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

Re: Triglossia / treesprakigheed

Expand Messages
  • David Parke
    In German, the cognate to up is auf . Long vowel (diphthong actually). Also in German they have in but also ein with long vowel (diphthong). Also in
    Message 1 of 755 , Apr 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      In German, the cognate to "up" is "auf". Long vowel (diphthong actually). Also in German they have "in" but also "ein" with long vowel (diphthong). Also in Scandy, the cognate is in/inn/ind when used in seperable verbs. But "i" as a preposition -- long vowel.
      In Dutch the cognate to "an" is "aan". Long vowel. So with some of those prepositions, there are some precedents for them to have long vowels.
      With regard to "ik", I'm not sure that this is the best form for this pronoun in any case. And neither is "ig", but having a short vowel in any case is by no means certain. I think even "ek" with a long [e:] would be just as good a form as [Ik].
      Or the consonant could be [x] instead of g or k. So *ech [Ex]. Then no problem, the vowel would be short because of the double consonant.

      If we have the accepted irregularity for such pronouns and prepositions etc, then the problem is always going to be where to draw the line.
      I do have such irregularity currently but I have to make exceptions to allow for pairs that would otherwise be spelt the same but with differing pronos. Eg I have "ett" (it) but I also have "et" (eat). I geminate the consonant in "ett", going against the small word rule, to avoid conflicting with "et" (eat)
      Also would need to have "iss" (is, are) to avoid conflicting with "is" (ice).


      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
      >
      > Yes, but how to explain the difference in vowel quantity in
      > two similarly used prepositions such as "up" and "ut"?
      > In that case maybe "ut" could better be pronounced short, too.
      >
      > The best way is to make a special rule, a "regular irregularity", that monosyllabic pronouns, prepositions and adverbs are always pronounced with a short vowel:
      >
      > In, an, ik, up [In], [an], [Ik], [Up] but also ut, min, din, for, war [Ut], [mIn],[sIn], [fOr], [v\ar] etc. with short vowels, where one would expect long ones, based on the source langs.
      >
      > The other solution to avoid geminated consonants in this type of words is to make the pronunciation long: ik [i:k], in [i:n], up [u:p], as Dave already wrote somewhere.
      > Then the orthography can stay entirely regular, but the prono would no longer reflect the source langs...
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I was checking out the prono of Swedish on Lexin and it seems even
      > > Swedish has the practice of squirming around those short words.
      > > Eg om, an, in, den all have short vowels/long consonants.
      > > If we likewise avoided doubling the consonant in such cases, the
      > > question would be where to stop.
      > > dat not *datt -- OK? in not *inn -- OK? om not omm -- OK? dan or dann?
      > > up or upp?
      > >
      > > chamavian wrote:
      > > >
      > > > We have to decide at one point what we are going to do with this.
      > > > Maybe we can do that already now.
      > > >
      > > > I think FS spelling must be as regular and consistent as possible.
      > > >
      > > > Two out of three varieties (Dave's, Steph's) use geminated consonants
      > > > for short vowels in most cases, so that's what it's gonna be. Easy.
      > > > But also two out of three varieties (Steph's, Ing's) use single
      > > > consonants in prepositions and pronouns for short vowels. And Dave
      > > > likes that too, because of the ugliness of double consonants in
      > > > monosyllabic words.
      > > > Not so easy, because it is irregular and for a conlang, simplicity,
      > > > easy-learnability and regularity are most important.
      > > >
      > > > Let's just do itt, even iff we think itt looks stupidd
      > > >
      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > Stephan, I also have your rule that pronouns/prepositions/anything else
      > > > > inconvenient don't receive a short vowel marker.
      > > > > But I am experimenting with abandoning this rule to make the spelling
      > > > > system easier.
      > > > > It just seems ridiculous for me to see "ut" and "an" side by side and
      > > > > one has a short vowel but one has a long vowel. OTOH, "ann", "himm",
      > > > > "omm" look horrid -- better for them to have long vowels than have
      > > > short
      > > > > ones and spell them like that ;-)
      > > > > IMHO the ugliness of those annoying little words is the main
      > > > weakness of
      > > > > the German/Norwegian/Swedish method of marking short vowels versus the
      > > > > Dutch method of marking long vowels. It's strange that such a small
      > > > > question of aesthetics can be such a massive mental barrier.
      > > > >
      > > > > German/Norwegian/Swedish method: vowels considered long by default.
      > > > They
      > > > > are marked as short by a consonant cluster/double consonant. This
      > > > system
      > > > > could be easiest begrijpt by Dutch speakers, if they imagine there
      > > > is an
      > > > > invisible and silent "e" at the end of all words. eg ton = ton(e). tonn
      > > > > = tonn(e)
      > > > > Danish also uses this method but is haphazard in it's application.
      > > > > German is rather haphazard too, and seems to have my same aversion to
      > > > > doubled consonants in short words eg um not *umm, an not *ann, es
      > > > not *ess.
      > > > >
      > > > > Dutch method: vowels are considered short by default. Marked as long by
      > > > > doubling the vowels. The main weakness of this system to me, is that
      > > > > words change form when affixes are applied. eg aal + -en = alen. al
      > > > + -e
      > > > > = alle. This makes sorting and grouping of related words alphabetically
      > > > > very problematic.
      > > > >
      > > > > Middelspraak appears to follow the Dutch method. But it has the
      > > > > interesting feature (or added twist) that Romance multi-syllablic words
      > > > > don't follow the dutch pattern when the original french/latin/romance
      > > > > word ends in a single consonant. In Dutch, such words get a long final
      > > > > vowel. eg advocaat (pl advocaten), toon (pl tonen), structuur (pl
      > > > > structuren), probleem (pl problemen)
      > > > > In Middelspraak, such words have a short final vowel, and
      > > > > "In certain types of international loan-words the final consonant is
      > > > not
      > > > > geminated and consequently the vowel becomes long:
      > > > >
      > > > > unik > uniker, unikest [u:’nIk][u:’ni:k@r][u:’ni:k@st] unique
      > > > > naiv > naiver, naivest [na′Iv] [na’i:v@r] [na’i:v@st] naive
      > > > > human > humaner, humanest [hu’man][hu’ma:n@r][hu’man@st] human/e"
      > > > >
      > > > > Which is interesting to see applied to such a large class of words. It
      > > > > seems to be resonant with certain Dutch words such as "dag" and "pad"
      > > > > where in the plural, the vowel goes from short to long. eg dag, dagen
      > > > > (not *daggen), pad, paden (not *padden).
      > > > > I think an improvement here would be to just follow the Dutch pattern
      > > > > more thoroughly in MS and have words such as uniik, naiiv, humaan
      > > > > instead. Dutch has only a small number of those irregular words (eg
      > > > > dag/pad/blad), but with those Romance borrowings you are looking at
      > > > > quite literally thousands of words that would be affected by the
      > > > current
      > > > > rule. You're also assuming that the speakers have the knowledge to
      > > > > recognise what is a "certain type of international loan-word".
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > > (IFS)
      > > > > > 1. double vowels mark a long vowel
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > If we unify these approaches of orthography, David's approach is
      > > > the most general one and our word should be either "ikk" or "igg".
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > We should furthermore unify our derivation methods for a unified
      > > > FS. As far as I can see David and I take a look at the Protogermanic
      > > > form, then we apply our (very similar) derivation rules and assimilate
      > > > it to the modern Germanic forms, in case the PG-derived is too isolated.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > PG: ek (-> ek)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > G: ich (-> ikk)
      > > > > > D: ik (-> ikk)
      > > > > > E: I (-> i)
      > > > > > S: jag/jeg/eg (-> jeg?)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > DFS: ikk
      > > > > > SFS: ik
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Ingmar, your approach focusses more on the modern Germanic forms.
      > > > How can we unify our approaches?
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >> so, e.g.:
      > > > > >> 7th ikk, 8th ik, 9th ig => 10th ik
      > > > > >> 7th under, 8th onder, 9th under => 10th under
      > > > > >> etc.
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> Maybe we can first do the easy, obvious ones and after that see
      > > > what we'll have left over to kill each other about later ;-)
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >
      > > > > > This word-by-word approach is OK for me too, in order to at least
      > > > have a dialect "spoken" by more than one person. We can only learn and
      > > > improve our FS by doing so.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Gröten,
      > > > > > Stephan / stefichjo
      > > > > > http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sprak
      > > > <http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sprak>
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > > > > > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2029 - Release Date:
      > > > 03/29/09 16:56:00
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > > > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.32/2030 - Release Date: 03/30/09 08:40:00
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Andrew Jarrette
      Oh, I get it, bernstone = amber , and therefore relates to electricity (the original meaning of Greek _elektron_, and like Icelandic
      Message 755 of 755 , Dec 22, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Oh, I get it, "bernstone" = "amber", and therefore relates to electricity (the original meaning of Greek _elektron_, and like Icelandic <rafmagn> "electricity", literally "amber-power"), so "bernstonebit" is an electron.  Is "bern-" from Middle English _bernen_ "to burn"? Or something else? [oh, actually I looked up "Bernstein" in Kluge and found that "Bern-" is from Low German _bernen_ "brennen" and "Bernstein" refers to "Brennbares Baumharz"]



        ________________________________
        From: Erik <ditassp2@...>
        To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:50:31 PM
        Subject: [folkspraak] Re: New file uploaded to folkspraak



        > This is hilarious!  I can actually understand much of it, and I must say I like it!  But what is a "bernstone"?

        Sounds like German "Bernstein", English "amber"(?)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber

        rgds, Erik

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
        >
        > This is hilarious!  I can actually understand much of it, and I must say I like it!  But what is a "bernstone"?
        >  
        > I'm still laughing and laughing.

        >
        > ________________________________
        >  From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
        > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 2:29:47 AM
        > Subject: [folkspraak] Re: New file uploaded to folkspraak

        > And take a look at this text !
        >
        >
        > For most of its being, mankind did not know what things are made
        > of, but could only guess. With the growth of worldken, we began
        > to learn, and today we have a beholding of stuff and work that
        > watching bears out, both in the workstead and in daily life.
        >
        > The underlying kinds of stuff are the *firststuffs*, which link
        > together in sundry ways to give rise to the rest. Formerly we
        > knew of ninety-two firststuffs, from waterstuff, the lightest and
        > barest, to ymirstuff, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such
        > as aegirstuff and helstuff.
        >
        >
        >
        > The firststuffs have their being as motes called *unclefts*.
        > These are mightly small; one seedweight of waterstuff holds a
        > tale of them like unto two followed by twenty-two naughts. Most
        > unclefts link together to make what are called *bulkbits*. Thus,
        > the waterstuff bulkbit bestands of two waterstuff unclefts, the
        > sourstuff bulkbit of two sourstuff unclefts, and so on. (Some
        > kinds, such as sunstuff, keep alone; others, such as iron, cling
        > together in ices when in the fast standing; and there are yet
        > more yokeways.) When unlike clefts link in a bulkbit, they make
        > *bindings*. Thus, water is a binding of two waterstuff unclefts
        > with one sourstuff uncleft, while a bulkbit of one of the
        > forestuffs making up flesh may have a thousand thousand or more
        > unclefts of these two firststuffs together with coalstuff and
        >
        > chokestuff.
        >
        >
        >
        > At first is was thought that the uncleft was a hard thing that
        > could be split no further; hence the name. Now we know it is made
        > up of lesser motes. There is a heavy *kernel* with a forward
        > bernstonish lading, and around it one or more light motes with
        > backward ladings. The least uncleft is that of ordinary
        > waterstuff. Its kernel is a lone forwardladen mote called a
        > *firstbit*. Outside it is a backwardladen mote called a
        > *bernstonebit*. The firstbit has a heaviness about 1840-fold that
        > of the bernstonebit. Early worldken folk thought bernstonebits
        > swing around the kernel like the earth around the sun, but now we
        > understand they are more like waves or clouds.
        >
        >
        >
        > In all other unclefts are found other motes as well, about as
        > heavy as the firstbit but with no lading, known as *neitherbits*.
        >
        > We know a kind of waterstuff with one neitherbit in the kernel
        > along with the firstbit; another kind has two neitherbits. Both
        > kinds are seldom.
        >
        >
        >
        > The next greatest firststuff is sunstuff, which has two firstbits
        > and two bernstonebits. The everyday sort also has two neitherbits
        > in the kernel. If there are more or less, the uncleft will soon
        > break asunder. More about this later.
        >
        >
        >
        > The third firststuff is stonestuff, with three firstbits, three
        > bernstonebits, and its own share of neitherbits. And so it goes,
        > on through such everyday stuffs as coalstuff (six firstbits) or
        > iron (26) to ones more lately found. Ymirstuff (92) was the last
        > until men began to make some higher still.
        >
        >
        >
        > It is the bernstonebits that link, and so their tale fastsets how
        > a firststuff behaves and what kinds of bulkbits it can help make.
        > The worldken of this behaving, in all its manifold ways, is
        > called *minglingken*. Minglingers have found that as the
        > uncleftish tale of the firststuffs (that is, the tale of
        > firststuffs in their kernels) waxes, after a while they begin to
        > show ownships not unlike those of others that went before them.
        > So, for a showdeal, stonestuff (3), glasswortstuff (11),
        > potashstuff (19), redstuff (37), and bluegraystuff (55) can each
        > link with only one uncleft of waterstuff, while coalstuff (6),
        > flintstuff (14), germanstuff (22), tin (50), and lead (82) can
        > each link with four. This is readily seen when all are set forth
        > in what is called the *roundaround board of the firststuffs*.
        >
        > When an uncleft or a bulkbit wins one or more bernstonebits above
        > its own, it takes on a backward lading. When it loses one or
        > more, it takes on a forward lading. Such a mote is called a
        > *farer*, for that the drag between unlike ladings flits it. When
        > bernstonebits flit by themselves, it may be as a bolt of
        > lightning, a spark off some faststanding chunk, or the everyday
        >
        > flow of bernstoneness through wires.
        >
        >
        >
        > Coming back to the uncleft itself, the heavier it is, the more
        > neitherbits as well as firstbits in its kernel. Indeed, soon the
        > tale of neitherbits is the greater. Unclefts with the same tale
        > of firstbits but unlike tales of neitherbits are called
        > *samesteads*. Thus, everyday sourstuff has eight neitherbits with
        > its eight firstbits, but there are also kinds with five, six,
        > seven, nine, ten, and eleven neitherbits. A samestead is known by
        > the tale of both kernel motes, so that we have sourstuff-13,
        > sourstuff-14, and so on, with sourstuff-16 being by far the most
        > found. Having the same number of bernstonebits, the samesteads of
        > a firststuff behave almost alike minglingly. They do show some
        > unlikenesses, outstandingly among the heavier ones, and these can
        > be worked to sunder samesteads from each other.
        >
        >
        >
        > Most samesteads of every firststuff are unabiding. Their kernels
        > break up, each at its own speed. This speed is written as the
        > *half-life*, which is how long it takes half of any deal of the
        > samestead thus to shift itself. The doing is known as
        > *lightrotting*. It may happen fast or slowly, and in any of
        > sundry ways, offhanging on the makeup of the kernel. A kernel may
        > spit out two firstbits with two neitherbits, that is, a sunstuff
        > kernel, thus leaping two steads back in the roundaround board and
        > four weights back in heaviness. It may give off a bernstonebit
        > from a neitherbit, which thereby becomes a firstbit and thrusts
        > the uncleft one stead up in the board while keeping the same
        > weight. It may give off a *forwardbit*, which is a mote with the
        > same weight as a bernstonebit but a forward lading, and thereby
        > spring one stead down in the board while keeping the same weight.
        > Often, too, a mote is given off with neither lading nor
        > heaviness, called the *weeneitherbit*. In much lightrotting, a
        > mote of light with most short wavelength comes out as well.
        >
        >
        >
        > For although light oftenest behaves as a wave, it can be looked
        > on as a mote, the *lightbit*. We have already said by the way
        > that a mote of stuff can behave not only as a chunk, but as a
        > wave. Down among the unclefts, things do not happen in steady
        > flowings, but in leaps between bestandings that are forbidden.
        > The knowledge-hunt of this is called *lump beholding*.
        >
        >
        >
        > Nor are stuff and work unakin. Rather, they are groundwise the
        > same, and one can be shifted into the other. The kinship between
        > them is that work is like unto weight manifolded by the fourside
        > of the haste of light.
        >
        >
        >
        > By shooting motes into kernels, worldken folk have shifted
        > samesteads of one firststuff into samesteads of another. Thus did
        > they make ymirstuff into aegirstuff and helstuff, and they have
        > afterward gone beyond these. The heavier firststuffs are all
        > highly lightrottish and therefore are not found in the
        > greenworld.
        >
        >
        >
        > Some of the higher samesteads are *splitly*. That is, when a
        > neitherbit strikes the kernel of one, as for a showdeal
        > ymirstuff-235, it bursts into lesser kernels and free
        > neitherbits; the latter can then split more ymirstuff-235. When
        > this happens, weight shifts into work. It is not much of the
        > whole, but nevertheless it is awesome.
        >
        >
        >
        > With enough strength, lightweight unclefts can be made to
        > togethermelt. In the sun, through a row of strikings and
        > lightrottings, four unclefts of waterstuff in this wise become
        > one of sunstuff. Again some weight is lost as work, and again
        > this is greatly big when set beside the work gotten from a
        > minglingish doing such as fire.
        >
        >
        > Today we wield both kind of uncleftish doings in weapons, and
        > kernelish splitting gives us heat and bernstoneness. We hope to
        > do likewise with togethermelting, which would yield an unhemmed
        > wellspring of work for mankindish goodgain.
        >
        >
        > Soothly we live in mighty years!
        >
        > http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=90977
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Nice work, Andrew, looks neat.
        > >
        > > I've been 'fantasizing' about a more Germanic as well once and a while, but the outcome in my version wasn't as archaic as your Englisc
        > > in pronunciation and grammar, but more like present day English without the enormous load of Romance loanwords. And probably also less Old Norse in it. I think the grammar should maybe be a little more complicated than in modern English, e.g. verb conjugation, two genders/articles etc.
        > >
        > > Something like this:
        > >
        > > Folkspraak is being made up as a mean Germanish tongue (a "Twixgermanish", if thou willst). Once ready, Folkspraak should be quickly to learn by any born speaker of a Germanish tongue, a group telling over 465 million born speakers (with an onfilling 300 to 900 million speaking English as a twaid tongue). After many individual forshed Folksprak varieties for over ten years, since the end of 2010 there is a kind of Standard Folksprak, withleads are ony about. Until now there are already English to Folksprak and Folksprak to English wordbooks to get. Folkspraak is not meant to be made up by any one alone, but is a samely work shapen by all interested parties, following to the charter guidelines. Thou canst draw by a word to the tongue merely by sending an e-mail listing thy word, its meaning and its shape in three other Germanish tongues (in onfilling to English). Thou canst give feedback and help shape the tongue as well.
        > >
        > > Ingmar
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, folkspraak@yahoogroups.com wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Hello,
        > > >
        > > > This email message is a notification to let you know that
        > > > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the folkspraak
        > > > group.
        > > >
        > > >   File        : /GRAMMAR OF ALTERNATE ENGLISC.docx
        > > >   Uploaded by : swartsaxon <anjarrette@>
        > > >   Description : Grammar of my alternate evolution of English (based on Anglian and West Saxon hybrid)
        > > >
        > > > You can access this file at the URL:
        > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak/files/GRAMMAR%20OF%20ALTERNATE%20ENGLISC.docx
        > > >
        > > > To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
        > > > http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
        > > > Regards,
        > > >
        > > > swartsaxon <anjarrette@>
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >




        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.