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

SV: SV: [folkspraak] I just wonder

Expand Messages
  • Knutson
    Hallo Stefichjo! It was just my way to look into the world of Folkspraak. My world is Interlingua, and I do hope and pray that you Folkspraak students and
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 18, 2006
      Hallo Stefichjo!

      It was just my way to look into the world of Folkspraak. My world is
      Interlingua, and I do hope and pray that you Folkspraak students and
      workers will eventually get through the process and come out with a
      language that we may study. The case is good. But the process
      overwhelming.

      Åsmund

      -----Opprinnelig melding-----
      Fra: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com [mailto:folkspraak@yahoogroups.com] På
      vegne av stefichjo
      Sendt: 18. oktober 2006 23:28
      Til: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: SV: [folkspraak] I just wonder

      Go ahead and write a grammar, a vocabulary list, translations, if I
      may recommend so. Or have you already made that? I doubt it. Writing
      off pseudo language and understanding it is very easy, but it will
      always remain pseudo. Grammar always has complexity, get used to it
      (or have another hobby - no offense).

      Some questions, please:
      If FS "gode" is "good", what is FS "god"?
      Should it be "ek find" or "ek finde"? What's the difference?
      What's the difference between "folstandig" and "folstandigt"? What's
      the "-t" for (in _Folksprak_)?
      What is "malsettan"?
      Is "ke" Esperanto meaning "that"?
      If you write "weg", why should you write "daj" and not "dag"?
      Should there be a word like "sprak" in FS, or should that word be
      derivated without changing the stem vowel from "sprek"? What about
      words like "bind", "bound", "band", "bond"? Hope you get my meaning.

      Any answers by anyone are welcome.



      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "eugeniusz.slowik"
      <eugeniusz.slowik@...> wrote:
      >
      > Gode Geriatrix and Bjorn!
      > This text bellow I understand completely without learning.
      > so let´s go ahead this way!
      > Ek find ke du and Bjorn ha rekt.
      > Gode daj to al and Folkspraak
      > Eugeniusx
      >
      > Gode Bjorn!
      > Ek finde ke du ha rekt in ke du rita. Da "Folk spraak" ha wanderet ab
      da
      > weg folstandigt. Man ha ne beakta da first dankan e malsettan, ok da
      > resultat ar kaos ok unentlik kwarel ok ferwirrung.
      >
      > Gode nakt Folkspraak!
      > Geriatrix.
      > > .
      > >
      > >
      >





      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
    • P Bjorn Madsen
      Thank you all for a lot of friendly and interesting answers. I understand perfectly, that there are different opinions about how Folkspraak should be. Although
      Message 2 of 18 , Oct 19, 2006
        Thank you all for a lot of friendly and interesting answers.

        I understand perfectly, that there are different opinions about how
        Folkspraak should be. Although the first Folkspraak charter clearly
        was for simplicity of learning it seems obvious that there always have
        been at least two groups within the community. I guess that is why
        there already back in 1999 was a suggestion to split the group and
        develop a Folkspraak Lite and a Folkspraak Pro.

        As far as I know the development since then step by step has turned
        away from the charter which is fine if all the members agree to it.
        However, it looks like some of the members would prefer some kind of
        Folkspraak Lite.

        If one really should be able to read Folkspraak within a week and
        write it within a month as the chater suggests then I think that the
        vocabulary has to be limited to let us say around 1500 words (30 days
        of 50 words). This is more than Basic English and about the same as
        Voice of America's Special English. Both Basic English and Special
        English have proven themselves useful for practical purposes although
        their limitations.

        The grammar also have to very simple. Nobody can learn a true germanic
        grammar within a month, unless it is the same as a language he or sje
        already knows. Perhaps a simple version of the grammar of Afrikaans
        would do the trick.

        I do respect people who want to develop a Folkspraak Pro, so this is
        not an attack on their way of doing things. I just want to know if
        somebody share my interests in a Folkspraak Lite version.

        Best regards

        Bjorn
      • eugeniusz.slowik
        Hallo Bjorn, I like your idea to simplify grammar based on Afrikaans. So as a side effect you could learn how Afrikaans works. The more you simplify the
        Message 3 of 18 , Oct 19, 2006
          Hallo Bjorn,
          I like your idea to simplify grammar based on Afrikaans. So as a side
          effect you could learn how Afrikaans works.
          The more you simplify the grammar the greater the vocabulary has to be.
          I am writing in Slovio about a year already, but in almost each article
          I write "I have to" invent new words in order to express my ideas.
          Although Slovio´s dictionary has about 38.000 words.
          Best aansien
          Eugeniusx

          P Bjorn Madsen schrieb:
          >
          > Thank you all for a lot of friendly and interesting answers.
          >
          > I understand perfectly, that there are different opinions about how
          > Folkspraak should be. Although the first Folkspraak charter clearly
          > was for simplicity of learning it seems obvious that there always have
          > been at least two groups within the community. I guess that is why
          > there already back in 1999 was a suggestion to split the group and
          > develop a Folkspraak Lite and a Folkspraak Pro.
          >
          > As far as I know the development since then step by step has turned
          > away from the charter which is fine if all the members agree to it.
          > However, it looks like some of the members would prefer some kind of
          > Folkspraak Lite.
          >
          > If one really should be able to read Folkspraak within a week and
          > write it within a month as the chater suggests then I think that the
          > vocabulary has to be limited to let us say around 1500 words (30 days
          > of 50 words). This is more than Basic English and about the same as
          > Voice of America's Special English. Both Basic English and Special
          > English have proven themselves useful for practical purposes although
          > their limitations.
          >
          > The grammar also have to very simple. Nobody can learn a true germanic
          > grammar within a month, unless it is the same as a language he or sje
          > already knows. Perhaps a simple version of the grammar of Afrikaans
          > would do the trick.
          >
          > I do respect people who want to develop a Folkspraak Pro, so this is
          > not an attack on their way of doing things. I just want to know if
          > somebody share my interests in a Folkspraak Lite version.
          >
          > Best regards
          >
          > Bjorn
          >
          >
          >
        • David Parke
          If you reduce the vocabulary down to 1500 words or to 1500 basic roots, then many concepts need to be expressed by compounding those root. This can work, but
          Message 4 of 18 , Oct 19, 2006
            If you reduce the vocabulary down to 1500 words or to 1500 basic roots,
            then many concepts need to be expressed by compounding those root. This
            can work, but often those compounds are not immediately obvious in
            meaning. For example, let's say the 1500 words doesn't including a word
            for "fork". You could build one from (for example) "pierce" + "grab" +
            "hand" + "tool". Perhaps "stekkfanghandtiug". But if there is a cognate
            word with a the same meaning in most germanic languages, would it not be
            more practical to expand the vocabulary to 1501 and include the word
            "furk"?
            Also if the FS vocabulary is based on words that have cognates in the
            majority of germanic languages, or are otherwise widely recognised
            internationally, then most of FS vocabulary doesn't need to be learnt
            from zero. If 75% of the FS lexicon is similar enough to be recognisable
            to a germanic speaker on first sight, then the FS lexicon could be 6000
            words but there would only be 1500 "new" words for the student to learn.
            The other 4500 words are acquired for free. In my building of words for
            FS, I emphasise etymological relationships and take advantage of the
            often regular differences/similarities between closely related
            languages. FS phonology should have a regular relationship to the
            germanic languages. Then the differences between FS words and real
            germanic language words can be taught as a "code". For example, Swedish
            speakers could be taught that FS "öü" normally corresponds to Swedish
            "ö". So a FS word with "öü" (gröün) perhaps has a Swedish counterpart
            that has in "ö" (grön)

            I have personally encountered some strange limitations in Slovio's
            vocab, words that seem obvious can be missing from the dictionary. I
            have even "invented" a few Slovio words of my own:
            *diavol (devil)
            *klin (wedge)
            *ogurk (cucumber)

            Afrikaans is one germanic language that has lost most case inflexion for
            personal pronouns, a sign of an analytic grammer. For example "ons"
            means both "we" and "us". But is has some quite weird stuff too, such as
            double negatives (a feature common to creole languages, or perhaps
            influenced by French). It's rules for inflecting adjectives are in fact
            more complicated than Dutch.
            For a simplified grammar, I would base it on English, with the syntax
            simplified by removing complex tenses. Eg "I run", "I am running", "I do
            run" all become "I run". Questions only by inversion, eg "Are you
            running?", "Do you run?" become "Run you?". And I wanted to get truely
            simple, get rid of all remnants of personal pronoun cases. So no "I-me",
            "we-us", "they-them". Just "me", "us" "them". eg "Me run".
            Why not also get rid of definite and indefinite articles? Slavic
            languages get by without them. And 3rd person pronouns based on gender.
            Chinese doesn't use pronouns based on gender. No "he", "she", "it" when
            just "it" would serve. (We all know that a woman is feminine, but is
            there a reason that is critical to comprehension to use "she" as a
            pronoun?).



            eugeniusz.slowik wrote:

            > Hallo Bjorn,
            > I like your idea to simplify grammar based on Afrikaans. So as a side
            > effect you could learn how Afrikaans works.
            > The more you simplify the grammar the greater the vocabulary has to be.
            > I am writing in Slovio about a year already, but in almost each article
            > I write "I have to" invent new words in order to express my ideas.
            > Although Slovio´s dictionary has about 38.000 words.
            > Best aansien
            > Eugeniusx
            >
            > P Bjorn Madsen schrieb:
            > >
            > > Thank you all for a lot of friendly and interesting answers.
            > >
            > > I understand perfectly, that there are different opinions about how
            > > Folkspraak should be. Although the first Folkspraak charter clearly
            > > was for simplicity of learning it seems obvious that there always have
            > > been at least two groups within the community. I guess that is why
            > > there already back in 1999 was a suggestion to split the group and
            > > develop a Folkspraak Lite and a Folkspraak Pro.
            > >
            > > As far as I know the development since then step by step has turned
            > > away from the charter which is fine if all the members agree to it.
            > > However, it looks like some of the members would prefer some kind of
            > > Folkspraak Lite.
            > >
            > > If one really should be able to read Folkspraak within a week and
            > > write it within a month as the chater suggests then I think that the
            > > vocabulary has to be limited to let us say around 1500 words (30 days
            > > of 50 words). This is more than Basic English and about the same as
            > > Voice of America's Special English. Both Basic English and Special
            > > English have proven themselves useful for practical purposes although
            > > their limitations.
            > >
            > > The grammar also have to very simple. Nobody can learn a true germanic
            > > grammar within a month, unless it is the same as a language he or sje
            > > already knows. Perhaps a simple version of the grammar of Afrikaans
            > > would do the trick.
            > >
            > > I do respect people who want to develop a Folkspraak Pro, so this is
            > > not an attack on their way of doing things. I just want to know if
            > > somebody share my interests in a Folkspraak Lite version.
            > >
            > > Best regards
            > >
            > > Bjorn
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
            >No virus found in this incoming message.
            >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            >Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.5/483 - Release Date: 18/10/2006
            >
            >
          • eugeniusz.slowik
            Hallo David! Great! I thing we have similar ideas. In the vocab. I would use as many internationalists words as possible. ... In the grammar I would consider
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 19, 2006
              Hallo David!
              Great! I thing we have similar ideas.
              In the vocab. I would use as many internationalists words as possible.
              ---
              In the grammar I would consider to eliminate "to be" in the present
              tense like it is used in official Russian and in daily Germanic speech:
              e.g. me stupid? He stupid! Ich dumm? Er dumm!
              David:
              For a simplified grammar, I would base it on English, with the syntax
              simplified by removing complex tenses. Eg "I run", "I am running", "I do
              run" all become "I run". Questions only by inversion, eg "Are you
              running?", "Do you run?" become "Run you?".
              ===
              agree!
              And I wanted to get truely simple, get rid of all remnants of personal
              pronoun cases. So no "I-me",
              "we-us", "they-them". Just "me", "us" "them". eg "Me run".
              ===
              like in LFN
              ===
              Why not also get rid of definite and indefinite articles? Slavic
              languages get by without them.
              ===
              agree
              ===
              And 3rd person pronouns based on gender.
              Chinese doesn't use pronouns based on gender. No "he", "she", "it" when
              just "it" would serve. (We all know that a woman is feminine, but is
              there a reason that is critical to comprehension to use "she" as a
              pronoun?).
              ===
              agree too.
            • P Bjorn Madsen
              Hi David and Eugeniusz I think you overestimate the need for words in an international auxiliary language. Years back I taught myself Basic English before I
              Message 6 of 18 , Oct 19, 2006
                Hi David and Eugeniusz

                I think you overestimate the need for words in an international
                auxiliary language. Years back I taught myself Basic English before I
                started to travel in Asia and Africa all by myself. Of course I
                learned more a little by little. But Basic English was sufficient as a
                beginning.

                Your suggestions to simplify the grammar are quite interesting.
                Personally I think that regularity is more important than simplicity.
                Definite and indefinite articles are natural to all of us, so are
                personal pronoun cases.

                But I agree that removing complex tenses would be a good idea. Perhaps
                simple tense should be indicated by tense particles. It could be "ge"
                + verb for past and "sal" + verb for future. well, just an idea.

                It is perhaps also good to remove gender in 3rd person pronouns to
                avoid sexism.

                Regards

                Bjorn
              • Markus Martin
                Hi all. It has been a while, but nonetheless I have been following the list fairly closely. ... I assume you are referring to the large spread of Greek and
                Message 7 of 18 , Oct 19, 2006
                  Hi all. It has been a while, but nonetheless I have been following the
                  list fairly closely.

                  2006/10/19, eugeniusz.slowik <eugeniusz.slowik@...>:
                  > Hallo David!
                  > Great! I thing we have similar ideas.
                  > In the vocab. I would use as many internationalists words as possible.

                  I assume you are referring to the large spread of Greek and Latin
                  words throughout Germanic languages in more or less the same form.
                  While this may seemingly be more helpful for bringing various
                  languages together, I have to question the point to which such words
                  are spread in other languages besides English. Without an extensive
                  education, most people would probably prefer to use native compounds
                  and terms, or may not even know so many from Greek/Latin.

                  > In the grammar I would consider to eliminate "to be" in the present
                  > tense like it is used in official Russian and in daily Germanic speech:
                  > e.g. me stupid? He stupid! Ich dumm? Er dumm!

                  Why would you do this when all the Germlangs use this verb? I think it
                  makes more sense that someone has to learn a new word or so than to
                  explain to them that some structure that is part of their native
                  language is missing, and so they must talk "funny".

                  > David:
                  >> For a simplified grammar, I would base it on English, with the syntax
                  >> simplified by removing complex tenses. Eg "I run", "I am running", "I do
                  >> run" all become "I run". Questions only by inversion, eg "Are you
                  >> running?", "Do you run?" become "Run you?".
                  > ===
                  > agree!

                  It seems to me that all the Germlangs mostly do this already (minus
                  all the English auxillary silliness).

                  >> And I wanted to get truely simple, get rid of all remnants of personal
                  >> pronoun cases. So no "I-me",
                  >> "we-us", "they-them". Just "me", "us" "them". eg "Me run".
                  >> ===
                  > like in LFN
                  > ===

                  Once again, why remove a feature that is in all the Germlangs (apart
                  from Afrikaans).

                  > Why not also get rid of definite and indefinite articles? Slavic
                  > languages get by without them.
                  > ===
                  > agree
                  > ===

                  Certainly Slavic languages must still somehow differentiate a specific
                  object from a general object. The articles in the Germlangs are nearly
                  all the same anyways, though there is less agreement with indefinites.

                  > And 3rd person pronouns based on gender.
                  > Chinese doesn't use pronouns based on gender. No "he", "she", "it" when
                  > just "it" would serve. (We all know that a woman is feminine, but is
                  > there a reason that is critical to comprehension to use "she" as a
                  > pronoun?).
                  > ===
                  > agree too.

                  Why get rid of something existing in all Germanic languages that
                  obviously has enough of an use to have stuck around beyond the death
                  of grammatical case in most of those languages. Imagine a situation
                  where you have to explicity tell someone that someone else is a woman:
                  *"Alex [gender ambigious name] plays tennis too. It is a woman." Seems
                  a little awkward to me from a Western cultural standpoint.

                  Perhaps another example would be a situation like this. "The man sees
                  a dog. It bites him." A slight simplification there through gender
                  specific pronouns. Although amusingly, this is an ambigious sentence
                  in German. =)

                  I have been impressed with the clear linguistic approach that David
                  and Stephan have been using. Though they change their minds now and
                  again, their efforts to remain consistent are impressive for
                  individuals. In order to bring all the elements of each language as
                  close as possible to each other, every language is going to have to
                  suffer some sort of disadvantage. English is missing lots of common
                  vocabulary, etc..

                  Bjorn:
                  >>I think you overestimate the need for words in an international
                  auxiliary language.

                  I do not think it is a need, rather a feature. When I read the new
                  vocabulary lists, I am often surprised at the closeness of many words
                  in the source languages. Perhaps what is needed is a basic wordlist to
                  start with.

                  Greetings,
                  -Markus
                • David Parke
                  ... possible. ... That s certainly true. In many cases the Graeco-romance internationalisms (from henceforth abreviated to GRI) exist in all the dictionaries
                  Message 8 of 18 , Oct 19, 2006
                    --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Martin" <archwyrm@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi all. It has been a while, but nonetheless I have been following the
                    > list fairly closely.
                    >
                    > 2006/10/19, eugeniusz.slowik <eugeniusz.slowik@...>:
                    > > Hallo David!
                    > > Great! I thing we have similar ideas.
                    > > In the vocab. I would use as many internationalists words as
                    possible.
                    >
                    > I assume you are referring to the large spread of Greek and Latin
                    > words throughout Germanic languages in more or less the same form.
                    > While this may seemingly be more helpful for bringing various
                    > languages together, I have to question the point to which such words
                    > are spread in other languages besides English. Without an extensive
                    > education, most people would probably prefer to use native compounds
                    > and terms, or may not even know so many from Greek/Latin.

                    That's certainly true. In many cases the Graeco-romance
                    internationalisms (from henceforth abreviated to GRI) exist in all
                    the dictionaries but are less popular or known in some languages. The
                    level of recognition varies across the germanic languages. English
                    PREFERS these GRIs to "native" words. The situation in Dutch is
                    somewhat more less in favour of GRIs, German and Scandinavian less
                    still. And Icelandic has an active rejection of GRIs.
                    I add a lot of GRIs to my FS vocabulary. In *most* cases there is a
                    native germanic alternative. But in many cases, the GRI is the only
                    word that meets the criteria of being widely distributed among the
                    source languages.


                    >
                    > > In the grammar I would consider to eliminate "to be" in the present
                    > > tense like it is used in official Russian and in daily Germanic
                    speech:
                    > > e.g. me stupid? He stupid! Ich dumm? Er dumm!
                    >
                    > Why would you do this when all the Germlangs use this verb? I think it
                    > makes more sense that someone has to learn a new word or so than to
                    > explain to them that some structure that is part of their native
                    > language is missing, and so they must talk "funny".
                    >

                    Agreed. . Also it only works in present tense. For the past tense you
                    still need a verb for "to be". How else would you show the difference
                    between "I am funny" and "I was funny"? I think a totally different
                    type of grammar is more confusing than merely a different word. The
                    grammatical/syntax structures that the germanic languages share should
                    be a part of FS, even if this is more complex when you analyse it from
                    a totally neutral point of view. Sorry, this is difficult to express.
                    I am talking about what is complex when you approach things on the
                    assumption of zero knowledge of existing germanic languages (or even
                    western european languages in general).

                    > > David:
                    > >> For a simplified grammar, I would base it on English, with the
                    syntax
                    > >> simplified by removing complex tenses. Eg "I run", "I am
                    running", "I do
                    > >> run" all become "I run". Questions only by inversion, eg "Are you
                    > >> running?", "Do you run?" become "Run you?".
                    > > ===
                    > > agree!
                    >
                    > It seems to me that all the Germlangs mostly do this already (minus
                    > all the English auxillary silliness).

                    If you go back to Early Modern English, most of this silliness is absent.
                    "Edmund! Fight you on the morrow?"


                    >
                    > >> And I wanted to get truely simple, get rid of all remnants of
                    personal
                    > >> pronoun cases. So no "I-me",
                    > >> "we-us", "they-them". Just "me", "us" "them". eg "Me run".
                    > >> ===
                    > > like in LFN
                    > > ===
                    >
                    > Once again, why remove a feature that is in all the Germlangs (apart
                    > from Afrikaans).
                    >
                    > > Why not also get rid of definite and indefinite articles? Slavic
                    > > languages get by without them.
                    > > ===
                    > > agree
                    > > ===
                    >
                    > Certainly Slavic languages must still somehow differentiate a specific
                    > object from a general object. The articles in the Germlangs are nearly
                    > all the same anyways, though there is less agreement with indefinites.
                    >
                    > > And 3rd person pronouns based on gender.
                    > > Chinese doesn't use pronouns based on gender. No "he", "she",
                    "it" when
                    > > just "it" would serve. (We all know that a woman is feminine, but is
                    > > there a reason that is critical to comprehension to use "she" as a
                    > > pronoun?).
                    > > ===
                    > > agree too.
                    >
                    > Why get rid of something existing in all Germanic languages that
                    > obviously has enough of an use to have stuck around beyond the death
                    > of grammatical case in most of those languages. Imagine a situation
                    > where you have to explicity tell someone that someone else is a woman:
                    > *"Alex [gender ambigious name] plays tennis too. It is a woman." Seems
                    > a little awkward to me from a Western cultural standpoint.
                    >
                    > Perhaps another example would be a situation like this. "The man sees
                    > a dog. It bites him." A slight simplification there through gender
                    > specific pronouns. Although amusingly, this is an ambigious sentence
                    > in German. =)

                    I was mostly playing devil's advocate with most of those suggestions.
                    I am trying to demonstrate that if you get really simple, a lot of
                    features that everybody seems to take for granted will also be lost
                    and the language will become weird and seem less germanic. There has
                    to be a balance between reflecting the source languages and logic and
                    simplicity. The question is where do you draw the line?

                    For the record I believe FS most definitely SHOULD:
                    Have definite and indefinite articles
                    Have personal pronouns that inflect for case
                    Have 3rd person pronouns with masculine, feminine, neuter gender
                    Have a "to be" verb with at least some irregularity
                    Have verbs the form the past and perfect tense with a dental suffix


                    >
                    > I have been impressed with the clear linguistic approach that David
                    > and Stephan have been using. Though they change their minds now and
                    > again, their efforts to remain consistent are impressive for
                    > individuals. In order to bring all the elements of each language as
                    > close as possible to each other, every language is going to have to
                    > suffer some sort of disadvantage. English is missing lots of common
                    > vocabulary, etc..
                    >
                    > Bjorn:
                    > >>I think you overestimate the need for words in an international
                    > auxiliary language.
                    >
                    > I do not think it is a need, rather a feature. When I read the new
                    > vocabulary lists, I am often surprised at the closeness of many words
                    > in the source languages. Perhaps what is needed is a basic wordlist to
                    > start with.

                    I think words that have the POTENTIAL of being FS, should be in FS. (I
                    think any words that meet the criteria of having cognates of the same
                    meaning in the majority of source languages). If you don't want to use
                    these words, that's up to you. If you encounter them in FS, there is a
                    good chance that you will understand them in anyway! Also knowing the
                    word in FS will help you recognise and understand words in other
                    "real" germanic languages. Restricting the vocabulary to say 1500
                    words will do less to encourage this understanding. I mean that by
                    learning FS, you will also increasing you ability to understand
                    Swedish or Dutch.

                    >
                    > Greetings,
                    > -Markus
                    >



                    It seems to me that there are two kinds of "simplicity" Things that
                    you already know and understand seem simple compared to things of
                    which you are ignorant. Some things are simple because you already
                    know them!

                    And then there is simple because of a lack of complexity and being
                    internally consistant.

                    IMHO, the raison d'etre for FS, the opportunity of this language to
                    even have the potential to exist (even in the current half-complete
                    state), is because of the fact that the germanic languages share many
                    features. Prior knowlege of one germanic language can be useful to
                    comprehension and learning of another germanic language because they
                    have similarity. If the germanic languages were not related and
                    similar, what would be the point? Would there be a good reason to
                    build a language from words selected at random from totally unrelated
                    languages? (Fulfulde and Maori perhaps?)
                    FS need to leverage these similarities and be based on the shared
                    features of this group of languages. Creating a language that is as
                    near to possible to the middle ground or average will maximise the
                    advantages that the similarities give us.
                    If we do not try to make FS similar to the majority of germanic
                    languages, if the only criteria is simplicity, why not just create a
                    small, limited vocabulary out of randomly generated nonsense sounds?
                    We could carefully select the sounds so they are easy for speakers of
                    all the world's languages to pronouce and can be spelt with the basic
                    roman alphabet and no diacriticals.

                    This is why I think FS should primarily be a naturalistic language. If
                    simplicity was the primary aim, then why even bother with the germanic
                    aspect? The point of difference with FS, what distinguishes it from
                    Esperanto or Interlingua or Lingua Franca Nova or Slovio is that is it
                    is GERMANIC. I think FS should look as much as possibly like a
                    stereotypical, archetypical, quintessential germanic language. This
                    doesn't mean I think it should be "purged" or "purified" of elements
                    that are not native germanic. Far from it. It should have as many
                    un-germanic features and borrowings as the majority of germanic
                    languages.
                    It is in the areas where the Germanic languages DIFFER and do not
                    share features where I think we can try to keep the features logical
                    and simple. It is in these areas where we can make judements about
                    what choice would be easier or more useful.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.