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

Re: Plural Latin Words

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.