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

Re: "ov" <-> "op"

Expand Messages
  • Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius
    ... Hm. OK. I m not sure whether it should be op or up then in my dialect. By sheer number of speakers up would definitely win out, but by number of
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "wakuran_wakaran" <hakans@w...> wrote:

      > Holiday, maybe "ferien" or "vakans"??

      ...maybe both 'vakans' and 'forloof', with 'forloof' being 'leave'?

      > "Upp" is from Swedish, I think Danish and Norwegian might have "opp".

      Hm. OK. I'm not sure whether it should be 'op' or 'up' then in my dialect. By sheer
      number of speakers 'up' would definitely win out, but by number of languages 'op'
      would. What do you think?

      hm. o-kee. ik is nicht sikker twiks 'op' and 'up' in main dialekt. if man tenk up
      spraker nummeren, 'up' sikker win, doch if man tenk up tung nummeren 'op' wuld.
      wat tenk du/ji?
    • David Parke
      ... dialect. By sheer ... languages op ... if man tenk up ... op wuld. ... Ja ðat is oft ein swârsak (problem) mid kurt o ond u . In Engelisch ond
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
        <xipirho@r...> wrote:
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "wakuran_wakaran" <hakans@w...>
        wrote:
        >
        > > Holiday, maybe "ferien" or "vakans"??
        >
        > ...maybe both 'vakans' and 'forloof', with 'forloof' being 'leave'?
        >
        > > "Upp" is from Swedish, I think Danish and Norwegian might have "opp".
        >
        > Hm. OK. I'm not sure whether it should be 'op' or 'up' then in my
        dialect. By sheer
        > number of speakers 'up' would definitely win out, but by number of
        languages 'op'
        > would. What do you think?
        >
        > hm. o-kee. ik is nicht sikker twiks 'op' and 'up' in main dialekt.
        if man tenk up
        > spraker nummeren, 'up' sikker win, doch if man tenk up tung nummeren
        'op' wuld.
        > wat tenk du/ji?


        Ja ðat is oft ein swârsak (problem) mid kurt "o" ond "u".
        In Engelisch ond Ðytsch is et oftest "u" oðer "ü" (DE), "i" (EN) mid
        i-omlaud (i-mutation). In Niðerlandisch, Dânisch ond Norðisch is et
        oft "o". In Swedenisch is et "u", "y", oðer "o".
        Ik benutt (gebrauk) oftest "u" gelîk als Engelisch ond Ðytsch, ðe twei
        grœtest sprâken. Ik neig tou (hav tendenc) benutt engelisch ond/oðer
        ðytsch formen in falls fon ðies swârsaken.Мch Ik benutt "om", nejt
        "um" -- Ik weit nejt hwârfor. ("weit" = presenc tempus singulâr form
        fon "witte")
        BTW problem is œk ein goud echt Folksprâk word)

        Ja dat is oft ein svarsak (problem) mid kurt "o" ond "u".
        In Engelisk ond Dytsk is et oftest "u" oder ü (DE), i (EN) mid
        i-omlaud (i-mutation). In Niderlandisk, Dânisk ond Norðisk is et oft
        "o". In Swedenisk is et "u", "y", oder "o".
        Ik benutt (gebrauk) oftest "u" gelîk als Engelisk ond Dytsk, de tvei
        grotest spraken. Ik neig tou (hav tendenc) benutt engelisk ond/oder
        dytsk formen in falls av dies svarsaken.Doh Ik benutt "om", neht "um"
        -- Ik veit neht varfor. ("veit" = presenc tempus singular form av
        "vitten")
        BTW problem is ok ein goud eht Folksprak vord)

        Yes, that's often a thorny issue with short "o" and "u". In English
        and German it is most often "u" or "ü" (DE), "i" (EN) with i-mutation.
        In Dutch, Danish and Norwegian it is often "o". In Swedish it is "u",
        "y" or "o".
        I use most often "u" like as in English and German, the two biggest
        languages. I tend to use English or German forms in the case of
        dilemmas such as these. But I use "om" not "um" and I am not sure why.
        BTW "problem" is also a good, genuince Folksprak word.
      • Stephan Schneider
        Well, but the good thing about these synthesises is, that they fit quite well the reality, I think. So I try to add examples. in = in iner = inner inen =
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 7, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, but the good thing about these synthesises is, that they fit quite well the reality, I think. So I try to add examples.

          in = in
          iner = inner
          inen = inside (german: innen)

          ut = out
          uter = outer
          uten = outside (german: außen)

          for = before / in front of
          forder = former (german: vorder(-e, -er, -es...)
          foren = in front (german: vorn)

          hin = over there (german: hin)
          hinder = yonder (german: hinter(-e, -er, -es...)
          hinden = over there (german: hinten)

          up = up
          uper = over ((german: über))
          upen = above ((german: oben))

          un = around / (down) to the other side (german: "um")
          under = under, (german: unter(-e, -er, -es...))
          unden = german: unten


          These words are similar to "up" and "un" but they work quite differently:

          op = if, off, of (german: ob, ab, von)
          oper = (the) above (german: ober(-e, -er, -es)
          open = open

          on = on
          ond = and (I wonder if there is no germanic language with "ond", anyway it seems a nice mix between english "and" and german "und".)


          What do you think now?
          Bye,
          Stephan





          ----- Original Message -----
          From: David Parke
          To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:10 PM
          Subject: [folkspraak] Re: "ov" <-> "op"


          I don't really like these un-natural synthesises, sorry. Can you not
          try to make your words from real world examples in the Germanic
          languages? (modern or even historical). In many cases they are quite
          similar eg. over/über/över. under/onder/unter. through/door/durch.
          up/op/auf/upp. out/uit/aus/ud/ut
          I think these synthetic words might only have a place when we are
          unable to determine a good word due to a lack of common words/usages
          among the Germanic source languages.

          But it does remind me: One thing that confuses English speakers who
          learn German is the false similarities between ab/up and auf/off. They
          think that these pairs are related when in fact the opposite is true:
          ab/off and auf/up are the true cognates. Also the German usage of
          "auf" is normally very different from the English use of "up". German
          uses auf where in most cases English would use "up". Oh and German
          "ob" can also be confusing to English speakers because it looks a bit
          like "of" and sounds often like "up".

          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Stephan Schneider" <sts@s...> wrote:
          > Hello,
          > These are my thoughts about "ov" e.a.:
          > There is a particle "up", and you can derive "upen" and "uper". (The
          same goes for "un" -> "unden", "under".) These derivations are regular
          (although I had to infix "d" in "unden" and "under").
          >
          > up - up (particle)
          > upen - above (adverb)
          > uper - upper (adjective)
          >
          > un - around (particle) (in german: um)
          > unden - below (adverb)
          > under - lower, down- (adjective)
          >
          > (The same trick I used to form words like "for", "foren" and
          "forder"; "hin", "hinden", "hinder"; "in", "inen" and "iner", "ut",
          "uten" and "uter" and so on.)
          >
          > The following verbs aren't derivations from the above words, but
          they are similar:
          >
          > op - if / off (conjunction, particle)
          > open - open (adverb)
          > oper - over (preposition)
          >
          > on - on (preposition)
          > ond - and (conjunction)
          > onder - under (preposition)
          >
          >
          > These pseudo-derivations shall not look very different from the
          pseudo-original, as they are in fact somehow cognate.
          >
          > Bye,
          > Stephan
          >
          > [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/




          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

          a.. Visit your group "folkspraak" on the web.

          b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          folkspraak-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Parke
          Yes some of them might work and might actually be similar to a process that actually happened in the Germanic languages. You have seen a pattern in German but
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 11, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes some of them might work and might actually be similar to a process
            that actually happened in the Germanic languages. You have seen a
            pattern in German but I think it may be more complex than how you
            present it.
            With your up/uper/upen and op/oper/open I think you are forcing
            connections that don't in fact exist in the germanic languages. Yes DE
            über and oben are probably connected as are EN over and above. But not
            to "auf" or "up". (Actually there may be a connection if you go back
            as far as Proto-Indo-European but in Germanic *up and *uber were
            already distinct) "auf" and "offen" are in fact more likely to have a
            real connection than "auf" and "oben". According to my Short Oxford
            English dictionary and Etymonline, open/offen has the appearance in
            the germlangs of a strong past participle for a verb base on auf/up.

            In general you will find that "b" in german at the end of syllables
            corresponds to "v" or "f" in the other Germanic languages. (except
            sometimes in Dutch and Low German, "hebben" for example BUT note
            "heeft" = DE "hat" = EN has/hath)
            And in general "f" in german at the end of syllables corresponds to
            "p" in the other germlangs.
            So don't for example confuse DE auf with EN off. or DE ab with EN
            "up". The correct connection is auf/up and ab/off

            But I think because some of your synthesises do hold true, perhaps you
            could investigate why and how and learn more about how proto-germanic
            might have built words. Like I said, some of them could prove useful
            when we have situations where we can not decide on a good word because
            the source languages are so different.

            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Stephan Schneider" <sts@s...> wrote:
            > Well, but the good thing about these synthesises is, that they fit
            quite well the reality, I think. So I try to add examples.
            >
            > in = in
            > iner = inner
            > inen = inside (german: innen)
            >
            > ut = out
            > uter = outer
            > uten = outside (german: außen)
            >
            > for = before / in front of
            > forder = former (german: vorder(-e, -er, -es...)
            > foren = in front (german: vorn)
            >
            > hin = over there (german: hin)
            > hinder = yonder (german: hinter(-e, -er, -es...)
            > hinden = over there (german: hinten)
            >
            > up = up
            > uper = over ((german: über))
            > upen = above ((german: oben))
            >
            > un = around / (down) to the other side (german: "um")
            > under = under, (german: unter(-e, -er, -es...))
            > unden = german: unten
            >
            >
            > These words are similar to "up" and "un" but they work quite
            differently:
            >
            > op = if, off, of (german: ob, ab, von)
            > oper = (the) above (german: ober(-e, -er, -es)
            > open = open
            >
            > on = on
            > ond = and (I wonder if there is no germanic language with "ond",
            anyway it seems a nice mix between english "and" and german "und".)
            >
            >
            > What do you think now?
            > Bye,
            > Stephan

            I don't think there is any real language that uses "ond". Old English
            used it as an alternative to "and" But I agree it makes a good
            compromise between DE and EN. Perhaps we could compromise further and
            move somewhat towards Ingmar's Middlesprake "on". For example, the
            word could be "ond" in formal speech but be normally pronounced as
            "on'" /@n/. Or perhaps the "d" be sounded only before a word beginning
            in a vowel.
            For example
            "Hi hav koukt muschelen on' friten"
            "Hi hav koukt muskelen on' friten"
            (He's cooked mussels and chips)
            "Ik will kœpe ein jacke on' twei socken."
            "Ik vill kopen ein jakke on' tvei sokken"
            (I want to buy one jacket and two socks.)
            "Ik schœt ðrie dauven ond ein krâj mid mîn schœn ond ackurat gewer in
            ðe wald up ðe farm fon mîn brouðer on' sîn frauw."
            "Ik skot trie dauven ond ein kraj mid mîn skon ond akkurat gever in de
            vald up de farm av mîn brouder on' sîn frau."
            (I shot three pigeons and a crow with my beautiful and accurate rifle
            in the woods on my brother and sister-in-laws' farm)


            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: David Parke
            > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:10 PM
            > Subject: [folkspraak] Re: "ov" <-> "op"
            >
            >
            > I don't really like these un-natural synthesises, sorry. Can you not
            > try to make your words from real world examples in the Germanic
            > languages? (modern or even historical). In many cases they are quite
            > similar eg. over/über/över. under/onder/unter. through/door/durch.
            > up/op/auf/upp. out/uit/aus/ud/ut
            > I think these synthetic words might only have a place when we are
            > unable to determine a good word due to a lack of common words/usages
            > among the Germanic source languages.
            >
            > But it does remind me: One thing that confuses English speakers who
            > learn German is the false similarities between ab/up and auf/off. They
            > think that these pairs are related when in fact the opposite is true:
            > ab/off and auf/up are the true cognates. Also the German usage of
            > "auf" is normally very different from the English use of "up". German
            > uses auf where in most cases English would use "up". Oh and German
            > "ob" can also be confusing to English speakers because it looks a bit
            > like "of" and sounds often like "up".
            >
            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Stephan Schneider" <sts@s...>
            wrote:
            > > Hello,
            > > These are my thoughts about "ov" e.a.:
            > > There is a particle "up", and you can derive "upen" and "uper". (The
            > same goes for "un" -> "unden", "under".) These derivations are regular
            > (although I had to infix "d" in "unden" and "under").
            > >
            > > up - up (particle)
            > > upen - above (adverb)
            > > uper - upper (adjective)
            > >
            > > un - around (particle) (in german: um)
            > > unden - below (adverb)
            > > under - lower, down- (adjective)
            > >
            > > (The same trick I used to form words like "for", "foren" and
            > "forder"; "hin", "hinden", "hinder"; "in", "inen" and "iner", "ut",
            > "uten" and "uter" and so on.)
            > >
            > > The following verbs aren't derivations from the above words, but
            > they are similar:
            > >
            > > op - if / off (conjunction, particle)
            > > open - open (adverb)
            > > oper - over (preposition)
            > >
            > > on - on (preposition)
            > > ond - and (conjunction)
            > > onder - under (preposition)
            > >
            > >
            > > These pseudo-derivations shall not look very different from the
            > pseudo-original, as they are in fact somehow cognate.
            > >
            > > Bye,
            > > Stephan
            > >
            > > [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/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            >
            > a.. Visit your group "folkspraak" on the web.
            >
            > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > folkspraak-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            Service.
            >
            >
            >
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.