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

Re: [folkspraak] Re: De Folksprâks adverbe

Expand Messages
  • Hugo Cesar
    I think that Wan hav du komen can also be considered in having V2 order in both sentencies. The unique thing we should consider is that no relative clause
    Message 1 of 15 , May 19, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I think that "Wan hav du komen can also be considered in having V2 order in both sentencies. The unique thing we should consider is that no relative clause occupate the position 1.

      So it would be:
      Wan -> position 1 of the subordinate clause
      hav -> position 2 of the subordinate clause
      du -> position 3 of the subordinate clause
      komen -> position 4 of the subordinate clause
      ik -> position 1 of the main clause (even if one clause is subordinated to the other, the counting would only start after the comma)
      hav -> position 2 of the main clause
      skon -> position 3 of the main clause
      gaen -> position 4 of the subordinate clause

      So, by this way we still follow a kind of V2-order

      David Parke wrote:
      >I think that I prefer "Wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen." That is, it
      >follows V2 for the main clause. For the subordinate clause, I haven't
      >inverted. I like the V2 rule on the main clause but I am more ambivalent
      >about it on the subordinate clause.
      >And I prefer "Fridag skal ik sehe him".
      >
      >I would like to avoid the English sytax where adverbs can seperate the
      >verb from the subject and can used in practically any position in the
      >sentence. It makes it harder to recognise the parts of speech.
      >
      >Really, I like drinking beer.
      >I really like drinking beer
      >I like really drinking beer
      >I like drinking beer really.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Markus Martin
      Hello all, I think this choice of sentence has brought up an important issue. Now, unless like German (and perhaps others) everyone is using two whens (wann
      Message 2 of 15 , May 21, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello all,

        I think this choice of sentence has brought up an important issue. Now,
        unless like German (and perhaps others) everyone is using two 'whens' (wann
        & wenn). It is somewhat confusing as to what exactly 'wan' is referring.

        "Wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen."
        or
        "Wan hav du komen, hav ik skon gaen."
        (either of these two forms I prefer the most)

        With this word order it seems like the sentence could be a question. But
        from the second clause, it becomes obvious that it is not. However, there
        could still be real confusion in speech, because one would not know whether
        the following clause was a new one or referring to the first.

        The problem here being the two types of 'when'. English differentiates by
        subordinating a little bit, and German subordinates a lot. ;) Compare the
        two sentences:

        (I changed the verb to avoid sein/haben issues)
        "When have you spoken? I have already spoken."
        "Wann hast du gesprochen? Ich habe schon gesprochen."
        "When you have spoken, I have already spoken."
        "Wenn du gesprochen hast, habe ich schon gesprochen."

        So, the question is, how are you all differentiating the two types of
        'when'? My preference would probably be with word order rather than
        different words. Of course that complicates the V2 concept that everyone
        seems to readily agree on. Thoughts?

        Greetings.
        -Markus

        2006/5/19, Hugo Cesar <hcesarcastro@...>:
        >
        > I think that "Wan hav du komen can also be considered in having V2 order
        > in both sentencies. The unique thing we should consider is that no relative
        > clause occupate the position 1.
        >
        > So it would be:
        > Wan -> position 1 of the subordinate clause
        > hav -> position 2 of the subordinate clause
        > du -> position 3 of the subordinate clause
        > komen -> position 4 of the subordinate clause
        > ik -> position 1 of the main clause (even if one clause is subordinated to
        > the other, the counting would only start after the comma)
        > hav -> position 2 of the main clause
        > skon -> position 3 of the main clause
        > gaen -> position 4 of the subordinate clause
        >
        > So, by this way we still follow a kind of V2-order
        >
        > David Parke wrote:
        > >I think that I prefer "Wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen." That is, it
        > >follows V2 for the main clause. For the subordinate clause, I haven't
        > >inverted. I like the V2 rule on the main clause but I am more ambivalent
        > >about it on the subordinate clause.
        > >And I prefer "Fridag skal ik sehe him".
        > >
        > >I would like to avoid the English sytax where adverbs can seperate the
        > >verb from the subject and can used in practically any position in the
        > >sentence. It makes it harder to recognise the parts of speech.
        > >
        > >Really, I like drinking beer.
        > >I really like drinking beer
        > >I like really drinking beer
        > >I like drinking beer really.
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Parke
        I think in a lot of cases, when you use wenn in German, you could just as validly translate it into if in English. My FS word for if/when is infall . My
        Message 3 of 15 , May 22, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I think in a lot of cases, when you use "wenn" in German, you could just
          as validly translate it into "if" in English. My FS word for if/when is
          "infall". My FS word for if/whether is "ov". So in many cases of German
          "wenn", in FS I would use "infall".

          In "When you have spoken, I have already spoken", "When" is serving as a
          relative pronoun, rather than an interogative pronoun. Other "wh"
          pronouns in English can be used in a similar manner.

          "Where my parents live, I don't wan't to say." In my version of FS, this
          would be:
          "Wâr leve mîn elders, will ik nejt segge."
          You can tell it's not a question, because of the structure of the second
          clause. The inversion of verb and subject make it a part of the same
          sentence. If "wâr" was an interogative pronoun, it would be:
          "Wâr leve mîn elders? Ik will nejt segge = What can't I have? I don't
          want (to have).

          Hmmm, this is maybe more of a reason to invert the Subject and Verb in
          the subordinate clause. Keeping the V2 here, is one way to keep it
          (less) ambiguous

          So I would say:
          Wann ha du sprekd? Ik ha sprekd allrêd. = When have you spoken? I have
          already spoken.
          Wann ha du sprekd, ha ik sprekd allrêd,


          Markus Martin wrote:

          >Hello all,
          >
          >I think this choice of sentence has brought up an important issue. Now,
          >unless like German (and perhaps others) everyone is using two 'whens' (wann
          >& wenn). It is somewhat confusing as to what exactly 'wan' is referring.
          >
          >"Wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen."
          >or
          >"Wan hav du komen, hav ik skon gaen."
          >(either of these two forms I prefer the most)
          >
          >With this word order it seems like the sentence could be a question. But
          >from the second clause, it becomes obvious that it is not. However, there
          >could still be real confusion in speech, because one would not know whether
          >the following clause was a new one or referring to the first.
          >
          >The problem here being the two types of 'when'. English differentiates by
          >subordinating a little bit, and German subordinates a lot. ;) Compare the
          >two sentences:
          >
          >(I changed the verb to avoid sein/haben issues)
          >"When have you spoken? I have already spoken."
          >"Wann hast du gesprochen? Ich habe schon gesprochen."
          >"When you have spoken, I have already spoken."
          >"Wenn du gesprochen hast, habe ich schon gesprochen."
          >
          >So, the question is, how are you all differentiating the two types of
          >'when'? My preference would probably be with word order rather than
          >different words. Of course that complicates the V2 concept that everyone
          >seems to readily agree on. Thoughts?
          >
          >Greetings.
          >-Markus
          >
          >2006/5/19, Hugo Cesar <hcesarcastro@...>:
          >
          >
          >>I think that "Wan hav du komen can also be considered in having V2 order
          >>in both sentencies. The unique thing we should consider is that no relative
          >>clause occupate the position 1.
          >>
          >>So it would be:
          >>Wan -> position 1 of the subordinate clause
          >>hav -> position 2 of the subordinate clause
          >>du -> position 3 of the subordinate clause
          >>komen -> position 4 of the subordinate clause
          >>ik -> position 1 of the main clause (even if one clause is subordinated to
          >>the other, the counting would only start after the comma)
          >>hav -> position 2 of the main clause
          >>skon -> position 3 of the main clause
          >>gaen -> position 4 of the subordinate clause
          >>
          >>So, by this way we still follow a kind of V2-order
          >>
          >>David Parke wrote:
          >>
          >>
          >>>I think that I prefer "Wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen." That is, it
          >>>follows V2 for the main clause. For the subordinate clause, I haven't
          >>>inverted. I like the V2 rule on the main clause but I am more ambivalent
          >>>about it on the subordinate clause.
          >>>And I prefer "Fridag skal ik sehe him".
          >>>
          >>>I would like to avoid the English sytax where adverbs can seperate the
          >>>verb from the subject and can used in practically any position in the
          >>>sentence. It makes it harder to recognise the parts of speech.
          >>>
          >>>Really, I like drinking beer.
          >>>I really like drinking beer
          >>>I like really drinking beer
          >>>I like drinking beer really.
          >>>
          >>>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >[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
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • stefichjo
          Hi Hugo, I don t agree, as this would cause trouble with these sentences: - Dan, (i. e.) wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen. - Dan ik hav skoen gaen. So if you
          Message 4 of 15 , May 22, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Hugo,
            I don't agree, as this would cause trouble with these sentences:
            - Dan, (i. e.) wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen.
            - Dan ik hav skoen gaen.

            So if you allow to say
            - Wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen.
            You consequently allow as well to say:
            - Dan ik hav skon gaen.
            Which would lead to:
            - Wan du hav komen, ik hav skon gaen.
            I.e., no V2-rule at all.

            So with V2 we must say:
            - Dan hav ik skoen gaen.
            - Dan, wan hav du komen, hav ik skoen gaen.
            - Wan hav du komen, hav ik skon gaen.

            Bye,
            Stephan

            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo Cesar" <hcesarcastro@...> wrote:
            >
            > I think that "Wan hav du komen can also be considered in having V2
            order in both sentencies. The unique thing we should consider is that
            no relative clause occupate the position 1.
            >
            > So it would be:
            > Wan -> position 1 of the subordinate clause
            > hav -> position 2 of the subordinate clause
            > du -> position 3 of the subordinate clause
            > komen -> position 4 of the subordinate clause
            > ik -> position 1 of the main clause (even if one clause is
            subordinated to the other, the counting would only start after the comma)
            > hav -> position 2 of the main clause
            > skon -> position 3 of the main clause
            > gaen -> position 4 of the subordinate clause
            >
            > So, by this way we still follow a kind of V2-order
            >
            > David Parke wrote:
            > >I think that I prefer "Wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen." That
            is, it
            > >follows V2 for the main clause. For the subordinate clause, I haven't
            > >inverted. I like the V2 rule on the main clause but I am more
            ambivalent
            > >about it on the subordinate clause.
            > >And I prefer "Fridag skal ik sehe him".
            > >
            > >I would like to avoid the English sytax where adverbs can seperate the
            > >verb from the subject and can used in practically any position in the
            > >sentence. It makes it harder to recognise the parts of speech.
            > >
            > >Really, I like drinking beer.
            > >I really like drinking beer
            > >I like really drinking beer
            > >I like drinking beer really.
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • stefichjo
            Hi Markus, I m aware of the possible confusion, but in Italian, for example, the same thing happens, without apparent confusion: Quando hai parlato? Ho già
            Message 5 of 15 , May 22, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Markus,
              I'm aware of the possible confusion, but in Italian, for example, the
              same thing happens, without apparent confusion:

              "Quando hai parlato? Ho già parlato."
              "Quando hai parlato ho già parlato."

              There is no V2 rule in Italian (apparently because they do not have
              the need of using pronouns).

              In the beginning I tried to have two different whens in FS, like in
              German: wan and wen. But not I try it differently. :-)

              It seems that the old Germans had the same problem and decided to do
              it double: they distinguished between when and "whan" and they
              invented a new type of V2-rule, the V-last-rule.

              "Wann hast du gesprochen? Ich habe schon gesprochen."
              "Als du gesprochen hast, habe ich schon gesprochen."

              "Wan hav du sproken? Ik hav skon sproken."
              "Wen du sproken hav, hav ik skon sproken."

              I think that we do not need to have a "V-last-rule", either we need to
              have a wan-wen distinction. Possibly, we don't even need a V2-rule,
              but FS would "taste" more Germanic-like with it.

              Bye,
              Stephan

              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Martin" <archwyrm@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello all,
              >
              > I think this choice of sentence has brought up an important issue. Now,
              > unless like German (and perhaps others) everyone is using two
              'whens' (wann
              > & wenn). It is somewhat confusing as to what exactly 'wan' is referring.
              >
              > "Wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen."
              > or
              > "Wan hav du komen, hav ik skon gaen."
              > (either of these two forms I prefer the most)
              >
              > With this word order it seems like the sentence could be a question. But
              > from the second clause, it becomes obvious that it is not. However,
              there
              > could still be real confusion in speech, because one would not know
              whether
              > the following clause was a new one or referring to the first.
              >
              > The problem here being the two types of 'when'. English
              differentiates by
              > subordinating a little bit, and German subordinates a lot. ;)
              Compare the
              > two sentences:
              >
              > (I changed the verb to avoid sein/haben issues)
              > "When have you spoken? I have already spoken."
              > "Wann hast du gesprochen? Ich habe schon gesprochen."
              > "When you have spoken, I have already spoken."
              > "Wenn du gesprochen hast, habe ich schon gesprochen."
              >
              > So, the question is, how are you all differentiating the two types of
              > 'when'? My preference would probably be with word order rather than
              > different words. Of course that complicates the V2 concept that everyone
              > seems to readily agree on. Thoughts?
              >
              > Greetings.
              > -Markus
              >
              > 2006/5/19, Hugo Cesar <hcesarcastro@...>:
              > >
              > > I think that "Wan hav du komen can also be considered in having V2
              order
              > > in both sentencies. The unique thing we should consider is that no
              relative
              > > clause occupate the position 1.
              > >
              > > So it would be:
              > > Wan -> position 1 of the subordinate clause
              > > hav -> position 2 of the subordinate clause
              > > du -> position 3 of the subordinate clause
              > > komen -> position 4 of the subordinate clause
              > > ik -> position 1 of the main clause (even if one clause is
              subordinated to
              > > the other, the counting would only start after the comma)
              > > hav -> position 2 of the main clause
              > > skon -> position 3 of the main clause
              > > gaen -> position 4 of the subordinate clause
              > >
              > > So, by this way we still follow a kind of V2-order
              > >
              > > David Parke wrote:
              > > >I think that I prefer "Wan hav du komen, ik hav skon gaen." That
              is, it
              > > >follows V2 for the main clause. For the subordinate clause, I haven't
              > > >inverted. I like the V2 rule on the main clause but I am more
              ambivalent
              > > >about it on the subordinate clause.
              > > >And I prefer "Fridag skal ik sehe him".
              > > >
              > > >I would like to avoid the English sytax where adverbs can
              seperate the
              > > >verb from the subject and can used in practically any position in the
              > > >sentence. It makes it harder to recognise the parts of speech.
              > > >
              > > >Really, I like drinking beer.
              > > >I really like drinking beer
              > > >I like really drinking beer
              > > >I like drinking beer really.
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • stefichjo
              ... Hm. Double g like in brygg , rygg (bridge, ridge), right? Do suppose a PG -gj- stem ending here? (seg-j-an?) ... I would say so, too! Bye, Stephan
              Message 6 of 15 , May 22, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
                > "W�r leve m�n elders, will ik nejt segge."

                Hm. Double "g" like in "brygg", "rygg" (bridge, ridge), right? Do
                suppose a PG -gj- stem ending here? (seg-j-an?)

                > So I would say:
                > Wann ha du sprekd? Ik ha sprekd allr�d. = When have you spoken? I have
                > already spoken.
                > Wann ha du sprekd, ha ik sprekd allr�d,

                I would say so, too!

                Bye,
                Stephan
              • David Parke
                Hmmm, with the word for say , is not exactly clear from the source languages which way to go: sage [ sa:g@] sege [ se:g@] segge [ sEg@] sagge [ sag@] All the
                Message 7 of 15 , May 22, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hmmm, with the word for "say", is not exactly clear from the source
                  languages which way to go:

                  sage ["sa:g@]
                  sege ["se:g@]
                  segge ["sEg@]
                  sagge ["sag@]

                  All the above seem to be potentially valid words.

                  I would say "sage" looks the best for EN and DE speakers on paper,
                  since shape of the word looks right for EN speakers.

                  Versions with a E vowel seem be in the majority, but it less clear
                  whether it should be short or long.
                  Also since EN and scandy have turned the *gj into [i] should we have a
                  "g" or a "j". We have a 50/50 split between NL [G] DE [g] and
                  EN/Scandy [i]
                  Since Scandy has retained the "g" at least in the spelling, I'm
                  inclined to go with the "g", since it is the most etymological.

                  In Old English, the word was "secgan", which would have (if English
                  was regular and predictable) yielded *sedge [sEdZ] in modern English.
                  (same final consonant as in bridge and ridge)

                  PG *lagjan produced "lay" in EN (rhymes with say), but "legen" in DE
                  (doesn't rhyme with sagen).



                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                  > > "W�r leve m�n elders, will ik nejt segge."
                  >
                  > Hm. Double "g" like in "brygg", "rygg" (bridge, ridge), right? Do
                  > suppose a PG -gj- stem ending here? (seg-j-an?)
                  >
                  > > So I would say:
                  > > Wann ha du sprekd? Ik ha sprekd allr�d. = When have you spoken?
                  I have
                  > > already spoken.
                  > > Wann ha du sprekd, ha ik sprekd allr�d,
                  >
                  > I would say so, too!
                  >
                  > Bye,
                  > Stephan
                  >
                • stefichjo
                  Hi Dave, *leg-j-anan - to lie *lag-(e)j-anan - to lay *sag-j-anan (KLUGE: sag-æ-) - to say They remain misterious words to me. We should keep an eye on this
                  Message 8 of 15 , May 24, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Dave,

                    *leg-j-anan - to lie
                    *lag-(e)j-anan - to lay
                    *sag-j-anan (KLUGE: sag-æ-) - to say

                    They remain misterious words to me.

                    We should keep an eye on this -gj- issue.

                    I think in Plattdüütsch (North German) you say "er secht" instead of
                    "er sagt"...

                    Bye,
                    Stephan


                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hmmm, with the word for "say", is not exactly clear from the source
                    > languages which way to go:
                    >
                    > sage ["sa:g@]
                    > sege ["se:g@]
                    > segge ["sEg@]
                    > sagge ["sag@]
                    >
                    > All the above seem to be potentially valid words.
                    >
                    > I would say "sage" looks the best for EN and DE speakers on paper,
                    > since shape of the word looks right for EN speakers.
                    >
                    > Versions with a E vowel seem be in the majority, but it less clear
                    > whether it should be short or long.
                    > Also since EN and scandy have turned the *gj into [i] should we have a
                    > "g" or a "j". We have a 50/50 split between NL [G] DE [g] and
                    > EN/Scandy [i]
                    > Since Scandy has retained the "g" at least in the spelling, I'm
                    > inclined to go with the "g", since it is the most etymological.
                    >
                    > In Old English, the word was "secgan", which would have (if English
                    > was regular and predictable) yielded *sedge [sEdZ] in modern English.
                    > (same final consonant as in bridge and ridge)
                    >
                    > PG *lagjan produced "lay" in EN (rhymes with say), but "legen" in DE
                    > (doesn't rhyme with sagen).
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "stefichjo" <sts@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
                    > > > "W�r leve m�n elders, will ik nejt segge."
                    > >
                    > > Hm. Double "g" like in "brygg", "rygg" (bridge, ridge), right? Do
                    > > suppose a PG -gj- stem ending here? (seg-j-an?)
                    > >
                    > > > So I would say:
                    > > > Wann ha du sprekd? Ik ha sprekd allr�d. = When have you spoken?
                    > I have
                    > > > already spoken.
                    > > > Wann ha du sprekd, ha ik sprekd allr�d,
                    > >
                    > > I would say so, too!
                    > >
                    > > Bye,
                    > > Stephan
                    > >
                    >
                  • Michael Koether
                    Hey, ... I m not very good in Low German too, but he seggt would be correct for he says/er sagt in Plattdüütsch (Low German/Low Saxon). The gg is
                    Message 9 of 15 , May 24, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hey,

                      stefichjo schrieb:
                      > I think in Plattdüütsch (North German) you say "er secht" instead of
                      > "er sagt"...

                      I'm not very good in Low German too, but "he seggt" would be correct for
                      "he says/er sagt" in Plattdüütsch (Low German/Low Saxon). The gg is
                      pronounced like the ch. But that might also depend on the region.
                      But in the High German that's spoken here you might hear "er sacht" or
                      maybe even "er secht".

                      Greetings,
                      Michael der Ostfale
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.