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

Neu zu Folkspraak

Expand Messages
  • Travis Reed
    Hello, Folkspraakerens. :) I recently rediscovered Folkspraak while cruising the internet. The first time I saw it, I passed it over, but after spending time
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello, Folkspraakerens. :)

      I recently rediscovered Folkspraak while cruising the internet. The
      first time I
      saw it, I passed it over, but after spending time in Switzerland (I'm
      currently
      studying French in Lausanne) German is growing more and more
      appealing.
      (Simplified artificial languages are a funner hobby, though...hence
      my interest
      in Folkspraak.)

      Anyway, I read the grammar at the website, and have started trying to
      use the
      language a tad. I am dismayed, though, that there is so much
      inconsistency
      in the language. I realize Folkspraak is a work in progress, but is
      there
      anywhere I can discover more about fundamentals like pronunciation
      and
      orthography?

      I am very interested in the language and would enjoy playing whatever
      small
      role in the language's development that I possibly could. I create
      languages
      as a hobby and study linguistics professionally. I have a particular
      interest in
      phonetics, phonology and orthography.

      Sorry to go on and on, but a few specific questions:

      1. Why do messages say: Vat denk je? Shouldn't it be more along
      the lines
      of <<Vat denke U?>>

      2. About orthography: does z = (z) or (ts) (can't find the square
      brackets on
      this swiss keyboard)

      3. How are the vowels pronounced? What distinguishes ''a'' from
      ''aa''...clearly something to do with ''length'' but at least in
      English the term
      length has less to do with length of the vowel than with the actual
      quality of
      the vowel. (The sound ''ee'' in ''meet'' versus ''i'' in ''mit.'')
      Are there any
      standardization efforts in progress?

      Thanks for your enduring my newness.

      (Insert wittiness here and then translate to Folkspraak),
      Travis
    • Daan Goedkoop
      Hello, About vowel length: we have voted on this, and this came out: Short vowel: mann - manner Long vowel: grot - groter Words that end in two consonants
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello,

        About vowel length: we have voted on this, and this came out:
        Short vowel: mann - manner
        Long vowel: grot - groter
        Words that end in two consonants always have a short vowel.

        We also voted which special vowels there should be, we see that there is not
        much support for digraphs, ümläüts or óthêr ãccènts, and diegraephs, so a,
        e, i, o, u (and perhaps y)
        With consonants: the "normal" ones, thus bdfgh(j)klmnprstv(w)z.

        If you look at the vocabulary-database, you will see that these principles
        are not followed consistently there, for example, aend or aal should be end
        and al.

        About the z, that's a good point. Scandinavian languages do not use it
        often, German pronounces it TS, Dutch and English Z. You can just use S
        everywhere, like in Afrikaans. And then, with borrowings, pronounce it as in the source
        language, I think. But remember, just an idea.

        And about the consistency, you are right, I think. A great help would be, in
        my opinion, some database system where you can create "linked compounds".
        For example, when you have "hand" and "skon", you create a link compund
        "handskon", and when you change "skon" to "sku", "handskon" automatically becomes
        "handsku". This would really help the vocabulary to be consistent. However, I
        don't know a free service which has this...

        Daan.

        --
        +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
        NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
      • wordwulf
        ... (I m ... to ... whatever ... particular ... Hi Travis, The reason you find so much variation here is, of course, that we are still in the process of
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 11, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In folkspraak@y..., "Travis Reed" <dancxjo2000@y...> wrote:
          > Hello, Folkspraakerens. :)
          >
          > I recently rediscovered Folkspraak while cruising the internet. The
          > first time I
          > saw it, I passed it over, but after spending time in Switzerland
          (I'm
          > currently
          > studying French in Lausanne) German is growing more and more
          > appealing.
          > (Simplified artificial languages are a funner hobby, though...hence
          > my interest
          > in Folkspraak.)
          >
          > Anyway, I read the grammar at the website, and have started trying
          to
          > use the
          > language a tad. I am dismayed, though, that there is so much
          > inconsistency
          > in the language. I realize Folkspraak is a work in progress, but is
          > there
          > anywhere I can discover more about fundamentals like pronunciation
          > and
          > orthography?
          >
          > I am very interested in the language and would enjoy playing
          whatever
          > small
          > role in the language's development that I possibly could. I create
          > languages
          > as a hobby and study linguistics professionally. I have a
          particular
          > interest in
          > phonetics, phonology and orthography.
          >
          > Sorry to go on and on, but a few specific questions:
          >
          > 1. Why do messages say: Vat denk je? Shouldn't it be more along
          > the lines
          > of <<Vat denke U?>>
          >
          > 2. About orthography: does z = (z) or (ts) (can't find the square
          > brackets on
          > this swiss keyboard)
          >
          > 3. How are the vowels pronounced? What distinguishes ''a'' from
          > ''aa''...clearly something to do with ''length'' but at least in
          > English the term
          > length has less to do with length of the vowel than with the actual
          > quality of
          > the vowel. (The sound ''ee'' in ''meet'' versus ''i'' in ''mit.'')
          > Are there any
          > standardization efforts in progress?
          >
          > Thanks for your enduring my newness.
          >
          > (Insert wittiness here and then translate to Folkspraak),
          > Travis

          Hi Travis,
          The reason you find so much variation here is, of course, that we are
          still in the process of achieving consensus on matters such as
          orthography and morphology. Most of us have actually abandoned some
          of the original grammatical forms first proposed for FS, such as the -
          ns plural ending, etc. If you explore the 'polls' section of the
          site, you can find some of the decisions we have actually made about
          FS grammar, but the progress is slow. In fact, there have been no
          posts at all for the past month.
          To answer your specific questions:
          1. The 'Vat denk je?' tag shows that many, if not most, of us have
          abandoned the U form of the 2nd person plural pronoun as being too
          specifically Dutch. Middle English had 'ye', German has 'Ihr',
          Danish has De, etc. all with a front vowel.
          2. I personally don't use the z because I use the low German, English
          and Scandinavian values for words, such as to instead of zu or hope
          instead of hoffen. German z is a 'shifted' pronunciation of 't', or
          is an alternative for s or soft c in words borrowed from Romance.
          3.I am also one of those who doesn't use doubled vowels to indicate a
          long pronunciation. My rule is that a stressed vowel folloed by no
          more than one consonant is pronounced long. That is the Scandinavian
          orthographic convention. All other vowels are pronounced short.
          Other Folksprakers prefer the doubled vowel strategy, such as Dutch
          and Afrikaans uses. German and English orthographies use sort of a
          combination of the two strategies. Thus, I would write the sound of
          English 'mate' as 'met' in FS, while I would write English 'met'
          as 'mett'. Others might write those as 'meet' and 'met' in FS.
          Velkom to Folksprak!
          Erik
        • Travis Reed
          Thanks for the explanation. I made my way to the polls and figured things out better. Really cool. I ll continue lurking about and figuring things out...in
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 12, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks for the explanation. I made my way to the polls and figured
            things out better. Really cool. I'll continue lurking about and
            figuring things out...in the meantime,

            I want to ask about some sort of automation in the lexicon creation
            process. Obviously everyone's heard of LangMaker
            (www.langmaker.com). The success of Lojban's computer generated
            vocabulary makes me wonder if it would not expidate things were a
            small program written to analyze the similarities in lexemes from the
            various source languages...does this zap all the fun out of the
            project or something? Too mechanical?
          • Daan Goedkoop
            ... It depends on it. You can say that, if we have: Nederlands: s ch oe n Norwegian: s k o We can make: Folkspraak: scön That s nice and possible. Perhaps
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 12, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > Thanks for the explanation. I made my way to the polls and figured
              > things out better. Really cool. I'll continue lurking about and
              > figuring things out...in the meantime,
              >
              > I want to ask about some sort of automation in the lexicon creation
              > process. Obviously everyone's heard of LangMaker
              > (www.langmaker.com). The success of Lojban's computer generated
              > vocabulary makes me wonder if it would not expidate things were a
              > small program written to analyze the similarities in lexemes from the
              > various source languages...does this zap all the fun out of the
              > project or something? Too mechanical?

              It depends on it. You can say that, if we have:
              Nederlands: s ch oe n
              Norwegian: s k o
              We can make:
              Folkspraak: scön
              That's nice and possible. Perhaps scon or sco or scu are prefereable, but
              that are minor thins.. However, for me it goes too far to say:
              English: e v e r y - o n e
              Dutch: ie d e r - ee n
              Folkspraak: edery-ene
              Because I think neither a Englishmen nor a Dutchman can understand it
              without just learning it...

              I have tried to analyze patterns of rode/röde, boot/bât, schoen/sko a bit,
              but it is hard to come up with real patterns. In a later post I can tell what
              little bits I found out...

              Daan.

              --
              +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
              NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
            • wordwulf
              ... figured ... creation ... the ... prefereable, but ... it ... a bit, ... tell what ... Hey, Yeah, I ve been thinking about the lexicon generation. First of
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 20, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In folkspraak@y..., Daan Goedkoop <dgoedkoop@g...> wrote:
                > > Thanks for the explanation. I made my way to the polls and
                figured
                > > things out better. Really cool. I'll continue lurking about and
                > > figuring things out...in the meantime,
                > >
                > > I want to ask about some sort of automation in the lexicon
                creation
                > > process. Obviously everyone's heard of LangMaker
                > > (www.langmaker.com). The success of Lojban's computer generated
                > > vocabulary makes me wonder if it would not expidate things were a
                > > small program written to analyze the similarities in lexemes from
                the
                > > various source languages...does this zap all the fun out of the
                > > project or something? Too mechanical?
                >
                > It depends on it. You can say that, if we have:
                > Nederlands: s ch oe n
                > Norwegian: s k o
                > We can make:
                > Folkspraak: scön
                > That's nice and possible. Perhaps scon or sco or scu are
                prefereable, but
                > that are minor thins.. However, for me it goes too far to say:
                > English: e v e r y - o n e
                > Dutch: ie d e r - ee n
                > Folkspraak: edery-ene
                > Because I think neither a Englishmen nor a Dutchman can understand
                it
                > without just learning it...
                >
                > I have tried to analyze patterns of rode/röde, boot/bât, schoen/sko
                a bit,
                > but it is hard to come up with real patterns. In a later post I can
                tell what
                > little bits I found out...
                >
                > Daan.

                Hey,
                Yeah, I've been thinking about the lexicon generation. First of all,
                I think we need to identify congnates. So, if we're going to compare
                German Tier, Dutch dier and Swedish djur for the word 'animal', we
                need to include English 'deer', even though the word has shifted its
                meaning in English. Similarly, German Tisch, English table and
                Swedish bord don't add up to something like *tbarsle. You need to
                pick cognates. German Tisch goes with English dish and Swedish
                disk. In German, it means 'table', In English, it means 'plate',
                though. The common meaning was of course that it was a surface for
                eating. German Taffel and English table also are cognate borrowings
                from Latin, though in German, it means 'blackboard' and in English,
                it means 'table'. In Swedish, I think it means a table of numbers or
                something of that type, as in the periodic table. So for such words,
                we need to pick a base meaning, then use all the cognates for the
                purpose of construction only. So we might use German Taffel, English
                table and Swedish tabell to construct a Folksprak word *tabel, for
                which we would then have to pick a basic meaning, which might
                be 'table of figures, or slate of diagrams etc.' The English
                meaning, borrowed from French, of a surface to eat off of or to hold
                things' would have to be abandoned. But that doesn't mean we
                wouldn't use the English phonetic form to help with the construction
                of the actual word.
                For words that are obvious cognates, though, the problem is somewhat
                different. Usually, we can choose which consonants to use fairly
                easily. In some cases, the vowels are also easy, as in German Hand,
                English hand, and Swedish hand, giving Folksprak *hand. But what
                about a word such as German Haupt (Kopf is cognate with
                English 'cup'), English head, Dutch hoofd and Swedish huvud. The
                first and last consonants are fairly easy to establish as h***d. The
                middle consonant is somewhat more difficult, though. The forms in
                which it occurs all agree, though that it should be a labial
                (f/v/b/p/w). Now, as to voicing, when we see an unvoiced German stop
                (p, t or k), we should expect that it is shifted away from an
                original b, d or g via Grimm's law, so we can assume that the voiced
                form is better than the unvoiced, since Swedish has a v in the middle
                position and English has a vowel, which is voiced by nature. Now we
                have h*v*d
                The vowels are somewhat more difficult. German has a diphthong, au.
                Dutch has a long o. Swedish has a u and English has a digraph for
                the short e sound, ea. How do we choose between these options or
                combine them into a single answer?
                Well, phonetically, the primary vowels form a continuum (the umlauted
                vowels are somewhat more tricky). The sequence is i, e, a, o, u,
                (y), i, e, a, o, u, (y). It's like a wheel, with no beginning or
                end. Thus e is more like i than a is and o is more like u than a is,
                etc. If we assign number values to the various vowels, we get i=1,
                e=2, a=3, etc. This means that we can treat digraphs and diphthongs
                as the average of their constituent vowels. So the a and u of the
                German diphthong au level out to 4. The Dutch oo also averages to
                4. English ea averages to 2.5 and Swedish u equals 5. If we add the
                four forms together, we get a total of 15.5. Divided by 4, that
                gives an average vowel score of 3.875. The closest whole number
                being 4, the vowel we would pick for our Folksprak word is o. So now
                we have hov*d, and we have to decide whether we want a second vowel
                and, if so, what it shoul be. German and Dutch don't have a final
                vowel between the consonants, but Swedish and English do have vowels
                before the final d. If we just used Swedish and English, the final
                vowel might average out to be o or a. But if we factor in that the
                German and Dutch forms have no vowel, any vowel we put in should
                probably be a reduced vowel, or schwa, which is usually written e in
                the Germanic languages. Our choices are thus *hoved or *hofd. And
                if we can't decide, we can put it to a vote.
                In using this system, I tend to treat Scandinavian j when it comes
                after a consonant and before a vowel as i, umlauted u as y and
                umlauted o as plain o. But if we wanted to not use y, we could just
                treat umlaut u as plain u for purposes of finding average values
                among the 5 basic Latin vowels. Another example: English green=2,
                German Gruen (gryn)=6, Swedish groen (gron)=4 and Dutch groen=3.
                Total 15, divided by 4 gives 3.75, rounded up to 4, giving Folksprak
                *gron.
                Sorry about the long-winded nature of this posting. Keep on
                Folkspraking! Ig denk dis kann vare god. Vat denk je om dis
                system? Hu kann vi forbettere det? Hav je en ander veg?
                Best gryten
                Erik
                >
                > --
                > +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
                > NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
              • Travis Reed
                Terribly interesting system, but it seems to me totally arbitrary (though I haven t considered it very much yet). Does it handle frontness versus backness
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 21, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Terribly interesting system, but it seems to me totally arbitrary
                  (though I haven't considered it very much yet). Does it handle
                  frontness versus backness well? (That seems to me to be the most
                  salient aspect.)

                  Has anyone considered the relationship of /au/ to /u/? I know in
                  English, what was originally /u/ e.g. /tun/ has now shifted to /au/
                  (and is currently shifting as far as /eo/).

                  In the numbering system, which vowel aspect has more weight? Height
                  or frontness?

                  (I realize this message isn't very coherent, but I'm late for class.)

                  Tshys!

                  --- In folkspraak@y..., "wordwulf" <eparsels@n...> wrote:
                  > --- In folkspraak@y..., Daan Goedkoop <dgoedkoop@g...> wrote:
                  > > > Thanks for the explanation. I made my way to the polls and
                  > figured
                  > > > things out better. Really cool. I'll continue lurking about
                  and
                  > > > figuring things out...in the meantime,
                  > > >
                  > > > I want to ask about some sort of automation in the lexicon
                  > creation
                  > > > process. Obviously everyone's heard of LangMaker
                  > > > (www.langmaker.com). The success of Lojban's computer
                  generated
                  > > > vocabulary makes me wonder if it would not expidate things were
                  a
                  > > > small program written to analyze the similarities in lexemes
                  from
                  > the
                  > > > various source languages...does this zap all the fun out of the
                  > > > project or something? Too mechanical?
                  > >
                  > > It depends on it. You can say that, if we have:
                  > > Nederlands: s ch oe n
                  > > Norwegian: s k o
                  > > We can make:
                  > > Folkspraak: scön
                  > > That's nice and possible. Perhaps scon or sco or scu are
                  > prefereable, but
                  > > that are minor thins.. However, for me it goes too far to say:
                  > > English: e v e r y - o n e
                  > > Dutch: ie d e r - ee n
                  > > Folkspraak: edery-ene
                  > > Because I think neither a Englishmen nor a Dutchman can
                  understand
                  > it
                  > > without just learning it...
                  > >
                  > > I have tried to analyze patterns of rode/röde, boot/bât,
                  schoen/sko
                  > a bit,
                  > > but it is hard to come up with real patterns. In a later post I
                  can
                  > tell what
                  > > little bits I found out...
                  > >
                  > > Daan.
                  >
                  > Hey,
                  > Yeah, I've been thinking about the lexicon generation. First of
                  all,
                  > I think we need to identify congnates. So, if we're going to
                  compare
                  > German Tier, Dutch dier and Swedish djur for the word 'animal', we
                  > need to include English 'deer', even though the word has shifted
                  its
                  > meaning in English. Similarly, German Tisch, English table and
                  > Swedish bord don't add up to something like *tbarsle. You need to
                  > pick cognates. German Tisch goes with English dish and Swedish
                  > disk. In German, it means 'table', In English, it means 'plate',
                  > though. The common meaning was of course that it was a surface for
                  > eating. German Taffel and English table also are cognate
                  borrowings
                  > from Latin, though in German, it means 'blackboard' and in English,
                  > it means 'table'. In Swedish, I think it means a table of numbers
                  or
                  > something of that type, as in the periodic table. So for such
                  words,
                  > we need to pick a base meaning, then use all the cognates for the
                  > purpose of construction only. So we might use German Taffel,
                  English
                  > table and Swedish tabell to construct a Folksprak word *tabel, for
                  > which we would then have to pick a basic meaning, which might
                  > be 'table of figures, or slate of diagrams etc.' The English
                  > meaning, borrowed from French, of a surface to eat off of or to
                  hold
                  > things' would have to be abandoned. But that doesn't mean we
                  > wouldn't use the English phonetic form to help with the
                  construction
                  > of the actual word.
                  > For words that are obvious cognates, though, the problem is
                  somewhat
                  > different. Usually, we can choose which consonants to use fairly
                  > easily. In some cases, the vowels are also easy, as in German
                  Hand,
                  > English hand, and Swedish hand, giving Folksprak *hand. But what
                  > about a word such as German Haupt (Kopf is cognate with
                  > English 'cup'), English head, Dutch hoofd and Swedish huvud. The
                  > first and last consonants are fairly easy to establish as h***d.
                  The
                  > middle consonant is somewhat more difficult, though. The forms in
                  > which it occurs all agree, though that it should be a labial
                  > (f/v/b/p/w). Now, as to voicing, when we see an unvoiced German
                  stop
                  > (p, t or k), we should expect that it is shifted away from an
                  > original b, d or g via Grimm's law, so we can assume that the
                  voiced
                  > form is better than the unvoiced, since Swedish has a v in the
                  middle
                  > position and English has a vowel, which is voiced by nature. Now
                  we
                  > have h*v*d
                  > The vowels are somewhat more difficult. German has a diphthong,
                  au.
                  > Dutch has a long o. Swedish has a u and English has a digraph for
                  > the short e sound, ea. How do we choose between these options or
                  > combine them into a single answer?
                  > Well, phonetically, the primary vowels form a continuum (the
                  umlauted
                  > vowels are somewhat more tricky). The sequence is i, e, a, o, u,
                  > (y), i, e, a, o, u, (y). It's like a wheel, with no beginning or
                  > end. Thus e is more like i than a is and o is more like u than a
                  is,
                  > etc. If we assign number values to the various vowels, we get i=1,
                  > e=2, a=3, etc. This means that we can treat digraphs and
                  diphthongs
                  > as the average of their constituent vowels. So the a and u of the
                  > German diphthong au level out to 4. The Dutch oo also averages to
                  > 4. English ea averages to 2.5 and Swedish u equals 5. If we add
                  the
                  > four forms together, we get a total of 15.5. Divided by 4, that
                  > gives an average vowel score of 3.875. The closest whole number
                  > being 4, the vowel we would pick for our Folksprak word is o. So
                  now
                  > we have hov*d, and we have to decide whether we want a second vowel
                  > and, if so, what it shoul be. German and Dutch don't have a final
                  > vowel between the consonants, but Swedish and English do have
                  vowels
                  > before the final d. If we just used Swedish and English, the final
                  > vowel might average out to be o or a. But if we factor in that the
                  > German and Dutch forms have no vowel, any vowel we put in should
                  > probably be a reduced vowel, or schwa, which is usually written e
                  in
                  > the Germanic languages. Our choices are thus *hoved or *hofd. And
                  > if we can't decide, we can put it to a vote.
                  > In using this system, I tend to treat Scandinavian j when it comes
                  > after a consonant and before a vowel as i, umlauted u as y and
                  > umlauted o as plain o. But if we wanted to not use y, we could
                  just
                  > treat umlaut u as plain u for purposes of finding average values
                  > among the 5 basic Latin vowels. Another example: English green=2,
                  > German Gruen (gryn)=6, Swedish groen (gron)=4 and Dutch groen=3.
                  > Total 15, divided by 4 gives 3.75, rounded up to 4, giving
                  Folksprak
                  > *gron.
                  > Sorry about the long-winded nature of this posting. Keep on
                  > Folkspraking! Ig denk dis kann vare god. Vat denk je om dis
                  > system? Hu kann vi forbettere det? Hav je en ander veg?
                  > Best gryten
                  > Erik
                  > >
                  > > --
                  > > +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
                  > > NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
                • wordwulf
                  ... Height ... class.) ... Goddag, Neither height nor frontness has more weight. The system is conceived as a circle, with y at the top and a at the bottom.
                  Message 8 of 10 , Nov 22, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In folkspraak@y..., "Travis Reed" <tdanielr21@h...> wrote:
                    > Terribly interesting system, but it seems to me totally arbitrary
                    > (though I haven't considered it very much yet). Does it handle
                    > frontness versus backness well? (That seems to me to be the most
                    > salient aspect.)
                    >
                    > Has anyone considered the relationship of /au/ to /u/? I know in
                    > English, what was originally /u/ e.g. /tun/ has now shifted to /au/
                    > (and is currently shifting as far as /eo/).
                    >
                    > In the numbering system, which vowel aspect has more weight?
                    Height
                    > or frontness?
                    >
                    > (I realize this message isn't very coherent, but I'm late for
                    class.)
                    >
                    > Tshys!
                    >
                    Goddag,
                    Neither height nor frontness has more weight. The system is
                    conceived as a circle, with y at the top and a at the bottom. U is
                    at 2 o'clock, o is at 4 o'clock, e is at 8 o'clock and i is at 10
                    o'clock. Thus, e is between i and a in both height and frontness. A
                    is between e and o in both features as well, etc. Of course, the
                    numbering doesn't have to start with i as 1. If you have, say, the
                    word 'dear', you'll have to start at a or o or u. Thus, if u is 1, y
                    is 2, i is 3, e is 4, a is 5 and o is 6, we have German teuer,
                    Swedish dyr, Dutch deur, I think, and English dear. German eu(e)
                    averages out at 2.5 (the final e drops out with inflections, so I
                    don't count it), Swedish y is 2, Dutch eu is 2.5 and English ea is
                    4.5, giving 11.5, which averages out to 2.62, or i (*dir), which
                    contrasts with the word deer 'animal', which averages out to be
                    Folksprak *dyr. Of course, the larger the number of languages, the
                    better the pan-Germanic accuracy.
                    So it's not frontness or height that is given weight. It's just
                    position on the wheel, really. The main thing is to realize whether
                    a vowel is in general more front/back or more high/low, so you don't
                    go averaging something like Old English eo as a, rather than y in the
                    word 'deer', since it comes from an original Germanic iu, which
                    average out as y, not a.
                    The system is easiest to use for vowels where the source languages'
                    words are fairly similar, as boat (1.5), Boot (2.0), bat (1.0) and
                    boot (2.0), where we make a=1, o=2, etc. All of these words are no
                    more than one vowel apart, since a and o are neighbors on the vowel
                    wheel. Thus, averaging English, German, Swedish and Dutch gives us
                    Folksprak *bot for 'boat', rather than *bat, since the weight of the
                    various languages comes down on the o side rather than the a side
                    (average 1.625, which is over the 1.5 half-way line between a and o).
                    Well, it's just a thought. It takes a little practice to get used to
                    using this system for vowels. It might be better if we used phonetic
                    or articulatory features, such as: the majority are front vowels, the
                    majority are high vowels, the majority are unrounded, etc.
                    Vat denk je? Kann dis system vare god, oder skull vi finde en ander
                    system?
                    Hertlig gryten,
                    Erik
                  • Daan Goedkoop
                    With the two examples given it looks that it works well. Btw. deur means door in Dutch. You might mean duur (pronunciation dyr). Door then has Eng. door,
                    Message 9 of 10 , Nov 23, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      With the two examples given it looks that it works well.

                      Btw. deur means "door" in Dutch. You might mean duur (pronunciation dyr).

                      Door then has Eng. door, Dutch deur, German Tür and Scandinavian dör.
                      Eng. 6, Dutch 2,5 (?), German 1 and Swedish 2.5 (?). The average then is 12,
                      which makes 3 (*dir). I guess in this case it is better to count English as
                      0, which makes 1,5 (*dyr).
                      If we wrote Dutch with umlaut-vowels, we would get dör (same pronunciation),
                      as in Swedish, and then we can see door/dör/tür/dör. 3 of 4 vowels are
                      umlauted and thus front vowels, and 3 of 4 are an o or ö. If you count it this way
                      you would get dör, and I guess that is much better than dyr or dir.

                      Eng. dear (?), Dutch duur, German Teuer, Scandinavian dyr. If we look at
                      pronunciation we get dIIr/dyr/toier/dyr. 3 of 4 are front vowels. Now we see
                      that German is really different from the others, if we se the vowel wheel now we
                      would get 3,5/2/(6+3/2)=4,5/2, total 12, which makes 3 (*dir). However, if
                      you count o as 0, which is also possible (it is a wheel), you get 3,5/2/1,5/2,
                      total 9, which makes 2 (*dyr). I think that would not be a bad choice, as
                      this form is found exactly the same in 2 of the 4 source languages.

                      Eng. deer (shifted meaning), Dutch dier, German Tier, Scandinavian dyr.
                      Pronunciation dIIr, dier, tier, dyr. All front. Now vowel wheel: 3,5/3/3/2, total
                      11,5, makes 2,8 (*dir, or dier, depends on how to write long i). Looks to
                      work right.

                      Eng. beast, Dutch beest, German n/a, Scandinavian n/a isn't the right coice,
                      only found in two of 4 languages.

                      List:

                      door/deur/tür/dör = dir/dyr/DÖR
                      deer/dier/tier/dyr = DIR/DIER
                      dear/duur/teuer/dyr = DYR

                      Erik: Ik denke it ar gud, but not with DOOR.

                      Daan.


                      > Goddag,
                      > Neither height nor frontness has more weight. The system is
                      > conceived as a circle, with y at the top and a at the bottom. U is
                      > at 2 o'clock, o is at 4 o'clock, e is at 8 o'clock and i is at 10
                      > o'clock. Thus, e is between i and a in both height and frontness. A
                      > is between e and o in both features as well, etc. Of course, the
                      > numbering doesn't have to start with i as 1. If you have, say, the
                      > word 'dear', you'll have to start at a or o or u. Thus, if u is 1, y
                      > is 2, i is 3, e is 4, a is 5 and o is 6, we have German teuer,
                      > Swedish dyr, Dutch deur, I think, and English dear. German eu(e)
                      > averages out at 2.5 (the final e drops out with inflections, so I
                      > don't count it), Swedish y is 2, Dutch eu is 2.5 and English ea is
                      > 4.5, giving 11.5, which averages out to 2.62, or i (*dir), which
                      > contrasts with the word deer 'animal', which averages out to be
                      > Folksprak *dyr. Of course, the larger the number of languages, the
                      > better the pan-Germanic accuracy.
                      > So it's not frontness or height that is given weight. It's just
                      > position on the wheel, really. The main thing is to realize whether
                      > a vowel is in general more front/back or more high/low, so you don't
                      > go averaging something like Old English eo as a, rather than y in the
                      > word 'deer', since it comes from an original Germanic iu, which
                      > average out as y, not a.
                      > The system is easiest to use for vowels where the source languages'
                      > words are fairly similar, as boat (1.5), Boot (2.0), bat (1.0) and
                      > boot (2.0), where we make a=1, o=2, etc. All of these words are no
                      > more than one vowel apart, since a and o are neighbors on the vowel
                      > wheel. Thus, averaging English, German, Swedish and Dutch gives us
                      > Folksprak *bot for 'boat', rather than *bat, since the weight of the
                      > various languages comes down on the o side rather than the a side
                      > (average 1.625, which is over the 1.5 half-way line between a and o).
                      > Well, it's just a thought. It takes a little practice to get used to
                      > using this system for vowels. It might be better if we used phonetic
                      > or articulatory features, such as: the majority are front vowels, the
                      > majority are high vowels, the majority are unrounded, etc.
                      > Vat denk je? Kann dis system vare god, oder skull vi finde en ander
                      > system?
                      > Hertlig gryten,
                      > Erik

                      --
                      \

                      +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
                      NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
                    • wordwulf
                      ... dyr). ... dör. ... then is 12, ... English as ... pronunciation), ... are ... count it this way ... look at ... Now we see ... wheel now we ... However,
                      Message 10 of 10 , Nov 25, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In folkspraak@y..., Daan Goedkoop <dgoedkoop@g...> wrote:
                        > With the two examples given it looks that it works well.
                        >
                        > Btw. deur means "door" in Dutch. You might mean duur (pronunciation
                        dyr).
                        >
                        > Door then has Eng. door, Dutch deur, German Tür and Scandinavian
                        dör.
                        > Eng. 6, Dutch 2,5 (?), German 1 and Swedish 2.5 (?). The average
                        then is 12,
                        > which makes 3 (*dir). I guess in this case it is better to count
                        English as
                        > 0, which makes 1,5 (*dyr).
                        > If we wrote Dutch with umlaut-vowels, we would get dör (same
                        pronunciation),
                        > as in Swedish, and then we can see door/dör/tür/dör. 3 of 4 vowels
                        are
                        > umlauted and thus front vowels, and 3 of 4 are an o or ö. If you
                        count it this way
                        > you would get dör, and I guess that is much better than dyr or dir.
                        >
                        > Eng. dear (?), Dutch duur, German Teuer, Scandinavian dyr. If we
                        look at
                        > pronunciation we get dIIr/dyr/toier/dyr. 3 of 4 are front vowels.
                        Now we see
                        > that German is really different from the others, if we se the vowel
                        wheel now we
                        > would get 3,5/2/(6+3/2)=4,5/2, total 12, which makes 3 (*dir).
                        However, if
                        > you count o as 0, which is also possible (it is a wheel), you get
                        3,5/2/1,5/2,
                        > total 9, which makes 2 (*dyr). I think that would not be a bad
                        choice, as
                        > this form is found exactly the same in 2 of the 4 source languages.
                        >
                        > Eng. deer (shifted meaning), Dutch dier, German Tier, Scandinavian
                        dyr.
                        > Pronunciation dIIr, dier, tier, dyr. All front. Now vowel wheel:
                        3,5/3/3/2, total
                        > 11,5, makes 2,8 (*dir, or dier, depends on how to write long i).
                        Looks to
                        > work right.
                        >
                        > Eng. beast, Dutch beest, German n/a, Scandinavian n/a isn't the
                        right coice,
                        > only found in two of 4 languages.
                        >
                        > List:
                        >
                        > door/deur/tür/dör = dir/dyr/DÖR
                        > deer/dier/tier/dyr = DIR/DIER
                        > dear/duur/teuer/dyr = DYR
                        >
                        > Erik: Ik denke it ar gud, but not with DOOR.
                        >
                        > Daan.

                        Hmm, door, well, if we look at Old High German, we see the uo
                        raising, so the original vowel was probably a back vowel. So-a=1,
                        o=2, u=3, y=4. English oo=2, Dutch eu=1.5, Swedish umlauted o= plain
                        o or 2, and German umlauted u = 4, total 9.5, divided by 4 = 2.37 or
                        o, so we get Folkspraak *dor. So which number you assign to each
                        vowel at the beginning makes a big difference. I guess this system
                        needs tweaking.
                        Dank so myk,
                        Erik
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.