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

Re: [folkspraak] Re: *au

Expand Messages
  • 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 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

      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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.