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

i-mutation in french endings

Expand Messages
  • stefichjo
    Dear all, I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated ending and others that don t? Examples are national and industriel .
    Message 1 of 27 , Mar 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear all,

      I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".

      Stephan
    • David Parke
      Dear Stephan I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
      Message 2 of 27 , Mar 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Stephan
        I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
        that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
        equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
        actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)

        stefichjo wrote:
        > Dear all,
        >
        > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
        >
        > Stephan
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >
        > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date: 03/03/09 16:09:00
        >
        >
      • stefichjo
        Dear David, Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between aktual and aktuell ? I thought of making a difference between -ör (for
        Message 3 of 27 , Mar 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear David,
          Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual" and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system, whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al or -ell, either -or or -ör...

          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Stephan
          > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
          > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
          > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
          > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
          >
          > stefichjo wrote:
          > > Dear all,
          > >
          > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
          > >
          > > Stephan
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > >
          > >
          > > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date: 03/03/09 16:09:00
          > >
          > >
          >
        • David Parke
          The only difference that I have, is that a noun tends to end in -al, and an adjective in -ell. However, there are some adjectives that end in -al. But there
          Message 4 of 27 , Mar 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            The only difference that I have, is that a noun tends to end in -al, and an adjective in -ell. However, there are some adjectives that end in -al. But there are NO nouns that end in -ell. (No nouns from Latin -alis that is).

            eg material (n), materiell (adj), original (n), originell (adj). Also speciell (adj), but specialist (n).


            I have just noticed that Swedish seems to have -ell sometimes even in cases where the French word has -al. eh SV nationell.


            For the -*or vs -*eur problem, it'd be unnatural to settle on just one. All the source languages have mixture. English is probably the most consistant with mainly having -or.
            But it's also unnatural, I think, to create a scheme such as you proposed of person vs thing.

            The only real criterion that I use for -or/-eur words is what is in the majority.

            But I agree with you opinion that it would be easier if they were all consistantly -al/-or or all -ell/-eur. Easier and more schematic, but less naturalistic.



            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dear David,
            > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual" and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system, whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al or -ell, either -or or -ör...
            >
            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Dear Stephan
            > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
            > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
            > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
            > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
            > >
            > > stefichjo wrote:
            > > > Dear all,
            > > >
            > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
            > > >
            > > > Stephan
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date: 03/03/09 16:09:00
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • chamavian
            I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do. French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin. E
            Message 5 of 27 , Mar 4, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
              French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
              E < A is independent of “i” in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.

              Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e. Germany.
              And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until that time.
              That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.

              Ingmar


              Stephan Schneider wrote:

              Re: i-mutation in french endings

              Dear David,
              Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual" and
              "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
              "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
              whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
              other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
              or -ell, either -or or -ör...

              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dear Stephan
              > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
              > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
              > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
              > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
              >
              > stefichjo wrote:
              > > Dear all,
              > >
              > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
              ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
              > >
              > > Stephan
              > >
              > >
              > >


              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dear David,
              > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual" and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system, whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al or -ell, either -or or -ör...
              >
              > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Dear Stephan
              > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
              > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
              > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
              > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
              > >
              > > stefichjo wrote:
              > > > Dear all,
              > > >
              > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
              > > >
              > > > Stephan
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
              > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date: 03/03/09 16:09:00
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • stefichjo
              Thanks for your answers. I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If aktuell and aktualisere would be propper words, also materiell and
              Message 6 of 27 , Mar 5, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks for your answers.

                I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional"/"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                in this case:

                * de original, wese originell
                * de funktional, wese funktionell
                * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                * institutionell, institutionalisere
                * de international, internationell, internationalisere

                ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional")
                ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale"), whereas
                "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international").

                I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell",
                would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)

                Gröten,
                Stephan / stefichjo




                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                > E < A is independent of â€Å"i” in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                >
                > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                Germany.
                > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                that time.
                > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                >
                > Ingmar
                >
                >
                > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                >
                > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                >
                > Dear David,
                > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                and
                > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                the
                > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                -al
                > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                >
                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Dear Stephan
                > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                > >
                > > stefichjo wrote:
                > > > Dear all,
                > > >
                > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                > > >
                > > > Stephan
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                >
                >
                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Dear David,
                > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                > >
                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Dear Stephan
                > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                > > >
                > > > stefichjo wrote:
                > > > > Dear all,
                > > > >
                > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                > > > >
                > > > > Stephan
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                03/03/09 16:09:00
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • chamavian
                In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael. On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.
                Message 7 of 27 , Mar 5, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael.
                  On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.



                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Thanks for your answers.
                  >
                  > I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                  > would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                  > correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                  > NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                  > alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                  > attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional"/"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                  > in this case:
                  >
                  > * de original, wese originell
                  > * de funktional, wese funktionell
                  > * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                  > * institutionell, institutionalisere
                  > * de international, internationell, internationalisere
                  >
                  > ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                  > funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional")
                  > ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale"), whereas
                  > "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international").
                  >
                  > I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                  > they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell",
                  > would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                  > "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                  > "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                  > â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)
                  >
                  > Gröten,
                  > Stephan / stefichjo
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                  > > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                  > > E < A is independent of â€Å"i” in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                  > French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                  > >
                  > > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                  > that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                  > France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                  > Germany.
                  > > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                  > rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                  > that time.
                  > > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                  > West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                  > >
                  > > Ingmar
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                  > >
                  > > Dear David,
                  > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                  > and
                  > > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                  > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                  > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                  > the
                  > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                  > -al
                  > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                  > >
                  > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Dear Stephan
                  > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                  > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                  > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                  > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                  > > >
                  > > > stefichjo wrote:
                  > > > > Dear all,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                  > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Stephan
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Dear David,
                  > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                  > and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                  > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                  > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                  > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                  > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Dear Stephan
                  > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                  > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                  > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                  > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                  > > > >
                  > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                  > > > > > Dear all,
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                  > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Stephan
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  > > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                  > 03/03/09 16:09:00
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • David Parke
                  The issue that Stephan seems to have, is with adjective potentially being able to end in -al or in -ell. He s right -- how would you know which one is the
                  Message 8 of 27 , Mar 5, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The issue that Stephan seems to have, is with adjective potentially being able to end in -al or in -ell. He's right -- how would you know which one is the correct one?

                    One option is to simply guess, based on your own native language knowledge. If the form is based on the majority form, then there's a fairly good chance that your guess will be correct. If it isn't correct, it's not likely to be a big problem in terms of comprehension -- provided that everyone is aware that these adjectives can end in either -al or -ell.

                    But for this issue, I'd don't see there is too much harm in forcing it into a schematic rule, either with all -ell or all -al. Or only the adjective ends in -ell and other situations take -al.
                    eg
                    nation
                    nationell (adj)
                    national (n.)
                    nationalism

                    I acknowledge that this is not naturalistic and will sometimes lead to forms that don't reflect the majority of the cognates, but there would be little harm to understanding/recognition and a small gain in the ease of learning. Especially in cases when someone already knows a word such as "motion" and wants to create a derived adjective. (such as *motionell). They can use the -ell suffix as a tool for active word-building, rather than -al and -ell being fossilised dead suffixes.


                    All of what I have said above, applies equally to -or vs -eur!



                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael.
                    > On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Thanks for your answers.
                    > >
                    > > I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                    > > would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                    > > correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                    > > NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                    > > alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                    > > attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional"/"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                    > > in this case:
                    > >
                    > > * de original, wese originell
                    > > * de funktional, wese funktionell
                    > > * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                    > > * institutionell, institutionalisere
                    > > * de international, internationell, internationalisere
                    > >
                    > > ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                    > > funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional")
                    > > ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale"), whereas
                    > > "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international").
                    > >
                    > > I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                    > > they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell",
                    > > would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                    > > "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                    > > "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                    > > â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)
                    > >
                    > > Gröten,
                    > > Stephan / stefichjo
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                    > > > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                    > > > E < A is independent of â€Å"iâ€Â? in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                    > > French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                    > > >
                    > > > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                    > > that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                    > > France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                    > > Germany.
                    > > > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                    > > rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                    > > that time.
                    > > > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                    > > West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                    > > >
                    > > > Ingmar
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                    > > >
                    > > > Dear David,
                    > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                    > > and
                    > > > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                    > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                    > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                    > > the
                    > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                    > > -al
                    > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Dear Stephan
                    > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                    > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                    > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                    > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                    > > > >
                    > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                    > > > > > Dear all,
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                    > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Stephan
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Dear David,
                    > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                    > > and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                    > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                    > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                    > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                    > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Dear Stephan
                    > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                    > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                    > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                    > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                    > > > > > > Dear all,
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                    > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > Stephan
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                    > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    > > > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                    > > 03/03/09 16:09:00
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • David Parke
                    Taking the Example of global , it would be very unnatural to force this to be *globell when ALL of our source languages have a -al ending, and none of them
                    Message 9 of 27 , Mar 5, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Taking the Example of "global", it would be very unnatural to force this to be *globell when ALL of our source languages have a -al ending, and none of them have -ell. Of course in many cases, it not so clear-cut. And in the cases where we might want to have -ell, the English word always has -al and often the majority form isn't absolutely obvious -- I think there'd be many 50/50 splits.
                      So IF this ending was forced schematically in one direction, my preference would be for -al (as in English). This avoids the problem of the example of *globell.
                      IF we adopted a schematic solution for the -or vs -eur issue, my preference would be to force them all to -or.


                      The advantage of this scheme is in both cases, using -al and -or regularises to relationship with cognate words.
                      Eg dirigere, direktor, direkorat. Not dirigere, direkteur, direktorat.

                      eg Nation, national, nationalisere. Not Nation, nationell, nationalisere.


                      HOWEVER
                      My real preference is to just go with the majority and have some words ending in -al and some in -ell and some in -or and some in -eur.



                      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > The issue that Stephan seems to have, is with adjective potentially being able to end in -al or in -ell. He's right -- how would you know which one is the correct one?
                      >
                      > One option is to simply guess, based on your own native language knowledge. If the form is based on the majority form, then there's a fairly good chance that your guess will be correct. If it isn't correct, it's not likely to be a big problem in terms of comprehension -- provided that everyone is aware that these adjectives can end in either -al or -ell.
                      >
                      > But for this issue, I'd don't see there is too much harm in forcing it into a schematic rule, either with all -ell or all -al. Or only the adjective ends in -ell and other situations take -al.
                      > eg
                      > nation
                      > nationell (adj)
                      > national (n.)
                      > nationalism
                      >
                      > I acknowledge that this is not naturalistic and will sometimes lead to forms that don't reflect the majority of the cognates, but there would be little harm to understanding/recognition and a small gain in the ease of learning. Especially in cases when someone already knows a word such as "motion" and wants to create a derived adjective. (such as *motionell). They can use the -ell suffix as a tool for active word-building, rather than -al and -ell being fossilised dead suffixes.
                      >
                      >
                      > All of what I have said above, applies equally to -or vs -eur!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael.
                      > > On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Thanks for your answers.
                      > > >
                      > > > I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                      > > > would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                      > > > correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                      > > > NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                      > > > alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                      > > > attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional"/"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                      > > > in this case:
                      > > >
                      > > > * de original, wese originell
                      > > > * de funktional, wese funktionell
                      > > > * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                      > > > * institutionell, institutionalisere
                      > > > * de international, internationell, internationalisere
                      > > >
                      > > > ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                      > > > funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional")
                      > > > ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale"), whereas
                      > > > "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international").
                      > > >
                      > > > I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                      > > > they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell",
                      > > > would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                      > > > "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                      > > > "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                      > > > â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)
                      > > >
                      > > > Gröten,
                      > > > Stephan / stefichjo
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                      > > > > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                      > > > > E < A is independent of â€Å"iâ€Â? in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                      > > > French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                      > > > that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                      > > > France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                      > > > Germany.
                      > > > > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                      > > > rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                      > > > that time.
                      > > > > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                      > > > West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Ingmar
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Dear David,
                      > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                      > > > and
                      > > > > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                      > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                      > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                      > > > the
                      > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                      > > > -al
                      > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Dear Stephan
                      > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                      > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                      > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                      > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                      > > > > > > Dear all,
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                      > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Stephan
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Dear David,
                      > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                      > > > and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                      > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                      > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                      > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                      > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                      > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                      > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                      > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                      > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                      > > > > > > > Dear all,
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                      > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > Stephan
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                      > > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      > > > > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                      > > > 03/03/09 16:09:00
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • chamavian
                      Why is it necessary to have two endings -el + -al ? Just combine them into -ael , so one doesn t have to think about it. nationael, globael, aktuael,
                      Message 10 of 27 , Mar 5, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Why is it necessary to have two endings "-el" + "-al"? Just combine them into "-ael", so one doesn't have to think about it.

                        nationael, globael, aktuael, funktionael
                        nationalisere, globalisere, aktualisere, funktionalisere
                        nationalistisch, globalist, aktualitaet etc.

                        Chamavian

                        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Taking the Example of "global", it would be very unnatural to force this to be *globell when ALL of our source languages have a -al ending, and none of them have -ell. Of course in many cases, it not so clear-cut. And in the cases where we might want to have -ell, the English word always has -al and often the majority form isn't absolutely obvious -- I think there'd be many 50/50 splits.
                        > So IF this ending was forced schematically in one direction, my preference would be for -al (as in English). This avoids the problem of the example of *globell.
                        > IF we adopted a schematic solution for the -or vs -eur issue, my preference would be to force them all to -or.
                        >
                        >
                        > The advantage of this scheme is in both cases, using -al and -or regularises to relationship with cognate words.
                        > Eg dirigere, direktor, direkorat. Not dirigere, direkteur, direktorat.
                        >
                        > eg Nation, national, nationalisere. Not Nation, nationell, nationalisere.
                        >
                        >
                        > HOWEVER
                        > My real preference is to just go with the majority and have some words ending in -al and some in -ell and some in -or and some in -eur.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > The issue that Stephan seems to have, is with adjective potentially being able to end in -al or in -ell. He's right -- how would you know which one is the correct one?
                        > >
                        > > One option is to simply guess, based on your own native language knowledge. If the form is based on the majority form, then there's a fairly good chance that your guess will be correct. If it isn't correct, it's not likely to be a big problem in terms of comprehension -- provided that everyone is aware that these adjectives can end in either -al or -ell.
                        > >
                        > > But for this issue, I'd don't see there is too much harm in forcing it into a schematic rule, either with all -ell or all -al. Or only the adjective ends in -ell and other situations take -al.
                        > > eg
                        > > nation
                        > > nationell (adj)
                        > > national (n.)
                        > > nationalism
                        > >
                        > > I acknowledge that this is not naturalistic and will sometimes lead to forms that don't reflect the majority of the cognates, but there would be little harm to understanding/recognition and a small gain in the ease of learning. Especially in cases when someone already knows a word such as "motion" and wants to create a derived adjective. (such as *motionell). They can use the -ell suffix as a tool for active word-building, rather than -al and -ell being fossilised dead suffixes.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > All of what I have said above, applies equally to -or vs -eur!
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael.
                        > > > On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Thanks for your answers.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                        > > > > would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                        > > > > correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                        > > > > NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                        > > > > alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                        > > > > attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional"/"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                        > > > > in this case:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > * de original, wese originell
                        > > > > * de funktional, wese funktionell
                        > > > > * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                        > > > > * institutionell, institutionalisere
                        > > > > * de international, internationell, internationalisere
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                        > > > > funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional")
                        > > > > ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale"), whereas
                        > > > > "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international").
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                        > > > > they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell",
                        > > > > would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                        > > > > "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                        > > > > "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                        > > > > â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Gröten,
                        > > > > Stephan / stefichjo
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                        > > > > > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                        > > > > > E < A is independent of â€Å"iâ€Â? in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                        > > > > French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                        > > > > that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                        > > > > France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                        > > > > Germany.
                        > > > > > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                        > > > > rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                        > > > > that time.
                        > > > > > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                        > > > > West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Ingmar
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Dear David,
                        > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                        > > > > and
                        > > > > > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                        > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                        > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                        > > > > the
                        > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                        > > > > -al
                        > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                        > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                        > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                        > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                        > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                        > > > > > > > Dear all,
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                        > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > Stephan
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > Dear David,
                        > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                        > > > > and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                        > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                        > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                        > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                        > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                        > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                        > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                        > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                        > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                        > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                        > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > Stephan
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                        > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                        > > > > > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                        > > > > 03/03/09 16:09:00
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > >
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • David Parke
                        Then you still have the issue where the -ael in nationael is a different suffix to that in related words such as nationalisere , nationalisme etc. And the
                        Message 11 of 27 , Mar 5, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Then you still have the issue where the -ael in "nationael" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "nationalisere", "nationalisme" etc. And the "-oer" in "doktoer" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "doktorat". This is an issue which complicates the French language and we are volunteering to inherit this issue?
                          Is this -ael ending also acceptable for nouns such as "material"?
                          So can "nationael", "materiael" and "generael" be used as noun? Or are they just the adjectives?

                          Also I don't even think that it is something that is absolutely obvious that the final form of FS would even have a "ae" phoneme.


                          I can understand why Stephan is concerned about this. However my preference is not to schematize -- just to go for the majority form for the adjectives, (whether it be with -al as in "national" or with -ell as in "aktuell". Leave it a guessing game for the the speakers, based on their knowledge of their own language. There is still a good chance of guessing correctly -- and if guessed incorrectly, it's not a big barrier to communication.

                          But IF (and only if) I were to schematize this issue, I would make them all -al, -or.


                          I have thought of a third related issue and that is with adjectives such as serios/serieus, famos/fameus, kurios/kurieus. Do we standardize all of them on -os or -eus -- or do we have a mix of both?.


                          I think what makes these 3 endings so problematic (-al, -or, -os) is that some of our natural source languages permit BOTH a Latinate ending (eg -al, -or, -os) and a French-oid ending (eg -ell, -eur, -eus).

                          Note that in the "French-oid" category, I'd include German/Swedish -ös/-ell/-ör, DA/NO -øs/-ell/-ør and NL -eus/-eel/-eus.

                          If our source languages were consistent, then we could just consistently choose the "commonest evolutionary path".

                          I think that this whole area is an issue that is genuinely complicated with no clear way to go. It's in such areas that a vague charter isn't going to give us the answers. It's not an issue where I would say "well it obviously should be this way and you'd be stupid to think otherwise".


                          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Why is it necessary to have two endings "-el" + "-al"? Just combine them into "-ael", so one doesn't have to think about it.
                          >
                          > nationael, globael, aktuael, funktionael
                          > nationalisere, globalisere, aktualisere, funktionalisere
                          > nationalistisch, globalist, aktualitaet etc.
                          >
                          > Chamavian
                          >
                          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Taking the Example of "global", it would be very unnatural to force this to be *globell when ALL of our source languages have a -al ending, and none of them have -ell. Of course in many cases, it not so clear-cut. And in the cases where we might want to have -ell, the English word always has -al and often the majority form isn't absolutely obvious -- I think there'd be many 50/50 splits.
                          > > So IF this ending was forced schematically in one direction, my preference would be for -al (as in English). This avoids the problem of the example of *globell.
                          > > IF we adopted a schematic solution for the -or vs -eur issue, my preference would be to force them all to -or.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > The advantage of this scheme is in both cases, using -al and -or regularises to relationship with cognate words.
                          > > Eg dirigere, direktor, direkorat. Not dirigere, direkteur, direktorat.
                          > >
                          > > eg Nation, national, nationalisere. Not Nation, nationell, nationalisere.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > HOWEVER
                          > > My real preference is to just go with the majority and have some words ending in -al and some in -ell and some in -or and some in -eur.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > The issue that Stephan seems to have, is with adjective potentially being able to end in -al or in -ell. He's right -- how would you know which one is the correct one?
                          > > >
                          > > > One option is to simply guess, based on your own native language knowledge. If the form is based on the majority form, then there's a fairly good chance that your guess will be correct. If it isn't correct, it's not likely to be a big problem in terms of comprehension -- provided that everyone is aware that these adjectives can end in either -al or -ell.
                          > > >
                          > > > But for this issue, I'd don't see there is too much harm in forcing it into a schematic rule, either with all -ell or all -al. Or only the adjective ends in -ell and other situations take -al.
                          > > > eg
                          > > > nation
                          > > > nationell (adj)
                          > > > national (n.)
                          > > > nationalism
                          > > >
                          > > > I acknowledge that this is not naturalistic and will sometimes lead to forms that don't reflect the majority of the cognates, but there would be little harm to understanding/recognition and a small gain in the ease of learning. Especially in cases when someone already knows a word such as "motion" and wants to create a derived adjective. (such as *motionell). They can use the -ell suffix as a tool for active word-building, rather than -al and -ell being fossilised dead suffixes.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > All of what I have said above, applies equally to -or vs -eur!
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael.
                          > > > > On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Thanks for your answers.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                          > > > > > would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                          > > > > > correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                          > > > > > NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                          > > > > > alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                          > > > > > attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional"/"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                          > > > > > in this case:
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > * de original, wese originell
                          > > > > > * de funktional, wese funktionell
                          > > > > > * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                          > > > > > * institutionell, institutionalisere
                          > > > > > * de international, internationell, internationalisere
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                          > > > > > funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional")
                          > > > > > ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale"), whereas
                          > > > > > "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international").
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                          > > > > > they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell",
                          > > > > > would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                          > > > > > "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                          > > > > > "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                          > > > > > â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Gröten,
                          > > > > > Stephan / stefichjo
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                          > > > > > > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                          > > > > > > E < A is independent of �"i�? in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                          > > > > > French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                          > > > > > that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                          > > > > > France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                          > > > > > Germany.
                          > > > > > > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                          > > > > > rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                          > > > > > that time.
                          > > > > > > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                          > > > > > West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Ingmar
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Dear David,
                          > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                          > > > > > and
                          > > > > > > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                          > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                          > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                          > > > > > the
                          > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                          > > > > > -al
                          > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                          > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                          > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                          > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                          > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                          > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                          > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > Stephan
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > Dear David,
                          > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                          > > > > > and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                          > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                          > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                          > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                          > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                          > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                          > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                          > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                          > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                          > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                          > > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                          > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                          > > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                          > > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                          > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                          > > > > > > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                          > > > > > 03/03/09 16:09:00
                          > > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • stefichjo
                          I m still collection examples, possibilities and similar issues. These are the suffixes that might cause confusion: * -al vs. -ell * -ar vs. -är * -or vs.
                          Message 12 of 27 , Mar 6, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I'm still collection examples, possibilities and similar issues.

                            These are the suffixes that might cause confusion:
                            * -al vs. -ell
                            * -ar vs. -är
                            * -or vs. -ör
                            * -os vs. -ös


                            Solutions are:
                            - minimalistic: reduce possibilities
                            - schematic: define semantics / grammar for suffixes
                            - naturalistic: choose the most common form for each word


                            The easiest solution for our problem is to keep -al in all cases.

                            * aktual vs. aktuell / aktualisch (de akt)
                            * fenomenal vs. fenomenell / fenomenalisch (de fenomen)
                            * general vs. generell / generalisch (de general)
                            * horizontal vs. horizontell / horizontalisch (de horizont)
                            * ideal vs. ideell / idealisch (de idee)
                            * industrial vs. industriell / industrialisch (de industri)
                            * intellektual vs. intellektuell / intellektualisch (de intellekt)
                            * material vs. materiell / materialisch (de materi, de material)
                            * national vs. nationell / nationalisch (de nation)
                            * original vs. originell / originalisch (de origen, de original)
                            * personal vs. personell / personalisch (de person, de personal)
                            * punktual vs. punktuell / punktualisch (de punkt)


                            I noticed that in single-sillable stems the ending -ell or -iell really looks awkward. I would prefer -alisch or -ialisch in this case.

                            * bestial vs. *bestiell / bestialisch (de besti)
                            * fatal vs. *fatell / fatalisch
                            * modal vs. *modell / modalisch
                            * moral vs. *morell / moralisch (de moral)
                            * mortal vs. *mortell, mortalisch
                            * oral vs. *orell / oralisch
                            * postal vs. *postell / postalisch (de post)
                            * radial vs. *radiell / radialisch
                            * real vs. *reell / realisch
                            * total vs. *totell / totalisch
                            * vokal vs. *vokell / vokalisch (de vokal)


                            Sometimes, it seems, -ar instead of -al is used (from Latin -aris instead of -alis). This brings me to the two suffixes -ar vs. -är. Should it be "linear" or "lineär"? Here is a list with words that and in Latin -arium, -arius, -aris.

                            * exemplar vs. exemplär / exemplarisch (de exempel)
                            * familiar vs. familiär / familiarisch (de famili)
                            * imaginar vs. imaginär / imaginarisch (de imagen)
                            * kontrar vs. konträr / kontrarisch
                            * linear vs. lineär / linearisch (de lin)
                            * militar vs. militär / militarisch (de militar)
                            * millionar vs. millionär / millionarisch (de million)
                            * missionar vs. missionär / missionarisch (de mission)
                            * ordinar vs. ordinär / ordinarisch (de orden)
                            * originar vs. originär / originarisch (de origen)
                            * planar vs. planär / planarisch (de plan)
                            * planetar vs. planetär / planetarisch (de planet)
                            * sekretar vs. sekretär / sekretarisch (de sekret)
                            * stellar vs. stellär / stellarisch


                            But, there is another group of words that look similar and poses the same question: should the latin form be kept or should it be modernized / sprakized. I refer to the group of words ending in EN "-ical", DE "-isch". Should it be "magikal" or "magisch"? If we don't say "moralisch" but "moral", maybe we should say "tragikal" instead of "tragisch", too?

                            In German the ending "-ör" is used for people rather than for animals or machines, which take "-or". (For instance, "Konstrukteur" is a man who builds things, and a "Konstruktor" in computer science is part of a computer program). But of cause, it would be simpler to take only one suffix: -or. There are nouns as "imperator", which would look strange in a form like "imperatör".

                            As for -os vs. -ös: I would decide this one last. If many -ell, -är and -ör forms are allowed, I would use -ös only. If there are many -al, -ar and -or, I'd stick to "-os".

                            Gröten,
                            Stephan / stefichjo



                            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Then you still have the issue where the -ael in "nationael" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "nationalisere", "nationalisme" etc. And the "-oer" in "doktoer" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "doktorat". This is an issue which complicates the French language and we are volunteering to inherit this issue?
                            > Is this -ael ending also acceptable for nouns such as "material"?
                            > So can "nationael", "materiael" and "generael" be used as noun? Or are they just the adjectives?
                            >
                            > Also I don't even think that it is something that is absolutely obvious that the final form of FS would even have a "ae" phoneme.
                            >
                            >
                            > I can understand why Stephan is concerned about this. However my preference is not to schematize -- just to go for the majority form for the adjectives, (whether it be with -al as in "national" or with -ell as in "aktuell". Leave it a guessing game for the the speakers, based on their knowledge of their own language. There is still a good chance of guessing correctly -- and if guessed incorrectly, it's not a big barrier to communication.
                            >
                            > But IF (and only if) I were to schematize this issue, I would make them all -al, -or.
                            >
                            >
                            > I have thought of a third related issue and that is with adjectives such as serios/serieus, famos/fameus, kurios/kurieus. Do we standardize all of them on -os or -eus -- or do we have a mix of both?.
                            >
                            >
                            > I think what makes these 3 endings so problematic (-al, -or, -os) is that some of our natural source languages permit BOTH a Latinate ending (eg -al, -or, -os) and a French-oid ending (eg -ell, -eur, -eus).
                            >
                            > Note that in the "French-oid" category, I'd include German/Swedish -ös/-ell/-ör, DA/NO -øs/-ell/-ør and NL -eus/-eel/-eus.
                            >
                            > If our source languages were consistent, then we could just consistently choose the "commonest evolutionary path".
                            >
                            > I think that this whole area is an issue that is genuinely complicated with no clear way to go. It's in such areas that a vague charter isn't going to give us the answers. It's not an issue where I would say "well it obviously should be this way and you'd be stupid to think otherwise".
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Why is it necessary to have two endings "-el" + "-al"? Just combine them into "-ael", so one doesn't have to think about it.
                            > >
                            > > nationael, globael, aktuael, funktionael
                            > > nationalisere, globalisere, aktualisere, funktionalisere
                            > > nationalistisch, globalist, aktualitaet etc.
                            > >
                            > > Chamavian
                            > >
                            > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > Taking the Example of "global", it would be very unnatural to force this to be *globell when ALL of our source languages have a -al ending, and none of them have -ell. Of course in many cases, it not so clear-cut. And in the cases where we might want to have -ell, the English word always has -al and often the majority form isn't absolutely obvious -- I think there'd be many 50/50 splits.
                            > > > So IF this ending was forced schematically in one direction, my preference would be for -al (as in English). This avoids the problem of the example of *globell.
                            > > > IF we adopted a schematic solution for the -or vs -eur issue, my preference would be to force them all to -or.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > The advantage of this scheme is in both cases, using -al and -or regularises to relationship with cognate words.
                            > > > Eg dirigere, direktor, direkorat. Not dirigere, direkteur, direktorat.
                            > > >
                            > > > eg Nation, national, nationalisere. Not Nation, nationell, nationalisere.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > HOWEVER
                            > > > My real preference is to just go with the majority and have some words ending in -al and some in -ell and some in -or and some in -eur.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > The issue that Stephan seems to have, is with adjective potentially being able to end in -al or in -ell. He's right -- how would you know which one is the correct one?
                            > > > >
                            > > > > One option is to simply guess, based on your own native language knowledge. If the form is based on the majority form, then there's a fairly good chance that your guess will be correct. If it isn't correct, it's not likely to be a big problem in terms of comprehension -- provided that everyone is aware that these adjectives can end in either -al or -ell.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > But for this issue, I'd don't see there is too much harm in forcing it into a schematic rule, either with all -ell or all -al. Or only the adjective ends in -ell and other situations take -al.
                            > > > > eg
                            > > > > nation
                            > > > > nationell (adj)
                            > > > > national (n.)
                            > > > > nationalism
                            > > > >
                            > > > > I acknowledge that this is not naturalistic and will sometimes lead to forms that don't reflect the majority of the cognates, but there would be little harm to understanding/recognition and a small gain in the ease of learning. Especially in cases when someone already knows a word such as "motion" and wants to create a derived adjective. (such as *motionell). They can use the -ell suffix as a tool for active word-building, rather than -al and -ell being fossilised dead suffixes.
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > All of what I have said above, applies equally to -or vs -eur!
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael.
                            > > > > > On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Thanks for your answers.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                            > > > > > > would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                            > > > > > > correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                            > > > > > > NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                            > > > > > > alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                            > > > > > > attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional"/"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                            > > > > > > in this case:
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > * de original, wese originell
                            > > > > > > * de funktional, wese funktionell
                            > > > > > > * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                            > > > > > > * institutionell, institutionalisere
                            > > > > > > * de international, internationell, internationalisere
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                            > > > > > > funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional")
                            > > > > > > ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale"), whereas
                            > > > > > > "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international").
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                            > > > > > > they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell",
                            > > > > > > would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                            > > > > > > "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                            > > > > > > "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                            > > > > > > â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Gröten,
                            > > > > > > Stephan / stefichjo
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                            > > > > > > > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                            > > > > > > > E < A is independent of �"i�? in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                            > > > > > > French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                            > > > > > > that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                            > > > > > > France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                            > > > > > > Germany.
                            > > > > > > > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                            > > > > > > rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                            > > > > > > that time.
                            > > > > > > > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                            > > > > > > West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Ingmar
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Dear David,
                            > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                            > > > > > > and
                            > > > > > > > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                            > > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                            > > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                            > > > > > > the
                            > > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                            > > > > > > -al
                            > > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                            > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                            > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                            > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                            > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                            > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                            > > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > Dear David,
                            > > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                            > > > > > > and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                            > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                            > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                            > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                            > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                            > > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                            > > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                            > > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                            > > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                            > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                            > > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                            > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                            > > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                            > > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            > > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                            > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                            > > > > > > > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                            > > > > > > 03/03/09 16:09:00
                            > > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • chamavian
                            Words in -ael can be nouns, adjectives or adverbs. I do not see any difficulties when -ael (whatever this will be spelled like)has a different vowel than
                            Message 13 of 27 , Mar 6, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Words in -ael can be nouns, adjectives or adverbs.
                              I do not see any difficulties when -ael (whatever this will be spelled like)has a different vowel than -aliseren etc. It is completely regular.

                              Having an artificial functionally based division between -el and -al is unlike in any of the source languages, and it's harder to remember than having one suffix -ael.
                              To my taste, this el-al would be to schematic, it doesn't reflect the source languages.

                              Another solution could be -al everywhere, but isn't that a bit too English?

                              Must Folkspraak be based on what English speakers find or find not easy, so should it be a Germanic language how English speakers would find logical and easy, or should it be an Inter-Germanic language?







                              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Then you still have the issue where the -ael in "nationael" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "nationalisere", "nationalisme" etc. And the "-oer" in "doktoer" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "doktorat". This is an issue which complicates the French language and we are volunteering to inherit this issue?
                              > Is this -ael ending also acceptable for nouns such as "material"?
                              > So can "nationael", "materiael" and "generael" be used as noun? Or are they just the adjectives?
                              >
                              > Also I don't even think that it is something that is absolutely obvious that the final form of FS would even have a "ae" phoneme.
                              >
                              >
                              > I can understand why Stephan is concerned about this. However my preference is not to schematize -- just to go for the majority form for the adjectives, (whether it be with -al as in "national" or with -ell as in "aktuell". Leave it a guessing game for the the speakers, based on their knowledge of their own language. There is still a good chance of guessing correctly -- and if guessed incorrectly, it's not a big barrier to communication.
                              >
                              > But IF (and only if) I were to schematize this issue, I would make them all -al, -or.
                              >
                              >
                              > I have thought of a third related issue and that is with adjectives such as serios/serieus, famos/fameus, kurios/kurieus. Do we standardize all of them on -os or -eus -- or do we have a mix of both?.
                              >
                              >
                              > I think what makes these 3 endings so problematic (-al, -or, -os) is that some of our natural source languages permit BOTH a Latinate ending (eg -al, -or, -os) and a French-oid ending (eg -ell, -eur, -eus).
                              >
                              > Note that in the "French-oid" category, I'd include German/Swedish -ös/-ell/-ör, DA/NO -øs/-ell/-ør and NL -eus/-eel/-eus.
                              >
                              > If our source languages were consistent, then we could just consistently choose the "commonest evolutionary path".
                              >
                              > I think that this whole area is an issue that is genuinely complicated with no clear way to go. It's in such areas that a vague charter isn't going to give us the answers. It's not an issue where I would say "well it obviously should be this way and you'd be stupid to think otherwise".
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Why is it necessary to have two endings "-el" + "-al"? Just combine them into "-ael", so one doesn't have to think about it.
                              > >
                              > > nationael, globael, aktuael, funktionael
                              > > nationalisere, globalisere, aktualisere, funktionalisere
                              > > nationalistisch, globalist, aktualitaet etc.
                              > >
                              > > Chamavian
                              > >
                              > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Taking the Example of "global", it would be very unnatural to force this to be *globell when ALL of our source languages have a -al ending, and none of them have -ell. Of course in many cases, it not so clear-cut. And in the cases where we might want to have -ell, the English word always has -al and often the majority form isn't absolutely obvious -- I think there'd be many 50/50 splits.
                              > > > So IF this ending was forced schematically in one direction, my preference would be for -al (as in English). This avoids the problem of the example of *globell.
                              > > > IF we adopted a schematic solution for the -or vs -eur issue, my preference would be to force them all to -or.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > The advantage of this scheme is in both cases, using -al and -or regularises to relationship with cognate words.
                              > > > Eg dirigere, direktor, direkorat. Not dirigere, direkteur, direktorat.
                              > > >
                              > > > eg Nation, national, nationalisere. Not Nation, nationell, nationalisere.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > HOWEVER
                              > > > My real preference is to just go with the majority and have some words ending in -al and some in -ell and some in -or and some in -eur.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > The issue that Stephan seems to have, is with adjective potentially being able to end in -al or in -ell. He's right -- how would you know which one is the correct one?
                              > > > >
                              > > > > One option is to simply guess, based on your own native language knowledge. If the form is based on the majority form, then there's a fairly good chance that your guess will be correct. If it isn't correct, it's not likely to be a big problem in terms of comprehension -- provided that everyone is aware that these adjectives can end in either -al or -ell.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > But for this issue, I'd don't see there is too much harm in forcing it into a schematic rule, either with all -ell or all -al. Or only the adjective ends in -ell and other situations take -al.
                              > > > > eg
                              > > > > nation
                              > > > > nationell (adj)
                              > > > > national (n.)
                              > > > > nationalism
                              > > > >
                              > > > > I acknowledge that this is not naturalistic and will sometimes lead to forms that don't reflect the majority of the cognates, but there would be little harm to understanding/recognition and a small gain in the ease of learning. Especially in cases when someone already knows a word such as "motion" and wants to create a derived adjective. (such as *motionell). They can use the -ell suffix as a tool for active word-building, rather than -al and -ell being fossilised dead suffixes.
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > All of what I have said above, applies equally to -or vs -eur!
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael.
                              > > > > > On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Thanks for your answers.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                              > > > > > > would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                              > > > > > > correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                              > > > > > > NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                              > > > > > > alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                              > > > > > > attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional"/"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                              > > > > > > in this case:
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > * de original, wese originell
                              > > > > > > * de funktional, wese funktionell
                              > > > > > > * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                              > > > > > > * institutionell, institutionalisere
                              > > > > > > * de international, internationell, internationalisere
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                              > > > > > > funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional")
                              > > > > > > ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale"), whereas
                              > > > > > > "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international").
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                              > > > > > > they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell",
                              > > > > > > would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                              > > > > > > "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                              > > > > > > "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                              > > > > > > â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Gröten,
                              > > > > > > Stephan / stefichjo
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                              > > > > > > > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                              > > > > > > > E < A is independent of �"i�? in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                              > > > > > > French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                              > > > > > > that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                              > > > > > > France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                              > > > > > > Germany.
                              > > > > > > > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                              > > > > > > rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                              > > > > > > that time.
                              > > > > > > > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                              > > > > > > West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > Ingmar
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > Dear David,
                              > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                              > > > > > > and
                              > > > > > > > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                              > > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                              > > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                              > > > > > > the
                              > > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                              > > > > > > -al
                              > > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                              > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                              > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                              > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                              > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                              > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                              > > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > Dear David,
                              > > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                              > > > > > > and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                              > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                              > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                              > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                              > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                              > > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                              > > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                              > > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                              > > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                              > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                              > > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                              > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                              > > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                              > > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              > > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                              > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                              > > > > > > > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                              > > > > > > 03/03/09 16:09:00
                              > > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • chamavian
                              ... I d say, combine them into: -ael -aer -oer -oes And there is no confusion anymore pronunciation ae = [E:], German/Swedish long ä, Danish/Norw. long æ; oe
                              Message 14 of 27 , Mar 6, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I'm still collection examples, possibilities and similar issues.
                                >
                                > These are the suffixes that might cause confusion:
                                > * -al vs. -ell
                                > * -ar vs. -är
                                > * -or vs. -ör
                                > * -os vs. -ös


                                I'd say, combine them into:

                                -ael
                                -aer
                                -oer
                                -oes

                                And there is no confusion anymore

                                pronunciation ae = [E:], German/Swedish long ä, Danish/Norw. long æ; oe = [2:], German/Swedish long ö, Danish/Norw. long ø.

                                Chamavian


                                >
                                >
                                > Solutions are:
                                > - minimalistic: reduce possibilities
                                > - schematic: define semantics / grammar for suffixes
                                > - naturalistic: choose the most common form for each word
                                >
                                >
                                > The easiest solution for our problem is to keep -al in all cases.
                                >
                                > * aktual vs. aktuell / aktualisch (de akt)
                                > * fenomenal vs. fenomenell / fenomenalisch (de fenomen)
                                > * general vs. generell / generalisch (de general)
                                > * horizontal vs. horizontell / horizontalisch (de horizont)
                                > * ideal vs. ideell / idealisch (de idee)
                                > * industrial vs. industriell / industrialisch (de industri)
                                > * intellektual vs. intellektuell / intellektualisch (de intellekt)
                                > * material vs. materiell / materialisch (de materi, de material)
                                > * national vs. nationell / nationalisch (de nation)
                                > * original vs. originell / originalisch (de origen, de original)
                                > * personal vs. personell / personalisch (de person, de personal)
                                > * punktual vs. punktuell / punktualisch (de punkt)
                                >
                                >
                                > I noticed that in single-sillable stems the ending -ell or -iell really looks awkward. I would prefer -alisch or -ialisch in this case.
                                >
                                > * bestial vs. *bestiell / bestialisch (de besti)
                                > * fatal vs. *fatell / fatalisch
                                > * modal vs. *modell / modalisch
                                > * moral vs. *morell / moralisch (de moral)
                                > * mortal vs. *mortell, mortalisch
                                > * oral vs. *orell / oralisch
                                > * postal vs. *postell / postalisch (de post)
                                > * radial vs. *radiell / radialisch
                                > * real vs. *reell / realisch
                                > * total vs. *totell / totalisch
                                > * vokal vs. *vokell / vokalisch (de vokal)
                                >
                                >
                                > Sometimes, it seems, -ar instead of -al is used (from Latin -aris instead of -alis). This brings me to the two suffixes -ar vs. -är. Should it be "linear" or "lineär"? Here is a list with words that and in Latin -arium, -arius, -aris.
                                >
                                > * exemplar vs. exemplär / exemplarisch (de exempel)
                                > * familiar vs. familiär / familiarisch (de famili)
                                > * imaginar vs. imaginär / imaginarisch (de imagen)
                                > * kontrar vs. konträr / kontrarisch
                                > * linear vs. lineär / linearisch (de lin)
                                > * militar vs. militär / militarisch (de militar)
                                > * millionar vs. millionär / millionarisch (de million)
                                > * missionar vs. missionär / missionarisch (de mission)
                                > * ordinar vs. ordinär / ordinarisch (de orden)
                                > * originar vs. originär / originarisch (de origen)
                                > * planar vs. planär / planarisch (de plan)
                                > * planetar vs. planetär / planetarisch (de planet)
                                > * sekretar vs. sekretär / sekretarisch (de sekret)
                                > * stellar vs. stellär / stellarisch
                                >
                                >
                                > But, there is another group of words that look similar and poses the same question: should the latin form be kept or should it be modernized / sprakized. I refer to the group of words ending in EN "-ical", DE "-isch". Should it be "magikal" or "magisch"? If we don't say "moralisch" but "moral", maybe we should say "tragikal" instead of "tragisch", too?
                                >
                                > In German the ending "-ör" is used for people rather than for animals or machines, which take "-or". (For instance, "Konstrukteur" is a man who builds things, and a "Konstruktor" in computer science is part of a computer program). But of cause, it would be simpler to take only one suffix: -or. There are nouns as "imperator", which would look strange in a form like "imperatör".
                                >
                                > As for -os vs. -ös: I would decide this one last. If many -ell, -är and -ör forms are allowed, I would use -ös only. If there are many -al, -ar and -or, I'd stick to "-os".
                                >
                                > Gröten,
                                > Stephan / stefichjo
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Then you still have the issue where the -ael in "nationael" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "nationalisere", "nationalisme" etc. And the "-oer" in "doktoer" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "doktorat". This is an issue which complicates the French language and we are volunteering to inherit this issue?
                                > > Is this -ael ending also acceptable for nouns such as "material"?
                                > > So can "nationael", "materiael" and "generael" be used as noun? Or are they just the adjectives?
                                > >
                                > > Also I don't even think that it is something that is absolutely obvious that the final form of FS would even have a "ae" phoneme.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > I can understand why Stephan is concerned about this. However my preference is not to schematize -- just to go for the majority form for the adjectives, (whether it be with -al as in "national" or with -ell as in "aktuell". Leave it a guessing game for the the speakers, based on their knowledge of their own language. There is still a good chance of guessing correctly -- and if guessed incorrectly, it's not a big barrier to communication.
                                > >
                                > > But IF (and only if) I were to schematize this issue, I would make them all -al, -or.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > I have thought of a third related issue and that is with adjectives such as serios/serieus, famos/fameus, kurios/kurieus. Do we standardize all of them on -os or -eus -- or do we have a mix of both?.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > I think what makes these 3 endings so problematic (-al, -or, -os) is that some of our natural source languages permit BOTH a Latinate ending (eg -al, -or, -os) and a French-oid ending (eg -ell, -eur, -eus).
                                > >
                                > > Note that in the "French-oid" category, I'd include German/Swedish -ös/-ell/-ör, DA/NO -øs/-ell/-ør and NL -eus/-eel/-eus.
                                > >
                                > > If our source languages were consistent, then we could just consistently choose the "commonest evolutionary path".
                                > >
                                > > I think that this whole area is an issue that is genuinely complicated with no clear way to go. It's in such areas that a vague charter isn't going to give us the answers. It's not an issue where I would say "well it obviously should be this way and you'd be stupid to think otherwise".
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > Why is it necessary to have two endings "-el" + "-al"? Just combine them into "-ael", so one doesn't have to think about it.
                                > > >
                                > > > nationael, globael, aktuael, funktionael
                                > > > nationalisere, globalisere, aktualisere, funktionalisere
                                > > > nationalistisch, globalist, aktualitaet etc.
                                > > >
                                > > > Chamavian
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Taking the Example of "global", it would be very unnatural to force this to be *globell when ALL of our source languages have a -al ending, and none of them have -ell. Of course in many cases, it not so clear-cut. And in the cases where we might want to have -ell, the English word always has -al and often the majority form isn't absolutely obvious -- I think there'd be many 50/50 splits.
                                > > > > So IF this ending was forced schematically in one direction, my preference would be for -al (as in English). This avoids the problem of the example of *globell.
                                > > > > IF we adopted a schematic solution for the -or vs -eur issue, my preference would be to force them all to -or.
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > The advantage of this scheme is in both cases, using -al and -or regularises to relationship with cognate words.
                                > > > > Eg dirigere, direktor, direkorat. Not dirigere, direkteur, direktorat.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > eg Nation, national, nationalisere. Not Nation, nationell, nationalisere.
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > HOWEVER
                                > > > > My real preference is to just go with the majority and have some words ending in -al and some in -ell and some in -or and some in -eur.
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > The issue that Stephan seems to have, is with adjective potentially being able to end in -al or in -ell. He's right -- how would you know which one is the correct one?
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > One option is to simply guess, based on your own native language knowledge. If the form is based on the majority form, then there's a fairly good chance that your guess will be correct. If it isn't correct, it's not likely to be a big problem in terms of comprehension -- provided that everyone is aware that these adjectives can end in either -al or -ell.
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > But for this issue, I'd don't see there is too much harm in forcing it into a schematic rule, either with all -ell or all -al. Or only the adjective ends in -ell and other situations take -al.
                                > > > > > eg
                                > > > > > nation
                                > > > > > nationell (adj)
                                > > > > > national (n.)
                                > > > > > nationalism
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > I acknowledge that this is not naturalistic and will sometimes lead to forms that don't reflect the majority of the cognates, but there would be little harm to understanding/recognition and a small gain in the ease of learning. Especially in cases when someone already knows a word such as "motion" and wants to create a derived adjective. (such as *motionell). They can use the -ell suffix as a tool for active word-building, rather than -al and -ell being fossilised dead suffixes.
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > All of what I have said above, applies equally to -or vs -eur!
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael.
                                > > > > > > On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > Thanks for your answers.
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                                > > > > > > > would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                                > > > > > > > correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                                > > > > > > > NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                                > > > > > > > alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                                > > > > > > > attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional"/"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                                > > > > > > > in this case:
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > * de original, wese originell
                                > > > > > > > * de funktional, wese funktionell
                                > > > > > > > * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                                > > > > > > > * institutionell, institutionalisere
                                > > > > > > > * de international, internationell, internationalisere
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                                > > > > > > > funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional")
                                > > > > > > > ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale"), whereas
                                > > > > > > > "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international").
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                                > > > > > > > they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell",
                                > > > > > > > would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                                > > > > > > > "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                                > > > > > > > "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                                > > > > > > > â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > Gröten,
                                > > > > > > > Stephan / stefichjo
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                                > > > > > > > > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                                > > > > > > > > E < A is independent of �"i�? in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                                > > > > > > > French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                                > > > > > > > that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                                > > > > > > > France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                                > > > > > > > Germany.
                                > > > > > > > > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                                > > > > > > > rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                                > > > > > > > that time.
                                > > > > > > > > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                                > > > > > > > West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > Ingmar
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > Dear David,
                                > > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                                > > > > > > > and
                                > > > > > > > > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                                > > > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                                > > > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                                > > > > > > > the
                                > > > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                                > > > > > > > -al
                                > > > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                                > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                                > > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                                > > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                                > > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                                > > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                                > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                                > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                                > > > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > Dear David,
                                > > > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                                > > > > > > > and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                                > > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                                > > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                                > > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                                > > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                                > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                                > > > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                                > > > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                                > > > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                                > > > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                                > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                                > > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                                > > > > > > > 03/03/09 16:09:00
                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > >
                                > >
                                >
                              • Andrew Jarrette
                                ... Either there has to be some sort of vote on how Folkspraak should be developed or we have to go by a sort of statute or constitution set by one or a few
                                Message 15 of 27 , Mar 6, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Words in -ael can be nouns, adjectives or adverbs.
                                  > I do not see any difficulties when -ael (whatever this will be spelled like)has a different vowel than -aliseren etc. It is completely regular.
                                  >
                                  > Having an artificial functionally based division between -el and -al is unlike in any of the source languages, and it's harder to remember than having one suffix -ael.
                                  > To my taste, this el-al would be to schematic, it doesn't reflect the source languages.
                                  >
                                  > Another solution could be -al everywhere, but isn't that a bit too English?
                                  >
                                  > Must Folkspraak be based on what English speakers find or find not easy, so should it be a Germanic language how English speakers would find logical and easy, or should it be an Inter-Germanic language?


                                  Either there has to be some sort of vote on how Folkspraak should be developed or we have to go by a sort of statute or constitution set by one or a few individuals, the authors of Folkspraak. I'm curious, who originated Folkspraak? What nationality was he (or she)?

                                  But I'm a bit confused. Has the grammar and phonology of Folkspraak not been codified yet? David says he is not sure whether the 'ae' sound will be in the final version of Folkspraak. When will the final version be arrived at? Is the one grammar available on the Internet right now the correct grammar of Folkspraak? And where can one find a good vocabulary? I'm mystified as to how you guys are able to write complex paragraphs in Folkspraak when I cannot find a vocabulary.

                                  Once it has been codified, will it be used primarily for internet communication among Germanic nations, will books and literature be published in it like Esperanto? To tell the truth, I personally want to learn each individual Germanic language and address speakers of each of these languages in their own language, but it might take too much time to learn all these languages, and I'm not sure I could discipline myself enough to stick with it (but I know some people do do this). I guess that's the idea behind Folkspraak, have only one Inter-Germanic language that needs to be learned, and have it be easy for all.

                                  I suspect that the idea to use -al (and -or, -os, -ar) is probably based more on the knowledge that the original Latin had -alis than on the fact that this is the English form and any idea that the Folkspraak form ought to be closest to English or easiest for English speakers. However, it does appear to favour English since all the other Germanic languages have a form other than that of English in most of these words, so out of respect for this fact I think a form closer to the forms of the majority of Germanic languages ought to be chosen rather than one that reminds one too easily of English.


                                  Andrew
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Then you still have the issue where the -ael in "nationael" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "nationalisere", "nationalisme" etc. And the "-oer" in "doktoer" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "doktorat". This is an issue which complicates the French language and we are volunteering to inherit this issue?
                                  > > Is this -ael ending also acceptable for nouns such as "material"?
                                  > > So can "nationael", "materiael" and "generael" be used as noun? Or are they just the adjectives?
                                  > >
                                  > > Also I don't even think that it is something that is absolutely obvious that the final form of FS would even have a "ae" phoneme.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > I can understand why Stephan is concerned about this. However my preference is not to schematize -- just to go for the majority form for the adjectives, (whether it be with -al as in "national" or with -ell as in "aktuell". Leave it a guessing game for the the speakers, based on their knowledge of their own language. There is still a good chance of guessing correctly -- and if guessed incorrectly, it's not a big barrier to communication.
                                  > >
                                  > > But IF (and only if) I were to schematize this issue, I would make them all -al, -or.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > I have thought of a third related issue and that is with adjectives such as serios/serieus, famos/fameus, kurios/kurieus. Do we standardize all of them on -os or -eus -- or do we have a mix of both?.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > I think what makes these 3 endings so problematic (-al, -or, -os) is that some of our natural source languages permit BOTH a Latinate ending (eg -al, -or, -os) and a French-oid ending (eg -ell, -eur, -eus).
                                  > >
                                  > > Note that in the "French-oid" category, I'd include German/Swedish -ös/-ell/-ör, DA/NO -øs/-ell/-ør and NL -eus/-eel/-eus.
                                  > >
                                  > > If our source languages were consistent, then we could just consistently choose the "commonest evolutionary path".
                                  > >
                                  > > I think that this whole area is an issue that is genuinely complicated with no clear way to go. It's in such areas that a vague charter isn't going to give us the answers. It's not an issue where I would say "well it obviously should be this way and you'd be stupid to think otherwise".
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Why is it necessary to have two endings "-el" + "-al"? Just combine them into "-ael", so one doesn't have to think about it.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > nationael, globael, aktuael, funktionael
                                  > > > nationalisere, globalisere, aktualisere, funktionalisere
                                  > > > nationalistisch, globalist, aktualitaet etc.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Chamavian
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Taking the Example of "global", it would be very unnatural to force this to be *globell when ALL of our source languages have a -al ending, and none of them have -ell. Of course in many cases, it not so clear-cut. And in the cases where we might want to have -ell, the English word always has -al and often the majority form isn't absolutely obvious -- I think there'd be many 50/50 splits.
                                  > > > > So IF this ending was forced schematically in one direction, my preference would be for -al (as in English). This avoids the problem of the example of *globell.
                                  > > > > IF we adopted a schematic solution for the -or vs -eur issue, my preference would be to force them all to -or.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > The advantage of this scheme is in both cases, using -al and -or regularises to relationship with cognate words.
                                  > > > > Eg dirigere, direktor, direkorat. Not dirigere, direkteur, direktorat.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > eg Nation, national, nationalisere. Not Nation, nationell, nationalisere.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > HOWEVER
                                  > > > > My real preference is to just go with the majority and have some words ending in -al and some in -ell and some in -or and some in -eur.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > The issue that Stephan seems to have, is with adjective potentially being able to end in -al or in -ell. He's right -- how would you know which one is the correct one?
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > One option is to simply guess, based on your own native language knowledge. If the form is based on the majority form, then there's a fairly good chance that your guess will be correct. If it isn't correct, it's not likely to be a big problem in terms of comprehension -- provided that everyone is aware that these adjectives can end in either -al or -ell.
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > But for this issue, I'd don't see there is too much harm in forcing it into a schematic rule, either with all -ell or all -al. Or only the adjective ends in -ell and other situations take -al.
                                  > > > > > eg
                                  > > > > > nation
                                  > > > > > nationell (adj)
                                  > > > > > national (n.)
                                  > > > > > nationalism
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > I acknowledge that this is not naturalistic and will sometimes lead to forms that don't reflect the majority of the cognates, but there would be little harm to understanding/recognition and a small gain in the ease of learning. Especially in cases when someone already knows a word such as "motion" and wants to create a derived adjective. (such as *motionell). They can use the -ell suffix as a tool for active word-building, rather than -al and -ell being fossilised dead suffixes.
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > All of what I have said above, applies equally to -or vs -eur!
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael.
                                  > > > > > > On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > Thanks for your answers.
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                                  > > > > > > > would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                                  > > > > > > > correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                                  > > > > > > > NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                                  > > > > > > > alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                                  > > > > > > > attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional"/"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                                  > > > > > > > in this case:
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > * de original, wese originell
                                  > > > > > > > * de funktional, wese funktionell
                                  > > > > > > > * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                                  > > > > > > > * institutionell, institutionalisere
                                  > > > > > > > * de international, internationell, internationalisere
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                                  > > > > > > > funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional")
                                  > > > > > > > ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale"), whereas
                                  > > > > > > > "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international").
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                                  > > > > > > > they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell",
                                  > > > > > > > would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                                  > > > > > > > "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                                  > > > > > > > "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                                  > > > > > > > â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > Gröten,
                                  > > > > > > > Stephan / stefichjo
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                                  > > > > > > > > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                                  > > > > > > > > E < A is independent of �"i�? in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                                  > > > > > > > French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                                  > > > > > > > that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                                  > > > > > > > France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                                  > > > > > > > Germany.
                                  > > > > > > > > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                                  > > > > > > > rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                                  > > > > > > > that time.
                                  > > > > > > > > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                                  > > > > > > > West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > Ingmar
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > Dear David,
                                  > > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                                  > > > > > > > and
                                  > > > > > > > > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                                  > > > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                                  > > > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                                  > > > > > > > the
                                  > > > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                                  > > > > > > > -al
                                  > > > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                                  > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                                  > > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                                  > > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                                  > > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                                  > > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                                  > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                                  > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                                  > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                                  > > > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                                  > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                                  > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                  > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > Dear David,
                                  > > > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                                  > > > > > > > and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                                  > > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                                  > > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                                  > > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                                  > > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                                  > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                                  > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                                  > > > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                                  > > > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                                  > > > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                                  > > > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                                  > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                                  > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                                  > > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                                  > > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel".
                                  > > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                                  > > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  > > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                  > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                  > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                                  > > > > > > > 03/03/09 16:09:00
                                  > > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • Andrew Jarrette
                                  ... Forgot to say that I agree that it s easier and therefore more desirable to merge alternate -ell/-al, -or/-eur, etc. endings into a single ending for all,
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Mar 6, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > I'm still collection examples, possibilities and similar issues.
                                    > >
                                    > > These are the suffixes that might cause confusion:
                                    > > * -al vs. -ell
                                    > > * -ar vs. -är
                                    > > * -or vs. -ör
                                    > > * -os vs. -ös
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > I'd say, combine them into:
                                    >
                                    > -ael
                                    > -aer
                                    > -oer
                                    > -oes
                                    >
                                    > And there is no confusion anymore
                                    >
                                    > pronunciation ae = [E:], German/Swedish long ä, Danish/Norw. long æ; oe = [2:], German/Swedish long ö, Danish/Norw. long ø.
                                    >
                                    > Chamavian
                                    >
                                    >


                                    Forgot to say that I agree that it's easier and therefore more desirable to merge alternate -ell/-al, -or/-eur, etc. endings into a single ending for all, especially when there is no semantic difference between the alternate endings; however, I do like the German distinction of -eur for persons and -or for things; I think it's a useful distinction in the modern world and would make for clearer and more precise expression (and if there is any valid corresponding distinction in function between -ell and -al (or -ael and -ell, etc.), then I think the two separate suffixes should be maintained, each having a clear semantic function. But if there is no real semantic function, then simplify them by merging them.)


                                    Andrew
                                  • David Parke
                                    ... Chamavian, do you still not see that this means the the suffix in nationael is still different in form to the suffix in a related word such as
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Mar 6, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      chamavian wrote:
                                      >
                                      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                                      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@...> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > I'm still collection examples, possibilities and similar issues.
                                      > >
                                      > > These are the suffixes that might cause confusion:
                                      > > * -al vs. -ell
                                      > > * -ar vs. -är
                                      > > * -or vs. -ör
                                      > > * -os vs. -ös
                                      >
                                      > I'd say, combine them into:
                                      >
                                      > -ael
                                      > -aer
                                      > -oer
                                      > -oes
                                      >
                                      > And there is no confusion anymore
                                      >
                                      > pronunciation ae = [E:], German/Swedish long ä, Danish/Norw. long æ;
                                      > oe = [2:], German/Swedish long ö, Danish/Norw. long ø.
                                      >
                                      > Chamavian
                                      >




                                      >
                                      >

                                      Chamavian, do you still not see that this means the the suffix in
                                      "nationael" is still different in form to the suffix in a related word
                                      such as "nationalisme"? I'm sure you can see it -- do you see any extra
                                      effort of learning because this is less logical. Afterall the -al- in
                                      "nationalisme" IS THE SAME SUFFIX. Why not also have "nationaelisme"
                                      also?. This almost like you are introducing a grammatic umlaut here.
                                      Also have you noticed that there are some words where not one of the
                                      source languages have used -el/-ell/-eel. "Global" for example. Would
                                      you also make this "globael" even if it's not like the cognates in any
                                      source language. Or would this word be "global". The -al in "globaal" is
                                      essentially the same suffix to that in "formeel". It serves that same
                                      function and it from the same Latin source.

                                      Also have you not noticed that in those languages that have
                                      -el/-eel/-ell, it is ONLY with adjectives? No languages have -ell as a
                                      noun. For the noun words it always is -al. Do you still think it's
                                      acceptable to have -ael for nouns?

                                      As for the ending -os/-eus,and -or/-eus, wouldn't the Middelsprake way
                                      be to invent a whole new phoneme, halfway between [o:] and [2:] so that
                                      you can make a compromise? >:-) It seem that MS didn't even have the
                                      "ae" phoneme until I raised a similar issue about 2 years ago.

                                      The issues that Stephan is high-lighting and proposing solutions for
                                      isn't simply a case of making it like English. English seems to be the
                                      one language in our source language that borrows such words in a
                                      schematic way, it hasn't simply taken in the words haphazardly from
                                      French, but has some sort of reference/reverence to the original latin
                                      word formation practices. In those languages where there is both
                                      -ell/-al/-al- and -eur/-or/-or-, they are inheriting an irregularity
                                      from French.
                                    • chamavian
                                      ... Yes, but having just one suffix, without having to worry about if it s a noun or an adjective, is even better. I don t believe that average learners of
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Mar 6, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > chamavian wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > I'm still collection examples, possibilities and similar issues.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > These are the suffixes that might cause confusion:
                                        > > > * -al vs. -ell
                                        > > > * -ar vs. -är
                                        > > > * -or vs. -ör
                                        > > > * -os vs. -ös
                                        > >
                                        > > I'd say, combine them into:
                                        > >
                                        > > -ael
                                        > > -aer
                                        > > -oer
                                        > > -oes
                                        > >
                                        > > And there is no confusion anymore
                                        > >
                                        > > pronunciation ae = [E:], German/Swedish long ä, Danish/Norw. long æ;
                                        > > oe = [2:], German/Swedish long ö, Danish/Norw. long ø.
                                        > >
                                        > > Chamavian
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > Chamavian, do you still not see that this means the the suffix in
                                        > "nationael" is still different in form to the suffix in a related word
                                        > such as "nationalisme"? I'm sure you can see it -- do you see any extra
                                        > effort of learning because this is less logical. Afterall the -al- in
                                        > "nationalisme" IS THE SAME SUFFIX. Why not also have "nationaelisme"
                                        > also?.



                                        > This almost like you are introducing a grammatic umlaut here.
                                        > Also have you noticed that there are some words where not one of the
                                        > source languages have used -el/-ell/-eel. "Global" for example. Would
                                        > you also make this "globael" even if it's not like the cognates in any
                                        > source language. Or would this word be "global". The -al in "globaal" is
                                        > essentially the same suffix to that in "formeel". It serves that same
                                        > function and it from the same Latin source.


                                        Yes, but having just one suffix, without having to worry about if it's a noun or an adjective, is even better. I don't believe that average learners of languages will be aware all the time whether a word is a noun, an adjective, an adverb or another class of words.
                                        An artificial division based on grammatical classes such as nouns or adjectives is not present in the real Germanic languages, so I just wonder why we should introduce this extra difficulty in FS? If there is just one form, e.g. -ael or even -al, is much easier and more uniform, and isn't that what a IALA should be?


                                        >
                                        > Also have you not noticed that in those languages that have
                                        > -el/-eel/-ell, it is ONLY with adjectives? No languages have -ell as a
                                        > noun.

                                        I haven't noticed because it's not true. E.g. in Dutch, "materieel" is both a noun and an adjective.


                                        For the noun words it always is -al. Do you still think it's
                                        > acceptable to have -ael for nouns?

                                        Yes, because there are nouns in -eel, too. And because -ael is a good intermediate form of -al and -el

                                        > As for the ending -os/-eus,and -or/-eus, wouldn't the Middelsprake way
                                        > be to invent a whole new phoneme, halfway between [o:] and [2:] so that
                                        > you can make a compromise? >:-)

                                        Actually, -os and -or are very rare, the usual forms have ö/ø/eu in the source languages, accept for English -or.


                                        It seem that MS didn't even have the
                                        > "ae" phoneme until I raised a similar issue about 2 years ago.

                                        Yes, I'm grateful for that, you know I tried to adapt MS more into line with other varieties of FS, especially yours



                                        >
                                        > The issues that Stephan is high-lighting and proposing solutions for
                                        > isn't simply a case of making it like English. English seems to be the
                                        > one language in our source language that borrows such words in a
                                        > schematic way, it hasn't simply taken in the words haphazardly from
                                        > French, but has some sort of reference/reverence to the original latin
                                        > word formation practices. In those languages where there is both
                                        > -ell/-al/-al- and -eur/-or/-or-, they are inheriting an irregularity
                                        > from French.
                                        >

                                        Seen from an English point of view, that has only -al and -or, it's irregular, but from the other Germanic languages, it isn't.
                                        But I think FS should have a regular form as well, that is closest to the majority of source langs
                                      • David Parke
                                        ... Whatever you do, don t adopt the English aberration of the -ical ending for adjectives Examples, practical , magical , comical etc. Of the languages
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Mar 6, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          > But, there is another group of words that look similar and poses the same question: should the latin form be kept or should it be modernized / sprakized. I refer to the group of words ending in EN "-ical", DE "-isch". Should it be "magikal" or "magisch"? If we don't say "moralisch" but "moral", maybe we should say "tragikal" instead of "tragisch", too?
                                          >

                                          Whatever you do, don't adopt the English aberration of the -ical ending for adjectives
                                          Examples, "practical", "magical", "comical" etc.
                                          Of the languages that use the Latin -icus as an adjective ending, ONLY English tag on the superfluous -al to the -ic. This is a strange English habit. It's not even consistent in this regard, it has examples such practical etc, but also counter-examples such as tragic, not *tragical, spastic not *spastical, stochastic, not *stochastical.


                                          There might be some merit in using Latin -icus as an adjective and having *magik, komik, tragik as adjectives. Dutch also, in addition to English has some adjective with -iek.
                                          This would be truer to the original Latin. But NOT *magikal, *komikal

                                          But I would favour the method used by the continental germlangs. That is replacing the Latin -icus with -isch/-isk for the adjectives. So have magisch, komisch, tragisch, spastisch.
                                          However, for the associated nouns, having a -ik ending. Eg "Ein Spastik ist ein spastische Mann. Magik ist die magische Kunst."
                                          That's a naturaelistic method, rather than schematic.


                                          Mind you, if we really want to schematise Latin/Romance borrowings, we should consider getting rid of the redundant -er-/-ier- ending in verb stems. The are from the Latin -ar-, -er- etc infinitive endings. It's therefor redundant to borrow them as part of the verb stem.
                                          Why couldn't German for example , instead of dirigieren, studieren, spazieren, have *dirigen, *studi-en, *spazen.
                                          The continental way of borrowing Latin verbs would be as ridiculous as if English borrowed German "strafen" as "to strafen", and then had verb conjugations such as *I strafen, we strafen, he strafens, thou strafenest, I have strafened. I am strafening. He is a strafener.
                                          Sound ridiculous to a German speaker, right? But this is essentially how German has borrowed Latin verbs.
                                          English has borrowed Latin verb in a very different but equally ridiculous way. It often borrows the verbs in the Latin past participle form. eg create, act, direct.

                                          Again I personally am in favour of a naturalistic (even if redundant) method for this issue also. I say follow the Continental germlangs (and Russian!) and borrow romance/latin verbs with a -er- in the stem.
                                          In those continental germlangs, the -er-/-ier- suffix isn't even necessarily Latin, it can be just a vague marker of a "foreign" verb. So there are word such as "tätowieren" and "drainieren", which might not even necessarily be from french or latin.
                                        • David Parke
                                          ... English also has materiel as a noun, but it s a special case. It exists along side material (noun and adjective). Materiel in English means military
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Mar 6, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > chamavian wrote:

                                            > >
                                            > > Also have you not noticed that in those languages that have
                                            > > -el/-eel/-ell, it is ONLY with adjectives? No languages have -ell as a
                                            > > noun.
                                            >
                                            > I haven't noticed because it's not true. E.g. in Dutch, "materieel" is both a noun and an adjective.
                                            >
                                            >

                                            English also has "materiel" as a noun, but it's a special case. It exists along side "material" (noun and adjective). Materiel in English means military supplies.
                                            Dutch also has materiaal. Does materiel in Dutch as a noun mean the same as materiel in English?

                                            >
                                            > Actually, -os and -or are very rare, the usual forms have ö/ø/eu in the source languages, accept for English -or.
                                            >
                                            >

                                            I wouldn't describe them as very rare. There are plenty of words with -or such as rotor, akkumulator where most of the sources don't have a -eur ending. And the -eur ending is still different from the -or- in related words.


                                            > It seem that MS didn't even have the
                                            > > "ae" phoneme until I raised a similar issue about 2 years ago.
                                            >
                                            > Yes, I'm grateful for that, you know I tried to adapt MS more into line with other varieties of FS, especially yours
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > >
                                            > > The issues that Stephan is high-lighting and proposing solutions for
                                            > > isn't simply a case of making it like English. English seems to be the
                                            > > one language in our source language that borrows such words in a
                                            > > schematic way, it hasn't simply taken in the words haphazardly from
                                            > > French, but has some sort of reference/reverence to the original latin
                                            > > word formation practices. In those languages where there is both
                                            > > -ell/-al/-al- and -eur/-or/-or-, they are inheriting an irregularity
                                            > > from French.
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > Seen from an English point of view, that has only -al and -or, it's irregular, but from the other Germanic languages, it isn't.
                                            > But I think FS should have a regular form as well, that is closest to the majority of source langs
                                            >
                                          • chamavian
                                            ... Dutch materieel (with double ee) can mean military supplies, but also other things, e.g. vehicles, in the construction business or elsewhere. Materiaal
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Mar 6, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > chamavian wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Also have you not noticed that in those languages that have
                                              > > > -el/-eel/-ell, it is ONLY with adjectives? No languages have -ell as a
                                              > > > noun.
                                              > >
                                              > > I haven't noticed because it's not true. E.g. in Dutch, "materieel" is both a noun and an adjective.
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > English also has "materiel" as a noun, but it's a special case. It exists along side "material" (noun and adjective). Materiel in English means military supplies.
                                              > Dutch also has materiaal. Does materiel in Dutch as a noun mean the same as materiel in English?

                                              Dutch materieel (with double ee) can mean military supplies, but also other things, e.g. vehicles, in the construction business or elsewhere.
                                              Materiaal means 'stuff', 'cloth' etc.


                                              >
                                              > >
                                              > > Actually, -os and -or are very rare, the usual forms have ö/ø/eu in the source languages, accept for English -or.
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > I wouldn't describe them as very rare. There are plenty of words with -or such as rotor, akkumulator where most of the sources don't have a -eur ending. And the -eur ending is still different from the -or- in related words.

                                              yes, i think those examples are relatively recent 'learned' loans directly from latin. in FS, they could end in -or, instead of -oer, when all the source langs have them.

                                              >
                                              >
                                              > > It seem that MS didn't even have the
                                              > > > "ae" phoneme until I raised a similar issue about 2 years ago.
                                              > >
                                              > > Yes, I'm grateful for that, you know I tried to adapt MS more into line with other varieties of FS, especially yours
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > The issues that Stephan is high-lighting and proposing solutions for
                                              > > > isn't simply a case of making it like English.

                                              yes, i see, i didn't think that stephan was trying that


                                              English seems to be the
                                              > > > one language in our source language that borrows such words in a
                                              > > > schematic way, it hasn't simply taken in the words haphazardly from
                                              > > > French, but has some sort of reference/reverence to the original latin
                                              > > > word formation practices. In those languages where there is both
                                              > > > -ell/-al/-al- and -eur/-or/-or-, they are inheriting an irregularity
                                              > > > from French.
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > Seen from an English point of view, that has only -al and -or, it's irregular, but from the other Germanic languages, it isn't.
                                              > > But I think FS should have a regular form as well, that is closest to the majority of source langs
                                              > >
                                              >
                                            • Stephan Schneider
                                              Thank you all for your kind help. I d like to vote for one version of a suffix only. A schematic -al / -ell distinction causes too many weird forms (*optimell,
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Mar 9, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Thank you all for your kind help.

                                                I'd like to vote for one version of a suffix only. A schematic -al / -ell distinction causes too many weird forms (*optimell, *totell...). The same goes for a one-version-only solution with -ael (totael, optimael).

                                                It would be a less unnaturalistic solution to define -al as an adjective ending, adding the denominaliser "-e" in order to form a noun (rational (adj.) vs. rationale (noun)). But the most simple solution would be use -al in all cases. And I vote for it.

                                                Mid mannig gröten,
                                                Stephan / stefichjo




                                                ________________________________
                                                Von: chamavian <roerd096@...>
                                                An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                                                Gesendet: Freitag, den 6. März 2009, 19:02:16 Uhr
                                                Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: i-mutation in french endings


                                                --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@. ..> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > I'm still collection examples, possibilities and similar issues.
                                                >
                                                > These are the suffixes that might cause confusion:
                                                > * -al vs. -ell
                                                > * -ar vs. -är
                                                > * -or vs. -ör
                                                > * -os vs. -ös

                                                I'd say, combine them into:

                                                -ael
                                                -aer
                                                -oer
                                                -oes

                                                And there is no confusion anymore

                                                pronunciation ae = [E:], German/Swedish long ä, Danish/Norw. long æ; oe = [2:], German/Swedish long ö, Danish/Norw. long ø.

                                                Chamavian

                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Solutions are:
                                                > - minimalistic: reduce possibilities
                                                > - schematic: define semantics / grammar for suffixes
                                                > - naturalistic: choose the most common form for each word
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > The easiest solution for our problem is to keep -al in all cases.
                                                >
                                                > * aktual vs. aktuell / aktualisch (de akt)
                                                > * fenomenal vs. fenomenell / fenomenalisch (de fenomen)
                                                > * general vs. generell / generalisch (de general)
                                                > * horizontal vs. horizontell / horizontalisch (de horizont)
                                                > * ideal vs. ideell / idealisch (de idee)
                                                > * industrial vs. industriell / industrialisch (de industri)
                                                > * intellektual vs. intellektuell / intellektualisch (de intellekt)
                                                > * material vs. materiell / materialisch (de materi, de material)
                                                > * national vs. nationell / nationalisch (de nation)
                                                > * original vs. originell / originalisch (de origen, de original)
                                                > * personal vs. personell / personalisch (de person, de personal)
                                                > * punktual vs. punktuell / punktualisch (de punkt)
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > I noticed that in single-sillable stems the ending -ell or -iell really looks awkward. I would prefer -alisch or -ialisch in this case.
                                                >
                                                > * bestial vs. *bestiell / bestialisch (de besti)
                                                > * fatal vs. *fatell / fatalisch
                                                > * modal vs. *modell / modalisch
                                                > * moral vs. *morell / moralisch (de moral)
                                                > * mortal vs. *mortell, mortalisch
                                                > * oral vs. *orell / oralisch
                                                > * postal vs. *postell / postalisch (de post)
                                                > * radial vs. *radiell / radialisch
                                                > * real vs. *reell / realisch
                                                > * total vs. *totell / totalisch
                                                > * vokal vs. *vokell / vokalisch (de vokal)
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Sometimes, it seems, -ar instead of -al is used (from Latin -aris instead of -alis). This brings me to the two suffixes -ar vs. -är. Should it be "linear" or "lineär"? Here is a list with words that and in Latin -arium, -arius, -aris.
                                                >
                                                > * exemplar vs. exemplär / exemplarisch (de exempel)
                                                > * familiar vs. familiär / familiarisch (de famili)
                                                > * imaginar vs. imaginär / imaginarisch (de imagen)
                                                > * kontrar vs. konträr / kontrarisch
                                                > * linear vs. lineär / linearisch (de lin)
                                                > * militar vs. militär / militarisch (de militar)
                                                > * millionar vs. millionär / millionarisch (de million)
                                                > * missionar vs. missionär / missionarisch (de mission)
                                                > * ordinar vs. ordinär / ordinarisch (de orden)
                                                > * originar vs. originär / originarisch (de origen)
                                                > * planar vs. planär / planarisch (de plan)
                                                > * planetar vs. planetär / planetarisch (de planet)
                                                > * sekretar vs. sekretär / sekretarisch (de sekret)
                                                > * stellar vs. stellär / stellarisch
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > But, there is another group of words that look similar and poses the same question: should the latin form be kept or should it be modernized / sprakized. I refer to the group of words ending in EN "-ical", DE "-isch". Should it be "magikal" or "magisch"? If we don't say "moralisch" but "moral", maybe we should say "tragikal" instead of "tragisch", too?
                                                >
                                                > In German the ending "-ör" is used for people rather than for animals or machines, which take "-or". (For instance, "Konstrukteur" is a man who builds things, and a "Konstruktor" in computer science is part of a computer program). But of cause, it would be simpler to take only one suffix: -or. There are nouns as "imperator", which would look strange in a form like "imperatör".
                                                >
                                                > As for -os vs. -ös: I would decide this one last. If many -ell, -är and -ör forms are allowed, I would use -ös only. If there are many -al, -ar and -or, I'd stick to "-os".
                                                >
                                                > Gröten,
                                                > Stephan / stefichjo
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > Then you still have the issue where the -ael in "nationael" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "nationalisere" , "nationalisme" etc. And the "-oer" in "doktoer" is a different suffix to that in related words such as "doktorat". This is an issue which complicates the French language and we are volunteering to inherit this issue?
                                                > > Is this -ael ending also acceptable for nouns such as "material"?
                                                > > So can "nationael", "materiael" and "generael" be used as noun? Or are they just the adjectives?
                                                > >
                                                > > Also I don't even think that it is something that is absolutely obvious that the final form of FS would even have a "ae" phoneme.
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > I can understand why Stephan is concerned about this. However my preference is not to schematize -- just to go for the majority form for the adjectives, (whether it be with -al as in "national" or with -ell as in "aktuell". Leave it a guessing game for the the speakers, based on their knowledge of their own language. There is still a good chance of guessing correctly -- and if guessed incorrectly, it's not a big barrier to communication.
                                                > >
                                                > > But IF (and only if) I were to schematize this issue, I would make them all -al, -or.
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > I have thought of a third related issue and that is with adjectives such as serios/serieus, famos/fameus, kurios/kurieus. Do we standardize all of them on -os or -eus -- or do we have a mix of both?.
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > I think what makes these 3 endings so problematic (-al, -or, -os) is that some of our natural source languages permit BOTH a Latinate ending (eg -al, -or, -os) and a French-oid ending (eg -ell, -eur, -eus).
                                                > >
                                                > > Note that in the "French-oid" category, I'd include German/Swedish -ös/-ell/-ör, DA/NO -øs/-ell/-ør and NL -eus/-eel/-eus.
                                                > >
                                                > > If our source languages were consistent, then we could just consistently choose the "commonest evolutionary path".
                                                > >
                                                > > I think that this whole area is an issue that is genuinely complicated with no clear way to go. It's in such areas that a vague charter isn't going to give us the answers. It's not an issue where I would say "well it obviously should be this way and you'd be stupid to think otherwise".
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Why is it necessary to have two endings "-el" + "-al"? Just combine them into "-ael", so one doesn't have to think about it.
                                                > > >
                                                > > > nationael, globael, aktuael, funktionael
                                                > > > nationalisere, globalisere, aktualisere, funktionalisere
                                                > > > nationalistisch, globalist, aktualitaet etc.
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Chamavian
                                                > > >
                                                > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > > Taking the Example of "global", it would be very unnatural to force this to be *globell when ALL of our source languages have a -al ending, and none of them have -ell. Of course in many cases, it not so clear-cut. And in the cases where we might want to have -ell, the English word always has -al and often the majority form isn't absolutely obvious -- I think there'd be many 50/50 splits.
                                                > > > > So IF this ending was forced schematically in one direction, my preference would be for -al (as in English). This avoids the problem of the example of *globell.
                                                > > > > IF we adopted a schematic solution for the -or vs -eur issue, my preference would be to force them all to -or.
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > > The advantage of this scheme is in both cases, using -al and -or regularises to relationship with cognate words.
                                                > > > > Eg dirigere, direktor, direkorat. Not dirigere, direkteur, direktorat.
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > > eg Nation, national, nationalisere. Not Nation, nationell, nationalisere.
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > > HOWEVER
                                                > > > > My real preference is to just go with the majority and have some words ending in -al and some in -ell and some in -or and some in -eur.
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > > The issue that Stephan seems to have, is with adjective potentially being able to end in -al or in -ell. He's right -- how would you know which one is the correct one?
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > > One option is to simply guess, based on your own native language knowledge. If the form is based on the majority form, then there's a fairly good chance that your guess will be correct. If it isn't correct, it's not likely to be a big problem in terms of comprehension -- provided that everyone is aware that these adjectives can end in either -al or -ell.
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > > But for this issue, I'd don't see there is too much harm in forcing it into a schematic rule, either with all -ell or all -al. Or only the adjective ends in -ell and other situations take -al.
                                                > > > > > eg
                                                > > > > > nation
                                                > > > > > nationell (adj)
                                                > > > > > national (n.)
                                                > > > > > nationalism
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > > I acknowledge that this is not naturalistic and will sometimes lead to forms that don't reflect the majority of the cognates, but there would be little harm to understanding/ recognition and a small gain in the ease of learning. Especially in cases when someone already knows a word such as "motion" and wants to create a derived adjective. (such as *motionell). They can use the -ell suffix as a tool for active word-building, rather than -al and -ell being fossilised dead suffixes.
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > > All of what I have said above, applies equally to -or vs -eur!
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                                > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > In MS dis suffiks is -ael: aktuael, nationael, materiael.
                                                > > > > > > On: -alisere: aktualisere, nationalisere, materialisere.
                                                > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > Thanks for your answers.
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > I prefer a schematic approach for -al and -ell. If "aktuell" and "aktualisere"
                                                > > > > > > > would be propper words, also "materiell" and "materialisere" would need to be
                                                > > > > > > > correct, too. The alternative is that one is supposed to know each word in DE,
                                                > > > > > > > NL, EN, DA, NO, SV before deciding whether to chose "-al" or "-ell". (Another
                                                > > > > > > > alternative is that people aren't supposed to see that "-al" and "-ell" are
                                                > > > > > > > attached to the stem. People would be supposed to see "funktion" and "funktional" /"funktionell" as independent words, not being derived one from another.) It is much easier to be schematic
                                                > > > > > > > in this case:
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > * de original, wese originell
                                                > > > > > > > * de funktional, wese funktionell
                                                > > > > > > > * de material, wese materiell, materialisere
                                                > > > > > > > * institutionell, institutionalisere
                                                > > > > > > > * de international, internationell, internationalisere
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > ("(de) funktional" would be a noun, a term in mathematics, and "(wese)
                                                > > > > > > > funktionell" the adjective, EN "functional" )
                                                > > > > > > > ("(de) international" would be a noun, the anthem (EN "internationale" ), whereas
                                                > > > > > > > "(wese) internationell" would be the adjective, (EN "international" ).
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > I consider "-al" and "-ell" as words. Once one understands "nation" and "-ell",
                                                > > > > > > > they wouldn't want to look up if EN "international" really is "internationell" ,
                                                > > > > > > > would they They wouldn't want to look up if EN "rucksack" is "rucksack" or
                                                > > > > > > > "backsack" or "rücksack", because it's "Rucksack" in German (and EN "back", DE
                                                > > > > > > > "Rücken") Wouldn't they rather want to rely on their knowledge about EN "back"
                                                > > > > > > > â€" "rügg"? -> "rüggsack"? OK, that's the end of my pleading. :)
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > Gröten,
                                                > > > > > > > Stephan / stefichjo
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > I don’t think French has i-mutations like many of the Germanic languages do.
                                                > > > > > > > > French has its own phonological developments from Romance and Vulgar Latin.
                                                > > > > > > > > E < A is independent of �"i�? in the next syllable, e.g. French chef < Old
                                                > > > > > > > French chief < Romance capo < Latin caput.
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > Maybe Dutch has non-i-mutating in common with French through the influence of
                                                > > > > > > > that language from the time that the South West, i.e. Flanders, was part of
                                                > > > > > > > France, and the rest of the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e.
                                                > > > > > > > Germany.
                                                > > > > > > > > And the beginning of Dutch lays in Flanders, later it spread North over the
                                                > > > > > > > rest of the North Sea Coast into Holland, that had been Frisian speaking until
                                                > > > > > > > that time.
                                                > > > > > > > > That’s why Standard Dutch still has no umlauts, but all dialects outside the
                                                > > > > > > > West Coast (Flanders, Zeeland, Holland) do have it.
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > Ingmar
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > Stephan Schneider wrote:
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > Re: i-mutation in french endings
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > Dear David,
                                                > > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                                                > > > > > > > and
                                                > > > > > > > > "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                                                > > > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                                                > > > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On
                                                > > > > > > > the
                                                > > > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either
                                                > > > > > > > -al
                                                > > > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                                                > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                                                > > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                                                > > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                                                > > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                                                > > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                                                > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                                                > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                                                > > > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel" .
                                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                                > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > Dear David,
                                                > > > > > > > > > Do you associate any difference in meaning (in your spraks) between "aktual"
                                                > > > > > > > and "aktuell"? I thought of making a difference between "-ör" (for persons) and
                                                > > > > > > > "-or" (for animals, machines). So a "navigator" could be a guidance system,
                                                > > > > > > > whereas a "navigatör" would be a person navigating (i. e. a navigator). On the
                                                > > > > > > > other hand, things would be much easier if there is only one ending, either -al
                                                > > > > > > > or -ell, either -or or -ör...
                                                > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > Dear Stephan
                                                > > > > > > > > > > I have often wondered the same. And it affects those Germanic languages
                                                > > > > > > > > > > that borrow French words. English seems to never do it, the English
                                                > > > > > > > > > > equivalents seem to follow the model of Latin. eg EN actual = NL
                                                > > > > > > > > > > actueel, DE aktuell, FR actuel(le)
                                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > stefichjo wrote:
                                                > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,
                                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > > I have a question: How come there are French words having an i-mutated
                                                > > > > > > > ending and others that don't? Examples are "national" and "industriel" .
                                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > > Stephan
                                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                                > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                                > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date:
                                                > > > > > > > 03/03/09 16:09:00
                                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > >
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > >
                                                >







                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • stefichjo
                                                ... I won t adopt the English way. You convinced me! ... The German words would be Spastiker (or Spast ) and Magie . For my German ears Spastik sounds
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Mar 9, 2009
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > > But, there is another group of words that look similar and poses the same question: should the latin form be kept or should it be modernized / sprakized. I refer to the group of words ending in EN "-ical", DE "-isch". Should it be "magikal" or "magisch"? If we don't say "moralisch" but "moral", maybe we should say "tragikal" instead of "tragisch", too?
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > Whatever you do, don't adopt the English aberration of the -ical ending for adjectives
                                                  > Examples, "practical", "magical", "comical" etc.
                                                  > Of the languages that use the Latin -icus as an adjective ending, ONLY English tag on the superfluous -al to the -ic. This is a strange English habit. It's not even consistent in this regard, it has examples such practical etc, but also counter-examples such as tragic, not *tragical, spastic not *spastical, stochastic, not *stochastical.

                                                  I won't adopt the English way. You convinced me!

                                                  > But I would favour the method used by the continental germlangs. That is replacing the Latin -icus with -isch/-isk for the adjectives. So have magisch, komisch, tragisch, spastisch.
                                                  > However, for the associated nouns, having a -ik ending. Eg "Ein Spastik ist ein spastische Mann. Magik ist die magische Kunst."
                                                  > That's a naturaelistic method, rather than schematic.

                                                  The German words would be "Spastiker" (or "Spast") and "Magie". For my German ears "Spastik" sounds like "being spastic". Cf. "Physik" for physics and "Physiker" for "physician". The nomen agentis for "Magie" is "Magier". (And it would be more regular to have "Magik" and "Magiker".)

                                                  So, I use -ik, -iker and -isch: kritik, kritiker, kritisch. spastik, spastiker, spastisch. magik, magiker, magisch. (?) WDYT? (What do you think?)

                                                  Gröten,
                                                  Stephan
                                                • David Parke
                                                  ... Yeah, we need a way to distinguish between between the noun magic and the noun magician. Or between Mystique/mysticism and Mystic (a mystical person). Or
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Mar 9, 2009
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > > But, there is another group of words that look similar and poses the same question: should the latin form be kept or should it be modernized / sprakized. I refer to the group of words ending in EN "-ical", DE "-isch". Should it be "magikal" or "magisch"? If we don't say "moralisch" but "moral", maybe we should say "tragikal" instead of "tragisch", too?
                                                    > > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Whatever you do, don't adopt the English aberration of the -ical ending for adjectives
                                                    > > Examples, "practical", "magical", "comical" etc.
                                                    > > Of the languages that use the Latin -icus as an adjective ending, ONLY English tag on the superfluous -al to the -ic. This is a strange English habit. It's not even consistent in this regard, it has examples such practical etc, but also counter-examples such as tragic, not *tragical, spastic not *spastical, stochastic, not *stochastical.
                                                    >
                                                    > I won't adopt the English way. You convinced me!
                                                    >
                                                    > > But I would favour the method used by the continental germlangs. That is replacing the Latin -icus with -isch/-isk for the adjectives. So have magisch, komisch, tragisch, spastisch.
                                                    > > However, for the associated nouns, having a -ik ending. Eg "Ein Spastik ist ein spastische Mann. Magik ist die magische Kunst."
                                                    > > That's a naturaelistic method, rather than schematic.
                                                    >
                                                    > The German words would be "Spastiker" (or "Spast") and "Magie". For my German ears "Spastik" sounds like "being spastic". Cf. "Physik" for physics and "Physiker" for "physician". The nomen agentis for "Magie" is "Magier". (And it would be more regular to have "Magik" and "Magiker".)
                                                    >
                                                    > So, I use -ik, -iker and -isch: kritik, kritiker, kritisch. spastik, spastiker, spastisch. magik, magiker, magisch. (?) WDYT? (What do you think?)
                                                    >
                                                    > Gröten,
                                                    > Stephan
                                                    >

                                                    Yeah, we need a way to distinguish between between the noun magic and the noun magician.
                                                    Or between Mystique/mysticism and Mystic (a mystical person).
                                                    Or between electronic (adj), electronics (n) or *electronician (an electronic technician).
                                                    However the problem is finding a truly inter-germanic suffix for doing this.
                                                    The German -er suffix as in Fysiker, Elektriker etc, is perhaps the most inter-germanic, however it's not all that satisfyingly inter-germanic. It's represented in German and Scandy but not in English or Dutch.
                                                  • Chris
                                                    Be careful with Spast ! This is only used pejorative, as an insult among first-graders or Berlin Hip-Hoppers ;)
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Mar 10, 2009
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Be careful with "Spast"! This is only used pejorative, as an insult among first-graders or Berlin Hip-Hoppers ;)


                                                      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > > But, there is another group of words that look similar and poses the same question: should the latin form be kept or should it be modernized / sprakized. I refer to the group of words ending in EN "-ical", DE "-isch". Should it be "magikal" or "magisch"? If we don't say "moralisch" but "moral", maybe we should say "tragikal" instead of "tragisch", too?
                                                      > > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Whatever you do, don't adopt the English aberration of the -ical ending for adjectives
                                                      > > Examples, "practical", "magical", "comical" etc.
                                                      > > Of the languages that use the Latin -icus as an adjective ending, ONLY English tag on the superfluous -al to the -ic. This is a strange English habit. It's not even consistent in this regard, it has examples such practical etc, but also counter-examples such as tragic, not *tragical, spastic not *spastical, stochastic, not *stochastical.
                                                      >
                                                      > I won't adopt the English way. You convinced me!
                                                      >
                                                      > > But I would favour the method used by the continental germlangs. That is replacing the Latin -icus with -isch/-isk for the adjectives. So have magisch, komisch, tragisch, spastisch.
                                                      > > However, for the associated nouns, having a -ik ending. Eg "Ein Spastik ist ein spastische Mann. Magik ist die magische Kunst."
                                                      > > That's a naturaelistic method, rather than schematic.
                                                      >
                                                      > The German words would be "Spastiker" (or "Spast") and "Magie". For my German ears "Spastik" sounds like "being spastic". Cf. "Physik" for physics and "Physiker" for "physician". The nomen agentis for "Magie" is "Magier". (And it would be more regular to have "Magik" and "Magiker".)
                                                      >
                                                      > So, I use -ik, -iker and -isch: kritik, kritiker, kritisch. spastik, spastiker, spastisch. magik, magiker, magisch. (?) WDYT? (What do you think?)
                                                      >
                                                      > Gröten,
                                                      > Stephan
                                                      >
                                                    • David Parke
                                                      In English, spastic is far more often used as an insult, mainly by small, nasty boys than as a legitimate word (along with spazzy or smazmo ). It s now
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Mar 10, 2009
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        In English, "spastic" is far more often used as an insult, mainly by small, nasty boys than as a legitimate word (along with "spazzy" or "smazmo").
                                                        It's now considered an offensive term for those suffering from cerebral palsy. Of course the original meaning simply means characterized by spasms.

                                                        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <meinNW@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > Be careful with "Spast"! This is only used pejorative, as an insult among first-graders or Berlin Hip-Hoppers ;)
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                                        > >
                                                        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > > But, there is another group of words that look similar and poses the same question: should the latin form be kept or should it be modernized / sprakized. I refer to the group of words ending in EN "-ical", DE "-isch". Should it be "magikal" or "magisch"? If we don't say "moralisch" but "moral", maybe we should say "tragikal" instead of "tragisch", too?
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > Whatever you do, don't adopt the English aberration of the -ical ending for adjectives
                                                        > > > Examples, "practical", "magical", "comical" etc.
                                                        > > > Of the languages that use the Latin -icus as an adjective ending, ONLY English tag on the superfluous -al to the -ic. This is a strange English habit. It's not even consistent in this regard, it has examples such practical etc, but also counter-examples such as tragic, not *tragical, spastic not *spastical, stochastic, not *stochastical.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I won't adopt the English way. You convinced me!
                                                        > >
                                                        > > > But I would favour the method used by the continental germlangs. That is replacing the Latin -icus with -isch/-isk for the adjectives. So have magisch, komisch, tragisch, spastisch.
                                                        > > > However, for the associated nouns, having a -ik ending. Eg "Ein Spastik ist ein spastische Mann. Magik ist die magische Kunst."
                                                        > > > That's a naturaelistic method, rather than schematic.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > The German words would be "Spastiker" (or "Spast") and "Magie". For my German ears "Spastik" sounds like "being spastic". Cf. "Physik" for physics and "Physiker" for "physician". The nomen agentis for "Magie" is "Magier". (And it would be more regular to have "Magik" and "Magiker".)
                                                        > >
                                                        > > So, I use -ik, -iker and -isch: kritik, kritiker, kritisch. spastik, spastiker, spastisch. magik, magiker, magisch. (?) WDYT? (What do you think?)
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Gröten,
                                                        > > Stephan
                                                        > >
                                                        >
                                                      • chamavian
                                                        Same as in Dutch: doe niet zo spastisch! or wat een spastisch wijf is dat! etc. it just means stupid , dumb . We also have magisch and magiër , but
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Mar 10, 2009
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Same as in Dutch: "doe niet zo spastisch!" or "wat een spastisch wijf is dat!" etc. it just means "stupid", "dumb".

                                                          We also have "magisch" and "magiër", but more usual is "tovenaar", from the verb "toveren" (German Zauberer, v. zaubern)



                                                          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > In English, "spastic" is far more often used as an insult, mainly by small, nasty boys than as a legitimate word (along with "spazzy" or "smazmo").
                                                          > It's now considered an offensive term for those suffering from cerebral palsy. Of course the original meaning simply means characterized by spasms.
                                                          >
                                                          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <meinNW@> wrote:
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Be careful with "Spast"! This is only used pejorative, as an insult among first-graders or Berlin Hip-Hoppers ;)
                                                          > >
                                                          > >
                                                          > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@> wrote:
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > > But, there is another group of words that look similar and poses the same question: should the latin form be kept or should it be modernized / sprakized. I refer to the group of words ending in EN "-ical", DE "-isch". Should it be "magikal" or "magisch"? If we don't say "moralisch" but "moral", maybe we should say "tragikal" instead of "tragisch", too?
                                                          > > > > >
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > Whatever you do, don't adopt the English aberration of the -ical ending for adjectives
                                                          > > > > Examples, "practical", "magical", "comical" etc.
                                                          > > > > Of the languages that use the Latin -icus as an adjective ending, ONLY English tag on the superfluous -al to the -ic. This is a strange English habit. It's not even consistent in this regard, it has examples such practical etc, but also counter-examples such as tragic, not *tragical, spastic not *spastical, stochastic, not *stochastical.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > I won't adopt the English way. You convinced me!
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > > But I would favour the method used by the continental germlangs. That is replacing the Latin -icus with -isch/-isk for the adjectives. So have magisch, komisch, tragisch, spastisch.
                                                          > > > > However, for the associated nouns, having a -ik ending. Eg "Ein Spastik ist ein spastische Mann. Magik ist die magische Kunst."
                                                          > > > > That's a naturaelistic method, rather than schematic.
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > The German words would be "Spastiker" (or "Spast") and "Magie". For my German ears "Spastik" sounds like "being spastic". Cf. "Physik" for physics and "Physiker" for "physician". The nomen agentis for "Magie" is "Magier". (And it would be more regular to have "Magik" and "Magiker".)
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > So, I use -ik, -iker and -isch: kritik, kritiker, kritisch. spastik, spastiker, spastisch. magik, magiker, magisch. (?) WDYT? (What do you think?)
                                                          > > >
                                                          > > > Gröten,
                                                          > > > Stephan
                                                          > > >
                                                          > >
                                                          >
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.