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

Yiddish is Germanic

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan North Washington
    «« Yes but isn t yiddish from a Turkish root not a Germanic root. It only only uses borrowed supplement words from German etc. I would suggest we leave it
    Message 1 of 23 , Dec 1, 2001
      ««
      Yes but isn't yiddish from a Turkish root not a Germanic root. It only
      only uses borrowed supplement words from German etc.

      I would suggest we leave it out.
      »»

      ikh veiz dos yidish iz zeyer germanish un dos du kenst mir fershteen
      Okay, I don't know how good the grammar is there, but in any case that
      should prove that it's germanic. Here's a headline from Yiddish Forvert:
      "vifl milyardn dolar farmogt di palestiner makht?" and another "in der velt
      fun yidish: yidish-tsenter in pariz - shoyn nisht keyn khoylem(hebrew
      word)". Yiddish is more Germanic than English in many ways. The original
      Yiddish speakers (by standard theory) were Hebrew speakers that switched
      their native language to German in the middle ages in Germany. Since then,
      German and "Jewish German" have been evolving parallel to eachother, but
      have drifted apart enough that native speakers of German/Yiddish have
      problems understanding one another, but not terrible ones. At the same time
      as Hebrew speakers were taking on German as their native language, many many
      Norman French were picking up Anglo-Saxon (whose descendant their
      descendants would speak natively) and fewer Anglo-Saxon speakers were
      picking up Norman French. This creolised to Modern English.
      Anyway, if we ignore Yiddish for linguistic reasons, I rather say we'd have
      to ignore English too.

      ===
      Jonathan North Washington
      http://www.firespeaker.org/

      "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
      for thou art crunchy and taste good
      with ketchup."
      ...
    • Jonathan North Washington
      «« Yes but isn t yiddish from a Turkish root not a Germanic root. It only only uses borrowed supplement words from German etc. I would suggest we leave it
      Message 2 of 23 , Dec 1, 2001
        ««
        Yes but isn't yiddish from a Turkish root not a Germanic root. It only
        only uses borrowed supplement words from German etc.

        I would suggest we leave it out.
        »»

        ikh veiz dos yidish iz zeyer germanish un dos du kenst mir fershteen
        Okay, I don't know how good the grammar is there, but in any case that
        should prove that it's germanic. Here's a headline from Yiddish Forvert:
        "vifl milyardn dolar farmogt di palestiner makht?" and another "in der velt
        fun yidish: yidish-tsenter in pariz - shoyn nisht keyn khoylem(hebrew
        word)". Yiddish is more Germanic than English in many ways. The original
        Yiddish speakers (by standard theory) were Hebrew speakers that switched
        their native language to German in the middle ages in Germany. Since then,
        German and "Jewish German" have been evolving parallel to eachother, but
        have drifted apart enough that native speakers of German/Yiddish have
        problems understanding one another, but not terrible ones. At the same time
        as Hebrew speakers were taking on German as their native language, many many
        Norman French were picking up Anglo-Saxon (whose descendant their
        descendants would speak natively) and fewer Anglo-Saxon speakers were
        picking up Norman French. This creolised to Modern English.
        Anyway, if we ignore Yiddish for linguistic reasons, I rather say we'd have
        to ignore English too.

        ===
        Jonathan North Washington
        http://www.firespeaker.org/

        "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
        for thou art crunchy and taste good
        with ketchup."
        ...
      • bribri56@aol.com
        Hallo all, Lang tid ne sehen, Jonathan! JNW s Yiddish quotes look very Folkspraaklik. I think Yiddish should be considered when constructing our language. It s
        Message 3 of 23 , Dec 2, 2001
          Hallo all,

          Lang tid ne sehen, Jonathan!

          JNW's Yiddish quotes look very Folkspraaklik. I think Yiddish should be
          considered when constructing our language. It's usually easy to separate the
          German out from the Hebrew (and Slavic?) vocabulary. I try to use as many
          language sources as possible when building words. It is usually easier for me
          to see the basic root word from which to build the Folkspraak word. There are
          plenty of online multi-language dictionaries for the smaller languages.

          Op weder sehen,
          Brian
        • William G Beazley
          But there is a very critical difference, Anglo Saxon started Germanic, and Yiddish started from where ever it came from. I think we are ignoring the parts of
          Message 4 of 23 , Dec 3, 2001
            But there is a very critical difference, Anglo Saxon started Germanic,
            and Yiddish started from where ever it came from.

            I think we are ignoring the parts of English that bare the brunt of the
            non Germanic languages, additionally some of the "creolization" of
            English was from the Danes, hence Danelaw and the city of York.

            I just think if you include German you are including Yiddish, Yiddish
            differences from German are from its roots, thus I think the important
            parts of it are already included.

            Hell, why don't we include Texan which is English modified by German. By
            the way I am from Texas so I would get a real kick out of that.

            Honestly if we include Yiddish it won't kill us but I would think that
            it is not valuable enough to include.
            I don't think we should include Scots either, same reason.

            Really folks what makes a language Germaic, are there languages that are
            have a Germanic influence but that are not Germanic?
            Yiddish
            Norman French
            Scots
            etc.

            I just think we should keep it simple.

            Months ago there argumnets for what languages to keep, if we are to
            inlcude Yiddish then we should start all over and go through all those
            arguments once again.

            I don't think late additions will help the process.


            Jonathan North Washington wrote:
            >
            > ««
            > Yes but isn't yiddish from a Turkish root not a Germanic root. It only
            > only uses borrowed supplement words from German etc.
            >
            > I would suggest we leave it out.
            > »»
            >
            > ikh veiz dos yidish iz zeyer germanish un dos du kenst mir fershteen
            > Okay, I don't know how good the grammar is there, but in any case that
            > should prove that it's germanic. Here's a headline from Yiddish Forvert:
            > "vifl milyardn dolar farmogt di palestiner makht?" and another "in der velt
            > fun yidish: yidish-tsenter in pariz - shoyn nisht keyn khoylem(hebrew
            > word)". Yiddish is more Germanic than English in many ways. The original
            > Yiddish speakers (by standard theory) were Hebrew speakers that switched
            > their native language to German in the middle ages in Germany. Since then,
            > German and "Jewish German" have been evolving parallel to eachother, but
            > have drifted apart enough that native speakers of German/Yiddish have
            > problems understanding one another, but not terrible ones. At the same time
            > as Hebrew speakers were taking on German as their native language, many many
            > Norman French were picking up Anglo-Saxon (whose descendant their
            > descendants would speak natively) and fewer Anglo-Saxon speakers were
            > picking up Norman French. This creolised to Modern English.
            > Anyway, if we ignore Yiddish for linguistic reasons, I rather say we'd have
            > to ignore English too.
            >
            > ===
            > Jonathan North Washington
            > http://www.firespeaker.org/
            >
            > "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
            > for thou art crunchy and taste good
            > with ketchup."
            > ...
            >
            > 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/
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

            --
            Will Beazley
            Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
            FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
            FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
          • William G Beazley
            With that in mind should we start using Scots as well? I personally think we should only use the major ones + Icelandic (because of of historical
            Message 5 of 23 , Dec 3, 2001
              With that in mind should we start using Scots as well?

              I personally think we should only use the major ones + Icelandic
              (because of of historical signifigance).

              I would think it would make it easier for this project to keep the major
              influences in the for front.

              If we include Yiddish because it has borrowed and incorporated Germanic
              words like scots or if you want to treat it like a Germanic dialect then
              shouldn't we use Bavarian its own language?

              Saying Yiddish is a Germanic Language is like saying Norman French is
              Germanic, borrowed words regardless of what people think does not make
              you an off shoot of a proto language.

              I say our inclusion of High German or just German should be the implicit
              inclusion of the borrow words in Yiddish.


              bribri56@... wrote:
              >
              > Hallo all,
              >
              > Lang tid ne sehen, Jonathan!
              >
              > JNW's Yiddish quotes look very Folkspraaklik. I think Yiddish should be
              > considered when constructing our language. It's usually easy to separate the
              > German out from the Hebrew (and Slavic?) vocabulary. I try to use as many
              > language sources as possible when building words. It is usually easier for me
              > to see the basic root word from which to build the Folkspraak word. There are
              > plenty of online multi-language dictionaries for the smaller languages.
              >
              > Op weder sehen,
              > Brian
              >
              >
              > 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/
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

              --
              Will Beazley
              Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
              FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
              FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
            • Ari Reyes
              Oh! what s all the hoopla about!? I say use it if you want to. This is a free and democratic group! (At least I hope so). It s obviously a marginal dialect and
              Message 6 of 23 , Dec 3, 2001
                Oh! what's all the hoopla about!? I say use it if you want to. This is a free and democratic group! (At least I hope so). It's obviously a marginal dialect and I would propose that if you decide to use it, then keep it's influence to a minimum. More to strengthen a particular Folksprak cognate (from the more "popular" and "germanic prodgeny" languages) than to question it. If you know what I mean. Sort of like Afrikaans, Faorese, etc.
                farwel,
                Ariano Reyes
                Neuw York
                William G Beazley <beazley@...> wrote: But there is a very critical difference, Anglo Saxon started Germanic,
                and Yiddish started from where ever it came from.

                I think we are ignoring the parts of English that bare the brunt of the
                non Germanic languages, additionally some of the "creolization" of
                English was from the Danes, hence Danelaw and the city of York.

                I just think if you include German you are including Yiddish, Yiddish
                differences from German are from its roots, thus I think the important
                parts of it are already included.

                Hell, why don't we include Texan which is English modified by German. By
                the way I am from Texas so I would get a real kick out of that.

                Honestly if we include Yiddish it won't kill us but I would think that
                it is not valuable enough to include.
                I don't think we should include Scots either, same reason.

                Really folks what makes a language Germaic, are there languages that are
                have a Germanic influence but that are not Germanic?
                Yiddish
                Norman French
                Scots
                etc.

                I just think we should keep it simple.

                Months ago there argumnets for what languages to keep, if we are to
                inlcude Yiddish then we should start all over and go through all those
                arguments once again.

                I don't think late additions will help the process.


                Jonathan North Washington wrote:
                >
                > ��
                > Yes but isn't yiddish from a Turkish root not a Germanic root. It only
                > only uses borrowed supplement words from German etc.
                >
                > I would suggest we leave it out.
                > ��
                >
                > ikh veiz dos yidish iz zeyer germanish un dos du kenst mir fershteen
                > Okay, I don't know how good the grammar is there, but in any case that
                > should prove that it's germanic. Here's a headline from Yiddish Forvert:
                > "vifl milyardn dolar farmogt di palestiner makht?" and another "in der velt
                > fun yidish: yidish-tsenter in pariz - shoyn nisht keyn khoylem(hebrew
                > word)". Yiddish is more Germanic than English in many ways. The original
                > Yiddish speakers (by standard theory) were Hebrew speakers that switched
                > their native language to German in the middle ages in Germany. Since then,
                > German and "Jewish German" have been evolving parallel to eachother, but
                > have drifted apart enough that native speakers of German/Yiddish have
                > problems understanding one another, but not terrible ones. At the same time
                > as Hebrew speakers were taking on German as their native language, many many
                > Norman French were picking up Anglo-Saxon (whose descendant their
                > descendants would speak natively) and fewer Anglo-Saxon speakers were
                > picking up Norman French. This creolised to Modern English.
                > Anyway, if we ignore Yiddish for linguistic reasons, I rather say we'd have
                > to ignore English too.
                >
                > ===
                > Jonathan North Washington
                > http://www.firespeaker.org/
                >
                > "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
                > for thou art crunchy and taste good
                > with ketchup."
                > ...
                >
                > 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/
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                --
                Will Beazley
                Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
                FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
                FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053

                Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

                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/


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



                ---------------------------------
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • William G Beazley
                Well, I agree, its a discussion about nothing ;-) Maybe we could have two seperate groups, the main groups (UN securtiy Council) and then the outercaste (such
                Message 7 of 23 , Dec 3, 2001
                  Well, I agree, its a discussion about nothing ;-)

                  Maybe we could have two seperate groups, the main groups (UN securtiy
                  Council) and then the outercaste (such as Yiddish etc.)
                  Most of the influence comes from the main but when need be the little
                  ones can influence. (of course I just repeated Ari said)

                  In the secondary I would love for us to include Old Ænglish.


                  Ari Reyes wrote:
                  >
                  > Oh! what's all the hoopla about!? I say use it if you want to. This is a free and democratic group! (At least I hope so). It's obviously a marginal dialect and I would propose that if you decide to use it, then keep it's influence to a minimum. More to strengthen a particular Folksprak cognate (from the more "popular" and "germanic prodgeny" languages) than to question it. If you know what I mean. Sort of like Afrikaans, Faorese, etc.
                  > farwel,
                  > Ariano Reyes
                  > Neuw York
                  > William G Beazley <beazley@...> wrote: But there is a very critical difference, Anglo Saxon started Germanic,
                  > and Yiddish started from where ever it came from.
                  >
                  > I think we are ignoring the parts of English that bare the brunt of the
                  > non Germanic languages, additionally some of the "creolization" of
                  > English was from the Danes, hence Danelaw and the city of York.
                  >
                  > I just think if you include German you are including Yiddish, Yiddish
                  > differences from German are from its roots, thus I think the important
                  > parts of it are already included.
                  >
                  > Hell, why don't we include Texan which is English modified by German. By
                  > the way I am from Texas so I would get a real kick out of that.
                  >
                  > Honestly if we include Yiddish it won't kill us but I would think that
                  > it is not valuable enough to include.
                  > I don't think we should include Scots either, same reason.
                  >
                  > Really folks what makes a language Germaic, are there languages that are
                  > have a Germanic influence but that are not Germanic?
                  > Yiddish
                  > Norman French
                  > Scots
                  > etc.
                  >
                  > I just think we should keep it simple.
                  >
                  > Months ago there argumnets for what languages to keep, if we are to
                  > inlcude Yiddish then we should start all over and go through all those
                  > arguments once again.
                  >
                  > I don't think late additions will help the process.
                  >
                  > Jonathan North Washington wrote:
                  > >
                  > > ««
                  > > Yes but isn't yiddish from a Turkish root not a Germanic root. It only
                  > > only uses borrowed supplement words from German etc.
                  > >
                  > > I would suggest we leave it out.
                  > > »»
                  > >
                  > > ikh veiz dos yidish iz zeyer germanish un dos du kenst mir fershteen
                  > > Okay, I don't know how good the grammar is there, but in any case that
                  > > should prove that it's germanic. Here's a headline from Yiddish Forvert:
                  > > "vifl milyardn dolar farmogt di palestiner makht?" and another "in der velt
                  > > fun yidish: yidish-tsenter in pariz - shoyn nisht keyn khoylem(hebrew
                  > > word)". Yiddish is more Germanic than English in many ways. The original
                  > > Yiddish speakers (by standard theory) were Hebrew speakers that switched
                  > > their native language to German in the middle ages in Germany. Since then,
                  > > German and "Jewish German" have been evolving parallel to eachother, but
                  > > have drifted apart enough that native speakers of German/Yiddish have
                  > > problems understanding one another, but not terrible ones. At the same time
                  > > as Hebrew speakers were taking on German as their native language, many many
                  > > Norman French were picking up Anglo-Saxon (whose descendant their
                  > > descendants would speak natively) and fewer Anglo-Saxon speakers were
                  > > picking up Norman French. This creolised to Modern English.
                  > > Anyway, if we ignore Yiddish for linguistic reasons, I rather say we'd have
                  > > to ignore English too.
                  > >
                  > > ===
                  > > Jonathan North Washington
                  > > http://www.firespeaker.org/
                  > >
                  > > "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
                  > > for thou art crunchy and taste good
                  > > with ketchup."
                  > > ...
                  > >
                  > > 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/
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  > --
                  > Will Beazley
                  > Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
                  > FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
                  > FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                  >
                  > 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/
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
                  >
                  > [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/
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                  --
                  Will Beazley
                  Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
                  FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
                  FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
                • Ari Reyes
                  hey! I d be all for old and middle english! that would be fantastic. but again as a secondary. William G Beazley wrote: Well, I agree,
                  Message 8 of 23 , Dec 3, 2001
                    hey! I'd be all for old and middle english! that would be fantastic. but again as a secondary.
                    William G Beazley <beazley@...> wrote: Well, I agree, its a discussion about nothing ;-)

                    Maybe we could have two seperate groups, the main groups (UN securtiy
                    Council) and then the outercaste (such as Yiddish etc.)
                    Most of the influence comes from the main but when need be the little
                    ones can influence. (of course I just repeated Ari said)

                    In the secondary I would love for us to include Old �nglish.


                    Ari Reyes wrote:
                    >
                    > Oh! what's all the hoopla about!? I say use it if you want to. This is a free and democratic group! (At least I hope so). It's obviously a marginal dialect and I would propose that if you decide to use it, then keep it's influence to a minimum. More to strengthen a particular Folksprak cognate (from the more "popular" and "germanic prodgeny" languages) than to question it. If you know what I mean. Sort of like Afrikaans, Faorese, etc.
                    > farwel,
                    > Ariano Reyes
                    > Neuw York
                    > William G Beazley <beazley@...> wrote: But there is a very critical difference, Anglo Saxon started Germanic,
                    > and Yiddish started from where ever it came from.
                    >
                    > I think we are ignoring the parts of English that bare the brunt of the
                    > non Germanic languages, additionally some of the "creolization" of
                    > English was from the Danes, hence Danelaw and the city of York.
                    >
                    > I just think if you include German you are including Yiddish, Yiddish
                    > differences from German are from its roots, thus I think the important
                    > parts of it are already included.
                    >
                    > Hell, why don't we include Texan which is English modified by German. By
                    > the way I am from Texas so I would get a real kick out of that.
                    >
                    > Honestly if we include Yiddish it won't kill us but I would think that
                    > it is not valuable enough to include.
                    > I don't think we should include Scots either, same reason.
                    >
                    > Really folks what makes a language Germaic, are there languages that are
                    > have a Germanic influence but that are not Germanic?
                    > Yiddish
                    > Norman French
                    > Scots
                    > etc.
                    >
                    > I just think we should keep it simple.
                    >
                    > Months ago there argumnets for what languages to keep, if we are to
                    > inlcude Yiddish then we should start all over and go through all those
                    > arguments once again.
                    >
                    > I don't think late additions will help the process.
                    >
                    > Jonathan North Washington wrote:
                    > >
                    > > ��
                    > > Yes but isn't yiddish from a Turkish root not a Germanic root. It only
                    > > only uses borrowed supplement words from German etc.
                    > >
                    > > I would suggest we leave it out.
                    > > ��
                    > >
                    > > ikh veiz dos yidish iz zeyer germanish un dos du kenst mir fershteen
                    > > Okay, I don't know how good the grammar is there, but in any case that
                    > > should prove that it's germanic. Here's a headline from Yiddish Forvert:
                    > > "vifl milyardn dolar farmogt di palestiner makht?" and another "in der velt
                    > > fun yidish: yidish-tsenter in pariz - shoyn nisht keyn khoylem(hebrew
                    > > word)". Yiddish is more Germanic than English in many ways. The original
                    > > Yiddish speakers (by standard theory) were Hebrew speakers that switched
                    > > their native language to German in the middle ages in Germany. Since then,
                    > > German and "Jewish German" have been evolving parallel to eachother, but
                    > > have drifted apart enough that native speakers of German/Yiddish have
                    > > problems understanding one another, but not terrible ones. At the same time
                    > > as Hebrew speakers were taking on German as their native language, many many
                    > > Norman French were picking up Anglo-Saxon (whose descendant their
                    > > descendants would speak natively) and fewer Anglo-Saxon speakers were
                    > > picking up Norman French. This creolised to Modern English.
                    > > Anyway, if we ignore Yiddish for linguistic reasons, I rather say we'd have
                    > > to ignore English too.
                    > >
                    > > ===
                    > > Jonathan North Washington
                    > > http://www.firespeaker.org/
                    > >
                    > > "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
                    > > for thou art crunchy and taste good
                    > > with ketchup."
                    > > ...
                    > >
                    > > 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/
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                    > --
                    > Will Beazley
                    > Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
                    > FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
                    > FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                    >
                    > 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/
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------
                    > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
                    >
                    > [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/
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                    --
                    Will Beazley
                    Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
                    FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
                    FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053

                    Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

                    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/


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



                    ---------------------------------
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • William G Beazley
                    I wrote this out of order so its skips around a bit. ... No not at all. Norman French is NorthMan French the north men are Vikings hence the muttled
                    Message 9 of 23 , Dec 4, 2001
                      I wrote this out of order so its skips around a bit.


                      Jonathan North Washington wrote:
                      >
                      > ««
                      > Saying Yiddish is a Germanic Language is like saying Norman French is
                      > Germanic, borrowed words regardless of what people think does not make
                      > you an off shoot of a proto language.
                      > »»
                      >
                      > So you believe that the speakers of Old Norman French (the kind spoken in
                      > England for a few hundred years after 1066) "borrowed" words from the
                      > surrounding Anglo-Saxon base when they began to adopt English-of-the-time as
                      > a native language?
                      No not at all. Norman French is "NorthMan French" the north men are
                      Vikings hence the
                      muttled Germanic/Norse words and place names in Norman French. Rollo
                      a/the Viking was given a plot of land to protect the from other viking
                      raiders (they had to convert as well). However, the invaders influenced
                      the French language in their area.

                      Thus, we have a French root modified by the Norse, it is still French.


                      Or the other way around? (i.e. the anglo-saxons
                      > borrowing words from Norman French)
                      > I believe that Yiddish is just as much Germanic (if not much more) than
                      > English spoken by the descendants of the originally Norman French-speakers
                      > of England (which would nearly be the entire "native" population of [at
                      > least] southern england).

                      French speakers in the period were only about 10% of the population,
                      however it may be concentrated in that area.


                      > Besides, modern English syntax is much more like that of the modern Romance
                      > languages than that of other existing western Germanic languages.
                      > Btw, Yiddish is the most eastern of the western Germanic languages, so
                      > figuring it into the equation could prove a nice balance.

                      Are you claiming it to be a descendant of Gothic? Never mind I was
                      rereading it and saw what your were saying.
                      We are not giving separate voting rights to Swedish and Norwegian and
                      the other Norwegian and Danish.
                      We are treating them as a Norse grouping, thus we should probably put
                      Yiddish as an incorporate of German.

                      What is your motivation for making its own entity?

                      > And to answer another question, yes, Yiddish has a good bit of vocab from
                      > Slavic languages, as well as a good bit of vocab from the native-Hebrew
                      > roots of the language; but, for the most part, everything else is Germanic.

                      I have read contradict-ive stuff so I never know what to believe, I have
                      read that it was a Turkish language that adopted the character set and
                      then adopted Germanic words. Which is honestly unimportant, what is
                      important is it to your argument is the Germanic part Germanic enough to
                      include it, and is it important enough valuable enough to include, which
                      I would say value is determined by Volume of usage (English's saving
                      grace) or historically important (Icelandic is close to Old Norse)

                      How many people speak it as their main language?

                      I have read(just) it to be around 5 million? Which is more that I
                      thought.

                      --

                      The only reason I think English should be included is because there are
                      so many speakers of it.
                      But the idea is to only use the Germanic parts of it.

                      In short I think Ari's idea is the best in having separate groups so we
                      can limit the influence of non-core or non-critcal dialects.

                      But I will admit I would like to keep it the core groups as much as
                      possible, so we keep the variations limited.

                      In other words no Hong Kong English, no Scots, no Yiddish and possibly
                      no Afrikaans.

                      But, I would like to emphasize it is a democracy in fact I haven't added
                      one single word to the group, so honestly I am sure whatever will be the
                      best, but I have learned so much by reading all this traffic.




                      > Some more Yiddish from this newspaper:
                      > 'di yisrol-televizye (kanal 1) hot gevizn tsum ershtn mol teyln fun a
                      > video-tashme, vos es hobn filmirt zelner fun "yunifil", tsu morgns nokhdem
                      > vi yisrol-zelner zenen farkhapt gevorn durkh "khezbola" dem 8tn oktober
                      > fara|yorn.' (the | indicates that there is a syllable break here and that
                      > the vowels aren't diphthongised as it would indicate without |... Yiddish
                      > script shows this naturally as the representation for diphthongs are
                      > different from the representation of the individual vowels (much the way
                      > German's ei is pronounced /ai/ etc))
                      > Anyone with a good understanding of German should get at least a good bit of
                      > that. A native speaker of German would no doubt understand quite a bit more
                      > of that than I do without a dictionary.
                      > Numbers: eynts, tsvey, dray, fir, fin(e)f, zeks, zibn (pronounced zibm),
                      > akht, nayn, tsen, elf, tsvelf, draytsn, fertsn, fiftsn, zekhtsn, akhtsn,
                      > nayntsn, tsvantsik, eyn un tsvantsik, etc... hundert, toyznd, milyon,
                      > milyard, etc
                      >
                      > ===
                      > Jonathan North Washington
                      > http://www.firespeaker.org/
                      >
                      > "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
                      > for thou art crunchy and taste good
                      > with ketchup."
                      > ...
                      >
                      >
                      > 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/
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                      --
                      Will Beazley
                      Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
                      FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
                      FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
                    • Jonathan North Washington
                      «« Saying Yiddish is a Germanic Language is like saying Norman French is Germanic, borrowed words regardless of what people think does not make you an off
                      Message 10 of 23 , Dec 4, 2001
                        ««
                        Saying Yiddish is a Germanic Language is like saying Norman French is
                        Germanic, borrowed words regardless of what people think does not make
                        you an off shoot of a proto language.
                        »»

                        So you believe that the speakers of Old Norman French (the kind spoken in
                        England for a few hundred years after 1066) "borrowed" words from the
                        surrounding Anglo-Saxon base when they began to adopt English-of-the-time as
                        a native language? Or the other way around? (i.e. the anglo-saxons
                        borrowing words from Norman French)
                        I believe that Yiddish is just as much Germanic (if not much more) than
                        English spoken by the descendants of the originally Norman French-speakers
                        of England (which would nearly be the entire "native" population of [at
                        least] southern england).
                        Besides, modern English syntax is much more like that of the modern Romance
                        languages than that of other existing western Germanic languages.
                        Btw, Yiddish is the most eastern of the western Germanic languages, so
                        figuring it into the equation could prove a nice balance.
                        And to answer another question, yes, Yiddish has a good bit of vocab from
                        Slavic languages, as well as a good bit of vocab from the native-Hebrew
                        roots of the language; but, for the most part, everything else is Germanic.
                        Some more Yiddish from this newspaper:
                        'di yisrol-televizye (kanal 1) hot gevizn tsum ershtn mol teyln fun a
                        video-tashme, vos es hobn filmirt zelner fun "yunifil", tsu morgns nokhdem
                        vi yisrol-zelner zenen farkhapt gevorn durkh "khezbola" dem 8tn oktober
                        fara|yorn.' (the | indicates that there is a syllable break here and that
                        the vowels aren't diphthongised as it would indicate without |... Yiddish
                        script shows this naturally as the representation for diphthongs are
                        different from the representation of the individual vowels (much the way
                        German's ei is pronounced /ai/ etc))
                        Anyone with a good understanding of German should get at least a good bit of
                        that. A native speaker of German would no doubt understand quite a bit more
                        of that than I do without a dictionary.
                        Numbers: eynts, tsvey, dray, fir, fin(e)f, zeks, zibn (pronounced zibm),
                        akht, nayn, tsen, elf, tsvelf, draytsn, fertsn, fiftsn, zekhtsn, akhtsn,
                        nayntsn, tsvantsik, eyn un tsvantsik, etc... hundert, toyznd, milyon,
                        milyard, etc

                        ===
                        Jonathan North Washington
                        http://www.firespeaker.org/

                        "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons
                        for thou art crunchy and taste good
                        with ketchup."
                        ...
                      • The Keenans
                        Hi Friends. I would like to point out what I always point out when we start discussing this. ie. Should we allow this language as a source language because
                        Message 11 of 23 , Dec 5, 2001
                          Hi Friends.

                          I would like to point out what I always point out when we start
                          discussing this.
                          ie. "Should we allow this language as a source language because you know
                          there is non germanic stuff in it"

                          It is true we don't want much non germanic stuff in our Folkspraak. But
                          remember, since the tecnique for creating fs words is to select for
                          'commonality' what will appear most commonly will be what is germanic.
                          Yiddish might very well offer a Turkish word to Folkspraak however the
                          other source languages probably will not. A turkish offering would never
                          make it past the selection process. This is also true of many of the
                          English offerings. Its French and Latin offerings get out voted.

                          Not a problem :)

                          -Duke
                        • anorak222
                          ... Why not, Scots is a Germanic language (or a dialect of one, depending on your politica leanings). ... I thing Folkspraak should attempt to be intelligible
                          Message 12 of 23 , Dec 11, 2001
                            --- In folkspraak@y..., William G Beazley <beazley@e...> wrote:
                            > With that in mind should we start using Scots as well?

                            Why not, Scots is a Germanic language (or a dialect of one,
                            depending on your politica leanings).

                            > I personally think we should only use the major ones + Icelandic
                            > (because of of historical signifigance).

                            I thing Folkspraak should attempt to be intelligible by
                            speakers of any Germanic language, including the "extremes",
                            because that's the point of making it.

                            > If we include Yiddish because it has borrowed and incorporated
                            > Germanic words

                            Yiddish hasn't _borrowed_ Germanic words. That would mean
                            that its root lies in some other language family, and at
                            some later stage it adopted a couple of words from Germanic
                            on top of its root. But that is not the case.

                            The root of Yiddish is German. It's a daughter language
                            of German like (say) Afrikaans is of Dutch. This is why
                            we call Yiddish and Afrikaans Germanic languages.
                            Its core vocabulary and grammar are nearly identical
                            to German. As a German speaker I can understand it like
                            that. Yiddish has _borrowed_ many words from Hebrew,
                            Polish, Russian and others, i.e. one unrelated and a
                            couple of distant relatives. Those words form a secondary
                            layer on top of the Germanic core.

                            >like scots

                            Same error: Scots IS Germanic. Its root is Anglo-Saxon.

                            >or if you want to treat it like a Germanic dialect
                            >then shouldn't we use Bavarian its own language?

                            Don't understand this sentence.

                            > Saying Yiddish is a Germanic Language is like saying Norman French
                            > is Germanic,

                            No. Norman French is a form of French, i.e. ultimatelyl rooted in
                            Latin, thus Romance.

                            Yiddish is a daughter language of German, i.e. ultimately rooted
                            in Proto Germanic, thus Germanic.


                            >borrowed words regardless of what people think does not
                            make
                            > you an off shoot of a proto language.

                            Indeed! But Yiddish didn't _borrow_, it is part of the
                            family tree. Pure, blue-eyed and blond Germanic. :-))

                            Regards
                          • William G Beazley
                            Anorak222 it seems that your angle is just one refutation. (why is the bible true, because it says so) Obviously I am taking the angle that it is not a
                            Message 13 of 23 , Dec 11, 2001
                              Anorak222 it seems that your angle is just one refutation. (why is the
                              bible true, because it says so) Obviously I am taking the angle that it
                              is not a Germanic language.
                              As I have said I have read that its base is not Germanic so arguing
                              against my questions by merely saying it is one, doesn't help me to
                              obtain a better perspective on the origins of these languages.

                              I think you might be confusing different questions.

                              The question of using Scots was to illustrate the noeed for finding
                              roots or Main Veins of the language.
                              Arguably Scots is just a muttling of The Gaelic and Ænglish, and should
                              not be including in the process.

                              > >or if you want to treat it like a Germanic dialect
                              > >then shouldn't we use Bavarian its own language?
                              >
                              > Don't understand this sentence.

                              or if you want to treat it like a Germanic dialect then shouldn't we use
                              Bavarian <as> its own language?

                              The question here is are we to treat dialects as Languages or shouldn't
                              we just focus on roots.

                              I will say again: In my humble opinion I think it would save us a lot
                              time if we just continued to focus on the main branches.

                              Now that I think about it I don;t remember saying it like that but hey!


                              anorak222 wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In folkspraak@y..., William G Beazley <beazley@e...> wrote:
                              > > With that in mind should we start using Scots as well?
                              >
                              > Why not, Scots is a Germanic language (or a dialect of one,
                              > depending on your politica leanings).
                              >
                              > > I personally think we should only use the major ones + Icelandic
                              > > (because of of historical signifigance).
                              >
                              > I thing Folkspraak should attempt to be intelligible by
                              > speakers of any Germanic language, including the "extremes",
                              > because that's the point of making it.
                              >
                              > > If we include Yiddish because it has borrowed and incorporated
                              > > Germanic words
                              >
                              > Yiddish hasn't _borrowed_ Germanic words. That would mean
                              > that its root lies in some other language family, and at
                              > some later stage it adopted a couple of words from Germanic
                              > on top of its root. But that is not the case.
                              >
                              > The root of Yiddish is German. It's a daughter language
                              > of German like (say) Afrikaans is of Dutch. This is why
                              > we call Yiddish and Afrikaans Germanic languages.
                              > Its core vocabulary and grammar are nearly identical
                              > to German. As a German speaker I can understand it like
                              > that. Yiddish has _borrowed_ many words from Hebrew,
                              > Polish, Russian and others, i.e. one unrelated and a
                              > couple of distant relatives. Those words form a secondary
                              > layer on top of the Germanic core.
                              >
                              > >like scots
                              >
                              > Same error: Scots IS Germanic. Its root is Anglo-Saxon.
                              >
                              > >or if you want to treat it like a Germanic dialect
                              > >then shouldn't we use Bavarian its own language?
                              >
                              > Don't understand this sentence.
                              >
                              > > Saying Yiddish is a Germanic Language is like saying Norman French
                              > > is Germanic,
                              >
                              > No. Norman French is a form of French, i.e. ultimatelyl rooted in
                              > Latin, thus Romance.
                              >
                              > Yiddish is a daughter language of German, i.e. ultimately rooted
                              > in Proto Germanic, thus Germanic.
                              >
                              > >borrowed words regardless of what people think does not
                              > make
                              > > you an off shoot of a proto language.
                              >
                              > Indeed! But Yiddish didn't _borrow_, it is part of the
                              > family tree. Pure, blue-eyed and blond Germanic. :-))
                              >
                              > Regards
                              >
                              >
                              > 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/
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                              --
                              Will Beazley
                              Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
                              FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
                              FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
                            • anorak222
                              ... the ... Well I sure hope my argument was better than that :) I thought I gave logical reasons, maybe I should summarise them once more for clarificatioin:
                              Message 14 of 23 , Dec 11, 2001
                                --- In folkspraak@y..., William G Beazley <beazley@e...> wrote:
                                > Anorak222 it seems that your angle is just one refutation. (why is
                                the
                                > bible true, because it says so)

                                Well I sure hope my argument was better than that :)
                                I thought I gave logical reasons, maybe I should summarise
                                them once more for clarificatioin:

                                Yiddish is Germanic because:

                                1. Its grammatical features and core vocabulary are Germanic.
                                2. Its historical origin is known to root in a Germanic language.

                                These are the main two critera for classifying languages.
                                Origin and structure.

                                For reference that its historical origin actually _is_ known,
                                any linguistic textbook should do. I have a couple lying
                                around, and they all agree on that one. Yiddish is the
                                product of native German speakers migrating east, and some
                                centuries of additional changes.

                                For reference that its modern structure actually is akin
                                to German ... well just read it. Yiddish is like an open
                                book for any German speaker. That wouldn't work with a
                                foreign language which has imported some loan words.
                                It only works if the grammar is the same, and if the
                                basic words (like pronouncs, auxiliary verbs, prepositions,
                                numbers etc.) and much of the core vocabulary are the same.

                                > As I have said I have read that its base is not Germanic so arguing
                                > against my questions by merely saying it is one, doesn't help me to
                                > obtain a better perspective on the origins of these languages.

                                Maybe it would help to tell us where you read that. Was it a
                                scientific/linguistic source? What argument did it present
                                for its claim?

                                I care about this question because if linguistic fundamentals
                                are not clear, then it'll be impossible to construct a new language.
                                You need to know what languages belong to the family you want
                                to model, and how they relate to each other, in order to construct
                                their "meta language".

                                > I think you might be confusing different questions.
                                >
                                > The question of using Scots was to illustrate the noeed for finding
                                > roots or Main Veins of the language.
                                > Arguably Scots is just a muttling of The Gaelic and Ænglish, and
                                should
                                > not be including in the process.

                                I should think that Scots is a variety of English (can't produce
                                that character here :)). There's hardly any Gaelic involved, and
                                the little there is is loan words (which, by your own argument,
                                do not change the classification of a language).

                                > or if you want to treat it like a Germanic dialect then shouldn't we
                                use
                                > Bavarian <as> its own language?

                                Well this is a different question, namely: What's a language proper,
                                and what's a dialect (of a different language). This question is
                                unrelated to classification into language families. I don't really
                                think it's very important, do you?

                                > The question here is are we to treat dialects as Languages or
                                shouldn't
                                > we just focus on roots.

                                Well yeah, on main groups of course. As long as we agree that
                                Yiddish is in the West Germanic group I'm happy :). But let me
                                also say, since
                                it's an unusual member of this group, it's an interesting test
                                case, so maybe deserves some special attention - not in constructing
                                folkspraak, but in testing Folkspraak against Yiddish for
                                intelligibility. This should be done with all "extremes", IMHO.

                                Good night from Berlin, where it's cold and rainy :-I
                              • William G Beazley
                                ... Well, to rehash, only because I said this in other emails with Washington which was in the group, I read many years ago in school a book the Thirteenth
                                Message 15 of 23 , Dec 11, 2001
                                  anorak222 wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In folkspraak@y..., William G Beazley <beazley@e...> wrote:
                                  > > Anorak222 it seems that your angle is just one refutation. (why is
                                  > the
                                  > > bible true, because it says so)
                                  >
                                  > Well I sure hope my argument was better than that :)
                                  > I thought I gave logical reasons, maybe I should summarise
                                  > them once more for clarificatioin:
                                  >
                                  > Yiddish is Germanic because:
                                  >
                                  > 1. Its grammatical features and core vocabulary are Germanic.
                                  > 2. Its historical origin is known to root in a Germanic language.
                                  >
                                  > These are the main two critera for classifying languages.
                                  > Origin and structure.
                                  >
                                  > For reference that its historical origin actually _is_ known,
                                  > any linguistic textbook should do. I have a couple lying
                                  > around, and they all agree on that one. Yiddish is the
                                  > product of native German speakers migrating east, and some
                                  > centuries of additional changes.
                                  >
                                  > For reference that its modern structure actually is akin
                                  > to German ... well just read it. Yiddish is like an open
                                  > book for any German speaker. That wouldn't work with a
                                  > foreign language which has imported some loan words.
                                  > It only works if the grammar is the same, and if the
                                  > basic words (like pronouncs, auxiliary verbs, prepositions,
                                  > numbers etc.) and much of the core vocabulary are the same.
                                  >
                                  > > As I have said I have read that its base is not Germanic so arguing
                                  > > against my questions by merely saying it is one, doesn't help me to
                                  > > obtain a better perspective on the origins of these languages.
                                  >
                                  > Maybe it would help to tell us where you read that. Was it a
                                  > scientific/linguistic source? What argument did it present
                                  > for its claim?

                                  Well, to rehash, only because I said this in other emails with
                                  Washington which was in the group,
                                  I read many years ago in school a book "the Thirteenth Tribe" not the
                                  "thirteenth warrior" (I did read eaters of the dead too same book) that
                                  claimed a Turkish origin for Yiddish.
                                  But, again every other thing I have read which more just on the topic of
                                  Germanic languages which almost all have included Yiddish. So If anybody
                                  has read this and is educated on the topic I would love to hear.

                                  As far as I could tell it was appropriate, disclaimer: I am a history
                                  buff not an expert which means I have to take a lot of what so called
                                  experts say as fact.

                                  But, with these questions in mind I think its best if we just consider
                                  it a West Germanic language.
                                  So in either case the origin of the potential words in question are west
                                  Germanic only the root of the language is whats questionable.
                                  Then that leads me to question its inclusion only on those grounds.

                                  However, I just don't know but I am ready to learn, so I am ready to
                                  hear what others have to say.

                                  But, doesn't anyone remember the discussions on what languages to
                                  include on what criteria?

                                  Good night from Texas Where it is late, cold and Rainy.

                                  >
                                  > I care about this question because if linguistic fundamentals
                                  > are not clear, then it'll be impossible to construct a new language.
                                  > You need to know what languages belong to the family you want
                                  > to model, and how they relate to each other, in order to construct
                                  > their "meta language".
                                  >
                                  > > I think you might be confusing different questions.
                                  > >
                                  > > The question of using Scots was to illustrate the noeed for finding
                                  > > roots or Main Veins of the language.
                                  > > Arguably Scots is just a muttling of The Gaelic and Ænglish, and
                                  > should
                                  > > not be including in the process.
                                  >
                                  > I should think that Scots is a variety of English (can't produce
                                  > that character here :)). There's hardly any Gaelic involved, and
                                  > the little there is is loan words (which, by your own argument,
                                  > do not change the classification of a language).
                                  >
                                  > > or if you want to treat it like a Germanic dialect then shouldn't we
                                  > use
                                  > > Bavarian <as> its own language?
                                  >
                                  > Well this is a different question, namely: What's a language proper,
                                  > and what's a dialect (of a different language). This question is
                                  > unrelated to classification into language families. I don't really
                                  > think it's very important, do you?
                                  >
                                  > > The question here is are we to treat dialects as Languages or
                                  > shouldn't
                                  > > we just focus on roots.
                                  >
                                  > Well yeah, on main groups of course. As long as we agree that
                                  > Yiddish is in the West Germanic group I'm happy :). But let me
                                  > also say, since
                                  > it's an unusual member of this group, it's an interesting test
                                  > case, so maybe deserves some special attention - not in constructing
                                  > folkspraak, but in testing Folkspraak against Yiddish for
                                  > intelligibility. This should be done with all "extremes", IMHO.
                                  >
                                  > Good night from Berlin, where it's cold and rainy :-I
                                  >
                                  > 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/
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                                  --
                                  Will Beazley
                                  Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
                                  FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
                                  FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
                                • The Keenans
                                  ... I have been here pretty much from the start. No noone could agree on what the source languages would be. Almost everyone is using German, English, Dutch,
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Dec 12, 2001
                                    William G Beazley wrote:
                                    >
                                    > anorak222 wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In folkspraak@y..., William G Beazley <beazley@e...> wrote:
                                    > > > Anorak222 it seems that your angle is just one refutation. (why is
                                    > > the
                                    > > > bible true, because it says so)
                                    > >
                                    > > Well I sure hope my argument was better than that :)
                                    > > I thought I gave logical reasons, maybe I should summarise
                                    > > them once more for clarificatioin:
                                    > >
                                    > > Yiddish is Germanic because:
                                    > >
                                    > > 1. Its grammatical features and core vocabulary are Germanic.
                                    > > 2. Its historical origin is known to root in a Germanic language.
                                    > >
                                    > > These are the main two critera for classifying languages.
                                    > > Origin and structure.
                                    > >
                                    > > For reference that its historical origin actually _is_ known,
                                    > > any linguistic textbook should do. I have a couple lying
                                    > > around, and they all agree on that one. Yiddish is the
                                    > > product of native German speakers migrating east, and some
                                    > > centuries of additional changes.
                                    > >
                                    > > For reference that its modern structure actually is akin
                                    > > to German ... well just read it. Yiddish is like an open
                                    > > book for any German speaker. That wouldn't work with a
                                    > > foreign language which has imported some loan words.
                                    > > It only works if the grammar is the same, and if the
                                    > > basic words (like pronouncs, auxiliary verbs, prepositions,
                                    > > numbers etc.) and much of the core vocabulary are the same.
                                    > >
                                    > > > As I have said I have read that its base is not Germanic so
                                    > arguing
                                    > > > against my questions by merely saying it is one, doesn't help me
                                    > to
                                    > > > obtain a better perspective on the origins of these languages.
                                    > >
                                    > > Maybe it would help to tell us where you read that. Was it a
                                    > > scientific/linguistic source? What argument did it present
                                    > > for its claim?
                                    >
                                    > Well, to rehash, only because I said this in other emails with
                                    > Washington which was in the group,
                                    > I read many years ago in school a book "the Thirteenth Tribe" not the
                                    > "thirteenth warrior" (I did read eaters of the dead too same book)
                                    > that
                                    > claimed a Turkish origin for Yiddish.
                                    > But, again every other thing I have read which more just on the topic
                                    > of
                                    > Germanic languages which almost all have included Yiddish. So If
                                    > anybody
                                    > has read this and is educated on the topic I would love to hear.
                                    >
                                    > As far as I could tell it was appropriate, disclaimer: I am a history
                                    > buff not an expert which means I have to take a lot of what so called
                                    > experts say as fact.
                                    >
                                    > But, with these questions in mind I think its best if we just consider
                                    > it a West Germanic language.
                                    > So in either case the origin of the potential words in question are
                                    > west
                                    > Germanic only the root of the language is whats questionable.
                                    > Then that leads me to question its inclusion only on those grounds.
                                    >
                                    > However, I just don't know but I am ready to learn, so I am ready to
                                    > hear what others have to say.
                                    >
                                    > But, doesn't anyone remember the discussions on what languages to
                                    > include on what criteria?
                                    >

                                    I have been here pretty much from the start. No noone could agree on
                                    what the source languages would be. Almost everyone is using German,
                                    English, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. Some of us add other
                                    languages to that list. Some of us count the scandinavians as one,
                                    others find that highly annoying.

                                    This whole thing was one of the arguments that almost made us crash and
                                    burn. :(

                                    It *has not stopped us* from making a good start anyways. Take heart
                                    folks! The anarchistic approach works.

                                    If you start with three germanic source-words or eighteen germanic
                                    source-words the folkspraak word that comes thereof will be germanic in
                                    any case. :)

                                    If you don't like a folkspraak word then re-make it, and then *use* it.
                                    Nobody has to have *permission* to do anything. Likewise if you see
                                    something that needs to be done do it.

                                    We have come along way from the original folkspraak using this approach.
                                    We can do it!

                                    -Duke (Putting down his pom-poms until the next time)
                                  • William G Beazley
                                    Yes, honestly if it weren t for the education portion I got from ever asking the question (about Yiddish), I would completely wish I had never asked the
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Dec 13, 2001
                                      Yes, honestly if it weren't for the education portion I got from ever
                                      asking the question (about Yiddish), I would completely wish I had never
                                      asked the question because it has become to distracting.

                                      But, some of these discussions remind of why I still read all these
                                      emails, because this is cool.

                                      From all of this I have gone to read a lot, ok some.. Old Ænglish
                                      Stuff. Learned about the IPA characters.

                                      Learned about the History of York and how many Viking words crept their
                                      way into English.

                                      How many Dutch words are in English, how the Miriam Webster Dictionary
                                      is mostly junk when it comes to etymology.

                                      Learned that people might be kidding themselves on the origins of such
                                      words as Island. By some it understood that the word island comes from
                                      the Old Ænglish word igland respelled to match the non english word
                                      isle. But it could just as likely come from Island which is Iceland.
                                      In fact Island is mentioned in the Canterbury tales (or so I have read).

                                      That the Ængles are/were the followers of Ing, Friesians were the
                                      Followers of Frey and so on, I am not clear however did they name
                                      themselves this way or did the Romans name them, Angles were not named
                                      because their fair haired children looked like Angles thetas mythology.
                                      Its kinda like: "the Indian word for corn is maize". no thats the
                                      Spanish word for corn.

                                      I have learned a lot about the appearance of letters from the English
                                      character set.

                                      ð, þ, Æ, "long or leading s" the Wynn and the Yogh, there may be still
                                      more yet.

                                      http://www.evertype.com/standards/wynnyogh/thorn.html this is an
                                      alright page describing the commonality, but I had at one time found a
                                      much better describing essentially how the scripts mentioned here all
                                      have the same origin.

                                      The Germanic peoples stem from the Celts.

                                      How the Svear(Swedes) and the Gots (Gotland, Gothia, Gutar, Goths,
                                      Geats, Sothern Sweden) were enemies, this is actually mentioned in
                                      Beowulf.

                                      I have even read some Bill Bryson stuff which is a hoot!

                                      Summary, I think this is a lot of fun.



                                      > I have been here pretty much from the start. No noone could agree on
                                      > what the source languages would be. Almost everyone is using German,
                                      > English, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. Some of us add other
                                      > languages to that list. Some of us count the scandinavians as one,
                                      > others find that highly annoying.
                                      >
                                      > This whole thing was one of the arguments that almost made us crash and
                                      > burn. :(
                                      >
                                      > It *has not stopped us* from making a good start anyways. Take heart
                                      > folks! The anarchistic approach works.
                                      >
                                      > If you start with three germanic source-words or eighteen germanic
                                      > source-words the folkspraak word that comes thereof will be germanic in
                                      > any case. :)
                                      >
                                      > If you don't like a folkspraak word then re-make it, and then *use* it.
                                      > Nobody has to have *permission* to do anything. Likewise if you see
                                      > something that needs to be done do it.
                                      >
                                      > We have come along way from the original folkspraak using this approach.
                                      > We can do it!
                                      >
                                      > -Duke (Putting down his pom-poms until the next time)
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > 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/
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                                      --
                                      Will Beazley
                                      Systems Administrator Equator Technologies
                                      FON: 512.502.2003 |EML: mailto:beazley@...
                                      FAX: 512.231.8108 |PAG: 888.213.7053
                                    • abrigon
                                      Well, a major cause of the change from Middle to Modern, was not natural, but deliberate manipulation by those who created the first dictionaries. Namely
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Jan 18, 2002
                                        Well, a major cause of the change from Middle to Modern, was not
                                        natural, but deliberate manipulation by those who created the first
                                        dictionaries. Namely persons who spoke a number of French and Latin,
                                        and could not face that English was replacing their sacred French and
                                        Latin, so they went about "beautifying" English, by adding new worlds
                                        that often already had an English word, but it fit the French/Latin
                                        ideal. They did much the same as what they did with High German. But
                                        not as extensive..

                                        Mike
                                      • abrigon
                                        Norman French: French is basically the left over lingo of Gualish persons who were forced thru various means to accept Latin, then over time other influnces
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Jan 18, 2002
                                          Norman French:

                                          French is basically the left over lingo of Gualish persons who were
                                          forced thru various means to accept Latin, then over time other
                                          influnces came in. And then when the Franks came, they took over as
                                          the upper class, but quickly lost out to the natives lingo, but some
                                          things did come thru, some Germanic elements came thru, but very
                                          little. Then the Normans came, adopted the local French which likely
                                          had some Celtic elements (Britanny and all), as well as some German
                                          elements already (Saxon shores is to the NE of Normandy after all).
                                          They like any nation that adopts another lingo, they keep some forms
                                          of speech, but the major part of their lingo becomes the other, in
                                          this case French. Later they went to England and took over. Over time
                                          their lingo changed to more Germanic forms. But it also went the other
                                          way as well.. After all, the lingo of the rulers is often good to
                                          know, it can get you good jobs and like.. Also change to bed down with
                                          the lord or like, and get your position in life, up. Much the same as
                                          previous Frank and like contact.

                                          Mike
                                        • abrigon
                                          One nice thing about non-Germanic lingos that have had some influences on a Germanic lingo. You can look at one, and then another, and then another and you can
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Jan 18, 2002
                                            One nice thing about non-Germanic lingos that have had some influences
                                            on a Germanic lingo. You can look at one, and then another, and then
                                            another and you can see what words were adopted by the Germanic
                                            lingos, or the reverse..

                                            Sort of like comparing Gothic, Low German, English, and Norwegian, you
                                            can see what words have been adopted from outside, or atleast have
                                            mutated in each. But you can also look at the lingos near by and see
                                            where the Germanic lingo went, traveled, and who had contact with
                                            them. As well as see where a word did come from.

                                            Mike
                                          • abrigon
                                            From what I understand, genetically the Scots are almost identical to the English. Other than maybe those of the Isles. Which is interesting due to the major
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Jan 18, 2002
                                              From what I understand, genetically the Scots are almost identical to
                                              the English. Other than maybe those of the Isles. Which is interesting
                                              due to the major influences of the Norse on the Isles and the
                                              mainland.

                                              Orkney/Shetland/Faroe Islands seem to have some definite Germanic
                                              influences. To have spoken a Norse or like lingo until recent times,
                                              or still..

                                              Mike
                                            • abrigon
                                              Well, one of the possible ideas of the Turkish, is that many Ladino Jews moved to the Ottoman Empire after being forced out by the most christian monarchs
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Jan 19, 2002
                                                Well, one of the possible ideas of the Turkish, is that many Ladino
                                                Jews moved to the Ottoman Empire after being forced out by the "most
                                                christian monarchs" Isabell and Ferdinand (where do you think they got
                                                the collateral for the Columbus Voyages, even hear claims that many/a
                                                few of Columbuses crew was recently converted Muslims and Jews).

                                                True, the Khazar accepted Judiasm sometime around 1400 (not sure on
                                                dates). And yes, this could explain the genetic lineage of many Jews
                                                is Europe, especially when they don't seem to be much like the local
                                                Jews of Palestine, but without hard evidence, not sure. It would be
                                                interesting to get access to much of the genetic data that Israel may
                                                have..

                                                Shoot, for all we know Yaser Arafat had a great grandparent who was
                                                Jewish.

                                                Basically without evidence like genetics and like, language evidence
                                                is not that concrete.

                                                Mike
                                              • abrigon
                                                Much of the info/comments on the supposed origin of the Germanic lingos from Celtic forms, was due to a mixing of some Germanic and Celtic tribal groups.. Some
                                                Message 23 of 23 , Jan 19, 2002
                                                  Much of the info/comments on the supposed origin of the Germanic
                                                  lingos from Celtic forms, was due to a mixing of some Germanic and
                                                  Celtic tribal groups.. Some tribes named in history were never clearly
                                                  defined as either group..

                                                  Celtic is often closer in form of Latin than any others. And then
                                                  Greek. but alot of this "closeness" maybe due to a long time
                                                  association of the Celtic lingos known, with local Latin and Greek and
                                                  related lingos.

                                                  Mike
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.