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

Wortschatz, wordskatt

Expand Messages
  • Stephan Schneider
    = Flag = I ll try and use the flag as you said. = Proto Germanic - Fulkspræk - Folksprak = == Wortschatz == In the beginning I tried to conentrate on PG
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 3, 2006
      = Flag =

      I'll try and use the flag as you said.

      = Proto Germanic -> Fulkspræk -> Folksprak =

      == Wortschatz ==

      In the beginning I tried to conentrate on PG roots form my wordskatt / wortschatz. I was desperately looking for criteria in order to decide which form a FS word should take. A blent of Modern Germanic words just wouldn't do, so I felt, since the choice of how to represent a FS word would be too arbitrary in order to convince somebody that a FS word is authentic.

      (Just consider how "FS" could be written: Folksprak, Folkspraak, Folkspræk, Folksprok, Folkspæk without thinking about "Fulk-" and lots of diacritic signs.)

      == Phonology ==

      So my approach is to find a root source and derivation rules, and I got very far, so far. You can find the derivation rules here:


      Here you can read how Fulkspræk words can be derived from Proto Germanic, but also from Latin and Western Germanic. And you will also find how to derive Folksprak words from Fulkspræk. The problem is that I still fear that the Folksprak representation is subject to change, whereas the Fulkspræk representation is quite stable. This is why the wordskatt is about PG / Fulkspræk and not about Folksprak in the first place. I want to avoid trouble.

      In order to get feeling about Fulkspræk vs. Folksprak, it might be sufficient to read some example text (both in Fulkspræk and Folksprak):


      == Fulkspræk "wirald" -> Folksprak "wørald" (regularly) ==

      For example, the Folksprak representation of PG -i- in the words "world", "week" and "church" changed recently in my Folksprak (from -y- to -ø-), but the Fulkspræk representation remains the same (letter -i- with double accent). This is an advantage.

      == PG "draugm" -> ... -> Folksprak "drom" and "drog" (irregularly) ==

      But there are a lot of cases (marked with ">!>" instead of ">>") where a Fulkspræk word has been derived irregularly from a PG word for the sake of Modern Germanic likeness. For example, from WG "draugm-" I even derived two different words from it: Folksprak "drog" and "drom" ("illusion" (DE Trug) and "dream"). There is no word "drogm" or "drogem" in FS (which would be the regular derivation, I guess).

      == PG / Fulkspræk "nkh" -> Folksprak "h" (regularly) ==

      On the other hand, PG / Fulkspræk "nkh", "ngg", "ngk", "ngkh" have seperate rules how to derive Folksprak from them, at the end of the phonology page:


      Therefore in Folksprak there is "drinke", but not "dringke" (EN drink), there is "liht", but not "linght" (EN light, DE leicht), there is "lang" but not "langg" (EN long)...

      (And maybe I could add a "-gm-" rule only for WG "draugm"?)

      == Word preferences ==

      In the end the decision which word to take has not been made yet. The wordskatt still shows many examples of concurrent words, candidates for Folksprak, e. g.(Folksprak) "nahbuerskap" (cf. DE Nachbarschaft) vs. "nahbuerhed" (cf. EN neighborhood).

      And the other problem you have mentioned, is quite easy to resolve: if a PG root has an instance in only one modern Germanic language, then it should be discarded (for example "køpe" (EN keep)). But before I decide to discard a word I leave it in the word list and wait that somebody adds another instance, which I may not know yet, who knows?

      So, a chapter about which word to take for Folksprak would imply a better version of the current morphology page (which should explain the difference between "-hed" and "-skap", for example),


      and what the difference between "køpe" and "halde" should be (maybe "køpe" might be used in poetry?)(rare Germanic words vs. common Germanic word). And last but not least, the difference between "nation" (from LA) and "folk" (from PG) should be defined (guest words vs. Germanic words).

      This will be the next step to do, and this is why I needed first a wordskatt & phonology rules.


      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
      > You can get the flag picture from the Folkspraak Yahoo files.
      > Or you can save the picture from the Tidingkonien website.
      > Your wortschatz is interesting for the purposes of the study of
      > Proto-germanic. But I don't think words that have cognates in only one
      > germanic languages (based for example on English "keep" or German
      > "ohne"), are very good choices for Folksprak words -- given what FS is
      > intended for. Word that have such a small representation would only be
      > of use in cases where all the source languages had totally different
      > words. In such cases, we might be forced to adopt something inspired by
      > an English or German word, or something out of PG.
      > Your wordskatt seems to give the form in "Fulkspræk", but not the form
      > in "Folksprak" (ie the form that you would in fact use)
      > BTW, in my opinion PG reconstructions are too archaic for my tastes.
      > They seem to show PG at the point in time just after it became a
      > distinct language from PIE. And at the point in time before Gothic
      > branched off from PG. Modern academic opinion seems to be that Gothic
      > branched off first and is on a seperate branch from all the living
      > germanic languages (which are on the "Northwest Germanic branch). PG
      > thus, doesn't represent changes that occured to the ancester of the
      > living germlangs and therefore features that are common to all of the
      > living languages. For example the PG proto-word for EN heel, NL hiel,
      > Scandy hæl/häl is *hanhilô. All the modern languages lack a *n and the
      > ancestral language to the modern languages had probably already lost the
      > *n before it diverged into Old English, Old Norse, Old Saxon etc. Same
      > goes for EN light, NL licht, DE leicht, Scandy let/lett/lätt. The PG
      > proto-word is *linhtaz.
      > So the PG reconstructions might be useful for something, but for the
      > purposes of creating a germanic inter-language, it can be a problem. I
      > think of more interest is the earliest common ancester of the living
      > germanic languages: Proto-North-West Germanic.
      > stefichjo wrote:
      > >Hi all!
      > >
      > >The current versioon of the Wiki Folksprak dictionary has aproximately
      > >900 words.
      > >
      > >I tried to make it more easy to read, too.
      > >
      > >http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Folksprak/_Wortschatz
      > >
      > >By the way, does anybody have a flag picture in order to upload it to
      > >the Wikipedia articles?
      > >
      > >Bye,
      > >Stephan

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.