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

Re: Special Characters

Expand Messages
  • Ingmar Roerdinkholder
    Shame. ... enough ... really ... BTW I ... no ... from ... still ... best ... system ... we ... will ... (even ... many ... example ... polls. ... two ...
    Message 1 of 82 , Sep 30, 2005

      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@x> wrote:
      > I am rather handicapped for this role due to my time zone. I have
      > trouble keeping up with conversations as it is. Remember for you
      > Europeans, that your evenings are my mornings. I am these days
      > busy at work, so I am no longer able to FS much on company time.
      BTW I
      > will be in Sydney for work for three days next week so I will be
      > email during that time.
      > Not really a bad idea, but I am surprised that the suggestion came
      > Matt. He was loudest opponent to Roly's constitution proposal. I
      > believe democratic and binding polls on FS features would be the
      > way to nail down FS. And having elected moderators to regulate the
      > conduct of the polls. I think some sort of preferential voting
      > would work best for the type off issues we will be polling because
      > will often have more than one proposal the will hold merit and PV
      > increase the chance of the option that most voters can accept
      > though it may not be their first choice) being identified.
      > I think we are limited by this Yahoo group in that there are so
      > things that it can not do. Evert Mouw has some excellent ideas for
      > website options that would allow us to work together better (for
      > Tngkonin and his database proposal). I bet it would be within his
      > powers to set up a server that could collect poll votes for PV
      > It's a pity that he seems to have time restrictions too.
      > Ingmar Roerdinkholder wrote:
      > > Let's first hear how David feels about this himself.
      > > I think he's capable of it, more than I'm myself maybe, that's
      > > why I said I'd like to assist him, IF he wants to do the job...
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Roly Sookias <xipirho@r...>
      > >
      > > > OK. I'm up for it if it gets things decided. Ingmar and David
      > > > sound like good candidates as you say.
      > >
      > > > Matt Emson wrote:
      > >
      > > > >As Ingmar says, it's a big job. It could be shared amoungst
      > > people.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 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/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > English second language
      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
      > > Second language acquisition
      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
      > > Second language learning
      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > > * Visit your group "folkspraak
      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak>" on the web.
      > >
      > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > folkspraak-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > <mailto:folkspraak-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
      > >
      > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
      > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
      > >
      > >
      > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
    • wakuran_wakaran
      ... will ... just ... that ... I disagree with your method of *Always* choosing the IL method, even when it is different from most or all of the other core
      Message 82 of 82 , Oct 1, 2005
        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@x> wrote:
        > wakuran_wakaran wrote:
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Ingmar Roerdinkholder"
        > > <ingmar.roerdinkholder@w...> wrote:
        > > > No, but a question like "what should Proto Germanic <u:> be in
        > > FS? "
        > > > is clear enough and much easier than: "what should E <ou>, G <au>,
        > > > Dutch <ui>, Danish <u>, Frisian <򦧴;, Low Saxon <uu>, Swedish <u>
        > > and
        > > > Norw <u> be in FS?". Because that are the results of PG <u:> in
        > > the
        > > > modern languages, and I suppose everyone knows what is meant. It
        > > has
        > > > to be a standard, general rule, but not totally without exceptions
        > > > that should depend on the real situation in the modern languages.
        > > >
        > > > Actually, the idea of modernization and simplification of Proto-
        > > > Germanic into Folkspr� may not be such a strange idea. I've been
        > > > thinking about that lately now and then, because there is so
        > > little
        > > > unity in our ideas as a group. Maybe the basics of FS could come
        > > from
        > > > such an approach of PG, extended with things from modern languages
        > > >
        > > > Ingmar
        > > >
        > >
        > > Isn't that basically the approach of Interlingua and Slovio? At
        > > least IL seems to go back to Latin in all cases where no common
        > > modern word is found, or a modern has been loaned around in the
        > > modern languages.
        > >
        > How I do things, and am sometimes criticised for it, is I compare only
        > cognates among the source languages. That is I don't compare EN dog to
        > DE Hund. and come up with a FS word like "hog" or "dond" In that case I
        > would compare EN hound to DE Hund.
        > I go back to the earliest common ancestral word, in many cases this
        > be Proto-Germanic. I then change the PG word according to rules that I
        > think represent the most typical or common evolution of phonology among
        > the source languages. So for example *th becomes t or d in my FS, *hw
        > becomes "w" [P], *sk becomes "sch" [S]. Such an approach is to me, not
        > just more fun, but it helps when you are dealing with sometime only a
        > small sample of words in the source languages, and examining the source
        > langs might produce inconclusive or evenly split results.
        > I consider the form of words and their meaning to be two separate
        > things. I take this approach because again and again I find situations
        > where cognate words have a subtly or totally different meaning in the
        > source languages. Or a word has a particular meaning but it isn't the
        > preferred/obvious meaning in certain languages. Or the word exists but
        > is not the preferred word for a concept.

        > I think words should sometimes be in FS, even when the meanings of the
        > cognates are different. This can often be a subtle difference, such as
        > the difference in meaning of English hound and German Hund. Or it is
        > often the situation that a word has taken on a different meaning in
        > one of the source languages. Such as EN ridge, the cognate to words
        > in other Germlangs mean "back". (What happens if some clever English
        > speaker, on seeing the connection of EN bridge to FS brygg decides that
        > "rygg" must be the FS word for "ridge")
        > Also you can have words like EN write, NL rijten, DE rei�en, SV rita
        > that have quite differing meanings in all the source languages. Do you
        > decide that there isn't enough common ground for FS to have a word like
        > *r�te? And at which level of uncommonality do you decide a word doesn't
        > belong in FS? Or you could perhaps with such a group of words, distill
        > one common meaning such as "scratch markings onto something"
        > I believe IL words are the earliest common prototype of cognate words.
        > So if all the IL source languages have a cognate word for "hurricane"
        > and the earliest common prototype is Spanish, then the IL word is
        > *"huracan*".

        I disagree with your method of *Always* choosing the IL method, even
        when it is different from most or all of the other core langs, such as
        cirkul instead of cirkel or huracan instead of orkán/orkaan.

        > In many cases the earliest common prototype would be Latin, especially
        > for graeco-latin internationalisms (ie words coined from latin since
        > renaissance). But in many other cases the earliest common prototype is
        > vulgar latin or romanic or proto-romance or whatever you call it. So
        > IL word looks like a vulgar latin word.
        > Hmmm according to the IL dictionary, it has both "dattilo" and
        > for "date". One looks like a vulgar word, the other looks more like the
        > Latin "dactylus"
        > I don't know how Slovio does things, since it's "source code" is not
        > publicly available.

        Mmmm, some comments and criticism from Wikipedia


        I confirm that it is understandable ... but I do have quite some
        experience in listening to Slavic languages. :To me it seems most
        similar to the Bulgarian. I would like to have a piece of expert
        oppinion on this hypothesis:
        Bulgarian (and some dialects of south Serbia and Macedonian) seems
        to have a simplified grammar compared to others, like my own Slovenian
        that even has a dual. Was this a consequence of historical events when
        the Slavic language was a "patois" ("pigeon English") for other peoples?

        Somewhat distrubing are some un usual endings, like the plural
        with "is" which is not Slavic type and the "objective" clause with the
        "f" ending.

        From my experience the worst problem in inter-slavic communication
        is the different word meaning, even if 80% of roots are the same.
        Slovio as a "standard vocabulary" reference may be useful. But the
        project is only at a begining. MGTom 00:38, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


        Well, I don't like Slovio one bit, not because of its linguistic value
        (though I can't seem to find any elegance or beauty in it), but
        because it is a thinly disguised version of Russian and as such the
        tool of Pan-Slavism (see the Slovio home page for a bunch of links to
        Panslavistic organizations).

        There isn't a single phoneme in it that wouldn't be found in Russian,
        on the other hand there are no phonemes which occur in other Slavic
        languages but not in Russian, such as nasals or palatalized velars.


        Also, the method of creating a Slavic conlang has been flawed from the
        start. Fancy doing a Romance lingua franca if you only know school
        French! (pun intended). Yet this seems exactly what Mark Hucko did or
        tried to do. You can't dream about creating a historically viable
        conlang without going back to Old Church Slavonic and being proficient
        with the history of at least four or five Slavic languages, including
        Polish, Czech and Serbian/Croatian (since they are the most important
        regional representatives). Anything else you may come up with is
        either 1) a code of your own devising, 2) a pidgin consisting of a
        mutilated version of one of the languages sine flexione.

        Silvermane 12:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


        I don't know how much of this is true, and how much are personal
        opinions. Anyway, the problem of change in meaning applies to
        Folkspraak, too, and I think I would generally choose a meaning close
        to English or German, when the meaning has diverged a lot in all core

        > If we followed the IL method exactly, many of the FS words would be the
        > PG word, with features that most members wouldn't like such as *w *th,
        > *hw, *hl, *hr, *bh

        Certain aspects could be modernized, though, even if following the
        method "generally".

        > > >
        > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I don't quite see the fascination with PG, if we are going to
        > > say
        > > > > XYZ
        > > > > > in PG will equal PQR in FS, we really don't need to consider
        > > > > > including or excluding any of the modern Germanic languages.
        > > All
        > > > > we
        > > > > > have to do is look up the PG word, apply the rules, chop off
        > > any
        > > > > > awkward case endings, and hey presto our FS word. Therefore
        > > > > deciding
        > > > > > on any weighting or point scoring is not needed? Maybe it
        > > would be
        > > > > a
        > > > > > quick and easier way of doing things?
        > > > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.