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

BaseSpraak

Expand Messages
  • Stephan Schneider
    Hallo Roly, Nu, dett de FS-Wiki is weder activ, ik hav kannt les ov din BaseSpraak. Ik find et verig god, dett du fersok ad noter, wo de protogermanisk
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 25, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hallo Roly,
      Nu, dett de FS-Wiki is weder activ, ik hav kannt les ov din BaseSpraak. Ik find et verig god, dett du fersok ad noter, wo de protogermanisk diphtongs endwickel si to des modern germanisk fatings. Ik mot nug tink derov, aver til nu et skin to mi, dett et skelld wes enfaldiger ad skriv in en wordbok de fatings in de modern germanisk spraks and de protogermanisk fating... aver din ide is verig god.
      Grøts,
      Stephan Schneider

      Hi Roly,
      Now that the FS-Wiki is online again, I was able to read about your BaseSpraak. I find it very good, that you try to denote how the protogermanic diphtongs evolved to their modern germanic variants. I must still think about it, ut 'til nowit seems to me, that it would be simpler to write in a dictionary the variants of the modern germanic languages and the protogermanic variant... but your idea is very good.
      Greetings,
      Stephan Schneider

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Roly Sookias
      Ik iss gladd du find et gud - ik muss seg et iss nit follig baud nu, end iss just en bassish autleging av idés. Et iss ungelaik mid en wordbuk (gelaik dat du
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 25, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Ik iss gladd du find et gud - ik muss seg et iss nit follig baud nu, end iss
        just en bassish autleging av idés. Et iss ungelaik mid en wordbuk (gelaik
        dat du sprak up-an) for de idé iss man kann brauk et for en neutral
        skraiving.Ik hav taht um de idé av solk en skraiving-system mer nu, end ik
        skraivd main tahts up-an et up-an papír. Ik shall skraiv wat ik taht hir,
        aver in english for ik kann nit skraiv hastig in folksprak! :-)



        I'm glad you find it good - I must emphasise it is not yet fully complete,
        and is just a basic outline of an idea. It's different to a dictionary (like
        what you were talking about) because the idea is one can use it for a
        neutral orthography. I've thought about the idea of such a writing-system
        more now, and I wrote my thoughts down on paper. I'll write what I thought
        here, but in English as I can't write quickly in Folksprak! :-)



        My thoughts (they're not very ordered I'm afraid!):



        A better name for Base/MetaSpraak-type 'phonemes' would be PG phonemes which
        correspond regularly (i.e. in several cases - absolute minimum of two I
        suppose!) to modern languages and can thus regularly correspond to FS
        dialects. At this stage it doesn't matter what exact form (orthographic or
        phonetic) these regularly-corresponding phonemes (henceforth referred to as
        'regular phonemes') take, but what needs doing is for all FS words, suffixes
        and prefixes to be "mapped out" in such regular phonemes (which I'd advocate
        writing in a way as close to PG as possible), and for the grammar to be
        standardised. Once this is done it would mean that all differences between
        the dialects would be regular and thus they become simply different accents
        of the same language.



        A few irregular words COULD be listed for a particular dialect if a common
        form can't be agreed on (e.g. ig versus ik), but the more of these there
        are, the less FS is a true single language. Eventually, if FS is to be one
        language, all such words would have to be eliminated.



        A final standardisation (by polling I guess) of the phonemes and orthography
        would create a standard FS, but by then the 'dialects' should be just
        regularly-corresponding 'accents' of this, and could still be used if people
        really wanted to. The PG-based forms would remain as an "academic standard"
        as it were - not for practical use as an IAL, but still useful/interesting
        and more stable than the standard form, which might fluctuate due to
        polls.It may even turn out that the "PG-style" FS used to standardise
        grammar and vocabulary is the favorite choice for a "practical" FS, but
        we'll see.



        As a side issue, once FS is mapped out in regular phonemes, it could be
        turned into real-language based 'accents' with the differences still being
        entirely regular. Thus "breed", "brot", "brood", "brød" (NB these could be
        written using PG-based sound-symbol correspondances, thus giving them a
        common orthography/sound-symbol correspondance – thus “brîd, brôt, brôt,
        brôed” or something) in EN, DE, NL, and Scandy versions respectively, but
        not “bred” in the EN version as <ee> would be the regular correspondant
        phoneme to PG /au/. Also “ich”, “ich”, “ik”, “ik”, not “I”, “ich”, “ik”,
        “jag”, as each would have to correspond regularly to <ikj> or something in
        regular phonemes. If such exceptions WERE allowed it would be tricky to know
        where to stop, and the varients would cease to be accents and start heading
        towards being individual languages. Convergence of vocabularly meaning and
        usage and grammar between the Germanic languages would IMHO be great and
        could eventually make them basically mutually intelligible again (and a
        common orthography based on PG phonemes could be used for that too), but
        that’s really a slightly different project/approach – i.e. it ceases to be
        FS/one language!



        -----Original Message-----
        From: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com [mailto:folkspraak@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Stephan Schneider
        Sent: 25 February 2006 15:12
        To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [folkspraak] BaseSpraak



        Hallo Roly,

        Nu, dett de FS-Wiki is weder activ, ik hav kannt les ov din BaseSpraak. Ik
        find et verig god, dett du fersok ad noter, wo de protogermanisk diphtongs
        endwickel si to des modern germanisk fatings. Ik mot nug tink derov, aver
        til nu et skin to mi, dett et skelld wes enfaldiger ad skriv in en wordbok
        de fatings in de modern germanisk spraks and de protogermanisk fating...
        aver din ide is verig god.

        Grøts,

        Stephan Schneider



        Hi Roly,

        Now that the FS-Wiki is online again, I was able to read about your
        BaseSpraak. I find it very good, that you try to denote how the
        protogermanic diphtongs evolved to their modern germanic variants. I must
        still think about it, ut 'til nowit seems to me, that it would be simpler to
        write in a dictionary the variants of the modern germanic languages and the
        protogermanic variant... but your idea is very good.

        Greetings,

        Stephan Schneider



        [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/



        Yahoo! Groups Links



        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/folkspraak/



        folkspraak-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/











        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Parke
        ... In English the [i:] phoneme, spelt ee has to be the most confusing, over-used phoneme in the Germlangs. It compresses 4 seperate PG phoneme into one.
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 25, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          >
          >
          >As a side issue, once FS is mapped out in regular phonemes, it could be
          >turned into real-language based 'accents' with the differences still being
          >entirely regular. Thus "breed", "brot", "brood", "brød" (NB these could be
          >written using PG-based sound-symbol correspondances, thus giving them a
          >common orthography/sound-symbol correspondance – thus “brîd, brôt, brôt,
          >brôed” or something) in EN, DE, NL, and Scandy versions respectively, but
          >not “bred” in the EN version as <ee> would be the regular correspondant
          >phoneme to PG /au/. Also “ich”, “ich”, “ik”, “ik”, not “I”, “ich”, “ik”,
          >“jag”, as each would have to correspond regularly to <ikj> or something in
          >regular phonemes. If such exceptions WERE allowed it would be tricky to know
          >where to stop, and the varients would cease to be accents and start heading
          >towards being individual languages. Convergence of vocabularly meaning and
          >usage and grammar between the Germanic languages would IMHO be great and
          >could eventually make them basically mutually intelligible again (and a
          >common orthography based on PG phonemes could be used for that too), but
          >that’s really a slightly different project/approach – i.e. it ceases to be
          >FS/one language!
          >
          >
          >
          >
          In English the [i:] phoneme, spelt "ee" has to be the most confusing,
          over-used phoneme in the Germlangs. It compresses 4 seperate PG phoneme
          into one.


          I-mutated PG *ô
          feel, green, greet, keen, meet, seek, sweet, speed, breech,

          PG *eu
          freeze, creep, sneese, reek, seethe, steer, wheel, deep, deer

          PG *æ:
          cheese, sheep, deed, needle, seed, sheep, sleep, speech, steel, street, eel

          PG *au
          leek, need, reek, sheen



          Not to mention the same phonemes plus others that can become [i:] but
          are spelt as "ea"

          I-mutated PG *ai
          mean, heath, heal, clean, lead, reach, sea, sheath, each, weak

          PG *au
          beam, bean, dream, leave, heap, hear, cheap, leap, leaf, ear, east,
          seam, stream

          PG *eu
          dear, cleave, smear

          PG *æ:
          fear, year, meal, near, read
        • stefichjo
          ... phonemes which ... two I ... FS ... (orthographic or ... referred to as ... suffixes ... advocate ... to be ... between ... accents ... This has been my
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 27, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias" <xipirho@...> wrote:
            > A better name for Base/MetaSpraak-type 'phonemes' would be PG
            phonemes which
            > correspond regularly (i.e. in several cases - absolute minimum of
            two I
            > suppose!) to modern languages and can thus regularly correspond to
            FS
            > dialects. At this stage it doesn't matter what exact form
            (orthographic or
            > phonetic) these regularly-corresponding phonemes (henceforth
            referred to as
            > 'regular phonemes') take, but what needs doing is for all FS words,
            suffixes
            > and prefixes to be "mapped out" in such regular phonemes (which I'd
            advocate
            > writing in a way as close to PG as possible), and for the grammar
            to be
            > standardised. Once this is done it would mean that all differences
            between
            > the dialects would be regular and thus they become simply different
            accents
            > of the same language.

            This has been my approach for strong verbs, and I'm very glad it
            works so far. (The link to the Wikibook strong verbs changed:)

            http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak_-_Starke_Verben

            As a consequence, the orthography of other words that aren't strong
            verbs but are based on the same regular morpheme is modified as well -
            and I have to look over all examples again. :(

            For example, "east" I write "åst" in Folksprâk and "ost" in
            Folksprak, because PG *au appears in PG *stauta (DE stoßen) >> FS
            ståte. Another diacritic mark might be better, but I haven't found
            any so far.

            > A few irregular words COULD be listed for a particular dialect if a
            common
            > form can't be agreed on (e.g. ig versus ik), but the more of these
            there
            > are, the less FS is a true single language. Eventually, if FS is to
            be one
            > language, all such words would have to be eliminated.

            I'm trying to avoid changes to my pronoun system and my particle
            system. This means, e. g., I wouldn't like to
            force "fra", "fran", "fan", "for", "fur" to be absolutely PG based.
            Of course it would be interesting to have PG based pronouns and
            particles as well... but wouldn't FS be rather Proto Germanic
            ("Ursprak") in this case?

            > A final standardisation (by polling I guess) of the phonemes and
            orthography
            > would create a standard FS, but by then the 'dialects' should be
            just
            > regularly-corresponding 'accents' of this, and could still be used
            if people
            > really wanted to. The PG-based forms would remain as an "academic
            standard"
            > as it were - not for practical use as an IAL, but still
            useful/interesting
            > and more stable than the standard form, which might fluctuate due to
            > polls.It may even turn out that the "PG-style" FS used to
            standardise
            > grammar and vocabulary is the favorite choice for a "practical" FS,
            but
            > we'll see.

            Yeah, we will see.

            > As a side issue, once FS is mapped out in regular phonemes, it
            could be
            > turned into real-language based 'accents' with the differences
            still being
            > entirely regular. Thus "breed", "brot", "brood", "brød" (NB these
            could be
            > written using PG-based sound-symbol correspondances, thus giving
            them a
            > common orthography/sound-symbol correspondance – thus "brîd, brôt,
            brôt,
            > brôed" or something) in EN, DE, NL, and Scandy versions
            respectively, but
            > not "bred" in the EN version as <ee> would be the regular
            correspondant
            > phoneme to PG /au/.

            That was what I was looking for when I began to think about ...
            Folksprak. Vowels and consonants would need to receive diacritics,
            for example the FS word "skipp" (or "skip"?) would receive diacritic
            marks for "sk" and "p" in order to denote the German
            pronunciation "schiff".

            >Also "ich", "ich", "ik", "ik", not "I", "ich", "ik",
            > "jag", as each would have to correspond regularly to <ikj> or
            something in
            > regular phonemes. If such exceptions WERE allowed it would be
            tricky to know
            > where to stop, and the varients would cease to be accents and start
            heading
            > towards being individual languages. Convergence of vocabularly
            meaning and
            > usage and grammar between the Germanic languages would IMHO be
            great and
            > could eventually make them basically mutually intelligible again
            (and a
            > common orthography based on PG phonemes could be used for that
            too), but
            > that's really a slightly different project/approach – i.e. it
            ceases to be
            > FS/one language!

            I still like the idea of having regularities in the pronoun system
            (like in Esperanto) and the particle system. Yet.

            Regards,
            Stephan Schneider
          • Roly Sookias
            ... From: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com [mailto:folkspraak@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of stefichjo Sent: 27 February 2006 12:18 To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 27, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              -----Original Message-----
              From: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com [mailto:folkspraak@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of stefichjo
              Sent: 27 February 2006 12:18
              To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [folkspraak] Re: BaseSpraak



              This has been my approach for strong verbs, and I'm very glad it

              works so far. (The link to the Wikibook strong verbs changed:)



              http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak_-_Starke_Verben



              As a consequence, the orthography of other words that aren't strong

              verbs but are based on the same regular morpheme is modified as well -

              and I have to look over all examples again. :(



              For example, "east" I write "åst" in Folksprâk and "ost" in

              Folksprak, because PG *au appears in PG *stauta (DE stoßen) >> FS

              ståte. Another diacritic mark might be better, but I haven't found

              any so far.



              MY REPLY: Why not just write <au>?





              I'm trying to avoid changes to my pronoun system and my particle

              system. This means, e. g., I wouldn't like to

              force "fra", "fran", "fan", "for", "fur" to be absolutely PG based.

              Of course it would be interesting to have PG based pronouns and

              particles as well... but wouldn't FS be rather Proto Germanic

              ("Ursprak") in this case?



              MY REPLY: I was meaning map them out in terms of PG phonemes, not make them
              based on PG in terms of form. The short vowels would stay untouched …indeed
              “fra” probably would too. Why do you have “fra” AND “fran” AND “fan” may I
              ask?





              That was what I was looking for when I began to think about ...

              Folksprak. Vowels and consonants would need to receive diacritics,

              for example the FS word "skipp" (or "skip"?) would receive diacritic

              marks for "sk" and "p" in order to denote the German

              pronunciation "schiff".



              MY REPLY: I spose that’s slightly different again. To write “Schiff” with a
              protogermanic-based orthography I’d write something like “shjif”/”shjiff” or
              with an s-hacek or something as PG didn’t have /S/.



              >Also "ich", "ich", "ik", "ik", not "I", "ich", "ik",

              > "jag", as each would have to correspond regularly to <ikj> or

              something in

              > regular phonemes. If such exceptions WERE allowed it would be

              tricky to know

              > where to stop, and the varients would cease to be accents and start

              heading

              > towards being individual languages. Convergence of vocabularly

              meaning and

              > usage and grammar between the Germanic languages would IMHO be

              great and

              > could eventually make them basically mutually intelligible again

              (and a

              > common orthography based on PG phonemes could be used for that

              too), but

              > that's really a slightly different project/approach – i.e. it

              ceases to be

              > FS/one language!



              I still like the idea of having regularities in the pronoun system

              (like in Esperanto) and the particle system. Yet.



              MY REPLY: Yeah. Well I spose the degree of naturalism in grammar’s something
              to poll on. I think it’s important to have eventually a standard grammar
              though – much more important than orthographic conventions/pronunication.







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • stefichjo
              ... It s of course only a question of personal preference. I prefer having only one consonant-letter (exception: -ng-) and one vowel- letter. Diacritic
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 27, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias" <xipirho@...> wrote:
                > For example, "east" I write "åst" in Folksprâk and "ost" in
                >
                > Folksprak, because PG *au appears in PG *stauta (DE stoßen) >> FS
                >
                > ståte. Another diacritic mark might be better, but I haven't found
                >
                > any so far.
                >
                >
                >
                > MY REPLY: Why not just write <au>?

                It's of course only a question of personal preference. I prefer
                having only one consonant-letter (exception: -ng-) and one vowel-
                letter. Diacritic markings distinguishes where this phoneme comes
                from (for example if an -oe- comes from PG *o, PG *eu or if it's a
                grammatical umlauting).

                I'm writing down multi-letter transcriptions anyway. See:

                http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak_-
                _Referenzgrammatik#Vermeidung_von_Sonderzeichen



                > I'm trying to avoid changes to my pronoun system and my particle
                >
                > system. This means, e. g., I wouldn't like to
                >
                > force "fra", "fran", "fan", "for", "fur" to be absolutely PG based.
                >
                > Of course it would be interesting to have PG based pronouns and
                >
                > particles as well... but wouldn't FS be rather Proto Germanic
                >
                > ("Ursprak") in this case?
                >
                >
                >
                > MY REPLY: I was meaning map them out in terms of PG phonemes, not
                make them
                > based on PG in terms of form. The short vowels would stay untouched
                …indeed
                > "fra" probably would too. Why do you have "fra" AND "fran"
                AND "fan" may I
                > ask?

                Sorry, "to map something out" is a new wording for me. Is it "to plan
                the future or a plan in detail"? ... I don't know what you mwan "to
                map them out".

                "fra", "fran" and "fan" are prepositions. therefore they are sub-
                topic of particles, IMHO, and particles I have designed quite ...
                proprietarily, in order to improve my dialect. See:

                http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak_-
                _Nota_Bene#fr.C3.A2_vs._fr.C3.A2n_vs._f.C3.A2n

                So, "fra" describes origin:
                Det is en bok fra Frankrik. (It was made in France.)

                "fran" describes the maker:
                Det is en bok fran mi. (I wrote it.)

                "fan" is genitive-like:
                Det bok is fan mi. (I got it.)


                I also destinguish between "for" and "fur"; "mid" and "med".

                > That was what I was looking for when I began to think about ...
                >
                > Folksprak. Vowels and consonants would need to receive diacritics,
                >
                > for example the FS word "skipp" (or "skip"?) would receive
                diacritic
                >
                > marks for "sk" and "p" in order to denote the German
                >
                > pronunciation "schiff".
                >
                >
                >
                > MY REPLY: I spose that's slightly different again. To
                write "Schiff" with a
                > protogermanic-based orthography I'd write something
                like "shjif"/"shjiff" or
                > with an s-hacek or something as PG didn't have /S/.

                An s-hacek would do indeed. What about the p->f?


                > I still like the idea of having regularities in the pronoun system
                >
                > (like in Esperanto) and the particle system. Yet.
                >
                >
                >
                > MY REPLY: Yeah. Well I spose the degree of naturalism in grammar's
                something
                > to poll on. I think it's important to have eventually a standard
                grammar
                > though – much more important than orthographic
                conventions/pronunication.


                The importance of dealing with orthographic (non-)conventions is to
                be able to read the other's dialects, and now it's much easier for me
                to read yours. (And maybe a newbie might want to read the Wikibook
                first and might not be scared by our strange writings.) In other
                words, I made that Wikibook so far in order to make it obvious that
                orthography is less important, so we can concentrate on the important
                issues.

                I guess that the only way of having a consensus will be to rely as
                much as possible on the PG sources. Therefore any attempt of
                improving the language might fail. Dunno yet, let's see.

                Regards,
                Stephan Schneider
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.