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

Re: [folkspraak] Re: Mega-Post 239 words

Expand Messages
  • Roly Sookias
    ... OK. Yeah, I see all your points clearly I think. I spose I d argue that an English speaker could be told if it looks unfamiliar, then change the d or
    Message 1 of 35 , Jan 8, 2005
      parked71 wrote:

      >--- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "xipirho" <xipirho@r...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>/aI/, I think... Otherwise /i;/, I have a rough outline of the
      >>>>ortography, here. The biggest question is whether I should
      >>>>include /T/, (thing, think etc) when I even have problems
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>pronouncing
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>>it correctly, myself... @@
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>Hm. Having /T/ seems bloody stupid as no-one can say it apart from
      >>
      >>
      >Englanders and Icelanders and even some fairly prominent varieties of
      >English don't have it!
      >
      >If you don't use /T/ or /D/ to represent sounds that have evolved out
      >of the Proto-Germanic *th, then what sound do you use? Most people
      >would say that /d/ is the best choice since that's what has happened
      >in German, Dutch, and partially in Scandinavian (Scandinavian
      >sometimes make *th become /d/, sometimes /t/).
      >
      >So PG *thurnaz becomes EN thorn, NL doorn, DE dorn and SV törn
      >
      >
      >I've currently got /D/ in my dialect which I render with a "ð".
      >It represents the proto-Germanic *th. Most of the words with "ð"
      >in my
      >dialect have cognate words with "th" in English.
      >
      >So my dialect has "ðorn". /DOrn/
      >
      >I've used this phoneme because I want to keep a distinction between
      >words with "d" and words with "th". I do it this way to provide
      >etymolgical cues that will help recognition for English speakers.
      >If you use loose the distinction between *th and *d (such as Dutch and
      >Low German have), you end up with homonyms. eg "lieden" = people and
      >"lieden" = songs.
      >
      >In my dialect they are distinct; "lieden" = people and "lieðen" =
      >songs.
      >
      >In my dialect pronouncing the /D/ correctly is optional. You can
      >pronounce it as /d/ if you wish. But I'd like to continue to spell it
      >in a distinct way from "d", because it offers a valuable clue to
      >related words in English.
      >
      >I'd actually prefer to spell "ð" with a letter that is used in
      >Croatian.
      >It looks like a regular "d" with a cross bar. It's called a "dje". But
      >it's even bloody harder to type on regular keyboard, curse it. I'd
      >prefer it over the eth (ð) because the eth is a bit distracting if
      >you're not Icelandic, and I want people to read the dje as basically a
      >slightly modified "d" and to ignore it if they don't need it.
      >
      >
      OK. Yeah, I see all your points clearly I think. I spose I'd argue that
      an English speaker could be told "if it looks unfamiliar, then change
      the 'd' or 't' to a 'th' in your mind and think what it could be". I'm a
      big proponent of phonemic spelling, so I don't like the idea of having
      such an extra 'funny letter' that most people don't/can't pronounce
      differently from a normal 'd'. Also, maybe you should think about the
      advantage having such a letter brings WEIGHED AGAINST the disadvantge
      for English speakers of typing it. Also, if you have 'ch' for [x], why
      not 'th' for [T]?!

      >
      >
      >
      >>>I might start using "î" in my own orthography, to render the
      >>>
      >>>
      >/aI/
      >
      >
      >>>diphtong that comes from protogermanic long i. At present, I am
      >>>
      >>>
      >using
      >
      >
      >>>"y", with which I am a little dis-satisfied. I find words like
      >>>
      >>>
      >"ys",
      >
      >
      >>>"ysern" and "yver" look a little ugly. "îs", "îsern",
      >>>
      >>>
      >"îver"
      >
      >
      >>>do look
      >>>somewhat better.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>Yeah, looks better, but why not use 'ai'? A circumflex also can't be
      >>
      >>
      >typed on a standard UK or US keyboard without remapping or such.
      >
      >Tell me about it, I'm getting a little sick of typing alt+0238
      >already.
      >Basically I don't think my spelling should be totally phonetic.I want
      >the words too look more recognisable to speakers of various germlangs.
      >So it's a compromise between recognition and phonetic spelling.
      >
      >Words using that /aI/ diphthong come from the Proto-Germanic long i.
      >In English this is a /aI/ dipthong by they are still generally
      >rendered with an "i". In Dutch they are a /EI/ dipthong but are
      >generally rendered with a "ij" ligature, which was orignally a "ii".
      >In Scandinavian languages they are still pronounced as /i;/ and spelt
      >with an "i". In German this is a /aI/ diphthong and is spelt "ei" or
      >"ey".
      >So I want the spelling in my dialect to produce words that look
      >familiar to speakers of as many germlangs as possible. None of the
      >source languages use "ai" in words that are evolved from
      >Proto-Germanic words with long i. So neither shall I.
      >
      >Eg EN wine, NL wijn, SV vin, DE Wein.
      >
      >Which of the following spellings do you think would look most familiar
      >to speakers of the various Germlangs?
      >
      >"wain", "wyn" or "wîn".
      >
      >Probably only a German speaker is going to choose "wain". A Dutch
      >speaker would probably have a difficult time choosing between "wyn"
      >and "wîn". And the English speaker and Swedish speaker would
      >probably choose "wîn".
      >
      >
      Well, one point I could make there are more German speakers in Europe
      than Swedes and Enlanders put together, and only 4 million fewer Germans
      than Dutch, Swedes and Englanders! ...and also the Germans would
      definitely say the 'ai' right as /ai/, but at first glance 'î' could
      easily be mispronounced /i:/ or /i/ ...but anyway, the main reason I
      like 'ai' is because I like phonem/etic spelling. I also don't like
      circumflexes as they're hard to type, as I said and you agreed! :-) The
      'y' looks even weirder than the 'ai' as far as I'm concerned. Oh, and as
      for the matter of accents altogether, I woudl say that most English
      people would be far more put off a language by accents than by slightly
      alien words.

      >
      >>>homonym for my word for animal, "dier" /di;r/
      >>>
      >>>
      >>Hm. Surely /i:/ would do wouldn't it? I mean having /y:/ isn't going
      >>
      >>
      >to make words any more recognisable is it? ...and indeed it might make
      >them less so for English speakers (not to mention much harder to say,
      >but that dosn't seem to be a great issue on your agenda, so I won't go
      >on about that!)
      >
      >
      >
      >My aim was to make the words more familiar to Dutch, German and
      >Scandinavian speakers, and to eliminate some annoying homonyms.
      >
      >
      Hm. Well it's not gonna make it any more recognisable for Germans is it?
      I'm not set against /y/ really tho as at least it's easy to type with
      one letter!

      >New Zealanders have no trouble at all pronouncing /y;/. In fact,
      >according to German's who have heard me speak German, the problem is
      >preventing us from saying it. In other words, NZers seem to have
      >trouble saying /u;/ correctly. In English the /y;/ vs /u;/ distinction
      >doesn't matter, but in German it can make a big difference to meaning.
      >eg "schwul" = Gay. "schwül" = humid.
      >But the problem isn't just in the pronunciation, it's in training the
      >ears to hear the distinction.
      >
      >
      >
      LOL. Yeah, I think /u:/'s certainly going that way here too - I mean
      more towards [y:]. When you hear a newsreader from the '50s or whatever
      his /u:/s sound very over-rounded. I think I've just about managed to
      get the hang of it all now, but what I did need to do is get my /u:/s
      more rounded to sound like German /u:/ or French /u/ before I could
      really get the difference. I still find [Y] a bit tricky, but I think
      I've sorted it really. It's this kinda thing that makes me wonder about
      whether a /u/ v. /y/ distinction is good or not tho. - I mean the Dutch
      find it v. hard to differentiate short and long /u/ (i.e. say [u:]
      versus [u]/[U]) so in my dialect I have one phoneme pair and say you can
      say it [y:] and [Y]/[y] OR [u:] and [U]/[u].

      >
      >
      >
      >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/
      >
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Aron Boström
      ... And stationshall , ishall , spelhall , lagerhall , ... In modern SE -hall can mean a large indoor space only if joined with another word. Hall
      Message 35 of 35 , Jan 14, 2005
        torsdagen den 13 januari 2005 22:01 skrev Sebastian:
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "wakuran_wakaran" <hakans@w...>
        >
        > wrote:
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leyland <pcl@w...> wrote:
        > > > On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 11:10, parked71 wrote:
        > > > > This is all I've achieved over my holiday break. I hope you
        >
        > find
        >
        > > some
        > >
        > > > > useful additions to your dictionaries somewhere amongst these
        > >
        > > words.
        > >
        > > > > aula n. = auditorium, music hall, concert hall.
        > > >
        > > > This one has been borrowed unchanged from the Latin.
        > > >
        > > > What's wrong with "hall" and its cognates?
        > > >
        > > > English: Hall
        > > > Dutch: Hal
        > > > German: Halle
        > > > Swedish: Hall
        > > > OE: Hall or Heall
        > > > OHG: Halle
        > > > ON: Höll
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Those are just the ones I know off the top of my head or can find
        > > > easily. No doubt there are those who know Danish, Norwegian,
        > >
        > > Yiddish,
        > >
        > > > etc, who can fill in the gaps.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Paul
        > >
        > > I don't think the swedish word means "aula", generally,
        > > rather "hallway"...
        >
        > don't forget idrottshall e.g (sporthall)

        And "stationshall", "ishall", "spelhall", "lagerhall", ...

        In modern SE -hall can mean "a large indoor space" only if joined with another
        word. "Hall" itself as a large indoor space is archaic.

        Aron (Yes, I'm still alive)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.