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

Re: Skandinavisk

Expand Messages
  • linusband
    I am not sure if I completely understood, but if I m correct, part of the problem is about the spelling getting in the way with what seems natural looking AND
    Message 1 of 22 , Jun 23, 2011
      I am not sure if I completely understood, but if I'm correct, part of the problem is about the spelling getting in the way with what seems natural looking AND historically correct to us. Even though *ann and *iss are not visually pleasing perhaps, though do agree with the spellingsystem of indicating vowel length through the following consonant cluster. The only way of doing away with these, is by 1. making an exception to the rule where one writes *an and *is but has to learn to pronounce them short; 2. introduce diacritics, e.g. *àn and *ìs; 3. change the spellingsystem to one where vowel length is indicated by writing a vowel double, e.g. *is [is] 'is', but *iis [i:s] 'ice'. I myself don't like the first one, as it would make these very common words very common to mispronunciation, and don't like the second one because it would add a second way of indicating short vowel within one system. I like the third option, but I can imagine a lot of double writings of vowels might look alien to most germanic speakers.
      Ergo conclusio, we'll just have to stick to the system we have and accept that there will always be spellings that look weird, but at least they'll be unambiguous. Historical spellings are found in each of the germanic languages, and even if they might be what we're used to, they have no place in my opinion in an auxiliary language that is supposed to be easily learned by all.

      Now, concerning [ek] or [e:k], Dutch, German, Frisian, Saxon have a short vowel, whereas Danish, Swedish and English have a long vowel. I don't know about Nynorsk, if eg is long or short. Anyway, we could say that the majority seems to lean towards short. Therefor I propose [ek] with the corresponding spelling EKK.

      Now, West-Germanic clearly seems to point to short /is/, I do not know about Scandinavian though, is /er/ long or short? I like the combining of both forms into /es/, but we'll just have to see whether it'll be ES or ESS.

      About German ein, do consider that in the meaning of 'in' it only occurs in compounds as hinein and (he)rein. On its own ein would only mean 'one' or 'a', so I think that German counts as a short vowel. I do however think that it'd be fair to the scandinavians to include their long vowel and just add a West-Germanic -n to it, so I am a proponent of IN [i:n].

      I agree on a long AN [a:n], as only English, German and Saxon seem to have a short vowel, and once again, as the Scandinavian languages only have long å to go with, their incorporation into the form can only be obtained by the lengthening of the vowel, after which we can once again slap on WG -n.

      I'm afraid I can't say much about AV, as I only know for sure that Dutch and German have short vowels. English seems short as well, not sure though.

      About Scandinavian HVAD/VAD, I know that Danish has a short vowel there, and that the -D is a dental approximant (so it is pronounced, but weakly). Swedish pronounces it as /va:/. All languages agree on something like /va(:)/. WG + Danish point to a short vowel, which thereby form the majority. The last consonant is problematic, as Saxon, English, Dutch and Frisian point to -t, German has -s, Swedish and Nynorsk have -zero and Danish almost -zero. I am actually thinking of proposing WA [wa] here, as Dialectal English and Dutch (my Dutch) also have no final -t (I am aware of the problems of starting to include dialectal forms). Any idea's on how to write a short open vowel? Otherwise I'd propose WATT.

      That's it for now, I need to get back to work.

      Cheers!

      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
      >
      > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch) it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
      >
      > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the North Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
      >
      > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the FS word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
      >
      > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek] and [es].
      >
      > UP and IN can have a long vowel, since German AUF and German EIN (next to Germ. IN), and Scandinavian I [i:] have a long vowel too originally.
      > AN [a:n] with long a, like Dutch AAN [a:n].
      >
      > And let's just choose for AV as well then.
      >
      > DAT, WAT, ET, DAN, WAN are a bit more problematic in my opinion, if we want regular spelling-pronunciation correspondence rules.
      > I don't know whether Scandiavian HVAD/VAD has a long or short vowel, probably the final D isn't pronounced at all, same in DET at least in Danish final T is silent
      >
      >
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I must say if we were to double the consonant for the 3rd singular for
      > > this verb, I would prefer -st to ss. German seems to preserve the
      > > original form (judging by other Indo-european languages).
      > > But has "es" a short or a long vowel?
      > >
      > > I think the biggest reason that some of these "short" words, such as
      > > prepositions, pronouns, conjugations of "wese" look strange with a
      > > doubled consonant, is what we are dealing with isn't an issue of short
      > > vs long vowels -- it's an issue of the old Germanic languages having
      > > short vs long consonants. *ann looks wrong because "n" was never mean to
      > > be long -- vowel length be damned! Same for *omm. Sometimes I think that
      > > the vowel is better being long or short based on the consonant length,
      > > rather than just looking for the majority length of vowel.
      > > So I think in the case of "ikk", that "ek" is a more natural looking
      > > word., I also prefer "an" to *ann, and "om" to *omm. There's still a few
      > > very tricky ones to decide: *upp [Up] or *up [u:p]? *inn or *in? *av
      > > [a:v] or *aff [af]? *datt or *dat?
      > >
      > > On 22/06/2011 18:14, chamavian wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hey David! Happy to see you back after your long absence of 1 day ;-)
      > > >
      > > > Btw: maybe you noticed that I used "es" = is, in my last reply...
      > > > You know, I still didn't like "iss", and since we had "ikk" already
      > > > replaced by "ek" and "diss" by "des", I think "es" looks better than
      > > > "iss", and it's also a compromise form between Dutch/English/German
      > > > (West Germanic)"is/ist" at one hand and
      > > > Danish/Norwegian/Swedish (North Germanic) "er/är" at the other.
      > > >
      > > > The present tense of the verb WESE to be would now be, in my usage:
      > > >
      > > > ek aer
      > > > du aer
      > > > hi es
      > > > si es
      > > > ett es
      > > > wi aere
      > > > ji aere
      > > > dee aere
      > > >
      > > > NB this would be the only irregular verb in Folksprak, normally the
      > > > singular is just the stem, and the plural stem+e (as the infinitive)
      > > > But only in the case of WESE (to be), the third person singular has a
      > > > different form, corresponding to English/Dutch IS and German IST.
      > > >
      > > > But I find "ek es" so repelling, that in this case I took "ek aer".
      > > >
      > > > Btw this phenomenon, TO BE being not behaving like other verbs, we see
      > > > in very many (almost all?) natural languages and also in many other
      > > > Conlangs that are otherwise completely regular.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "David" <parked@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > See what I wrote on the Skandinaviska group. I agree, currently it
      > > > looks over-weighted toward Swedish. Admittedly Swedish is the biggest
      > > > language by population of speakers, but it's not an absolute majority
      > > > and Norwegian + Danish outnumbers Swedish. For the language to be
      > > > palatable to speakers of Danish and Norwegian, it shouldn't just look
      > > > like Swedish with some spelling tweaks (eg kk instead of ck).
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Hei, ek ha lesed din Skandinaviska dokument nu.
      > > > > > Dat es god werk av di, Johan, doh ek frag mi enig tingen:
      > > > > > du ha de principe dat wan two Skandinavish spraken ha de selv
      > > > word, dat shall wese de Skandinaviska word.
      > > > > > Doh med de shriving, ek se du ha mer de Swedish shrivwis, med ö
      > > > ond ä, doh dar aere two av din brunn spraken, Danish on Norwegish, dat
      > > > have æ ond ø. So du mot kyse egenlik for æ ond ø, oder du kann magshee
      > > > have en kompromis ae ond oe, dat es de substitut in Danish, Norwegish
      > > > ond Swedish alrede for æ/ä ond ø/ö.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Ek se oek dat din do-worden (verbs) ende in -a av Swedish, doh two
      > > > spraken (Danish ond Norwegish) have de suffiks -e.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Ond ek se dat wan de Norwegish ond de Danish word aere praktish
      > > > identish, doh have allenig en letter anders, du kyse alrede de Swedish
      > > > word.
      > > > > > Ek tenk dat du kann make mer en enhed av Skandinaviska, nu dat es
      > > > noh to mannig en mingsel ond man se dat.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > (Des es niht kritik doh "feedback")
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I'll send Johan's message through to the group:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I refered to an alias-page instead of the conlang-page.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Here's the proper place:
      > > > > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > If you join the group, then will you find a database
      > > > "Skandinavisk ordlista":
      > > > > > >
      > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1
      > > > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1>
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > BR Johan P
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Dett er ett fantastiskt idee, Johan. Og vor kann vi finde din
      > > > nye språk? Jeg ha besoekt din Yahoo grupp, menn jeg vill gerne seer en
      > > > eksempel av Skandinavisk. Måske du kann poster dett her?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "johanpalmaer" <johan@> wrote:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Hi. I've created a new conlang called Skandinavisk. It's
      > > > builds basically on Swedish-Danish-Norwegian.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > The vocabulary is simply constructed so that I've made a
      > > > list the 2,000 most common words in English, and then translated these
      > > > to Swedish-Danish-Norwegian in separate columns besides. If a word are
      > > > the same in at least two of scandinavian languages (for example
      > > > Swedish and Danish) will that word be counted as a Scandinavian word.
      > > > If no words are the same, will the Swedish word be counted as a
      > > > Scandinavian word.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Approx. 75% of all words in the vocabulary is Swedish, while
      > > > 50% are Danish and 50% are Norwegian. However, the very most words are
      > > > even so possible to understand by the most Scandinavians in these
      > > > three countries.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Here's the Yahoo-group for Skandinavisk:
      > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skandinaviska/
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > This new conlang can be utilized as a reference for
      > > > Folkspraak when refererring to and aligning to Scandinavian.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > > > Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3716 - Release Date: 06/20/11 18:35:00
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
    • Johan Palmaer
      Hi. 1/ Regarding ä and ö The letters äö are in common use world wide in many languages, besides Swedish also in - for example - in Turkish and Finnish. In
      Message 2 of 22 , Jun 23, 2011
        Hi.

        1/ Regarding ä and ö

        The letters äö are in common use world wide in many languages, besides Swedish also in - for example - in Turkish and Finnish.

        In the Scandinavian countries stands every letter for a oral pronounce. The Swedish alphabet is almost like the Phonetic alphabet where each letter stands for a distinct pronounce.

        If a Swede read oe, he says o e. And the same for ae, he would say a e.Just as it is written. So ö stand for what is is, a proununce, and ä also stand for what it is, a pronounce.

        However, sometimes - but not always- could ö be replaced by u, and ä could be replaced by e. So I would rather consider switch using ä and ö so frequently, and in some cases using u and e where applicable.

        2/ Regarding the suffix -a and -e in verbs.
        As you mentioning many Swedish and Norwegian/Danish verbs have the same roots, but simply ends with these suffixes. For example the Swedes saying "att göra" ("to do") in english , while the Danes/Norwegians says "at göre". As I see it, a compromise either could be to accept a Swedish versus an "Norwegian Danish" dialect of Scandinavian, where we allow the suffixes, since every Swede understand when a Dane or Norweigan says "at göre", and every Dane/Norwegian understand when a Swede says "att göra". An comprimise - however- could be to just skip the suffix, or only accept the Swedish suffix alternatively only the Danish/Norwegian, and finally an alternative could be to use a completely different suffix, like ä.
        In any case would every single Scandinavian still understand this word. (Actually, some Swedish dialects already says "att görä" instead of "att göra". I'm in the very mode outlining a Scandinavian Grammatic, and will consider what could be reasonable in this case. I'm open for opinions.

        3/ regarding slight difference between Norwegian and Danish

        I agree that the calculations make an to big favour too Swedish. I believe a moderation is reasonable. I'm in the mode cover a revised algorith for calculating candidates for to be proposed as Scandinavian words. My thoughts right now about how a revised algorithm, is to first of all let words that are completelt the same in all languages become proposed as candidates, while all remaining words should be classified in some categories, like 1/ "Almost the same in all three languages", 2/ "Exactly the same in two languages, while pretty alike in the third.", 3/ "Exactly the same in two languages, but completely disalike in the third" 4/ "Not same at all in any language, but at least simular to English in one language", 5/ "Not same at all in any language, an not simular at all to English".

        In the first cases (1 and 2 and perhaps also 3) would it perhaps be possible to slightly make a minor change of the most common word. In the last cases (4 and 5), I believe we should cover synonumes and see if any such are more alike in first hand, and thereafter consider slightly adjust towards English.

        Another option in some cases could be to accept propose two words as candidates. If for example the same word is in use in Swedish and Norwegian, but they use another completely different word in Danish, this word perhaps could be counted as a synonum into the common vocabulary. Maybe on condition that it is pretty alike the English word, or if it simular or alike a synonum in the other languages.

        Itäs quit common that words that are in frequenly use in Sweden also have synonumes that are not so commonly in use, which instead are more in common use in Danish and Norwegian, and vice versa.

        I will gathering if there could be a revised algorithm for calculating possible candidates.

        4/ Alignment with Folkspraak

        There're some certain deviations between Dutch+German and Swedish+Danish+Norwegian. A Scandinavian can read pretty much Dutch, but can hardly understand it orally. Many German words are also familiar for many Swedes.

        However, I believe from a Scandinavian perspective that following concernings would be good to be taken in count when constructing a common Folkspraak:
        - Do not use ae, oe, aa. It's better to use åäö! It's more aligned to international practises!
        - Do not use v and say f. Replace all written v's vid f.
        - And accordingly. Do not use w, write v instead.
        - Do not use z. Use s or ts instead.
        - Do not use x. Use ks or äks or eks instead.
        - Do not write vw, use simply v.
        - Do not write ee and ii. Its enough with e and i.

        And, as much as possible, write the words as they are pronounced.
        If saying shi (as in English She), write it shi. If saying vi (as in English we) , write it vi. If saying komplit (as for Complete in English), write it komplit. One letter = one pronounce. As much as possible!

        This would make it much easier for more Scandinavians to read and speak Folkspraak, even if it's mainly combined of Dutch+German+English.

        I believe that Folkspraak mainly should focusing on combing German with Dutch, but slightly also towards English and Scandinavians. But an stronger alignment in writings and usage of letters for pronouncing could make sence and make it easier to use Folkspraak as Pan-Germanic conlang, while Scandinavian could be in use as a Scandinavian conlang.

        So, I believe it would be able use the conlang Scandinavian as a basis for alignment towards the Scandinavian languages, if you made some slight adjustments in the Folkspraak writings and usage of letters.

        BR Johan P

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hei, ek ha lesed din Skandinaviska dokument nu.
        > Dat es god werk av di, Johan, doh ek frag mi enig tingen:
        > du ha de principe dat wan two Skandinavish spraken ha de selv word, dat shall wese de Skandinaviska word.
        > Doh med de shriving, ek se du ha mer de Swedish shrivwis, med ö ond ä, doh dar aere two av din brunn spraken, Danish on Norwegish, dat have æ ond ø. So du mot kyse egenlik for æ ond ø, oder du kann magshee have en kompromis ae ond oe, dat es de substitut in Danish, Norwegish ond Swedish alrede for æ/ä ond ø/ö.
        >
        > Ek se oek dat din do-worden (verbs) ende in -a av Swedish, doh two spraken (Danish ond Norwegish) have de suffiks -e.
        >
        > Ond ek se dat wan de Norwegish ond de Danish word aere praktish identish, doh have allenig en letter anders, du kyse alrede de Swedish word.
        > Ek tenk dat du kann make mer en enhed av Skandinaviska, nu dat es noh to mannig en mingsel ond man se dat.
        >
        > (Des es niht kritik doh "feedback")
        >
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I'll send Johan's message through to the group:
        > >
        > >
        > > I refered to an alias-page instead of the conlang-page.
        > >
        > > Here's the proper place:
        > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/
        > >
        > > If you join the group, then will you find a database "Skandinavisk ordlista":
        > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1
        > >
        > > BR Johan P
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Dett er ett fantastiskt idee, Johan. Og vor kann vi finde din nye språk? Jeg ha besoekt din Yahoo grupp, menn jeg vill gerne seer en eksempel av Skandinavisk. Måske du kann poster dett her?
        > > >
        > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "johanpalmaer" <johan@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Hi. I've created a new conlang called Skandinavisk. It's builds basically on Swedish-Danish-Norwegian.
        > > > >
        > > > > The vocabulary is simply constructed so that I've made a list the 2,000 most common words in English, and then translated these to Swedish-Danish-Norwegian in separate columns besides. If a word are the same in at least two of scandinavian languages (for example Swedish and Danish) will that word be counted as a Scandinavian word. If no words are the same, will the Swedish word be counted as a Scandinavian word.
        > > > >
        > > > > Approx. 75% of all words in the vocabulary is Swedish, while 50% are Danish and 50% are Norwegian. However, the very most words are even so possible to understand by the most Scandinavians in these three countries.
        > > > >
        > > > > Here's the Yahoo-group for Skandinavisk:
        > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skandinaviska/
        > > > >
        > > > > This new conlang can be utilized as a reference for Folkspraak when refererring to and aligning to Scandinavian.
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • swartsaxon
        ... Isn t [e:k] already the Folksprak word for ? Andrew
        Message 3 of 22 , Jun 23, 2011
          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
          >
          > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch) it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
          >
          > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the North Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
          >
          > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the FS word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
          >
          > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek] and [es].

          Isn't <ek> [e:k] already the Folksprak word for <oak>?

          Andrew
        • Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro
          In addition to what Linus said, I noted something about the words AN(N) and IS(S) that I think it is relevant. David and Ingmar, does this kind of problem
          Message 4 of 22 , Jun 23, 2011
            In addition to what Linus said, I noted something about the words AN(N) and
            IS(S) that I think it is relevant.

            David and Ingmar, does this kind of problem normally happens only with
            monosyllabic words starting with a vowel? Or does this happen in any other
            case?

            If this is the case, this could be considered an exception to the spelling
            system. (If a word is monosyllabic and starts with a vowel, then this vowel
            is short).


            The only problem I can see right now is that there sre monosyllabic words
            that start with a long vowel, e.g. IS (ice). But I think that in this case
            this I should be transformed into a diphthong: either eis, or iis, or ijs,
            or ...

            On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:11 AM, linusband <linusband@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > I am not sure if I completely understood, but if I'm correct, part of the
            > problem is about the spelling getting in the way with what seems natural
            > looking AND historically correct to us. Even though *ann and *iss are not
            > visually pleasing perhaps, though do agree with the spellingsystem of
            > indicating vowel length through the following consonant cluster. The only
            > way of doing away with these, is by 1. making an exception to the rule where
            > one writes *an and *is but has to learn to pronounce them short; 2.
            > introduce diacritics, e.g. *àn and *ìs; 3. change the spellingsystem to one
            > where vowel length is indicated by writing a vowel double, e.g. *is [is]
            > 'is', but *iis [i:s] 'ice'. I myself don't like the first one, as it would
            > make these very common words very common to mispronunciation, and don't like
            > the second one because it would add a second way of indicating short vowel
            > within one system. I like the third option, but I can imagine a lot of
            > double writings of vowels might look alien to most germanic speakers.
            > Ergo conclusio, we'll just have to stick to the system we have and accept
            > that there will always be spellings that look weird, but at least they'll be
            > unambiguous. Historical spellings are found in each of the germanic
            > languages, and even if they might be what we're used to, they have no place
            > in my opinion in an auxiliary language that is supposed to be easily learned
            > by all.
            >
            > Now, concerning [ek] or [e:k], Dutch, German, Frisian, Saxon have a short
            > vowel, whereas Danish, Swedish and English have a long vowel. I don't know
            > about Nynorsk, if eg is long or short. Anyway, we could say that the
            > majority seems to lean towards short. Therefor I propose [ek] with the
            > corresponding spelling EKK.
            >
            > Now, West-Germanic clearly seems to point to short /is/, I do not know
            > about Scandinavian though, is /er/ long or short? I like the combining of
            > both forms into /es/, but we'll just have to see whether it'll be ES or ESS.
            >
            > About German ein, do consider that in the meaning of 'in' it only occurs in
            > compounds as hinein and (he)rein. On its own ein would only mean 'one' or
            > 'a', so I think that German counts as a short vowel. I do however think that
            > it'd be fair to the scandinavians to include their long vowel and just add a
            > West-Germanic -n to it, so I am a proponent of IN [i:n].
            >
            > I agree on a long AN [a:n], as only English, German and Saxon seem to have
            > a short vowel, and once again, as the Scandinavian languages only have long
            > å to go with, their incorporation into the form can only be obtained by the
            > lengthening of the vowel, after which we can once again slap on WG -n.
            >
            > I'm afraid I can't say much about AV, as I only know for sure that Dutch
            > and German have short vowels. English seems short as well, not sure though.
            >
            > About Scandinavian HVAD/VAD, I know that Danish has a short vowel there,
            > and that the -D is a dental approximant (so it is pronounced, but weakly).
            > Swedish pronounces it as /va:/. All languages agree on something like
            > /va(:)/. WG + Danish point to a short vowel, which thereby form the
            > majority. The last consonant is problematic, as Saxon, English, Dutch and
            > Frisian point to -t, German has -s, Swedish and Nynorsk have -zero and
            > Danish almost -zero. I am actually thinking of proposing WA [wa] here, as
            > Dialectal English and Dutch (my Dutch) also have no final -t (I am aware of
            > the problems of starting to include dialectal forms). Any idea's on how to
            > write a short open vowel? Otherwise I'd propose WATT.
            >
            > That's it for now, I need to get back to work.
            >
            > Cheers!
            >
            >
            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch)
            > it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
            > >
            > > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd
            > because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the
            > North Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
            > >
            > > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the FS
            > word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
            > >
            > > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek]
            > and [es].
            > >
            > > UP and IN can have a long vowel, since German AUF and German EIN (next to
            > Germ. IN), and Scandinavian I [i:] have a long vowel too originally.
            > > AN [a:n] with long a, like Dutch AAN [a:n].
            > >
            > > And let's just choose for AV as well then.
            > >
            > > DAT, WAT, ET, DAN, WAN are a bit more problematic in my opinion, if we
            > want regular spelling-pronunciation correspondence rules.
            > > I don't know whether Scandiavian HVAD/VAD has a long or short vowel,
            > probably the final D isn't pronounced at all, same in DET at least in Danish
            > final T is silent
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I must say if we were to double the consonant for the 3rd singular for
            > > > this verb, I would prefer -st to ss. German seems to preserve the
            > > > original form (judging by other Indo-european languages).
            > > > But has "es" a short or a long vowel?
            > > >
            > > > I think the biggest reason that some of these "short" words, such as
            > > > prepositions, pronouns, conjugations of "wese" look strange with a
            > > > doubled consonant, is what we are dealing with isn't an issue of short
            > > > vs long vowels -- it's an issue of the old Germanic languages having
            > > > short vs long consonants. *ann looks wrong because "n" was never mean
            > to
            > > > be long -- vowel length be damned! Same for *omm. Sometimes I think
            > that
            > > > the vowel is better being long or short based on the consonant length,
            > > > rather than just looking for the majority length of vowel.
            > > > So I think in the case of "ikk", that "ek" is a more natural looking
            > > > word., I also prefer "an" to *ann, and "om" to *omm. There's still a
            > few
            > > > very tricky ones to decide: *upp [Up] or *up [u:p]? *inn or *in? *av
            > > > [a:v] or *aff [af]? *datt or *dat?
            > > >
            > > > On 22/06/2011 18:14, chamavian wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > Hey David! Happy to see you back after your long absence of 1 day ;-)
            > > > >
            > > > > Btw: maybe you noticed that I used "es" = is, in my last reply...
            > > > > You know, I still didn't like "iss", and since we had "ikk" already
            > > > > replaced by "ek" and "diss" by "des", I think "es" looks better than
            > > > > "iss", and it's also a compromise form between Dutch/English/German
            > > > > (West Germanic)"is/ist" at one hand and
            > > > > Danish/Norwegian/Swedish (North Germanic) "er/är" at the other.
            > > > >
            > > > > The present tense of the verb WESE to be would now be, in my usage:
            > > > >
            > > > > ek aer
            > > > > du aer
            > > > > hi es
            > > > > si es
            > > > > ett es
            > > > > wi aere
            > > > > ji aere
            > > > > dee aere
            > > > >
            > > > > NB this would be the only irregular verb in Folksprak, normally the
            > > > > singular is just the stem, and the plural stem+e (as the infinitive)
            > > > > But only in the case of WESE (to be), the third person singular has a
            >
            > > > > different form, corresponding to English/Dutch IS and German IST.
            > > > >
            > > > > But I find "ek es" so repelling, that in this case I took "ek aer".
            > > > >
            > > > > Btw this phenomenon, TO BE being not behaving like other verbs, we
            > see
            > > > > in very many (almost all?) natural languages and also in many other
            > > > > Conlangs that are otherwise completely regular.
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "David" <parked@> wrote:
            > > > > >
            > > > > > See what I wrote on the Skandinaviska group. I agree, currently it
            > > > > looks over-weighted toward Swedish. Admittedly Swedish is the biggest
            >
            > > > > language by population of speakers, but it's not an absolute majority
            >
            > > > > and Norwegian + Danish outnumbers Swedish. For the language to be
            > > > > palatable to speakers of Danish and Norwegian, it shouldn't just look
            >
            > > > > like Swedish with some spelling tweaks (eg kk instead of ck).
            > > > > >
            > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
            > wrote:
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Hei, ek ha lesed din Skandinaviska dokument nu.
            > > > > > > Dat es god werk av di, Johan, doh ek frag mi enig tingen:
            > > > > > > du ha de principe dat wan two Skandinavish spraken ha de selv
            > > > > word, dat shall wese de Skandinaviska word.
            > > > > > > Doh med de shriving, ek se du ha mer de Swedish shrivwis, med ö
            > > > > ond ä, doh dar aere two av din brunn spraken, Danish on Norwegish,
            > dat
            > > > > have æ ond ø. So du mot kyse egenlik for æ ond ø, oder du kann
            > magshee
            > > > > have en kompromis ae ond oe, dat es de substitut in Danish, Norwegish
            >
            > > > > ond Swedish alrede for æ/ä ond ø/ö.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Ek se oek dat din do-worden (verbs) ende in -a av Swedish, doh
            > two
            > > > > spraken (Danish ond Norwegish) have de suffiks -e.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Ond ek se dat wan de Norwegish ond de Danish word aere praktish
            > > > > identish, doh have allenig en letter anders, du kyse alrede de
            > Swedish
            > > > > word.
            > > > > > > Ek tenk dat du kann make mer en enhed av Skandinaviska, nu dat es
            >
            > > > > noh to mannig en mingsel ond man se dat.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > (Des es niht kritik doh "feedback")
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
            > wrote:
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > I'll send Johan's message through to the group:
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > I refered to an alias-page instead of the conlang-page.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > Here's the proper place:
            > > > > > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > If you join the group, then will you find a database
            > > > > "Skandinavisk ordlista":
            > > > > > > >
            > > > >
            > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1
            > > > > <
            > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1
            > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > BR Johan P
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
            > wrote:
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > Dett er ett fantastiskt idee, Johan. Og vor kann vi finde din
            >
            > > > > nye språk? Jeg ha besoekt din Yahoo grupp, menn jeg vill gerne seer
            > en
            > > > > eksempel av Skandinavisk. Måske du kann poster dett her?
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "johanpalmaer" <johan@>
            > wrote:
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > Hi. I've created a new conlang called Skandinavisk. It's
            > > > > builds basically on Swedish-Danish-Norwegian.
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > The vocabulary is simply constructed so that I've made a
            > > > > list the 2,000 most common words in English, and then translated
            > these
            > > > > to Swedish-Danish-Norwegian in separate columns besides. If a word
            > are
            > > > > the same in at least two of scandinavian languages (for example
            > > > > Swedish and Danish) will that word be counted as a Scandinavian word.
            >
            > > > > If no words are the same, will the Swedish word be counted as a
            > > > > Scandinavian word.
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > Approx. 75% of all words in the vocabulary is Swedish,
            > while
            > > > > 50% are Danish and 50% are Norwegian. However, the very most words
            > are
            > > > > even so possible to understand by the most Scandinavians in these
            > > > > three countries.
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > Here's the Yahoo-group for Skandinavisk:
            > > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skandinaviska/
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > This new conlang can be utilized as a reference for
            > > > > Folkspraak when refererring to and aligning to Scandinavian.
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            > > > > Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3716 - Release Date:
            > 06/20/11 18:35:00
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David
            Yes it is a homonym for oak . But so what? English I is a homonym for eye and aye . Oak won t be needed very often anyway.
            Message 5 of 22 , Jun 23, 2011
              Yes it is a homonym for "oak". But so what? English "I" is a homonym for "eye" and "aye". Oak won't be needed very often anyway.

              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch) it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
              > >
              > > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the North Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
              > >
              > > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the FS word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
              > >
              > > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek] and [es].
              >
              > Isn't <ek> [e:k] already the Folksprak word for <oak>?
              >
              > Andrew
              >
            • chamavian
              Well maybe there could be some confusing when the Ents would start to learn Folksprak... But for oak we could take the suffix -boem = three to make ekboem ,
              Message 6 of 22 , Jun 23, 2011
                Well maybe there could be some confusing when the Ents would start to learn Folksprak...

                But for oak we could take the suffix "-boem" = three to make "ekboem",
                which is also done in NL eikeboom (next to eik), Low Saxon ekkelboom, DE Eichbaum (next to Eiche), English oak three etc.

                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@...> wrote:
                >
                > Yes it is a homonym for "oak". But so what? English "I" is a homonym for "eye" and "aye". Oak won't be needed very often anyway.
                >
                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch) it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
                > > >
                > > > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the North Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
                > > >
                > > > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the FS word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
                > > >
                > > > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek] and [es].
                > >
                > > Isn't <ek> [e:k] already the Folksprak word for <oak>?
                > >
                > > Andrew
                > >
                >
              • chamavian
                Hei Hugo good suggestion maybe but the problem is, that we rather wouldn t have any exception at all in the FS spelling
                Message 7 of 22 , Jun 23, 2011
                  Hei Hugo

                  good suggestion maybe but the problem is, that we rather wouldn't have any exception at all in the FS spelling

                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro <hcesarcastro@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > In addition to what Linus said, I noted something about the words AN(N) and
                  > IS(S) that I think it is relevant.
                  >
                  > David and Ingmar, does this kind of problem normally happens only with
                  > monosyllabic words starting with a vowel? Or does this happen in any other
                  > case?
                  >
                  > If this is the case, this could be considered an exception to the spelling
                  > system. (If a word is monosyllabic and starts with a vowel, then this vowel
                  > is short).
                  >
                  >
                  > The only problem I can see right now is that there sre monosyllabic words
                  > that start with a long vowel, e.g. IS (ice). But I think that in this case
                  > this I should be transformed into a diphthong: either eis, or iis, or ijs,
                  > or ...
                  >
                  > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:11 AM, linusband <linusband@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > **
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I am not sure if I completely understood, but if I'm correct, part of the
                  > > problem is about the spelling getting in the way with what seems natural
                  > > looking AND historically correct to us. Even though *ann and *iss are not
                  > > visually pleasing perhaps, though do agree with the spellingsystem of
                  > > indicating vowel length through the following consonant cluster. The only
                  > > way of doing away with these, is by 1. making an exception to the rule where
                  > > one writes *an and *is but has to learn to pronounce them short; 2.
                  > > introduce diacritics, e.g. *àn and *ìs; 3. change the spellingsystem to one
                  > > where vowel length is indicated by writing a vowel double, e.g. *is [is]
                  > > 'is', but *iis [i:s] 'ice'. I myself don't like the first one, as it would
                  > > make these very common words very common to mispronunciation, and don't like
                  > > the second one because it would add a second way of indicating short vowel
                  > > within one system. I like the third option, but I can imagine a lot of
                  > > double writings of vowels might look alien to most germanic speakers.
                  > > Ergo conclusio, we'll just have to stick to the system we have and accept
                  > > that there will always be spellings that look weird, but at least they'll be
                  > > unambiguous. Historical spellings are found in each of the germanic
                  > > languages, and even if they might be what we're used to, they have no place
                  > > in my opinion in an auxiliary language that is supposed to be easily learned
                  > > by all.
                  > >
                  > > Now, concerning [ek] or [e:k], Dutch, German, Frisian, Saxon have a short
                  > > vowel, whereas Danish, Swedish and English have a long vowel. I don't know
                  > > about Nynorsk, if eg is long or short. Anyway, we could say that the
                  > > majority seems to lean towards short. Therefor I propose [ek] with the
                  > > corresponding spelling EKK.
                  > >
                  > > Now, West-Germanic clearly seems to point to short /is/, I do not know
                  > > about Scandinavian though, is /er/ long or short? I like the combining of
                  > > both forms into /es/, but we'll just have to see whether it'll be ES or ESS.
                  > >
                  > > About German ein, do consider that in the meaning of 'in' it only occurs in
                  > > compounds as hinein and (he)rein. On its own ein would only mean 'one' or
                  > > 'a', so I think that German counts as a short vowel. I do however think that
                  > > it'd be fair to the scandinavians to include their long vowel and just add a
                  > > West-Germanic -n to it, so I am a proponent of IN [i:n].
                  > >
                  > > I agree on a long AN [a:n], as only English, German and Saxon seem to have
                  > > a short vowel, and once again, as the Scandinavian languages only have long
                  > > å to go with, their incorporation into the form can only be obtained by the
                  > > lengthening of the vowel, after which we can once again slap on WG -n.
                  > >
                  > > I'm afraid I can't say much about AV, as I only know for sure that Dutch
                  > > and German have short vowels. English seems short as well, not sure though.
                  > >
                  > > About Scandinavian HVAD/VAD, I know that Danish has a short vowel there,
                  > > and that the -D is a dental approximant (so it is pronounced, but weakly).
                  > > Swedish pronounces it as /va:/. All languages agree on something like
                  > > /va(:)/. WG + Danish point to a short vowel, which thereby form the
                  > > majority. The last consonant is problematic, as Saxon, English, Dutch and
                  > > Frisian point to -t, German has -s, Swedish and Nynorsk have -zero and
                  > > Danish almost -zero. I am actually thinking of proposing WA [wa] here, as
                  > > Dialectal English and Dutch (my Dutch) also have no final -t (I am aware of
                  > > the problems of starting to include dialectal forms). Any idea's on how to
                  > > write a short open vowel? Otherwise I'd propose WATT.
                  > >
                  > > That's it for now, I need to get back to work.
                  > >
                  > > Cheers!
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch)
                  > > it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
                  > > >
                  > > > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd
                  > > because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the
                  > > North Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
                  > > >
                  > > > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the FS
                  > > word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
                  > > >
                  > > > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek]
                  > > and [es].
                  > > >
                  > > > UP and IN can have a long vowel, since German AUF and German EIN (next to
                  > > Germ. IN), and Scandinavian I [i:] have a long vowel too originally.
                  > > > AN [a:n] with long a, like Dutch AAN [a:n].
                  > > >
                  > > > And let's just choose for AV as well then.
                  > > >
                  > > > DAT, WAT, ET, DAN, WAN are a bit more problematic in my opinion, if we
                  > > want regular spelling-pronunciation correspondence rules.
                  > > > I don't know whether Scandiavian HVAD/VAD has a long or short vowel,
                  > > probably the final D isn't pronounced at all, same in DET at least in Danish
                  > > final T is silent
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I must say if we were to double the consonant for the 3rd singular for
                  > > > > this verb, I would prefer -st to ss. German seems to preserve the
                  > > > > original form (judging by other Indo-european languages).
                  > > > > But has "es" a short or a long vowel?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I think the biggest reason that some of these "short" words, such as
                  > > > > prepositions, pronouns, conjugations of "wese" look strange with a
                  > > > > doubled consonant, is what we are dealing with isn't an issue of short
                  > > > > vs long vowels -- it's an issue of the old Germanic languages having
                  > > > > short vs long consonants. *ann looks wrong because "n" was never mean
                  > > to
                  > > > > be long -- vowel length be damned! Same for *omm. Sometimes I think
                  > > that
                  > > > > the vowel is better being long or short based on the consonant length,
                  > > > > rather than just looking for the majority length of vowel.
                  > > > > So I think in the case of "ikk", that "ek" is a more natural looking
                  > > > > word., I also prefer "an" to *ann, and "om" to *omm. There's still a
                  > > few
                  > > > > very tricky ones to decide: *upp [Up] or *up [u:p]? *inn or *in? *av
                  > > > > [a:v] or *aff [af]? *datt or *dat?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > On 22/06/2011 18:14, chamavian wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Hey David! Happy to see you back after your long absence of 1 day ;-)
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Btw: maybe you noticed that I used "es" = is, in my last reply...
                  > > > > > You know, I still didn't like "iss", and since we had "ikk" already
                  > > > > > replaced by "ek" and "diss" by "des", I think "es" looks better than
                  > > > > > "iss", and it's also a compromise form between Dutch/English/German
                  > > > > > (West Germanic)"is/ist" at one hand and
                  > > > > > Danish/Norwegian/Swedish (North Germanic) "er/är" at the other.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > The present tense of the verb WESE to be would now be, in my usage:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > ek aer
                  > > > > > du aer
                  > > > > > hi es
                  > > > > > si es
                  > > > > > ett es
                  > > > > > wi aere
                  > > > > > ji aere
                  > > > > > dee aere
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > NB this would be the only irregular verb in Folksprak, normally the
                  > > > > > singular is just the stem, and the plural stem+e (as the infinitive)
                  > > > > > But only in the case of WESE (to be), the third person singular has a
                  > >
                  > > > > > different form, corresponding to English/Dutch IS and German IST.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > But I find "ek es" so repelling, that in this case I took "ek aer".
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Btw this phenomenon, TO BE being not behaving like other verbs, we
                  > > see
                  > > > > > in very many (almost all?) natural languages and also in many other
                  > > > > > Conlangs that are otherwise completely regular.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > See what I wrote on the Skandinaviska group. I agree, currently it
                  > > > > > looks over-weighted toward Swedish. Admittedly Swedish is the biggest
                  > >
                  > > > > > language by population of speakers, but it's not an absolute majority
                  > >
                  > > > > > and Norwegian + Danish outnumbers Swedish. For the language to be
                  > > > > > palatable to speakers of Danish and Norwegian, it shouldn't just look
                  > >
                  > > > > > like Swedish with some spelling tweaks (eg kk instead of ck).
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > Hei, ek ha lesed din Skandinaviska dokument nu.
                  > > > > > > > Dat es god werk av di, Johan, doh ek frag mi enig tingen:
                  > > > > > > > du ha de principe dat wan two Skandinavish spraken ha de selv
                  > > > > > word, dat shall wese de Skandinaviska word.
                  > > > > > > > Doh med de shriving, ek se du ha mer de Swedish shrivwis, med ö
                  > > > > > ond ä, doh dar aere two av din brunn spraken, Danish on Norwegish,
                  > > dat
                  > > > > > have æ ond ø. So du mot kyse egenlik for æ ond ø, oder du kann
                  > > magshee
                  > > > > > have en kompromis ae ond oe, dat es de substitut in Danish, Norwegish
                  > >
                  > > > > > ond Swedish alrede for æ/ä ond ø/ö.
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > Ek se oek dat din do-worden (verbs) ende in -a av Swedish, doh
                  > > two
                  > > > > > spraken (Danish ond Norwegish) have de suffiks -e.
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > Ond ek se dat wan de Norwegish ond de Danish word aere praktish
                  > > > > > identish, doh have allenig en letter anders, du kyse alrede de
                  > > Swedish
                  > > > > > word.
                  > > > > > > > Ek tenk dat du kann make mer en enhed av Skandinaviska, nu dat es
                  > >
                  > > > > > noh to mannig en mingsel ond man se dat.
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > (Des es niht kritik doh "feedback")
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > I'll send Johan's message through to the group:
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > I refered to an alias-page instead of the conlang-page.
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > Here's the proper place:
                  > > > > > > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > If you join the group, then will you find a database
                  > > > > > "Skandinavisk ordlista":
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1
                  > > > > > <
                  > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1
                  > > >
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > BR Johan P
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > > Dett er ett fantastiskt idee, Johan. Og vor kann vi finde din
                  > >
                  > > > > > nye språk? Jeg ha besoekt din Yahoo grupp, menn jeg vill gerne seer
                  > > en
                  > > > > > eksempel av Skandinavisk. MÃ¥ske du kann poster dett her?
                  > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "johanpalmaer" <johan@>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > > > Hi. I've created a new conlang called Skandinavisk. It's
                  > > > > > builds basically on Swedish-Danish-Norwegian.
                  > > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > > > The vocabulary is simply constructed so that I've made a
                  > > > > > list the 2,000 most common words in English, and then translated
                  > > these
                  > > > > > to Swedish-Danish-Norwegian in separate columns besides. If a word
                  > > are
                  > > > > > the same in at least two of scandinavian languages (for example
                  > > > > > Swedish and Danish) will that word be counted as a Scandinavian word.
                  > >
                  > > > > > If no words are the same, will the Swedish word be counted as a
                  > > > > > Scandinavian word.
                  > > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > > > Approx. 75% of all words in the vocabulary is Swedish,
                  > > while
                  > > > > > 50% are Danish and 50% are Norwegian. However, the very most words
                  > > are
                  > > > > > even so possible to understand by the most Scandinavians in these
                  > > > > > three countries.
                  > > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > > > Here's the Yahoo-group for Skandinavisk:
                  > > > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skandinaviska/
                  > > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > > > This new conlang can be utilized as a reference for
                  > > > > > Folkspraak when refererring to and aligning to Scandinavian.
                  > > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  > > > > > Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3716 - Release Date:
                  > > 06/20/11 18:35:00
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • swartsaxon
                  ... Just pointing out that there s another situation like the one pointed out for = ice and is .
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jun 24, 2011
                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Yes it is a homonym for "oak". But so what? English "I" is a homonym for "eye" and "aye". Oak won't be needed very often anyway.


                    Just pointing out that there's another situation like the one pointed out for <is> = "ice" and "is".

                    >
                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch) it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
                    > > >
                    > > > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the North Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
                    > > >
                    > > > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the FS word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
                    > > >
                    > > > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek] and [es].
                    > >
                    > > Isn't <ek> [e:k] already the Folksprak word for <oak>?
                    > >
                    > > Andrew
                    > >
                    >
                  • David Parke
                    1st of all, wouldn t it be better if these issues are discussed on Johan s new Yahoo group? That way those people who join that group and not Folkspraak won t
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jun 24, 2011
                      1st of all, wouldn't it be better if these issues are discussed on
                      Johan's new Yahoo group? That way those people who join that group and
                      not Folkspraak won't miss out. I am very interested in the idea of
                      Skandinavisk, but let's keep this group and Johan's on-topic.

                      As I said, I'm not too fussy either way, whether to use æ/ø or ä/ö. If
                      you are a Scandy or a Finn, you can probably make them easily with your
                      keyboard either way. They could be equally acceptable and used
                      interchangeably. I think it would even be quite straight-forward to
                      program spell-checking dictionaries to accept both. eg if the spell
                      checker sees bönne, it recognizes it as an accepted variation of bønne.
                      I think you will find that Norwegian uses æ only rarely, because it has
                      the most reformed spelling of the 3 languages, and in most cases in
                      Swedish and Danish æ/ä are being used redundantly when a "e" would be
                      just as good. A typical group of 3 related scandy words would be:

                      DA dæk
                      NO dekk
                      SV däck.

                      The majority rule of Skandinavisk would probably dictate that the word
                      be *dækk or *däkk. But why oh why not just use an "e"???
                      The short for of æ/ä seems to be identical to "e" in pronunciation. It's
                      only in the long form that it seems to be necessary -- which is why you
                      will find it is so rare in Norwegian.

                      I don't think a Danish or Norwegian speaker would be able to tell the
                      difference between a verb ending in "e" or "a". This suffix is
                      unstressed and would just sound like a schwa to them. And when they
                      speak, they would just pronounce it as schwa, even if it's spelled with "a".

                      Johan, I can't believe you've only just arrived at the idea of allowing
                      synonyms! I can't stress this to beginner conlangers enough:
                      1. Words in natural languages can have multiple meanings.
                      2. The same meaning can have multiple words -- synonyms!

                      Take for example in your database, the entry for English "snake".
                      You have SV orm, DA slange, NO snake
                      So no word is in a majority, leading you to conclude that the best
                      Skandinavisk word is "orm".
                      I strongly suspect the NO snake is a fail by Google translate. Wikipedia
                      entry is for slanger for Bokmaal and ormar for Nynorsk.

                      But investigate to see if languages have more than one word, and the
                      words have more than one meaning;

                      Norwegian also has "orm", in this language it means snake AND worm.
                      Danish also has "orm", in this language it means worm or maggot.

                      Swedish and Norwegian also have "snok" meaning grass snake, Danish has
                      snog.

                      Danish slange means snake, it also means hose-pipe/tube.
                      Norwegian also has slange, it means hose-pipe/tube or snake.
                      Swedish has slang, it means hose-pipe/tube. -- but not snake.

                      Swedish has mask, meaning maggot or worm,
                      Norwegian has makk meaning maggot and mark, meaning worm,
                      Danish has maddike meaning maggot or worm.

                      Swedish has also rör for tube/pipe and DA/NO have rør with a similar
                      meaning.


                      It's all a beautifully woven tapestry of words and meanings. Multiple
                      words for the same concept, multiple meanings for the same word. Or an
                      ugly tangle of un-manageable false friends ;-)

                      I would suggest:

                      ORM
                      n. = 1. snake, serpent; 2. worm, maggot

                      SLANGE
                      n. = 1. hose-pipe, tube; 2. snake, serpent

                      SNOK
                      n. = grass snake, Natrix natrix

                      MADDIK
                      n. = worm, maggot, grub, larva

                      RÖR
                      n. = tube, pipe, conduit.



                      Also I think that Skandinavisk would be of most use to Scandinavians and
                      residents of those countries. The scandies are notoriously good
                      linguists and have little difficulty doing business with the world in
                      English and dealing with visitors in English.
                      Actually I don't think that the scandy languages are particularly
                      difficult to learn! For an English speaker, they would be among the
                      easiest languages to learn, being Germanic languages related to English,
                      with similar word order and simplified grammar. A common Scandy
                      constructed language would be a good introduction to all 4 of the
                      natural languages.
                      I think Skandinavisk would be most useful as a tool for
                      inter-scandinavian and nordic integration. If the Scandy countries and
                      Finland and Iceland were federated into a bloc, they could be one of the
                      most powerful, influential countries in Europe. In population only 25
                      million, which is nearly in the league of Romania, Poland or Spain. But
                      with a very strong affluent economy and strong English skills, the
                      influence of a scandy union could be a strong as Italy or France.

                      If the Skandinavisk language is designed for scandies, it shouldn't need
                      to be simplified too much. Features that are common too all of scandy
                      languages could be included, even if somewhat irregular. So I think it
                      should retain such things as neuter and common gender nouns, and the
                      enclitic definite articles. And strong verbs. And irregular adjectives
                      such as god/bättre/bäst; gammel//ældre///ældst/. And irregular plurals
                      such as gås/gæs; mand/mænd




                      On 24/06/2011 09:27, Johan Palmaer wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi.
                      >
                      > 1/ Regarding ä and ö
                      >
                      > The letters äö are in common use world wide in many languages, besides
                      > Swedish also in - for example - in Turkish and Finnish.
                      >
                      > In the Scandinavian countries stands every letter for a oral
                      > pronounce. The Swedish alphabet is almost like the Phonetic alphabet
                      > where each letter stands for a distinct pronounce.
                      >
                      > If a Swede read oe, he says o e. And the same for ae, he would say a
                      > e.Just as it is written. So ö stand for what is is, a proununce, and ä
                      > also stand for what it is, a pronounce.
                      >
                      > However, sometimes - but not always- could ö be replaced by u, and ä
                      > could be replaced by e. So I would rather consider switch using ä and
                      > ö so frequently, and in some cases using u and e where applicable.
                      >
                      > 2/ Regarding the suffix -a and -e in verbs.
                      > As you mentioning many Swedish and Norwegian/Danish verbs have the
                      > same roots, but simply ends with these suffixes. For example the
                      > Swedes saying "att göra" ("to do") in english , while the
                      > Danes/Norwegians says "at göre". As I see it, a compromise either
                      > could be to accept a Swedish versus an "Norwegian Danish" dialect of
                      > Scandinavian, where we allow the suffixes, since every Swede
                      > understand when a Dane or Norweigan says "at göre", and every
                      > Dane/Norwegian understand when a Swede says "att göra". An comprimise
                      > - however- could be to just skip the suffix, or only accept the
                      > Swedish suffix alternatively only the Danish/Norwegian, and finally an
                      > alternative could be to use a completely different suffix, like ä.
                      > In any case would every single Scandinavian still understand this
                      > word. (Actually, some Swedish dialects already says "att görä" instead
                      > of "att göra". I'm in the very mode outlining a Scandinavian
                      > Grammatic, and will consider what could be reasonable in this case.
                      > I'm open for opinions.
                      >
                      > 3/ regarding slight difference between Norwegian and Danish
                      >
                      > I agree that the calculations make an to big favour too Swedish. I
                      > believe a moderation is reasonable. I'm in the mode cover a revised
                      > algorith for calculating candidates for to be proposed as Scandinavian
                      > words. My thoughts right now about how a revised algorithm, is to
                      > first of all let words that are completelt the same in all languages
                      > become proposed as candidates, while all remaining words should be
                      > classified in some categories, like 1/ "Almost the same in all three
                      > languages", 2/ "Exactly the same in two languages, while pretty alike
                      > in the third.", 3/ "Exactly the same in two languages, but completely
                      > disalike in the third" 4/ "Not same at all in any language, but at
                      > least simular to English in one language", 5/ "Not same at all in any
                      > language, an not simular at all to English".
                      >
                      > In the first cases (1 and 2 and perhaps also 3) would it perhaps be
                      > possible to slightly make a minor change of the most common word. In
                      > the last cases (4 and 5), I believe we should cover synonumes and see
                      > if any such are more alike in first hand, and thereafter consider
                      > slightly adjust towards English.
                      >
                      > Another option in some cases could be to accept propose two words as
                      > candidates. If for example the same word is in use in Swedish and
                      > Norwegian, but they use another completely different word in Danish,
                      > this word perhaps could be counted as a synonum into the common
                      > vocabulary. Maybe on condition that it is pretty alike the English
                      > word, or if it simular or alike a synonum in the other languages.
                      >
                      > Itäs quit common that words that are in frequenly use in Sweden also
                      > have synonumes that are not so commonly in use, which instead are more
                      > in common use in Danish and Norwegian, and vice versa.
                      >
                      > I will gathering if there could be a revised algorithm for calculating
                      > possible candidates.
                      >
                      > 4/ Alignment with Folkspraak
                      >
                      > There're some certain deviations between Dutch+German and
                      > Swedish+Danish+Norwegian. A Scandinavian can read pretty much Dutch,
                      > but can hardly understand it orally. Many German words are also
                      > familiar for many Swedes.
                      >
                      > However, I believe from a Scandinavian perspective that following
                      > concernings would be good to be taken in count when constructing a
                      > common Folkspraak:
                      > - Do not use ae, oe, aa. It's better to use åäö! It's more aligned to
                      > international practises!
                      > - Do not use v and say f. Replace all written v's vid f.
                      > - And accordingly. Do not use w, write v instead.
                      > - Do not use z. Use s or ts instead.
                      > - Do not use x. Use ks or äks or eks instead.
                      > - Do not write vw, use simply v.
                      > - Do not write ee and ii. Its enough with e and i.
                      >
                      > And, as much as possible, write the words as they are pronounced.
                      > If saying shi (as in English She), write it shi. If saying vi (as in
                      > English we) , write it vi. If saying komplit (as for Complete in
                      > English), write it komplit. One letter = one pronounce. As much as
                      > possible!
                      >
                      > This would make it much easier for more Scandinavians to read and
                      > speak Folkspraak, even if it's mainly combined of Dutch+German+English.
                      >
                      > I believe that Folkspraak mainly should focusing on combing German
                      > with Dutch, but slightly also towards English and Scandinavians. But
                      > an stronger alignment in writings and usage of letters for pronouncing
                      > could make sence and make it easier to use Folkspraak as Pan-Germanic
                      > conlang, while Scandinavian could be in use as a Scandinavian conlang.
                      >
                      > So, I believe it would be able use the conlang Scandinavian as a basis
                      > for alignment towards the Scandinavian languages, if you made some
                      > slight adjustments in the Folkspraak writings and usage of letters.
                      >
                      > BR Johan P
                      >
                      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hei, ek ha lesed din Skandinaviska dokument nu.
                      > > Dat es god werk av di, Johan, doh ek frag mi enig tingen:
                      > > du ha de principe dat wan two Skandinavish spraken ha de selv word,
                      > dat shall wese de Skandinaviska word.
                      > > Doh med de shriving, ek se du ha mer de Swedish shrivwis, med ö ond
                      > ä, doh dar aere two av din brunn spraken, Danish on Norwegish, dat
                      > have æ ond ø. So du mot kyse egenlik for æ ond ø, oder du kann magshee
                      > have en kompromis ae ond oe, dat es de substitut in Danish, Norwegish
                      > ond Swedish alrede for æ/ä ond ø/ö.
                      > >
                      > > Ek se oek dat din do-worden (verbs) ende in -a av Swedish, doh two
                      > spraken (Danish ond Norwegish) have de suffiks -e.
                      > >
                      > > Ond ek se dat wan de Norwegish ond de Danish word aere praktish
                      > identish, doh have allenig en letter anders, du kyse alrede de Swedish
                      > word.
                      > > Ek tenk dat du kann make mer en enhed av Skandinaviska, nu dat es
                      > noh to mannig en mingsel ond man se dat.
                      > >
                      > > (Des es niht kritik doh "feedback")
                      > >
                      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > I'll send Johan's message through to the group:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > I refered to an alias-page instead of the conlang-page.
                      > > >
                      > > > Here's the proper place:
                      > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/
                      > > >
                      > > > If you join the group, then will you find a database "Skandinavisk
                      > ordlista":
                      > > >
                      > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1
                      > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1>
                      > > >
                      > > > BR Johan P
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Dett er ett fantastiskt idee, Johan. Og vor kann vi finde din
                      > nye språk? Jeg ha besoekt din Yahoo grupp, menn jeg vill gerne seer en
                      > eksempel av Skandinavisk. Måske du kann poster dett her?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "johanpalmaer" <johan@> wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Hi. I've created a new conlang called Skandinavisk. It's
                      > builds basically on Swedish-Danish-Norwegian.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > The vocabulary is simply constructed so that I've made a list
                      > the 2,000 most common words in English, and then translated these to
                      > Swedish-Danish-Norwegian in separate columns besides. If a word are
                      > the same in at least two of scandinavian languages (for example
                      > Swedish and Danish) will that word be counted as a Scandinavian word.
                      > If no words are the same, will the Swedish word be counted as a
                      > Scandinavian word.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Approx. 75% of all words in the vocabulary is Swedish, while
                      > 50% are Danish and 50% are Norwegian. However, the very most words are
                      > even so possible to understand by the most Scandinavians in these
                      > three countries.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Here's the Yahoo-group for Skandinavisk:
                      > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skandinaviska/
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > This new conlang can be utilized as a reference for Folkspraak
                      > when refererring to and aligning to Scandinavian.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > No virus found in this incoming message.
                      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      > Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3721 - Release Date: 06/23/11 06:34:00
                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • chamavian
                      BTW Johan what about your last name, is it usually spelled Palmaer with AE or Palmär with Ä, and how is it pronounced?
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jun 24, 2011
                        BTW Johan what about your last name, is it usually spelled Palmaer with AE or Palmär with Ä, and how is it pronounced?

                        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Johan Palmaer" <johan.palmaer@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi.
                        >
                        > 1/ Regarding ä and ö
                        >
                        > The letters äö are in common use world wide in many languages, besides Swedish also in - for example - in Turkish and Finnish.
                        >
                        > In the Scandinavian countries stands every letter for a oral pronounce. The Swedish alphabet is almost like the Phonetic alphabet where each letter stands for a distinct pronounce.
                        >
                        > If a Swede read oe, he says o e. And the same for ae, he would say a e.Just as it is written. So ö stand for what is is, a proununce, and ä also stand for what it is, a pronounce.
                        >
                        > However, sometimes - but not always- could ö be replaced by u, and ä could be replaced by e. So I would rather consider switch using ä and ö so frequently, and in some cases using u and e where applicable.
                        >
                        > 2/ Regarding the suffix -a and -e in verbs.
                        > As you mentioning many Swedish and Norwegian/Danish verbs have the same roots, but simply ends with these suffixes. For example the Swedes saying "att göra" ("to do") in english , while the Danes/Norwegians says "at göre". As I see it, a compromise either could be to accept a Swedish versus an "Norwegian Danish" dialect of Scandinavian, where we allow the suffixes, since every Swede understand when a Dane or Norweigan says "at göre", and every Dane/Norwegian understand when a Swede says "att göra". An comprimise - however- could be to just skip the suffix, or only accept the Swedish suffix alternatively only the Danish/Norwegian, and finally an alternative could be to use a completely different suffix, like ä.
                        > In any case would every single Scandinavian still understand this word. (Actually, some Swedish dialects already says "att görä" instead of "att göra". I'm in the very mode outlining a Scandinavian Grammatic, and will consider what could be reasonable in this case. I'm open for opinions.
                        >
                        > 3/ regarding slight difference between Norwegian and Danish
                        >
                        > I agree that the calculations make an to big favour too Swedish. I believe a moderation is reasonable. I'm in the mode cover a revised algorith for calculating candidates for to be proposed as Scandinavian words. My thoughts right now about how a revised algorithm, is to first of all let words that are completelt the same in all languages become proposed as candidates, while all remaining words should be classified in some categories, like 1/ "Almost the same in all three languages", 2/ "Exactly the same in two languages, while pretty alike in the third.", 3/ "Exactly the same in two languages, but completely disalike in the third" 4/ "Not same at all in any language, but at least simular to English in one language", 5/ "Not same at all in any language, an not simular at all to English".
                        >
                        > In the first cases (1 and 2 and perhaps also 3) would it perhaps be possible to slightly make a minor change of the most common word. In the last cases (4 and 5), I believe we should cover synonumes and see if any such are more alike in first hand, and thereafter consider slightly adjust towards English.
                        >
                        > Another option in some cases could be to accept propose two words as candidates. If for example the same word is in use in Swedish and Norwegian, but they use another completely different word in Danish, this word perhaps could be counted as a synonum into the common vocabulary. Maybe on condition that it is pretty alike the English word, or if it simular or alike a synonum in the other languages.
                        >
                        > Itäs quit common that words that are in frequenly use in Sweden also have synonumes that are not so commonly in use, which instead are more in common use in Danish and Norwegian, and vice versa.
                        >
                        > I will gathering if there could be a revised algorithm for calculating possible candidates.
                        >
                        > 4/ Alignment with Folkspraak
                        >
                        > There're some certain deviations between Dutch+German and Swedish+Danish+Norwegian. A Scandinavian can read pretty much Dutch, but can hardly understand it orally. Many German words are also familiar for many Swedes.
                        >
                        > However, I believe from a Scandinavian perspective that following concernings would be good to be taken in count when constructing a common Folkspraak:
                        > - Do not use ae, oe, aa. It's better to use åäö! It's more aligned to international practises!
                        > - Do not use v and say f. Replace all written v's vid f.
                        > - And accordingly. Do not use w, write v instead.
                        > - Do not use z. Use s or ts instead.
                        > - Do not use x. Use ks or äks or eks instead.
                        > - Do not write vw, use simply v.
                        > - Do not write ee and ii. Its enough with e and i.
                        >
                        > And, as much as possible, write the words as they are pronounced.
                        > If saying shi (as in English She), write it shi. If saying vi (as in English we) , write it vi. If saying komplit (as for Complete in English), write it komplit. One letter = one pronounce. As much as possible!
                        >
                        > This would make it much easier for more Scandinavians to read and speak Folkspraak, even if it's mainly combined of Dutch+German+English.
                        >
                        > I believe that Folkspraak mainly should focusing on combing German with Dutch, but slightly also towards English and Scandinavians. But an stronger alignment in writings and usage of letters for pronouncing could make sence and make it easier to use Folkspraak as Pan-Germanic conlang, while Scandinavian could be in use as a Scandinavian conlang.
                        >
                        > So, I believe it would be able use the conlang Scandinavian as a basis for alignment towards the Scandinavian languages, if you made some slight adjustments in the Folkspraak writings and usage of letters.
                        >
                        > BR Johan P
                        >
                        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Hei, ek ha lesed din Skandinaviska dokument nu.
                        > > Dat es god werk av di, Johan, doh ek frag mi enig tingen:
                        > > du ha de principe dat wan two Skandinavish spraken ha de selv word, dat shall wese de Skandinaviska word.
                        > > Doh med de shriving, ek se du ha mer de Swedish shrivwis, med ö ond ä, doh dar aere two av din brunn spraken, Danish on Norwegish, dat have æ ond ø. So du mot kyse egenlik for æ ond ø, oder du kann magshee have en kompromis ae ond oe, dat es de substitut in Danish, Norwegish ond Swedish alrede for æ/ä ond ø/ö.
                        > >
                        > > Ek se oek dat din do-worden (verbs) ende in -a av Swedish, doh two spraken (Danish ond Norwegish) have de suffiks -e.
                        > >
                        > > Ond ek se dat wan de Norwegish ond de Danish word aere praktish identish, doh have allenig en letter anders, du kyse alrede de Swedish word.
                        > > Ek tenk dat du kann make mer en enhed av Skandinaviska, nu dat es noh to mannig en mingsel ond man se dat.
                        > >
                        > > (Des es niht kritik doh "feedback")
                        > >
                        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > I'll send Johan's message through to the group:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > I refered to an alias-page instead of the conlang-page.
                        > > >
                        > > > Here's the proper place:
                        > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/
                        > > >
                        > > > If you join the group, then will you find a database "Skandinavisk ordlista":
                        > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang_skandinaviska/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1
                        > > >
                        > > > BR Johan P
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Dett er ett fantastiskt idee, Johan. Og vor kann vi finde din nye språk? Jeg ha besoekt din Yahoo grupp, menn jeg vill gerne seer en eksempel av Skandinavisk. Måske du kann poster dett her?
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "johanpalmaer" <johan@> wrote:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Hi. I've created a new conlang called Skandinavisk. It's builds basically on Swedish-Danish-Norwegian.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > The vocabulary is simply constructed so that I've made a list the 2,000 most common words in English, and then translated these to Swedish-Danish-Norwegian in separate columns besides. If a word are the same in at least two of scandinavian languages (for example Swedish and Danish) will that word be counted as a Scandinavian word. If no words are the same, will the Swedish word be counted as a Scandinavian word.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Approx. 75% of all words in the vocabulary is Swedish, while 50% are Danish and 50% are Norwegian. However, the very most words are even so possible to understand by the most Scandinavians in these three countries.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Here's the Yahoo-group for Skandinavisk:
                        > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skandinaviska/
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > This new conlang can be utilized as a reference for Folkspraak when refererring to and aligning to Scandinavian.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • chamavian
                        Hei Andrew, nice to see you back you re right, ek = I and *ek = oak would be exactly the same words, they d be pronounced alike as well. I suggest using
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jun 24, 2011
                          Hei Andrew, nice to see you back

                          you're right, ek = I and *ek = oak would be exactly the same words, they'd be pronounced alike as well. I suggest using ekboem, oak three

                          For is = ice ans *iss = is, there would be a difference in pronunciation too, between long and short i.

                          But since *iss with it's double s looks kinda dumb we had to look for a different solution, if we'd pick the ideal form "is", it would mean we'd have to reform the whole orthographic system or allow a lot of irregularity in it, which is undesirable for our artifisticial conlang.

                          Where *ikk and *diss became ek and des already, *iss becoming *es fits in neatly.


                          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >> Just pointing out that there's another situation like the one pointed out for <is> = "ice" and "is".
                          >
                          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Yes it is a homonym for "oak". But so what? English "I" is a homonym for "eye" and "aye". Oak won't be needed very often anyway.
                          >
                          >
                          > >
                          > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch) it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the North Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the FS word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek] and [es].
                          > > >
                          > > > Isn't <ek> [e:k] already the Folksprak word for <oak>?
                          > > >
                          > > > Andrew
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • swartsaxon
                          Makes sense. I have a lot of other ideas, such as having a system where double consonants are actually long, and simple vowels are short, long vowels being
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jun 25, 2011
                            Makes sense. I have a lot of other ideas, such as having a system where double consonants are actually long, and simple vowels are short, long vowels being indicated by doubling or a diacritic such as an acute accent. But these ideas are too complex and Folksprak is too far along in its present incarnation to introduce a new more complicated system. So I think you and David are right, <ek> can be both "I" and "oak" and to distinguish them one can use <ekboem> for the latter (oak tree).

                            AJ

                            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Hei Andrew, nice to see you back
                            >
                            > you're right, ek = I and *ek = oak would be exactly the same words, they'd be pronounced alike as well. I suggest using ekboem, oak three
                            >
                            > For is = ice ans *iss = is, there would be a difference in pronunciation too, between long and short i.
                            >
                            > But since *iss with it's double s looks kinda dumb we had to look for a different solution, if we'd pick the ideal form "is", it would mean we'd have to reform the whole orthographic system or allow a lot of irregularity in it, which is undesirable for our artifisticial conlang.
                            >
                            > Where *ikk and *diss became ek and des already, *iss becoming *es fits in neatly.
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >> Just pointing out that there's another situation like the one pointed out for <is> = "ice" and "is".
                            > >
                            > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > Yes it is a homonym for "oak". But so what? English "I" is a homonym for "eye" and "aye". Oak won't be needed very often anyway.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > >
                            > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch) it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the North Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the FS word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek] and [es].
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Isn't <ek> [e:k] already the Folksprak word for <oak>?
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Andrew
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • Will Beazley
                            Methinks that Ik shall be the easiest to use in all cases. -- ________________________________ From: swartsaxon To:
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jun 27, 2011
                              Methinks that Ik shall be the easiest to use in all cases.

                              --




                              ________________________________
                              From: swartsaxon <anjarrette@...>
                              To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Sat, June 25, 2011 1:39:41 PM
                              Subject: [folkspraak] Ek




                              Makes sense. I have a lot of other ideas, such as having a system where double
                              consonants are actually long, and simple vowels are short, long vowels being
                              indicated by doubling or a diacritic such as an acute accent. But these ideas
                              are too complex and Folksprak is too far along in its present incarnation to
                              introduce a new more complicated system. So I think you and David are right,
                              <ek> can be both "I" and "oak" and to distinguish them one can use <ekboem> for
                              the latter (oak tree).

                              AJ

                              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Hei Andrew, nice to see you back
                              >
                              > you're right, ek = I and *ek = oak would be exactly the same words, they'd be
                              >pronounced alike as well. I suggest using ekboem, oak three
                              >
                              >
                              > For is = ice ans *iss = is, there would be a difference in pronunciation too,
                              >between long and short i.
                              >
                              > But since *iss with it's double s looks kinda dumb we had to look for a
                              >different solution, if we'd pick the ideal form "is", it would mean we'd have to
                              >reform the whole orthographic system or allow a lot of irregularity in it, which
                              >is undesirable for our artifisticial conlang.
                              >
                              > Where *ikk and *diss became ek and des already, *iss becoming *es fits in
                              >neatly.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >> Just pointing out that there's another situation like the one pointed out
                              >for <is> = "ice" and "is".
                              > >
                              > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Yes it is a homonym for "oak". But so what? English "I" is a homonym for
                              >"eye" and "aye". Oak won't be needed very often anyway.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > >
                              > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch)
                              >it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
                              >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd
                              >because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the North
                              >Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the
                              >FS word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek]
                              >and [es].
                              >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Isn't <ek> [e:k] already the Folksprak word for <oak>?
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Andrew
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • chamavian
                              I guess ik would probably be most members favourite, but unfortunately in Folksprak it would be pronounced like English eek when it s spelled that way,
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jun 29, 2011
                                I guess "ik" would probably be most members' favourite, but unfortunately in Folksprak it would be pronounced like English "eek" when it's spelled that way, and then it wouldn't be so ideal anymore.
                                But a spelling "ikk" isn't what we want either...

                                So finaly that is how we came to "ek"


                                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Will Beazley <willbeaz@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Methinks that Ik shall be the easiest to use in all cases.
                                >
                                > --
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ________________________________
                                > From: swartsaxon <anjarrette@...>
                                > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Sat, June 25, 2011 1:39:41 PM
                                > Subject: [folkspraak] Ek
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Makes sense. I have a lot of other ideas, such as having a system where double
                                > consonants are actually long, and simple vowels are short, long vowels being
                                > indicated by doubling or a diacritic such as an acute accent. But these ideas
                                > are too complex and Folksprak is too far along in its present incarnation to
                                > introduce a new more complicated system. So I think you and David are right,
                                > <ek> can be both "I" and "oak" and to distinguish them one can use <ekboem> for
                                > the latter (oak tree).
                                >
                                > AJ
                                >
                                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Hei Andrew, nice to see you back
                                > >
                                > > you're right, ek = I and *ek = oak would be exactly the same words, they'd be
                                > >pronounced alike as well. I suggest using ekboem, oak three
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > For is = ice ans *iss = is, there would be a difference in pronunciation too,
                                > >between long and short i.
                                > >
                                > > But since *iss with it's double s looks kinda dumb we had to look for a
                                > >different solution, if we'd pick the ideal form "is", it would mean we'd have to
                                > >reform the whole orthographic system or allow a lot of irregularity in it, which
                                > >is undesirable for our artifisticial conlang.
                                > >
                                > > Where *ikk and *diss became ek and des already, *iss becoming *es fits in
                                > >neatly.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >> Just pointing out that there's another situation like the one pointed out
                                > >for <is> = "ice" and "is".
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Yes it is a homonym for "oak". But so what? English "I" is a homonym for
                                > >"eye" and "aye". Oak won't be needed very often anyway.
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > Well, but IST wouldn't be fit for FS, because unlike German (and Dutch)
                                > >it doesn't have -t for 3d pers sing pres tense.
                                > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > From a merely West Germanic point of view, EK and ES may look a bit odd
                                > >because we'd expect something like *IK and *IS, but when we'd look at the North
                                > >Germanic EG/JEG and ER, it would make more sense.
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > It would have been best when we could have IS, but this is already the
                                > >FS word for Engl. ice, and must be pronounced [i:s] with long i.
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > The pronunciation of EK and ES would be [e:k] and [e:s], or maybe [ek]
                                > >and [es].
                                > >
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > Isn't <ek> [e:k] already the Folksprak word for <oak>?
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > Andrew
                                > > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > >
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.