Contemporary language.

[llama_nom]

And how about using the spelling 'ng' for /ng/ (singwan) to avoid
confusion with 'gg' /g:/ (bliggwan)?  We could keep the distinctive
'gk' spelling for /nk/, as there is no ambiguity there.


--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Can that be set up so that multiple users can edit the same file?  And
> how easy is it to convert to other formats (e.g. if someone wanted to
> make a text file, a Word document, or a PDF of it)?  If there's no
> problem on those fronts, it sounds like a fine idea to me.
> 
> We also need to agree on abbreviations, how declensions and verb-types
> are marked.  I would suggest for nouns, following your example in the
> existing database, as far as you've marked the declension, but
> consistently giving full information for each entry, e.g.
> 
> ma. masculine a-stem
> non. neuter on-stem
> fc. feminine consonant-stem
> 
> Probably no need to mark regular irregularities such as the feminine
> deverbal nouns in -eins, fi.  And since this is a list of neologisms,
> I don't suppose we'll have to worry about unpredictable irregularities
> like 'haims', fi. (fo. in plural).
> 
> We could follow the example of Mitchell and Robinson's A Guide to Old
> English and mark weak verbs with Arabic numeral and strong with Roman
> numerals.  Most of the time it's clear from the form how the verb is
> to be conjugated, but not always, so worth marking them all, I think.
> 
> ga-geigan, 3.
> 
> I would suggest separating prefixes with hyphens for the sake of
clarity.
> 
> To save on typing, forms where final 'þ' (thorn) becomes 'd' before
> the vowels of inflections could be cited thus: stads, mi.  But if it's
> felt that that might be confusing to people unaware of the grammar,
> any noun or adjective with a final 'þ' or 'f' should have some further
> clarification of whether this changes in inflection, e.g. staþs (d),
> mi.; aiþs (þ), ma.
> 
> How do people feel about special letters?  Is it wise to continue the
> practice of using 'y' for 'þ' (th) and 'v' for hv (hw)?  How about
> marking the difference between, áu, ái : aú, aí?  Should we mark these
> with acute accents in the traditional way, or ignore the distinction,
> or mark them in some other way.  Since the short versions of these
> vowels are rarer, any special marking could be applied just to those
> without loss of clarity.  Likewise long vowels: þúhtus, yu:htus, or
> some such...?  If hyphens are being used to separate elements of
> compounds, then there would be no ambiguity with using 'th' and 'hw'.
>  The main thing is to agree on a standard in advance, and (if several
> people are able to update the database) probably make a file of
> guidelines, in case the policy isn't obvious from previous examples.
> 
> LN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans@> wrote:
> >
> > Would it be impossible to work with the yahoogroups database tool? We
> > have as you may know a database there, which however hasn't been
> > updated in a while.
> > 
> > We could also keep an updated database file oon the gothic-l files
> > page. Amendments could be proposed and a new version made every so
> often.
> > 
> > Somewhere I have a list of older neologisms from the early days of the
> > list. It might be a useful task to cull all the neologisms from the
> > list history and compile them for review. Any enthusiastic members
> > with lots of time on their hands?
> > 
> > -Th.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Is there some way we could create a database / wordlist that can be
> > > conveniently edited online by all interested parties?  Something
like
> > > Wikipedia.  Is there something in Google tools that would let us do
> > > that?  The advantage, if this is possible, would be that the project
> > > wouldn't get held up if one person was unable to work on it for a
> > > while.  A potential disadvantage might be that it could get
chaotic if
> > > there were disagreements.  Maybe we could get around that if anyone
> > > altering someone else's suggestion make a note of the reason, and
> > > perhaps consult first with the group.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Justïn <justinelf@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Freþureik,
> > > > 
> > > > I'm anxiously awaiting the new list.  Should we begin a post or a
> > > > discussion board wherein we agree on or discuss amending
neologisms
> > > > and then create a unanimous, "officiated" list?  I'm not proposing
> > > > that we are the end-all of the Gothic language, but I think we
would
> > > > all appreciate knowing that we can pull neologisms from one list,
> > > > knowing that that list has passed before academic types as picky
> about
> > > > these words as we are.  Does this make sense?
> > > > 
> > > > Please voice questions, concerns, comments and criticisms.  I'm
> > > > anxious to hear what others think, especially if they have better
> > ideas!
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070414/1f977f45/attachment.htm>