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

Re: [folkspraak] Orthography

Expand Messages
  • Xipirho
    ... well if they all say it desember or such then desember seems to make sense to me! oh, and you forgot icelandic with its 280,000 speakers! ... it s
    Message 1 of 50 , Apr 6 11:33 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sunday, April 6, 2003, at 11:52 am, Daan Goedkoop wrote:
      >>
      >> you wouldnt, you'd spell it "detsember" and say it with [ts] or
      >> "desember" and say it with [s]! ...or even "dekember" and with [k].
      >
      > Which Germanic language writes "detsember"? Which language writes
      > "desember"?
      > Well, Norwegian and Afrikaans, but English, Dutch, Swedish and Danish
      > all
      > have "december" pronounced as "desember" or such, so that would be the
      > most
      > logical choice, I think.

      well if they all say it ""desember" or such" then "desember" seems to
      make sense to me! oh, and you forgot icelandic with its 280,000
      speakers!

      > And with English being a world language, we see that a bit of
      > inconsistency is
      > not a problem at all.

      it's not a problem once you learn it, but its a pain when you're doing
      so and it wastes loads of time. in english you often don't even know
      how to SAY teh word when you see it, which is also a problem i imagine
      wouldn't exist in folksprahk.

      > I would say that Folkspraak does not need to be
      > completely consistent, if those inconsistencies make it more
      > recognisable.
      > And thus I would prefer "december" for "detsember", maybe not
      > completely
      > consistent but more recognisable.

      you mean desember or dekember ot detsember isnt recogniseable!!!??? the
      only reason they have "c" is because it had "c" in latin which was used
      CONSISTENTLY for [k]. for Uuodan's sake man, surely you can live with
      "desember" or such like (i mean it's so obvious what the word is) as a
      very small price to pay for absolute spelling perfection? germanic
      languages don't inherently have to have messed up spelling. so many
      words in folksprahk are unguessable unless you know german or swedish
      as WELL as english, that a word like that which is so easy even with a
      different consonat in the middle will hardly make a difference!

      > Likewise, you might pronounce
      > "installasjon" and thus want to write "installasjon", maybe it is
      > consistent,
      > but "installation" is better recognisable (it is this way in English,
      > Dutch
      > (installatie), German, Swedish and Danish, Norwegian and Afrikaans are
      > the
      > exceptions with installasjon/installasie).


      what? how can five languages be the exception to the rule set by two?
      anyway, "instalation" is fine as in folksprahk it could indeed be
      pronounced "instalation".


      >
      >>> The
      >>> umlauts can maybe be handy sometimes, I wrote hä, maybe häv is better
      >>> as it
      >>> looks like have or haben but can be pronounced like Dutch hebben...
      >>> but it
      >>> can be handy for example in stad / städen, conforming both German
      >>> (stadt/städten) and Dutch (stad/steden)...
      >>
      >> as far as i can see that's one hell of a feeble excuse for adding
      >> umlauts, especially as having the plural different in STEM from the
      >> singualr adds confusion. we are creating a new language, not a way of
      >> representing dutch and german in one writing system! even if its a
      >> draw
      >> betwen the number of languages with say "a" and 'e" in a word why not
      >> just CHOOSE whether its 'e" or "a" and be done with it? going by
      >> history to decide this is the easiest approach.
      >
      > You are completely right here. Umlauts are not really needed.

      i'm glad we've come to agreement here. i'm not sure if we should have
      [y] though maybe, as its not really an umlaut vowel.


      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ---------------------~-->
      > Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here!
      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/2CXtTB/ca0FAA/i5gGAA/IYOolB/TM
      > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      > ~->
      >
      > 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/
      >
      >
      >
    • chamavian
      No problem, hooren is just the older Dutch ortho from before the fifties of the last century ;-) oo was spelt in open syllables when it was etymologically
      Message 50 of 50 , Jan 23, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        No problem, "hooren" is just the older Dutch ortho from before the
        fifties of the last century ;-)

        "oo" was spelt in open syllables when it was etymologically from
        Proto Germanic *au, "o" when it was from short o or short u,
        lengthened in open syllables. So: "hooren", "oogen"
        versus "open", "over" etc.

        Same rule for "ee" and "e", from PG "ai" resp. PG "i"/"e":

        "eene" vs "eten".

        But these sounds were and still are pronounced exactly the same.
        Nowadays in open syllables Dutch has usualy "o" and "e". An exception
        is "tweede" = second, from "twee" = two

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "clayton_rc" <entrelenga@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > > as in Dutch "hooren"
        >
        > typo: "horen"
        >
        > Clayton
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.