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

Passive versus Active Folksprak

Expand Messages
  • Dinkel@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/16/00 6:41:50 PM !!!First Boot!!!, dawes@mdalaw.com writes:
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 16, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 10/16/00 6:41:50 PM !!!First Boot!!!, dawes@...
      writes:

      << Basically, if it doesn't work in English and in German, then you do not
      have
      a pan-Germanic language. >>

      We can create two different types of languages here.

      PASSIVE: where a monolingual speaker of either English or German with no
      previous knowledge of Folksprak, will be able to read and understand written
      Folksprak, but will themselves be unable to communicate back due to a lack of
      knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, spelling etc.

      ACTIVE: where a speaker with a little bit of effort and studying, will not
      only be able to read and understand written Folksprak but will themselves be
      able to communicate to others in Folksprak.

      There seems to be some impetus to create a Passive language as opposed to an
      Active one. Personally I am in favor of an easy to understand ACTIVE version
      of Folksprak. Where it is assumed that most of the people initiating
      communication and most of the people on the receiving end of that
      communication will be somewhat versed in Folksprak, providing that Folksprak
      is easy to learn for speakers in ALL the source languages.

      The structure of Folksprak will dictate how easy it is to learn. A definite
      set of rules should be created for "impromptu" vocabulary construction.

      For example, assume that someone wishes to communicate to the group in
      Folksprak. They care to use a word or term that has yet to be posted on
      egroups. Regardless of their native source language they should be able to
      follow a generic set of rules for constructing a root and a definite set of
      rules for constructing any prefixes or suffixes.

      ie, how to formulate the word HELPLESS into Folksprak:
      help (eng), hilfe(ger), help (dut), hjælp (dan), hjälp (swe), hjelp (nor),
      hjelp or help(folk)
      -less (eng), -los (ger), -loos (dut), -loes (dan), -loes (swe), -los (folk)

      Thus the Folksprak word for Helpless is hjelplos or helplos. The root of the
      new word is constructed by looking for the most common characteristics of the
      source languages. The endings, like "-less", should already be studied and
      posted. Making it easy to generate the word and easy for someone that is
      versed in the rules of word generation, but who has yet to see the word, to
      understand it.

      With respect to grammar. I'm absolutely in favor of the simplest grammar
      possible. And please excuse my naivete here but Subject-Verb-Object, right? I
      guess I'll let the pros here work it out. Just please make it easy for the
      rest of us to understand. Thanks!

      Min Folksprak are hjelplos! =)
      -- Ariano (dinkel@...)
    • Dan Dawes
      We can create two different types of languages here. PASSIVE: where a monolingual speaker of either English or German with no previous knowledge of Folksprak,
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 16, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        We can create two different types of languages here.

        PASSIVE: where a monolingual speaker of either English or German with no
        previous knowledge of Folksprak, will be able to read and understand written
        Folksprak, but will themselves be unable to communicate back due to a lack
        of
        knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, spelling etc.
        CALL THIS THE BASIC LEVEL OR READING-ONLY LEVEL TO DISTINGUISH FROM PASSIVE
        TENSE OF THE VERB.

        ACTIVE: where a speaker with a little bit of effort and studying, will not
        only be able to read and understand written Folksprak but will themselves be
        able to communicate to others in Folksprak.
        THIS CAN BE CALLED THE WRITING/READING LEVEL. I THINK EVERY LANGUAGE
        LEARNING GENERALLY GOES THROUGH THIS TYPE OF EVOLUTION IN LANGUAGE LEVELS
        ANYWAY. LANGUAGE COURSES ARE TAUGHT MORE OR LESS WITH THIS EVOLUATION IN
        MIND.

        There seems to be some impetus to create a Passive language as opposed to an
        Active one. Personally I am in favor of an easy to understand ACTIVE version
        of Folksprak. Where it is assumed that most of the people initiating
        communication and most of the people on the receiving end of that
        communication will be somewhat versed in Folksprak, providing that Folksprak
        is easy to learn for speakers in ALL the source languages.

        The structure of Folksprak will dictate how easy it is to learn. A definite
        set of rules should be created for "impromptu" vocabulary construction.
        YES! BRILLIANT! ONLY SOMETHING LIKE THIS WILL EVER RESULT IN A FUNCTIONAL
        LANGUAGE.

        For example, assume that someone wishes to communicate to the group in
        Folksprak. They care to use a word or term that has yet to be posted on
        egroups. Regardless of their native source language they should be able to
        follow a generic set of rules for constructing a root and a definite set of
        rules for constructing any prefixes or suffixes.

        ie, how to formulate the word HELPLESS into Folksprak:
        help (eng), hilfe(ger), help (dut), hjælp (dan), hjälp (swe), hjelp (nor),
        hjelp or help(folk)
        -less (eng), -los (ger), -loos (dut), -loes (dan), -loes (swe), -los (folk)

        Thus the Folksprak word for Helpless is hjelplos or helplos. The root of the
        new word is constructed by looking for the most common characteristics of
        the
        source languages. The endings, like "-less", should already be studied and
        posted. Making it easy to generate the word and easy for someone that is
        versed in the rules of word generation, but who has yet to see the word, to
        understand it.
        WE MUST UNDERSTAND THAT IF THE LANGUAGE BEGINS TO LIVE, THERE WILL BE MANY
        DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF MANY WORDS. THIS IS HOW ENGLISH WAS IN THE 1500'S
        WHEN IT WAS FIRST FORMING TO BECOME A WRITTEN FORM. HENCE, WE HAVE THE
        LEGACY OF THE ENGLISH SPELLING. EVEN GERMAN WAS LIKE THIS UNTIL MARTIN
        LUTHER WROTE THE BIBLE IN THE HIGH GERMAN DIALECT WHICH MADE THAT DIALECT
        THE "STANDARD" VERSION HENCEFORTH. MAYBE SOMEONE WILL TRANSLATE THE BIBLE
        INTO FOLKSPRAAK, AND THAT WILL BE THAT.

        With respect to grammar. I'm absolutely in favor of the simplest grammar
        possible. And please excuse my naivete here but Subject-Verb-Object, right?
        I
        guess I'll let the pros here work it out. Just please make it easy for the
        rest of us to understand. Thanks!
        SEE GRAMMAR FROM FOLKSPRAAK SITE BELOW.

        1. Grammar of Folkspraak
        Version 0.5.2
        [Version 1.0.0, when achieved, will indicate that the grammar design is
        frozen]
        by Dan Dawes
        1. Release Notes
        0.5.0 – Dan Dawe's initial version, June 29, 1999
        0.5.1 – Jeffrey Henning's first copy editing and formatting session, June
        29, 1999
        0.5.2 – Jeffrey Henning's second editing and formatting session, correcting
        typos identified by Dan and integrating some of Dan's e-mailed comments into
        the introduction
        Your comments are welcome – please join the Folkspraak mailing list.
        2. Introduction
        The primary tongues of the currently used Germanic languages of Western
        Europe can be viewed as one, if in each the traits that distinguish it from
        its sister Germanic languages are disregarded. The result is Folkspraak,
        which differs from the natural Germanic languages from which it is derived
        as a personality type differs from the individuals it represents. –
        Folkspraak is derived from English, German, Dutch and the Scandinavian
        languages, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, treated as one group. It is the
        common Germanic language of all Germanic speaking peoples and is understood,
        like a streamlined version of one's native Germanic tongue.
        While the Folkspraak lexical building is a separate effort, grammar of
        course cannot be formulated in the absence of words. Therefore, a few
        grammatical words have been chosen under the assumption that these words
        would be adopted in the Folkspraak lexicon. If this is not in fact the case,
        the grammatical point can be easily deduced and correctly applied to the
        intended word, which is adopted into the Folkspraak lexicon. If a word form
        or root appears or is understandable in three of the four Germanic languages
        (counting the Scandinavian languages as one), then it is adopted into
        Folkspraak.
        Here is the proposed grammar for Folkspraak. I have been thinking about this
        for awhile. I have not seen any other attempts. I modeled the approach
        closely after the grammatical approach of Interlingua, except I have
        Germanized it. This is an earnest approach to devise a grammar that would be
        simple, easy to learn and easy to master, and would seem familiar in some
        degree to any speaker of German, English, Dutch and the Scandinavian
        languages. The goal would be to have all speakers of German, English, Dutch
        and the Scandinavian languages
        be able to at least partially read Folkspraak without any prior exposure to
        it and be able to understand the gist.
        Now with the proposed grammar defined, we will circulate it on the web and
        see if we can move together in a reasoned manner to a consensus. Even in
        grammar it comes down in many cases to just making a judgment and a decision
        among a number of plausibly equally valid alternatives. If we could test the
        proposal by having a number of native speakers from each group evaluate the
        intelligibility of the grammar in some kind of survey, then we could be
        semi-objective. In a perfect world, we would have native speakers from each
        language with no exposure to the other languages try to read the text
        according to various grammars and
        lexicons. The most readily intelligible grammar and lexicon to such a reader
        would win.
        3. Spelling & Pronunciation
        The letters are those of the standard Roman alphabet without stress marks or
        other diacritical signs. The PRONUNCIATION is on the whole "classical"
        (vowels as in modern German; 'c' before 'e', 'i', 'y' like 's' or 'ts',
        otherwise like 'k'; 'th' like 't'; 'ph' like 'f'; etc.). The STRESS is
        "natural" if it falls most frequently on the vowel before the last
        consonant.
        4. Articles
        1. Definite Article
        The word for "the" is der for all genders (masculine, feminine and neuter)
        and numbers (singular and plural).
        2. Indefinite Article
        The word for "a" / "an" is en for all genders (restricted to the singular).
        3. Word Order
        Articles precede the noun they modify (e.g., der Man, "the man").
        5. Nouns
        1. Capitalization
        Nouns are capitalized as in German to assist in distinguishing when a word
        is used as a noun rather than another form. For example, the verb
        infinitives can be used as nouns simply by capitalizing the word.
        2. Number
        1. Singular Nouns
        The canonical form of a noun is unmarked for singular (e.g., Man = "man").
        2. Plural Nouns
        The plural of nouns ends in -ens after consonants and –ns after vowels in
        all genders. For example, Man = "man" becomes Manens = "men".
        3. Case
        Nouns do not change form for case.
        1. Dative Nouns
        Indirect objects (dative) are always formed by the preposition zu = "to", as
        in ik gebe der Buk zu hem = "I give the book to him."
        2. Possessive Nouns
        Possession (genitive) is always formed by von, e.g. Det bine der Buk von
        John = "It is the book of John." Folkspraak has no analogue to the -’s
        possessive form.
        6. Adjectives & Adverbs
        1. Adjectives
        The adjective is invariable. It shows no agreement in form with the noun or
        pronoun it modifies.
        1. Word Order
        It precedes the noun that it modifies. For example, en gud Man = "a good
        man".
        2. Adverb
        1. Derived Adverbs
        Adverbs are derived from adjectives by the addition of -lik. For example,
        neu = "new" becomes neulik = "newly".
        2. Primary Adverbs
        Folkspraak has, of course, so-called primary adverbs, which are not derived
        from adjectives and do not end in -lik.
        3. Comparatives
        The comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs is expressed by mehr, the
        superlative by der mehr. Degrees of inferiority are similarly expressed by
        minus and der minus.
        7. Personal Pronouns, Possessive Adjectives
        The personal pronouns have two distinct forms used as subject and object
        (either direct or indirect) respectively.
        1. Capitalization
        Any form of the pronoun can be made into a formal form by capitalizing it
        where used, otherwise it is assumed to be the familiar form when used in
        lower case.
        2. Word Order
        The object form normally follows the verb.
        The indirect form always takes the preposition zu = "to" and usually
        precedes the object.
        The possessive adjective occurs immediately before the noun it qualifies.
        3. Subject Pronouns
        1. Singular
        English German Dutch Danish Norwegian Swedish Folkspraak
        I ich ik jeg jeg Jag ik
        you du Jij, Je du du du, ni du
        he er Hij han han Han hie
        she sie Zij hun hun Hon shie
        it es Het det det den, det det
        2. Plural
        English German Dutch Danish Norwegian Swedish Folkspraak
        we wir Wij vi vi vi vi
        you Sie Je, U i, de dere ni u
        they sie zij de de de de
        4. Object Pronouns
        1. Singular
        English German Dutch Danish Norwegian Swedish Folkspraak
        me mir, mich mij, me mig meg mig mi
        You dir, dich jou, je, u dig deg dig di
        Him ihm, ihn hem ham ham honom hem
        Her ihr, sie haar hende heene henne hen
        It es, ihm het dem den, det den, det den
        2. Plural
        English German Dutch Danish Norwegian Swedish Folkspraak
        Us uns ons os oss oss os
        You euch, Sie, Ihnen je, u, jullie jer, dem dere ede, r jem
        Them Sie, ihnen hun, hen, haar, ze dem dem dem dem
        5. Possessive Adjectives
        1. Singular
        English German Dutch Danish Norwegian Swedish Folkspraak
        my mein mijn min, mit, mine min, mitt, mine min, mitt, mina min
        your dein jouw, je, Uw,jullie din, dit, dine din, ditt, dine din, ditt,
        dina din
        his sein zijn sin, sit, han, sine hans hans sin
        her ihr haar sin, sit, hendes, sine hennes hennes har
        its sein zijn sin, sit, dens, dets, sine dens, dets dess dets
        2. Plural
        English German Dutch Danish Norwegian Swedish Folkspraak
        our Unser Ons, onze vores, vore var, vart, vare var, vart, vare ons
        your Euer je, Uw, jullie jeres, eders deres deras eures
        their Ihr hun deres deres deras deres
        6. Possessive Pronouns
        1. Singular
        English German Dutch Danish Norwegian Swedish Folkspraak
        mine meiner mijne min, mit, mine min, mitt, mine min, mitt, mina miner
        yours deiner jouwe, uwe din, dit, dine din, ditt, dine din, ditt, dina
        diner
        his seiner zijne sin, sit, han, sine hans hans siner
        hers ihrer hare sin, sit, hendes, sine hennes hennes harer
        its seiner zijne sin, sit, dens, dets, sine dens, dets dess detser
        2. Plural
        English German Dutch Danish Norwegian Swedish Folkspraak
        ours unserer onze vores, vore var, vart, vare var, vart, vare onser
        yours euerer uwe jeres, eders deres deras eurer
        theirs ihrer hunne deres deres deras derer
        7. Summary
        The Folkspraak pronouns are thus:
        1. Singular
        Subject Object Possessive Adjective Possessive Pronoun Reflexive
        ik mi min miner sich
        du di din diner sich
        hie hem sin siner sich
        shie hen har harer sich
        det den dets detser sich
        2. Plural
        Subject Object Possessive Adjective Possessive Pronoun Reflexive
        vi os ons onser sich
        u jem eures eurer sich
        de dem deres derer sich
        8. Verbs
        All verbs are regular without exception. The verb has an infinitive, which
        can also be used as a noun, and two participles (past and present), which
        can also be used as adjectives. Its conjugation lacks personal endings but
        has a complete set of tenses (present, past, perfect, pluperfect, future,
        conditional), both active and passive. It has an imperative but no
        subjunctive.
        1. Word Order
        Word order is usually subject-verb-object. A writer may depart from the
        normal order for emphasis as long as the meaning is clear.
        Word order does not vary for subordinate clauses.
        The words of a verb phrase are generally used in consecutive positions
        without sending any part of the verb phrase to the end of the sentence.
        Questions are generally verb-subject-object followed by "?".
        2. Verbal Prefixes
        Verbs may be used with an inseparable and separable prefix. The separable
        prefix, which is generally also a preposition, may be placed at the end of
        the phrase or sentence. For example, sich aufrisen = "to get (someone or
        something) up"; ik rise sich auf = "I get up"; ik rise hen auf = "I get her
        up"; ik habe sich aufgerised = "I have gotten up."
        3. Summary
        Infinitive root + -(t)en etten = to eat (note Etten = "an eating or meal")
        (when the root ends in a vowel add -ten)
        Pres. Participle root + -ende ettende = "eating"
        Past Participle ge- + root + -(t)ed geetted = "eaten" (when the root ends
        in a vowel add -ted)
        Imperative root ett = "eat!"
        Present Active root + -e ik ette = "I eat, I am eating, I do eat", du
        ette, hie ette, vi ette, u ette, de ette
        Past Active root + -(t)ed ik etted = "I ate, I was eating, I did eat"
        (when the root ends in a vowel add -ted)
        Future Active wille + infinitive ik wille etten, etc. = "I shall eat"
        Conditional Active kone + infinitive ik kone etten = "I could eat"
        Perfect Active habe + past participle ik habe geetten = "I have eaten"
        Pluperfect Active habed + past participle ik habed geetten = "I had eaten"
        Future Perfect Active wille haben + root + -(t)ed ik wille haben geetted =
        "I shall have eaten"
        Conditional Perfect Active kone haben + root + -(t)ed ik kone haben
        geetted = "I could have eaten"
        Present Passive ik bine geetted = "I am eaten"
        Past Passive ik bined geetted = "I was eaten"
        Future Passive ik wille binen geetted = "I shall be eaten"
        Conditional Passive ik kone binen geetted = "I could be eaten"
        Perfect Passive ik habe binen geetted = "I have been eaten"
        Pluperfect Passive ik habed binen geetted = "I have been eaten"
        Future Perfect Passive ik wille haben binen geetted = "I shall have been
        eaten"
        Conditional Perfect Passive ik kone binen geetted = "I could have been
        eaten"
      • Brian Davis
        Here are some suffix suggestions: FOLK ENGLISH GERMAN DUTCH SWEDISH DANISH _dom _dom (kingdom) _tum _dom _dom _dom _ful _ful (wishful) _voll
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 19, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Here are some suffix suggestions:

          FOLK ENGLISH GERMAN DUTCH SWEDISH DANISH
          _dom _dom (kingdom) _tum _dom _dom _dom
          _ful _ful (wishful) _voll _vol _full _fuld
          _ing _ing (warning) _ung _ing _ing _ing
          _ling _ling (darling) _ling _ling _ling _ling
          _los _less (lifeless) _los _loos _loes _loes
          _nis _ness (kindness) _nis _nis
          _sam _some (loathsome) _sam _zaam _sam _som
          _scap _ship (friendship)_schaft _schap _skap _skab
          _weis _wise (likewise) _weise _wijze _vis _vis
          _wards _ward (homeward) _waerts _waarts

          Brian


          --- In folkspraak@egroups.com, Dinkel@a... wrote:
          > In a message dated 10/16/00 6:41:50 PM !!!First Boot!!!, dawes@m...
          > writes:
          >
          > The structure of Folksprak will dictate how easy it is to learn. A
          definite
          > set of rules should be created for "impromptu" vocabulary
          construction.
          >
          > For example, assume that someone wishes to communicate to the group
          in
          > Folksprak. They care to use a word or term that has yet to be
          posted on
          > egroups. Regardless of their native source language they should be
          able to
          > follow a generic set of rules for constructing a root and a
          definite set of
          > rules for constructing any prefixes or suffixes.
          >
          > ie, how to formulate the word HELPLESS into Folksprak:
          > help (eng), hilfe(ger), help (dut), hjælp (dan), hjälp (swe),
          hjelp
          (nor),
          > hjelp or help(folk)
          > -less (eng), -los (ger), -loos (dut), -loes (dan), -loes (swe), -
          los (folk)
          >
          > Thus the Folksprak word for Helpless is hjelplos or helplos. The
          root of the
          > new word is constructed by looking for the most common
          characteristics of the
          > source languages. The endings, like "-less", should already be
          studied and
          > posted. Making it easy to generate the word and easy for someone
          that is
          > versed in the rules of word generation, but who has yet to see the
          word, to
          > understand it.
          >
          > With respect to grammar. I'm absolutely in favor of the simplest
          grammar
          > possible. And please excuse my naivete here but Subject-Verb-
          Object, right? I
          > guess I'll let the pros here work it out. Just please make it easy
          for the
          > rest of us to understand. Thanks!
          >
          > Min Folksprak are hjelplos! =)
          > -- Ariano (dinkel@a...)
        • Andreas Beer
          Hi Hmm, but we can use only these, when the main part of the word is easily translatable. Most won t work, so we have to search for examples. ... English has
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 19, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi

            Hmm, but we can use only these, when the main part of the word is easily
            translatable.
            Most won't work, so we have to search for examples.

            > _dom
            English has boredom (Langeweile) and kingdom (Königreich) and German
            has Eigentum.

            > _ful
            Hmm, german says liebevoll, but has no equivalent for wishful, afaik.

            > _ing _ing (warning)
            Warning is good, we can take that word in folkspraak, too.

            > _ling _ling (darling)
            Darling is from dear, but I doubt we will find a word that has ling in more
            than three languages.

            > _los _less (lifeless)
            leblos in german gets us too liflos. Maybe we should takt liblos than as
            loveless.
            arbeitslos -> unemployed
            we've got a problem with these words who use different roots for the same
            thing. As it is the case with horse (could be Ross in German), but german
            say Pferd. Pferd is as different a root as is cheval (cabalus form latin).
            Maybe we should use the root which is used by most of the five or six
            languages...

            > _nis _ness (kindness)
            twould be freundlichkeit

            Translating suffixes is not so easy, because german has a whole lotta
            different suffixes like -heit, -keit, etc. (Maybe you know from words like
            apartheid which means something like strangenessdom... )

            > _sam _some (loathsome) _sam _zaam _sam _som
            lonesome, einsam, that'll fit for those two (i only do know)

            > _scap _ship (friendship)_schaft _schap _skap _skab
            There was a translation for the word wissenschaft=vitenskap
            If folkspraak will be a spoken language, k would fit better as a phoneme
            than c would, if it's written, c is the first choice...

            > _weis _wise (likewise) _weise _wijze _vis _vis
            seltsamerweise -> strangewise?? ;-))
            You've got a word in english with that meaning?

            > _wards _ward (homeward) _waerts _waarts
            heemwards

            cu

            Andreas
          • Dinkel@aol.com
            Dast are god Brian! Jik wille ad dem zu min Folksprak wordlist nuw(now). Ariano
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 19, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Dast are god Brian! Jik wille ad dem zu min Folksprak wordlist nuw(now).

              Ariano
            • Brian Davis
              Hallo, Andreas makes some points that I d like to expand on, and thought about before I posted the suffix chart. 1. The same affix can have different meanings
              Message 6 of 6 , Oct 20, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Hallo,

                Andreas makes some points that I'd like to expand on, and thought
                about before I posted the suffix chart. 1. The same affix can have
                different meanings and uses within the same language. Sometimes this
                is because originally distinct affixes have evolved to have the same
                spelling. Other times the original meaning has expanded. 2. An affix
                type that is common in one language may be rare or absent in others.
                3. The same-looking affix in one language may have a somewhat
                different meaning or use in others. 4. Some affixes that are
                important in one or two of the languages have no equivalent in the
                other languages. 5. Different languages often don't agree on which
                affix to use when expressing the same concept. 6. Creating a
                Folkspraak affix based on the most common letters in the set of
                parent languages will sometimes lead to 'false friends' (words that a
                person THINKS they understand because it looks/sounds like another
                word in their own language). 7. The list of affixes that are Germanic
                in origin is a lot shorter than the full list of available affixes,
                because Latin and Greek affixes have taken the place of the Germanic
                equivalent. Sometimes the Germanic version is used by one or two of
                the languages. 8. Creating a Folkspraak neologism from the Germanic
                affixes would be confounding to native speakers, who use a non-
                Germanic-based term. 8. These problems are not limited to affixes,
                but also apply to roots.

                (still not sure how to say 'Bye' in Folkspraak),
                Brian



                --- In folkspraak@egroups.com, "Andreas Beer" <abeer@g...> wrote:
                > Hi
                >
                > Hmm, but we can use only these, when the main part of the word is
                easily
                > translatable.
                > Most won't work, so we have to search for examples.
                >
                > > _dom
                > English has boredom (Langeweile) and kingdom (Königreich) and
                German
                > has Eigentum.
                >
                > > _ful
                > Hmm, german says liebevoll, but has no equivalent for wishful,
                afaik.
                >
                > > _ing _ing (warning)
                > Warning is good, we can take that word in folkspraak, too.
                >
                > > _ling _ling (darling)
                > Darling is from dear, but I doubt we will find a word that has ling
                in more
                > than three languages.
                >
                > > _los _less (lifeless)
                > leblos in german gets us too liflos. Maybe we should takt liblos
                than as
                > loveless.
                > arbeitslos -> unemployed
                > we've got a problem with these words who use different roots for
                the same
                > thing. As it is the case with horse (could be Ross in German), but
                german
                > say Pferd. Pferd is as different a root as is cheval (cabalus form
                latin).
                > Maybe we should use the root which is used by most of the five or
                six
                > languages...
                >
                > > _nis _ness (kindness)
                > twould be freundlichkeit
                >
                > Translating suffixes is not so easy, because german has a whole
                lotta
                > different suffixes like -heit, -keit, etc. (Maybe you know from
                words like
                > apartheid which means something like strangenessdom... )
                >
                > > _sam _some (loathsome) _sam _zaam _sam _som
                > lonesome, einsam, that'll fit for those two (i only do know)
                >
                > > _scap _ship (friendship)_schaft _schap _skap _skab
                > There was a translation for the word wissenschaft=vitenskap
                > If folkspraak will be a spoken language, k would fit better as a
                phoneme
                > than c would, if it's written, c is the first choice...
                >
                > > _weis _wise (likewise) _weise _wijze _vis _vis
                > seltsamerweise -> strangewise?? ;-))
                > You've got a word in english with that meaning?
                >
                > > _wards _ward (homeward) _waerts _waarts
                > heemwards
                >
                > cu
                >
                > Andreas
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.