Re: Intergermansk

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:43:07 +0000, Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:

>On Monday, January 24, 2005, at 11:00 , Pascal A. Kramm wrote:
>
>> Ok, here is my newest masterpiece: a common Germanic language combined
>> from
>> the most used Germanic languages (English, German, Swedish, Norwegian,
>> Danish, Dutch).
>
>So basically the same goal as Folkspraak? The Folkspraak Charter had:
>"Folkspraak is a model language being designed as a common Germanic
>language (an "Intergerman", if you will)."
Pretty much. I already took a closer look at it, but didn't like it too
much, so I decided do give it a try myself.

>I think if Danish & Norwegian are counted among the most used languages,
>then Afrikaans should also be included. Way back in 1996, the Folkspraak
>Charter listed the following estimated numbers of speakers for spoken
>Germanic languages:
<snip>
>I dare say there are more up to date numbers available.
Well, Danish has still more, and Norwegian about as much. I took a look at
it already (not too easy finding stuff on it), and it seems like a Dutch
dialect to me, with a few grammatical differences...
Also, I have to draw the line somewhere. When including too much languages,
the result will end up having too few similarities to the individual languages.

>> http://www.choton.org/ig/
>>
>> On the web site, you'll find a pronunciation guide, a detailled grammar
>> description, the obligatory Babel text and the ever-more-popular McGuffey'
>> s
>> First Reader :D
>
>I shall look, it will be interesting to see a different take on the same
>idea. I was a bit disappointed to find that there does not seem to be any
>Folkspraak version Babel Text - maybe the language never reached a state
>where it could do so. It was one of those languages being created 'by
>committee'. A pity - it would have been interesting to compare a
>Folkspraak Babal Text with the Intergermansk one.
The whole thing made a very unfinished impression to me when I took a look
at it... looks like it's been abandoned now.

>> For your convenience, I'll put the Babel text right here and the McGuffey'
>> s
>> text in a new post (so this one doesn't get too long).
>>
>> 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.

>One thing surprised me when I read the McGuffey sentences. Intergermansk
>does not appear to have any articles, yet all the most commonly spoken
>Germanic languages have both definite and indefinite articles.
>
>Just curious.
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), but also the
articles - they are several natural languages which do fine without them.

--
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/

Reply