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

Re: Proposal for Long and Short Vowels

Expand Messages
  • swartsaxon
    Which proposal are you referring to? Plurals in -e and infinitives in -en? I don t think I need to offer examples of that, since it is a regular rule applied
    Message 1 of 34 , Jul 25, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Which proposal are you referring to? Plurals in -e and infinitives in -en? I don't think I need to offer examples of that, since it is a regular rule applied to every noun and every verb. Do you mean examples of common words that are exceptions to the general spelling rule? Well, we could agree on which words. I would suggest that articles, pronouns, prepositions, demonstrative adjectives and adverbs, interrogative adjectives and adverbs, indefinite adjectives and adverbs, and conjunctions could be exceptions to the general spelling rule, since these are the words that occur most frequently. Examples of such words with a short vowel followed by a single consonants could be <ik>, <is> (beside <is> [i:s] = 'ice', the two would have to be memorized, like how English <tear> [tEr] = 'rip' but [tir] = 'teardrop'), <an> (or pronounced with a long vowel, like Dutch <aan>), <af>, <fon/fan>, <man> "one", <dat>, <dis/des>, <in> (as in German, and like German would have <inner> etc. with double nn -- we could spell it <inn> as Adam suggested but that would be inconsistent for prepositions), etc.

      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
      >
      > Please give some examples of your proposal, with both suffixes
      >
      >
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@> wrote:
      > >
      > > In a subsequent posting I acknowledged the over-complexity of this proposed system, and mentioned that one could follow the German practice of having some common words with short vowels followed by single consonants that are exceptions to the general rule that a vowel followed by a single consononant is long. German has short vowels in words like <an>, <man>, <das>, <in>, <von>, <ab>, that are exceptions to the normal German rule. We could have similar exceptions in Folkspraak that would have to be memorized, but would be easy to memorize since they are so common. This idea has been suggested previously for Folkspraak (as I pointed out previously), but for some reason was dropped. I agree with you that it may be the most desirable option among those proposed.
      > >
      > > About the adverb suffix, note that German distinguishes adjectives from adverbs in that adjectives are declined when in appositive position, while adverbs are the undeclined form of adjectives. I still think it's a good idea to distinguish adverbs from adjectives, for clarity's sake. But if it has been agreed already that adverbs shall be the same as (undeclined) adjectives, then I will go along with the majority rule of course.
      > >
      > > I agree with you that nouns should form their plural with -e and infinitives be formed with -en. Maybe you could suggest this to Ingmar and David, who are the de facto chiefs when it comes to Folkspraak.
      > >
      > > Andrew
      > >
      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "adam.skoog" <adam.skoog@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I have to say that I don't like this at all. It's inconsistent on a level that just isn't comparable to having a few (extremely common) odd words that are pronounced with short vowels, even though they look like they would be long. This is primarily intended for Germanic speakers, after all, and I think most of these would pronounce these words correctly without even thinking, anyway.
      > > >
      > > > I do not endorse the idea of forcing an adverb suffix into the language just to conform to a strict rule, when it has previously been agreed upon having adverbs look just like their parent adjectives, with a few exceptions, such as <wel>. I feel it is suggestions like these that keep adding to the disagreement that keeps halting the progress of this project. I say leave it be. Let <ik>/<ig> and <is> retain their spelling, pronounced with short vowels, and let <ut> retain it's spelling, pronounced with a long one. It will work out just fine.
      > > >
      > > > About your plural suffixes, I'm going to suggest something one more time, that I brought up probably well over a year or more ago now, about which I seem to recall I had some agreement from others. Verbs form their plural with -e, right? So do adjectives, don't they? My suggestion was, and still is, to use this ending for noun plurals as well. Danish and German both have lots of nouns with this plural ending, and it seems to me to be the best compromise between endings in -s, -r and -n; simply dropping the consonant and using the same vowel as for all other plurals. I'm still in favour of using the -en suffix for infinitives. That's an entirely different ending.
      > > >
      > > > As a side note, I'm in favour of spelling the word for 'in' as <inn>. Northern Germanic (with Swedish, as always, being the odd exception - it's orthography is very clearly inspired by German anyway) does it, and since the pronunciation is with a short vowel and this does make sense etymologically, why not?
      > > >
      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > I thought of a proposal to potentially solve the problem of the indication of short vowels vs. long vowels, and the problem it creates in short function words such as prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions, articles and the like, i.e. to avoid spellings like "ikk" and "iss" but still retain a regular spelling system.
      > > > >
      > > > > How about we divide words into two groups: 1. Inflecting words. 2. Non-inflecting words.
      > > > >
      > > > > Inflecting words include any words that can have a suffix added on to indicated a change of function, such as nouns which can have the plural suffix -en, and verbs which can have the plural suffix -e as well as the past tense and infinitive and participial forms. Here I would also include adjectives and adverbs, and suggest that adjectives distinguish singular and plural, so that one could omit the following noun to express ideas such as "a red one", "the big ones", much as is done in modern German and Dutch, but still be able to distinguish singular and plural when the noun is omitted. The adjective plural ending might be -e. I would also suggest that adverbs that are derivatives of adjectives also have a suffix added to the adjective stem. Thus adverbs would be considered inflecting words because they would be considered derivatives of adjectives with an adverb-forming suffix. Of course, some words only exist as adverbs, and these could follow the same spelling rules as adverbs derived from adjectives.
      > > > >
      > > > > Non-inflecting words include any words that are static, that never take a suffix to indicate a change of function (or indicate change of function by completely changing the word rather than adding a suffix, as case functions are indicated at present in German pronouns). Such words would include pronouns, possessives, pronominal adjectives and adverbs (i.e. demonstratives, relatives, interrogatives, indefinites, and their corresponding adverbs), prepositions (and possibly prepositional adverbs), conjunctions, and interjections.
      > > > >
      > > > > The rule would be that for inflecting words, long vowels are indicated by a single consonant following the vowel, and short vowels are indicated by two or more consonants or geminates following the vowel. Whereas for non-inflecting words, long vowels are indicated by doubling the vowel, while short vowels would be indicated by a single vowel followed by a single consonant or two or more consonants. Thus "I" could be <ik> [Ik] and "is" could be <is> [Is]. However, <is> would also be [i:s] "ice" as a member of the inflecting words above, so in that case it might be better to have <es> [Es] (with short e) for "is". But in all other cases, non-inflecting words will always have a short vowel unless the vowel is doubled (e.g. <uut> [u:t] "out of" -- the prepositional adverb "out" could be <uut> as well -- but cf. <in> [In] "in, into"), while inflecting words will have a long vowel if a single consonant follows (e.g. <mod> [mo:d] "courage"), but a short vowel if two or more consonants or a geminated (doubled) consonant follows (e.g. <bedd> [bEd] "bed", <ek> [e:k] "oak").
      > > > >
      > > > > What do you think? Could this system be adopted?
      > > > >
      > > > > Andrew
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • adam.skoog
      I agree. This doesn t purge the rest of my proposition[s], though, in case you wish to review those.
      Message 34 of 34 , Aug 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree. This doesn't purge the rest of my proposition[s], though, in case you wish to review those.

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
        >
        > Well, that's great. Quite surprising, too. Btw how did we get into this discussion anyway? Oh yeah, because of Adam's proposal to use a plural indefinite article in Folksprak, and he was saying that this was correct in the North Germanic languages.
        > However interesting, I think this isn't backed by enough of our source languages to make it a part of FS grammar. I also think it would be easily misunderstood as a singular...
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Johan Palmaer" <johan.palmaer@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi Adam.
        > >
        > > I've now found a litterateur reference regarding this!
        > >
        > > http://www.hum.uit.no/a/vangsnes/Dialektboka.pdf on page 15 section 3.1: "...I svenska och färöiska används plural av en: ena/einir som obestämd artikel i vissa kontexter. Det går att finna motsvarande exempel i vissa norska dialekter (Falk-Torp 1900:74, Christiansen 1953). I Nordsverige används formen a (se Marklund 1986:28, Delsing 1993:144). I Sydsverige, Danmark och Norge används normalt plural av någon. Det förekommer främst då nominalfrasen används predikativt.
        > >
        > > (12) Det är ena bovar (svenska)
        > > Ta› eru einir jassar. (färöiska)
        > > Däm ä som a toka (nordsvenska)
        > > De er noen fjolser (danska)"
        > >
        > > The reference also gives a lot of input regarding dialectal variations in the Scandinavian languages when talking about definte/indefinte articles and more.
        > >
        > > So, it seem like there exist cases where "ena" could stand as indefinite article for plural nouns in Swedish and Icelandic.
        > >
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "adam.skoog" <adam.skoog@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > I know that it's not very common, or not used at all, in some, or many, places, and that's why I wrote, specifically, that it's not extremely common. As always, though, just because the Central Swedes don't use some aspect of the language, which thus doesn't render it far too common in writing either, since written Swedish is largely based on Central Swedish speech, it doesn't mean that the rest of the country, or other large parts of it, don't use it. People very often seem to forget about this.
        > > >
        > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Johan Palmaer" <johan.palmaer@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Hello Adam.
        > > > >
        > > > > I've consulted a lot of Swedish grammar, and nowhere is "ena" presented as a possible indefinite article for a plural noun. I've also consulted some colleagues (native Swedish speakers), and none of them have ever heard anything such.
        > > > >
        > > > > But as a native Swedish speaker, this example however seem reasonable:
        > > > > en hund - ena hundar (one dog - some dogs)
        > > > >
        > > > > But normally we would rather saying:
        > > > > en hund - några hundar (one dog - some dogs)
        > > > >
        > > > > The word "ena" is not a plural article in the first case. It may simply could be seen as a synonym to "några".
        > > > >
        > > > > I've also covered that "ena" often also could be replaced by "så(da)na": en hund - så(da)na hundar (one dog - such dogs)
        > > > >
        > > > > If looking at your examples, I believe the many Swedes rather would had said: "jag köpte några riktigt goda ostar i går" or "de är så(da)na riktiga svin".
        > > > >
        > > > > Your expression of "ena" in these sentences seem rather dialectal or personal, and may not so representative for standard Swedish nowadays. (I know that they were using ena och ene much more frequently in Swedish 100 years ago).
        > > > >
        > > > > However, it would be nice get some literal reference to all this.
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "adam.skoog" <adam.skoog@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I gave you an answer in the message before Johan's stating two Swedish examples.
        > > > > > An Icelandic example could be <ég fór að kaupa mömmu minni eina nýja skó>; 'I
        > > > > > went to buy my mum a new pair of shoes'.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Yes, this exists in many languages, but Adam wrote that the North Germanic languages have a plural indefinite article, and that was the thing I was questioning him about.
        > > > > > > Adam wrote that in the Scandinavian languages one says things like:
        > > > > > > en hund - ena hunde (one dog - some dogs) or et hus - ena huse (a house - houses)
        > > > > > > so that a plural form of "en" is used, the same way as in Spanish.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Frankly, I'm still not convinced
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Johan Palmaer" <johan.palmaer@> wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Hi. What Adam gave an example of is a indefinite pronomen.You can read
        > > > > > > > more about it on: http://www.ordklasser.se/indefinita-pronomen.php
        > > > > > > > There're also some other examples :1/ "Man blir ledsen, när någon
        > > > > > > > pratar illa om ens vänner."2/ "Ens bil kan tvättas här och ens
        > > > > > > > korv kan köpas där."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > And I also add another example , that shows that you also add ens as a
        > > > > > > > prepositive article before an adjective:"Ens snabba bilar kan köras
        > > > > > > > på vägarna", "Ens glada vänner träffas ibland".
        > > > > > > > I just wanted too show that the indefinite pronomen ens exists
        > > > > > > > officially, and can be applicable as prepositive article before an
        > > > > > > > adjective before a noun as well as an indefinite article before nouns.
        > > > > > > > However, just as Adam mentioned, it's quit uncommon speak or spell like
        > > > > > > > that nowadays. Some people may do it more frequently; like older people
        > > > > > > > or in some dialects.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > But nevertheless, the indefinite pronouns exists in Swedish, which I
        > > > > > > > just wanted to show.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "adam.skoog" <adam.skoog@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > This isn't extremely common, and I don't know if it does appear as
        > > > > > > > much/at all in Danish, Norwegian and Faroese, as in Icelandic and
        > > > > > > > Swedish.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > One example would be <jag köpte ena goda ostar i går>; 'I bought
        > > > > > > > some good cheese[s] yesterday'. Another <de är ena svin>; 'they are
        > > > > > > > some bastards (swine[s])'.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" roerd096@ wrote:
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > Give us some examples of that in Swedish, Danish, Norwegian? I want
        > > > > > > > to see what it looks like, and I couldn't find anything about this
        > > > > > > > myself
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "adam.skoog" <adam.skoog@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > In NG, the plural of the indefinite article would mean 'some',
        > > > > > > > roughly.
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > I mean, Adam, in your example you give: sg. ein hund - pl. eine
        > > > > > > > hunde.
        > > > > > > > > > > > And when I remarked this is not backed by the living Germanic
        > > > > > > > source languages of FS, you replied this is incorrect.
        > > > > > > > > > > > So I'm very much surprised and curious, Adam, please give us
        > > > > > > > some examples of the equivalent of the indefinitive plural article like
        > > > > > > > "eine hunde" in the Scandinavian languages.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "adam.skoog" <adam.skoog@>
        > > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > This is incorrect. Northern Germanic languages have a plural
        > > > > > > > of their e[i]n[n].
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
        > > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah I see. But to me, this is a little bit too complex for
        > > > > > > > Folksprak.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > A suffix is only necessary to indicate the plural of nouns,
        > > > > > > > adjectives can stay the same as in the singular, without any suffix.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > So: en wit hund, two wit hunden or two wit hunde.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also: genitives like "des hunds" are too complex for a
        > > > > > > > constructed lingua franca like Folksprak (and only exists in written
        > > > > > > > German), just use "av de hund".
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > "De mund av de hund", or "de hunds mund", but not *"de mund
        > > > > > > > des hunds".
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is how it goes in the source languages too, and FS
        > > > > > > > should be simpler than those, not more complicated.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also: a plural "ene" is not backed by any Germanic source
        > > > > > > > language (only by Spanish unos/unas), so that should be something like
        > > > > > > > "enig"
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > en hus - enig husen or enig huse
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "adam.skoog"
        > > > > > > > <adam.skoog@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In an old proposal I made, I did simply solve this by not
        > > > > > > > allowing polysyllabic words to end in -e in the singular, and I think
        > > > > > > > this solution is just fine. This has pretty much happened with moat
        > > > > > > > indigenous words in Dutch (and English) as well.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, a compromise ending up in making the
        > > > > > > > infinitive -e is fine to me, but, for the reasons that have already been
        > > > > > > > stated, using -en for plural nouns doesn't feel ideal at all, and that's
        > > > > > > > especially seeing how adjectives and verbs form their plurals. It is
        > > > > > > > true that my example of ambiguity does occur in reality, and that
        > > > > > > > similar situations also arise, but that doesn't necessarily make it
        > > > > > > > better if we have the chance to compromise in a way - that _could_ have
        > > > > > > > appeared naturally - to avoid this. Like I said, though, infinitive -e
        > > > > > > > still seems fair enough to me, but I wouldn't endorse the idea of plural
        > > > > > > > -en for nouns.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since monosyllabic words may end with e, we would get a
        > > > > > > > handful of words with the same plurals as singulars. This is no problem;
        > > > > > > > the Northern Germanic speakers manage an entire gender that does this,
        > > > > > > > after all, and in this case I'm only speaking about a few words. One of
        > > > > > > > these would be the definite article <de>, having the same singular and
        > > > > > > > plural. English (mostly; standard) and Dutch already do this.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I'm not entirely sure exactly what have been agreed
        > > > > > > > upon, but allow me to provide some examples using orthography,
        > > > > > > > morphology and phonology preferable to myself in the meantime. I will
        > > > > > > > try to find your actual documentation after posting this message.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Different forms of HUND:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NOM., OBL.: <ein hund>, <de hund>, <eine hunde, twei
        > > > > > > > hunde>, <de hunde>
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GEN.: <eins hunds>, <des hunds>, <eines hundes, twei
        > > > > > > > hundes>, <des
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some forms if the verb ETE[N]:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PRES.: <ig/du/he et>, <we/[j]i/dei ete>
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PRET.: <at>, <ate>
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The adjective HWIT:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NOM., OBL.: <hwit hund>, <hwite hunde>
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GEN.: <hwits hunds>, <hwites hundes>
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COMP.: <hwiter , <hwitere hunde>
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SUP.LAT.: <hwitest hund>, <hwiteste hunde>
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ein hwit hund at ein swart hund. Ein swart hund at ein
        > > > > > > > brun.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twei blauwe katte ate fimf fiske. Hwer at meire?
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@>
        > > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the reasons that were mentioned for having -en as
        > > > > > > > a plural suffix for nouns was, I think, that it's present in Dutch and
        > > > > > > > German, (and marginally in English), and that it is very regular and
        > > > > > > > recognizable, and that -e is already used for many different functions.
        > > > > > > > Also, having -e as plural suffix, would make it hard to have any
        > > > > > > > singular nouns with final -e, and in a naturalistic FS, many singular
        > > > > > > > nouns would end in -e.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Middelsprake, which has -e as noun plural suffix, I
        > > > > > > > had -s as plural suffix for singular nouns ending in -e, because I
        > > > > > > > thought -en would be too unacceptable for Scandinavians because of their
        > > > > > > > -en is the article marker; btw the same argument counts of course
        > > > > > > > against your proposal for -en for infinitives.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it's not that I was against a plural noun suffix -e,
        > > > > > > > only that the compromise of UFS was -en, so I don't know how we should
        > > > > > > > change that back now...
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon"
        > > > > > > > <anjarrette@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well then why was -en agreed upon as the noun plural
        > > > > > > > ending when you've already established that it need not have been
        > > > > > > > different from the infinitive ending -e? If they are going to be
        > > > > > > > different, I agree with Adam that -en is preferable as the infinitive
        > > > > > > > ending and -e is preferable as the plural ending, since verbs and
        > > > > > > > adjectives already have a plural in -e. If the infinitive and plural
        > > > > > > > endings are going to be the same, as they are in spoken Dutch, then make
        > > > > > > > them both -e, so that there would only be one plural ending for nouns,
        > > > > > > > verbs, and adjectives alike.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never realized that any final grammar had been
        > > > > > > > achieved; there is no grammar in the files section, the last time I
        > > > > > > > checked. It seems as long as we don't have a final grammar, revisions
        > > > > > > > to the grammar are always possible. Yes, it's nice to have agreement
        > > > > > > > after so many years of debate, but that is the only reason I can see for
        > > > > > > > the adoption of the noun plural in -en: I see no other justification for
        > > > > > > > it than that it has been agreed upon. Mind you, I was not part of that
        > > > > > > > agreement and I'm sure Adam was not also.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't expect however that you are going to start
        > > > > > > > writing your noun plurals with -e instead of -en.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian"
        > > > > > > > <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree that the infinitive needs a special,
        > > > > > > > separate suffix.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Middelsprake, in all these cases the suffix is
        > > > > > > > -e, so both as noun plural marker and verb infinitive. No confusion at
        > > > > > > > all, as there isn't in Dutch where the suffix is -en in both cases
        > > > > > > > (which is also pronounced as -e, btw, final -n in -en is silent in
        > > > > > > > colloquial Dutch)
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or in German in many cases.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About the argument that Scandinavian doesn't have
        > > > > > > > plurals in -en: that's a fact, but it doesn't have infinitives in -en
        > > > > > > > either, so
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For me, -e would be fine, ideal maybe, for both
        > > > > > > > nouns and infinitives.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I seem to remember we've achieved some kind
        > > > > > > > of unified Folksprak after a hard and endless struggle of over 10 years,
        > > > > > > > and -en as the noun plural suffix is one of its compromises. I wonder if
        > > > > > > > we should start sawing away the legs of the chair again...
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon"
        > > > > > > > <anjarrette@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adam makes clear the reason for -e as the plural
        > > > > > > > of nouns: "Verbs form their plural with -e, right? So do adjectives,
        > > > > > > > don't they? My suggestion was, and still is, to use this ending for noun
        > > > > > > > plurals as well. Danish and German both have lots of nouns with this
        > > > > > > > plural ending, and it seems to me to be the best compromise between
        > > > > > > > endings in -s, -r and -n; simply dropping the consonant and using the
        > > > > > > > same vowel as for all other plurals." Also no Scandinavian language has
        > > > > > > > a plural in -n, and English has it only in oxen and children, otherwise
        > > > > > > > -s or irregular change of vowel.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The infinitive in -en is shared by German and
        > > > > > > > (written) Dutch and was a feature of earlier English; it is also closer
        > > > > > > > to the historical Germanic infinitive ending *-an (Old Norse -a goes
        > > > > > > > back to earlier *-an). It would be necessary to distinguish it from the
        > > > > > > > common (noun, adjective, verb) plural ending -e.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian"
        > > > > > > > <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are the reasons for these choices, why does
        > > > > > > > -en for infinitives, and -e for plural of nouns, make sense? Why would
        > > > > > > > that be more logical than what we have now, that is: -en suffix for the
        > > > > > > > plural of nouns, and suffix -e for verbs?
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "swartsaxon"
        > > > > > > > <anjarrette@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which proposal are you referring to? Plurals
        > > > > > > > in -e and infinitives in -en? I don't think I need to offer examples of
        > > > > > > > that, since it is a regular rule applied to every noun and every verb.
        > > > > > > > Do you mean examples of common words that are exceptions to the general
        > > > > > > > spelling rule? Well, we could agree on which words. I would suggest
        > > > > > > > that articles, pronouns, prepositions, demonstrative adjectives and
        > > > > > > > adverbs, interrogative adjectives and adverbs, indefinite adjectives and
        > > > > > > > adverbs, and conjunctions could be exceptions to the general spelling
        > > > > > > > rule, since these are the words that occur most frequently. Examples of
        > > > > > > > such words with a short vowel followed by a single consonants could be
        > > > > > > > <ik>, <is> (beside <is> [i:s] = 'ice', the two would have to be
        > > > > > > > memorized, like how English <tear> [tEr] = 'rip' but [tir] =
        > > > > > > > 'teardrop'), <an> (or pronounced with a long vowel, like Dutch <aan>),
        > > > > > > > <af>, <fon/fan>, <man> "one", <dat>, <dis/des>, <in> (as in German, and
        > > > > > > > like German would have <inner> etc. with double nn -- we could spell it
        > > > > > > > <inn> as Adam suggested but that would be inconsistent for
        > > > > > > > prepositions), etc.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian"
        > > > > > > > <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please give some examples of your proposal,
        > > > > > > > with both suffixes
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com,
        > > > > > > > "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a subsequent posting I acknowledged the
        > > > > > > > over-complexity of this proposed system, and mentioned that one could
        > > > > > > > follow the German practice of having some common words with short vowels
        > > > > > > > followed by single consonants that are exceptions to the general rule
        > > > > > > > that a vowel followed by a single consononant is long. German has short
        > > > > > > > vowels in words like <an>, <man>, <das>, <in>, <von>, <ab>, that are
        > > > > > > > exceptions to the normal German rule. We could have similar exceptions
        > > > > > > > in Folkspraak that would have to be memorized, but would be easy to
        > > > > > > > memorize since they are so common. This idea has been suggested
        > > > > > > > previously for Folkspraak (as I pointed out previously), but for some
        > > > > > > > reason was dropped. I agree with you that it may be the most desirable
        > > > > > > > option among those proposed.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About the adverb suffix, note that German
        > > > > > > > distinguishes adjectives from adverbs in that adjectives are declined
        > > > > > > > when in appositive position, while adverbs are the undeclined form of
        > > > > > > > adjectives. I still think it's a good idea to distinguish adverbs from
        > > > > > > > adjectives, for clarity's sake. But if it has been agreed already that
        > > > > > > > adverbs shall be the same as (undeclined) adjectives, then I will go
        > > > > > > > along with the majority rule of course.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that nouns should form
        > > > > > > > their plural with -e and infinitives be formed with -en. Maybe you
        > > > > > > > could suggest this to Ingmar and David, who are the de facto chiefs when
        > > > > > > > it comes to Folkspraak.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com,
        > > > > > > > "adam.skoog" <adam.skoog@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to say that I don't like this at
        > > > > > > > all. It's inconsistent on a level that just isn't comparable to having a
        > > > > > > > few (extremely common) odd words that are pronounced with short vowels,
        > > > > > > > even though they look like they would be long. This is primarily
        > > > > > > > intended for Germanic speakers, after all, and I think most of these
        > > > > > > > would pronounce these words correctly without even thinking, anyway.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not endorse the idea of forcing an
        > > > > > > > adverb suffix into the language just to conform to a strict rule, when
        > > > > > > > it has previously been agreed upon having adverbs look just like their
        > > > > > > > parent adjectives, with a few exceptions, such as <wel>. I feel it is
        > > > > > > > suggestions like these that keep adding to the disagreement that keeps
        > > > > > > > halting the progress of this project. I say leave it be. Let <ik>/<ig>
        > > > > > > > and <is> retain their spelling, pronounced with short vowels, and let
        > > > > > > > <ut> retain it's spelling, pronounced with a long one. It will work out
        > > > > > > > just fine.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About your plural suffixes, I'm going to
        > > > > > > > suggest something one more time, that I brought up probably well over a
        > > > > > > > year or more ago now, about which I seem to recall I had some agreement
        > > > > > > > from others. Verbs form their plural with -e, right? So do adjectives,
        > > > > > > > don't they? My suggestion was, and still is, to use this ending for noun
        > > > > > > > plurals as well. Danish and German both have lots of nouns with this
        > > > > > > > plural ending, and it seems to me to be the best compromise between
        > > > > > > > endings in -s, -r and -n; simply dropping the consonant and using the
        > > > > > > > same vowel as for all other plurals. I'm still in favour of using the
        > > > > > > > -en suffix for infinitives. That's an entirely different ending.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a side note, I'm in favour of
        > > > > > > > spelling the word for 'in' as <inn>. Northern Germanic (with Swedish, as
        > > > > > > > always, being the odd exception - it's orthography is very clearly
        > > > > > > > inspired by German anyway) does it, and since the pronunciation is with
        > > > > > > > a short vowel and this does make sense etymologically, why not?
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com,
        > > > > > > > "swartsaxon" <anjarrette@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought of a proposal to potentially
        > > > > > > > solve the problem of the indication of short vowels vs. long vowels, and
        > > > > > > > the problem it creates in short function words such as prepositions,
        > > > > > > > pronouns, conjunctions, articles and the like, i.e. to avoid spellings
        > > > > > > > like "ikk" and "iss" but still retain a regular spelling system.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about we divide words into two
        > > > > > > > groups: 1. Inflecting words. 2. Non-inflecting words.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Inflecting words include any words
        > > > > > > > that can have a suffix added on to indicated a change of function, such
        > > > > > > > as nouns which can have the plural suffix -en, and verbs which can have
        > > > > > > > the plural suffix -e as well as the past tense and infinitive and
        > > > > > > > participial forms. Here I would also include adjectives and adverbs,
        > > > > > > > and suggest that adjectives distinguish singular and plural, so that one
        > > > > > > > could omit the following noun to express ideas such as "a red one", "the
        > > > > > > > big ones", much as is done in modern German and Dutch, but still be able
        > > > > > > > to distinguish singular and plural when the noun is omitted. The
        > > > > > > > adjective plural ending might be -e. I would also suggest that adverbs
        > > > > > > > that are derivatives of adjectives also have a suffix added to the
        > > > > > > > adjective stem. Thus adverbs would be considered inflecting words
        > > > > > > > because they would be considered derivatives of adjectives with an
        > > > > > > > adverb-forming suffix. Of course, some words only exist as adverbs, and
        > > > > > > > these could follow the same spelling rules as adverbs derived from
        > > > > > > > adjectives.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Non-inflecting words include any words
        > > > > > > > that are static, that never take a suffix to indicate a change of
        > > > > > > > function (or indicate change of function by completely changing the word
        > > > > > > > rather than adding a suffix, as case functions are indicated at present
        > > > > > > > in German pronouns). Such words would include pronouns, possessives,
        > > > > > > > pronominal adjectives and adverbs (i.e. demonstratives, relatives,
        > > > > > > > interrogatives, indefinites, and their corresponding adverbs),
        > > > > > > > prepositions (and possibly prepositional adverbs), conjunctions, and
        > > > > > > > interjections.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rule would be that for inflecting
        > > > > > > > words, long vowels are indicated by a single consonant following the
        > > > > > > > vowel, and short vowels are indicated by two or more consonants or
        > > > > > > > geminates following the vowel. Whereas for non-inflecting words, long
        > > > > > > > vowels are indicated by doubling the vowel, while short vowels would be
        > > > > > > > indicated by a single vowel followed by a single consonant or two or
        > > > > > > > more consonants. Thus "I" could be <ik> [Ik] and "is" could be <is>
        > > > > > > > [Is]. However, <is> would also be [i:s] "ice" as a member of the
        > > > > > > > inflecting words above, so in that case it might be better to have <es>
        > > > > > > > [Es] (with short e) for "is". But in all other cases, non-inflecting
        > > > > > > > words will always have a short vowel unless the vowel is doubled (e.g.
        > > > > > > > <uut> [u:t] "out of" -- the prepositional adverb "out" could be <uut> as
        > > > > > > > well -- but cf. <in> [In] "in, into"), while inflecting words will have
        > > > > > > > a long vowel if a single consonant follows (e.g. <mod> [mo:d]
        > > > > > > > "courage"), but a short vowel if two or more consonants or a geminated
        > > > > > > > (doubled) consonant follows (e.g. <bedd> [bEd] "bed", <ek> [e:k] "oak").
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? Could this system
        > > > > > > > be adopted?
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.