Re: Intergermansk

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:04:51 +0000, Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:

>I know the distinction between dialect & language is not precisely defined.
>  There are, for example, some people who maintain that Swedish, Norwegian
>& Danish are not really different languages - merely dialects of
>'Continental Scandinavian'. IMO the differences between Dutch & Afrikaans
>are greater than those between the continental Scandinavian languages.
Well, that way, I think it would be too much trouble anyway to include it.

>[snip]
>>>> 1 Nu ganz werld hafte en sproch med sam words.
>>>
>>> But one difference I can spot immediately: sproch ~ spraak    :)
>>
>> Well, spro-/språ-  is the most universal part, whereas the ending is
>> either
>> -k, -g or -ch, of which I decided for the ch.
>
>Yes - I think either -k or -ch is what is wanted as the final.
>
>The Folkspraak Charter stated: "The primary design principle is that
>Folkspraak omit any linguistic feature not common to most of the modern
>germanic languages."  So it /x/ as it doesn't occur in English (and indeed
>seems to present the same sort of problems to my fellow countryman as /T/
>and /D/ do to yours) nor the continental Scandinavian languages (tho it
>does occur in Afrikaans :)
Not occuring in continental Scandinavian? That's simply not true!
I have a Swedish course from the Bussiness school in Helsinki, and they do
have /x/ (and also /C/, e.g. in tj- words). It also said that a good amount
of speakers preferred to pronounce the /S/ sound (of sj- and sch- words) as
/x/. So I thought that /x/ would be just fine there.

>> Well, creating a common lang is a good occassion to get rid of all the
>> superfluent deadwood which serves no real purpose and only makes a
>> language
>> more complicated than it would need to be. This not includes stuff like
>> verb
>> conjugations for person (English does fine without them),
>
>..and Afrikaans  :)
>Also the Scandinavian languages have very little also. Yes, I agree
>entirely.
Fine :)

>>  but also the
>> articles - they are several natural languages which do fine without them.
>
>There are - but no modern Germanic languages does without them. Certainly
>if I was commissioned or compelled to created an auxlang for global use, I
>definitely would not include articles. If I was commissioned or compelled
>to create a rival to Eurolang, Eurolengo or any of the other 'European
>Community auxlang hopefuls', I might either have no articles or have
>invariable nouns with variable articles in the French manner   :)
The latter would be nasty... O_o;;

>(But don't worry, folks. I am not about to do either. The commission would
>have to be *very* large  :-)
>
>But while I agree that things like the -s at the end of the English 3rd
>pers. sing. verb is superfluous deadwood and can go, I do not think the
>Germanic articles are in the same category. But it is your conlang.
It is, and as there is no real use for them, I'll just shamelessly
massacrate the articles :D

>You may be interested to know - if you do not already know - there was an
>American guy called Elias Molee who published a language called 'Tutonish'
>  in 1901 as a "Teutonic international language". It would seem the
>language must have changed a bit over the years since while in his 1902 &
>1904 publications he still called it Tutonish, in his 1906 book he called
>it 'Neuteutonish' and in 1915 'Alteutonik'.
Haven't heard about this yet...

>I have a copy of the opening of the Pater Noster in the 1902 version:
>Vio fadr hu bi in hevn,
>holirn bi dauo nam,
>dauo reik kom,
>dauo vil bi dun an erd,
> as it bi in hevn.
Ouch... looks odd (especially that "dauo"). Just glad that it's apparently
long dead already :)

--
Pascal A. Kramm, author of:
Intergermansk: http://www.choton.org/ig/
Chatiga: http://www.choton.org/chatiga/
Choton: http://www.choton.org
Ichwara Prana: http://www.choton.org/ichwara/
Skälansk: http://www.choton.org/sk/
Advanced English: http://www.choton.org/ae/

Replies