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

Re: Folksprâk <-> Folksprak <-> Folkspreken

Expand Messages
  • stefichjo
    Hi Roly, 1. What do you mean the root is /spr{:k/? The verb goes sprek sprak sproken , in the complicated FS, I pick out the present tense stem for the simple
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 2, 2006
      Hi Roly,

      1. What do you mean the root is /spr{:k/?
      The verb goes "sprek sprak sproken", in the complicated FS, I pick
      out the present tense stem for the simple FS -> sprek.

      OK, here comes the long version:
      In German we use the prefix ge- very much, e. g. in order to express
      the collective of many objects (like in "Berge" - "Gebirge"). We also
      use it in order to substantivate (is that a word? - "make it a noun"
      I mean) verbs, where a co-notation is implied like "many people do to
      each other" (like in "Gespräch" - conversation). I thought of _not_
      using this for a simple FS, so I came up with the idea of using "-en"
      instead: "berg" - "bergen" (mountain - mountains), "sprek(e)" -
      "spreken" (to speak - the speaking among many people / language). It
      has an equivalent in German "das Sprechen" - the talking.

      I'm trying to make the simple version even more simple. The
      complicated one remains complicated, I just want to eliminate the
      diacritic signs from it. The prono would change probably, too, you're
      right. So in order to be coherent I should ask to transcribe "d-dash"
      as "dh" and so on.
      But the very step towards simplicity is that "Folkspreken".

      I exagerated. I just meant to eliminate most of them, not all. I just
      find a wording like "skuldeneren" excessive, and I prefer "skuldnern".

      And also this way:

      appelen > appeln
      broderen > brodern

      engelisk > englisk (without umlauting "anglisk", though)
      mennisk -> mennsk (without umlauting "mannsk", though)

      gelik > glik
      welik > welk

      Stephan Schneider

      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias" <xipirho@...> wrote:
      > 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.
      > the equivalent in the real languages, or is it a new construct?
      > 3. I think two versions of FS is enough really - one complicated,
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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.
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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.