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

Re: [folkspraak] Re: *au

Expand Messages
  • bribri56@aol.com
    I strongly feel we should stick with the Roman alphabet, for ease of written communication with a larger public (including myself). Also, Folkspraak s use of
    Message 1 of 23 , Sep 5, 2001
      I strongly feel we should stick with the Roman alphabet, for ease of written
      communication with a larger public (including myself). Also, Folkspraak's use
      of the Roman alphabet is stated in the charter, which I have issues with at
      times, but find a useful beacon when we start sailing into deeper waters.
      Dipthongs and double vowels are cool, but I also have a strong preference for
      single vowels as the representation for the most common vowel sounds. I'd
      personally have no problem with A (ah), E (eh), I (ee), O (oh), U (oo) as the
      primary vowels, with ae, au, oe, and friends helping to distinguish similar
      words, or when there is majority support for those vowel representations.

      til later,
      Brian


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Daan Goedkoop
      ... What is the problem with double vowels? I mean, German has it, Dutch has it, Scandinavian has it (and English not, because English spelling is quite
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 5, 2001
        > I strongly feel we should stick with the Roman alphabet, for ease of written
        > communication with a larger public (including myself). Also, Folkspraak's use
        > of the Roman alphabet is stated in the charter, which I have issues with at
        > times, but find a useful beacon when we start sailing into deeper waters.
        > Dipthongs and double vowels are cool, but I also have a strong preference for
        > single vowels as the representation for the most common vowel sounds. I'd
        > personally have no problem with A (ah), E (eh), I (ee), O (oh), U (oo) as the
        > primary vowels, with ae, au, oe, and friends helping to distinguish similar
        > words, or when there is majority support for those vowel representations.
        >
        > til later,
        > Brian

        What is the problem with double vowels? I mean, German has it, Dutch has it, Scandinavian has it (and English not, because English spelling is quite strange, Germans would write the word 'quite' as 'kweit', and Dutch' would write it as 'kwait', wich looks kwait different from English. So in my opinion we should not try to please the English' since other Germanics would be less able to understand it easily)

        Daan.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • cburd@islandnet.com
        ... of written ... Folkspraak s use ... with at ... waters. ... preference for ... sounds. I d ... (oo) as the ... similar ... representations. If our
        Message 3 of 23 , Sep 6, 2001
          --- In folkspraak@y..., bribri56@a... wrote:
          > I strongly feel we should stick with the Roman alphabet, for ease
          of written
          > communication with a larger public (including myself). Also,
          Folkspraak's use
          > of the Roman alphabet is stated in the charter, which I have issues
          with at
          > times, but find a useful beacon when we start sailing into deeper
          waters.
          > Dipthongs and double vowels are cool, but I also have a strong
          preference for
          > single vowels as the representation for the most common vowel
          sounds. I'd
          > personally have no problem with A (ah), E (eh), I (ee), O (oh), U
          (oo) as the
          > primary vowels, with ae, au, oe, and friends helping to distinguish
          similar
          > words, or when there is majority support for those vowel
          representations.

          If our phonology turns up umlaut sounds, I have no problem spelling
          them AE, OE, UE (or perhaps Y). On the other hand, I don't see why
          A", O", (U") couldn't be alternatives. Look at the Esperantists with
          their half-dozen different net workarounds for the circumflexed
          consonants -- they create remarkably little problem, in terms of
          readability at least.

          Chris
        • cburd@islandnet.com
          ... Dutch has it, Scandinavian has it (and English not, because English spelling is quite strange, Germans would write the word quite as kweit , and Dutch
          Message 4 of 23 , Sep 6, 2001
            --- In folkspraak@y..., "Daan Goedkoop" <dgoedkoop@g...> wrote:

            > What is the problem with double vowels? I mean, German has it,
            Dutch has it, Scandinavian has it (and English not, because English
            spelling is quite strange, Germans would write the word 'quite'
            as 'kweit', and Dutch' would write it as 'kwait', wich looks kwait
            different from English. So in my opinion we should not try to please
            the English' since other Germanics would be less able to understand
            it easily)

            I think the suppressing the long/short vowel distinction would be
            very artificial and ungermanic. Germanic languages use lots of
            different vowels! The question is how to represent them, as others
            have discussed: through digraphs for long vowels (typically, double
            vowels), or doubling consonants after short vowels. I say we leave
            the issue in suspense for now, until we have created more texts, then
            try out different systems. In the mean time, let's take for granted
            that the long/short distinction should be marked some way or other.

            Chris
          • bribri56@aol.com
            The unnecessary ugliness of Internet Esperanto is one reason that I d prefer to see us stick to the 26 standard letters. I have international keyboard mappings
            Message 5 of 23 , Sep 6, 2001
              The unnecessary ugliness of Internet Esperanto is one reason that I'd prefer
              to see us stick to the 26 standard letters. I have international keyboard
              mappings handy on my computer, and use the Character Map utility often, but
              its a tremendous time waster to insert the special alphabetic characters. The
              Esperantists's "solutions" to the absence of their special characters on the
              standard keyboard mutilates an otherwise attractive language. The fewer "what
              the hell is that?" comments that Folkspraak generates, the better.

              Brian


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • bribri56@aol.com
              In a message dated 9/5/01 11:49:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Vowel combinations are fine, and enrich the sound of the language, and have the practical
              Message 6 of 23 , Sep 6, 2001
                In a message dated 9/5/01 11:49:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                dgoedkoop@... writes:


                >
                > What is the problem with double vowels? I mean, German has it, Dutch has
                > it, Scandinavian has it (and English not, because English spelling is quite
                > strange, Germans would write the word 'quite' as 'kweit', and Dutch' would
                > write it as 'kwait', wich looks kwait different from English. So in my
                > opinion we should not try to please the English' since other Germanics
                > would be less able to understand it easily)
                >

                Vowel combinations are fine, and enrich the sound of the language, and have
                the practical value of distinguishing distinct words that would be spelled
                the same if there were only the single vowel options. What I favor is the
                simplest possible spelling of the primary words and affixes that we use, both
                for aesthetic and communication purposes. I imagine that if (IF!) Folkspraak
                ever became a real world communication tool, the written communication would
                be more in the form of notes handed to taxi drivers, hotel clerks, waiters
                and people who might provide directions. You'd want the appearance to be
                readily decipherable, so that the reader might think 'OK, he spells badly,
                but I think I understand', and be able to pick up the spelling conventions
                pretty easily if he was bold enough to try and respond in 'instant
                Folkspraak'. I'd rather have FS spelling look more Danish or Swedish (with a
                Roman alphabet) than like the Frisian dialects or Icelandic, if that helps
                clarify what I'm thinking.

                En aalwaardig, aalwarig, eenvoudig, enkelvoudig, simpel, einfach, einfältig,
                enkel Man -

                Brian


                Brian


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • The Keenans
                ... Yes, I was into Esperanto for a while. I have to say that when I see these esperanto work arounds I hit the delete button. I hope when or if we present
                Message 7 of 23 , Sep 7, 2001
                  bribri56@... wrote:
                  >
                  > The unnecessary ugliness of Internet Esperanto is one reason that I'd
                  > prefer
                  > to see us stick to the 26 standard letters. I have international
                  > keyboard
                  > mappings handy on my computer, and use the Character Map utility
                  > often, but
                  > its a tremendous time waster to insert the special alphabetic
                  > characters. The
                  > Esperantists's "solutions" to the absence of their special characters
                  > on the
                  > standard keyboard mutilates an otherwise attractive language. The
                  > fewer "what
                  > the hell is that?" comments that Folkspraak generates, the better.

                  Yes, I was into Esperanto for a while. I have to say that when I see
                  these esperanto work arounds I hit the delete button. I hope when or if
                  we present Folkspraak to the world somehow, that it will be received
                  kindly.

                  -Duke



                  > Brian
                  >
                • Daan Goedkoop
                  ... I agree with this. Think about Esperanto ecxo ...? On the other hand, I have found out that an interlanguage does not need to be completely regular...
                  Message 8 of 23 , Sep 8, 2001
                    > Yes, I was into Esperanto for a while. I have to say that when I see
                    > these esperanto work arounds I hit the delete button. I hope when or if
                    > we present Folkspraak to the world somehow, that it will be received
                    > kindly.

                    I agree with this. Think about Esperanto "ecxo"...? On the other hand, I have found out that an "interlanguage" does not need to be completely regular... since that makes it boring... so most people will not learn it... since they do not want to have to learn a very little bit grammar and very much (irregular Germanic) vocabulary.


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Levi der Eroberer
                    ... of written ... Folkspraak s use ... issues with at ... waters. ... preference for ... sounds. I d ... (oo) as the ... distinguish similar ...
                    Message 9 of 23 , Sep 15, 2001
                      --- In folkspraak@y..., "Daan Goedkoop" <dgoedkoop@g...> wrote:
                      > > I strongly feel we should stick with the Roman alphabet, for ease
                      of written
                      > > communication with a larger public (including myself). Also,
                      Folkspraak's use
                      > > of the Roman alphabet is stated in the charter, which I have
                      issues with at
                      > > times, but find a useful beacon when we start sailing into deeper
                      waters.
                      > > Dipthongs and double vowels are cool, but I also have a strong
                      preference for
                      > > single vowels as the representation for the most common vowel
                      sounds. I'd
                      > > personally have no problem with A (ah), E (eh), I (ee), O (oh), U
                      (oo) as the
                      > > primary vowels, with ae, au, oe, and friends helping to
                      distinguish similar
                      > > words, or when there is majority support for those vowel
                      representations.
                      > >
                      > > til later,
                      > > Brian
                      >
                      > What is the problem with double vowels? I mean, German has it,
                      Dutch has it, Scandinavian has it (and English not, because English
                      spelling is quite strange, Germans would write the word 'quite'
                      as 'kweit', and Dutch' would write it as 'kwait', wich looks kwait
                      different from English. So in my opinion we should not try to please
                      the English' since other Germanics would be less able to understand
                      it easily)
                      >
                      > Daan.

                      Right. I would prefer to keep the long/short vowel distinction and
                      render it orthographically in the Dutch manner, i.e. a vowel is short
                      if it is not doubled and is followed by at least two consonants. So
                      you can double consonants after a vowel to make it short or if a
                      vowel stands before two or more consonant sounds you double the vowel
                      to make it long. Of course, this would mean changing the name of the
                      language to "Folksprak" so I guess the current system will do.
                    • Levi der Eroberer
                      ... issues ... distinguish ... with ... I support the idea of putting umlaut sounds in the language. The sound show up in Dutch, German, Norwegian, Danish,
                      Message 10 of 23 , Sep 15, 2001
                        --- In folkspraak@y..., cburd@i... wrote:
                        > --- In folkspraak@y..., bribri56@a... wrote:
                        > > I strongly feel we should stick with the Roman alphabet, for ease
                        > of written
                        > > communication with a larger public (including myself). Also,
                        > Folkspraak's use
                        > > of the Roman alphabet is stated in the charter, which I have
                        issues
                        > with at
                        > > times, but find a useful beacon when we start sailing into deeper
                        > waters.
                        > > Dipthongs and double vowels are cool, but I also have a strong
                        > preference for
                        > > single vowels as the representation for the most common vowel
                        > sounds. I'd
                        > > personally have no problem with A (ah), E (eh), I (ee), O (oh), U
                        > (oo) as the
                        > > primary vowels, with ae, au, oe, and friends helping to
                        distinguish
                        > similar
                        > > words, or when there is majority support for those vowel
                        > representations.
                        >
                        > If our phonology turns up umlaut sounds, I have no problem spelling
                        > them AE, OE, UE (or perhaps Y). On the other hand, I don't see why
                        > A", O", (U") couldn't be alternatives. Look at the Esperantists
                        with
                        > their half-dozen different net workarounds for the circumflexed
                        > consonants -- they create remarkably little problem, in terms of
                        > readability at least.
                        >
                        > Chris

                        I support the idea of putting umlaut sounds in the language. The
                        sound show up in Dutch, German, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, etc. I
                        would not object to having them put in as ä, ö, and ü with ae, oe,
                        and ue as orthographic variants. Esperanto on the Internet has had so
                        many problems because the circumflexed consonants and the u-breve
                        were not incorporated into the ANSI computer code and had to rely on
                        Latin-3 fonts, which created compatibility problems on OS's other
                        than Windows. The only 'standard' multi-platform implementation of
                        these characters is Unicode, which is still not implemented well in
                        the major browsers, especially on Macintosh. However, with the
                        umlauts, this problem does not arise. They are easily accessed via
                        keyboard layouts such as German. If you don't want to learn the
                        German layout, use the Character Map or type alt-132 (ä), alt-148 (ö)
                        and alt-129 (ü). Of course, there are instances in which these
                        letters are inaccessible (particularly on typewriters)
                        where "ae", "oe", and "ue" could be used, which are to me at least
                        still aesthetically pleasing.
                      • Daan Goedkoop
                        ... First of all: note that a German ö/oe sounds really different than a Dutch oe. The German ö is eu in Dutch, the Dutch oe is u in German... About the
                        Message 11 of 23 , Sep 16, 2001
                          > I support the idea of putting umlaut sounds in the language. The
                          > sound show up in Dutch, German, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, etc. I
                          > would not object to having them put in as ä, ö, and ü with ae, oe,
                          > and ue as orthographic variants. Esperanto on the Internet has had so
                          > many problems because the circumflexed consonants and the u-breve
                          > were not incorporated into the ANSI computer code and had to rely on
                          > Latin-3 fonts, which created compatibility problems on OS's other
                          > than Windows. The only 'standard' multi-platform implementation of
                          > these characters is Unicode, which is still not implemented well in
                          > the major browsers, especially on Macintosh. However, with the
                          > umlauts, this problem does not arise. They are easily accessed via
                          > keyboard layouts such as German. If you don't want to learn the
                          > German layout, use the Character Map or type alt-132 (ä), alt-148 (ö)
                          > and alt-129 (ü). Of course, there are instances in which these
                          > letters are inaccessible (particularly on typewriters)
                          > where "ae", "oe", and "ue" could be used, which are to me at least
                          > still aesthetically pleasing.

                          First of all: note that a German ö/oe sounds really different than a Dutch oe. The German ö is eu in Dutch, the Dutch oe is u in German...

                          About the ansi/ascii codes: configure your keyboard as 'us-international' so you can type ä as "a, á as 'a, à as `a, â as ^a and ã as ~a, and the Norwegian å/Å as [right-Alt]+w. Plus, a ß as [right-alt]+s

                          One note about



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.