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

Re: [folkspraak] Re: Moderator's Role & Procedures

Expand Messages
  • David Parke
    ... I wonder if the usage of Kopf/kop for head indicates that the ancient Germanics really drunk out of skulls. (I ve seen it in Asterix comics so it must be
    Message 1 of 26 , Mar 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      chamavian wrote:
      > The use of "kop" in the sense of "head" is considered rude in
      > Dutch, unlike German "Kopf". The usual Dutch word for humans
      > is "hoofd", like English head, Danish hoved, Swedish huvud. "Kop" is
      > used for animals, except for horses, which are said to be noble and
      > have a "hoofd". They also have "benen" legs, instead of "poten" like
      > other animals ;-)
      > Animals also have a "bek" in Dutch, whereas people have a "mond" =
      > mouth.
      >
      > Additionally, like German "Haupt", Dutch "hoofd" can mean leader:
      > "schoolhoofd" = school director, "hoofdstad" = capital city,
      > "hoofdreden" = main reason, etc.
      > Scandinavian has the same use.
      >
      I wonder if the usage of Kopf/kop for head indicates that the ancient
      Germanics really drunk out of skulls. (I've seen it in Asterix comics so
      it must be true!)

      In English, the first meaning of head is the body part. It can also mean
      a leader in words such as "headmaster".
      In German, I think Haupt is only really in that sense and isn't used for
      the body part.



      > "Tas" normally means "bag" in Dutch, but in Belgium (Flanders) and
      > parts of the Southern Netherlands, it means cup: "een tas koffie"
      > or "een tas thee". Clearly from French, since Belgium is a bilingual
      > country and is very close to France as well.
      > But "tas" in the sense of cup is considered to be regionalistic and
      > even incorrect Dutch.
      > "Een kop koffie" is the usual form in Dutch. One can also drink
      > "een beker melk", "een glas jus d'orange", "een mok chocolademelk"
      > etc. but I prefer "een glas bier" myself.
      >
      I would say that the use "tas" to mean a cup is of a different etymology
      from the use of "tas" to mean a pocket.
      In a language like German, the equivalents are two distinct words,
      Tasche and Tasse.
      But it a normal evolution in Dutch for syllable final *sk to become just
      "s" -- and merge with syllable final *ks which also becomes "s".

      Has anybody heard of a brand of instant coffee called Moccona?
      It is sold in New Zealand with the tag-line. "Moccona heeft meer mmmmmmmm."
      The TV adverts are presented by a rather pretty young woman speaking in
      Dutch. She starts the advert with "Ik hep hier twee kopjes koffie."
      The advert is entirely in Dutch but with English subtitles. The
      interesting thing is that the subtitles aren't entirely necessary
      because the Dutch is almost intelligible for most of the advert.

      Is Moccona a Dutch brand? Is the diminutive "kopje" frequently used for
      "cup"?

      I have almost given up on beer and chocolate milk so far this year
      because I am trying to loose weight. And the coffee is black with no
      sugar. We are having a competition at work at the moment and I probably
      need to loose at least 10kg to win. (Don't worry, I have plenty of
      weight to spare and people with anorexia are not eligible to enter the
      competition).
      > Cheers!
      > Ingmar
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
      >
      >>> The problem with False Friends is yes there are quite a few.
      >>>
      > However,
      >
      >> even the True Friends are not entirely trustworthy.
      >> For example EN head is the cognate to DE Haupt. However DE Haupt is
      >> mainly used to refer to "head" in the sense of leader.
      >> In German, "Kopf" is the preferred word for the body part.
      >> DE Kopf is a cognate false friend to EN cup. However EN cup does
      >>
      > share
      >
      >> some meaning with NL kop. NL kop can mean a drinking vessel but
      >>
      > also is
      >
      >> used similarly to DE Kopf as a word for head. So NL kop and EN cup
      >>
      > are
      >
      >> un-reliable friends but not totally false friends. NL kop and DE
      >>
      > Kopf
      >
      >> are friends, but entirely aren't entirely trustworthy either.
      >> Danish kop and NO/SV kopp seem to mean pretty much the same as EN
      >>
      > cup.
      >
      >> That is, a drinking vessel.
      >>
      >> I think that these cup-related words (all from L. cuppa) could be
      >>
      > the
      >
      >> basis of a FS word, however it's not simply the form that is
      >>
      > important.
      >
      >> It's not accurate to simply say FS kopp = EN cup = NO kopp = SV
      >>
      > kopp =
      >
      >> DA kop = NL kop = DE Kopf.
      >> Words are both a FORM (ie a sound and a combination of spidery
      >>
      > black
      >
      >> marks on paper) and MEANINGS and CONTEXTS associated with that form.
      >> We need to analyze the meanings (plural!) of the cognate words in
      >>
      > the
      >
      >> source languages and find out how widely shared the meanings are.
      >>
      > If we
      >
      >> go by the rule of three. The meaning of "drinking vessel" is
      >>
      > present in
      >
      >> 3 of the source languages (English, Dutch and Scandy treated as a
      >>
      > single
      >
      >> linguistic entity). The meaning of "body part where the mouth,
      >>
      > nose,
      >
      >> eyes, ears and brain are located" is present in 2 of the source
      >> languages. So by the Rule of Three, there is justification for FS
      >>
      > kopp
      >
      >> to mean "cup" , but not sufficient justification for it to to
      >>
      > mean "head"
      >
      >> In Frenkisch, I also throw French "coupe" into the analysis. It
      >>
      > doesn't
      >
      >> change the result significantly but it might serve to refine the
      >>
      > meaning
      >
      >> slightly. If there are more than one valid meaning for a word, it
      >>
      > might
      >
      >> help establish which is the preferred meaning.
      >>
      >> So that's the justification for KOPP as a FS word for "cup". It's
      >> however very important to note, that it is not the only word
      >>
      > for "cup"
      >
      >> or even necessarily the preferred word. "Kop" is probably not the
      >> preferred word in Dutch to translate EN "cup". Or it may be
      >>
      > preferably
      >
      >> used as a diminutive such as "kopje" for that meaning.
      >> The would be other FS words such as "glas" or "beker" or "mugg"
      >>
      > which
      >
      >> would have overlapping meanings with "kopp" and in some contexts
      >>
      > may be
      >
      >> better words to use.
      >>
      >> BTW do any of the other Germlangs have a cognate to DE Tasse? NL
      >>
      > has
      >
      >> "tas" but I am pretty sure that this is the cognate to DE Tasche/DA
      >> taske. It could be a merger of the two in Dutch, because a final
      >>
      > *sk
      >
      >> becomes "s" in Dutch. Does NL tas or tasje. share any meaning with
      >>
      > DE Tasse?
      >
      >
      >> Chris wrote:
      >>
      >>> Sorry David and Ingmar,
      >>> I used 'Protogermanic' in an unclear way. What I meant with
      >>>
      > using 'a
      >
      >>> proto-germanic source', really was your neo-proto-germanic or how
      >>>
      > you
      >
      >>> like to call it. I'm well aware, that true PG is not very useful
      >>>
      > for
      >
      >>> our attempts at building a auxilliary language, that all speakers
      >>>
      > of a
      >
      >>> modern germanic language could understand.
      >>> So my third try at formulating the question:
      >>>
      >>> Should the 'sprak' be build from a modernized and artificially
      >>>
      > evolved
      >
      >>> form of older germanic, the Interlingua-way, with help of modern
      >>> vocabulary to avoid semantic 'false-friends' or other problems
      >>> OR
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >> What I want to emphasize is, that in developing the FS language,
      >>
      > we
      >
      >> need very careful semantic analysis of the meanings and usages of
      >>
      > the
      >
      >> cognates in our source languages, before we publish the FS words.
      >> Instant recognition is a great thing, but it can only take you so
      >>
      > far.
      >
      >> Because of the complex relationship of false and un-reliable
      >>
      > friends,
      >
      >> eventually one needs to look in a dictionary and find out the
      >>
      > preferred
      >
      >> word and the accepted meanings. I think that this is a problem with
      >> closely related natural languages too, the speakers don't see the
      >>
      > need
      >
      >> to learn the other language properly. If anything, their attitude
      >>
      > is
      >
      >> that it is a "bad" version of their own language, which wouldn't
      >>
      > put
      >
      >> them in the right mindset for learning the other language properly.
      >>
      > This
      >
      >> is probably the case with Swedish and Danish or Spanish and
      >>
      > Portuguese
      >
      >> or American English and Proper English.
      >>
      >>
      >>> Should the 'sprak' be build from the lowest common denominator of
      >>>
      > the
      >
      >>> modern germanic languages, with the help of older germanic to
      >>>
      > avoid
      >
      >>> problems in phonology (vowelshifts, Umlauts, etc.)?
      >>>
      >>> Darn, sometimes it's hard to get a point across ;)
      >>> Best regards, Chris
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <meinNW@> wrote:
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>> Hej Ingmar,
      >>>>
      >>>> I meant it the opposite way, with 'progressiv' as a term to
      >>>>
      > describe
      >
      >>>> the process of modernizing an old language-state, and regressive
      >>>>
      > as
      >
      >>>> building backward from the modern languages sources to a
      >>>> pseudo-archaic form. But these terms don't matter, it was just
      >>>>
      > my way
      >
      >>>> to imagine things.
      >>>> So to make my question more precise:
      >>>> Should the final form of the sprak be built from a proto-germanic
      >>>> source, or be built from a number of modern source languages?
      >>>>
      >>>> Chris
      >>>>
      >>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>> Hei Chris
      >>>>>
      >>>>> Wat mene du precis mid progressiv on regressiv hir?
      >>>>> Is regressiv direkt kommend fran Proto-germanisch, on
      >>>>> progressiv fran de modern levend Germanisch brun-sprake?
      >>>>> On wat kande man frage over dat in een forkiusing?
      >>>>>
      >>>>> What do you mean exactly by progressive and regressive here?
      >>>>> Is regressive coming directly from Proto Germanic, and
      >>>>> progressive from the modern living Germanic source languages?
      >>>>> And what could we ask about that in a poll?
      >>>>>
      >>>>> Mid de hertlig groete af
      >>>>> Ingmar / Chamavian
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <meinNW@> wrote:
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>> My idea for the first poll:
      >>>>>> I think, the first thing we could decide is, if the final
      >>>>>>
      > sprak
      >
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>> should
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>> be 'compiled' progressive or regressive.
      >>>>>> We've seen up till now five dialects, three of them modernized
      >>>>>>
      > from
      >
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>> a
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>> PG source (DS, SP, FR), two build on the comparison of the
      >>>>>>
      > modern
      >
      >>>>>> germanic languages.
      >>>>>> The first three sometimes have quite an archaic look, but on
      >>>>>>
      > first
      >
      >>>>>> glance seem to be easier for native english speakers (some
      >>>>>>
      > word are
      >
      >>>>>> exactly the same, like 'that' etc.), the other two resemble
      >>>>>>
      > (in my
      >
      >>>>>> opinion) modern scandinavian languages in look an style, so
      >>>>>>
      > should
      >
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>> be
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>> easier to learn for the scandies. But that's just my opinion,
      >>>>>>
      > and
      >
      >>>>>> shouldn't have any consequences on the poll.
      >>>>>> So, what do you, mods and members, think about this, as the
      >>>>>>
      > first
      >
      >>>>>> poll? It would give us all a starting point from where to work
      >>>>>>
      > fromn
      >
      >>>>>> ow on.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> Regards, Chris
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
      >>>>>>
      > wrote:
      >
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>> The reason that I propose that we have one "Overall Criteria"
      >>>>>>>
      > is
      >
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>> that
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>> if we vote for every single tiny detail of the language, we
      >>>>>>>
      > are
      >
      >>>>>>> likely end up with a language with less internal consistency
      >>>>>>>
      > and
      >
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>> maybe
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>> even incompatibilities. There are lots of good ideas sloshing
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>> around
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>> for Folkspraak but not all of them are compatible with each
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>> other.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>> If there was one overarching idea for the language, we'd have
      >>>>>>> something to measure the good ideas against. Depending on the
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>> level of
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>> detail of the proposed Overall Criteria, we'd still need to
      >>>>>>>
      > poll
      >
      >>>>>>> certain issues or even refer back to earlier polls. Obviously
      >>>>>>>
      > if
      >
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>> the
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>> winning proposal was detailed down to the last word and
      >>>>>>>
      > letter (a
      >
      >>>>>>> complete language in other words), there'd be no need to poll
      >>>>>>> anything. But if it was a single vague sentence, then almost
      >>>>>>> everything would need to be polled.
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65" <rdw.young@>
      >>>>>>>
      > wrote:
      >
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>> Although I haven't been very active within the group or
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>> personally
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>> with my version of FS, one of the things I try to do is
      >>>>>>>>
      > check
      >
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>> back
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>> over the polls to see what has been agreed on previously.
      >>>>>>>> It might be worth checking through the polls and creating a
      >>>>>>>> "Grunding-FS" that we can all agree on. I think articles
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>> like "de" and
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>> "en" are a given?, but we should at least all agree on basic
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>> articles,
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>> personal pronouns, comparatives, superlatives, numbers etc.
      >>>>>>>>
      > and
      >
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>> build
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>> up from there.
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>> Robert
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>> wrote:
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> Separate from the issue of the role of the mods:
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> I also think we should have a vote in support of one overall
      >>>>>>>>> philosophy or criterion for forming the FS language. This
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> should be
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> open to a complete re-examination of past criteria. We now
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> have the
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> ability to change the group settings, so we need not stick
      >>>>>>>>>
      > to
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> what is
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> currently written on the home page. Some of that stuff was
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> decided by
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> members who are no longer participants in this project.
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> An example of this might be the Interlingua philosophy of
      >>>>>>>>>
      > the
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> Rule of
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> Three.
      >>>>>>>>> That is, there are 4 primary source language units and 2
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> control
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> language. Features of IL must be cognate to the source
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> languages, and
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> they must be represented in at least 3 of the source
      >>>>>>>>>
      > language
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> units.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> Or 2 source language units plus one or more of the control
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> languages.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> The forms of words are etymological prototype.
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> We could have our own overall criterion for the FS language
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> (which of
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> course may differ from the IL one). We would still have many
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> points of
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> vocabulary, phonology, orthography and grammar open to
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> dispute,
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>> which
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> could be decided by poll. What the members would be voting
      >>>>>>>>>
      > for
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> in the
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> polls would be which method/form best conformed to the
      >>>>>>>>>
      > Overall
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>> Criterion.
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> Individual members could propose their own Overall
      >>>>>>>>>
      > Criterion
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> which
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> might differ in for example the source languages used, the
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> majority
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> needed, whether to adopt an etymological approach or compare
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> unrelated
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> words that mean the same thing. Whether to use a lowest
      >>>>>>>>>
      > common
      >
      >>>>>>>>> denominator for forms or the majority or mean form or the
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> prototypical
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> form. The proposals could be as detailed or a vague as the
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> proponent
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> desired.
      >>>>>>>>> "Everything should just be, like, Germanic and stuff man"
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> could
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>> be one
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> member's proposal. Another members proposal could be as
      >>>>>>>>>
      > short
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> and
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> explicit as "We don't need an artificial Germanic IAL.
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> Folkspraak
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> should be English"
      >>>>>>>>> Or another member's proposal could be a detailed set of
      >>>>>>>>>
      > rules
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> the size
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> of a small encyclopedia. There's even the possibility that a
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> proposal
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> could be a complete language with all the details filled
      >>>>>>>>>
      > in.
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> (I
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> personally don't think any of our attempts at FS are that
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> complete)
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> We could hold a vote on individual Overall Criterion
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> proposals and
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> then the winning proposal is adopted as the guiding
      >>>>>>>>>
      > philosophy
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> of FS.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> If there are detailed and explicit rules in the proposal
      >>>>>>>>>
      > then
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> we'd be
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> honour-bound to follow them. Or if the proposal was a few
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> vaguely
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> words statements, we'd still have the freedom to do
      >>>>>>>>>
      > continue
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> doing
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> things our own individual ways.
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> If desired we could use a more sophisticated polling system
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> such as
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> preferential voting (Which might elect a proposal that most
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> members
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> can tolerate even if not most peoples' first choice).
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> After we have our mandated Overall Criterion, we'd still
      >>>>>>>>>
      > need
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> to
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>> have
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> polls about individual features but the members should be
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> voting for
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> the outcome that is closest the the Overall Criterion. And
      >>>>>>>>>
      > of
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> course
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> there are many issues where there would be no obvious one
      >>>>>>>>>
      > way
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> to do
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> things, but the choice decided by the majority in polls
      >>>>>>>>>
      > would
      >
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> be the
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> way to go forward.
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65" <rdw.young@>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> wrote:
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> Now that David is the moderator and in response to his
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> questions, I
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> suggest we set up a poll regarding the moderator's role
      >>>>>>>>>>
      > and
      >
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> the
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> procedures for the future running of the group. I
      >>>>>>>>>>
      > personally
      >
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> currently
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> have no strong opinions either way.
      >>>>>>>>>> I suggest that like any committee or organisation, we have
      >>>>>>>>>>
      > a
      >
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> period of
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> time (I suggest 2 months), where members can make
      >>>>>>>>>>
      > proposals
      >
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> for
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> procedures or propositions, which can be the entered onto a
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> ballot and
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> voted on by members with a simple for or against.
      >>>>>>>>>> This would then give us a series or rules, regulations and
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>> standing
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> orders for the running of the group.
      >>>>>>>>>> At the time of the moderator's election, which looks to be
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>> in
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>> May each
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> year, we could then vote annually on any new propositions
      >>>>>>>>>>
      > or
      >
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>> proposals.
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> This could be added to the files folder as a kind on
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> constitution for
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> the group.
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>> Regards
      >>>>>>>>>> Robert
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
      >>>
      > ------
      >
      >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
      >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      >>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date:
      >>>
      > 02/27/09 13:27:00
      >
      >>>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1977 - Release Date: 02/28/09 17:21:00
      >
      >
    • chamavian
      Ja, man saege in Nederlandisch eigenlig altiid kopje , mid -je : een kopje koffie , een kopje thee . Man hoere okso ofte een bak koffie oller bakje .
      Message 2 of 26 , Mar 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Ja, man saege in Nederlandisch eigenlig altiid "kopje", mid "-je":
        "een kopje koffie", "een kopje thee". Man hoere okso ofte "een bak
        koffie" oller "bakje". "Een flesje bier" oller "een biertje".
        On ofte "een glaasje cola", doch "een glas cola" is okso richt.

        In Nederlandisch man bruke okso de word "coupe", oller "ijscoupe",
        speciael for iis, as in Fransisch.
        On man bruke "cup" fran Engelisch, for de footbal-priis:
        "Europacup", "Wereldcup", de latest is synonym mid "Wereldbeker".

        David, mennig good af di dat du probere to mindere diin wicht!
        Lykkig ig have self nig wirklig een problem mid dat, fordat ig ride
        tree antil fimf dage in de woek to miin arbeid mid de twoweel
        (cykel), dat is rund 25 kilometer per dag, on heim ig do okso een
        lyttel fitness, two avens per woek.

        Ig liuve beer, doch ig drinke dat nig ofter dan two oller to meest
        tree male per woek.

        Ig hope dat al folk kan forsta dis uter Engelisch oversetting, fordat
        ig wilde blive skrive in Folkspraak (oller Middelspraak)

        Groete
        Ingmar

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
        >
        > chamavian wrote:
        > > The use of "kop" in the sense of "head" is considered rude in
        > > Dutch, unlike German "Kopf". The usual Dutch word for humans
        > > is "hoofd", like English head, Danish hoved, Swedish huvud. "Kop"
        is
        > > used for animals, except for horses, which are said to be noble
        and
        > > have a "hoofd". They also have "benen" legs, instead of "poten"
        like
        > > other animals ;-)
        > > Animals also have a "bek" in Dutch, whereas people have a "mond"
        =
        > > mouth.
        > >
        > > Additionally, like German "Haupt", Dutch "hoofd" can mean leader:
        > > "schoolhoofd" = school director, "hoofdstad" = capital city,
        > > "hoofdreden" = main reason, etc.
        > > Scandinavian has the same use.
        > >
        > I wonder if the usage of Kopf/kop for head indicates that the
        ancient
        > Germanics really drunk out of skulls. (I've seen it in Asterix
        comics so
        > it must be true!)
        >
        > In English, the first meaning of head is the body part. It can also
        mean
        > a leader in words such as "headmaster".
        > In German, I think Haupt is only really in that sense and isn't
        used for
        > the body part.
        >
        >
        >
        > > "Tas" normally means "bag" in Dutch, but in Belgium (Flanders)
        and
        > > parts of the Southern Netherlands, it means cup: "een tas koffie"
        > > or "een tas thee". Clearly from French, since Belgium is a
        bilingual
        > > country and is very close to France as well.
        > > But "tas" in the sense of cup is considered to be regionalistic
        and
        > > even incorrect Dutch.
        > > "Een kop koffie" is the usual form in Dutch. One can also drink
        > > "een beker melk", "een glas jus d'orange", "een mok
        chocolademelk"
        > > etc. but I prefer "een glas bier" myself.
        > >
        > I would say that the use "tas" to mean a cup is of a different
        etymology
        > from the use of "tas" to mean a pocket.
        > In a language like German, the equivalents are two distinct words,
        > Tasche and Tasse.
        > But it a normal evolution in Dutch for syllable final *sk to become
        just
        > "s" -- and merge with syllable final *ks which also becomes "s".
        >
        > Has anybody heard of a brand of instant coffee called Moccona?
        > It is sold in New Zealand with the tag-line. "Moccona heeft meer
        mmmmmmmm."
        > The TV adverts are presented by a rather pretty young woman
        speaking in
        > Dutch. She starts the advert with "Ik hep hier twee kopjes koffie."
        > The advert is entirely in Dutch but with English subtitles. The
        > interesting thing is that the subtitles aren't entirely necessary
        > because the Dutch is almost intelligible for most of the advert.
        >
        > Is Moccona a Dutch brand? Is the diminutive "kopje" frequently used
        for
        > "cup"?
        >
        > I have almost given up on beer and chocolate milk so far this year
        > because I am trying to loose weight. And the coffee is black with
        no
        > sugar. We are having a competition at work at the moment and I
        probably
        > need to loose at least 10kg to win. (Don't worry, I have plenty of
        > weight to spare and people with anorexia are not eligible to enter
        the
        > competition).
        > > Cheers!
        > > Ingmar
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
        > >
        > >>> The problem with False Friends is yes there are quite a few.
        > >>>
        > > However,
        > >
        > >> even the True Friends are not entirely trustworthy.
        > >> For example EN head is the cognate to DE Haupt. However DE Haupt
        is
        > >> mainly used to refer to "head" in the sense of leader.
        > >> In German, "Kopf" is the preferred word for the body part.
        > >> DE Kopf is a cognate false friend to EN cup. However EN cup does
        > >>
        > > share
        > >
        > >> some meaning with NL kop. NL kop can mean a drinking vessel but
        > >>
        > > also is
        > >
        > >> used similarly to DE Kopf as a word for head. So NL kop and EN
        cup
        > >>
        > > are
        > >
        > >> un-reliable friends but not totally false friends. NL kop and DE
        > >>
        > > Kopf
        > >
        > >> are friends, but entirely aren't entirely trustworthy either.
        > >> Danish kop and NO/SV kopp seem to mean pretty much the same as
        EN
        > >>
        > > cup.
        > >
        > >> That is, a drinking vessel.
        > >>
        > >> I think that these cup-related words (all from L. cuppa) could
        be
        > >>
        > > the
        > >
        > >> basis of a FS word, however it's not simply the form that is
        > >>
        > > important.
        > >
        > >> It's not accurate to simply say FS kopp = EN cup = NO kopp = SV
        > >>
        > > kopp =
        > >
        > >> DA kop = NL kop = DE Kopf.
        > >> Words are both a FORM (ie a sound and a combination of spidery
        > >>
        > > black
        > >
        > >> marks on paper) and MEANINGS and CONTEXTS associated with that
        form.
        > >> We need to analyze the meanings (plural!) of the cognate words
        in
        > >>
        > > the
        > >
        > >> source languages and find out how widely shared the meanings
        are.
        > >>
        > > If we
        > >
        > >> go by the rule of three. The meaning of "drinking vessel" is
        > >>
        > > present in
        > >
        > >> 3 of the source languages (English, Dutch and Scandy treated as
        a
        > >>
        > > single
        > >
        > >> linguistic entity). The meaning of "body part where the mouth,
        > >>
        > > nose,
        > >
        > >> eyes, ears and brain are located" is present in 2 of the source
        > >> languages. So by the Rule of Three, there is justification for
        FS
        > >>
        > > kopp
        > >
        > >> to mean "cup" , but not sufficient justification for it to to
        > >>
        > > mean "head"
        > >
        > >> In Frenkisch, I also throw French "coupe" into the analysis. It
        > >>
        > > doesn't
        > >
        > >> change the result significantly but it might serve to refine the
        > >>
        > > meaning
        > >
        > >> slightly. If there are more than one valid meaning for a word,
        it
        > >>
        > > might
        > >
        > >> help establish which is the preferred meaning.
        > >>
        > >> So that's the justification for KOPP as a FS word for "cup".
        It's
        > >> however very important to note, that it is not the only word
        > >>
        > > for "cup"
        > >
        > >> or even necessarily the preferred word. "Kop" is probably not
        the
        > >> preferred word in Dutch to translate EN "cup". Or it may be
        > >>
        > > preferably
        > >
        > >> used as a diminutive such as "kopje" for that meaning.
        > >> The would be other FS words such as "glas" or "beker" or "mugg"
        > >>
        > > which
        > >
        > >> would have overlapping meanings with "kopp" and in some contexts
        > >>
        > > may be
        > >
        > >> better words to use.
        > >>
        > >> BTW do any of the other Germlangs have a cognate to DE Tasse? NL
        > >>
        > > has
        > >
        > >> "tas" but I am pretty sure that this is the cognate to DE
        Tasche/DA
        > >> taske. It could be a merger of the two in Dutch, because a final
        > >>
        > > *sk
        > >
        > >> becomes "s" in Dutch. Does NL tas or tasje. share any meaning
        with
        > >>
        > > DE Tasse?
        > >
        > >
        > >> Chris wrote:
        > >>
        > >>> Sorry David and Ingmar,
        > >>> I used 'Protogermanic' in an unclear way. What I meant with
        > >>>
        > > using 'a
        > >
        > >>> proto-germanic source', really was your neo-proto-germanic or
        how
        > >>>
        > > you
        > >
        > >>> like to call it. I'm well aware, that true PG is not very
        useful
        > >>>
        > > for
        > >
        > >>> our attempts at building a auxilliary language, that all
        speakers
        > >>>
        > > of a
        > >
        > >>> modern germanic language could understand.
        > >>> So my third try at formulating the question:
        > >>>
        > >>> Should the 'sprak' be build from a modernized and artificially
        > >>>
        > > evolved
        > >
        > >>> form of older germanic, the Interlingua-way, with help of modern
        > >>> vocabulary to avoid semantic 'false-friends' or other problems
        > >>> OR
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>
        > >> What I want to emphasize is, that in developing the FS
        language,
        > >>
        > > we
        > >
        > >> need very careful semantic analysis of the meanings and usages
        of
        > >>
        > > the
        > >
        > >> cognates in our source languages, before we publish the FS
        words.
        > >> Instant recognition is a great thing, but it can only take you
        so
        > >>
        > > far.
        > >
        > >> Because of the complex relationship of false and un-reliable
        > >>
        > > friends,
        > >
        > >> eventually one needs to look in a dictionary and find out the
        > >>
        > > preferred
        > >
        > >> word and the accepted meanings. I think that this is a problem
        with
        > >> closely related natural languages too, the speakers don't see
        the
        > >>
        > > need
        > >
        > >> to learn the other language properly. If anything, their
        attitude
        > >>
        > > is
        > >
        > >> that it is a "bad" version of their own language, which wouldn't
        > >>
        > > put
        > >
        > >> them in the right mindset for learning the other language
        properly.
        > >>
        > > This
        > >
        > >> is probably the case with Swedish and Danish or Spanish and
        > >>
        > > Portuguese
        > >
        > >> or American English and Proper English.
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>> Should the 'sprak' be build from the lowest common denominator
        of
        > >>>
        > > the
        > >
        > >>> modern germanic languages, with the help of older germanic to
        > >>>
        > > avoid
        > >
        > >>> problems in phonology (vowelshifts, Umlauts, etc.)?
        > >>>
        > >>> Darn, sometimes it's hard to get a point across ;)
        > >>> Best regards, Chris
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <meinNW@> wrote:
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>> Hej Ingmar,
        > >>>>
        > >>>> I meant it the opposite way, with 'progressiv' as a term to
        > >>>>
        > > describe
        > >
        > >>>> the process of modernizing an old language-state, and
        regressive
        > >>>>
        > > as
        > >
        > >>>> building backward from the modern languages sources to a
        > >>>> pseudo-archaic form. But these terms don't matter, it was just
        > >>>>
        > > my way
        > >
        > >>>> to imagine things.
        > >>>> So to make my question more precise:
        > >>>> Should the final form of the sprak be built from a proto-
        germanic
        > >>>> source, or be built from a number of modern source languages?
        > >>>>
        > >>>> Chris
        > >>>>
        > >>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
        wrote:
        > >>>>
        > >>>>
        > >>>>> Hei Chris
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>> Wat mene du precis mid progressiv on regressiv hir?
        > >>>>> Is regressiv direkt kommend fran Proto-germanisch, on
        > >>>>> progressiv fran de modern levend Germanisch brun-sprake?
        > >>>>> On wat kande man frage over dat in een forkiusing?
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>> What do you mean exactly by progressive and regressive here?
        > >>>>> Is regressive coming directly from Proto Germanic, and
        > >>>>> progressive from the modern living Germanic source languages?
        > >>>>> And what could we ask about that in a poll?
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>> Mid de hertlig groete af
        > >>>>> Ingmar / Chamavian
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <meinNW@> wrote:
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>> My idea for the first poll:
        > >>>>>> I think, the first thing we could decide is, if the final
        > >>>>>>
        > > sprak
        > >
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>> should
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>> be 'compiled' progressive or regressive.
        > >>>>>> We've seen up till now five dialects, three of them
        modernized
        > >>>>>>
        > > from
        > >
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>> a
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>> PG source (DS, SP, FR), two build on the comparison of the
        > >>>>>>
        > > modern
        > >
        > >>>>>> germanic languages.
        > >>>>>> The first three sometimes have quite an archaic look, but on
        > >>>>>>
        > > first
        > >
        > >>>>>> glance seem to be easier for native english speakers (some
        > >>>>>>
        > > word are
        > >
        > >>>>>> exactly the same, like 'that' etc.), the other two resemble
        > >>>>>>
        > > (in my
        > >
        > >>>>>> opinion) modern scandinavian languages in look an style, so
        > >>>>>>
        > > should
        > >
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>> be
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>> easier to learn for the scandies. But that's just my
        opinion,
        > >>>>>>
        > > and
        > >
        > >>>>>> shouldn't have any consequences on the poll.
        > >>>>>> So, what do you, mods and members, think about this, as the
        > >>>>>>
        > > first
        > >
        > >>>>>> poll? It would give us all a starting point from where to
        work
        > >>>>>>
        > > fromn
        > >
        > >>>>>> ow on.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> Regards, Chris
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
        > >>>>>>
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> The reason that I propose that we have one "Overall
        Criteria"
        > >>>>>>>
        > > is
        > >
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>> that
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>> if we vote for every single tiny detail of the language,
        we
        > >>>>>>>
        > > are
        > >
        > >>>>>>> likely end up with a language with less internal
        consistency
        > >>>>>>>
        > > and
        > >
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>> maybe
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>> even incompatibilities. There are lots of good ideas
        sloshing
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>> around
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>> for Folkspraak but not all of them are compatible with each
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>> other.
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>> If there was one overarching idea for the language, we'd
        have
        > >>>>>>> something to measure the good ideas against. Depending on
        the
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>> level of
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>> detail of the proposed Overall Criteria, we'd still need to
        > >>>>>>>
        > > poll
        > >
        > >>>>>>> certain issues or even refer back to earlier polls.
        Obviously
        > >>>>>>>
        > > if
        > >
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>> the
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>> winning proposal was detailed down to the last word and
        > >>>>>>>
        > > letter (a
        > >
        > >>>>>>> complete language in other words), there'd be no need to
        poll
        > >>>>>>> anything. But if it was a single vague sentence, then
        almost
        > >>>>>>> everything would need to be polled.
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65" <rdw.young@>
        > >>>>>>>
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> Although I haven't been very active within the group or
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> personally
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> with my version of FS, one of the things I try to do is
        > >>>>>>>>
        > > check
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> back
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> over the polls to see what has been agreed on previously.
        > >>>>>>>> It might be worth checking through the polls and creating a
        > >>>>>>>> "Grunding-FS" that we can all agree on. I think articles
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> like "de" and
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> "en" are a given?, but we should at least all agree on
        basic
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> articles,
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> personal pronouns, comparatives, superlatives, numbers
        etc.
        > >>>>>>>>
        > > and
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> build
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> up from there.
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> Robert
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> wrote:
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> Separate from the issue of the role of the mods:
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> I also think we should have a vote in support of one
        overall
        > >>>>>>>>> philosophy or criterion for forming the FS language. This
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> should be
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> open to a complete re-examination of past criteria. We
        now
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> have the
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> ability to change the group settings, so we need not
        stick
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > to
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> what is
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> currently written on the home page. Some of that stuff was
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> decided by
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> members who are no longer participants in this project.
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> An example of this might be the Interlingua philosophy of
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > the
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> Rule of
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> Three.
        > >>>>>>>>> That is, there are 4 primary source language units and 2
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> control
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> language. Features of IL must be cognate to the source
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> languages, and
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> they must be represented in at least 3 of the source
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > language
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> units.
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> Or 2 source language units plus one or more of the control
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> languages.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> The forms of words are etymological prototype.
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> We could have our own overall criterion for the FS
        language
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> (which of
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> course may differ from the IL one). We would still have
        many
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> points of
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> vocabulary, phonology, orthography and grammar open to
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> dispute,
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>> which
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> could be decided by poll. What the members would be
        voting
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > for
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> in the
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> polls would be which method/form best conformed to the
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > Overall
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> Criterion.
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> Individual members could propose their own Overall
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > Criterion
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> which
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> might differ in for example the source languages used,
        the
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> majority
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> needed, whether to adopt an etymological approach or
        compare
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> unrelated
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> words that mean the same thing. Whether to use a lowest
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > common
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>> denominator for forms or the majority or mean form or the
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> prototypical
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> form. The proposals could be as detailed or a vague as
        the
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> proponent
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> desired.
        > >>>>>>>>> "Everything should just be, like, Germanic and stuff man"
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> could
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>> be one
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> member's proposal. Another members proposal could be as
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > short
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> and
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> explicit as "We don't need an artificial Germanic IAL.
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> Folkspraak
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> should be English"
        > >>>>>>>>> Or another member's proposal could be a detailed set of
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > rules
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> the size
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> of a small encyclopedia. There's even the possibility
        that a
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> proposal
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> could be a complete language with all the details filled
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > in.
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> (I
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> personally don't think any of our attempts at FS are that
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> complete)
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> We could hold a vote on individual Overall Criterion
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> proposals and
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> then the winning proposal is adopted as the guiding
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > philosophy
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> of FS.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> If there are detailed and explicit rules in the proposal
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > then
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> we'd be
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> honour-bound to follow them. Or if the proposal was a few
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> vaguely
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> words statements, we'd still have the freedom to do
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > continue
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> doing
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> things our own individual ways.
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> If desired we could use a more sophisticated polling
        system
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> such as
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> preferential voting (Which might elect a proposal that
        most
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> members
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> can tolerate even if not most peoples' first choice).
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> After we have our mandated Overall Criterion, we'd still
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > need
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> to
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>> have
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> polls about individual features but the members should be
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> voting for
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> the outcome that is closest the the Overall Criterion.
        And
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > of
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> course
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> there are many issues where there would be no obvious one
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > way
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> to do
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> things, but the choice decided by the majority in polls
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > > would
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> be the
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> way to go forward.
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65"
        <rdw.young@>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> wrote:
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Now that David is the moderator and in response to his
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> questions, I
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> suggest we set up a poll regarding the moderator's role
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > > and
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> the
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> procedures for the future running of the group. I
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > > personally
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> currently
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> have no strong opinions either way.
        > >>>>>>>>>> I suggest that like any committee or organisation, we
        have
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > > a
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> period of
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> time (I suggest 2 months), where members can make
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > > proposals
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> for
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> procedures or propositions, which can be the entered
        onto a
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> ballot and
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> voted on by members with a simple for or against.
        > >>>>>>>>>> This would then give us a series or rules, regulations
        and
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>> standing
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> orders for the running of the group.
        > >>>>>>>>>> At the time of the moderator's election, which looks to
        be
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>> in
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>>> May each
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> year, we could then vote annually on any new
        propositions
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > > or
        > >
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> proposals.
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> This could be added to the files folder as a kind on
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> constitution for
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> the group.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Regards
        > >>>>>>>>>> Robert
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
        --
        > >>>
        > > ------
        > >
        > >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
        > >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > >>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release
        Date:
        > >>>
        > > 02/27/09 13:27:00
        > >
        > >>>
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
        ------
        > >
        > >
        > > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1977 - Release Date:
        02/28/09 17:21:00
        > >
        > >
        >
      • David Parke
        ... Sometimes it s just easier because the spell-check software is on most computers set to American English by default. Firefox and Thunderbird on my computer
        Message 3 of 26 , Mar 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Andrew Jarrette wrote:
          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
          >
          >> Andrew Jarrette wrote:
          >>
          >>> But I hope it was just a joke.
          >>>
          >>> Andrew
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >> Yeah. That was a joke. The point was that a closely related language
          >>
          > (or
          >
          >> a dialect/varient of one language), is regarded not as much as a
          >> legitimate variation but as something which is wrong in reference to
          >>
          > the
          >
          >> "proper" language. And the boundaries where some people might call a
          >> language a separate language or a dialect or a variation or just and
          >> accent are not always clear. Portuguese and Spanish are clearly
          >> different languages, albeit closely related and partially mutually
          >> intelligible. Danish and Norwegian Bokmal are probably even closer (at
          >> least in written form) than Port and Spa. American English and British
          >> English and NZ English are regarded as one language even though there
          >> are some major differences. It's also perhaps an accident of history
          >> that they are named as all being English rather than having separate
          >> names (as is the case of Hindi and Urdu or Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa
          >> Indonesia).
          >>
          >> And American English is of course no less legitimate a form of English
          >> than so-called International English, which probably has less speakers
          >> than American English. I often am bemused when in TV and movies and
          >> theater made in America, when it is set in the Middle Ages, they affect
          >> a pseudo-British accent (or employ British actors). In fact Medieval
          >> English was very different from any modern English variety and the
          >> pronunciation of American English is perhaps even closer to how English
          >> was once spoken.
          >>
          >
          >
          > At least in that American English still pronounces syllable-final
          > /r/'s. I wonder whether Irish or Scottish English might not be
          > closest to Medieval English.
          >
          > The reason that I chose American English, is that it is
          >
          >> highly visible and more likely to be regarded as a competitor to
          >> speakers of for example British English.
          >>
          >> And no Brit visiting America would first brush-up on their American
          >> accent and learn to use words such as "hood" and "trunk" rather than
          >> "bonnet" and "boot". They'd just expect to get by speaking English
          >>
          > their
          >
          >> own way.
          >>
          >> In New Zealand, we use "British" spelling conventions and certain
          >>
          > people
          >
          >> (such as my father) say the American spelling is "wrong" or even lazy
          >> (because they can't be bothered to add a "u" in the spelling of color).
          >>
          >
          >
          > Same in Canada. But I often go with the American spelling because
          > like you I think it's simpler and etymologically truer.
          >
          Sometimes it's just easier because the spell-check software is on most
          computers set to American English by default. Firefox and Thunderbird on
          my computer are set to spell-check with American English and it would
          require some extra effort on my part to download the dictionaries for
          other languages.

          In Australia, after the founding of the Australian Commonwealth, which
          was effectively independence from Britain, in a wave of nationalism, the
          Ozzies toyed with rejecting British spelling and adopting American
          conventions instead. This was in the late 1800s to early 1900s. This
          idea never really stuck, however the Australian Labor Party was founded
          in this period. It is spelled without an u in Labor to this day. That is
          a relic of that time.


          >
          >> In fact some of our spelling is even more British than the Brits use.
          >> For example, in NZ, the only "right" spelling in words such as
          >> "organisation" or "colonisation" is with a "s" not a "z". Use of a "z"
          >> as in "organization" is thought to be "American". In fact, with a
          >>
          > "z" is
          >
          >> the recommendation of the Oxford English Dictionary.
          >>
          >
          >
          > Shocking.
          >
          >
          >> I personally don't have a problem with American English and take great
          >> delight especially in their non-standard varieties such as "ebonics" or
          >> the cowboy-speak you find in Westerns. I think that Americans are
          >> responsible for some of the best (and the worst) films and TV
          >>
          > programmes
          >
          >> in the English-speaking world. One of my favorite all-time TV series is
          >> the western Deadwood and I love the colourful use of language in
          >>
          > that show.
          >
          >> I personally feel that the American spelling conventions in words such
          >> as "color" or "labor" are more correct (and simpler) than the
          >> Commonwealth ones, as they are more like the original words they came
          >> from and more like the cognate forms in other languages.
          >>
          >> So no offense was intended to the American English speakers. I am sure
          >> they are grateful for their Canadian neighbor's act of fraternal
          >>
          > love in
          >
          >> leaping to their defense.
          >>
          >>
          >
          > I'm sure no offense is taken now. But since I haven't noticed that
          > many jokes in your previous correspondence, I couldn't be sure at
          > first whether you were joking. Of course you had to be, but the
          > delivery, in reading, was so matter-of-fact that I wasn't completely
          > sure. But from now on I know that glaring affronts like that are just
          > your humor, Kiwi or individual. I'm probably a bit too serious
          > myself. Most Canadians are more like you.
          >
          > Andrew
          >
          >
          Have you ever encountered the philosophy that a whatever-ism (eg sexism,
          racism, ethnocentrism, language-chauvinism or any other kind of bigotry)
          isn't an -ism unless it's done by someone who has power over a
          disadvantaged minority? Americans definitely are not the minority in the
          English speaking world and they have much of the power. Therefore any
          tiny thing that us down-trodden kiwis say against them is fair-game.

          Either that or you saw my over-sincere response to my own "go and start
          your own group" post and you decided that I might be suffering from
          hyper-politeness and that you could bait me ;-)

          I must remember to put in smileys when I do jokes
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          >
          > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1977 - Release Date: 02/28/09 17:21:00
          >
          >
        • David Parke
          ... Ig forsta all! De latst jar, normalwis, styrd ikk midd min auto to min arbeid. Dat iss bar 3 km fra min hus! Min histori is datt, befor 2 jaren, kunde ikk
          Message 4 of 26 , Mar 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            chamavian wrote:
            > Ja, man saege in Nederlandisch eigenlig altiid "kopje", mid "-je":
            > "een kopje koffie", "een kopje thee". Man hoere okso ofte "een bak
            > koffie" oller "bakje". "Een flesje bier" oller "een biertje".
            > On ofte "een glaasje cola", doch "een glas cola" is okso richt.
            >
            > In Nederlandisch man bruke okso de word "coupe", oller "ijscoupe",
            > speciael for iis, as in Fransisch.
            > On man bruke "cup" fran Engelisch, for de footbal-priis:
            > "Europacup", "Wereldcup", de latest is synonym mid "Wereldbeker".
            >
            > David, mennig good af di dat du probere to mindere diin wicht!
            > Lykkig ig have self nig wirklig een problem mid dat, fordat ig ride
            > tree antil fimf dage in de woek to miin arbeid mid de twoweel
            > (cykel), dat is rund 25 kilometer per dag, on heim ig do okso een
            > lyttel fitness, two avens per woek.
            >
            > Ig liuve beer, doch ig drinke dat nig ofter dan two oller to meest
            > tree male per woek.
            >
            > Ig hope dat al folk kan forsta dis uter Engelisch oversetting, fordat
            > ig wilde blive skrive in Folkspraak (oller Middelspraak)
            >
            > Groete
            > Ingmar
            >
            Ig forsta all!

            De latst jar, normalwis, styrd ikk midd min auto to min arbeid. Dat iss
            bar 3 km fra min hus!
            Min histori is datt, befor 2 jaren, kunde ikk nejt autostyre. Ikk hadd
            nen autostyrorkunde ond ikk ging oder red midd de autobuss oder red midd
            en taxi to all placen. Ikk lyv gemensam transportsystemen, ond ikk
            geleuve datt to mannig autos are en greut problem for staden ond for the
            ommgeving aff dis planet. Dis iss nejt normal for en nysewlander. Wi all
            have autos, dar are wid/bred strates in all placen ond wi fare midd de
            auto to all placen!
            Siden twee jaren gav min fader ond stypmoder mi somme $5000 (€3000) (for
            en orsak af taxering, ikk geleuve) ond ikk kunde keupe en auto ond ha
            lektionen ond en test for min autostyrorkunde.
            Ikk genyted to fare inn min nyw auto to all placen. To have en auto iss
            oft frihed. Ikk kunde beseuke min frynden ond familli ofter. Ikk fard
            midd min auto to min jobb elk dagen, doch min jobb iss bar 3km fra min
            hus. Min jobb ha gratis parkering placen for de arbeders ond ett kost mi
            minder for de benzin to fare midd min auto als to ride de autobuss.

            Siden ha ikk fatted min autostyrordkunde, ikk ha fatted mer als 10kg!

            Dis jar, ikk ga to min jobb elk dagen ond ikk ga to min hem euk. Ikk
            kunde ride de autobuss, doch ikk gae. De gang dur bar 35minuten! Ikk mot
            klimme en berg (heucher als de heuchest berg in de Nederlanden, ikk
            tenk) ond ikk werd alltid het ond swetig. Magschej schall ikk ride min
            cykel to min jobb strax euk. Ikk tenk datt de Nederlanden iss en lejt
            land inn wilk to ride cykels fordatt de landschap iss so platt./flakk NZ
            iss inn mest placen bergig!
            Ikk drink nejt mer bir ond elk dag, et ikk tunnfisch salat for min
            avendmal. Datt werd nejt interressant strax!
            Nu have wi en konkurrenc bi min jobb. Dis konkurrenc het "the biggest
            loser". De winner mot ferlyse de greutest wejt. De winner schall winne
            en tripp to Fiji ond en kupon for $1000 af kleding.
            After 5 wiken, ha ikk ferlysd 5 kg. Ikk feul euk mannig mer fit/en form.
            Ikk hop dat ikk ferlys mannig mer kgs.

            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
            >
            >> chamavian wrote:
            >>
            >>> The use of "kop" in the sense of "head" is considered rude in
            >>> Dutch, unlike German "Kopf". The usual Dutch word for humans
            >>> is "hoofd", like English head, Danish hoved, Swedish huvud. "Kop"
            >>>
            > is
            >
            >>> used for animals, except for horses, which are said to be noble
            >>>
            > and
            >
            >>> have a "hoofd". They also have "benen" legs, instead of "poten"
            >>>
            > like
            >
            >>> other animals ;-)
            >>> Animals also have a "bek" in Dutch, whereas people have a "mond"
            >>>
            > =
            >
            >>> mouth.
            >>>
            >>> Additionally, like German "Haupt", Dutch "hoofd" can mean leader:
            >>> "schoolhoofd" = school director, "hoofdstad" = capital city,
            >>> "hoofdreden" = main reason, etc.
            >>> Scandinavian has the same use.
            >>>
            >>>
            >> I wonder if the usage of Kopf/kop for head indicates that the
            >>
            > ancient
            >
            >> Germanics really drunk out of skulls. (I've seen it in Asterix
            >>
            > comics so
            >
            >> it must be true!)
            >>
            >> In English, the first meaning of head is the body part. It can also
            >>
            > mean
            >
            >> a leader in words such as "headmaster".
            >> In German, I think Haupt is only really in that sense and isn't
            >>
            > used for
            >
            >> the body part.
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>> "Tas" normally means "bag" in Dutch, but in Belgium (Flanders)
            >>>
            > and
            >
            >>> parts of the Southern Netherlands, it means cup: "een tas koffie"
            >>> or "een tas thee". Clearly from French, since Belgium is a
            >>>
            > bilingual
            >
            >>> country and is very close to France as well.
            >>> But "tas" in the sense of cup is considered to be regionalistic
            >>>
            > and
            >
            >>> even incorrect Dutch.
            >>> "Een kop koffie" is the usual form in Dutch. One can also drink
            >>> "een beker melk", "een glas jus d'orange", "een mok
            >>>
            > chocolademelk"
            >
            >>> etc. but I prefer "een glas bier" myself.
            >>>
            >>>
            >> I would say that the use "tas" to mean a cup is of a different
            >>
            > etymology
            >
            >> from the use of "tas" to mean a pocket.
            >> In a language like German, the equivalents are two distinct words,
            >> Tasche and Tasse.
            >> But it a normal evolution in Dutch for syllable final *sk to become
            >>
            > just
            >
            >> "s" -- and merge with syllable final *ks which also becomes "s".
            >>
            >> Has anybody heard of a brand of instant coffee called Moccona?
            >> It is sold in New Zealand with the tag-line. "Moccona heeft meer
            >>
            > mmmmmmmm."
            >
            >> The TV adverts are presented by a rather pretty young woman
            >>
            > speaking in
            >
            >> Dutch. She starts the advert with "Ik hep hier twee kopjes koffie."
            >> The advert is entirely in Dutch but with English subtitles. The
            >> interesting thing is that the subtitles aren't entirely necessary
            >> because the Dutch is almost intelligible for most of the advert.
            >>
            >> Is Moccona a Dutch brand? Is the diminutive "kopje" frequently used
            >>
            > for
            >
            >> "cup"?
            >>
            >> I have almost given up on beer and chocolate milk so far this year
            >> because I am trying to loose weight. And the coffee is black with
            >>
            > no
            >
            >> sugar. We are having a competition at work at the moment and I
            >>
            > probably
            >
            >> need to loose at least 10kg to win. (Don't worry, I have plenty of
            >> weight to spare and people with anorexia are not eligible to enter
            >>
            > the
            >
            >> competition).
            >>
            >>> Cheers!
            >>> Ingmar
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>> The problem with False Friends is yes there are quite a few.
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>> However,
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> even the True Friends are not entirely trustworthy.
            >>>> For example EN head is the cognate to DE Haupt. However DE Haupt
            >>>>
            > is
            >
            >>>> mainly used to refer to "head" in the sense of leader.
            >>>> In German, "Kopf" is the preferred word for the body part.
            >>>> DE Kopf is a cognate false friend to EN cup. However EN cup does
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> share
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> some meaning with NL kop. NL kop can mean a drinking vessel but
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> also is
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> used similarly to DE Kopf as a word for head. So NL kop and EN
            >>>>
            > cup
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> are
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> un-reliable friends but not totally false friends. NL kop and DE
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> Kopf
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> are friends, but entirely aren't entirely trustworthy either.
            >>>> Danish kop and NO/SV kopp seem to mean pretty much the same as
            >>>>
            > EN
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> cup.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> That is, a drinking vessel.
            >>>>
            >>>> I think that these cup-related words (all from L. cuppa) could
            >>>>
            > be
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> the
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> basis of a FS word, however it's not simply the form that is
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> important.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> It's not accurate to simply say FS kopp = EN cup = NO kopp = SV
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> kopp =
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> DA kop = NL kop = DE Kopf.
            >>>> Words are both a FORM (ie a sound and a combination of spidery
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> black
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> marks on paper) and MEANINGS and CONTEXTS associated with that
            >>>>
            > form.
            >
            >>>> We need to analyze the meanings (plural!) of the cognate words
            >>>>
            > in
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> the
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> source languages and find out how widely shared the meanings
            >>>>
            > are.
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> If we
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> go by the rule of three. The meaning of "drinking vessel" is
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> present in
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> 3 of the source languages (English, Dutch and Scandy treated as
            >>>>
            > a
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> single
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> linguistic entity). The meaning of "body part where the mouth,
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> nose,
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> eyes, ears and brain are located" is present in 2 of the source
            >>>> languages. So by the Rule of Three, there is justification for
            >>>>
            > FS
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> kopp
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> to mean "cup" , but not sufficient justification for it to to
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> mean "head"
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> In Frenkisch, I also throw French "coupe" into the analysis. It
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> doesn't
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> change the result significantly but it might serve to refine the
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> meaning
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> slightly. If there are more than one valid meaning for a word,
            >>>>
            > it
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> might
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> help establish which is the preferred meaning.
            >>>>
            >>>> So that's the justification for KOPP as a FS word for "cup".
            >>>>
            > It's
            >
            >>>> however very important to note, that it is not the only word
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> for "cup"
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> or even necessarily the preferred word. "Kop" is probably not
            >>>>
            > the
            >
            >>>> preferred word in Dutch to translate EN "cup". Or it may be
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> preferably
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> used as a diminutive such as "kopje" for that meaning.
            >>>> The would be other FS words such as "glas" or "beker" or "mugg"
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> which
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> would have overlapping meanings with "kopp" and in some contexts
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> may be
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> better words to use.
            >>>>
            >>>> BTW do any of the other Germlangs have a cognate to DE Tasse? NL
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> has
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> "tas" but I am pretty sure that this is the cognate to DE
            >>>>
            > Tasche/DA
            >
            >>>> taske. It could be a merger of the two in Dutch, because a final
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> *sk
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> becomes "s" in Dutch. Does NL tas or tasje. share any meaning
            >>>>
            > with
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> DE Tasse?
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> Chris wrote:
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>> Sorry David and Ingmar,
            >>>>> I used 'Protogermanic' in an unclear way. What I meant with
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>> using 'a
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>> proto-germanic source', really was your neo-proto-germanic or
            >>>>>
            > how
            >
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>> you
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>> like to call it. I'm well aware, that true PG is not very
            >>>>>
            > useful
            >
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>> for
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>> our attempts at building a auxilliary language, that all
            >>>>>
            > speakers
            >
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>> of a
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>> modern germanic language could understand.
            >>>>> So my third try at formulating the question:
            >>>>>
            >>>>> Should the 'sprak' be build from a modernized and artificially
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>> evolved
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>> form of older germanic, the Interlingua-way, with help of modern
            >>>>> vocabulary to avoid semantic 'false-friends' or other problems
            >>>>> OR
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>> What I want to emphasize is, that in developing the FS
            >>>>
            > language,
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> we
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> need very careful semantic analysis of the meanings and usages
            >>>>
            > of
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> the
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> cognates in our source languages, before we publish the FS
            >>>>
            > words.
            >
            >>>> Instant recognition is a great thing, but it can only take you
            >>>>
            > so
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> far.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> Because of the complex relationship of false and un-reliable
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> friends,
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> eventually one needs to look in a dictionary and find out the
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> preferred
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> word and the accepted meanings. I think that this is a problem
            >>>>
            > with
            >
            >>>> closely related natural languages too, the speakers don't see
            >>>>
            > the
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> need
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> to learn the other language properly. If anything, their
            >>>>
            > attitude
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> is
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> that it is a "bad" version of their own language, which wouldn't
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> put
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> them in the right mindset for learning the other language
            >>>>
            > properly.
            >
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> This
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> is probably the case with Swedish and Danish or Spanish and
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>> Portuguese
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> or American English and Proper English.
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>> Should the 'sprak' be build from the lowest common denominator
            >>>>>
            > of
            >
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>> the
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>> modern germanic languages, with the help of older germanic to
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>> avoid
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>> problems in phonology (vowelshifts, Umlauts, etc.)?
            >>>>>
            >>>>> Darn, sometimes it's hard to get a point across ;)
            >>>>> Best regards, Chris
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <meinNW@> wrote:
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>>>> Hej Ingmar,
            >>>>>>
            >>>>>> I meant it the opposite way, with 'progressiv' as a term to
            >>>>>>
            >>>>>>
            >>> describe
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>> the process of modernizing an old language-state, and
            >>>>>>
            > regressive
            >
            >>>>>>
            >>>>>>
            >>> as
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>> building backward from the modern languages sources to a
            >>>>>> pseudo-archaic form. But these terms don't matter, it was just
            >>>>>>
            >>>>>>
            >>> my way
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>> to imagine things.
            >>>>>> So to make my question more precise:
            >>>>>> Should the final form of the sprak be built from a proto-
            >>>>>>
            > germanic
            >
            >>>>>> source, or be built from a number of modern source languages?
            >>>>>>
            >>>>>> Chris
            >>>>>>
            >>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
            >>>>>>
            > wrote:
            >
            >>>>>>
            >>>>>>
            >>>>>>
            >>>>>>> Hei Chris
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> Wat mene du precis mid progressiv on regressiv hir?
            >>>>>>> Is regressiv direkt kommend fran Proto-germanisch, on
            >>>>>>> progressiv fran de modern levend Germanisch brun-sprake?
            >>>>>>> On wat kande man frage over dat in een forkiusing?
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> What do you mean exactly by progressive and regressive here?
            >>>>>>> Is regressive coming directly from Proto Germanic, and
            >>>>>>> progressive from the modern living Germanic source languages?
            >>>>>>> And what could we ask about that in a poll?
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> Mid de hertlig groete af
            >>>>>>> Ingmar / Chamavian
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <meinNW@> wrote:
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> My idea for the first poll:
            >>>>>>>> I think, the first thing we could decide is, if the final
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> sprak
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> should
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> be 'compiled' progressive or regressive.
            >>>>>>>> We've seen up till now five dialects, three of them
            >>>>>>>>
            > modernized
            >
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> from
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> a
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> PG source (DS, SP, FR), two build on the comparison of the
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> modern
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>> germanic languages.
            >>>>>>>> The first three sometimes have quite an archaic look, but on
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> first
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>> glance seem to be easier for native english speakers (some
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> word are
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>> exactly the same, like 'that' etc.), the other two resemble
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> (in my
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>> opinion) modern scandinavian languages in look an style, so
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> should
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> be
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> easier to learn for the scandies. But that's just my
            >>>>>>>>
            > opinion,
            >
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> and
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>> shouldn't have any consequences on the poll.
            >>>>>>>> So, what do you, mods and members, think about this, as the
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> first
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>> poll? It would give us all a starting point from where to
            >>>>>>>>
            > work
            >
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> fromn
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>> ow on.
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> Regards, Chris
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>> wrote:
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> The reason that I propose that we have one "Overall
            >>>>>>>>>
            > Criteria"
            >
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>> is
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> that
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> if we vote for every single tiny detail of the language,
            >>>>>>>>>
            > we
            >
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>> are
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>> likely end up with a language with less internal
            >>>>>>>>>
            > consistency
            >
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>> and
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> maybe
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> even incompatibilities. There are lots of good ideas
            >>>>>>>>>
            > sloshing
            >
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> around
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> for Folkspraak but not all of them are compatible with each
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> other.
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> If there was one overarching idea for the language, we'd
            >>>>>>>>>
            > have
            >
            >>>>>>>>> something to measure the good ideas against. Depending on
            >>>>>>>>>
            > the
            >
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> level of
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> detail of the proposed Overall Criteria, we'd still need to
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>> poll
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>> certain issues or even refer back to earlier polls.
            >>>>>>>>>
            > Obviously
            >
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>> if
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> the
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> winning proposal was detailed down to the last word and
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>> letter (a
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>> complete language in other words), there'd be no need to
            >>>>>>>>>
            > poll
            >
            >>>>>>>>> anything. But if it was a single vague sentence, then
            >>>>>>>>>
            > almost
            >
            >>>>>>>>> everything would need to be polled.
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65" <rdw.young@>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>> wrote:
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>> Although I haven't been very active within the group or
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> personally
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>> with my version of FS, one of the things I try to do is
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>> check
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> back
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>> over the polls to see what has been agreed on previously.
            >>>>>>>>>> It might be worth checking through the polls and creating a
            >>>>>>>>>> "Grunding-FS" that we can all agree on. I think articles
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> like "de" and
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>> "en" are a given?, but we should at least all agree on
            >>>>>>>>>>
            > basic
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> articles,
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>> personal pronouns, comparatives, superlatives, numbers
            >>>>>>>>>>
            > etc.
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>> and
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> build
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>> up from there.
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>> Robert
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> wrote:
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> Separate from the issue of the role of the mods:
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> I also think we should have a vote in support of one
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > overall
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>> philosophy or criterion for forming the FS language. This
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> should be
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> open to a complete re-examination of past criteria. We
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > now
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> have the
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> ability to change the group settings, so we need not
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > stick
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> to
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> what is
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> currently written on the home page. Some of that stuff was
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> decided by
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> members who are no longer participants in this project.
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> An example of this might be the Interlingua philosophy of
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> the
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> Rule of
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> Three.
            >>>>>>>>>>> That is, there are 4 primary source language units and 2
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> control
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> language. Features of IL must be cognate to the source
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> languages, and
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> they must be represented in at least 3 of the source
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> language
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> units.
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> Or 2 source language units plus one or more of the control
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> languages.
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> The forms of words are etymological prototype.
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> We could have our own overall criterion for the FS
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > language
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> (which of
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> course may differ from the IL one). We would still have
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > many
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> points of
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> vocabulary, phonology, orthography and grammar open to
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> dispute,
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> which
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> could be decided by poll. What the members would be
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > voting
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> for
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> in the
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> polls would be which method/form best conformed to the
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> Overall
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>> Criterion.
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> Individual members could propose their own Overall
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> Criterion
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> which
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> might differ in for example the source languages used,
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > the
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> majority
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> needed, whether to adopt an etymological approach or
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > compare
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> unrelated
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> words that mean the same thing. Whether to use a lowest
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> common
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> denominator for forms or the majority or mean form or the
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> prototypical
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> form. The proposals could be as detailed or a vague as
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > the
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> proponent
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> desired.
            >>>>>>>>>>> "Everything should just be, like, Germanic and stuff man"
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> could
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> be one
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> member's proposal. Another members proposal could be as
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> short
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> and
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> explicit as "We don't need an artificial Germanic IAL.
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> Folkspraak
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> should be English"
            >>>>>>>>>>> Or another member's proposal could be a detailed set of
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> rules
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> the size
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> of a small encyclopedia. There's even the possibility
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > that a
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> proposal
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> could be a complete language with all the details filled
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> in.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> (I
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> personally don't think any of our attempts at FS are that
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> complete)
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> We could hold a vote on individual Overall Criterion
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> proposals and
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> then the winning proposal is adopted as the guiding
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> philosophy
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> of FS.
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> If there are detailed and explicit rules in the proposal
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> then
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> we'd be
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> honour-bound to follow them. Or if the proposal was a few
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> vaguely
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> words statements, we'd still have the freedom to do
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> continue
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> doing
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> things our own individual ways.
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> If desired we could use a more sophisticated polling
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > system
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> such as
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> preferential voting (Which might elect a proposal that
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > most
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> members
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> can tolerate even if not most peoples' first choice).
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> After we have our mandated Overall Criterion, we'd still
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> need
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> to
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> have
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> polls about individual features but the members should be
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> voting for
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> the outcome that is closest the the Overall Criterion.
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > And
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> of
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> course
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> there are many issues where there would be no obvious one
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> way
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> to do
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> things, but the choice decided by the majority in polls
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> would
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> be the
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> way to go forward.
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65"
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            > <rdw.young@>
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> wrote:
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> Now that David is the moderator and in response to his
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> questions, I
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> suggest we set up a poll regarding the moderator's role
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> and
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> the
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> procedures for the future running of the group. I
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> personally
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> currently
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> have no strong opinions either way.
            >>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest that like any committee or organisation, we
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            > have
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> a
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> period of
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> time (I suggest 2 months), where members can make
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> proposals
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> for
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> procedures or propositions, which can be the entered
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            > onto a
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> ballot and
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> voted on by members with a simple for or against.
            >>>>>>>>>>>> This would then give us a series or rules, regulations
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            > and
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>> standing
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> orders for the running of the group.
            >>>>>>>>>>>> At the time of the moderator's election, which looks to
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            > be
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>> in
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> May each
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> year, we could then vote annually on any new
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            > propositions
            >
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>> or
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>> proposals.
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> This could be added to the files folder as a kind on
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>> constitution for
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> the group.
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
            >>>>>>>>>>>> Robert
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>>>>>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
            >>>>>
            > --
            >
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>> ------
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
            >>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            >>>>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release
            >>>>>
            > Date:
            >
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>> 02/27/09 13:27:00
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
            >>>
            > ------
            >
            >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
            >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            >>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1977 - Release Date:
            >>>
            > 02/28/09 17:21:00
            >
            >>>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
            >
            > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1977 - Release Date: 02/28/09 17:21:00
            >
            >
          • Andrew Jarrette
            ... sexism, ... bigotry) ... the ... Yes, the one I ve always noticed is that black people in the U.S. can t be accused of being racist, even when some of them
            Message 5 of 26 , Mar 1, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
              >
              > A
              > >
              > Have you ever encountered the philosophy that a whatever-ism (eg
              sexism,
              > racism, ethnocentrism, language-chauvinism or any other kind of
              bigotry)
              > isn't an -ism unless it's done by someone who has power over a
              > disadvantaged minority? Americans definitely are not the minority in
              the
              > English speaking world and they have much of the power.


              Yes, the one I've always noticed is that black people in the U.S.
              can't be accused of being racist, even when some of them blatantly
              favour other blacks and quarrel with other black people for marrying
              or dating whites. Very unjust, and therefore greatly weakens, perhaps
              nullifies, their case for racism against them.

              Therefore any
              > tiny thing that us down-trodden kiwis say against them is fair-game.
              >
              > Either that or you saw my over-sincere response to my own "go and start
              > your own group" post and you decided that I might be suffering from
              > hyper-politeness and that you could bait me ;-)
              >

              Yes, I was _trying_ to figure out how to make a connection between
              your response to "go and start..." and your latest little joke,
              because my response to your joke was just the type of response you
              feared I would have to "go and start...". But yours is very good lol!


              > I must remember to put in smileys when I do jokes


              BTW about Proper English: I think it's very true that Americans in
              general regard RP English as a posh, polished, sophisticated,
              upper-class or aristocratic accent. They (and we Canadians too)
              usually look up to speakers with this accent, it sounds so refined.
              Actually I think this or variations of it is my favourite accent of
              English, regardless of any affectation or pretentiousness it might
              suggest. One or two people have told me here in Canada that
              Trinidadian English is their favourite English accent -- it's rather
              musical with many pure vowels.

              Andrew
            • David Parke
              ... I think you can observe a similar thing happening with radical feminists in regard to sexism. And one thing that is guaranteed to leave white liberals
              Message 6 of 26 , Mar 1, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                > >
                > > A
                > > >
                > > Have you ever encountered the philosophy that a whatever-ism (eg
                > sexism,
                > > racism, ethnocentrism, language-chauvinism or any other kind of
                > bigotry)
                > > isn't an -ism unless it's done by someone who has power over a
                > > disadvantaged minority? Americans definitely are not the minority in
                > the
                > > English speaking world and they have much of the power.
                >
                >
                > Yes, the one I've always noticed is that black people in the U.S.
                > can't be accused of being racist, even when some of them blatantly
                > favour other blacks and quarrel with other black people for marrying
                > or dating whites. Very unjust, and therefore greatly weakens, perhaps
                > nullifies, their case for racism against them.

                I think you can observe a similar thing happening with radical
                feminists in regard to sexism.
                And one thing that is guaranteed to leave white liberals scratching
                their heads is when they observe for example hispanics or asians being
                racist toward a third group (be they black or jews or in NZ Maori).
                "How can you be racist when you are person of colour yourself?"
                I personally find that kind of attitude from liberals to be a subtle
                thoughtless kind of racism in itself because it's from a mindset that
                world is made up of whites and the rest.



                >
                > Therefore any
                > > tiny thing that us down-trodden kiwis say against them is fair-game.
                > >
                > > Either that or you saw my over-sincere response to my own "go and
                start
                > > your own group" post and you decided that I might be suffering from
                > > hyper-politeness and that you could bait me ;-)
                > >
                >
                > Yes, I was _trying_ to figure out how to make a connection between
                > your response to "go and start..." and your latest little joke,
                > because my response to your joke was just the type of response you
                > feared I would have to "go and start...". But yours is very good lol!
                >
                >
                > > I must remember to put in smileys when I do jokes
                >
                >
                > BTW about Proper English: I think it's very true that Americans in
                > general regard RP English as a posh, polished, sophisticated,
                > upper-class or aristocratic accent. They (and we Canadians too)
                > usually look up to speakers with this accent, it sounds so refined.
                > Actually I think this or variations of it is my favourite accent of
                > English, regardless of any affectation or pretentiousness it might
                > suggest. One or two people have told me here in Canada that
                > Trinidadian English is their favourite English accent -- it's rather
                > musical with many pure vowels.
                >
                > Andrew
                >
              • David Parke
                Hi Groupies, I m answering my own message on behalf of Chamavian, who is still having issues. Chambo s replik: For de fimfde maal, ig probere to answorde di,
                Message 7 of 26 , Mar 4, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Groupies, I'm answering my own message on behalf of Chamavian, who is
                  still having issues.
                  Chambo's replik:

                  For de fimfde maal, ig probere to answorde di, de ander male dat have nig lykked, fordat ig kande nig sende de bericht...

                  Wat een fantastisch job du have, dat hae geve ju een reis to een tropisch paradis plus ennoch 1000 Daler kleding-penning!
                  Diin baas motte wese mennig good.
                  Oller magschee de over-wicht af de kollegas ware so oevel, dat ju kande do jur wirk nig meer spoedig genog? ;-)

                  Doch serioes, mennig good af di dat du have mindered diin wicht David, on dat du ete on leve so sund nu!

                  Ingmar


                  Ond min replik to him:

                  Ikk tenk datt min Chef/Bas geloev datt de smaler ond fitter arbeders
                  schuld werke spoediger. Ond infall dee are sunder, dann fatten dei nejt
                  so mannig sykdagen.
                  Hi geloev datt somme aff ticker arbeders "hab keine Lust".

                  Min bas iss inn mest wisen god, (doch nejt godd, menn ferwexle lejt de
                  twee gelikardig worden). Hi iss ser intelligent ond genyte to utprobere
                  ny tingen ond metodes.
                  Doch hi is oek ser hertloes. Siden de latst jar, ha hi makd arbedloes
                  ungefar 20% aff de arbeders aff de firma. Ikk ha angst alltid for min
                  tokomst dar oek.
                  Magschej dis iss de en weg to beware de firma inn dis lagkonjuktur
                  (recession). Nu wynsch ikk datt ikk have en jobb inn de stat-sektor, for
                  de sekerhed aff de jobben. Doch in NZ, wi have en ny rejt-flygelisch
                  regering ond dee wille ferbruke minder gemensam geld for jobben for
                  stat-sektor arbeders.



                  David Parke wrote:
                  > chamavian wrote:
                  >
                  >> Ja, man saege in Nederlandisch eigenlig altiid "kopje", mid "-je":
                  >> "een kopje koffie", "een kopje thee". Man hoere okso ofte "een bak
                  >> koffie" oller "bakje". "Een flesje bier" oller "een biertje".
                  >> On ofte "een glaasje cola", doch "een glas cola" is okso richt.
                  >>
                  >> In Nederlandisch man bruke okso de word "coupe", oller "ijscoupe",
                  >> speciael for iis, as in Fransisch.
                  >> On man bruke "cup" fran Engelisch, for de footbal-priis:
                  >> "Europacup", "Wereldcup", de latest is synonym mid "Wereldbeker".
                  >>
                  >> David, mennig good af di dat du probere to mindere diin wicht!
                  >> Lykkig ig have self nig wirklig een problem mid dat, fordat ig ride
                  >> tree antil fimf dage in de woek to miin arbeid mid de twoweel
                  >> (cykel), dat is rund 25 kilometer per dag, on heim ig do okso een
                  >> lyttel fitness, two avens per woek.
                  >>
                  >> Ig liuve beer, doch ig drinke dat nig ofter dan two oller to meest
                  >> tree male per woek.
                  >>
                  >> Ig hope dat al folk kan forsta dis uter Engelisch oversetting, fordat
                  >> ig wilde blive skrive in Folkspraak (oller Middelspraak)
                  >>
                  >> Groete
                  >> Ingmar
                  >>
                  >>
                  > Ig forsta all!
                  >
                  > De latst jar, normalwis, styrd ikk midd min auto to min arbeid. Dat iss
                  > bar 3 km fra min hus!
                  > Min histori is datt, befor 2 jaren, kunde ikk nejt autostyre. Ikk hadd
                  > nen autostyrorkunde ond ikk ging oder red midd de autobuss oder red midd
                  > en taxi to all placen. Ikk lyv gemensam transportsystemen, ond ikk
                  > geleuve datt to mannig autos are en greut problem for staden ond for the
                  > ommgeving aff dis planet. Dis iss nejt normal for en nysewlander. Wi all
                  > have autos, dar are wid/bred strates in all placen ond wi fare midd de
                  > auto to all placen!
                  > Siden twee jaren gav min fader ond stypmoder mi somme $5000 (€3000) (for
                  > en orsak af taxering, ikk geleuve) ond ikk kunde keupe en auto ond ha
                  > lektionen ond en test for min autostyrorkunde.
                  > Ikk genyted to fare inn min nyw auto to all placen. To have en auto iss
                  > oft frihed. Ikk kunde beseuke min frynden ond familli ofter. Ikk fard
                  > midd min auto to min jobb elk dagen, doch min jobb iss bar 3km fra min
                  > hus. Min jobb ha gratis parkering placen for de arbeders ond ett kost mi
                  > minder for de benzin to fare midd min auto als to ride de autobuss.
                  >
                  > Siden ha ikk fatted min autostyrordkunde, ikk ha fatted mer als 10kg!
                  >
                  > Dis jar, ikk ga to min jobb elk dagen ond ikk ga to min hem euk. Ikk
                  > kunde ride de autobuss, doch ikk gae. De gang dur bar 35minuten! Ikk mot
                  > klimme en berg (heucher als de heuchest berg in de Nederlanden, ikk
                  > tenk) ond ikk werd alltid het ond swetig. Magschej schall ikk ride min
                  > cykel to min jobb strax euk. Ikk tenk datt de Nederlanden iss en lejt
                  > land inn wilk to ride cykels fordatt de landschap iss so platt./flakk NZ
                  > iss inn mest placen bergig!
                  > Ikk drink nejt mer bir ond elk dag, et ikk tunnfisch salat for min
                  > avendmal. Datt werd nejt interressant strax!
                  > Nu have wi en konkurrenc bi min jobb. Dis konkurrenc het "the biggest
                  > loser". De winner mot ferlyse de greutest wejt. De winner schall winne
                  > en tripp to Fiji ond en kupon for $1000 af kleding.
                  > After 5 wiken, ha ikk ferlysd 5 kg. Ikk feul euk mannig mer fit/en form.
                  > Ikk hop dat ikk ferlys mannig mer kgs.
                  >
                  >
                  >> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> chamavian wrote:
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>> The use of "kop" in the sense of "head" is considered rude in
                  >>>> Dutch, unlike German "Kopf". The usual Dutch word for humans
                  >>>> is "hoofd", like English head, Danish hoved, Swedish huvud. "Kop"
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >> is
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>> used for animals, except for horses, which are said to be noble
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >> and
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>> have a "hoofd". They also have "benen" legs, instead of "poten"
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >> like
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>> other animals ;-)
                  >>>> Animals also have a "bek" in Dutch, whereas people have a "mond"
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >> =
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>> mouth.
                  >>>>
                  >>>> Additionally, like German "Haupt", Dutch "hoofd" can mean leader:
                  >>>> "schoolhoofd" = school director, "hoofdstad" = capital city,
                  >>>> "hoofdreden" = main reason, etc.
                  >>>> Scandinavian has the same use.
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>> I wonder if the usage of Kopf/kop for head indicates that the
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> ancient
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> Germanics really drunk out of skulls. (I've seen it in Asterix
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> comics so
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> it must be true!)
                  >>>
                  >>> In English, the first meaning of head is the body part. It can also
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> mean
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> a leader in words such as "headmaster".
                  >>> In German, I think Haupt is only really in that sense and isn't
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> used for
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> the body part.
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>> "Tas" normally means "bag" in Dutch, but in Belgium (Flanders)
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >> and
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>> parts of the Southern Netherlands, it means cup: "een tas koffie"
                  >>>> or "een tas thee". Clearly from French, since Belgium is a
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >> bilingual
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>> country and is very close to France as well.
                  >>>> But "tas" in the sense of cup is considered to be regionalistic
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >> and
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>> even incorrect Dutch.
                  >>>> "Een kop koffie" is the usual form in Dutch. One can also drink
                  >>>> "een beker melk", "een glas jus d'orange", "een mok
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >> chocolademelk"
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>> etc. but I prefer "een glas bier" myself.
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>> I would say that the use "tas" to mean a cup is of a different
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> etymology
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> from the use of "tas" to mean a pocket.
                  >>> In a language like German, the equivalents are two distinct words,
                  >>> Tasche and Tasse.
                  >>> But it a normal evolution in Dutch for syllable final *sk to become
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> just
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> "s" -- and merge with syllable final *ks which also becomes "s".
                  >>>
                  >>> Has anybody heard of a brand of instant coffee called Moccona?
                  >>> It is sold in New Zealand with the tag-line. "Moccona heeft meer
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> mmmmmmmm."
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> The TV adverts are presented by a rather pretty young woman
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> speaking in
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> Dutch. She starts the advert with "Ik hep hier twee kopjes koffie."
                  >>> The advert is entirely in Dutch but with English subtitles. The
                  >>> interesting thing is that the subtitles aren't entirely necessary
                  >>> because the Dutch is almost intelligible for most of the advert.
                  >>>
                  >>> Is Moccona a Dutch brand? Is the diminutive "kopje" frequently used
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> for
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> "cup"?
                  >>>
                  >>> I have almost given up on beer and chocolate milk so far this year
                  >>> because I am trying to loose weight. And the coffee is black with
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> no
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> sugar. We are having a competition at work at the moment and I
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> probably
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> need to loose at least 10kg to win. (Don't worry, I have plenty of
                  >>> weight to spare and people with anorexia are not eligible to enter
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >> the
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> competition).
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>> Cheers!
                  >>>> Ingmar
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>> The problem with False Friends is yes there are quite a few.
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>> However,
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> even the True Friends are not entirely trustworthy.
                  >>>>> For example EN head is the cognate to DE Haupt. However DE Haupt
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> is
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>> mainly used to refer to "head" in the sense of leader.
                  >>>>> In German, "Kopf" is the preferred word for the body part.
                  >>>>> DE Kopf is a cognate false friend to EN cup. However EN cup does
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> share
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> some meaning with NL kop. NL kop can mean a drinking vessel but
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> also is
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> used similarly to DE Kopf as a word for head. So NL kop and EN
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> cup
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> are
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> un-reliable friends but not totally false friends. NL kop and DE
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> Kopf
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> are friends, but entirely aren't entirely trustworthy either.
                  >>>>> Danish kop and NO/SV kopp seem to mean pretty much the same as
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> EN
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> cup.
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> That is, a drinking vessel.
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>> I think that these cup-related words (all from L. cuppa) could
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> be
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> the
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> basis of a FS word, however it's not simply the form that is
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> important.
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> It's not accurate to simply say FS kopp = EN cup = NO kopp = SV
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> kopp =
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> DA kop = NL kop = DE Kopf.
                  >>>>> Words are both a FORM (ie a sound and a combination of spidery
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> black
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> marks on paper) and MEANINGS and CONTEXTS associated with that
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> form.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>> We need to analyze the meanings (plural!) of the cognate words
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> in
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> the
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> source languages and find out how widely shared the meanings
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> are.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> If we
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> go by the rule of three. The meaning of "drinking vessel" is
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> present in
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> 3 of the source languages (English, Dutch and Scandy treated as
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> a
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> single
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> linguistic entity). The meaning of "body part where the mouth,
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> nose,
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> eyes, ears and brain are located" is present in 2 of the source
                  >>>>> languages. So by the Rule of Three, there is justification for
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> FS
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> kopp
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> to mean "cup" , but not sufficient justification for it to to
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> mean "head"
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> In Frenkisch, I also throw French "coupe" into the analysis. It
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> doesn't
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> change the result significantly but it might serve to refine the
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> meaning
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> slightly. If there are more than one valid meaning for a word,
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> it
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> might
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> help establish which is the preferred meaning.
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>> So that's the justification for KOPP as a FS word for "cup".
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> It's
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>> however very important to note, that it is not the only word
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> for "cup"
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> or even necessarily the preferred word. "Kop" is probably not
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> the
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>> preferred word in Dutch to translate EN "cup". Or it may be
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> preferably
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> used as a diminutive such as "kopje" for that meaning.
                  >>>>> The would be other FS words such as "glas" or "beker" or "mugg"
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> which
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> would have overlapping meanings with "kopp" and in some contexts
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> may be
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> better words to use.
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>> BTW do any of the other Germlangs have a cognate to DE Tasse? NL
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> has
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> "tas" but I am pretty sure that this is the cognate to DE
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> Tasche/DA
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>> taske. It could be a merger of the two in Dutch, because a final
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> *sk
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> becomes "s" in Dutch. Does NL tas or tasje. share any meaning
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> with
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> DE Tasse?
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> Chris wrote:
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>> Sorry David and Ingmar,
                  >>>>>> I used 'Protogermanic' in an unclear way. What I meant with
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>> using 'a
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>> proto-germanic source', really was your neo-proto-germanic or
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >> how
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>> you
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>> like to call it. I'm well aware, that true PG is not very
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >> useful
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>> for
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>> our attempts at building a auxilliary language, that all
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >> speakers
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>> of a
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>> modern germanic language could understand.
                  >>>>>> So my third try at formulating the question:
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>> Should the 'sprak' be build from a modernized and artificially
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>> evolved
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>> form of older germanic, the Interlingua-way, with help of modern
                  >>>>>> vocabulary to avoid semantic 'false-friends' or other problems
                  >>>>>> OR
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>> What I want to emphasize is, that in developing the FS
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> language,
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> we
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> need very careful semantic analysis of the meanings and usages
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> of
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> the
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> cognates in our source languages, before we publish the FS
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> words.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>> Instant recognition is a great thing, but it can only take you
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> so
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> far.
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> Because of the complex relationship of false and un-reliable
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> friends,
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> eventually one needs to look in a dictionary and find out the
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> preferred
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> word and the accepted meanings. I think that this is a problem
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> with
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>> closely related natural languages too, the speakers don't see
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> the
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> need
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> to learn the other language properly. If anything, their
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> attitude
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> is
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> that it is a "bad" version of their own language, which wouldn't
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> put
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> them in the right mindset for learning the other language
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >> properly.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> This
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> is probably the case with Swedish and Danish or Spanish and
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>> Portuguese
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>> or American English and Proper English.
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>
                  >>>>>> Should the 'sprak' be build from the lowest common denominator
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >> of
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>> the
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>> modern germanic languages, with the help of older germanic to
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>> avoid
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>> problems in phonology (vowelshifts, Umlauts, etc.)?
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>> Darn, sometimes it's hard to get a point across ;)
                  >>>>>> Best regards, Chris
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <meinNW@> wrote:
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>> Hej Ingmar,
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>> I meant it the opposite way, with 'progressiv' as a term to
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>> describe
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>> the process of modernizing an old language-state, and
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >> regressive
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>> as
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>> building backward from the modern languages sources to a
                  >>>>>>> pseudo-archaic form. But these terms don't matter, it was just
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>> my way
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>> to imagine things.
                  >>>>>>> So to make my question more precise:
                  >>>>>>> Should the final form of the sprak be built from a proto-
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >> germanic
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>> source, or be built from a number of modern source languages?
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>> Chris
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >> wrote:
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> Hei Chris
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> Wat mene du precis mid progressiv on regressiv hir?
                  >>>>>>>> Is regressiv direkt kommend fran Proto-germanisch, on
                  >>>>>>>> progressiv fran de modern levend Germanisch brun-sprake?
                  >>>>>>>> On wat kande man frage over dat in een forkiusing?
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> What do you mean exactly by progressive and regressive here?
                  >>>>>>>> Is regressive coming directly from Proto Germanic, and
                  >>>>>>>> progressive from the modern living Germanic source languages?
                  >>>>>>>> And what could we ask about that in a poll?
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> Mid de hertlig groete af
                  >>>>>>>> Ingmar / Chamavian
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <meinNW@> wrote:
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> My idea for the first poll:
                  >>>>>>>>> I think, the first thing we could decide is, if the final
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> sprak
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> should
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> be 'compiled' progressive or regressive.
                  >>>>>>>>> We've seen up till now five dialects, three of them
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >> modernized
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> from
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> a
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> PG source (DS, SP, FR), two build on the comparison of the
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> modern
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> germanic languages.
                  >>>>>>>>> The first three sometimes have quite an archaic look, but on
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> first
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> glance seem to be easier for native english speakers (some
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> word are
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> exactly the same, like 'that' etc.), the other two resemble
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> (in my
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> opinion) modern scandinavian languages in look an style, so
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> should
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> be
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> easier to learn for the scandies. But that's just my
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >> opinion,
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> and
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> shouldn't have any consequences on the poll.
                  >>>>>>>>> So, what do you, mods and members, think about this, as the
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> first
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> poll? It would give us all a starting point from where to
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >> work
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> fromn
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> ow on.
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> Regards, Chris
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> wrote:
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> The reason that I propose that we have one "Overall
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >> Criteria"
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> is
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> that
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> if we vote for every single tiny detail of the language,
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >> we
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> are
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> likely end up with a language with less internal
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >> consistency
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> and
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> maybe
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> even incompatibilities. There are lots of good ideas
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >> sloshing
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> around
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> for Folkspraak but not all of them are compatible with each
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> other.
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> If there was one overarching idea for the language, we'd
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >> have
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>> something to measure the good ideas against. Depending on
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >> the
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> level of
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> detail of the proposed Overall Criteria, we'd still need to
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> poll
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> certain issues or even refer back to earlier polls.
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >> Obviously
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> if
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> the
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> winning proposal was detailed down to the last word and
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> letter (a
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> complete language in other words), there'd be no need to
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >> poll
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>> anything. But if it was a single vague sentence, then
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >> almost
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>> everything would need to be polled.
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65" <rdw.young@>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> wrote:
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>> Although I haven't been very active within the group or
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> personally
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>> with my version of FS, one of the things I try to do is
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> check
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> back
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>> over the polls to see what has been agreed on previously.
                  >>>>>>>>>>> It might be worth checking through the polls and creating a
                  >>>>>>>>>>> "Grunding-FS" that we can all agree on. I think articles
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> like "de" and
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>> "en" are a given?, but we should at least all agree on
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> basic
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> articles,
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>> personal pronouns, comparatives, superlatives, numbers
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> etc.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> and
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> build
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>> up from there.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>> Robert
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> wrote:
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> Separate from the issue of the role of the mods:
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> I also think we should have a vote in support of one
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> overall
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> philosophy or criterion for forming the FS language. This
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> should be
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> open to a complete re-examination of past criteria. We
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> now
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> have the
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> ability to change the group settings, so we need not
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> stick
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> to
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> what is
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> currently written on the home page. Some of that stuff was
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> decided by
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> members who are no longer participants in this project.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> An example of this might be the Interlingua philosophy of
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> the
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> Rule of
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> Three.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> That is, there are 4 primary source language units and 2
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> control
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> language. Features of IL must be cognate to the source
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> languages, and
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> they must be represented in at least 3 of the source
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> language
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> units.
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> Or 2 source language units plus one or more of the control
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> languages.
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> The forms of words are etymological prototype.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> We could have our own overall criterion for the FS
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> language
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> (which of
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> course may differ from the IL one). We would still have
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> many
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> points of
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> vocabulary, phonology, orthography and grammar open to
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> dispute,
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> which
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> could be decided by poll. What the members would be
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> voting
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> for
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> in the
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> polls would be which method/form best conformed to the
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> Overall
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>> Criterion.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> Individual members could propose their own Overall
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> Criterion
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> which
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> might differ in for example the source languages used,
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> the
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> majority
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> needed, whether to adopt an etymological approach or
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> compare
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> unrelated
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> words that mean the same thing. Whether to use a lowest
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> common
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> denominator for forms or the majority or mean form or the
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> prototypical
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> form. The proposals could be as detailed or a vague as
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> the
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> proponent
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> desired.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything should just be, like, Germanic and stuff man"
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> could
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> be one
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> member's proposal. Another members proposal could be as
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> short
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> and
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> explicit as "We don't need an artificial Germanic IAL.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> Folkspraak
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> should be English"
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> Or another member's proposal could be a detailed set of
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> rules
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> the size
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> of a small encyclopedia. There's even the possibility
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> that a
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> proposal
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> could be a complete language with all the details filled
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> in.
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> (I
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> personally don't think any of our attempts at FS are that
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> complete)
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> We could hold a vote on individual Overall Criterion
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> proposals and
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> then the winning proposal is adopted as the guiding
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> philosophy
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> of FS.
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> If there are detailed and explicit rules in the proposal
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> then
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> we'd be
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> honour-bound to follow them. Or if the proposal was a few
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> vaguely
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> words statements, we'd still have the freedom to do
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> continue
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> doing
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> things our own individual ways.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> If desired we could use a more sophisticated polling
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> system
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> such as
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> preferential voting (Which might elect a proposal that
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> most
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> members
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> can tolerate even if not most peoples' first choice).
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> After we have our mandated Overall Criterion, we'd still
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> need
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> to
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> have
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> polls about individual features but the members should be
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> voting for
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> the outcome that is closest the the Overall Criterion.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> And
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> of
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> course
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> there are many issues where there would be no obvious one
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> way
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> to do
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> things, but the choice decided by the majority in polls
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> would
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> be the
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> way to go forward.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>> --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65"
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> <rdw.young@>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> wrote:
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that David is the moderator and in response to his
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> questions, I
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest we set up a poll regarding the moderator's role
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> and
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> the
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> procedures for the future running of the group. I
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> personally
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> currently
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> have no strong opinions either way.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest that like any committee or organisation, we
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> have
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> a
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> period of
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> time (I suggest 2 months), where members can make
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> proposals
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> for
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> procedures or propositions, which can be the entered
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> onto a
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> ballot and
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> voted on by members with a simple for or against.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> This would then give us a series or rules, regulations
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> and
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>> standing
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> orders for the running of the group.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time of the moderator's election, which looks to
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> be
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>> in
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> May each
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> year, we could then vote annually on any new
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >> propositions
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>> or
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>> proposals.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> This could be added to the files folder as a kind on
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>> constitution for
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> the group.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >> --
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>> ------
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
                  >>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  >>>>>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >> Date:
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>> 02/27/09 13:27:00
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >> ------
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
                  >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  >>>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1977 - Release Date:
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >> 02/28/09 17:21:00
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> No virus found in this incoming message.
                  >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  >> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1977 - Release Date: 02/28/09 17:21:00
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  >
                  > No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1977 - Release Date: 02/28/09 17:21:00
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.