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

Lykkig ny jar!

Expand Messages
  • chamavian
    Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar. Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010 Ingmar
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar.
      Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010

      Ingmar
    • David
      Ja Ik oek! Gelykkig ny jar to all de folken af dis wonderlik planeet. Ik hop dat 2010 schall wese en fruktbar ond fridlik jar for all. De recession is najgenog
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Ja Ik oek! Gelykkig ny jar to all de folken af dis wonderlik planeet.

        Ik hop dat 2010 schall wese en fruktbar ond fridlik jar for all.
        De recession is najgenog beslyted ond nu de wereld kann kontinuere etts gewonlik kurtsejtig marsch fort to ferderving ;-)

        BTW Cham, Ik tenk dat en "al" is en sort af slimig, slang-formig fisch. Menede du "all"? Mid en kurt vokal?

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
        >
        > Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar.
        > Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010
        >
        > Ingmar
        >
      • chamavian
        Hei David, Al with one l, means English all . Remember United Folkspraak (UFS), which combines the three main recent varieties of FS, yours, Stephan s and
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 3, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hei David,

          "Al" with one l, means English "all".
          Remember United Folkspraak (UFS), which combines the three main recent varieties of FS, yours, Stephan's and mine?

          http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak/database?method=reportRows&tbl=8

          UFS has single final consonants in much-used, monosyllabic words
          like in, up, ik, al etc.

          Btw: I think we should go on with UFS, it's the closest we ever got to a single Folkspraak we all agreed on.

          Ingmar


          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@...> wrote:
          >
          > Ja Ik oek! Gelykkig ny jar to all de folken af dis wonderlik planeet.
          >
          > Ik hop dat 2010 schall wese en fruktbar ond fridlik jar for all.
          > De recession is najgenog beslyted ond nu de wereld kann kontinuere etts gewonlik kurtsejtig marsch fort to ferderving ;-)
          >
          > BTW Cham, Ik tenk dat en "al" is en sort af slimig, slang-formig fisch. Menede du "all"? Mid en kurt vokal?
          >
          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar.
          > > Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010
          > >
          > > Ingmar
          > >
          >
        • David Parke
          Yes, I could understand al from the context, and also thought that it could be a lapse into Dutch ;-) That and kom with a single m. Should this word have a
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 3, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, I could understand "al" from the context, and also thought that it
            could be a lapse into Dutch ;-) That and "kom" with a single m. Should
            this word have a short or long vowel?? Whereas I mostly agree with the
            rule about "short" words, which exact words fall into that category is
            problematic. In the case of "al", you have the problem that another
            potential word exists which correctly follows the open/closed syllable
            orthography, and you have potential for confusion. "Al" [a:l] probably
            is the UFS word for "eel"
            Again, this whole short word issue is just one of aesthetic preferences.
            "all" doesn't look bad to me, perhaps because I am from an
            English-speaking background. Also it is "all" in other languages such as
            German/Danish/Norwegian/Swedish. It could also be that "all" looks
            acceptable because L is a "thin" letter. Doubled ls are not
            overwhelming. On the other hand *omm looks too strange, too fat for such
            a small word.*upp looks somewhat acceptable -- probably looks just fine
            to a Swedish speaker :-) It also seems absurd to have *up (short vowel)
            alongside *ut (long vowel).
            So it's subjective, and it's funny that this aversion to these doubled
            letters only seems to affect (for me) the pronouns and prepositions. The
            star attractions of the language, the nouns, verbs and adjectives don't
            bother me. I am perfectly happy with "dumm" and "lamm" and "komm".

            So the decision whether to use the short word exception should be
            influenced by the existence of potential clashes with words that follow
            the standard orthography. These overlaps make the exceptions seem
            ridiculous. Oh, just thought of another: *et [Et] and *et [e:t]. One
            means "it" and one means "eat". It'd be better, I think, to have the
            pronoun as *ett. Also "t" is another thin letter. Another clash is *is
            [Is] and *is [i:s]. One means "is" (3rd person singular of to be) and
            one means "ice". Not sure how to solve this one -- *iss is
            strange-looking: maybe use *ist or *es or discard this irregular
            conjugation altogether. It would be a pity to discard a conjugation that
            is shared by most of our source languages and has lovely cognates in
            other Indo-European languages.

            Another consideration would be whether there are derived words from
            these "short" words that get suffixes that need a second consonant. Eg
            *inner, *upper. There's no need for a *ommer or *anner comparative (so
            far as I can tell). Also *om and *an don't clash with an existing long
            vowel word (I haven't thought of one ... maybe there is)

            So with *an and *om, there are good grounds to follow this "short"
            exception. Or at least, it does no harm. With *in and *up, less so. With
            *al and *et and *is, it's not such a good idea.



            chamavian wrote:
            >
            > Hei David,
            >
            > "Al" with one l, means English "all".
            > Remember United Folkspraak (UFS), which combines the three main recent
            > varieties of FS, yours, Stephan's and mine?
            >
            > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak/database?method=reportRows&tbl=8
            > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak/database?method=reportRows&tbl=8>
            >
            > UFS has single final consonants in much-used, monosyllabic words
            > like in, up, ik, al etc.
            >
            > Btw: I think we should go on with UFS, it's the closest we ever got to
            > a single Folkspraak we all agreed on.
            >
            > Ingmar
            >
            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "David" <parked@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Ja Ik oek! Gelykkig ny jar to all de folken af dis wonderlik planeet.
            > >
            > > Ik hop dat 2010 schall wese en fruktbar ond fridlik jar for all.
            > > De recession is najgenog beslyted ond nu de wereld kann kontinuere
            > etts gewonlik kurtsejtig marsch fort to ferderving ;-)
            > >
            > > BTW Cham, Ik tenk dat en "al" is en sort af slimig, slang-formig
            > fisch. Menede du "all"? Mid en kurt vokal?
            > >
            > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar.
            > > > Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010
            > > >
            > > > Ingmar
            > > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
            >
            > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            > Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2597 - Release Date: 01/02/10 08:22:00
            >
            >
          • Stephan Schneider
            Gelücklik nü jar! (Do we already have this sentence in UFS?) all I haven t found an entry for all for UFS, is there any? In Sprak it is all . an(n)
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Gelücklik nü jar! (Do we already have this sentence in UFS?)

              "all"
              I haven't found an entry for "all" for UFS, is there any? In Sprak it is "all".

              "an(n)"
              The adverb "on" is "an" in Sprak with a long vowel. The preposition "on" is short in Sprak and is written "an", too. (Short vowel exception.) The same applies for other adverbs/prepositions like "ut", "in", "om", "up". I did so in order to give credit to long and short vowels (diphtongs respectively) in the source languages (like English "up" and German "auf") and the fact, that in German the same happens with "ein" / "in" (adverb / preposition respetively). In other words, adverbs lose their length when used as prepositions. This is rather a pronunciation rule in Sprak.
              Derivations of "an" are Sprak "anlik" ("similar") and Sprak "ane" ("to divine", "to guess").

              "is(s)"
              "is" is "is" in Sprak. It appears to have a long vowel. I could imagine "iss", too, with a short vowel. The more regular form would be "er" (with a long vowel) for all forms of present tense "wese". (And "ice" is "is" in Sprak.)

              Regards,
              Stephan










              ________________________________
              Von: David Parke <parked@...>
              An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 12:09:49 Uhr
              Betreff: Re: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!

              Yes, I could understand "al" from the context, and also thought that it
              could be a lapse into Dutch ;-) That and "kom" with a single m. Should
              this word have a short or long vowel?? Whereas I mostly agree with the
              rule about "short" words, which exact words fall into that category is
              problematic. In the case of "al", you have the problem that another
              potential word exists which correctly follows the open/closed syllable
              orthography, and you have potential for confusion. "Al" [a:l] probably
              is the UFS word for "eel"
              Again, this whole short word issue is just one of aesthetic preferences.
              "all" doesn't look bad to me, perhaps because I am from an
              English-speaking background. Also it is "all" in other languages such as
              German/Danish/Norwegian/Swedish. It could also be that "all" looks
              acceptable because L is a "thin" letter. Doubled ls are not
              overwhelming. On the other hand *omm looks too strange, too fat for such
              a small word.*upp looks somewhat acceptable -- probably looks just fine
              to a Swedish speaker :-) It also seems absurd to have *up (short vowel)
              alongside *ut (long vowel).
              So it's subjective, and it's funny that this aversion to these doubled
              letters only seems to affect (for me) the pronouns and prepositions. The
              star attractions of the language, the nouns, verbs and adjectives don't
              bother me. I am perfectly happy with "dumm" and "lamm" and "komm".

              So the decision whether to use the short word exception should be
              influenced by the existence of potential clashes with words that follow
              the standard orthography. These overlaps make the exceptions seem
              ridiculous. Oh, just thought of another: *et [Et] and *et [e:t]. One
              means "it" and one means "eat". It'd be better, I think, to have the
              pronoun as *ett. Also "t" is another thin letter. Another clash is *is
              [Is] and *is [i:s]. One means "is" (3rd person singular of to be) and
              one means "ice". Not sure how to solve this one -- *iss is
              strange-looking: maybe use *ist or *es or discard this irregular
              conjugation altogether. It would be a pity to discard a conjugation that
              is shared by most of our source languages and has lovely cognates in
              other Indo-European languages.

              Another consideration would be whether there are derived words from
              these "short" words that get suffixes that need a second consonant. Eg
              *inner, *upper. There's no need for a *ommer or *anner comparative (so
              far as I can tell). Also *om and *an don't clash with an existing long
              vowel word (I haven't thought of one ... maybe there is)

              So with *an and *om, there are good grounds to follow this "short"
              exception. Or at least, it does no harm. With *in and *up, less so. With
              *al and *et and *is, it's not such a good idea.



              chamavian wrote:
              >
              > Hei David,
              >
              > "Al" with one l, means English "all".
              > Remember United Folkspraak (UFS), which combines the three main recent
              > varieties of FS, yours, Stephan's and mine?
              >
              > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak/database?method=reportRows&tbl=8
              > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak/database?method=reportRows&tbl=8>
              >
              > UFS has single final consonants in much-used, monosyllabic words
              > like in, up, ik, al etc.
              >
              > Btw: I think we should go on with UFS, it's the closest we ever got to
              > a single Folkspraak we all agreed on..
              >
              > Ingmar
              >
              > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "David" <parked@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Ja Ik oek! Gelykkig ny jar to all de folken af dis wonderlik planeet.
              > >
              > > Ik hop dat 2010 schall wese en fruktbar ond fridlik jar for all.
              > > De recession is najgenog beslyted ond nu de wereld kann kontinuere
              > etts gewonlik kurtsejtig marsch fort to ferderving ;-)
              > >
              > > BTW Cham, Ik tenk dat en "al" is en sort af slimig, slang-formig
              > fisch. Menede du "all"? Mid en kurt vokal?
              > >
              > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar.
              > > > Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010
              > > >
              > > > Ingmar
              > > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              >
              > No virus found in this incoming message.
              > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              > Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2597 - Release Date: 01/02/10 08:22:00
              >
              >



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

              Yahoo! Groups Links



              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
              http://mail.yahoo.com

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • chamavian
              Real hard questions... The best would be of course to have a regular system: al, in, up, God with short vowels, vs uut, aal, good with long ones. all, inn,
              Message 6 of 15 , Jan 3, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Real hard questions...

                The best would be of course to have a regular system:

                al, in, up, God with short vowels, vs uut, aal, good with long ones.

                all, inn, upp, Godd with short vowels, versus long vowels ut, al, god.


                Compare

                "ikk iss inn lykk datt ikk kann komm upp datt stadd midd diss buss"

                with

                "ik is in lyk dat ik kan kom up dat stad mid dis bus"

                =
                I am in luck that I can come up that town with this bus.

                The former hurts the eyes to be fair, butt thiss iss nott ass badd ass itt wass, I mean with the irregular, unpredictable spellings we are using until now?



                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@...> wrote:
                >
                > Gelücklik nü jar! (Do we already have this sentence in UFS?)
                >
                > "all"
                > I haven't found an entry for "all" for UFS, is there any? In Sprak it is "all".
                >
                > "an(n)"
                > The adverb "on" is "an" in Sprak with a long vowel. The preposition "on" is short in Sprak and is written "an", too. (Short vowel exception.) The same applies for other adverbs/prepositions like "ut", "in", "om", "up". I did so in order to give credit to long and short vowels (diphtongs respectively) in the source languages (like English "up" and German "auf") and the fact, that in German the same happens with "ein" / "in" (adverb / preposition respetively). In other words, adverbs lose their length when used as prepositions. This is rather a pronunciation rule in Sprak.
                > Derivations of "an" are Sprak "anlik" ("similar") and Sprak "ane" ("to divine", "to guess").
                >
                > "is(s)"
                > "is" is "is" in Sprak. It appears to have a long vowel. I could imagine "iss", too, with a short vowel. The more regular form would be "er" (with a long vowel) for all forms of present tense "wese". (And "ice" is "is" in Sprak.)
                >
                > Regards,
                > Stephan
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > Von: David Parke <parked@...>
                > An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 12:09:49 Uhr
                > Betreff: Re: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                >
                > Yes, I could understand "al" from the context, and also thought that it
                > could be a lapse into Dutch ;-) That and "kom" with a single m. Should
                > this word have a short or long vowel?? Whereas I mostly agree with the
                > rule about "short" words, which exact words fall into that category is
                > problematic. In the case of "al", you have the problem that another
                > potential word exists which correctly follows the open/closed syllable
                > orthography, and you have potential for confusion. "Al" [a:l] probably
                > is the UFS word for "eel"
                > Again, this whole short word issue is just one of aesthetic preferences.
                > "all" doesn't look bad to me, perhaps because I am from an
                > English-speaking background. Also it is "all" in other languages such as
                > German/Danish/Norwegian/Swedish. It could also be that "all" looks
                > acceptable because L is a "thin" letter. Doubled ls are not
                > overwhelming. On the other hand *omm looks too strange, too fat for such
                > a small word.*upp looks somewhat acceptable -- probably looks just fine
                > to a Swedish speaker :-) It also seems absurd to have *up (short vowel)
                > alongside *ut (long vowel).
                > So it's subjective, and it's funny that this aversion to these doubled
                > letters only seems to affect (for me) the pronouns and prepositions. The
                > star attractions of the language, the nouns, verbs and adjectives don't
                > bother me. I am perfectly happy with "dumm" and "lamm" and "komm".
                >
                > So the decision whether to use the short word exception should be
                > influenced by the existence of potential clashes with words that follow
                > the standard orthography. These overlaps make the exceptions seem
                > ridiculous. Oh, just thought of another: *et [Et] and *et [e:t]. One
                > means "it" and one means "eat". It'd be better, I think, to have the
                > pronoun as *ett. Also "t" is another thin letter. Another clash is *is
                > [Is] and *is [i:s]. One means "is" (3rd person singular of to be) and
                > one means "ice". Not sure how to solve this one -- *iss is
                > strange-looking: maybe use *ist or *es or discard this irregular
                > conjugation altogether. It would be a pity to discard a conjugation that
                > is shared by most of our source languages and has lovely cognates in
                > other Indo-European languages.
                >
                > Another consideration would be whether there are derived words from
                > these "short" words that get suffixes that need a second consonant. Eg
                > *inner, *upper. There's no need for a *ommer or *anner comparative (so
                > far as I can tell). Also *om and *an don't clash with an existing long
                > vowel word (I haven't thought of one ... maybe there is)
                >
                > So with *an and *om, there are good grounds to follow this "short"
                > exception. Or at least, it does no harm. With *in and *up, less so. With
                > *al and *et and *is, it's not such a good idea.
                >
                >
                >
                > chamavian wrote:
                > >
                > > Hei David,
                > >
                > > "Al" with one l, means English "all".
                > > Remember United Folkspraak (UFS), which combines the three main recent
                > > varieties of FS, yours, Stephan's and mine?
                > >
                > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak/database?method=reportRows&tbl=8
                > > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak/database?method=reportRows&tbl=8>
                > >
                > > UFS has single final consonants in much-used, monosyllabic words
                > > like in, up, ik, al etc.
                > >
                > > Btw: I think we should go on with UFS, it's the closest we ever got to
                > > a single Folkspraak we all agreed on..
                > >
                > > Ingmar
                > >
                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Ja Ik oek! Gelykkig ny jar to all de folken af dis wonderlik planeet.
                > > >
                > > > Ik hop dat 2010 schall wese en fruktbar ond fridlik jar for all.
                > > > De recession is najgenog beslyted ond nu de wereld kann kontinuere
                > > etts gewonlik kurtsejtig marsch fort to ferderving ;-)
                > > >
                > > > BTW Cham, Ik tenk dat en "al" is en sort af slimig, slang-formig
                > > fisch. Menede du "all"? Mid en kurt vokal?
                > > >
                > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar.
                > > > > Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010
                > > > >
                > > > > Ingmar
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > >
                > >
                > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                > > Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2597 - Release Date: 01/02/10 08:22:00
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                > __________________________________________________
                > Do You Yahoo!?
                > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                > http://mail.yahoo.com
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Stephan Schneider
                predictable / hurts the eyes In my opinion, doubled vowels and doubled consonants hurt the eyes. Therefore we should avoid them where they are likely to
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 3, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  "predictable" / "hurts the eyes"
                  In my opinion, doubled vowels and doubled consonants hurt the eyes. Therefore we should avoid them where they are likely to occur: doubled vowels in nouns, verbs, adjectives:
                  Nouns: spraak, school, daal, tuun -> sprak, schol, dal, tun
                  Verbs: geeve, grööte, haave -> geve, gröte, have
                  Adjectives: groot, miin, nüü -> grot, min, nü
                  For this kind of words the "non-dutch spelling" is preferable.

                  On the other hand, doubled consonants are likely to occur often in articles, pronouns, prepositions and suffixes:
                  Articles: enn > en
                  Pronouns: ick/ikk > ik
                  Prepositions: inn > in
                  Suffixes: -lick/-likk, -err, -inn > -lik, -er, -in
                  For this kind of words the "dutch spelling" is preferable.

                  This is predictable and less painful to the eyes.

                  Regards,
                  Stephan



                  ________________________________
                  Von: chamavian <roerd096@...>
                  An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 18:31:15 Uhr
                  Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!


                  Real hard questions...

                  The best would be of course to have a regular system:

                  al, in, up, God with short vowels, vs uut, aal, good with long ones.

                  all, inn, upp, Godd with short vowels, versus long vowels ut, al, god.

                  Compare

                  "ikk iss inn lykk datt ikk kann komm upp datt stadd midd diss buss"

                  with

                  "ik is in lyk dat ik kan kom up dat stad mid dis bus"

                  =
                  I am in luck that I can come up that town with this bus.

                  The former hurts the eyes to be fair, butt thiss iss nott ass badd ass itt wass, I mean with the irregular, unpredictable spellings we are using until now?

                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@. ..> wrote:
                  >
                  > Gelücklik nü jar! (Do we already have this sentence in UFS?)
                  >
                  > "all"
                  > I haven't found an entry for "all" for UFS, is there any? In Sprak it is "all".
                  >
                  > "an(n)"
                  > The adverb "on" is "an" in Sprak with a long vowel. The preposition "on" is short in Sprak and is written "an", too. (Short vowel exception.) The same applies for other adverbs/preposition s like "ut", "in", "om", "up". I did so in order to give credit to long and short vowels (diphtongs respectively) in the source languages (like English "up" and German "auf") and the fact, that in German the same happens with "ein" / "in" (adverb / preposition respetively) . In other words, adverbs lose their length when used as prepositions. This is rather a pronunciation rule in Sprak.
                  > Derivations of "an" are Sprak "anlik" ("similar") and Sprak "ane" ("to divine", "to guess").
                  >
                  > "is(s)"
                  > "is" is "is" in Sprak. It appears to have a long vowel. I could imagine "iss", too, with a short vowel. The more regular form would be "er" (with a long vowel) for all forms of present tense "wese". (And "ice" is "is" in Sprak.)
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  > Stephan
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ____________ _________ _________ __
                  > Von: David Parke <parked@...>
                  > An: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                  > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 12:09:49 Uhr
                  > Betreff: Re: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                  >
                  > Yes, I could understand "al" from the context, and also thought that it
                  > could be a lapse into Dutch ;-) That and "kom" with a single m. Should
                  > this word have a short or long vowel?? Whereas I mostly agree with the
                  > rule about "short" words, which exact words fall into that category is
                  > problematic.. In the case of "al", you have the problem that another
                  > potential word exists which correctly follows the open/closed syllable
                  > orthography, and you have potential for confusion. "Al" [a:l] probably
                  > is the UFS word for "eel"
                  > Again, this whole short word issue is just one of aesthetic preferences.
                  > "all" doesn't look bad to me, perhaps because I am from an
                  > English-speaking background. Also it is "all" in other languages such as
                  > German/Danish/ Norwegian/ Swedish. It could also be that "all" looks
                  > acceptable because L is a "thin" letter. Doubled ls are not
                  > overwhelming. On the other hand *omm looks too strange, too fat for such
                  > a small word.*upp looks somewhat acceptable -- probably looks just fine
                  > to a Swedish speaker :-) It also seems absurd to have *up (short vowel)
                  > alongside *ut (long vowel).
                  > So it's subjective, and it's funny that this aversion to these doubled
                  > letters only seems to affect (for me) the pronouns and prepositions. The
                  > star attractions of the language, the nouns, verbs and adjectives don't
                  > bother me. I am perfectly happy with "dumm" and "lamm" and "komm".
                  >
                  > So the decision whether to use the short word exception should be
                  > influenced by the existence of potential clashes with words that follow
                  > the standard orthography. These overlaps make the exceptions seem
                  > ridiculous. Oh, just thought of another: *et [Et] and *et [e:t]. One
                  > means "it" and one means "eat". It'd be better, I think, to have the
                  > pronoun as *ett. Also "t" is another thin letter. Another clash is *is
                  > [Is] and *is [i:s]. One means "is" (3rd person singular of to be) and
                  > one means "ice". Not sure how to solve this one -- *iss is
                  > strange-looking: maybe use *ist or *es or discard this irregular
                  > conjugation altogether. It would be a pity to discard a conjugation that
                  > is shared by most of our source languages and has lovely cognates in
                  > other Indo-European languages.
                  >
                  > Another consideration would be whether there are derived words from
                  > these "short" words that get suffixes that need a second consonant. Eg
                  > *inner, *upper. There's no need for a *ommer or *anner comparative (so
                  > far as I can tell). Also *om and *an don't clash with an existing long
                  > vowel word (I haven't thought of one ... maybe there is)
                  >
                  > So with *an and *om, there are good grounds to follow this "short"
                  > exception. Or at least, it does no harm. With *in and *up, less so. With
                  > *al and *et and *is, it's not such a good idea.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > chamavian wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Hei David,
                  > >
                  > > "Al" with one l, means English "all".
                  > > Remember United Folkspraak (UFS), which combines the three main recent
                  > > varieties of FS, yours, Stephan's and mine?
                  > >
                  > > http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ folkspraak/ database? method=reportRow s&tbl=8
                  > > <http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ folkspraak/ database? method=reportRow s&tbl=8>
                  > >
                  > > UFS has single final consonants in much-used, monosyllabic words
                  > > like in, up, ik, al etc.
                  > >
                  > > Btw: I think we should go on with UFS, it's the closest we ever got to
                  > > a single Folkspraak we all agreed on..
                  > >
                  > > Ingmar
                  > >
                  > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                  > > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Ja Ik oek! Gelykkig ny jar to all de folken af dis wonderlik planeet.
                  > > >
                  > > > Ik hop dat 2010 schall wese en fruktbar ond fridlik jar for all.
                  > > > De recession is najgenog beslyted ond nu de wereld kann kontinuere
                  > > etts gewonlik kurtsejtig marsch fort to ferderving ;-)
                  > > >
                  > > > BTW Cham, Ik tenk dat en "al" is en sort af slimig, slang-formig
                  > > fisch. Menede du "all"? Mid en kurt vokal?
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                  > > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar.
                  > > > > Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Ingmar
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  > > Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2597 - Release Date: 01/02/10 08:22:00
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                  > http://mail. yahoo.com
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >




                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • chamavian
                  Yes, but then we d have: Ik is up de is an de dik mid din han in min hand = I am on the ice by the dike with your cock in my hand NB: cock as a fowl!!! [Ik Is
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jan 3, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes, but then we'd have:

                    Ik is up de is an de dik mid din han in min hand

                    = I am on the ice by the dike with your cock in my hand

                    NB: cock as a fowl!!!

                    [Ik Is Up d@ i:s an d@ di:k mId di:n ha:n In mi:n hand]


                    in (short) and min (long) in - my/mine
                    up (short) and ut (long) up - out
                    is (short) and is (long) is - ice
                    an (short) and han (long) on/at - cock/rooster
                    ik (short) and dik (long) I - dike
                    etc.

                    which might be still easy enough for us, but I doubt that it would be clear for everyone, for learners. Constructed languages with lingua franca ambitions would usually be simpler and more regular than its parent languages. Also because there are no native speakers, who could predict the written language by their spoken one.

                    Ikk iss upp de is ann de dik midd din han inn min hand, or
                    Ick is upp de is ann de dik midd din han inn min hand, or
                    Ik is up de iis an de diik mid diin haan in miin hand, or
                    Ik is up de ys an de dyk mid dyn haan in myn hand







                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > "predictable" / "hurts the eyes"
                    > In my opinion, doubled vowels and doubled consonants hurt the eyes. Therefore we should avoid them where they are likely to occur: doubled vowels in nouns, verbs, adjectives:
                    > Nouns: spraak, school, daal, tuun -> sprak, schol, dal, tun
                    > Verbs: geeve, grööte, haave -> geve, gröte, have
                    > Adjectives: groot, miin, nüü -> grot, min, nü
                    > For this kind of words the "non-dutch spelling" is preferable.
                    >
                    > On the other hand, doubled consonants are likely to occur often in articles, pronouns, prepositions and suffixes:
                    > Articles: enn > en
                    > Pronouns: ick/ikk > ik
                    > Prepositions: inn > in
                    > Suffixes: -lick/-likk, -err, -inn > -lik, -er, -in
                    > For this kind of words the "dutch spelling" is preferable.
                    >
                    > This is predictable and less painful to the eyes.
                    >
                    > Regards,
                    > Stephan
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > Von: chamavian <roerd096@...>
                    > An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                    > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 18:31:15 Uhr
                    > Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                    >
                    >
                    > Real hard questions...
                    >
                    > The best would be of course to have a regular system:
                    >
                    > al, in, up, God with short vowels, vs uut, aal, good with long ones.
                    >
                    > all, inn, upp, Godd with short vowels, versus long vowels ut, al, god.
                    >
                    > Compare
                    >
                    > "ikk iss inn lykk datt ikk kann komm upp datt stadd midd diss buss"
                    >
                    > with
                    >
                    > "ik is in lyk dat ik kan kom up dat stad mid dis bus"
                    >
                    > =
                    > I am in luck that I can come up that town with this bus.
                    >
                    > The former hurts the eyes to be fair, butt thiss iss nott ass badd ass itt wass, I mean with the irregular, unpredictable spellings we are using until now?
                    >
                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@ ..> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Gelücklik nü jar! (Do we already have this sentence in UFS?)
                    > >
                    > > "all"
                    > > I haven't found an entry for "all" for UFS, is there any? In Sprak it is "all".
                    > >
                    > > "an(n)"
                    > > The adverb "on" is "an" in Sprak with a long vowel. The preposition "on" is short in Sprak and is written "an", too. (Short vowel exception.) The same applies for other adverbs/preposition s like "ut", "in", "om", "up". I did so in order to give credit to long and short vowels (diphtongs respectively) in the source languages (like English "up" and German "auf") and the fact, that in German the same happens with "ein" / "in" (adverb / preposition respetively) . In other words, adverbs lose their length when used as prepositions. This is rather a pronunciation rule in Sprak.
                    > > Derivations of "an" are Sprak "anlik" ("similar") and Sprak "ane" ("to divine", "to guess").
                    > >
                    > > "is(s)"
                    > > "is" is "is" in Sprak. It appears to have a long vowel. I could imagine "iss", too, with a short vowel. The more regular form would be "er" (with a long vowel) for all forms of present tense "wese". (And "ice" is "is" in Sprak.)
                    > >
                    > > Regards,
                    > > Stephan
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ____________ _________ _________ __
                    > > Von: David Parke <parked@>
                    > > An: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                    > > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 12:09:49 Uhr
                    > > Betreff: Re: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                    > >
                    > > Yes, I could understand "al" from the context, and also thought that it
                    > > could be a lapse into Dutch ;-) That and "kom" with a single m. Should
                    > > this word have a short or long vowel?? Whereas I mostly agree with the
                    > > rule about "short" words, which exact words fall into that category is
                    > > problematic.. In the case of "al", you have the problem that another
                    > > potential word exists which correctly follows the open/closed syllable
                    > > orthography, and you have potential for confusion. "Al" [a:l] probably
                    > > is the UFS word for "eel"
                    > > Again, this whole short word issue is just one of aesthetic preferences.
                    > > "all" doesn't look bad to me, perhaps because I am from an
                    > > English-speaking background. Also it is "all" in other languages such as
                    > > German/Danish/ Norwegian/ Swedish. It could also be that "all" looks
                    > > acceptable because L is a "thin" letter. Doubled ls are not
                    > > overwhelming. On the other hand *omm looks too strange, too fat for such
                    > > a small word.*upp looks somewhat acceptable -- probably looks just fine
                    > > to a Swedish speaker :-) It also seems absurd to have *up (short vowel)
                    > > alongside *ut (long vowel).
                    > > So it's subjective, and it's funny that this aversion to these doubled
                    > > letters only seems to affect (for me) the pronouns and prepositions. The
                    > > star attractions of the language, the nouns, verbs and adjectives don't
                    > > bother me. I am perfectly happy with "dumm" and "lamm" and "komm".
                    > >
                    > > So the decision whether to use the short word exception should be
                    > > influenced by the existence of potential clashes with words that follow
                    > > the standard orthography. These overlaps make the exceptions seem
                    > > ridiculous. Oh, just thought of another: *et [Et] and *et [e:t]. One
                    > > means "it" and one means "eat". It'd be better, I think, to have the
                    > > pronoun as *ett. Also "t" is another thin letter. Another clash is *is
                    > > [Is] and *is [i:s]. One means "is" (3rd person singular of to be) and
                    > > one means "ice". Not sure how to solve this one -- *iss is
                    > > strange-looking: maybe use *ist or *es or discard this irregular
                    > > conjugation altogether. It would be a pity to discard a conjugation that
                    > > is shared by most of our source languages and has lovely cognates in
                    > > other Indo-European languages.
                    > >
                    > > Another consideration would be whether there are derived words from
                    > > these "short" words that get suffixes that need a second consonant. Eg
                    > > *inner, *upper. There's no need for a *ommer or *anner comparative (so
                    > > far as I can tell). Also *om and *an don't clash with an existing long
                    > > vowel word (I haven't thought of one ... maybe there is)
                    > >
                    > > So with *an and *om, there are good grounds to follow this "short"
                    > > exception. Or at least, it does no harm. With *in and *up, less so. With
                    > > *al and *et and *is, it's not such a good idea.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > chamavian wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Hei David,
                    > > >
                    > > > "Al" with one l, means English "all".
                    > > > Remember United Folkspraak (UFS), which combines the three main recent
                    > > > varieties of FS, yours, Stephan's and mine?
                    > > >
                    > > > http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ folkspraak/ database? method=reportRow s&tbl=8
                    > > > <http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ folkspraak/ database? method=reportRow s&tbl=8>
                    > > >
                    > > > UFS has single final consonants in much-used, monosyllabic words
                    > > > like in, up, ik, al etc.
                    > > >
                    > > > Btw: I think we should go on with UFS, it's the closest we ever got to
                    > > > a single Folkspraak we all agreed on..
                    > > >
                    > > > Ingmar
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                    > > > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Ja Ik oek! Gelykkig ny jar to all de folken af dis wonderlik planeet.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Ik hop dat 2010 schall wese en fruktbar ond fridlik jar for all.
                    > > > > De recession is najgenog beslyted ond nu de wereld kann kontinuere
                    > > > etts gewonlik kurtsejtig marsch fort to ferderving ;-)
                    > > > >
                    > > > > BTW Cham, Ik tenk dat en "al" is en sort af slimig, slang-formig
                    > > > fisch. Menede du "all"? Mid en kurt vokal?
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                    > > > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar.
                    > > > > > Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Ingmar
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                    > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    > > > Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2597 - Release Date: 01/02/10 08:22:00
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                    > >
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                    > > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                    > > http://mail. yahoo.com
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > __________________________________________________
                    > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                    > http://mail.yahoo.com
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  • Stephan Schneider
                    Yes, that s what we d have. I agree that for a beginner this sentence would be difficult to read, but that holds for all orthographies / pronunciation rules
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jan 3, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yes, that's what we'd have. I agree that for a beginner this sentence would be difficult to read, but that holds for all orthographies / pronunciation rules that you would need to explain first. For instance, it is not predictable whether "de" is long or short, or if "geve" has a short or long ending. A bavarian would pronounce it [ge:ve:], probably, not [ge:v@].

                      Regards,
                      Stephan



                      ________________________________
                      Von: chamavian <roerd096@...>
                      An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                      Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 21:33:56 Uhr
                      Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!


                      Yes, but then we'd have:

                      Ik is up de is an de dik mid din han in min hand

                      = I am on the ice by the dike with your cock in my hand

                      NB: cock as a fowl!!!

                      [Ik Is Up d@ i:s an d@ di:k mId di:n ha:n In mi:n hand]

                      in (short) and min (long) in - my/mine
                      up (short) and ut (long) up - out
                      is (short) and is (long) is - ice
                      an (short) and han (long) on/at - cock/rooster
                      ik (short) and dik (long) I - dike
                      etc.

                      which might be still easy enough for us, but I doubt that it would be clear for everyone, for learners. Constructed languages with lingua franca ambitions would usually be simpler and more regular than its parent languages. Also because there are no native speakers, who could predict the written language by their spoken one.

                      Ikk iss upp de is ann de dik midd din han inn min hand, or
                      Ick is upp de is ann de dik midd din han inn min hand, or
                      Ik is up de iis an de diik mid diin haan in miin hand, or
                      Ik is up de ys an de dyk mid dyn haan in myn hand

                      --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@. ..> wrote:
                      >
                      > "predictable" / "hurts the eyes"
                      > In my opinion, doubled vowels and doubled consonants hurt the eyes. Therefore we should avoid them where they are likely to occur: doubled vowels in nouns, verbs, adjectives:
                      > Nouns: spraak, school, daal, tuun -> sprak, schol, dal, tun
                      > Verbs: geeve, grööte, haave -> geve, gröte, have
                      > Adjectives: groot, miin, nüü -> grot, min, nü
                      > For this kind of words the "non-dutch spelling" is preferable.
                      >
                      > On the other hand, doubled consonants are likely to occur often in articles, pronouns, prepositions and suffixes:
                      > Articles: enn > en
                      > Pronouns: ick/ikk > ik
                      > Prepositions: inn > in
                      > Suffixes: -lick/-likk, -err, -inn > -lik, -er, -in
                      > For this kind of words the "dutch spelling" is preferable.
                      >
                      > This is predictable and less painful to the eyes.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Stephan
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ____________ _________ _________ __
                      > Von: chamavian <roerd096@.. .>
                      > An: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                      > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 18:31:15 Uhr
                      > Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                      >
                      >
                      > Real hard questions...
                      >
                      > The best would be of course to have a regular system:
                      >
                      > al, in, up, God with short vowels, vs uut, aal, good with long ones.
                      >
                      > all, inn, upp, Godd with short vowels, versus long vowels ut, al, god.
                      >
                      > Compare
                      >
                      > "ikk iss inn lykk datt ikk kann komm upp datt stadd midd diss buss"
                      >
                      > with
                      >
                      > "ik is in lyk dat ik kan kom up dat stad mid dis bus"
                      >
                      > =
                      > I am in luck that I can come up that town with this bus.
                      >
                      > The former hurts the eyes to be fair, butt thiss iss nott ass badd ass itt wass, I mean with the irregular, unpredictable spellings we are using until now?
                      >
                      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@ ..> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Gelücklik nü jar! (Do we already have this sentence in UFS?)
                      > >
                      > > "all"
                      > > I haven't found an entry for "all" for UFS, is there any? In Sprak it is "all".
                      > >
                      > > "an(n)"
                      > > The adverb "on" is "an" in Sprak with a long vowel. The preposition "on" is short in Sprak and is written "an", too. (Short vowel exception.) The same applies for other adverbs/preposition s like "ut", "in", "om", "up". I did so in order to give credit to long and short vowels (diphtongs respectively) in the source languages (like English "up" and German "auf") and the fact, that in German the same happens with "ein" / "in" (adverb / preposition respetively) . In other words, adverbs lose their length when used as prepositions. This is rather a pronunciation rule in Sprak.
                      > > Derivations of "an" are Sprak "anlik" ("similar") and Sprak "ane" ("to divine", "to guess").
                      > >
                      > > "is(s)"
                      > > "is" is "is" in Sprak. It appears to have a long vowel. I could imagine "iss", too, with a short vowel. The more regular form would be "er" (with a long vowel) for all forms of present tense "wese".. (And "ice" is "is" in Sprak.)
                      > >
                      > > Regards,
                      > > Stephan
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ____________ _________ _________ __
                      > > Von: David Parke <parked@>
                      > > An: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                      > > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 12:09:49 Uhr
                      > > Betreff: Re: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                      > >
                      > > Yes, I could understand "al" from the context, and also thought that it
                      > > could be a lapse into Dutch ;-) That and "kom" with a single m. Should
                      > > this word have a short or long vowel?? Whereas I mostly agree with the
                      > > rule about "short" words, which exact words fall into that category is
                      > > problematic. . In the case of "al", you have the problem that another
                      > > potential word exists which correctly follows the open/closed syllable
                      > > orthography, and you have potential for confusion. "Al" [a:l] probably
                      > > is the UFS word for "eel"
                      > > Again, this whole short word issue is just one of aesthetic preferences.
                      > > "all" doesn't look bad to me, perhaps because I am from an
                      > > English-speaking background. Also it is "all" in other languages such as
                      > > German/Danish/ Norwegian/ Swedish. It could also be that "all" looks
                      > > acceptable because L is a "thin" letter. Doubled ls are not
                      > > overwhelming. On the other hand *omm looks too strange, too fat for such
                      > > a small word.*upp looks somewhat acceptable -- probably looks just fine
                      > > to a Swedish speaker :-) It also seems absurd to have *up (short vowel)
                      > > alongside *ut (long vowel).
                      > > So it's subjective, and it's funny that this aversion to these doubled
                      > > letters only seems to affect (for me) the pronouns and prepositions. The
                      > > star attractions of the language, the nouns, verbs and adjectives don't
                      > > bother me. I am perfectly happy with "dumm" and "lamm" and "komm".
                      > >
                      > > So the decision whether to use the short word exception should be
                      > > influenced by the existence of potential clashes with words that follow
                      > > the standard orthography. These overlaps make the exceptions seem
                      > > ridiculous. Oh, just thought of another: *et [Et] and *et [e:t]. One
                      > > means "it" and one means "eat". It'd be better, I think, to have the
                      > > pronoun as *ett. Also "t" is another thin letter. Another clash is *is
                      > > [Is] and *is [i:s]. One means "is" (3rd person singular of to be) and
                      > > one means "ice". Not sure how to solve this one -- *iss is
                      > > strange-looking: maybe use *ist or *es or discard this irregular
                      > > conjugation altogether. It would be a pity to discard a conjugation that
                      > > is shared by most of our source languages and has lovely cognates in
                      > > other Indo-European languages.
                      > >
                      > > Another consideration would be whether there are derived words from
                      > > these "short" words that get suffixes that need a second consonant. Eg
                      > > *inner, *upper. There's no need for a *ommer or *anner comparative (so
                      > > far as I can tell). Also *om and *an don't clash with an existing long
                      > > vowel word (I haven't thought of one ... maybe there is)
                      > >
                      > > So with *an and *om, there are good grounds to follow this "short"
                      > > exception. Or at least, it does no harm. With *in and *up, less so. With
                      > > *al and *et and *is, it's not such a good idea.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > chamavian wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Hei David,
                      > > >
                      > > > "Al" with one l, means English "all".
                      > > > Remember United Folkspraak (UFS), which combines the three main recent
                      > > > varieties of FS, yours, Stephan's and mine?
                      > > >
                      > > > http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ folkspraak/ database? method=reportRow s&tbl=8
                      > > > <http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ folkspraak/ database? method=reportRow s&tbl=8>
                      > > >
                      > > > UFS has single final consonants in much-used, monosyllabic words
                      > > > like in, up, ik, al etc.
                      > > >
                      > > > Btw: I think we should go on with UFS, it's the closest we ever got to
                      > > > a single Folkspraak we all agreed on..
                      > > >
                      > > > Ingmar
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                      > > > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Ja Ik oek! Gelykkig ny jar to all de folken af dis wonderlik planeet.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Ik hop dat 2010 schall wese en fruktbar ond fridlik jar for all.
                      > > > > De recession is najgenog beslyted ond nu de wereld kann kontinuere
                      > > > etts gewonlik kurtsejtig marsch fort to ferderving ;-)
                      > > > >
                      > > > > BTW Cham, Ik tenk dat en "al" is en sort af slimig, slang-formig
                      > > > fisch. Menede du "all"? Mid en kurt vokal?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                      > > > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar.
                      > > > > > Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Ingmar
                      > > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                      > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      > > > Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2597 - Release Date: 01/02/10 08:22:00
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                      > >
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                      > > Do You Yahoo!?
                      > > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                      > > http://mail. yahoo.com
                      > >
                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                      > Do You Yahoo!?
                      > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                      > http://mail. yahoo.com
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >




                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                      http://mail.yahoo.com

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Parke
                      ... If you had said jur han , I would assume that the kind of cock was a chicken. But you used din which suggests a much more intimate relationship, so
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jan 3, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephan Schneider wrote:
                        >
                        > Yes, that's what we'd have. I agree that for a beginner this sentence
                        > would be difficult to read, but that holds for all orthographies /
                        > pronunciation rules that you would need to explain first. For
                        > instance, it is not predictable whether "de" is long or short, or if
                        > "geve" has a short or long ending. A bavarian would pronounce it
                        > [ge:ve:], probably, not [ge:v@].
                        >
                        > Regards,
                        > Stephan
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > Von: chamavian <roerd096@... <mailto:roerd096%40planet.nl>>
                        > An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 21:33:56 Uhr
                        > Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                        >
                        > Yes, but then we'd have:
                        >
                        > Ik is up de is an de dik mid din han in min hand
                        >
                        > = I am on the ice by the dike with your cock in my hand
                        >
                        > NB: cock as a fowl!!!
                        >

                        If you had said "jur han", I would assume that the kind of cock was a
                        chicken. But you used "din" which suggests a much more intimate
                        relationship, so could be the other kind of cock. ;-)

                        Maybe what we need to approach this issue is what is a "paradigm shift".
                        That's management speak that means we turn the conventional thinking on
                        it's head and inside out (and up it's own arse.)

                        Let's assume for the sake of argument/hypothetically that FOLKSPRAK DOES
                        NOT HAVE SHORT OR LONG VOWELS. That like a Romance language such as
                        Spanish, French or Italian, it doesn't much such a distinction. Instead
                        let us pretend that it has short and long consonants. Geminated
                        consonants like Italian for example. Also like Swedish! In this
                        hypothetical phonology we have an orthography where long consonant
                        phonemes are ALWAYS doubled. Now we can approach these words on the
                        basis of whether the consonant should be long (doubled) or not. We can
                        look at our source languages and investigate whether the cognate words
                        in these cases ever have doubled/geminated consonants. And we can decide
                        based on the majority of course.
                        Is the Consonant in on/an/aan ever doubled? Nope. So the consonant is
                        short. Single. Is the ahn in ahnen really related?
                        Is the consonant in I/ich/ik/jeg/jag doubled? Problematic, but all
                        things considered, I'd say no. So the consonant is short. Single.
                        Is the consonant in up/op/auf/op/opp/upp ever doubled? Yes in many cases
                        -- especially when you consider derived words such as upper. So
                        consonant is long. Doubled.

                        After we have decided on the length of the consonant (and thus whether
                        to double them), we then flip our perceptions back to the old way of
                        thinking. The length of vowel is determined by the length of the
                        consonant. So *an has a long vowel. *ik has a long vowel. *upp has a
                        short vowel.
                        So we'd have a few queer-looking short words with doubled consonants.
                        But not very many, the spelling system would stay regualar and we'd
                        avoid a truely hideous word like *omm.

                        Is there any sense in this approach or did I take too much LSD at New Years?


                        >
                        > [Ik Is Up d@ i:s an d@ di:k mId di:n ha:n In mi:n hand]
                        >
                        > in (short) and min (long) in - my/mine
                        > up (short) and ut (long) up - out
                        > is (short) and is (long) is - ice
                        > an (short) and han (long) on/at - cock/rooster
                        > ik (short) and dik (long) I - dike
                        > etc.
                        >
                        > which might be still easy enough for us, but I doubt that it would be
                        > clear for everyone, for learners. Constructed languages with lingua
                        > franca ambitions would usually be simpler and more regular than its
                        > parent languages. Also because there are no native speakers, who could
                        > predict the written language by their spoken one.
                        >
                        > Ikk iss upp de is ann de dik midd din han inn min hand, or
                        > Ick is upp de is ann de dik midd din han inn min hand, or
                        > Ik is up de iis an de diik mid diin haan in miin hand, or
                        > Ik is up de ys an de dyk mid dyn haan in myn hand
                        >
                        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@. ..>
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > "predictable" / "hurts the eyes"
                        > > In my opinion, doubled vowels and doubled consonants hurt the eyes.
                        > Therefore we should avoid them where they are likely to occur: doubled
                        > vowels in nouns, verbs, adjectives:
                        > > Nouns: spraak, school, daal, tuun -> sprak, schol, dal, tun
                        > > Verbs: geeve, grööte, haave -> geve, gröte, have
                        > > Adjectives: groot, miin, nüü -> grot, min, nü
                        > > For this kind of words the "non-dutch spelling" is preferable.
                        > >
                        > > On the other hand, doubled consonants are likely to occur often in
                        > articles, pronouns, prepositions and suffixes:
                        > > Articles: enn > en
                        > > Pronouns: ick/ikk > ik
                        > > Prepositions: inn > in
                        > > Suffixes: -lick/-likk, -err, -inn > -lik, -er, -in
                        > > For this kind of words the "dutch spelling" is preferable.
                        > >
                        > > This is predictable and less painful to the eyes.
                        > >
                        > > Regards,
                        > > Stephan
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ____________ _________ _________ __
                        > > Von: chamavian <roerd096@.. .>
                        > > An: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                        > > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 18:31:15 Uhr
                        > > Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Real hard questions...
                        > >
                        > > The best would be of course to have a regular system:
                        > >
                        > > al, in, up, God with short vowels, vs uut, aal, good with long ones.
                        > >
                        > > all, inn, upp, Godd with short vowels, versus long vowels ut, al, god.
                        > >
                        > > Compare
                        > >
                        > > "ikk iss inn lykk datt ikk kann komm upp datt stadd midd diss buss"
                        > >
                        > > with
                        > >
                        > > "ik is in lyk dat ik kan kom up dat stad mid dis bus"
                        > >
                        > > =
                        > > I am in luck that I can come up that town with this bus.
                        > >
                        > > The former hurts the eyes to be fair, butt thiss iss nott ass badd
                        > ass itt wass, I mean with the irregular, unpredictable spellings we
                        > are using until now?
                        > >
                        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@
                        > ..> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Gelücklik nü jar! (Do we already have this sentence in UFS?)
                        > > >
                        > > > "all"
                        > > > I haven't found an entry for "all" for UFS, is there any? In Sprak
                        > it is "all".
                        > > >
                        > > > "an(n)"
                        > > > The adverb "on" is "an" in Sprak with a long vowel. The
                        > preposition "on" is short in Sprak and is written "an", too. (Short
                        > vowel exception.) The same applies for other adverbs/preposition s
                        > like "ut", "in", "om", "up". I did so in order to give credit to long
                        > and short vowels (diphtongs respectively) in the source languages
                        > (like English "up" and German "auf") and the fact, that in German the
                        > same happens with "ein" / "in" (adverb / preposition respetively) . In
                        > other words, adverbs lose their length when used as prepositions. This
                        > is rather a pronunciation rule in Sprak.
                        > > > Derivations of "an" are Sprak "anlik" ("similar") and Sprak "ane"
                        > ("to divine", "to guess").
                        > > >
                        > > > "is(s)"
                        > > > "is" is "is" in Sprak. It appears to have a long vowel. I could
                        > imagine "iss", too, with a short vowel. The more regular form would be
                        > "er" (with a long vowel) for all forms of present tense "wese".. (And
                        > "ice" is "is" in Sprak.)
                        > > >
                        > > > Regards,
                        > > > Stephan
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
                        > > > Von: David Parke <parked@>
                        > > > An: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                        > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 3. Januar 2010, 12:09:49 Uhr
                        > > > Betreff: Re: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                        > > >
                        > > > Yes, I could understand "al" from the context, and also thought
                        > that it
                        > > > could be a lapse into Dutch ;-) That and "kom" with a single m.
                        > Should
                        > > > this word have a short or long vowel?? Whereas I mostly agree with
                        > the
                        > > > rule about "short" words, which exact words fall into that
                        > category is
                        > > > problematic. . In the case of "al", you have the problem that another
                        > > > potential word exists which correctly follows the open/closed
                        > syllable
                        > > > orthography, and you have potential for confusion. "Al" [a:l]
                        > probably
                        > > > is the UFS word for "eel"
                        > > > Again, this whole short word issue is just one of aesthetic
                        > preferences.
                        > > > "all" doesn't look bad to me, perhaps because I am from an
                        > > > English-speaking background. Also it is "all" in other languages
                        > such as
                        > > > German/Danish/ Norwegian/ Swedish. It could also be that "all" looks
                        > > > acceptable because L is a "thin" letter. Doubled ls are not
                        > > > overwhelming. On the other hand *omm looks too strange, too fat
                        > for such
                        > > > a small word.*upp looks somewhat acceptable -- probably looks just
                        > fine
                        > > > to a Swedish speaker :-) It also seems absurd to have *up (short
                        > vowel)
                        > > > alongside *ut (long vowel).
                        > > > So it's subjective, and it's funny that this aversion to these
                        > doubled
                        > > > letters only seems to affect (for me) the pronouns and
                        > prepositions. The
                        > > > star attractions of the language, the nouns, verbs and adjectives
                        > don't
                        > > > bother me. I am perfectly happy with "dumm" and "lamm" and "komm".
                        > > >
                        > > > So the decision whether to use the short word exception should be
                        > > > influenced by the existence of potential clashes with words that
                        > follow
                        > > > the standard orthography. These overlaps make the exceptions seem
                        > > > ridiculous. Oh, just thought of another: *et [Et] and *et [e:t]. One
                        > > > means "it" and one means "eat". It'd be better, I think, to have the
                        > > > pronoun as *ett. Also "t" is another thin letter. Another clash is
                        > *is
                        > > > [Is] and *is [i:s]. One means "is" (3rd person singular of to be) and
                        > > > one means "ice". Not sure how to solve this one -- *iss is
                        > > > strange-looking: maybe use *ist or *es or discard this irregular
                        > > > conjugation altogether. It would be a pity to discard a
                        > conjugation that
                        > > > is shared by most of our source languages and has lovely cognates in
                        > > > other Indo-European languages.
                        > > >
                        > > > Another consideration would be whether there are derived words from
                        > > > these "short" words that get suffixes that need a second
                        > consonant. Eg
                        > > > *inner, *upper. There's no need for a *ommer or *anner comparative
                        > (so
                        > > > far as I can tell). Also *om and *an don't clash with an existing
                        > long
                        > > > vowel word (I haven't thought of one ... maybe there is)
                        > > >
                        > > > So with *an and *om, there are good grounds to follow this "short"
                        > > > exception. Or at least, it does no harm. With *in and *up, less
                        > so. With
                        > > > *al and *et and *is, it's not such a good idea.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > chamavian wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Hei David,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > "Al" with one l, means English "all".
                        > > > > Remember United Folkspraak (UFS), which combines the three main
                        > recent
                        > > > > varieties of FS, yours, Stephan's and mine?
                        > > > >
                        > > > > http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ folkspraak/ database?
                        > method=reportRow s&tbl=8
                        > > > > <http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ folkspraak/ database?
                        > method=reportRow s&tbl=8>
                        > > > >
                        > > > > UFS has single final consonants in much-used, monosyllabic words
                        > > > > like in, up, ik, al etc.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Btw: I think we should go on with UFS, it's the closest we ever
                        > got to
                        > > > > a single Folkspraak we all agreed on..
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Ingmar
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                        > > > > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Ja Ik oek! Gelykkig ny jar to all de folken af dis wonderlik
                        > planeet.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Ik hop dat 2010 schall wese en fruktbar ond fridlik jar for all.
                        > > > > > De recession is najgenog beslyted ond nu de wereld kann
                        > kontinuere
                        > > > > etts gewonlik kurtsejtig marsch fort to ferderving ;-)
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > BTW Cham, Ik tenk dat en "al" is en sort af slimig, slang-formig
                        > > > > fisch. Menede du "all"? Mid en kurt vokal?
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
                        > > > > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
                        > wrote:
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > Ik wynsch ju al en lykkig ny jar.
                        > > > > > > Lat al uns droeme kom ut in 2010
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > Ingmar
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                        > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                        > > > > Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2597 - Release
                        > Date: 01/02/10 08:22:00
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                        > > >
                        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                        > > > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > > > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen
                        > herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                        > > > http://mail. yahoo.com
                        > > >
                        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                        > > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden
                        > Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                        > > http://mail. yahoo.com
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        >
                        > __________________________________________________
                        > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden
                        > Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                        > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        >
                        >
                        > No virus found in this incoming message.
                        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                        > Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2598 - Release Date: 01/03/10 09:41:00
                        >
                        >
                      • Stephan Schneider
                        ... It is, according to Kluge. ... In Berlinish, it is doubled: icke (which is an emphasized form of ick ). ... Yes. ... I don t see the sense of this
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:

                          > Is the Consonant in on/an/aan ever doubled? Nope. So the consonant is
                          > short. Single. Is the ahn in ahnen really related?

                          It is, according to Kluge.

                          > Is the consonant in I/ich/ik/jeg/jag doubled? Problematic, but all
                          > things considered, I'd say no. So the consonant is short. Single.

                          In Berlinish, it is doubled: "icke" (which is an emphasized form of "ick").

                          > Is the consonant in up/op/auf/op/opp/upp ever doubled? Yes in many cases
                          > -- especially when you consider derived words such as upper. So
                          > consonant is long. Doubled.

                          Yes.

                          > After we have decided on the length of the consonant (and thus whether
                          > to double them), we then flip our perceptions back to the old way of
                          > thinking. The length of vowel is determined by the length of the
                          > consonant. So *an has a long vowel. *ik has a long vowel. *upp has a
                          > short vowel.
                          > So we'd have a few queer-looking short words with doubled consonants.
                          > But not very many, the spelling system would stay regualar and we'd
                          > avoid a truely hideous word like *omm.
                          >
                          > Is there any sense in this approach or did I take too much LSD at New Years?

                          I don't see the sense of this approach. If doubled consonants, long consonants and short vowels are part of the same phenomenon, it is just interesting for the history of evolution of sounds, but it doesn't change our problem. Maybe I need some of this LDS you're referring to. ;)

                          In either case, I'm in favour of "an", "ik", "om".

                          For your consideration: in order to illustrate my switching from a long vowel to a short vowel at adverbs/prepositions, I want to point out, that, in Sprak, in combination with "to" or "bi" (or any other preposition), an adverb like "in" [i:n] doesn't turn into a preposition, so its vowel remains long.

                          The men go into the house.
                          De mannen go in [i:n] to de hus.
                          De mannen go in [In] de hus.

                          The men are inside the house.
                          De mannen er in [i:n] bi de hus.
                          De mannen er in [In] de hus.
                        • chamavian
                          Like Berlinerisch icke , in Dutch ikke is the emphasized form of ik = I. Wie wil nog wat drinken? Ikke! = Ik wil nog wat drinken Who wants something more
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jan 9, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Like Berlinerisch "icke", in Dutch "ikke" is the emphasized form of "ik" = I.

                            Wie wil nog wat drinken? Ikke! = Ik wil nog wat drinken
                            Who wants something more to drink? Me! / I do!

                            There are more of these emphasized forms:

                            watte = wat what
                            datte = dat that
                            ditte = dit this

                            Ingmar

                            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Stephan Schneider" <stefichjo@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                            >
                            > > Is the Consonant in on/an/aan ever doubled? Nope. So the consonant is
                            > > short. Single. Is the ahn in ahnen really related?
                            >
                            > It is, according to Kluge.
                            >
                            > > Is the consonant in I/ich/ik/jeg/jag doubled? Problematic, but all
                            > > things considered, I'd say no. So the consonant is short. Single.
                            >
                            > In Berlinish, it is doubled: "icke" (which is an emphasized form of "ick").
                            >
                            > > Is the consonant in up/op/auf/op/opp/upp ever doubled? Yes in many cases
                            > > -- especially when you consider derived words such as upper. So
                            > > consonant is long. Doubled.
                            >
                            > Yes.
                            >
                            > > After we have decided on the length of the consonant (and thus whether
                            > > to double them), we then flip our perceptions back to the old way of
                            > > thinking. The length of vowel is determined by the length of the
                            > > consonant. So *an has a long vowel. *ik has a long vowel. *upp has a
                            > > short vowel.
                            > > So we'd have a few queer-looking short words with doubled consonants.
                            > > But not very many, the spelling system would stay regualar and we'd
                            > > avoid a truely hideous word like *omm.
                            > >
                            > > Is there any sense in this approach or did I take too much LSD at New Years?
                            >
                            > I don't see the sense of this approach. If doubled consonants, long consonants and short vowels are part of the same phenomenon, it is just interesting for the history of evolution of sounds, but it doesn't change our problem. Maybe I need some of this LDS you're referring to. ;)
                            >
                            > In either case, I'm in favour of "an", "ik", "om".
                            >
                            > For your consideration: in order to illustrate my switching from a long vowel to a short vowel at adverbs/prepositions, I want to point out, that, in Sprak, in combination with "to" or "bi" (or any other preposition), an adverb like "in" [i:n] doesn't turn into a preposition, so its vowel remains long.
                            >
                            > The men go into the house.
                            > De mannen go in [i:n] to de hus.
                            > De mannen go in [In] de hus.
                            >
                            > The men are inside the house.
                            > De mannen er in [i:n] bi de hus.
                            > De mannen er in [In] de hus.
                            >
                          • Stephan Schneider
                            Fascinating! In Berlinerisch we say ditte , too! Not datte and watte , even though dat and wat are very often. We use the emphasizer -e very often
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jan 11, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Fascinating! In Berlinerisch we say "ditte", too! Not "datte" and "watte", even though "dat" and "wat" are very often. We use the emphasizer "-e" very often with numerals: "eense", "zwee-e", *"dree-e", "viere", "fünve" ("fünfe"), "sechse", "sieme" ("siebene" -> "siebne" -> "sieme"), "achte", "neune", "zehne".

                              Wea will no' wat trink'n? Icke! = Ick will no' wat trink'n.

                              Stephan



                              ________________________________
                              Von: chamavian <roerd096@...>
                              An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                              Gesendet: Samstag, den 9. Januar 2010, 20:50:03 Uhr
                              Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!


                              Like Berlinerisch "icke", in Dutch "ikke" is the emphasized form of "ik" = I.

                              Wie wil nog wat drinken? Ikke! = Ik wil nog wat drinken
                              Who wants something more to drink? Me! / I do!

                              There are more of these emphasized forms:

                              watte = wat what
                              datte = dat that
                              ditte = dit this

                              Ingmar

                              --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "Stephan Schneider" <stefichjo@. ..> wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                              >
                              > > Is the Consonant in on/an/aan ever doubled? Nope. So the consonant is
                              > > short. Single. Is the ahn in ahnen really related?
                              >
                              > It is, according to Kluge.
                              >
                              > > Is the consonant in I/ich/ik/jeg/ jag doubled? Problematic, but all
                              > > things considered, I'd say no. So the consonant is short.. Single.
                              >
                              > In Berlinish, it is doubled: "icke" (which is an emphasized form of "ick").
                              >
                              > > Is the consonant in up/op/auf/op/ opp/upp ever doubled? Yes in many cases
                              > > -- especially when you consider derived words such as upper. So
                              > > consonant is long. Doubled.
                              >
                              > Yes.
                              >
                              > > After we have decided on the length of the consonant (and thus whether
                              > > to double them), we then flip our perceptions back to the old way of
                              > > thinking. The length of vowel is determined by the length of the
                              > > consonant. So *an has a long vowel. *ik has a long vowel. *upp has a
                              > > short vowel.
                              > > So we'd have a few queer-looking short words with doubled consonants.
                              > > But not very many, the spelling system would stay regualar and we'd
                              > > avoid a truely hideous word like *omm.
                              > >
                              > > Is there any sense in this approach or did I take too much LSD at New Years?
                              >
                              > I don't see the sense of this approach. If doubled consonants, long consonants and short vowels are part of the same phenomenon, it is just interesting for the history of evolution of sounds, but it doesn't change our problem. Maybe I need some of this LDS you're referring to. ;)
                              >
                              > In either case, I'm in favour of "an", "ik", "om".
                              >
                              > For your consideration: in order to illustrate my switching from a long vowel to a short vowel at adverbs/preposition s, I want to point out, that, in Sprak, in combination with "to" or "bi" (or any other preposition) , an adverb like "in" [i:n] doesn't turn into a preposition, so its vowel remains long.
                              >
                              > The men go into the house.
                              > De mannen go in [i:n] to de hus.
                              > De mannen go in [In] de hus.
                              >
                              > The men are inside the house.
                              > De mannen er in [i:n] bi de hus.
                              > De mannen er in [In] de hus.
                              >




                              __________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                              http://mail.yahoo.com

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • chamavian
                              Great! This shows clearly the Low Saxon (Low German) roots of Berlinerisch. Which is not surprising, because the city is completely surrounded by Low Saxon
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jan 11, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Great! This shows clearly the Low Saxon (Low German) roots of Berlinerisch. Which is not surprising, because the city is completely surrounded by Low Saxon speaking areas, and switched towards German only a few ages ago.

                                Btw: In Dutch, -e for numerals is not used, but it is in Low Saxon (in the Netherlands).
                                In Dutch Low Saxon, the cardinal numbers are (when counting):
                                ene, twe-e, dre-e, vere, vieve, zesse, zövvene, achte, neggene, tiene.
                                But with nouns, numerals don't have final -e:
                                een, twee, dree, veer, vief, zes, zövven, acht, neggen, tien.


                                In standard Dutch in both cases it's:
                                een, twee, drie, vier, vijf, zes, zeven, acht, negen, tien.

                                LoSax:
                                Wovölle kinder heste? Vere. Ik hebbe veer kinder.
                                Ik hebb' acht peerde. En ikke vieve.
                                Wovölle appele wil den kerl? Tiene, zeg he.

                                NL:
                                Hoeveel kinderen heb je? Vier. Ik heb vier kinderen.
                                Ik heb acht paarden. En ik vijf.
                                Hoeveel appels wil de man? Tien, zegt hij.

                                How many children do you have? Four. I have four children.
                                I have eight horses. And I have five.
                                How many apples does the man want? Ten, he says.





                                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Fascinating! In Berlinerisch we say "ditte", too! Not "datte" and "watte", even though "dat" and "wat" are very often. We use the emphasizer "-e" very often with numerals: "eense", "zwee-e", *"dree-e", "viere", "fünve" ("fünfe"), "sechse", "sieme" ("siebene" -> "siebne" -> "sieme"), "achte", "neune", "zehne".
                                >
                                > Wea will no' wat trink'n? Icke! = Ick will no' wat trink'n.
                                >
                                > Stephan
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ________________________________
                                > Von: chamavian <roerd096@...>
                                > An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                                > Gesendet: Samstag, den 9. Januar 2010, 20:50:03 Uhr
                                > Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                                >
                                >
                                > Like Berlinerisch "icke", in Dutch "ikke" is the emphasized form of "ik" = I.
                                >
                                > Wie wil nog wat drinken? Ikke! = Ik wil nog wat drinken
                                > Who wants something more to drink? Me! / I do!
                                >
                                > There are more of these emphasized forms:
                                >
                                > watte = wat what
                                > datte = dat that
                                > ditte = dit this
                                >
                                > Ingmar
                                >
                                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "Stephan Schneider" <stefichjo@ ..> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > Is the Consonant in on/an/aan ever doubled? Nope. So the consonant is
                                > > > short. Single. Is the ahn in ahnen really related?
                                > >
                                > > It is, according to Kluge.
                                > >
                                > > > Is the consonant in I/ich/ik/jeg/ jag doubled? Problematic, but all
                                > > > things considered, I'd say no. So the consonant is short.. Single.
                                > >
                                > > In Berlinish, it is doubled: "icke" (which is an emphasized form of "ick").
                                > >
                                > > > Is the consonant in up/op/auf/op/ opp/upp ever doubled? Yes in many cases
                                > > > -- especially when you consider derived words such as upper. So
                                > > > consonant is long. Doubled.
                                > >
                                > > Yes.
                                > >
                                > > > After we have decided on the length of the consonant (and thus whether
                                > > > to double them), we then flip our perceptions back to the old way of
                                > > > thinking. The length of vowel is determined by the length of the
                                > > > consonant. So *an has a long vowel. *ik has a long vowel. *upp has a
                                > > > short vowel.
                                > > > So we'd have a few queer-looking short words with doubled consonants.
                                > > > But not very many, the spelling system would stay regualar and we'd
                                > > > avoid a truely hideous word like *omm.
                                > > >
                                > > > Is there any sense in this approach or did I take too much LSD at New Years?
                                > >
                                > > I don't see the sense of this approach. If doubled consonants, long consonants and short vowels are part of the same phenomenon, it is just interesting for the history of evolution of sounds, but it doesn't change our problem. Maybe I need some of this LDS you're referring to. ;)
                                > >
                                > > In either case, I'm in favour of "an", "ik", "om".
                                > >
                                > > For your consideration: in order to illustrate my switching from a long vowel to a short vowel at adverbs/preposition s, I want to point out, that, in Sprak, in combination with "to" or "bi" (or any other preposition) , an adverb like "in" [i:n] doesn't turn into a preposition, so its vowel remains long.
                                > >
                                > > The men go into the house.
                                > > De mannen go in [i:n] to de hus.
                                > > De mannen go in [In] de hus.
                                > >
                                > > The men are inside the house.
                                > > De mannen er in [i:n] bi de hus.
                                > > De mannen er in [In] de hus.
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > __________________________________________________
                                > Do You Yahoo!?
                                > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                                > http://mail.yahoo.com
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • Stephan Schneider
                                ... Also in Berlinerisch, numerals don t have -e when used with nouns. In Sprak, -e is an ending for adjectives in order to turn them into nouns. (The one: de
                                Message 15 of 15 , Jan 12, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Great! This shows clearly the Low Saxon (Low German) roots of Berlinerisch. Which is not surprising, because the city is completely surrounded by Low Saxon speaking areas, and switched towards German only a few ages ago.
                                  >
                                  > Btw: In Dutch, -e for numerals is not used, but it is in Low Saxon (in the Netherlands).
                                  > In Dutch Low Saxon, the cardinal numbers are (when counting):
                                  > ene, twe-e, dre-e, vere, vieve, zesse, zövvene, achte, neggene, tiene.
                                  > But with nouns, numerals don't have final -e:
                                  > een, twee, dree, veer, vief, zes, zövven, acht, neggen, tien.

                                  Also in Berlinerisch, numerals don't have -e when used with nouns. In Sprak, -e is an ending for adjectives in order to turn them into nouns. (The one: "de eene" / "de ëne".)

                                  > In standard Dutch in both cases it's:
                                  > een, twee, drie, vier, vijf, zes, zeven, acht, negen, tien.
                                  >
                                  > LoSax:
                                  > Wovölle kinder heste? Vere. Ik hebbe veer kinder.
                                  > Ik hebb' acht peerde. En ikke vieve.
                                  > Wovölle appele wil den kerl? Tiene, zeg he.

                                  Berlinerisch:
                                  Wievülle Kinder haste? Viere. Ick habe vier Kinder.
                                  Ick hab acht Pferde. Un' icke fünfe.
                                  Wievülle Äppel will der Kerl? Zehne, saghta.

                                  ("saghta" = "sachta", but I prefer writing "gh" instead of "ch", because in Standard German it's "g" = "sagt er")

                                  Stephan

                                  > NL:
                                  > Hoeveel kinderen heb je? Vier. Ik heb vier kinderen.
                                  > Ik heb acht paarden. En ik vijf.
                                  > Hoeveel appels wil de man? Tien, zegt hij.
                                  >
                                  > How many children do you have? Four. I have four children.
                                  > I have eight horses. And I have five.
                                  > How many apples does the man want? Ten, he says.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Fascinating! In Berlinerisch we say "ditte", too! Not "datte" and "watte", even though "dat" and "wat" are very often. We use the emphasizer "-e" very often with numerals: "eense", "zwee-e", *"dree-e", "viere", "fünve" ("fünfe"), "sechse", "sieme" ("siebene" -> "siebne" -> "sieme"), "achte", "neune", "zehne".
                                  > >
                                  > > Wea will no' wat trink'n? Icke! = Ick will no' wat trink'n.
                                  > >
                                  > > Stephan
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > ________________________________
                                  > > Von: chamavian <roerd096@>
                                  > > An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > Gesendet: Samstag, den 9. Januar 2010, 20:50:03 Uhr
                                  > > Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: Lykkig ny jar!
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Like Berlinerisch "icke", in Dutch "ikke" is the emphasized form of "ik" = I.
                                  > >
                                  > > Wie wil nog wat drinken? Ikke! = Ik wil nog wat drinken
                                  > > Who wants something more to drink? Me! / I do!
                                  > >
                                  > > There are more of these emphasized forms:
                                  > >
                                  > > watte = wat what
                                  > > datte = dat that
                                  > > ditte = dit this
                                  > >
                                  > > Ingmar
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, "Stephan Schneider" <stefichjo@ ..> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > Is the Consonant in on/an/aan ever doubled? Nope. So the consonant is
                                  > > > > short. Single. Is the ahn in ahnen really related?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > It is, according to Kluge.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > Is the consonant in I/ich/ik/jeg/ jag doubled? Problematic, but all
                                  > > > > things considered, I'd say no. So the consonant is short.. Single.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > In Berlinish, it is doubled: "icke" (which is an emphasized form of "ick").
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > Is the consonant in up/op/auf/op/ opp/upp ever doubled? Yes in many cases
                                  > > > > -- especially when you consider derived words such as upper. So
                                  > > > > consonant is long. Doubled.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Yes.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > After we have decided on the length of the consonant (and thus whether
                                  > > > > to double them), we then flip our perceptions back to the old way of
                                  > > > > thinking. The length of vowel is determined by the length of the
                                  > > > > consonant. So *an has a long vowel. *ik has a long vowel. *upp has a
                                  > > > > short vowel.
                                  > > > > So we'd have a few queer-looking short words with doubled consonants.
                                  > > > > But not very many, the spelling system would stay regualar and we'd
                                  > > > > avoid a truely hideous word like *omm.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Is there any sense in this approach or did I take too much LSD at New Years?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > I don't see the sense of this approach. If doubled consonants, long consonants and short vowels are part of the same phenomenon, it is just interesting for the history of evolution of sounds, but it doesn't change our problem. Maybe I need some of this LDS you're referring to. ;)
                                  > > >
                                  > > > In either case, I'm in favour of "an", "ik", "om".
                                  > > >
                                  > > > For your consideration: in order to illustrate my switching from a long vowel to a short vowel at adverbs/preposition s, I want to point out, that, in Sprak, in combination with "to" or "bi" (or any other preposition) , an adverb like "in" [i:n] doesn't turn into a preposition, so its vowel remains long.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > The men go into the house.
                                  > > > De mannen go in [i:n] to de hus.
                                  > > > De mannen go in [In] de hus.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > The men are inside the house.
                                  > > > De mannen er in [i:n] bi de hus.
                                  > > > De mannen er in [In] de hus.
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > __________________________________________________
                                  > > Do You Yahoo!?
                                  > > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
                                  > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                                  > >
                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  > >
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.