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

Re: Vocabulary question?

Expand Messages
  • Brian <bribri56@aol.com>
    Actually, Afrikaans is not a bad model. I don t care for some of the spelling conventions, and the numerous antique Dutch and African tribal vocabulary can go,
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 27, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually, Afrikaans is not a bad model. I don't care for some of the
      spelling conventions, and the numerous antique Dutch and African
      tribal vocabulary can go, but I like the simplicity of the language.

      Brian

      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Daan Goedkoop" <dgoedkoop@g...>
      wrote:
      > > the English grapheme is the odd man out, then the English form
      > > loses, but if German and/or Dutch or any other major Germanic
      >
      > Then why not directly use Afrikaans ;)
      > It is derived from Dutch, which lies somewhere between German and
      English,
      > and then with a very simple grammar...
      >
      > Daan.
    • wordwulf <eparsels@netzero.net>
      ... but ... the ... replacing ... spelling ... potential ... I thought we had already agreed on this one. We talked about ways to incorporate both v and w,
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Brian <bribri56@a...>"
        <bribri56@a...> wrote:
        > I've gone back and forth on the W versus V issue. Replacing all Ws
        > with Vs makes the written language more Scandinavian in appearance,
        > and is phonemically closer to a hypothetical pan-Germanic sound,
        but
        > the written forms of many words will be less recognizable to
        > English, Dutch and German speakers. There is also the problem of
        the
        > initial W in words like Wolf, which is not changed to V in the
        > Scandinavian languages, but dropped altogether. A similar problem
        > applies to J versus Y, yet we haven't seriously considered
        replacing
        > all Js with Ys (Yohann, Yan, etc.), nor would I want to. Reminds me
        > of the Jehovah versus Yahweh controversy over the 'correct'
        spelling
        > of the Hebrew name for God.
        >
        > At this moment, I'm leaning towards the old idea of slanting the
        > language to forms that are recognizable to the majority of
        potential
        > speakers. This doesn't mean that English graphemes always win. If
        > the English grapheme is the odd man out, then the English form
        > loses, but if German and/or Dutch or any other major Germanic
        > languages use the same letter(s) as in English, the "English" form
        > should typically win out.
        > >
        > > Right. So I would say: replace each w with v. Do others think
        > anything else?
        > > Then I could add those ideas to a poll.
        > >
        > > Daan.

        I thought we had already agreed on this one. We talked about ways to
        incorporate both v and w, but people said that it complicated the
        orthography too much to have two letters that did essentially the
        same thing, and most people said that they didn't want English w as
        one of the phonemes. Most of us have been using v, and it seems that
        those who use w are just treating it as a variant spelling of the
        same sound. Maybe it's time to write grammar version mark II and get
        all the various websites that have Folksprak on them into some sort
        of cohesion. The Scattered Tongues website still has not
        incorporated the changes that this group has voted; nor has the
        Folksprakinstitut site. So people coming new to Folksprak wonder
        what the current grammar consensus is and where to 'learn' Folksprak.
        Erik
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.