Talk:Folkspraak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think we should have any examples of proposed dialects on this page, as this "Lord's Prayer" from the french Wikipedia page, or maybe some other texts, such as the Babeltext.

Le Notre Père en Folkspraak

"Ons Fater, whem leven in der Himmel. Mai din Name werden helig. Mai din Koningdom kommen. Mai din will werden, in der Erd und in der Himmel. Geven os distdag ons Brod. Und forgiv ons sindens, samme Weg (as) wi forgiv dem whem eren skuld to uns. Und test os nihte, men spare os fraum der Sind."

I think most of the vocabulary here is quite acceptable, anyway... I would use akin words in most cases, myself. Wakuran_Wakaran

Well, the point of a Babel text or Lord's Prayer translation is to quickly give the reader an idea of the features of a language. Based on my impression of Folkspraak from the newsgroup, it's not nearly uniform enough for this to be possible or useful yet. It is also potentially misleading (since a reader might believe that the language is that uniform) and biased (since we'd favour a particular dialect). EldKatt (Talk) 17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, but now there are four different proposed versions, so I hardly think it is misleading, regarding the "uniformity". 85.226.122.237 17:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 And... what's the point? 2 sources 3 Articles for Deletion debate 4 Dialect sections 5 Folkspraak/Folksprak

[edit] And... what's the point?

What for? I don't understand this about Slovio either. Singlish would be a lot more useful as an auxlang -- I'm serious.

David Marjanović david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at 23:31 CET-summertime 2005/8/6

Well, that's your opinion. Btw, largely, the language is a project and a hobby.

Or, although many people put relatively serious thinking and work into their dialects, it might be naive to hope for a full-fledged auxlang being used any time soon.

This is an auxlang intended for speakers of Germanic languages. It could theoretically serve this purpose well, but would be unsatisfactory for use by Romance speakers. This limitation has to be accepted. An auxlang that is easy to learn (something of a prerequisite, I imagine) has to be somewhat tailored for a particular language family. If this doesn't answer anything, I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question.

Yeah, there's a debate that an auxlang based closely on natural languages would be intrinsically imperialistic. Basically, the problem is that the vocabulary would either be unequally understood a lot better by speakers of certain languages (Interlingua, Slovio etc.) or an alternate approach could be to take vocabulary at random from several different languages (Like major languages of different basic language families such as for instance English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Hindi) which would in practice make the language equally difficult for everybody. 85.226.122.237 17:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why would Singlish make a good auxlang? EldKatt (Talk) 17:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Folkspraak would make a very good Auxlang among Germanic speakers. I personally know very little German, but I find Folkspraak fairly comprehensible. The Jade Knight 08:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully the language will be easier to Anglophones than German for several different reasons.

1. Easier grammar, without the Gender and Case inflections found in German.
2. More similar vocabulary, partly because German went through the High German sound shift, 
partly because more vocabulary will be chosen to be intelligible to anglophones.
3. Ideally, being more straightforward and directly accessible.

81.232.72.53 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sources

Get us some good sources or this article will likely be deleted. Lotusduck 01:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

All the necessary sources are already among the external links. Please list the statements that you cannot verify. The current VfD mainly deals with notability, as far as I can see, which should not be confused with unverifiability. EldKatt (Talk) 11:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but if something were notable, it would be verifiable by a real source like a book, an article in a newspaper or in a peer reviewed journal. Verifiability as I read it in guidelines means from hard sources, not people's personal websites and forums. Lotusduck 20:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that include a lot of other topics than FS, as well? All info about Middelsprake should probably be deleted, though. The author has basically taken his efforts to FS, instead, and the whole section isn't that interesting. 81.232.72.53 16:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of articles about active groups and forums and all of them are in direct danger of being deleted. Verifiability has come up. This is original research using wikipedia as its' publisher. Peoples' confusion on that subject or the confusion stemming from this article, which at first doesn't seem like it is uniquely about a yahoo discussion groups' activities have lead to what will probably be a non-consensus. This article and others only encourage people to make articles on wikipedia that encourage people to write about forums and clubs that they find to be very notable, but are not refferenced by reliable sources. This is not what wikipedia is for, in the future, please try sending peices like this to a newspaper or journal. Lotusduck 19:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lotusduck, Folkspraak exists. Deletion is defenitely not apropos, at best is adaptation. Caesarion 20:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I still consider the existence of Folkspraak verifiable, but the rest, I admit, isn't. The little that remains to write about, along with its lack of notability, has caused me to change my VfD vote to a weak delete. EldKatt (Talk) 20:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the lesson here is that verifiability of a organization does not lie in it's members. So if you're a part of something you think is important and you're sure exists, next time please do not put it on wikipedia based on those merits alone. Lotusduck 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider myself a member of the Folkspraak community, but I am glad the article survived deletion. Generally, if it's something I could see myself looking up on Wikipedia, I feel that it's best to at least have a section on it in an article, with a redirect if it's not to have its own article. It's fortunate that those desiring to know more about Folkspraak will still be able to here. The Jade Knight 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialect sections

Hi, it's Wakuran_Wakaran here. I think both the sections about Middelsprake and Boksprak should be removed. Most about Middelsprake is obsolete, and the Boksprak part isn't too interested for outsiders. Also, even though Steph(the creator) might still be mad at me, I must say the wording makes the dialect seem like a more important part of the group than it is, now. I have been busy to look at the group for some time now, by the way, I shall get back to the group again soon, I think. 惑乱 分からん 14:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think 5 different dialects is too much, but I don't know which should be deleted, I don't think there needs to be added any more, though. 惑乱 分からん 15:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree! First of all, I don't think the criterion that "certain information is not interesting for outsiders" is valid; as long as it is relevant, I believe it should stay. Besides, one of the features that make Folkspraak an interesting languages is its ability to generate dialects, and to absorb existing languages. I will therefore revert your edit until further input has been given by others. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't like to see my section deleted. I suggest (as David Parke did on the yahoo list) to use the first paragraph of the human rights declaration instead of the Lord's Prayer. Each translation should be an illustration of sections like "Middelsprake" and "Boksprak" (these could be shortened, perhaps, but not deleted). I mean: an example text should be an example for a section that presents an approach to the Folkspraak issue. If there is no section about "Bass-Spraek", for example, then there shouldn't be an example of it, don't you think? Regards - --Stephan Schneider 15:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. It's of secondary importance, I believe, which text to use as a sample. The Lord's Prayer is used as a sample text for many conlangs, so I don't mind seeing it here as well. As for "Bass-Spraek": well, I don't know much about Folkspraak at all, but sure, if it's considered a dialect of Folkspraak, then I certainly have no objections against adding it to the sample texts section (it should be reformatted a little, though). The argument that there shouldn't be an example of one dialect if an example of another dialect is still lacking is not very convincing to me: it's like saying we shouldn't have an article about Jimmy Carter if there's no article about Ronald Reagan either! —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 16:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what Stephan said. If I understood him correctly, the article should include some info about dialects, including 1. a brief description and 2. a short example. If we lack the one, we shouldn't include the other in the article(?)惑乱 分からん 18:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wakuran, you understood me well. Regards, - --Stephan Schneider 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then. They said don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and I shouldn't start an edit war. Which text to choose isn't that important to me, as long as there are a few examples. I will make a few edits to your text, though, since it's too generalized in parts. About that approach you are proposing, basically I am neither for nor against it, if people would think it's better than this one, so be it. I am waiting for a reply from Xipirho, since I know he's a Wikipedia user. 惑乱 分からん 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, thank you! It's not my style to start an edit war either. But I believe that there should be some discussion first before large sections from an article are removed. I'm awaiting other opinions; if there are indeed good reasons to remove the sections in question, and there's consensus about it, then I'll happily support that decision. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 16:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, my bad. I thought that it would clutter the article. But I probably should just have edited the parts I disagreed about, first.惑乱 分からん 18:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in changing the sample text. I actually tend to find the differences in the Babel text or Lord's Prayer more interesting than the DHR. The Jade Knight 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 16:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The DoHR has been translated into hundreds of languages (DoHR in various Germanic languages). If we use the Lord's Prayer instead, that would be fine, too. Regards, --Stephan Schneider 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

All three have been translated into hundreds of languages. I don't really see it as a reason to change. The Jade Knight 21:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeahs... But the DoHR is shorter! The more examples you have the shorter they should be. Regards - --Stephan Schneider 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folkspraak/Folksprak

Stephan, I don't think I am the only one that has been criticizing you for naming your own particular dialect into a name so close to the project itself, but I'm bringing this up here, since it's confusing for the viewers of this page. Also, I'm asking you politely to consider renaming your dialect to something more distinct, again. 惑乱 分からん 23:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

...nonewithstanding the confusion created by that there's already two dialects named "Folkspraak" and one dialect named "Folksprak" in the dialects section, currently. 惑乱 分からん 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)