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

Re: [folkspraak] Re: SK/SH

Expand Messages
  • Xipirho
    ... good ideas, but i m not sure we really need /dZ/ or /S/ in folkspraak ...or even /x/ really, but all germanic speaking people eitehr have that sound or can
    Message 1 of 18 , Apr 26, 2003
      On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 02:58 pm, hk_28481k wrote:
      >
      > Hi, I'm new to here, so that I don't really know this "Folkspraak"
      > well.
      >
      > 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?
      >


      good ideas, but i'm not sure we really need /dZ/ or /S/ in folkspraak
      ...or even /x/ really, but all germanic speaking people eitehr have
      that sound or can say it easily.
    • bondc_k201
      ... has ar ... The copula is irregular in all IE languages because it is a blend of different verbs. I would agree that a form similar to er/ar would make
      Message 2 of 18 , May 26 4:07 AM
        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "wordwulf" <eparsels@n...> wrote:
        > God dag,
        >
        > I use 'ar' partly because it has wider application. Swedish
        has 'ar'
        > (Norwegian 'er') across the present tense. For consistency,
        > 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.

        The copula is irregular in all IE languages because
        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
        frequency alone.

        >
        > I am trying 'ig' out these days because both Scandinavian and
        English
        > 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 we
        > would want to check Frisian and Low German too to get a consensus
        on
        > this word. I actually like 'ik' a little better, partly because it
        > is closer to the 'original' Germanic form, but also partly because
        > it's in some cases a little easier to say.

        Danish 'jeg' has no consonant sound at all--Danish
        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 or
        > reject them. Certainly, as we nail down the vocabulary and
        grammar,
        > 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?

        Mange tak!
      • bonesplitter@email.com
        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
        Message 3 of 18 , May 26 4:49 AM
          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.

          Gud Dag

          Christian

          --
          _______________________________________________
          Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
          http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.