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

Folksprâk <-> Folksprak <-> Folkspreken

Expand Messages
  • stefichjo
    Hello group, I was thinking about our possibilities to make Folksprak as easy as possible. Since sprek seems to be our root for to speak , I wonder how one
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello group,

      I was thinking about our possibilities to make Folksprak as easy as
      possible. Since "sprek" seems to be our root for "to speak", I wonder
      how one can explain how "sprek" turns to "sprak" in Folksprak. It's
      not easy, unless you introduce strong verbs and their ablauting.
      Therefore I'm thinking about suffixes that may express the same thing.

      I have collected some suffixes and I'm trying to use them usefully.

      sprek-ing = a speech act = a speech
      sprek-nis = the result of a speech act
      sprek-en = shared speech act / people's speaking

      This form of "Easy Folksprak" could be called "Folkspreken" then. And
      I think of three levels of Folksprak:

      1. Folksprâk = Meta-Folksprak
      Folksprak dealing dental fricatives (th, dh), labial aproximants
      (hv), velar fricatives (h - as in "naht"), diacritic signs in order
      to mark ablauting of strong verbs, umlauting; productive application
      of the suffix ge-.

      2. Folksprak
      Folksprak simplifying phonemes (th -> t a.s.o.). No diacritic signs
      used.

      3. Folkspreken = Easy Folksprak / Basic Folksprak / Folksprak 1000 /
      Folksprak sine flexione
      No ablauting, no umlauting, no productive suffix ge-. No Schwa's (as
      in the Lord's prayer: "skuldeneren" turns to "skuldnern").

      I'd still use ge- (but without Schwa) in order to Form "glik", "ik
      glov" and "ik glöv" in Folkpreken.


      What do you guys think? Is something like that your scope, too?

      Regards,
      Stephan Schneider
    • Roly Sookias
      1. Isn t the root /spr{:k/? Thus /spra:k/ would be expected. 2. I don t really understand your proposed use of the suffix. What s the equivalent in the
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        1. Isn't the root /spr{:k/? Thus /spra:k/ would be expected.
        2. I don't really understand your proposed use of the <-en> suffix. What's
        the equivalent in the real languages, or is it a new construct?
        3. I think two versions of FS is enough really - one complicated, one
        simple!
        4. What's wrong with schwas? ...wouldn't the <-en> and <-ern> endings be
        said /@n/ and /@rn/ anyway?

        -----Original Message-----
        From: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com [mailto:folkspraak@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of stefichjo
        Sent: 02 February 2006 14:52
        To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [folkspraak] Folksprâk <-> Folksprak <-> Folkspreken

        Hello group,

        I was thinking about our possibilities to make Folksprak as easy as
        possible. Since "sprek" seems to be our root for "to speak", I wonder
        how one can explain how "sprek" turns to "sprak" in Folksprak. It's
        not easy, unless you introduce strong verbs and their ablauting.
        Therefore I'm thinking about suffixes that may express the same thing.

        I have collected some suffixes and I'm trying to use them usefully.

        sprek-ing = a speech act = a speech
        sprek-nis = the result of a speech act
        sprek-en = shared speech act / people's speaking

        This form of "Easy Folksprak" could be called "Folkspreken" then. And
        I think of three levels of Folksprak:

        1. Folksprâk = Meta-Folksprak
        Folksprak dealing dental fricatives (th, dh), labial aproximants
        (hv), velar fricatives (h - as in "naht"), diacritic signs in order
        to mark ablauting of strong verbs, umlauting; productive application
        of the suffix ge-.

        2. Folksprak
        Folksprak simplifying phonemes (th -> t a.s.o.). No diacritic signs
        used.

        3. Folkspreken = Easy Folksprak / Basic Folksprak / Folksprak 1000 /
        Folksprak sine flexione
        No ablauting, no umlauting, no productive suffix ge-. No Schwa's (as
        in the Lord's prayer: "skuldeneren" turns to "skuldnern").

        I'd still use ge- (but without Schwa) in order to Form "glik", "ik
        glov" and "ik glöv" in Folkpreken.


        What do you guys think? Is something like that your scope, too?

        Regards,
        Stephan Schneider





        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/

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.