Re: [folkspraak] Re: Pronunciation
- Excellent work....I suggest we use absolutely no umlauts, since, as you say,
the plural "en" would be confused with an umlauted letter and them "n". We
can't represent umlauts by "oe" or "ue" because, such as in "sho", the
plural would be "shoen", which would look just like a transliteration of the
German word for beautiful, schön...
There is no perfect way to determine vowels..."dier" is a pretty easy
marking, because there is a simple, letter by letter, analysis that applies.
But in other words there is no easy way to "outvote" certain vowels, and
"deyr" isn't very welcome to the eye. Here's my suggestion in cases like
this: look at the Scandinavian, which is usually more international than
English or German and forms a solid medium point. For example, in the word
for "house" we have all three languages consenting on "h", but we have "o"
in English and "a" in German as the first vowel. Scandinavian skips this, so
Folksprak should rather than finding a medium point. The second vowel is "u"
in all three languages, and "s" is the same in all. Finally, German and
Swedish outvote English that there should be no silent vowel at the end. So
in this case Folksprak and Swedish both have "hus", which is a perfectly
pan-Germanic word. So my point is, Scandinavian words are often more
pan-Germanic than English, German, Dutch or others for some reason.
Keep going, your work is putting me to shame!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "wordwulf" <eparsels@...>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:01 AM
Subject: [folkspraak] Re: Pronunciation
> God dag,
> The way I've been doing it is to have 'y' stand for the high central
> (front, but rounded like a back vowel) vowel. I did this in order to
> close the gap between i and u. As far as the choice of forms goes,
> what I have been doing since I decided to try the 'core 1', 'core 2'
> thing is to let the majority form decide. Since I am going off only
> three of the six Germanic languages, the forms I come up with are in
> many cases probably going to have to be modified eventually. But
> take a word like 'deer'. English and Swedish agree on the first
> letter, as opposed to German t. German and Swedish agree on the
> second letter (German i, Swedish j=i) against English e. German and
> English outvote Swedish for the second vowel, e, as opposed to
> Swedish u. And all three agree on the final letter, r. Which gives
> a construct like *dier, which I pronounce as a sort of two-syllable
> or glide effect DEE-ER.
> Sometimes, When all three languages differ, especially regarding
> vowels, I choose the construct form based on shared features. I, Y
> and U are high vowels. E and O are mid vowels, and A is a low
> vowel. Think of it as a clock. Y is at twelve, U is at 2:00, O is at
> 4:00, A is at 6:00, E is at 8:00, and I is at 10:00. When
> considering the source language material, I just ignore umlauts.
> Thus I read Swedish gron without the umlaut, and German grun without
> the umlaut, beside English green. Since German and Swedish are both
> back vowels (U or O, E and I being front vowels), I decide that the
> vowel needs to be a back vowel. Since English e and Swedish o are
> both mid vowels, I decide therefore that the vowel should be a back
> mid vowel, or o, giving *gron. When I have a word like 'dear',
> German teuer, Swedish dyr, it's a bit of a pickle. I picked y
> because the German form has both back and front vowels and the German
> and Swedish both include a high vowel. But I suppose I could have
> split it up, reading the source languages as Eng. E+A, Ger. E+U and
> SWE. Y+Y. Then English and German would outvote Swedish for the
> first vowel, e. German and Swedish would outvote English for the
> second vowel being a high vowel, and English and Swedish would
> outvote German on the second vowel being a central (neither front nor
> back) vowel, y. That gives *deyr. Hmm, not very attractive to my
> But perhaps we should include the umlauts. What if we wrote the
> source words as German gruen and Swedish groen. Then we would end up
> with a construct word that looked like *groen. Very Dutch. That,
> though, raises the problem of the -en or -er endings tacked onto a
> word ending in a vowel. Thus, sko or sho 'shoe' becomes skoen or
> shoen, a one syllable word identical to German for 'beautiful',
> rather than sho-en 'shoes'. If at all possible, I would like to just
> use the basic alphabet without diacritical marks such as umlauts and
> without devices such as writing two letters for one sound.
> Certainly, the y character provides an umlauted letter without
> diacritical marks.
> What do you think? Finding the common denominator for the vowel
> sounds is, I think, going to be one of the challenges. But I also
> think we shouldn't get too hung up on the hard parts like that, but
> should concentrate on finding the words we're going to use. Then, we
> can tackle the problem of what precise form those words will have
> afterwards. It shouldn't cause too much trouble. After all, the
> word forms aren't too dissimilar in most cases.
> So far, I'm just working on core 1, the words I can find that appear
> in all three core source languages, English, German and Scandinavian
> (Swedish, for me, because Swedish has the most speakers of the
> Scandinavian group, but words from Bokmal, Nynorsk, Danish or
> Icelandic would work too, and those languages preserve many words
> that Swedish has replaced with Romance borrowings). After I get
> through core 1, I plan to start on core 2, which will include any
> word that appears in only two out of the three core languages. Core
> 3 (or non-core) will consist of words that appear in only one of the
> core languages and at least one other Germanic language. (Words
> that, for example, appear only in Swedish and Norwegian, or only in
> Dutch and Afrikaans, etc. won't count. I figure that there are six
> basic Germanic language groupings. 1=English/Scots,
> 2=German/Bavarian/Swiss dialect,
> 4=Dutch/Flaams/Afrikaans, 5=Low German/Alsatian/Pennsylvania Dutch,
> and 5=West Frisian/East Frisian)
> Anyhow, that's what I've been up to lately.
> Hertligste gryten,
> Browse the draft word lists!
> Browse Folkspraak-related links!
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- --- In email@example.com, "David Parke" <parked@x> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "wakuran_wakaran" <hakans@w...>
> >nederlander to
> > --- In email@example.com, "David Parke" <parked@x> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Stephen" <stephenstaines@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > the *th sound as in english cannot be used for Folkspraak as many
> > > > germanic people cannot pronounce it. ask a german or
> > > > say "faiTH" and you will find that 60% of them cannot get theirdue to
> > > > tougue around it. i propose a /d/ sound is used as in german
> > > > its recignition by all. spelt "D" please give feedback toas /d/
> > > > stephenstaines@y...
> > >
> > > That's exactly what Tungol65 proposed. It's the 3rd option in the
> > > poll.
> > > It's also not that different from my second proposal, the second
> > > option in the poll. My only difference, is although pronounced
> > > I still mark the phoneme's origin in the orthography with a accentedAF4FQopCBFM4liJFGernOhlLrk9tA583oG54X2ruIuLBKV5502p9rk6_177FOV9jXV9TsvSe7k4
> > > "d". This is to aid word recognition for English and Scandinavian
> > > speakers
> > > You can see examples of the accented "d" here:
> > >
> > >
> > http://f5.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/
> > >
> > What does that "đrajen" word mean? "You force yourself to
> > through the thick cod-guts" Although it is clearly a strange sentence,cod-guts. "
> > I have dificulties interpreting it. I think that the poor guy referred
> > to here rotates, turns, twists and spins like a tornado through a pile
> > of cod-guts?
> "You force/compell yourself to turn thirstily through the thick/fat
>all the 10s of 1000s of years
> I'm not sure if drajen should me turn/swerve or turn/rotate/spin.
> It' just intended as a tongue twister with lots of djes in it. In
> of history of human language its perhaps the first time anybody hasever needed to utter
> such a sentence.Or as we Swedes put it: "kvistfritt kvastskaft"
( /kvistfrit kvastskaft/ in X- Sampa, I think.)
Literally "splinter-free broomstick"
> > > What did you not vote for either of those options, and vote
> > > can still change your vote at anytime until the poll closes onthe 5th
> > > of April.