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

Re: [folkspraak] Re: Grammatical Comparisons

Expand Messages
  • William G Beazley
    Don t you think we should take a completely different approach. English in all its forms seems to be the world default language. So the issue of who speaks
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 17, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Don't you think we should take a completely different approach.

      English in all its forms seems to be the world default language.

      So the issue of who speaks what the most is what is crucial, I think we
      should focus on a way to create a germanically neutral language.

      My example is you are ar vacationing in iceland and you are at a restaurant
      where the Menu is in Icelandic and Folkspraak, you had a two hour lecture in
      Folspraak on the flight there and
      now you can get around.

      It would be a shame to not include the the scandinavian tongues.

      Thomas Martin Widmann wrote:

      > bribri56@... writes:
      >
      > > Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible
      > > inter-germanic lingua franca bogs down after a promising start.
      > > While there is a solid core of mutually intelligible cognates, much
      > > of the modern shared vocabulary is Latin and Greek based, and the
      > > stock of mutually intelligible words from proto-Germanic is rather
      > > limited.
      >
      > I wouldn't say so. It looks like that in a dictionary, but if you
      > take at a real text, many of the words are common. (It depends very
      > much on the genre, however.)
      >
      > Of course English has lost many Germanic words, so a text will
      > probably never be intelligible to a monolingual English speaker.
      >
      > > The biggest areas of vocabulary divergence among the Germanic
      > > languages is in common words like the prepositions, common
      > > adjectives, and fundamental verbs.
      >
      > It's not too bad, I think.
      >
      > > Common idioms and other expressions vary dramatically.
      >
      > Dramatically, even?
      >
      > I think the major difference between the Romance languages and the
      > Germanic ones is that lots of people know the parent language of
      > Romance (i.e., Latin), whereas very few know very much about
      > Proto-Germanic. Furthermore, French has changed English a lot, while
      > the East Scandinavian languages are heavily influenced by low German.
      >
      > So we won't get a language that is understandable to monolinguals
      > without training, but it would still be very easy.
      >
      > /Thomas
      > --
      > Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C
      > Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465
      > <mailto:viralbus@...> <URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus>
      > MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK
      >
      > 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/
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      --

      Will Beazley '[Image]'
      Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
      FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
      FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
    • William G Beazley
      Crap...I mean to say ... -- Will Beazley [Image] Systems Administrator Equator Technologies FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@equator.com FAX:
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 17, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Crap...I mean to say


        > So the issue of who speaks what the most is NOT what is crucial, I think we

        > should focus on a way to create a germanically neutral language.

        William G Beazley wrote:

        > Don't you think we should take a completely different approach.
        >
        > English in all its forms seems to be the world default language.
        >
        >

        > So the issue of who speaks what the most is NOT what is crucial, I think we

        > should focus on a way to create a germanically neutral language.
        >
        > My example is you are ar vacationing in iceland and you are at a restaurant
        > where the Menu is in Icelandic and Folkspraak, you had a two hour lecture in
        > Folspraak on the flight there and
        > now you can get around.
        >
        > It would be a shame to not include the the scandinavian tongues.
        >
        > Thomas Martin Widmann wrote:
        >
        > > bribri56@... writes:
        > >
        > > > Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible
        > > > inter-germanic lingua franca bogs down after a promising start.
        > > > While there is a solid core of mutually intelligible cognates, much
        > > > of the modern shared vocabulary is Latin and Greek based, and the
        > > > stock of mutually intelligible words from proto-Germanic is rather
        > > > limited.
        > >
        > > I wouldn't say so. It looks like that in a dictionary, but if you
        > > take at a real text, many of the words are common. (It depends very
        > > much on the genre, however.)
        > >
        > > Of course English has lost many Germanic words, so a text will
        > > probably never be intelligible to a monolingual English speaker.
        > >
        > > > The biggest areas of vocabulary divergence among the Germanic
        > > > languages is in common words like the prepositions, common
        > > > adjectives, and fundamental verbs.
        > >
        > > It's not too bad, I think.
        > >
        > > > Common idioms and other expressions vary dramatically.
        > >
        > > Dramatically, even?
        > >
        > > I think the major difference between the Romance languages and the
        > > Germanic ones is that lots of people know the parent language of
        > > Romance (i.e., Latin), whereas very few know very much about
        > > Proto-Germanic. Furthermore, French has changed English a lot, while
        > > the East Scandinavian languages are heavily influenced by low German.
        > >
        > > So we won't get a language that is understandable to monolinguals
        > > without training, but it would still be very easy.
        > >
        > > /Thomas
        > > --
        > > Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C
        > > Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465
        > > <mailto:viralbus@...> <URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus>
        > > MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK
        > >
        > > 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/
        > >
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        > --
        >
        > Will Beazley '[Image]'
        > Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
        > FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
        > FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
        >
        > 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/
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

        --

        Will Beazley '[Image]'
        Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
        FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
        FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
      • Ari Reyes
        I approached the divergence issue in two ways: The divergence, when most pronounced, divids the source languages into two or three camps; English,
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 17, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I approached the divergence issue in two ways:

          The divergence, when most pronounced, divids the source languages into two
          or three camps; English, German/Dutch, and the Scandinavians. (When it was
          only two camps you will see English/German/Dutch vs. the Scandinavians)
          The German/Dutch pair tend to float between English and the Scandinavians.
          Sometimes forming a visible bridge between the two extremes. The German/Dutch
          pair tends to always fall closer to one of the extremes than to the other.
          I would then create TWO forms. One would be the English (or Scandinavian)
          form, the second would be a German/Dutch & Extreme merger.

          example (perhaps not the best):

          BED (English)
          BETT (German)
          BED (Dutch)
          Sang (Swedish)
          Seng (Norwegian)
          Seng (Danish)

          I would get two forms for this word: BEDT, and SENG

          At other times I figured I could get away with a "leap of faith":

          I (English)
          Ich (German)
          Ik (Dutch)
          Jag (Swedish)
          Jeg (Norwegian)
          Jeg (Danish)
          Eg (Icelandic)

          Igk (Folksprak)... I also created a rule which put two similar consonants
          together in the Folksprak word. This gave the word a unique yet universal
          feel, it also allows the speaker to pronounce the word as ANY of the combinations.
          ie:

          y-j would give us "J"
          ght-cht-tt would give us "ht"
          th-d-t would give us "T" if at start of word, "dt" if at end
          ch-k-g would give us "K" if at start of word, "gk" if at end
          sh-sch-sk would give "Sk" if at start of word, "sc" if at end
          f-v would give us "Fv" if at start of word, "vf" if at end
          w-hv would give us "Hw"
          w-v would give us "W"

          thus:
          BEDT (bed)
          JIGK (I)
          FISC (fish)
          FVULL (full)
          NAHT (night)
          JAR (year)


          -- Original Message --

          >Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible inter-germanic
          >
          >lingua franca bogs down after a promising start. While there is a solid
          >core
          >of mutually intelligible cognates, much of the modern shared vocabulary
          >is
          >Latin and Greek based, and the stock of mutually intelligible words from
          >
          >proto-Germanic is rather limited. The biggest areas of vocabulary divergence
          >
          >among the Germanic languages is in common words like the prepositions,
          common
          >
          >adjectives, and fundamental verbs. Common idioms and other expressions
          vary
          >
          >dramatically.
          >
          >A lot of humor is based on making fun of folks with 'funny' accents whose
          >
          >phrasing and word choice is (often subtly) incorrect. Remember Latka from
          >
          >'Taxi'?. This would be the experience of a Folkspraaker in the Germanic
          >
          >speaking countries - if the language were constructed well enough to carry
          >on
          >conversations.
          >
          >I'm still plugging away on my ever-growing Germanic language comparative
          >word
          >lists, but I don't expect to turn out a workable language. But its still
          >fun
          >to compare and contrast, and I've learned a lot over the last two years.
          >
          >Brian
          >
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >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/
          >
          >
          >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Dan Dawes
          Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible inter-germanic lingua franca bogs down after a promising start. While there is a solid core of
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 17, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible inter-germanic
            lingua franca bogs down after a promising start. While there is a solid core
            of mutually intelligible cognates, much of the modern shared vocabulary is
            Latin and Greek based, and the stock of mutually intelligible words from
            proto-Germanic is rather limited.
            THIS IS TRUE AND A BIG REASON WHY IT BOGS DOWN.

            The biggest areas of vocabulary divergence
            among the Germanic languages is in common words like the prepositions,
            common
            adjectives, and fundamental verbs. Common idioms and other expressions vary
            dramatically.
            INDEED.
          • Dan Dawes
            Basically when I put together the proposed Folkspraak grammar I just got through studying a number of texts about interlingua. The Folkspraak grammar is
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 17, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Basically when I put together the proposed Folkspraak grammar I just got
              through studying a number of texts about interlingua. The Folkspraak
              grammar is heavily modeled from the Interlingua approach to grammar. Of
              course there are some arbitrary choices made just as there are in
              interlingua, but the spirit is identical.

              The harder part is vocabulary. The interlingua vocabulary was put together
              essentially by a single leader, Dr. Gode if I remember correctly, and then
              only after a great deal of hard work and a lot of time. Folkspraak so far
              does not have any one who is so qualified and dedicated to put together a
              complete dictionary on such reasonable linguistic principles.

              I am led to believe that Interlingua is already for romance language
              speakers, what we would hope Folkspraak to be for germanic speakers. As
              truly pan-romance as Interlingua is, it still is not well known in the
              romance language countries and certainly is not a serious competitor to
              English as a lingua franca.

              Don't look now, but the germanic lingua franca is English.

              Dan


              -----Original Message-----
              From: paul lecorde [mailto:paullecorde1@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:21 AM
              To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: Grammatical Comparisons



              > I thought it should be a Germanic Interlingua. I say it should be
              > immediately understandable to anybody who speaks two Germanic
              > languages, and very easy to learn for anybody with a Germanic mother
              > tongue.

              That's what I thought too. And if that is true why
              not apply the same principles as Interlingua. Use the
              words the sources languages have in common for the
              vocabulary and get rid of any traits that all the
              source languages do not share for the grammar?

              Paul




              -------------------------------------------------------------
              Sign up for ICQmail at http://www.icq.com/icqmail/signup.html

              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/


              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • William G Beazley
              I understand your motives. I recently vacationed in Sweden which is cool when you 25. I spent effort in trying to learn as much of the language as I could
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 17, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                I understand your motives.

                I recently vacationed in Sweden which is cool when you 25. I spent effort in
                trying to learn as much of the language as I could before I went.

                I am not language prone in the sense I don't start with a new language I
                combine it with the one I am using, I continually try to make cognates in
                English.

                Swedish: Jag ar Du ar,
                English: I? art , Thou art.

                I have no problem swithing back to that, it is still used in parts of New
                England.

                So I began to see that there is this common thematic thread the could easily
                bind us.

                I then began to look into the idea of not creating another language but
                creating a cognate word list so things could be written in a way that is very
                translatable.

                I stumbled across Basic English, which is SO 50's!!!!

                Then I found this!! Of course there seemed to be conflicts in words past the
                very basic ones.

                I just think the goal should be more humble, not to include exclude but to
                find the most common Germanic intercomm we can.

                Of course we all use nongermanic words and I must say that we should use those
                if it is the best choice however we should give extra points to
                Germanic words in decisions.

                I think that in all languages I should be I..... less work.


                Dan Dawes wrote:

                > Basically when I put together the proposed Folkspraak grammar I just got
                > through studying a number of texts about interlingua. The Folkspraak
                > grammar is heavily modeled from the Interlingua approach to grammar. Of
                > course there are some arbitrary choices made just as there are in
                > interlingua, but the spirit is identical.
                >
                > The harder part is vocabulary. The interlingua vocabulary was put together
                > essentially by a single leader, Dr. Gode if I remember correctly, and then
                > only after a great deal of hard work and a lot of time. Folkspraak so far
                > does not have any one who is so qualified and dedicated to put together a
                > complete dictionary on such reasonable linguistic principles.
                >
                > I am led to believe that Interlingua is already for romance language
                > speakers, what we would hope Folkspraak to be for germanic speakers. As
                > truly pan-romance as Interlingua is, it still is not well known in the
                > romance language countries and certainly is not a serious competitor to
                > English as a lingua franca.
                >
                > Don't look now, but the germanic lingua franca is English.
                >
                > Dan
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: paul lecorde [mailto:paullecorde1@...]
                > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:21 AM
                > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: Grammatical Comparisons
                >
                > > I thought it should be a Germanic Interlingua. I say it should be
                > > immediately understandable to anybody who speaks two Germanic
                > > languages, and very easy to learn for anybody with a Germanic mother
                > > tongue.
                >
                > That's what I thought too. And if that is true why
                > not apply the same principles as Interlingua. Use the
                > words the sources languages have in common for the
                > vocabulary and get rid of any traits that all the
                > source languages do not share for the grammar?
                >
                > Paul
                >
                > -------------------------------------------------------------
                > Sign up for ICQmail at http://www.icq.com/icqmail/signup.html
                >
                > 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/
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                > 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/
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                --

                Will Beazley '[Image]'
                Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
                FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
                FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • the Keenans
                ... I m glad folkpraak is on again :) To the point however....... If we are trying to recreate proto-germanic, then, we must eliminate the latin and greek
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 17, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dan Dawes wrote:
                  >
                  > Unfortunately, the plan to construct a mutually intelligible
                  > inter-germanic
                  > lingua franca bogs down after a promising start. While there is a
                  > solid core
                  > of mutually intelligible cognates, much of the modern shared
                  > vocabulary is
                  > Latin and Greek based, and the stock of mutually intelligible words
                  > from
                  > proto-Germanic is rather limited.
                  > THIS IS TRUE AND A BIG REASON WHY IT BOGS DOWN.
                  >

                  I'm glad folkpraak is on again :)

                  To the point however.......

                  If we are trying to recreate proto-germanic, then, we must eliminate the
                  latin and greek influence.

                  If we are trying to create a modern laqnguage, can't the Latin and greek
                  stuff stay?
                  all modern european languages have it. why not our folkspraak then?

                  I was under the impression myself, that, we were creating a modern
                  language. The latin and greek stuf doesn't bother me.

                  As far as the source language problem let's stick to what the 'charter'
                  says.

                  At the end of the last 'Folkspraak rush', we seemed to have settled on a
                  'You do it your way and I'll do it my way' solution. The idea was, as in
                  natural languages, to let common usage decide what would be considered
                  correct.

                  On the grammar point..... I like the idea of doing the grammar the same
                  as making the words. What is most common?

                  -Duke
                • Dan Dawes
                  If we are trying to create a modern laqnguage, can t the Latin and greek stuff stay? all modern european languages have it. why not our folkspraak then? RIGHT
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 17, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If we are trying to create a modern laqnguage, can't the Latin and greek
                    stuff stay?
                    all modern european languages have it. why not our folkspraak then?
                    RIGHT ON!

                    I was under the impression myself, that, we were creating a modern
                    language. The latin and greek stuf doesn't bother me.
                    ME NEITHER.

                    At the end of the last 'Folkspraak rush', we seemed to have settled on a
                    'You do it your way and I'll do it my way' solution. The idea was, as in
                    natural languages, to let common usage decide what would be considered
                    correct.
                    YEAH, BUT WE NEED A SHAKESPEARE THAT WILL DEFINE THE USUAGE FOR US BY
                    WRITING SOMETHING THE PAN GERMANIC WORLD WILL CARE ENOUGH ABOUT TO READ AND
                    HENCE LEARN THE LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING DEFINED BY SUCH USAGE.
                    FOLKSPRAAK AS A LIVING LANGUAGE IS LOOKING FOR A REASON TO EXIST, WHEN
                    QUITE FRANKLY ENGLISH SEEMS TO BE THE PAN-GERMANIC LANGUAGE AMOUNG GERMANIC
                    SPEAKERS.
                    AS A HOBBY LANGUAGE IT HAS US LANGUAGE FREAKS. OUR BEST HOPE IS TO COME UP
                    WITH SOMETHING THAT RECOMMENDS ITSELF FOR INCLUSION INTO ENGLISH. THEN WE
                    GET INTO THE WORLD OF BASIC OR INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH, WHICH IS MAYBE WHERE
                    WE ONE-WORLD-LANGUAGE ZEALOTS OUGHT TO BE MUDDLING?
                  • bribri56@aol.com
                    We should keep the KISS principle (Keep it simple, stupid!) in mind with Folkspraak, or you can go crazy. My word lists have gotten out of hand, especially
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 17, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      We should keep the KISS principle (Keep it simple, stupid!) in mind with
                      Folkspraak, or you can go crazy. My word lists have gotten out of hand,
                      especially with German and Dutch. Not being even remotely fluent in either, I
                      don't recognize the shades of difference among the possible translations for
                      a given word, or know which are the common or preferred terms in any of the
                      languages except English. Some are quite straightforward: Address book (eng),
                      Adreßbuch (ger), adressenboekje (dut), Adressbok (swe), adressebog (dan),
                      Adressebok (nor), Addressubók (ice), for which I'd coin the term Adressbok.
                      But what to do with, for example: Lane, Spur, rijstrook, Fil, bane,
                      Kjørefelt, and Akrein? I kind of like this neologism - smalweg (narrow road).
                      I have no idea whether that would be O.K. (which I vote should be "O.K." in
                      Folkspraak) to a speaker of any of the real languages, but it conveys the
                      point sensibly. I think that would be better than using some Folkspraakified
                      spelling of Lane (Lein, Lejn, Leiin???) or Spur (Spur???) just because they
                      are from the dominant English and German terms. The approach of coining new
                      terms by compounding basic words is fun, too.

                      On a different note, I started using the shareware program Ergane from the
                      Travlang website - you can reach it from the dictionaries.travlang.com page.
                      This program uses Esperanto as a bridge language between the many languages
                      available for translating. So if you use Ergane to translate from say, Dutch
                      to German, you'll be actually translating from Dutch to Esperanto to German.
                      There are pitfalls in this approach, but it is free, and the vocabulary files
                      CAN be translated into your word processor or spreadsheet program : ) .

                      farvel tu necste tid,
                      Brian


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Andreas Beer
                      Hello folks, ... I somehow agree with that statement. It would be great, if someone would just write a longer text. This is hard work, I know, and I don t have
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 18, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello folks,

                        > BUT WE NEED A SHAKESPEARE
                        I somehow agree with that statement. It would be great, if someone would
                        just write a longer text. This is hard work, I know, and I don't have the time,
                        but without, we will be bickering about single words for a long time, without
                        any bigger result. Why not start with the classic conlang-text - the story
                        about the tower of bable....?

                        cu
                        Andreas
                      • the Keenans
                        ... In the experience I had making Inter-Celtic, I looked at how the word translated into English and then I looked for words from the source languages that
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 18, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          bribri56@... wrote:
                          >
                          > We should keep the KISS principle (Keep it simple, stupid!) in mind
                          > with
                          > Folkspraak, or you can go crazy. My word lists have gotten out of
                          > hand,
                          > especially with German and Dutch. Not being even remotely fluent in
                          > either, I
                          > don't recognize the shades of difference among the possible
                          > translations for
                          > a given word, or know which are the common or preferred terms in any
                          > of the
                          > languages except English. Some are quite straightforward: Address book
                          > (eng),
                          > Adreßbuch (ger), adressenboekje (dut), Adressbok (swe), adressebog
                          > (dan),
                          > Adressebok (nor), Addressubók (ice), for which I'd coin the term
                          > Adressbok.
                          > But what to do with, for example: Lane, Spur, rijstrook, Fil, bane,
                          > Kjørefelt, and Akrein? I kind of like this neologism - smalweg (narrow
                          > road).
                          > I have no idea whether that would be O.K. (which I vote should be
                          > "O.K." in
                          > Folkspraak) to a speaker of any of the real languages, but it conveys
                          > the
                          > point sensibly. I think that would be better than using some
                          > Folkspraakified
                          > spelling of Lane (Lein, Lejn, Leiin???) or Spur (Spur???) just because
                          > they
                          > are from the dominant English and German terms.

                          In the experience I had making Inter-Celtic, I looked at how the word
                          translated into English and then I looked for words from the source
                          languages that looked like the word I wanted. This often gave a shade of
                          meaning that was slightly different. Like road and lane. In my
                          Inter-Celtic endeavor I wouldn't have had two different words for lane
                          and road, because I might have already used one of those words for a
                          word meaning something close enough. This means that to the native ear
                          it might sound a little wierd; 'He is operating his buggy on the way
                          presently and will appear forthwith'

                          But guess what it's a foreign language. It has to sound strange. That's
                          one of the definitions of the word foreign. :) We will succeed if it
                          is somewhat familiar to speakers of all the source languages, and
                          thereby make it easy to learn.

                          For example in Welsh there is a word: beius which means faulty or
                          blameworthy and in Irish there is: baois which means folly or
                          foolishness

                          I had the Irish word first, but the Welsh has a different word for
                          folly, foolishness.
                          I srtarted looking for a welsh word that looks like baois (It helps to
                          know how to pronounce this stuff) and found That the definition of beius
                          is close enough to baois that I could use it. I would not have found it
                          had I insisted on trying to translate my English meaning into Welsh. I
                          find this subterfuge very useful

                          -Duke
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.