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

word selection: ramifications

Expand Messages
  • alypius
    1. Earlier there were some suggestions by myself and one or two others that, when we have a choice between a Germanic word and a Romance derivative, we should
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 17, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      1. Earlier there were some suggestions by myself and one or two others
      that, when we have a choice between a Germanic word and a Romance
      derivative, we should prefer the Germanic word. If we apply this rule, and
      I hope we will, we shall select "wissenschaft" over "science." Once we do
      so, in order to make our vocabulary easier to remember, we will be
      constrained to use the 'schaft' suffix in other contexts as well, and to
      adopt "wissen" over its counterparts when making other word choices. This
      may even influence our decision over whether to adopt German -s- or
      English -t- in words like water/wasser. I give this as an example of how
      one decision may constrain our choices in unforeseen ways.

      2. On vowel selection, the default position seems to be to stick with long
      a, e, i, o, u--the "Esperanto 5"--which I have previously argued will
      deprive Folkspraak's phonemic pattern of some of its Germanic character. I
      now wish to point out yet another problem, namely, that this decision may
      unduly restrict our choice of vocabulary. For example, we could not adopt
      the English 'it' unless we made it sound like 'eat'--in which case we could
      not consider for adoption the English 'eat!' We may run into any number of
      such problems with this policy.

      3. Interesting observation on IALs vs. RALs (Regional Auxiliary Langs.):
      IALers almost invariably opt for a Latin base. However, with English being
      by far the most popular IAL, and the most studied 2nd lang., it may be just
      as logical for future IALers to opt for a Germanic rather than Latin base
      for such tongues. ~alypius
    • Jeffrey Henning
      ... and ... This is a good point, and indicates the developing a lexicon is a holistic act -- we can t just rattle off individual words and be done. What I
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 21, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        > 1. Earlier there were some suggestions by myself and one or two others
        > that, when we have a choice between a Germanic word and a Romance
        > derivative, we should prefer the Germanic word. If we apply this rule,
        and
        > I hope we will, we shall select "wissenschaft" over "science." Once we do
        > so, in order to make our vocabulary easier to remember, we will be
        > constrained to use the 'schaft' suffix in other contexts as well, and to
        > adopt "wissen" over its counterparts when making other word choices. This
        > may even influence our decision over whether to adopt German -s- or
        > English -t- in words like water/wasser. I give this as an example of how
        > one decision may constrain our choices in unforeseen ways.

        This is a good point, and indicates the developing a lexicon is a holistic
        act -- we can't just rattle off individual words and be done.

        What I would suggest is that we propose individual words to lexify
        semantemes, even if those semantemes are already lexified. Blech. Let's try
        that again: we coin words for concepts, even if those concepts are already
        in the lexicon. Then at some point we can begin to prune out some of the
        coinings, looking at the lexicon as a whole. But I'd rather have more to
        start with -- that way anyone can contribute, and we will do the pruning
        later. Sort of like a brainstorming session, where you have one meeting to
        come up with concepts, the goofier the better, and a separate session to go
        through them.


        > 2. On vowel selection, the default position seems to be to stick with
        long
        > a, e, i, o, u--the "Esperanto 5"--which I have previously argued will
        > deprive Folkspraak's phonemic pattern of some of its Germanic character.
        I
        > now wish to point out yet another problem, namely, that this decision may
        > unduly restrict our choice of vocabulary. For example, we could not adopt
        > the English 'it' unless we made it sound like 'eat'--in which case we
        could
        > not consider for adoption the English 'eat!' We may run into any number
        of
        > such problems with this policy.

        This is a good point. The Esperanto 5 are probably not applicable for a
        Germanic RAL. What would you suggest instead?


        > 3. Interesting observation on IALs vs. RALs (Regional Auxiliary Langs.):
        > IALers almost invariably opt for a Latin base.

        Hence the derogative term Euroclone.

        > However, with English being
        > by far the most popular IAL, and the most studied 2nd lang., it may be
        just
        > as logical for future IALers to opt for a Germanic rather than Latin base
        > for such tongues. ~alypius

        Interesting. Thanks for a thought-provoking post!

        Jeffrey
      • Dan Dawes
        Whatever vowels we pick, we must make them typeable on a standard keyboard, i.e. no umlauts or other special characters. We may need to thus use the dipthong
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 29, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Whatever vowels we pick, we must make them typeable on a standard keyboard,
          i.e. no umlauts or other special characters. We may need to thus use the
          dipthong versions, e.g. ae, oe, ue for the umlauted versions.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Jeffrey Henning [mailto:Jeffrey@...]
          Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 9:21 AM
          To: folkspraak@onelist.com
          Subject: Re: [folkspraak] word selection: ramifications


          From: "Jeffrey Henning" <Jeffrey@...>

          > 1. Earlier there were some suggestions by myself and one or two others
          > that, when we have a choice between a Germanic word and a Romance
          > derivative, we should prefer the Germanic word. If we apply this rule,
          and
          > I hope we will, we shall select "wissenschaft" over "science." Once we do
          > so, in order to make our vocabulary easier to remember, we will be
          > constrained to use the 'schaft' suffix in other contexts as well, and to
          > adopt "wissen" over its counterparts when making other word choices. This
          > may even influence our decision over whether to adopt German -s- or
          > English -t- in words like water/wasser. I give this as an example of how
          > one decision may constrain our choices in unforeseen ways.

          This is a good point, and indicates the developing a lexicon is a holistic
          act -- we can't just rattle off individual words and be done.

          What I would suggest is that we propose individual words to lexify
          semantemes, even if those semantemes are already lexified. Blech. Let's try
          that again: we coin words for concepts, even if those concepts are already
          in the lexicon. Then at some point we can begin to prune out some of the
          coinings, looking at the lexicon as a whole. But I'd rather have more to
          start with -- that way anyone can contribute, and we will do the pruning
          later. Sort of like a brainstorming session, where you have one meeting to
          come up with concepts, the goofier the better, and a separate session to go
          through them.


          > 2. On vowel selection, the default position seems to be to stick with
          long
          > a, e, i, o, u--the "Esperanto 5"--which I have previously argued will
          > deprive Folkspraak's phonemic pattern of some of its Germanic character.
          I
          > now wish to point out yet another problem, namely, that this decision may
          > unduly restrict our choice of vocabulary. For example, we could not adopt
          > the English 'it' unless we made it sound like 'eat'--in which case we
          could
          > not consider for adoption the English 'eat!' We may run into any number
          of
          > such problems with this policy.

          This is a good point. The Esperanto 5 are probably not applicable for a
          Germanic RAL. What would you suggest instead?


          > 3. Interesting observation on IALs vs. RALs (Regional Auxiliary Langs.):
          > IALers almost invariably opt for a Latin base.

          Hence the derogative term Euroclone.

          > However, with English being
          > by far the most popular IAL, and the most studied 2nd lang., it may be
          just
          > as logical for future IALers to opt for a Germanic rather than Latin base
          > for such tongues. ~alypius

          Interesting. Thanks for a thought-provoking post!

          Jeffrey


          --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

          ONElist members are using Shared Files in great ways!
          http://www.onelist.com
          Are you? If not, see our homepage for details.

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Folkspraak Discussion List, http://www.langmaker.com/folksprk.htm
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.