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

Re: Word Order poll

Expand Messages
  • David Parke
    ... how ... Yes, no tie-breaker, that s why we should be putting it to a vote. ... Subject is the nominative case. The agent in the sentence. Object is any
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Roly Sookias <xipirho@r...> wrote:
      > David Parke wrote:
      >
      > > In most cases you may be right. But past participles can be used as
      > >
      > >adjectives as well as in the perfect tense.
      > >Take for example a sentence like "I have pickled fish".
      > >Is it a perfect tense sentence? Or is the "pickled" an adjective?
      > >
      > >If we make, the position totally optional, we will find that Dutch and
      > >German speakers of FS will put there infinitives last and English
      > >speakers after the finite verb.
      > >
      > >
      > Yeah, I see the problem. I don't see a real solution though - I mean
      how
      > can one pick one way over the other? There's no tie-breaker!

      Yes, no tie-breaker, that's why we should be putting it to a vote.

      >
      > >I think we need to be fairly prescriptive on matters of word order, if
      > >we are going to have a relatively un-inflected language. Like we
      > >should, as in German, restrict the finite verb to always the second
      > >position in the sentence and not allowing any adverbs to occur between
      > >the finite verb and the subject.
      > >eg RIGHT: Ick sej klar ði. = I see you clearly
      > > WRONG: Ick klar sej ði. Verb is in 3rd position. Subject
      > >seperated from finite verb
      > >
      > >
      > Eh? Subject seperated from finite verb? Aren't 'sej' and 'ði' next to
      > each other? I don't really understand why the 2nd's wrong - what's so
      > problematic about it?
      >

      Subject is the nominative case. The agent in the sentence. Object is
      any other case. "The man gives the cat a fish." In this sentence the
      suject is "the man". The finite verb is "give". The indirect object is
      "the cat" . The direct object is "a fish"
      I actually tend to prefer using case names like "nominative",
      accusative", "dative" etc. But in an un-inflected language it's
      appropriate to to use the "subject" and "object" since you are
      describing the word's role in the sentence, rather than the way it is
      being inflected.

      > > RIGHT: Klar, sej ick ði = Clearly, I see you
      > > WRONG: Klar, ick sej ði. Verb is in 3rd position
      > >
      > >
      > Again, what's the problem with the second?
      >
      > > RIGHT: Ði, sej ick klar. You, I see
      > > WRONG: Ði, ick sej klar. Verb is in 3rd position
      > >
      > >
      > Once again, I miss the point I fear! I mean how could the second be
      > misconstrued? Surely it'd be 'Ðu, mi sej klar' if it was supposed to be
      > the other way round?
      >
      > >Of course in poetry and song lyrics, anything goes.
      > >
      > >
      > >

      Maybe it wasn't such a good example, since it used pronouns. And most
      members still want pronouns to be inflected for case and verbs to be
      inflected for person and number.
      A sentence like "Ðe mann geft leið ðe fruw ein sandwich" has more
      potential for confusion and jumbled word order. BTW = The man
      reluctantly gives to the woman a sandwich.

      If we are consistant and prescriptive with word order, it makes the
      language easier to parse with computer software. I'm not saying, we
      English-speakers should change the way we speak to make it easier for
      big brother to rule our lives. But in the case of Folksprak, we are
      building the language from the ground up and we can take the
      opportunity to keeps things as logical as possible. In a few short
      years, as speech recognition and synthesis and natural language
      recognition becomes more widespread and advanced, we will be glad that
      we did it.
    • Stephen
      Mr parke, I am hugely interested in folkspraak, would you be able to send me some info on it. i plan to study german, dutch and swedish at trinity college
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Mr parke,
        I am hugely interested in folkspraak, would you be able to
        send me some info on it. i plan to study german, dutch and swedish
        at trinity college dublin. your help would be much appreciated.
        thanks
      • David Parke
        ... Call me David, please, I m not some university professor. ... I m afraid to say, it s not that simple. Folksprak is still at an early and anarchic stage in
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen" <stephenstaines@y...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Mr parke,

          Call me David, please, I'm not some university professor.


          > I am hugely interested in folkspraak, would you be able to
          > send me some info on it. i plan to study german, dutch and swedish
          > at trinity college dublin. your help would be much appreciated.
          > thanks

          I'm afraid to say, it's not that simple. Folksprak is still at an
          early and anarchic stage in it's development with lots of
          disagreements on pronounciation, spelling, grammar and vocabulary.
          I have read lot's of the texts written in many of the member's
          "dialect" of Folksprak and generally have some comprehension, but
          still have major disagreements with the specifics of various words,
          and grammatical choices.

          There is no over-all authority over what goes into Folksprak, merely
          attempts to reach consensus. The guiding principle of Folksprak is
          that it consist of features (be they grammatical, lexical or
          phonological) that represent, the majority usage within the big
          Germanic languages. It's particulary where there is no obvious
          majority that is becomes difficult to form a consensus.

          I can only suggest you read some of the proposed dictionaries and
          grammars in the files section of this group.There are none of them for
          which I could say "that is an official Folksprak publication"
          But they will give you a sense of what the consensus views are about
          various matters, and also how much lack of consensus there is.The
          results of the polls are also a good indicator of what the most
          popular ways of doing things are, but again the results are
          non-binding and most members choose to ignore at least some of the
          results.

          If find yourself reading a story about monks on a Baltic Island
          brewing Folkbier, I can tell you now that story is nothing by a
          fiction and continues to do some damage to the credibility of the
          Folksprak movement


          Good luck with your studies at Trinity College.I personally would be
          afraid that if I attempted to learn so many closely-related languages
          simultaneously, I would get them mixed up in my head. Actually that's
          perhaps a very good recipe for spontaneously creating your own dialect
          of Folksprak.
        • Roly Sookias
          ... Yeah, but how can one decide how to vote!?!? ... Ah, yeah, OK. Thanks. I actually knew that (thanks to Old English and Latin lessons!), I just had a mental
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            David Parke wrote:

            >
            >
            >Yes, no tie-breaker, that's why we should be putting it to a vote.
            >
            >
            Yeah, but how can one decide how to vote!?!?

            >
            >
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            >Subject is the nominative case. The agent in the sentence. Object is
            >any other case. "The man gives the cat a fish." In this sentence the
            >suject is "the man". The finite verb is "give". The indirect object is
            >"the cat" . The direct object is "a fish"
            >I actually tend to prefer using case names like "nominative",
            >accusative", "dative" etc. But in an un-inflected language it's
            >appropriate to to use the "subject" and "object" since you are
            >describing the word's role in the sentence, rather than the way it is
            >being inflected.
            >
            >
            Ah, yeah, OK. Thanks. I actually knew that (thanks to Old English and
            Latin lessons!), I just had a mental block and swapped 'object' and
            'subject' round in my mind! :0) Sorry!

            >>> <>
            >>> Maybe it wasn't such a good example, since it used pronouns. And most
            >>> members still want pronouns to be inflected for case and verbs to be
            >>> inflected for person and number.
            >>> A sentence like "Ðe mann geft leið ðe fruw ein sandwich" has more
            >>> potential for confusion and jumbled word order. BTW = The man
            >>> reluctantly gives to the woman a sandwich.
            >>
            Can you give soem examples of the confusion that could arise? I'm still
            not sure what you mean.

            >>> <>
            >>> If we are consistant and prescriptive with word order, it makes the
            >>> language easier to parse with computer software. I'm not saying, we
            >>> English-speakers should change the way we speak to make it easier for
            >>> big brother to rule our lives. But in the case of Folksprak, we are
            >>> building the language from the ground up and we can take the
            >>> opportunity to keeps things as logical as possible. In a few short
            >>> years, as speech recognition and synthesis and natural language
            >>> recognition becomes more widespread and advanced, we will be glad that
            >>> we did it.
            >>
            Hm. But if it makes the language harder, I'm not sure it's so good....
          • tungol65
            ... I ... should ... it s ... that ... which ... I favour having the infinitive and participle at the end of the sentence like German and Dutch. I know we have
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 7, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@x> wrote:
              >
              > I want to run a poll on the word order for Folksprak. Specifically,
              I
              > want to know if members think infinitive verbs and participles
              should
              > go the end of the sentence (like German and Dutch), or should they
              > follow immediately after the finite verb (like English).
              > I'm not sure know how the Scandinavian languages do it -- I think
              it's
              > like English.
              >
              > Examples: Infinitive or participle verb in capitals;
              >
              > EN I can SPEAK Folkspraak.
              > EN I have EATEN the fish
              >
              > NL Ik kan Folkspraak SPREKEN.
              > NL: Ik heb de vis GEGETEN.
              >
              > DE Ich kann Folkspraak SPRECHEN.
              > DE Ich habe den Fisch GEGESSEN.
              >
              > SV Jag kan TALA Folkspraak. ???
              > SV Jag har ÄTIT fisken. ???
              > Please correct my attempt at Swedish anybody, it's not a language
              that
              > I've had any study in.
              >
              > Can any Scandy speakers, clarify how it is done in their language?
              >
              > It appear to be a 50/50 split among the sourcelangs on where the
              > infinitives go. So this poll might give more of an indication on
              which
              > way FS should do it.

              I favour having the infinitive and participle at the end of the
              sentence like German and Dutch. I know we have had a poll on the
              subject, but I personally would prefer to keep a "ge-" prefix to mark
              the past participle.

              Also I was wondering about word order when we have a subject, direct
              object and indirect object. German obviously marks the indirect
              object with the dative case.

              DE Ich habe DEM Kind das Buch gegeben.
              EN I have given the book to the child.

              Dutch and Norwegian use a preposition like English (apologies if
              these are wrong, blame the online translator!)

              NL Ik heb het boek naar het kind gegeven.
              NO Jeg gitt boka til barnet.

              I would suggest we follow a similar pattern in FS using a particle
              like "te" or "ta" to mark the indirect object.

              FS Ik hav de bok te de kind gegevet.

              In English you can drop the "to" if you change the word order.

              "I have given the book to the child" or "I have given the child the
              book"

              I would say that the indirect object is always marked with "te", "ta"
              etc... even if the word order is changed.

              FS "Ik hav de bok te de kind gegevet" or "Ik hav te de kind de bok
              gegevet" but not "Ik have de kind de bok gegevet"

              To summarise:-

              SUBJECT - FINITE/MODAL VERB - DIRECT OBJECT - "ta/te" - INDIRECT
              OBJECT - INFINITIVE VERB/PATICIPLE

              or

              SUBJECT - FINITE/MODAL VERB - "ta/te" - INDIRECT OBJECT - DIRECT
              OBJECT - INFINITIVE VERB/PATICIPLE
            • Roly Sookias
              ... Why ta/te ? Wouldn t tu or til be more sensible?
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 7, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                tungol65 wrote:

                >
                >
                >I favour having the infinitive and participle at the end of the
                >sentence like German and Dutch. I know we have had a poll on the
                >subject, but I personally would prefer to keep a "ge-" prefix to mark
                >the past participle.
                >
                >Also I was wondering about word order when we have a subject, direct
                >object and indirect object. German obviously marks the indirect
                >object with the dative case.
                >
                >DE Ich habe DEM Kind das Buch gegeben.
                >EN I have given the book to the child.
                >
                >Dutch and Norwegian use a preposition like English (apologies if
                >these are wrong, blame the online translator!)
                >
                >NL Ik heb het boek naar het kind gegeven.
                >NO Jeg gitt boka til barnet.
                >
                >I would suggest we follow a similar pattern in FS using a particle
                >like "te" or "ta" to mark the indirect object.
                >
                >FS Ik hav de bok te de kind gegevet.
                >
                >In English you can drop the "to" if you change the word order.
                >
                >"I have given the book to the child" or "I have given the child the
                >book"
                >
                >I would say that the indirect object is always marked with "te", "ta"
                >etc... even if the word order is changed.
                >
                >FS "Ik hav de bok te de kind gegevet" or "Ik hav te de kind de bok
                >gegevet" but not "Ik have de kind de bok gegevet"
                >
                >To summarise:-
                >
                >SUBJECT - FINITE/MODAL VERB - DIRECT OBJECT - "ta/te" - INDIRECT
                >OBJECT - INFINITIVE VERB/PATICIPLE
                >
                >or
                >
                >SUBJECT - FINITE/MODAL VERB - "ta/te" - INDIRECT OBJECT - DIRECT
                >OBJECT - INFINITIVE VERB/PATICIPLE
                >
                >
                >
                Why 'ta/te'? Wouldn't 'tu' or 'til' be more sensible?
              • tungol65
                ... mark ... direct ... the ... with te , ta ... bok ... Quite possibly. It s just that I already use them both for something else. TU = to (excessive), as
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 7, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Roly Sookias <xipirho@r...> wrote:
                  > tungol65 wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >I favour having the infinitive and participle at the end of the
                  > >sentence like German and Dutch. I know we have had a poll on the
                  > >subject, but I personally would prefer to keep a "ge-" prefix to
                  mark
                  > >the past participle.
                  > >
                  > >Also I was wondering about word order when we have a subject,
                  direct
                  > >object and indirect object. German obviously marks the indirect
                  > >object with the dative case.
                  > >
                  > >DE Ich habe DEM Kind das Buch gegeben.
                  > >EN I have given the book to the child.
                  > >
                  > >Dutch and Norwegian use a preposition like English (apologies if
                  > >these are wrong, blame the online translator!)
                  > >
                  > >NL Ik heb het boek naar het kind gegeven.
                  > >NO Jeg gitt boka til barnet.
                  > >
                  > >I would suggest we follow a similar pattern in FS using a particle
                  > >like "te" or "ta" to mark the indirect object.
                  > >
                  > >FS Ik hav de bok te de kind gegevet.
                  > >
                  > >In English you can drop the "to" if you change the word order.
                  > >
                  > >"I have given the book to the child" or "I have given the child
                  the
                  > >book"
                  > >
                  > >I would say that the indirect object is always marked
                  with "te", "ta"
                  > >etc... even if the word order is changed.
                  > >
                  > >FS "Ik hav de bok te de kind gegevet" or "Ik hav te de kind de
                  bok
                  > >gegevet" but not "Ik have de kind de bok gegevet"
                  > >
                  > >To summarise:-
                  > >
                  > >SUBJECT - FINITE/MODAL VERB - DIRECT OBJECT - "ta/te" - INDIRECT
                  > >OBJECT - INFINITIVE VERB/PATICIPLE
                  > >
                  > >or
                  > >
                  > >SUBJECT - FINITE/MODAL VERB - "ta/te" - INDIRECT OBJECT - DIRECT
                  > >OBJECT - INFINITIVE VERB/PATICIPLE
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > Why 'ta/te'? Wouldn't 'tu' or 'til' be more sensible?

                  Quite possibly. It's just that I already use them both for something
                  else.

                  TU = to (excessive), as in "De mantel var TU grot". c.f. Eng TO/ Ger.
                  ZU.

                  TIL = until, up to, as in "Du kunn TIL seks ur bliven", "Ik lopde TIL
                  min fader".
                • David Parke
                  ... With regard to to/too in English they were once the same word in English and only came to be spelt differently in the late 16th Century. In German they are
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 7, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65" <rdw.young@n...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Roly Sookias <xipirho@r...> wrote:
                    > > tungol65 wrote:
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >I favour having the infinitive and participle at the end of the
                    > > >sentence like German and Dutch. I know we have had a poll on the
                    > > >subject, but I personally would prefer to keep a "ge-" prefix to
                    > mark
                    > > >the past participle.
                    > > >
                    > > >Also I was wondering about word order when we have a subject,
                    > direct
                    > > >object and indirect object. German obviously marks the indirect
                    > > >object with the dative case.
                    > > >
                    > > >DE Ich habe DEM Kind das Buch gegeben.
                    > > >EN I have given the book to the child.
                    > > >
                    > > >Dutch and Norwegian use a preposition like English (apologies if
                    > > >these are wrong, blame the online translator!)
                    > > >
                    > > >NL Ik heb het boek naar het kind gegeven.
                    > > >NO Jeg gitt boka til barnet.
                    > > >
                    > > >I would suggest we follow a similar pattern in FS using a particle
                    > > >like "te" or "ta" to mark the indirect object.
                    > > >
                    > > >FS Ik hav de bok te de kind gegevet.
                    > > >
                    > > >In English you can drop the "to" if you change the word order.
                    > > >
                    > > >"I have given the book to the child" or "I have given the child
                    > the
                    > > >book"
                    > > >
                    > > >I would say that the indirect object is always marked
                    > with "te", "ta"
                    > > >etc... even if the word order is changed.
                    > > >
                    > > >FS "Ik hav de bok te de kind gegevet" or "Ik hav te de kind de
                    > bok
                    > > >gegevet" but not "Ik have de kind de bok gegevet"
                    > > >
                    > > >To summarise:-
                    > > >
                    > > >SUBJECT - FINITE/MODAL VERB - DIRECT OBJECT - "ta/te" - INDIRECT
                    > > >OBJECT - INFINITIVE VERB/PATICIPLE
                    > > >
                    > > >or
                    > > >
                    > > >SUBJECT - FINITE/MODAL VERB - "ta/te" - INDIRECT OBJECT - DIRECT
                    > > >OBJECT - INFINITIVE VERB/PATICIPLE
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > Why 'ta/te'? Wouldn't 'tu' or 'til' be more sensible?
                    >
                    > Quite possibly. It's just that I already use them both for something
                    > else.
                    >
                    > TU = to (excessive), as in "De mantel var TU grot". c.f. Eng TO/ Ger.
                    > ZU.
                    >
                    > TIL = until, up to, as in "Du kunn TIL seks ur bliven", "Ik lopde TIL
                    > min fader".


                    With regard to to/too in English they were once the same word in
                    English and only came to be spelt differently in the late 16th
                    Century. In German they are still the same word "zu".
                    In Folksprak, I would not consider it inappropriate to use the same
                    word as a preposition and as an adverb meaning "excessively"
                  • tungol65
                    ... I agree, that is why I did not suggest using tu as the marker for the indirect object and te or ta instead. As I already use ta for toe , I guess
                    Message 9 of 15 , Feb 8, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > With regard to to/too in English they were once the same word in
                      > English and only came to be spelt differently in the late 16th
                      > Century. In German they are still the same word "zu".
                      > In Folksprak, I would not consider it inappropriate to use the same
                      > word as a preposition and as an adverb meaning "excessively"

                      I agree, that is why I did not suggest using "tu" as the marker for
                      the indirect object and "te" or "ta" instead.
                      As I already use "ta" for "toe", I guess "te" or even "to" would be
                      ok.
                      Incidentally I have been using "na" for a while to mean "to,
                      towards", I based this on NL "naar", GE "nach" and WF "nei".
                    • wakuran_wakaran
                      ... 1. I think Ick sej ði klar. sounds good. 2. I though about always having SVO order, which would make Klar, ick sej ði and Ði, ick sej klar. right.
                      Message 10 of 15 , Feb 9, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@x> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Roly Sookias <xipirho@r...> wrote:
                        > > David Parke wrote:
                        > >
                        > > >I want to run a poll on the word order for Folksprak.
                        > Specifically, I
                        > > >want to know if members think infinitive verbs and participles
                        > should
                        > > >go the end of the sentence (like German and Dutch), or should they
                        > > >follow immediately after the finite verb (like English).
                        > > >I'm not sure know how the Scandinavian languages do it -- I think
                        > it's
                        > > >like English.
                        > > >
                        > > >Examples: Infinitive or participle verb in capitals;
                        > > >
                        > > >EN I can SPEAK Folkspraak.
                        > > >EN I have EATEN the fish
                        > > >
                        > > >NL Ik kan Folkspraak SPREKEN.
                        > > >NL: Ik heb de vis GEGETEN.
                        > > >
                        > > >DE Ich kann Folkspraak SPRECHEN.
                        > > >DE Ich habe den Fisch GEGESSEN.
                        > > >
                        > > >SV Jag kan TALA Folkspraak. ???
                        > > >SV Jag har ÄTIT fisken. ???
                        > > >Please correct my attempt at Swedish anybody, it's not a language
                        > that
                        > > >I've had any study in.
                        > > >
                        > > >Can any Scandy speakers, clarify how it is done in their language?
                        > > >
                        > > >It appear to be a 50/50 split among the sourcelangs on where the
                        > > >infinitives go. So this poll might give more of an indication on
                        > which
                        > > >way FS should do it.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > Although I very rarely think this, in this instance I really think
                        > bith
                        > > should be acceptable (i think this was the case in Old English
                        > wasn't
                        > > it?). As long as we have an infinitive ending I can't see a problem
                        > as
                        > > the part of speech will be immediately clear. And anyway 'I can
                        > > Folkspraak speak' and 'I have the fish eaten' are utterly
                        > intelligible
                        > > in English, even if a little strange!
                        >
                        > In most cases you may be right. But past participles can be used as
                        > adjectives as well as in the perfect tense.
                        > Take for example a sentence like "I have pickled fish".
                        > Is it a perfect tense sentence? Or is the "pickled" an adjective?
                        >
                        > If we make, the position totally optional, we will find that Dutch and
                        > German speakers of FS will put there infinitives last and English
                        > speakers after the finite verb.
                        > I think we need to be fairly prescriptive on matters of word order, if
                        > we are going to have a relatively un-inflected language. Like we
                        > should, as in German, restrict the finite verb to always the second
                        > position in the sentence and not allowing any adverbs to occur between
                        > the finite verb and the subject.
                        > eg RIGHT: Ick sej klar ði. = I see you clearly
                        > WRONG: Ick klar sej ði. Verb is in 3rd position. Subject
                        > seperated from finite verb
                        > RIGHT: Klar, sej ick ði = Clearly, I see you
                        > WRONG: Klar, ick sej ði. Verb is in 3rd position
                        > RIGHT: Ði, sej ick klar. You, I see
                        > WRONG: Ði, ick sej klar. Verb is in 3rd position
                        >
                        > Of course in poetry and song lyrics, anything goes.

                        1. I think "Ick sej ði klar." sounds good.
                        2. I though about always having SVO order, which would make
                        "Klar, ick sej ði" and "Ði, ick sej klar." right. I figured this would
                        make the language easier for english speakers and most foreigners. The
                        VSO order would only be used for questions.

                        I don't know German well, but the 2nd and 3rd examples look rather
                        scandinavian.
                      • wakuran_wakaran
                        ... I thought having tu for direction, and (all-)tú for excess. all-tú might be a more specific and unambiguous word than simply tú. But I don t know if
                        Message 11 of 15 , Feb 9, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65" <rdw.young@n...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > With regard to to/too in English they were once the same word in
                          > > English and only came to be spelt differently in the late 16th
                          > > Century. In German they are still the same word "zu".
                          > > In Folksprak, I would not consider it inappropriate to use the same
                          > > word as a preposition and as an adverb meaning "excessively"
                          >
                          > I agree, that is why I did not suggest using "tu" as the marker for
                          > the indirect object and "te" or "ta" instead.
                          > As I already use "ta" for "toe", I guess "te" or even "to" would be
                          > ok.
                          > Incidentally I have been using "na" for a while to mean "to,
                          > towards", I based this on NL "naar", GE "nach" and WF "nei".

                          I thought having tu for direction, and (all-)tú for excess. all-tú
                          might be a more specific and unambiguous word than simply tú. But I
                          don't know if these words are liable to create confusion, anyway...
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.