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

vocabulary design

Expand Messages
  • wordwulf
    Goddag, Folksprakeren, I ve been thinking about the vocabulary design and some of the trouble we ve been having choosing between alternative forms, and I ve
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 10, 2003
      Goddag, Folksprakeren,
      I've been thinking about the vocabulary design and some of the
      trouble we've been having choosing between alternative forms, and
      I've come up with a few lexical proposals and some vocabulary design
      criteria we may want to think about.
      FOLKSPRAK/ENGLISH/GERMAN/SWEDISH
      land land land land
      hand hand hand hand
      ship ship schiff skip
      sho shoe schuh sko
      shol school schule skola
      find- find find- finn-
      hav- have- hab- ha-
      sag- say- sag- sag-
      sprak speech sprach sprak
      se see- seh- se-
      ja yeah ja ja
      nei no nein nej
      paper paper papier papper
      water water wasser vatn
      wind wind wind vind
      hus house haus hus
      finger finger finger finger
      rod red rot rod
      gron green grun gron
      blo blue blau bla
      swart swart schwarz svart
      fogel fowl vogel fugl
      stad stead stadt stad
      dag day tag dag
      naht night nacht natt
      warm warm warm varm
      kald cold kalt kall
      in in in i
      ut out aus ut
      bat boat boot bat/bot?
      tug tug zug tog
      sing- sing- sing- sjung-
      et- eat ess- at-
      wet wot- weiss- vet-
      het- hight- heiss- het-
      lang long lang lang
      kurt curt kurz kort
      blad blade blatt blad
      de the der/die de
      dat that das det
      dis this dies disse
      ander other ander andra (pl)
      ald old alt ald
      jung young jung ung
      bit- bite- beiss- bit-
      wit white weiss vit
      nord north nord norr
      sud south sud syd
      west west west vast
      ost east ost ost
      end end ende ande
      fall- fall- fall- fall-
      gev- give- geb- ge-
      dor door tur dorr
      shriv- shrive- schreib-skriv-
      sten stone stein sten
      son son sohn son
      wi we wir vi
      ig i ich jag
      du thou du du
      i ye ihr ni (n-i)
      dutsh dutch deutsch tysk
      english english englisch engelsk
      swedish swedish schwedisch svensk
      mann man mann man
      mon moon mond mane
      mondag monday montag mandag
      dorsdag thursday donnerstag torsdag
      fridag friday freitag fredag
      dank- thank- dank- tack-
      brod bread brot brod
      swin swine schwein svin
      ku cow kuh ko
      egg egg ei agg
      hund hound hund hund
      weg way weg vag
      bad- bathe- bad- bad-
      se sea see sjo
      fish fish fisch fisk
      sang song gesang sang
      hor- hear- hor- hor-
      har hair haar har
      her here hier har

      The above are some proposed FS lexical items I culled from
      memory. I'm sure I made some mistakes, as I don't have my German and
      Swedish dictionaries to hand. I didn't bother to capitalize the
      German or to umlaut the German and Swedish forms. These are all
      items which have cognate forms in all three of these languages, which
      for me form the basic triangle of English on the west, scandinavian
      on the north and German on the southeast. Dutch is, at least
      partially, kind of midway between German and English, and Low German
      is kind of midway between German and Scandinavian, and if we wanted
      to stretch an already oversimplified and partially inaccurate
      metaphore to its limits, we could say that Frisian is somewhere in
      between English and Scandinavian, though closer to English and Dutch.
      I suggest that we make an effort to identify all possible
      terms that appear in all the source languages and label them as core
      vocabulary, about which there is no doubt concerning their pan-
      Germanic character. Meaning can be assigned based on majority usage,
      as with the word which in English appears as `sea'. The cognate word
      in Scandinavian has the meaning `lake' rather than `ocean'. Or the
      word `deer' in English, which means a `stag' or `hart', but in
      Scandinvaian or German means any kind of `animal'.
      In a second core category, we can put words that occur in a
      majority of Germanic languages, such as German `arbeit', which has
      cognates in Scandinavian and Dutch, but not in English, where the
      word `work' takes over. Well, we use some form of `arbeit', based on
      the languages that have it, and note in our dictionary that it is not
      a core 1 vocabulary item, but a core 2 item, and thus less effective
      a word choice than a word from core 1, but more effective than a non-
      core word. In fact, a core 1 word for this term may not exist.
      A third category would consist of words that the Germanic
      languages have no consistency on, every group having a different
      word, such as the word for `horse', which in English is `horse', in
      Scandinavain is `hest' and in German is `pferd'. Okay, we don't try
      to blend these words into some rediculous meld as `pforst' or some
      such thing. We include all of the words hors, hest, and pard (from
      the Dutch form which has not shifted its consonant to pf as German
      has) and we label these words non-core and allow FS speakers and
      writers to choose between them according to circumstance and artistic
      preference. But we do decide on a phonetic FS spelling for each of
      them. Or, perhaps, we can assign a score to every word, based on the
      number of Germanic languages which share it. The higher the score,
      the better the word is. We could even reject the inclusion of non-
      core words if core words, especially native Germanic core words,
      exist which refer to the same thing.
      Certain words, however, such as some personal pronouns, will not
      work like this. We will have to choose forms for them and just stick
      with our choices.
      Best gryten,
      Erik
    • Nathaniel Ament-Stone
      Thank you for responding so quickly. I agree that we need a system and I d be thrilled to help. I like your core 1 , core 2 and non-core idea. Especially
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 10, 2003
        Thank you for responding so quickly.

        I agree that we need a system and I'd be thrilled to help. I like your "core
        1", "core 2" and "non-core" idea. Especially in words like "horse", where
        there is no consensus between the three groups, it would be smart to include
        "hors", "hest" and "perd" or "pard". I agree that "pforst" would be absurd.

        You mentioned on langmaker.com that "spraak" is randomly taken and that a
        better vowel system is developed. I would suggest that we can make
        Folkspraak phonetic by insisting that there be only one vowel to represent
        one sound, therefore "Folkspraak" is "Folksprak".

        Is the letter "w" pronounced "v", as in most Germanic languages, because it
        occurs to me that English is the only one that pronounces "w" as a semivowel
        and not a harsh consonant. This way, words you propose like "wet", "water",
        "swedish" would be pronounced "vet", "vater", "svedish", which is the way
        that most Germanic speakers would say it. It is still completely
        understandable to an English speaker.

        Wow, this is exciting. I'd like to work with you on ideas via email. I have
        quite a few ideas about grammar.

        Email soon (Goddag),

        Nathaniel

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "wordwulf" <eparsels@...>
        To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:44 PM
        Subject: [folkspraak] vocabulary design


        > Goddag, Folksprakeren,
        > I've been thinking about the vocabulary design and some of the
        > trouble we've been having choosing between alternative forms, and
        > I've come up with a few lexical proposals and some vocabulary design
        > criteria we may want to think about.
        > FOLKSPRAK/ENGLISH/GERMAN/SWEDISH
        > land land land land
        > hand hand hand hand
        > ship ship schiff skip
        > sho shoe schuh sko
        > shol school schule skola
        > find- find find- finn-
        > hav- have- hab- ha-
        > sag- say- sag- sag-
        > sprak speech sprach sprak
        > se see- seh- se-
        > ja yeah ja ja
        > nei no nein nej
        > paper paper papier papper
        > water water wasser vatn
        > wind wind wind vind
        > hus house haus hus
        > finger finger finger finger
        > rod red rot rod
        > gron green grun gron
        > blo blue blau bla
        > swart swart schwarz svart
        > fogel fowl vogel fugl
        > stad stead stadt stad
        > dag day tag dag
        > naht night nacht natt
        > warm warm warm varm
        > kald cold kalt kall
        > in in in i
        > ut out aus ut
        > bat boat boot bat/bot?
        > tug tug zug tog
        > sing- sing- sing- sjung-
        > et- eat ess- at-
        > wet wot- weiss- vet-
        > het- hight- heiss- het-
        > lang long lang lang
        > kurt curt kurz kort
        > blad blade blatt blad
        > de the der/die de
        > dat that das det
        > dis this dies disse
        > ander other ander andra (pl)
        > ald old alt ald
        > jung young jung ung
        > bit- bite- beiss- bit-
        > wit white weiss vit
        > nord north nord norr
        > sud south sud syd
        > west west west vast
        > ost east ost ost
        > end end ende ande
        > fall- fall- fall- fall-
        > gev- give- geb- ge-
        > dor door tur dorr
        > shriv- shrive- schreib-skriv-
        > sten stone stein sten
        > son son sohn son
        > wi we wir vi
        > ig i ich jag
        > du thou du du
        > i ye ihr ni (n-i)
        > dutsh dutch deutsch tysk
        > english english englisch engelsk
        > swedish swedish schwedisch svensk
        > mann man mann man
        > mon moon mond mane
        > mondag monday montag mandag
        > dorsdag thursday donnerstag torsdag
        > fridag friday freitag fredag
        > dank- thank- dank- tack-
        > brod bread brot brod
        > swin swine schwein svin
        > ku cow kuh ko
        > egg egg ei agg
        > hund hound hund hund
        > weg way weg vag
        > bad- bathe- bad- bad-
        > se sea see sjo
        > fish fish fisch fisk
        > sang song gesang sang
        > hor- hear- hor- hor-
        > har hair haar har
        > her here hier har
        >
        > The above are some proposed FS lexical items I culled from
        > memory. I'm sure I made some mistakes, as I don't have my German and
        > Swedish dictionaries to hand. I didn't bother to capitalize the
        > German or to umlaut the German and Swedish forms. These are all
        > items which have cognate forms in all three of these languages, which
        > for me form the basic triangle of English on the west, scandinavian
        > on the north and German on the southeast. Dutch is, at least
        > partially, kind of midway between German and English, and Low German
        > is kind of midway between German and Scandinavian, and if we wanted
        > to stretch an already oversimplified and partially inaccurate
        > metaphore to its limits, we could say that Frisian is somewhere in
        > between English and Scandinavian, though closer to English and Dutch.
        > I suggest that we make an effort to identify all possible
        > terms that appear in all the source languages and label them as core
        > vocabulary, about which there is no doubt concerning their pan-
        > Germanic character. Meaning can be assigned based on majority usage,
        > as with the word which in English appears as `sea'. The cognate word
        > in Scandinavian has the meaning `lake' rather than `ocean'. Or the
        > word `deer' in English, which means a `stag' or `hart', but in
        > Scandinvaian or German means any kind of `animal'.
        > In a second core category, we can put words that occur in a
        > majority of Germanic languages, such as German `arbeit', which has
        > cognates in Scandinavian and Dutch, but not in English, where the
        > word `work' takes over. Well, we use some form of `arbeit', based on
        > the languages that have it, and note in our dictionary that it is not
        > a core 1 vocabulary item, but a core 2 item, and thus less effective
        > a word choice than a word from core 1, but more effective than a non-
        > core word. In fact, a core 1 word for this term may not exist.
        > A third category would consist of words that the Germanic
        > languages have no consistency on, every group having a different
        > word, such as the word for `horse', which in English is `horse', in
        > Scandinavain is `hest' and in German is `pferd'. Okay, we don't try
        > to blend these words into some rediculous meld as `pforst' or some
        > such thing. We include all of the words hors, hest, and pard (from
        > the Dutch form which has not shifted its consonant to pf as German
        > has) and we label these words non-core and allow FS speakers and
        > writers to choose between them according to circumstance and artistic
        > preference. But we do decide on a phonetic FS spelling for each of
        > them. Or, perhaps, we can assign a score to every word, based on the
        > number of Germanic languages which share it. The higher the score,
        > the better the word is. We could even reject the inclusion of non-
        > core words if core words, especially native Germanic core words,
        > exist which refer to the same thing.
        > Certain words, however, such as some personal pronouns, will not
        > work like this. We will have to choose forms for them and just stick
        > with our choices.
        > Best gryten,
        > Erik
        >
        >
        >
        > Browse the draft word lists!
        > http://www.onelist.com/files/folkspraak/
        > http://www.langmaker.com/folkspraak/volcab.html
        >
        > Browse Folkspraak-related links!
        > http://www.onelist.com/links/folkspraak/
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • Nathaniel Ament-Stone
        Thank you for responding so quickly. I agree that we need a system and I d be thrilled to help. I like your core 1 , core 2 and non-core idea. Especially
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 10, 2003
          Thank you for responding so quickly.

          I agree that we need a system and I'd be thrilled to help. I like your "core
          1", "core 2" and "non-core" idea. Especially in words like "horse", where
          there is no consensus between the three groups, it would be smart to include
          "hors", "hest" and "perd" or "pard". I agree that "pforst" would be absurd.

          You mentioned on langmaker.com that "spraak" is randomly taken and that a
          better vowel system is developed. I would suggest that we can make
          Folkspraak phonetic by insisting that there be only one vowel to represent
          one sound, therefore "Folkspraak" is "Folksprak".

          Is the letter "w" pronounced "v", as in most Germanic languages, because it
          occurs to me that English is the only one that pronounces "w" as a semivowel
          and not a harsh consonant. This way, words you propose like "wet", "water",
          "swedish" would be pronounced "vet", "vater", "svedish", which is the way
          that most Germanic speakers would say it. It is still completely
          understandable to an English speaker.

          Wow, this is exciting. I'd like to work with you on ideas via email. I have
          quite a few ideas about grammar.

          Email soon (Goddag),

          Nathaniel

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "wordwulf" <eparsels@...>
          To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:44 PM
          Subject: [folkspraak] vocabulary design


          > Goddag, Folksprakeren,
          > I've been thinking about the vocabulary design and some of the
          > trouble we've been having choosing between alternative forms, and
          > I've come up with a few lexical proposals and some vocabulary design
          > criteria we may want to think about.
          > FOLKSPRAK/ENGLISH/GERMAN/SWEDISH
          > land land land land
          > hand hand hand hand
          > ship ship schiff skip
          > sho shoe schuh sko
          > shol school schule skola
          > find- find find- finn-
          > hav- have- hab- ha-
          > sag- say- sag- sag-
          > sprak speech sprach sprak
          > se see- seh- se-
          > ja yeah ja ja
          > nei no nein nej
          > paper paper papier papper
          > water water wasser vatn
          > wind wind wind vind
          > hus house haus hus
          > finger finger finger finger
          > rod red rot rod
          > gron green grun gron
          > blo blue blau bla
          > swart swart schwarz svart
          > fogel fowl vogel fugl
          > stad stead stadt stad
          > dag day tag dag
          > naht night nacht natt
          > warm warm warm varm
          > kald cold kalt kall
          > in in in i
          > ut out aus ut
          > bat boat boot bat/bot?
          > tug tug zug tog
          > sing- sing- sing- sjung-
          > et- eat ess- at-
          > wet wot- weiss- vet-
          > het- hight- heiss- het-
          > lang long lang lang
          > kurt curt kurz kort
          > blad blade blatt blad
          > de the der/die de
          > dat that das det
          > dis this dies disse
          > ander other ander andra (pl)
          > ald old alt ald
          > jung young jung ung
          > bit- bite- beiss- bit-
          > wit white weiss vit
          > nord north nord norr
          > sud south sud syd
          > west west west vast
          > ost east ost ost
          > end end ende ande
          > fall- fall- fall- fall-
          > gev- give- geb- ge-
          > dor door tur dorr
          > shriv- shrive- schreib-skriv-
          > sten stone stein sten
          > son son sohn son
          > wi we wir vi
          > ig i ich jag
          > du thou du du
          > i ye ihr ni (n-i)
          > dutsh dutch deutsch tysk
          > english english englisch engelsk
          > swedish swedish schwedisch svensk
          > mann man mann man
          > mon moon mond mane
          > mondag monday montag mandag
          > dorsdag thursday donnerstag torsdag
          > fridag friday freitag fredag
          > dank- thank- dank- tack-
          > brod bread brot brod
          > swin swine schwein svin
          > ku cow kuh ko
          > egg egg ei agg
          > hund hound hund hund
          > weg way weg vag
          > bad- bathe- bad- bad-
          > se sea see sjo
          > fish fish fisch fisk
          > sang song gesang sang
          > hor- hear- hor- hor-
          > har hair haar har
          > her here hier har
          >
          > The above are some proposed FS lexical items I culled from
          > memory. I'm sure I made some mistakes, as I don't have my German and
          > Swedish dictionaries to hand. I didn't bother to capitalize the
          > German or to umlaut the German and Swedish forms. These are all
          > items which have cognate forms in all three of these languages, which
          > for me form the basic triangle of English on the west, scandinavian
          > on the north and German on the southeast. Dutch is, at least
          > partially, kind of midway between German and English, and Low German
          > is kind of midway between German and Scandinavian, and if we wanted
          > to stretch an already oversimplified and partially inaccurate
          > metaphore to its limits, we could say that Frisian is somewhere in
          > between English and Scandinavian, though closer to English and Dutch.
          > I suggest that we make an effort to identify all possible
          > terms that appear in all the source languages and label them as core
          > vocabulary, about which there is no doubt concerning their pan-
          > Germanic character. Meaning can be assigned based on majority usage,
          > as with the word which in English appears as `sea'. The cognate word
          > in Scandinavian has the meaning `lake' rather than `ocean'. Or the
          > word `deer' in English, which means a `stag' or `hart', but in
          > Scandinvaian or German means any kind of `animal'.
          > In a second core category, we can put words that occur in a
          > majority of Germanic languages, such as German `arbeit', which has
          > cognates in Scandinavian and Dutch, but not in English, where the
          > word `work' takes over. Well, we use some form of `arbeit', based on
          > the languages that have it, and note in our dictionary that it is not
          > a core 1 vocabulary item, but a core 2 item, and thus less effective
          > a word choice than a word from core 1, but more effective than a non-
          > core word. In fact, a core 1 word for this term may not exist.
          > A third category would consist of words that the Germanic
          > languages have no consistency on, every group having a different
          > word, such as the word for `horse', which in English is `horse', in
          > Scandinavain is `hest' and in German is `pferd'. Okay, we don't try
          > to blend these words into some rediculous meld as `pforst' or some
          > such thing. We include all of the words hors, hest, and pard (from
          > the Dutch form which has not shifted its consonant to pf as German
          > has) and we label these words non-core and allow FS speakers and
          > writers to choose between them according to circumstance and artistic
          > preference. But we do decide on a phonetic FS spelling for each of
          > them. Or, perhaps, we can assign a score to every word, based on the
          > number of Germanic languages which share it. The higher the score,
          > the better the word is. We could even reject the inclusion of non-
          > core words if core words, especially native Germanic core words,
          > exist which refer to the same thing.
          > Certain words, however, such as some personal pronouns, will not
          > work like this. We will have to choose forms for them and just stick
          > with our choices.
          > Best gryten,
          > Erik
          >
          >
          >
          > Browse the draft word lists!
          > http://www.onelist.com/files/folkspraak/
          > http://www.langmaker.com/folkspraak/volcab.html
          >
          > Browse Folkspraak-related links!
          > http://www.onelist.com/links/folkspraak/
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
        • wordwulf
          Goddag Nathaniel, As for the w, I was really having a bit of fun there, because I believe we had had a sort of consensus that we should use v. I just like the
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 11, 2003
            Goddag Nathaniel,
            As for the w, I was really having a bit of fun there, because I
            believe we had had a sort of consensus that we should use v. I just
            like the look of the w. Unfortunately, unless we say that w has a
            different pronunciation, such as a bilabial v or some such, then we
            are introducing two characters for the same phoneme /v/. I think in
            the long run, we should probably go with the v spelling, even though
            English, German and Dutch all use w, because using w would require us
            to write words such as the verb 'have' as 'hawe'. (Since German has
            a stop in the middle of the word and English and Scandinavian do not,
            I don't want to go with a stop-/b/-but neither do I want to go with
            the Scandinavian, which has lost the consonant altogether, while both
            English and German have a consonant. So my own preference for
            FS 'have' is spelled just as in English--have, pronounced HA-VUH)

            As for the vowels, the current state of affairs seems to be that we
            are using the Scandinavian model, which states that a vowel is long
            if it bears the stress and is followed by no more than one
            consonant. All other vowels are short. The number of words that
            become liable to confusion under this system is surprisingly small.
            If it fails to distinguish words that have separate pronunciations in
            the source languages, there still is little practical difficulty,
            since such pairs tend to straddle the boundary of parts of speech, so
            that one will be a noun and the other a verb, or some such.

            One complicating factor with the system I propose for vocabulary
            design is that it depends on identifying cognates. Unless we know
            that English deer and German Tier were originally the same word, we
            will go to the dictionaries and find that we are comparing 'animal'
            from English, 'djur' from Swedish and 'Tier' from German. That would
            have a couple of unwanted consequences. Firstly, it would kick the
            word down from core 1 to core 2. Secondly, it would leav us with no
            way of acheiving a 'majority rules' method of deciding on the FS form
            for the word. We might be tempted to toss a coin to decide whether
            this word should start with -t- or -d-. If we add the English
            cognate 'deer' in, though, we see that the proper "pan-Germanic" form
            for this word should be something like 'dier' (Swedish and English
            outvote German on the first consonant, German and swedish outvote
            English on the first vowel-j and i being deemed equivalent-, German
            and English outvote Swedish on the second vowel and all three agree
            on the final consonant)

            So I guess the first thing that I would like to see happen, as
            regards vocabulary design, is for us to start identifying all the
            cognates we can. The question then is, how many basic Germanic
            languages are there? I propose six-1.English/Scots,
            2.Swedish/Nynorsk/Bokmal/Danish/Icelandic/Faeroese/Gutnish/Jamtlandish
            etc., 3.High German/Swiss/Bavarian, 4.Dutch/Flaams/Afrikaans, 5.Low
            German/Pennsylvania Dutch, 6.Frisian. For purposes of inclusion in
            core 1, I suggest that a word must occur in English, German and
            Scandinavian, and that if it does not occur in one of those three, it
            be counted as core 2. (Dutch, of course, has more speakers than
            Scandinavian, but I think Scandinavian should be one of the core
            languages because it is North Germanic, while Dutch joins English and
            German in being West Germanic. East Germanic (Gothic, Burgundian,
            etc. is long dead and doesn't count) If it occurs in only one of
            those three, it should be counted as non-core vocabulary. For
            purposes of finding the proper FS form, I suggest that we should
            include input from all the Germanic languages in which the word
            occurs.

            Well, this has gone on at length, so I'd better wrap it up. But I'd
            like to get input on how we should work on the vocab to get things
            moving. Should we each just take a letter and sit down with
            dictionaries, hunting up all the cognates and then post them in
            the 'files' folder under 'A', 'B', etc. Or should we individually
            find ten words at a time which we are interested in, hunt up all the
            cognates, and put them up in a post for the group's approval?

            Then, after we've found all the cognates that occur across the three
            core languages, we should turn our attention to the core 2 words.
            Or, perhaps, we should work on these from the beginning and just
            label all our entries as core 1, core 2 or non-core. Vat denk je?

            Oh, German Pferd/Dutch paard are originally borrowed from Latin
            pardus, which also shows up in English archaic usage as pard and (leo)
            pard. But although it's not a native Germanic word, it's the only
            one that actually shows up in more than one of the core languages.

            Also, one last thing. Should we make it a rule that only words that
            occur in more than one Germanic language, not necessarily core
            language, are eligible for inclusion? After all, this is an
            interlanguage. If so, how many languages is the cutoff? Or should
            we sometimes go with words that occur in only one language, but only
            if there is no equivalent term that has wider currency? Whatever we
            decide, I think that we should do the easy part first, working with
            definite cognates, before we start arguing about a handful of hard
            words where each language has its own term and no two agree.

            Lang lev Folksprak!
            De beste gryten to all,
            Erik
          • Nathaniel Ament-Stone
            You have some great ideas. First of all, I propose v marks /v/ and not w. I would suggest that there are no double vowels or double consonants. I ll write you
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 11, 2003
              You have some great ideas. First of all, I propose v marks /v/ and not w. I
              would suggest that there are no double vowels or double consonants.

              I'll write you a longer reply in a while, but now I just want to say: if we
              go by your 3 biggies (English, German, Scandinavian), I would suggest that
              any word we choose must exist in at least two of those three
              languages....even if the meaning is varied. For example, since most Germanic
              languages agree that "dier" means animal and not stag, I suggest that "dier"
              mean animal in Folksprak.

              I'll tell you more ideas later. I've got to do some work first.

              Goddag,

              Nathaniel
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "wordwulf" <eparsels@...>
              To: <folkspraak@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:14 AM
              Subject: [folkspraak] re:vocabulary design


              > Goddag Nathaniel,
              > As for the w, I was really having a bit of fun there, because I
              > believe we had had a sort of consensus that we should use v. I just
              > like the look of the w. Unfortunately, unless we say that w has a
              > different pronunciation, such as a bilabial v or some such, then we
              > are introducing two characters for the same phoneme /v/. I think in
              > the long run, we should probably go with the v spelling, even though
              > English, German and Dutch all use w, because using w would require us
              > to write words such as the verb 'have' as 'hawe'. (Since German has
              > a stop in the middle of the word and English and Scandinavian do not,
              > I don't want to go with a stop-/b/-but neither do I want to go with
              > the Scandinavian, which has lost the consonant altogether, while both
              > English and German have a consonant. So my own preference for
              > FS 'have' is spelled just as in English--have, pronounced HA-VUH)
              >
              > As for the vowels, the current state of affairs seems to be that we
              > are using the Scandinavian model, which states that a vowel is long
              > if it bears the stress and is followed by no more than one
              > consonant. All other vowels are short. The number of words that
              > become liable to confusion under this system is surprisingly small.
              > If it fails to distinguish words that have separate pronunciations in
              > the source languages, there still is little practical difficulty,
              > since such pairs tend to straddle the boundary of parts of speech, so
              > that one will be a noun and the other a verb, or some such.
              >
              > One complicating factor with the system I propose for vocabulary
              > design is that it depends on identifying cognates. Unless we know
              > that English deer and German Tier were originally the same word, we
              > will go to the dictionaries and find that we are comparing 'animal'
              > from English, 'djur' from Swedish and 'Tier' from German. That would
              > have a couple of unwanted consequences. Firstly, it would kick the
              > word down from core 1 to core 2. Secondly, it would leav us with no
              > way of acheiving a 'majority rules' method of deciding on the FS form
              > for the word. We might be tempted to toss a coin to decide whether
              > this word should start with -t- or -d-. If we add the English
              > cognate 'deer' in, though, we see that the proper "pan-Germanic" form
              > for this word should be something like 'dier' (Swedish and English
              > outvote German on the first consonant, German and swedish outvote
              > English on the first vowel-j and i being deemed equivalent-, German
              > and English outvote Swedish on the second vowel and all three agree
              > on the final consonant)
              >
              > So I guess the first thing that I would like to see happen, as
              > regards vocabulary design, is for us to start identifying all the
              > cognates we can. The question then is, how many basic Germanic
              > languages are there? I propose six-1.English/Scots,
              > 2.Swedish/Nynorsk/Bokmal/Danish/Icelandic/Faeroese/Gutnish/Jamtlandish
              > etc., 3.High German/Swiss/Bavarian, 4.Dutch/Flaams/Afrikaans, 5.Low
              > German/Pennsylvania Dutch, 6.Frisian. For purposes of inclusion in
              > core 1, I suggest that a word must occur in English, German and
              > Scandinavian, and that if it does not occur in one of those three, it
              > be counted as core 2. (Dutch, of course, has more speakers than
              > Scandinavian, but I think Scandinavian should be one of the core
              > languages because it is North Germanic, while Dutch joins English and
              > German in being West Germanic. East Germanic (Gothic, Burgundian,
              > etc. is long dead and doesn't count) If it occurs in only one of
              > those three, it should be counted as non-core vocabulary. For
              > purposes of finding the proper FS form, I suggest that we should
              > include input from all the Germanic languages in which the word
              > occurs.
              >
              > Well, this has gone on at length, so I'd better wrap it up. But I'd
              > like to get input on how we should work on the vocab to get things
              > moving. Should we each just take a letter and sit down with
              > dictionaries, hunting up all the cognates and then post them in
              > the 'files' folder under 'A', 'B', etc. Or should we individually
              > find ten words at a time which we are interested in, hunt up all the
              > cognates, and put them up in a post for the group's approval?
              >
              > Then, after we've found all the cognates that occur across the three
              > core languages, we should turn our attention to the core 2 words.
              > Or, perhaps, we should work on these from the beginning and just
              > label all our entries as core 1, core 2 or non-core. Vat denk je?
              >
              > Oh, German Pferd/Dutch paard are originally borrowed from Latin
              > pardus, which also shows up in English archaic usage as pard and (leo)
              > pard. But although it's not a native Germanic word, it's the only
              > one that actually shows up in more than one of the core languages.
              >
              > Also, one last thing. Should we make it a rule that only words that
              > occur in more than one Germanic language, not necessarily core
              > language, are eligible for inclusion? After all, this is an
              > interlanguage. If so, how many languages is the cutoff? Or should
              > we sometimes go with words that occur in only one language, but only
              > if there is no equivalent term that has wider currency? Whatever we
              > decide, I think that we should do the easy part first, working with
              > definite cognates, before we start arguing about a handful of hard
              > words where each language has its own term and no two agree.
              >
              > Lang lev Folksprak!
              > De beste gryten to all,
              > Erik
              >
              >
              > Browse the draft word lists!
              > http://www.onelist.com/files/folkspraak/
              > http://www.langmaker.com/folkspraak/volcab.html
              >
              > Browse Folkspraak-related links!
              > http://www.onelist.com/links/folkspraak/
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.