Re: Intergermansk
| From: | Bryan Parry <bajparry@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, January 26, 2005, 22:46 |
|---|
">Vio fadr hu bi in hevn,
>holirn bi dauo nam,
>dauo reik kom,
>dauo vil bi dun an erd,
> as it bi in hevn."
Wow, I really like that. Does anyone have any more
information on this (ISBN, online sources etc)?
cheers,
Bryan
--- "Pascal A. Kramm" <pkramm@...> wrote:
> 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/
>