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

Re: Status of Folksprak

Expand Messages
  • David
    Hi guys. I d love to participate but I m trying to enjoy my honeymoon. I will check in again in about a week.
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi guys. I'd love to participate but I'm trying to enjoy my honeymoon. I will check in again in about a week.

      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "darrylwsmorris" <darrylwsmorris@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Christian,
      >
      > Many thanks for welcoming me to the group! I am really happy to have found this place.
      >
      > I'm not a linguist and come to this group as a kind of enthusiatic consumer - so I'm just assessing at the moment what exactly there is the consume...
      >
      > I've trawled through some of the material and it seems that the holy grail is a consensus implementation, primarily to converge the dialects created by Stephan, Ingmar and David. Apologies if I have left out other major contributers.
      >
      > There are tantalizing references to a common Folksprak agreed by these three - although, I'm not sure how long ago these agreements were made, or how broad in scope the agreements were. (I'm not sure even if these agreements are documented in any one place.)
      >
      > In the past, I have typically avoided both yahoo groups and facebook like the plague, but since I was prepared to join yahoo for this group, I thought I might as well create a facebook account aswell, and have a look :) It does seem some activity has now moved from here over to Facebook.
      >
      > From my current perception, the following represent the current canon for learning consensus Folksprak:
      >
      > 1) English to Folksprak Dictionary.pdf, placed on the Facebook page on 2012/11/28. I like the look of this orthography - but I'm not sure of the pronunciation rules, so I'm a bit stuck here.
      >
      > 2) Folksprak word formation guidelines.pdf, placed on this group on 2012/12/18 and also available on Facebook and your wiki.
      >
      > This is great stuff - it suggests that the vocabulary is being built up in the same way as Interlingua, where first, an appropriate cognate is identified from amongst the source languages. Then the Folksprak word is determined via systemic derivation from the common prototype (whether that be proto-germanic, latin, etc.)
      >
      > So as long as we have this document, and the community agrees on it, anyone can reasonably extend Folksprak vocabulary without lengthy consultations.
      >
      > I think this methodology is the most neutral and has historical precedent in this area.
      >
      > So - how do we put these words together?
      >
      > I've seen some informal list of grammatical conventions used by David in his Facebook messages. These seem to have been evolved through several years of exposure in the community at large.
      >
      > So do I start there? I'd be more comfortable if these were documented somewhere, such as in your wiki, but maybe that is not even possible without some futher voting, or god-knows-what.
      >
      > Which leads me to the dialectal varieties, which do have some guidance on grammar, as people are free to innovate without consensus. Of these, Frenkisch seems the most fleshed out, but I think the bias in this language is more towards providing an accessible realisation of common Germanic grammatical forms rather than specifically a Germanic interlang.
      >
      > In particular, the irregular verb forms reflect a Germanic flavour, but if the regularization of these forms does not reduce comprehensibility among Germanic speakers, then it seems (to me at least) that the language should move towards that regularization.
      >
      > Indeed, I read some comments from David on Facebook that seemed to suggest the Folksprak grammatical forms should be simple (presumably in contrast to what is acceptable in Frenkisch).
      >
      > I think Interlingua's approach of having perfectly regular verbal forms, with some optional irregular forms is a reasonable approach.
      >
      > Ingmar's Middelspraak's grammar seems to be the most fleshed-out variant with regular verbal forms. So, I'm tempted to follow that grammar and use the latest vocab and word building documents published by David (listed above), in anticipation that a consensus grammar document would be in this flavour.
      >
      > Does that sound reasonable - or is it way too early even to assume that?
      >
      > Anyway, just some of my thoughts - apologies if I have misrepresented anyone's opinions. Forensic conlangery is an imprecise science.
      >
      > As I said, I'm not a linguist and cannot contribute in the derivation of the common language. However, I am a developer and can support you and the community if you need my service. For instance, I think there is scope to improve the process by which new vocab is submitted, discussed and accepted into the standard, and then made available to the community. We could probably improve this process by developing some kind of web interface.
      >
      > Darryl
      >
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Fenris <fenris.kcf@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hello, Darryl
      > >
      > > /It gladen mig, at du vil vete um dis projekt!/
      > >
      > > I can not confirm that there is a version of Folksprak, that all agree
      > > with. Instead there are still many different proposals. In order to
      > > structure these i created a Wiki to gather and compare them:
      > > http://folkspraak.de.vu Unfortunately the participation was quite low
      > > until now.
      > >
      > > Regarding the word-formation: As far as i know no special algorithm was
      > > used to form words from the source-languages. I started to expand the
      > > word formation guide lines, that David Park created (see
      > > http://folkspraak.bfadmin.schokokeks.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_word_formation);
      > > but it's still more like a draft yet. I currently work on a small
      > > software for Folkspraks vocabulary --- something like a dictionary based
      > > on grammatical rules and a wordlist. It's not ready yet, but i will
      > > inform via the mailing-list when it's done.
      > >
      > > David started a facebook-group some months ago, but i don't know how it
      > > is going since i avoid any contact with facebook. If you don't you could
      > > take a look at it. Otherwise/additionally you could drop by in the
      > > IRC-channel ##folkspraak on freenode.net (Webchat-Link
      > > <http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##folkspraak>).
      > >
      > > Greetings,
      > > Christian
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Am 21.07.2013 18:39, schrieb darrylwsmorris:
      > > > Hi everyone,
      > > >
      > > > I came across this site looking for a Germanic equivalent to Interlingua - an extracted common Germanic vocabulary knitted together with a Germanic grammar simplified to a "lowest common denominator", that still allows some level of immediate visual and spoken recognition to native speakers of Germanic languages.
      > > >
      > > > The Folkspraak project seems to be this - great!
      > > >
      > > > And the group description states "since the end of 2010 there is a kind of Standard Folksprak, members agree about". However, I can't see clearly where the language grammar and vocabulary is defined. Can someone point me in the direction of these resources and let me know how "official" these documents are?
      > > >
      > > > What's the current status of the language? Is the grammar in a stable condition. If not, how do you propose and decide on modifications?
      > > > Also, how do people propose extensions to the vocabulary and how are these proposals discussed and accepted/rejected?
      > > >
      > > > I'm particularly interested in the process by which the common language is extracted from source languages (and what languages you finally decided on for your source languages). Do you use an impartial, algorithmic approach to extract words and grammar, as was done with Interlingua? If so, is that process documented somewhere, and can it be used to produce new words?
      > > >
      > > > Seems like a great project and a shame there's not more buzz around it, particularly if the dialectal issues are now resolved.
      > > >
      > > > Darryl
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
    • darrylwsmorris
      Hi David, Congratulations! I think you guys can produce something really, really great with this project. I m looking forward to hearing your thoughts when you
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 23, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi David,

        Congratulations!

        I think you guys can produce something really, really great with this project.

        I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts when you get back.

        And if there's anyone else out there, please say hello!

        I'm interested to hear what peoples thoughts are of this project - what has worked and has not worked in the past - where you think it's going. Where you want it to go. How could things work better? Is it a hopeless task?

        Darryl


        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi guys. I'd love to participate but I'm trying to enjoy my honeymoon. I will check in again in about a week.
        >
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "darrylwsmorris" <darrylwsmorris@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi Christian,
        > >
        > > Many thanks for welcoming me to the group! I am really happy to have found this place.
        > >
        > > I'm not a linguist and come to this group as a kind of enthusiatic consumer - so I'm just assessing at the moment what exactly there is the consume...
        > >
        > > I've trawled through some of the material and it seems that the holy grail is a consensus implementation, primarily to converge the dialects created by Stephan, Ingmar and David. Apologies if I have left out other major contributers.
        > >
        > > There are tantalizing references to a common Folksprak agreed by these three - although, I'm not sure how long ago these agreements were made, or how broad in scope the agreements were. (I'm not sure even if these agreements are documented in any one place.)
        > >
        > > In the past, I have typically avoided both yahoo groups and facebook like the plague, but since I was prepared to join yahoo for this group, I thought I might as well create a facebook account aswell, and have a look :) It does seem some activity has now moved from here over to Facebook.
        > >
        > > From my current perception, the following represent the current canon for learning consensus Folksprak:
        > >
        > > 1) English to Folksprak Dictionary.pdf, placed on the Facebook page on 2012/11/28. I like the look of this orthography - but I'm not sure of the pronunciation rules, so I'm a bit stuck here.
        > >
        > > 2) Folksprak word formation guidelines.pdf, placed on this group on 2012/12/18 and also available on Facebook and your wiki.
        > >
        > > This is great stuff - it suggests that the vocabulary is being built up in the same way as Interlingua, where first, an appropriate cognate is identified from amongst the source languages. Then the Folksprak word is determined via systemic derivation from the common prototype (whether that be proto-germanic, latin, etc.)
        > >
        > > So as long as we have this document, and the community agrees on it, anyone can reasonably extend Folksprak vocabulary without lengthy consultations.
        > >
        > > I think this methodology is the most neutral and has historical precedent in this area.
        > >
        > > So - how do we put these words together?
        > >
        > > I've seen some informal list of grammatical conventions used by David in his Facebook messages. These seem to have been evolved through several years of exposure in the community at large.
        > >
        > > So do I start there? I'd be more comfortable if these were documented somewhere, such as in your wiki, but maybe that is not even possible without some futher voting, or god-knows-what.
        > >
        > > Which leads me to the dialectal varieties, which do have some guidance on grammar, as people are free to innovate without consensus. Of these, Frenkisch seems the most fleshed out, but I think the bias in this language is more towards providing an accessible realisation of common Germanic grammatical forms rather than specifically a Germanic interlang.
        > >
        > > In particular, the irregular verb forms reflect a Germanic flavour, but if the regularization of these forms does not reduce comprehensibility among Germanic speakers, then it seems (to me at least) that the language should move towards that regularization.
        > >
        > > Indeed, I read some comments from David on Facebook that seemed to suggest the Folksprak grammatical forms should be simple (presumably in contrast to what is acceptable in Frenkisch).
        > >
        > > I think Interlingua's approach of having perfectly regular verbal forms, with some optional irregular forms is a reasonable approach.
        > >
        > > Ingmar's Middelspraak's grammar seems to be the most fleshed-out variant with regular verbal forms. So, I'm tempted to follow that grammar and use the latest vocab and word building documents published by David (listed above), in anticipation that a consensus grammar document would be in this flavour.
        > >
        > > Does that sound reasonable - or is it way too early even to assume that?
        > >
        > > Anyway, just some of my thoughts - apologies if I have misrepresented anyone's opinions. Forensic conlangery is an imprecise science.
        > >
        > > As I said, I'm not a linguist and cannot contribute in the derivation of the common language. However, I am a developer and can support you and the community if you need my service. For instance, I think there is scope to improve the process by which new vocab is submitted, discussed and accepted into the standard, and then made available to the community. We could probably improve this process by developing some kind of web interface.
        > >
        > > Darryl
        > >
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Fenris <fenris.kcf@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Hello, Darryl
        > > >
        > > > /It gladen mig, at du vil vete um dis projekt!/
        > > >
        > > > I can not confirm that there is a version of Folksprak, that all agree
        > > > with. Instead there are still many different proposals. In order to
        > > > structure these i created a Wiki to gather and compare them:
        > > > http://folkspraak.de.vu Unfortunately the participation was quite low
        > > > until now.
        > > >
        > > > Regarding the word-formation: As far as i know no special algorithm was
        > > > used to form words from the source-languages. I started to expand the
        > > > word formation guide lines, that David Park created (see
        > > > http://folkspraak.bfadmin.schokokeks.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_word_formation);
        > > > but it's still more like a draft yet. I currently work on a small
        > > > software for Folkspraks vocabulary --- something like a dictionary based
        > > > on grammatical rules and a wordlist. It's not ready yet, but i will
        > > > inform via the mailing-list when it's done.
        > > >
        > > > David started a facebook-group some months ago, but i don't know how it
        > > > is going since i avoid any contact with facebook. If you don't you could
        > > > take a look at it. Otherwise/additionally you could drop by in the
        > > > IRC-channel ##folkspraak on freenode.net (Webchat-Link
        > > > <http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##folkspraak>).
        > > >
        > > > Greetings,
        > > > Christian
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Am 21.07.2013 18:39, schrieb darrylwsmorris:
        > > > > Hi everyone,
        > > > >
        > > > > I came across this site looking for a Germanic equivalent to Interlingua - an extracted common Germanic vocabulary knitted together with a Germanic grammar simplified to a "lowest common denominator", that still allows some level of immediate visual and spoken recognition to native speakers of Germanic languages.
        > > > >
        > > > > The Folkspraak project seems to be this - great!
        > > > >
        > > > > And the group description states "since the end of 2010 there is a kind of Standard Folksprak, members agree about". However, I can't see clearly where the language grammar and vocabulary is defined. Can someone point me in the direction of these resources and let me know how "official" these documents are?
        > > > >
        > > > > What's the current status of the language? Is the grammar in a stable condition. If not, how do you propose and decide on modifications?
        > > > > Also, how do people propose extensions to the vocabulary and how are these proposals discussed and accepted/rejected?
        > > > >
        > > > > I'm particularly interested in the process by which the common language is extracted from source languages (and what languages you finally decided on for your source languages). Do you use an impartial, algorithmic approach to extract words and grammar, as was done with Interlingua? If so, is that process documented somewhere, and can it be used to produce new words?
        > > > >
        > > > > Seems like a great project and a shame there's not more buzz around it, particularly if the dialectal issues are now resolved.
        > > > >
        > > > > Darryl
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > ------------------------------------
        > > > >
        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.