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

Re: Preposition/Adverb use in germ. languages?

Expand Messages
  • Ingmar Roerdinkholder
    can also be a preposition. In Dutch ik werk rond het huis , hij loopt rond het water , in English etc. can be used as and
    Message 1 of 240 , Sep 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      <Rund> can also be a preposition.
      In Dutch "ik werk rond het huis", "hij loopt rond het water", in
      English <around> etc. <Rond> can be used as <om> and <rondom> in Dutch.

      A Folksprâk <rundum> / <rund-um> next to <rund> is a possibility, but
      since English does not have a cognate form to <um>, but ALL languages
      do have <rund> <(a)round> <rond>, FS <rund> is better.

      Always look for the common...

      Ingmar

      --In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "wakuran_wakaran" <hakans@w...> wrote:
      >
      > The thing is that "rund" is an adjective while "um" is a preposition,
      > maybe there could be yet another combined preposition for around,
      > analoguous to my up-an, rund-um.
      >
      > "Om", as a preposition, could be used for "around" in the
      Scandinavian
      > languages, although it is homonymous for the word as the Swedish
      > subordinate conjunction "om"(if).
      >
      >
    • David Parke
      Well since the difference between [x] and [C] is not going to change the actual meaning of the word in FS, I think either should be allowed, depending on what
      Message 240 of 240 , Sep 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Well since the difference between [x] and [C] is not going to change
        the actual meaning of the word in FS, I think either should be
        allowed, depending on what your oral aparatus is capable of. So since
        they would basically be allophones they should be spelt the same and
        the current polls indicate "ch" is the preferred method.
        So the word for night would be "nacht", prono'd as [naxt] or [naCt],
        just so long as it wasn't prono'd as [nakt] which could be mistaken
        for the word for "naked".


        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "wakuran_wakaran" <hakans@w...> wrote:
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Ingmar Roerdinkholder"
        > <ingmar.roerdinkholder@w...> wrote:
        > > Hahah, no, <gh> in Van Gogh is just an old fashioned way to write
        > > <ch>, it is [f\an xOx]. Goch is a town in NRW, Germany, not far from
        > > the Dutch border.
        > > Don't write about 'dreaded' things you're not 100 % certain of ;-)
        > >
        >
        > True, that, true, that... *-_-*
        >
        > > I didn't mean we should have <gh> or a voiced counterpart of [x] in
        > > Folksprâk, just that <gh>, in any language, would be best for [G].
        > > It is used for instanced to depict Arabic ghayn, which has the same
        > > sound, and which is often described to sound like 'Parisian r'...
        > >
        > > But, for FS, we don't need it, as I said
        > >
        >
        > True, that, true, that...
        >
        > > Ingmar
        > >
        > > In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "wakuran_wakaran" <hakans@w...>
        > > wrote:>
        > >
        > > > What is that, the dreaded Dutch sound of "van GoGh"?
        > > > Please, have mercy!
        > >
        > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Ingmar Roerdinkholder"
        > > > <ingmar.roerdinkholder@w...> wrote:
        > > > > Why would FS need two different pronos of <ch> anyway?
        > > > > The ich-laut [C] is more difficult to learn than the [x],
        > > > > everyone knows Bach.
        > > > > Especially a rule that after i, e, y, �, �, � etc its [C]
        > > > > and otherwise [x] is too complicated, I'd say.
        > > > >
        > > > > CH is not only the Dutch, German, Low Saxon and Frisian way to
        > > write
        > > > > [x], but also an international one, e.g. Polish, Czech, and a
        > > few more,
        > > > > like Greek in Latin script, not to mention the least...
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > I'd guess that [C] is easier than [x], from a Swedish viewpoint.
        > > > In the theoretical layout of my dialect, both [x] and [C] are
        > > > alternative pronos.
        > > >
        > > > > GH is better fit for its voiced counterpart [G], in fact.
        > > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > > > > Ingmar
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "tungol65" <rdw.young@n...>
        > > wrote:
        > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Emson" <Memsom@i...>
        > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > You may well be right about having two different
        > > spellings. The
        > > > > > idea
        > > > > > > > was to try and make words as recognisable as possible.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > But, its such a small difference between gh and ch mentally,
        > > and as
        > > > > > someone
        > > > > > > already pointed out (I can't remember who, and if it was you
        > > I'm
        > > > > not
        > > > > > being
        > > > > > > condescending) a simple rule like that is just something to
        > > learn
        > > > > > once.
        > > > > > > Bowing to English speakers is bad.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Why is bowing to English speakers bad per se? Two different
        > > spellings
        > > > > > inludes three different languages. The two spellings also
        > > reflect to
        > > > > > pronunciations, "-ght" = /xt/ and "-cht" = /Ct/. I could argue
        > > by
        > > > > > exclusively using "-cht" you are bowing to German and Dutch
        > > speakers!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.