > majority form should be

            > > the basis of the FS word. Eg if the majority of the source

            languages

            > have a latin borrowing

            > > ending in -us, then the FS word should end in -us. If the majority

            > of the source languages

            > > have dropped the Latin -us, -um, -a suffixes then the FS word

            should

            > do likewise.

            > >

            > > So it's clear to me that FS will have a large number of words of

            > Latin origin that end in -um

            > > or -us or -a.

            > >

            > > Now the question is: How do we do the plural for these words????

            > > Let's say FS has a word such as konus or territorium. Should the

            > plural follow the regualar

            > > plural (whatever that might be -- we can't agree on that)

            > > So is the plural of konus *konusen? Is the plural of territorium

            > *territoriumen?

            > >

            > > Or do we have a scheme that is more respectful of the latin

            > original, and recognise that

            > > the -us, -um endings aren't really part of the word stem. And have

            > some ending that

            > > shaves off the -us or -um and replaces it with a plural suffix.

            > > So should the plural of konus be *koni? Or perhaps *konen? Or

            *konien?

            > > Should the plural of territorium be *territoria? or Perhaps

            > *territorien? Or *territoren?

            > >

            > > Any ideas or opinions?

            > >

            >





























            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Parke
            Plurals are quite an important part of the language and I don t have too much problem with slightly modifying a small group of words to make them fit the
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 26, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Plurals are quite an important part of the language and I don't have
              too much problem with slightly modifying a small group of words to make
              them fit the scheme better and therefore make the language easier to learn.
              Don't forget with these words that the -us and -um endings aren't
              important or meaningful. THEY ARE NOT THE ROOT. Look beyond the forms of
              the word in just one situation (the nominative singular) and see it in a
              wider context, including it's forms in the plural and it's forms in
              derived compounds and related words.

              The majority of the source languages have some kind of special way of
              dealing with those latin endings, which doesn't follow exactly the
              normal way of treating words. Most of the source languages already have
              some scheme that recognises that the -um and -us endings aren't part of
              the root and get chopped off or modified in the plural. Naturally that
              adds to the complexity of the pluralisation of the natural languages.
              And in very many cases, native speakers seem to get it wrong and in
              casual speech have a different plural from the official form. Eg saying
              "data" as if it's a singular. Or using making the plural of "datum" *datums.

              In most cases of these words, at least one of the source languages has
              "nativised" it by losing the -us and -um endings. Normally this is
              English and Swedish since they are more likely to be influenced by the
              French form of these latinate borrowings. I think we should at least try
              to get as few of these latin endings as possible so we can avoid ugly
              and bad latin pluralisations.
              For the few that remain, they can have whatever regular pluralisations
              scheme we decide upon applied to them.
              So "fokus" should most likely keep the -us ending and the plural
              shouldn't be *foki but fokusen or whatever.

              These Latin endings also complicate the teaching of the stress patterns
              for Romance borrowings, because the stress shouldn't really fall on the
              -um or -us but on the real root. If we have a whole lot of "-us" and
              "-um" words, then it's also another exception to the stress patterns
              that needs to taught.

              chamavian wrote:

              >Hei David
              >
              >Loosing endings like -um, -us, -a when just ONE of the sorce langs
              >doesn't have them, wouldn't that be against the principles? Why
              >change that for those Latin borrowings? For the sake of plurals?
              >
              >Plural just should be -s here: museums, konuses, schemas.
              >
              >In colloquial Dutch we say "museums" too instead of official "musea".
              >
              >Ingmar
              >
              >and you think we should work at FS together again?
              >
              >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >>Forgot to mention my other suggestion for these words:
              >>
              >>Loose the -us, -um endings and replace them with schwas in just
              >>
              >>
              >about
              >
              >
              >>every instance -even if the majority of the germlangs have those
              >>endings for a particular latin word.
              >>
              >>So instead of "konus" have "kone"
              >>Instead of "territorium" have "territorie"
              >>Instead of "kriterium" have "kriterie"
              >>
              >>Rather than making a special pluralization rule for words with these
              >>endings -- just loose the endings. They're basically redundant
              >>grammatical junk in any case, because they are only applicable in
              >>Latin for certain grammatical cases and numbers. Loosing the endings
              >>makes them work better within simple pluralization rules.
              >>Maybe we should loose all of these endings if ANY ONE of the source
              >>languages has lost them. Only retain them if EVERY SINGLE ONE of the
              >>source languages retains them. That would eliminate 90% of them. For
              >>the small number that remained, a regular plural ending could be
              >>applied to the -us, -um. Because they would be very rare, they would
              >>be unlikely to offend people with a knowledge and repect of Latin.
              >>
              >>It would also make the stress rules for Romance borrowings easier to
              >>follow, since these are typically stressed on the syllable before
              >>
              >>
              >the
              >
              >
              >>final consonant. With, -us and -um words, we need to make an
              >>
              >>
              >exception
              >
              >
              >>to this rule for them, since we should not be stressing the -us or
              >>-um, but the root before it.
              >>Get rid of those -us and -um suffixes and this exception goes away.
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
              >>
              >>
              >>>The germanic source languages have a lot of Latin originated
              >>>
              >>>
              >words.
              >
              >
              >>Sorry to state the
              >>
              >>
              >>>obvious.
              >>>I've notices that in many cases, the latin word has been borrowed
              >>>
              >>>
              >>intact with the latin
              >>
              >>
              >>>grammatical ending. However this isn't necessary common accross
              >>>
              >>>
              >the
              >
              >
              >>germlangs for any
              >>
              >>
              >>>single particular Latin borrowing.
              >>>eg 1 EN territory vs DE Territorium
              >>>eg 2 EN cone vs DE Konus
              >>>eg 3 EN scheme vs DE Schema
              >>>eg 4 EN pendulum vs DE Pendel.
              >>>
              >>>It seems to me that the continental germlangs are even more likely
              >>>
              >>>
              >>than EN to borrow
              >>
              >>
              >>>Latin words with the -us, -um, -a endings intact. I think that the
              >>>
              >>>
              >>majority form should be
              >>
              >>
              >>>the basis of the FS word. Eg if the majority of the source
              >>>
              >>>
              >languages
              >
              >
              >>have a latin borrowing
              >>
              >>
              >>>ending in -us, then the FS word should end in -us. If the majority
              >>>
              >>>
              >>of the source languages
              >>
              >>
              >>>have dropped the Latin -us, -um, -a suffixes then the FS word
              >>>
              >>>
              >should
              >
              >
              >>do likewise.
              >>
              >>
              >>>So it's clear to me that FS will have a large number of words of
              >>>
              >>>
              >>Latin origin that end in -um
              >>
              >>
              >>>or -us or -a.
              >>>
              >>>Now the question is: How do we do the plural for these words????
              >>>Let's say FS has a word such as konus or territorium. Should the
              >>>
              >>>
              >>plural follow the regualar
              >>
              >>
              >>>plural (whatever that might be -- we can't agree on that)
              >>>So is the plural of konus *konusen? Is the plural of territorium
              >>>
              >>>
              >>*territoriumen?
              >>
              >>
              >>>Or do we have a scheme that is more respectful of the latin
              >>>
              >>>
              >>original, and recognise that
              >>
              >>
              >>>the -us, -um endings aren't really part of the word stem. And have
              >>>
              >>>
              >>some ending that
              >>
              >>
              >>>shaves off the -us or -um and replaces it with a plural suffix.
              >>>So should the plural of konus be *koni? Or perhaps *konen? Or
              >>>
              >>>
              >*konien?
              >
              >
              >>>Should the plural of territorium be *territoria? or Perhaps
              >>>
              >>>
              >>*territorien? Or *territoren?
              >>
              >>
              >>>Any ideas or opinions?
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              >
              >No virus found in this incoming message.
              >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
              >Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.3/1694 - Release Date: 26/09/2008 6:55 p.m.
              >
              >
              >
            • Andrew Jarrette
              Why is everyone writing loosing the latin endings in this thread? The correct verb is losing : we should lose the latin endings , where (transitive)
              Message 6 of 9 , Sep 27, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Why is everyone writing "loosing the latin endings" in this thread?
                The correct verb is "losing": "we should lose the latin endings",
                where <lose> (transitive) means "get rid of" (not "loose" = "make
                loose or free"). I don't know what the equivalent Folkspraak word is.

                Andrew


                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Doug Casey <fisheromen1031@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > I like the idea of loosing the latin endings; it would pull
                Folkspraak more to the Germanic side of things.  However, I think
                your point is a valid one if the goal Folkspraak is to allow quick
                learning by Germanic language speakers/readers. 
                >
                > -Rolf
                >
                > --- On Fri, 9/26/08, chamavian <roerd096@...> wrote:
                > From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
                > Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Plural Latin Words
                > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 2:59 PM
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Hei David
                >
                >
                >
                > Loosing endings like -um, -us, -a when just ONE of the sorce langs
                >
                > doesn't have them, wouldn't that be against the principles? Why
                >
                > change that for those Latin borrowings? For the sake of plurals?
                >
                >
                >
                > Plural just should be -s here: museums, konuses, schemas.
                >
                >
                >
                > In colloquial Dutch we say "museums" too instead of
                official "musea".
                >
                >
                >
                > Ingmar
                >
                >
                >
                > and you think we should work at FS together again?
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Forgot to mention my other suggestion for these words:
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Loose the -us, -um endings and replace them with schwas in just
                >
                > about
                >
                > > every instance -even if the majority of the germlangs have those
                >
                > > endings for a particular latin word.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > So instead of "konus" have "kone"
                >
                > > Instead of "territorium" have "territorie"
                >
                > > Instead of "kriterium" have "kriterie"
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Rather than making a special pluralization rule for words with
                these
                >
                > > endings -- just loose the endings. They're basically redundant
                >
                > > grammatical junk in any case, because they are only applicable in
                >
                > > Latin for certain grammatical cases and numbers. Loosing the
                endings
                >
                > > makes them work better within simple pluralization rules.
                >
                > > Maybe we should loose all of these endings if ANY ONE of the
                source
                >
                > > languages has lost them. Only retain them if EVERY SINGLE ONE of
                the
                >
                > > source languages retains them. That would eliminate 90% of them.
                For
                >
                > > the small number that remained, a regular plural ending could be
                >
                > > applied to the -us, -um. Because they would be very rare, they
                would
                >
                > > be unlikely to offend people with a knowledge and repect of Latin.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > It would also make the stress rules for Romance borrowings easier
                to
                >
                > > follow, since these are typically stressed on the syllable before
                >
                > the
                >
                > > final consonant. With, -us and -um words, we need to make an
                >
                > exception
                >
                > > to this rule for them, since we should not be stressing the -us or
                >
                > > -um, but the root before it.
                >
                > > Get rid of those -us and -um suffixes and this exception goes
                away.
                >
                > >
                >
                > >
                >
                > >
                >
                > >
                >
                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > The germanic source languages have a lot of Latin originated
                >
                > words.
                >
                > > Sorry to state the
                >
                > > > obvious.
                >
                > > > I've notices that in many cases, the latin word has been
                borrowed
                >
                > > intact with the latin
                >
                > > > grammatical ending. However this isn't necessary common accross
                >
                > the
                >
                > > germlangs for any
                >
                > > > single particular Latin borrowing.
                >
                > > > eg 1 EN territory vs DE Territorium
                >
                > > > eg 2 EN cone vs DE Konus
                >
                > > > eg 3 EN scheme vs DE Schema
                >
                > > > eg 4 EN pendulum vs DE Pendel.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > It seems to me that the continental germlangs are even more
                likely
                >
                > > than EN to borrow
                >
                > > > Latin words with the -us, -um, -a endings intact. I think that
                the
                >
                > > majority form should be
                >
                > > > the basis of the FS word. Eg if the majority of the source
                >
                > languages
                >
                > > have a latin borrowing
                >
                > > > ending in -us, then the FS word should end in -us. If the
                majority
                >
                > > of the source languages
                >
                > > > have dropped the Latin -us, -um, -a suffixes then the FS word
                >
                > should
                >
                > > do likewise.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > So it's clear to me that FS will have a large number of words of
                >
                > > Latin origin that end in -um
                >
                > > > or -us or -a.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > Now the question is: How do we do the plural for these words????
                >
                > > > Let's say FS has a word such as konus or territorium. Should the
                >
                > > plural follow the regualar
                >
                > > > plural (whatever that might be -- we can't agree on that)
                >
                > > > So is the plural of konus *konusen? Is the plural of territorium
                >
                > > *territoriumen?
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > Or do we have a scheme that is more respectful of the latin
                >
                > > original, and recognise that
                >
                > > > the -us, -um endings aren't really part of the word stem. And
                have
                >
                > > some ending that
                >
                > > > shaves off the -us or -um and replaces it with a plural suffix.
                >
                > > > So should the plural of konus be *koni? Or perhaps *konen? Or
                >
                > *konien?
                >
                > > > Should the plural of territorium be *territoria? or Perhaps
                >
                > > *territorien? Or *territoren?
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > Any ideas or opinions?
                >
                > > >
                >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • chamavian
                Oh, that s just because English isn t my native language... ... thread? ... is. ... langs ... in ... of ... them. ... Latin. ... easier ... before ... or ...
                Message 7 of 9 , Sep 27, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Oh, that's just because English isn't my native language...

                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Why is everyone writing "loosing the latin endings" in this
                  thread?
                  > The correct verb is "losing": "we should lose the latin endings",
                  > where <lose> (transitive) means "get rid of" (not "loose" = "make
                  > loose or free"). I don't know what the equivalent Folkspraak word
                  is.
                  >
                  > Andrew
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Doug Casey <fisheromen1031@>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I like the idea of loosing the latin endings; it would pull
                  > Folkspraak more to the Germanic side of things.  However, I think
                  > your point is a valid one if the goal Folkspraak is to allow quick
                  > learning by Germanic language speakers/readers. 
                  > >
                  > > -Rolf
                  > >
                  > > --- On Fri, 9/26/08, chamavian <roerd096@> wrote:
                  > > From: chamavian <roerd096@>
                  > > Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Plural Latin Words
                  > > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 2:59 PM
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Hei David
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Loosing endings like -um, -us, -a when just ONE of the sorce
                  langs
                  > >
                  > > doesn't have them, wouldn't that be against the principles? Why
                  > >
                  > > change that for those Latin borrowings? For the sake of plurals?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Plural just should be -s here: museums, konuses, schemas.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > In colloquial Dutch we say "museums" too instead of
                  > official "musea".
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Ingmar
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > and you think we should work at FS together again?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > Forgot to mention my other suggestion for these words:
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > Loose the -us, -um endings and replace them with schwas in just
                  > >
                  > > about
                  > >
                  > > > every instance -even if the majority of the germlangs have those
                  > >
                  > > > endings for a particular latin word.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > So instead of "konus" have "kone"
                  > >
                  > > > Instead of "territorium" have "territorie"
                  > >
                  > > > Instead of "kriterium" have "kriterie"
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > Rather than making a special pluralization rule for words with
                  > these
                  > >
                  > > > endings -- just loose the endings. They're basically redundant
                  > >
                  > > > grammatical junk in any case, because they are only applicable
                  in
                  > >
                  > > > Latin for certain grammatical cases and numbers. Loosing the
                  > endings
                  > >
                  > > > makes them work better within simple pluralization rules.
                  > >
                  > > > Maybe we should loose all of these endings if ANY ONE of the
                  > source
                  > >
                  > > > languages has lost them. Only retain them if EVERY SINGLE ONE
                  of
                  > the
                  > >
                  > > > source languages retains them. That would eliminate 90% of
                  them.
                  > For
                  > >
                  > > > the small number that remained, a regular plural ending could be
                  > >
                  > > > applied to the -us, -um. Because they would be very rare, they
                  > would
                  > >
                  > > > be unlikely to offend people with a knowledge and repect of
                  Latin.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > It would also make the stress rules for Romance borrowings
                  easier
                  > to
                  > >
                  > > > follow, since these are typically stressed on the syllable
                  before
                  > >
                  > > the
                  > >
                  > > > final consonant. With, -us and -um words, we need to make an
                  > >
                  > > exception
                  > >
                  > > > to this rule for them, since we should not be stressing the -us
                  or
                  > >
                  > > > -um, but the root before it.
                  > >
                  > > > Get rid of those -us and -um suffixes and this exception goes
                  > away.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
                  wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > >
                  > >
                  > > > > The germanic source languages have a lot of Latin originated
                  > >
                  > > words.
                  > >
                  > > > Sorry to state the
                  > >
                  > > > > obvious.
                  > >
                  > > > > I've notices that in many cases, the latin word has been
                  > borrowed
                  > >
                  > > > intact with the latin
                  > >
                  > > > > grammatical ending. However this isn't necessary common
                  accross
                  > >
                  > > the
                  > >
                  > > > germlangs for any
                  > >
                  > > > > single particular Latin borrowing.
                  > >
                  > > > > eg 1 EN territory vs DE Territorium
                  > >
                  > > > > eg 2 EN cone vs DE Konus
                  > >
                  > > > > eg 3 EN scheme vs DE Schema
                  > >
                  > > > > eg 4 EN pendulum vs DE Pendel.
                  > >
                  > > > >
                  > >
                  > > > > It seems to me that the continental germlangs are even more
                  > likely
                  > >
                  > > > than EN to borrow
                  > >
                  > > > > Latin words with the -us, -um, -a endings intact. I think
                  that
                  > the
                  > >
                  > > > majority form should be
                  > >
                  > > > > the basis of the FS word. Eg if the majority of the source
                  > >
                  > > languages
                  > >
                  > > > have a latin borrowing
                  > >
                  > > > > ending in -us, then the FS word should end in -us. If the
                  > majority
                  > >
                  > > > of the source languages
                  > >
                  > > > > have dropped the Latin -us, -um, -a suffixes then the FS word
                  > >
                  > > should
                  > >
                  > > > do likewise.
                  > >
                  > > > >
                  > >
                  > > > > So it's clear to me that FS will have a large number of words
                  of
                  > >
                  > > > Latin origin that end in -um
                  > >
                  > > > > or -us or -a.
                  > >
                  > > > >
                  > >
                  > > > > Now the question is: How do we do the plural for these
                  words????
                  > >
                  > > > > Let's say FS has a word such as konus or territorium. Should
                  the
                  > >
                  > > > plural follow the regualar
                  > >
                  > > > > plural (whatever that might be -- we can't agree on that)
                  > >
                  > > > > So is the plural of konus *konusen? Is the plural of
                  territorium
                  > >
                  > > > *territoriumen?
                  > >
                  > > > >
                  > >
                  > > > > Or do we have a scheme that is more respectful of the latin
                  > >
                  > > > original, and recognise that
                  > >
                  > > > > the -us, -um endings aren't really part of the word stem. And
                  > have
                  > >
                  > > > some ending that
                  > >
                  > > > > shaves off the -us or -um and replaces it with a plural
                  suffix.
                  > >
                  > > > > So should the plural of konus be *koni? Or perhaps *konen? Or
                  > >
                  > > *konien?
                  > >
                  > > > > Should the plural of territorium be *territoria? or Perhaps
                  > >
                  > > > *territorien? Or *territoren?
                  > >
                  > > > >
                  > >
                  > > > > Any ideas or opinions?
                  > >
                  > > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >
                • David Parke
                  English is my native language, but I still can t get it write. Me fail English? That s unpossible!
                  Message 8 of 9 , Sep 28, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    English is my native language, but I still can't get it write. Me fail
                    English? That's unpossible!

                    chamavian wrote:

                    >Oh, that's just because English isn't my native language...
                    >
                    >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...>
                    >wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >>Why is everyone writing "loosing the latin endings" in this
                    >>
                    >>
                    >thread?
                    >
                    >
                    >>The correct verb is "losing": "we should lose the latin endings",
                    >>where <lose> (transitive) means "get rid of" (not "loose" = "make
                    >>loose or free"). I don't know what the equivalent Folkspraak word
                    >>
                    >>
                    >is.
                    >
                    >
                    >>Andrew
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Doug Casey <fisheromen1031@>
                    >>wrote:
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>I like the idea of loosing the latin endings; it would pull
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>Folkspraak more to the Germanic side of things. However, I think
                    >>your point is a valid one if the goal Folkspraak is to allow quick
                    >>learning by Germanic language speakers/readers.
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>-Rolf
                    >>>
                    >>>--- On Fri, 9/26/08, chamavian <roerd096@> wrote:
                    >>>From: chamavian <roerd096@>
                    >>>Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Plural Latin Words
                    >>>To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                    >>>Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 2:59 PM
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>> Hei David
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>Loosing endings like -um, -us, -a when just ONE of the sorce
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >langs
                    >
                    >
                    >>>doesn't have them, wouldn't that be against the principles? Why
                    >>>
                    >>>change that for those Latin borrowings? For the sake of plurals?
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>Plural just should be -s here: museums, konuses, schemas.
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>In colloquial Dutch we say "museums" too instead of
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>official "musea".
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>
                    >>>Ingmar
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>and you think we should work at FS together again?
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>>Forgot to mention my other suggestion for these words:
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>Loose the -us, -um endings and replace them with schwas in just
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>about
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>>every instance -even if the majority of the germlangs have those
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>endings for a particular latin word.
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>So instead of "konus" have "kone"
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>Instead of "territorium" have "territorie"
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>Instead of "kriterium" have "kriterie"
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>Rather than making a special pluralization rule for words with
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>these
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>endings -- just loose the endings. They're basically redundant
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>grammatical junk in any case, because they are only applicable
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >in
                    >
                    >
                    >>>>Latin for certain grammatical cases and numbers. Loosing the
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>endings
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>makes them work better within simple pluralization rules.
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>Maybe we should loose all of these endings if ANY ONE of the
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>source
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>languages has lost them. Only retain them if EVERY SINGLE ONE
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >of
                    >
                    >
                    >>the
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>source languages retains them. That would eliminate 90% of
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >them.
                    >
                    >
                    >>For
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>the small number that remained, a regular plural ending could be
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>applied to the -us, -um. Because they would be very rare, they
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>would
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>be unlikely to offend people with a knowledge and repect of
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >Latin.
                    >
                    >
                    >>>>It would also make the stress rules for Romance borrowings
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >easier
                    >
                    >
                    >>to
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>follow, since these are typically stressed on the syllable
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >before
                    >
                    >
                    >>>the
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>>final consonant. With, -us and -um words, we need to make an
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>exception
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>>to this rule for them, since we should not be stressing the -us
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >or
                    >
                    >
                    >>>>-um, but the root before it.
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>Get rid of those -us and -um suffixes and this exception goes
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>away.
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >>>>>The germanic source languages have a lot of Latin originated
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>words.
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>>Sorry to state the
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>obvious.
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>I've notices that in many cases, the latin word has been
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>borrowed
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>intact with the latin
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>grammatical ending. However this isn't necessary common
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >accross
                    >
                    >
                    >>>the
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>>germlangs for any
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>single particular Latin borrowing.
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>eg 1 EN territory vs DE Territorium
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>eg 2 EN cone vs DE Konus
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>eg 3 EN scheme vs DE Schema
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>eg 4 EN pendulum vs DE Pendel.
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>It seems to me that the continental germlangs are even more
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>likely
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>than EN to borrow
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>Latin words with the -us, -um, -a endings intact. I think
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >that
                    >
                    >
                    >>the
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>majority form should be
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>the basis of the FS word. Eg if the majority of the source
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>languages
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>>have a latin borrowing
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>ending in -us, then the FS word should end in -us. If the
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>majority
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>of the source languages
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>have dropped the Latin -us, -um, -a suffixes then the FS word
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>should
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>>do likewise.
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>So it's clear to me that FS will have a large number of words
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >of
                    >
                    >
                    >>>>Latin origin that end in -um
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>or -us or -a.
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>Now the question is: How do we do the plural for these
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >words????
                    >
                    >
                    >>>>>Let's say FS has a word such as konus or territorium. Should
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >the
                    >
                    >
                    >>>>plural follow the regualar
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>plural (whatever that might be -- we can't agree on that)
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>So is the plural of konus *konusen? Is the plural of
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >territorium
                    >
                    >
                    >>>>*territoriumen?
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>Or do we have a scheme that is more respectful of the latin
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>original, and recognise that
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>the -us, -um endings aren't really part of the word stem. And
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>have
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>>some ending that
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>shaves off the -us or -um and replaces it with a plural
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >suffix.
                    >
                    >
                    >>>>>So should the plural of konus be *koni? Or perhaps *konen? Or
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>*konien?
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>>>Should the plural of territorium be *territoria? or Perhaps
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>*territorien? Or *territoren?
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>>Any ideas or opinions?
                    >>>>>
                    >>>>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    >
                    >No virus found in this incoming message.
                    >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                    >Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.4/1695 - Release Date: 27/09/2008 1:11 p.m.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • chamavian
                    That s why we need Folkspraak, of course ;-) ... fail ... word ... quick ... 27/09/2008 1:11 p.m.
                    Message 9 of 9 , Sep 28, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      That's why we need Folkspraak, of course ;-)

                      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > English is my native language, but I still can't get it write. Me
                      fail
                      > English? That's unpossible!
                      >
                      > chamavian wrote:
                      >
                      > >Oh, that's just because English isn't my native language...
                      > >
                      > >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
                      > >wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>Why is everyone writing "loosing the latin endings" in this
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >thread?
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>The correct verb is "losing": "we should lose the latin endings",
                      > >>where <lose> (transitive) means "get rid of" (not "loose" = "make
                      > >>loose or free"). I don't know what the equivalent Folkspraak
                      word
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >is.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>Andrew
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Doug Casey <fisheromen1031@>
                      > >>wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>I like the idea of loosing the latin endings; it would pull
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>Folkspraak more to the Germanic side of things. However, I think
                      > >>your point is a valid one if the goal Folkspraak is to allow
                      quick
                      > >>learning by Germanic language speakers/readers.
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>-Rolf
                      > >>>
                      > >>>--- On Fri, 9/26/08, chamavian <roerd096@> wrote:
                      > >>>From: chamavian <roerd096@>
                      > >>>Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Plural Latin Words
                      > >>>To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                      > >>>Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 2:59 PM
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>> Hei David
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>Loosing endings like -um, -us, -a when just ONE of the sorce
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >langs
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>doesn't have them, wouldn't that be against the principles? Why
                      > >>>
                      > >>>change that for those Latin borrowings? For the sake of plurals?
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>Plural just should be -s here: museums, konuses, schemas.
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>In colloquial Dutch we say "museums" too instead of
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>official "musea".
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>Ingmar
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>and you think we should work at FS together again?
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
                      wrote:
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>>Forgot to mention my other suggestion for these words:
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>Loose the -us, -um endings and replace them with schwas in just
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>about
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>>every instance -even if the majority of the germlangs have those
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>endings for a particular latin word.
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>So instead of "konus" have "kone"
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>Instead of "territorium" have "territorie"
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>Instead of "kriterium" have "kriterie"
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>Rather than making a special pluralization rule for words with
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>these
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>endings -- just loose the endings. They're basically redundant
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>grammatical junk in any case, because they are only applicable
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >in
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>>Latin for certain grammatical cases and numbers. Loosing the
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>endings
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>makes them work better within simple pluralization rules.
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>Maybe we should loose all of these endings if ANY ONE of the
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>source
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>languages has lost them. Only retain them if EVERY SINGLE ONE
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >of
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>the
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>source languages retains them. That would eliminate 90% of
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >them.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>For
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>the small number that remained, a regular plural ending could be
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>applied to the -us, -um. Because they would be very rare, they
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>would
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>be unlikely to offend people with a knowledge and repect of
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >Latin.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>>It would also make the stress rules for Romance borrowings
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >easier
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>to
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>follow, since these are typically stressed on the syllable
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >before
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>the
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>>final consonant. With, -us and -um words, we need to make an
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>exception
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>>to this rule for them, since we should not be stressing the -us
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >or
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>>-um, but the root before it.
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>Get rid of those -us and -um suffixes and this exception goes
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>away.
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>--- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>>>The germanic source languages have a lot of Latin originated
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>words.
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>>Sorry to state the
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>obvious.
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>I've notices that in many cases, the latin word has been
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>borrowed
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>intact with the latin
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>grammatical ending. However this isn't necessary common
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >accross
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>the
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>>germlangs for any
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>single particular Latin borrowing.
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>eg 1 EN territory vs DE Territorium
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>eg 2 EN cone vs DE Konus
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>eg 3 EN scheme vs DE Schema
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>eg 4 EN pendulum vs DE Pendel.
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>It seems to me that the continental germlangs are even more
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>likely
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>than EN to borrow
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>Latin words with the -us, -um, -a endings intact. I think
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >that
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>the
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>majority form should be
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>the basis of the FS word. Eg if the majority of the source
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>languages
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>>have a latin borrowing
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>ending in -us, then the FS word should end in -us. If the
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>majority
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>of the source languages
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>have dropped the Latin -us, -um, -a suffixes then the FS word
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>should
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>>do likewise.
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>So it's clear to me that FS will have a large number of words
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >of
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>>Latin origin that end in -um
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>or -us or -a.
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>Now the question is: How do we do the plural for these
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >words????
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>>>Let's say FS has a word such as konus or territorium. Should
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >the
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>>plural follow the regualar
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>plural (whatever that might be -- we can't agree on that)
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>So is the plural of konus *konusen? Is the plural of
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >territorium
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>>*territoriumen?
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>Or do we have a scheme that is more respectful of the latin
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>original, and recognise that
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>the -us, -um endings aren't really part of the word stem. And
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>have
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>>some ending that
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>shaves off the -us or -um and replaces it with a plural
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >suffix.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>>>>So should the plural of konus be *koni? Or perhaps *konen? Or
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>*konien?
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>>>Should the plural of territorium be *territoria? or Perhaps
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>*territorien? Or *territoren?
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>>Any ideas or opinions?
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
                      -----
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >No virus found in this incoming message.
                      > >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                      > >Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.4/1695 - Release Date:
                      27/09/2008 1:11 p.m.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.