Re: [folkspraak] Re: SK/SH
- On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 02:58 pm, hk_28481k wrote:
>good ideas, but i'm not sure we really need /dZ/ or /S/ in folkspraak
> Hi, I'm new to here, so that I don't really know this "Folkspraak"
> I'm thinking that is it possible to use "sj" for /S/ instead of "sh"
> or "sk". The apperent advantage is that people would not
> pronounce "sk" as /sk/ as this is a possible pronounciation. Also
> for /dZ/ I propose "gj" as a way to represent this sound. For /x/ I
> will use "kh". What do you think?
...or even /x/ really, but all germanic speaking people eitehr have
that sound or can say it easily.
- --- In email@example.com, "wordwulf" <eparsels@n...> wrote:
> God dag,has 'ar'
> I use 'ar' partly because it has wider application. Swedish
> (Norwegian 'er') across the present tense. For consistency,The copula is irregular in all IE languages because
> Scandinavian seems the best model to me. English has 'are' across
> the plural. English only uses 'be' in the infinitive. German uses
> it only in the present tense 1st and 2nd singular (bin and bist).
> Also, 'ar' is like the past tense, 'var', without the v. Thus
> ar/var/vill vare, one of the few irregular verbs in my own current
> form of Folksprak.
it is a blend of different verbs. I would agree
that a form similar to er/ar would make more sense
than a form similar to bin/bist, for the sake of
> I am trying 'ig' out these days because both Scandinavian and
> agree in not having a voiceless consonant. Scandinavian ends with -g
> and English could be said to end with a -j type glide. I guess weon
> would want to check Frisian and Low German too to get a consensus
> this word. I actually like 'ik' a little better, partly because itDanish 'jeg' has no consonant sound at all--Danish
> is closer to the 'original' Germanic form, but also partly because
> it's in some cases a little easier to say.
spelling is a lot like English spelling, and has
little to do with the way the word is pronounced.
I think, though (and I may be wrong) that Norwegian
does pronounce the consonant.
> them out and little by little the membership will either accept orgrammar,
> reject them. Certainly, as we nail down the vocabulary and
> we need to start coming together on such things as spelling.Plattduutsch has the most speakers of all Germanic
languages after English--don't you think it might
make sense to use it when comparing languages? And
just a couple of thoughts.
East Germanic languages (Gothic) had no umlaut (I
mean the phonological process, not the diaresis),
and umlaut is not fully productive even in those
languages that still have it. I guess another way
to say it is that speakers don't show a tendency
to produce umlaut. Why not, then, drop the process?
Similarly, speakers do show a strong preference
for strong over weak verbs. If, for example, you
look at non-standard verb forms in English, you
almost never see a standard strong verb being
used as a weak verb--it's always the other way
around, or one strong verb being conjugated in
another strong paradigm. So why not keep strong
verbs, since speakers seem to prefer ablaut
to a dental suffix?
I had no idea this existed until just a couple
of hours ago. This is definitely sehr kewl. Can
anyone point me to grammar, vocab, etc., resources?
- The best place to find grammars is in the temporary grammar folder on the group page. It is a place where people can upload their version of the folkspraak grammer, in order to make it easier to compare the differences in the various folkspraak idiolects. There are three grammars in there, all quite old unfortunatly. I am palnning on making a new one this vacation.
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com