intergermanic, interslavic

Hmmm. Here's a page about it from Antimoon 2005 when greg still wrote in English, I think. Comments by Travis are a little way down the page.

In case there are people in the world who don't know French (how unlikely is that?), greg claims Travis created a germanic language named intergermania. Travis claims

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/posts/7173.htm

<And for comparison's sake, "I love you" in (my current version of) Intergermania would be "Ik liev dik."

Okay, I try to be fair, but "I love you" sounds better to me in English
than in Dutch or German.

Do we really want more Germanic peoples banding together linguistically?
Heck, most of them are great at English already!

"Ik liev dik."

LOL! Count english speakers out.

Well, that may not be what Travis finally decided.

"Well, partially I really like the project, yes, but the reason why I used it here actually was to indicate that it really was me, and not someone else. If you check the PDF file (http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~bemann/intergermania/intergermania.pdf) right at this moment, you'll notice that the word "medskrift" suddenly showed up in there (I needed to say "for the record", and thought of "zur Mitschrift", and I just IG-ized that). Had anyone else made that post that I was referring to in my previous post, that couldn't have happened."

There are several posts about this in the archives here.

That quote was from a "Travis" from the archives. If anyone is interested, they can probably ask Travis here about this.

<<"Ik liev dik."

LOL! Count english speakers out. >>

Count us in.

I did create Intergermania/Tviskengermaansk, but it has been on hold for quite a while because I lack the proper resources to actually create a clear linking of IG phonology to that of proto-Germanic or proto-West Germanic. As for its English-ness, the matter is simply that it is not meant to be based off of English at all, as the other Germanic languages simply differ too much from New English. Rather, it is primarily meant to serve the non-Anglic West Germanic languages, and to a lesser extent, North Germanic languages with significant influence from Middle Low Saxon. Consequently, it is primarily based on German, Dutch, and Low Saxon; it is syntactically largely German without its overall inflection (aside from inflecting nouns for number and adjectives for comparativeness and attributiveness and verbs for tense and participle forms), lexically a hybrid of German and Dutch, and phonologically largely Low Saxon minus Low Saxon-specific innovations.

Hail Travis, the God of Antimoon!

<<"Ik liev dik." >>

I think something more along the lines of
Ig lievo dig
OR
Ig lievu die
would be
1). more consistent with earlier forms of germanic, and
2). easier for modern Frisian and Anglic speakers to adopt

"Ik liev dik" just comes off sounding too harsh and choppy for us to deal with

like "I mahst break you." (Lundgren)

>><<"Ik liev dik." >>

I think something more along the lines of
Ig lievo dig
OR
Ig lievu die
would be
1). more consistent with earlier forms of germanic, and<<

Not really; Proto-Germanic had /eka/ and /ek/ for the first person singular nominative, which became /ik/ in West Germanic (which is preserved as Dutch "ik"). The lenition indicated by your use of /g/ only happened in North Germanic after the Old Norse period, which in turn became /j/ and merged with the preceding vowel as a diphthong or was lost altogether in much of North Germanic. Of course, this was later lost in English and some High German dialects even though it was largely preserved in Low German and Standard German (which are probably the strongest influences over IG).

Similarly, the apocope shown here is consistent with the development of West Germanic (even if it itself may have in cases post-dated the breakup of such), with such being found in all of Anglo-Frisian, all of Low German (incl. Low Franconian and Low Saxon) and in most of High German to date.

On the other hand, the use of /di:/ rather than /dik/ would match the general development of Anglo-Frisian (where the /k/ was originally present but was lost early on), Low German, and many High German dialects, even though Standard German preserves PG /k/ as /C/ in "dich". Of course, PG /k/ meets the same fate as in /eka/ and /ek/ in the North Germanic languages, and thus cannot be really be said to be obviously preserved all too well in them overall. Hence "Ik liev die" could be reasonably used here rather than "Ik liev dik", and would be more "modern" as Germanic languages go.

>>2). easier for modern Frisian and Anglic speakers to adopt<<

I would say that "Ik liev die" probably classifies as fitting such, but not really "Ig liev die", which is more North Germanic-ish.

>>"Ik liev dik" just comes off sounding too harsh and choppy for us to deal with

like "I mahst break you." (Lundgren)<<

That's just because of the two [k] phones in that particular phrase when read alone, really.

<<Ik liev dik.">>

Oh, I'm sorry dude. I didn't know that was yours. I was referring to the verb only, having an -o/-u ending. Yeah, I know about the "k"s.

Ich lievo die
Ich lievo dhie (thie)

would actually be better...more pleasing/asthetic to Anglic tastes, but yes, I know, it's too "Anglic" (as opposed to Frisian).

Anyway, I want your project to succeed as well, but "Ik liev dik" will have an easy go of things only north, south and east of Westphalia.

>>Guest Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:45 pm GMT
<<Ik liev dik.">>

Oh, I'm sorry dude. I didn't know that was yours. I was referring to the verb only, having an -o/-u ending. Yeah, I know about the "k"s.

Ich lievo die
Ich lievo dhie (thie)

would actually be better...more pleasing/asthetic to Anglic tastes, but yes, I know, it's too "Anglic" (as opposed to Frisian).<<

I am just wondering about your choice of vowels for the first person singular present indicative ending here... why /o:/ in particular, rather than no ending (as in Dutch, Northern Low Saxon, English, and most dialects of High German as spoken today) or /@/ (as in Standard German and historical Middle German)? I particularly ask this because IG is designed with global apocope, as in Low German, English, and Upper German, rather than a Middle German-type preservation of final /@/.

>>Anyway, I want your project to succeed as well, but "Ik liev dik" will have an easy go of things only north, south and east of Westphalia.<<

Part of the thing, though, is that as much as I did not want to make IG close to English I also did not want to make it *too* close to Standard German, or any Middle German dialect for that matter. As a result, I deliberately based it of a general Low German (both Low Franconian and Low Saxon) base rather than a High German one, even though it is syntactically heavily influenced by High German (which is honestly due to me knowing Standard German better than Standard Dutch or Northern Low Saxon).

the first person ind. -o is for flow and for asthetics, and to ward off such comments as these:

<"Ik liev dik."

LOL! Count english speakers out. >

which, yes, is a quasi-deliberate attempt (and prob not a good one) to cosmetically resemble a latinate language (however, this is actually our own ending). It is based, as I know you are aware already, on the old West Germanic first ind. ending -o/-u.
"Ik liev dik" just looks and sounds , well, corny to an English speaker. It's too "German" sounding, and that's a problem getting it accepted. Sorry, but it's the truth. And I'm one of those crazy germanics.

I am fluent in German, but I also speak a little Dutch, and have a little familiarity with Platt. When you say that Platt is heavily influenced by Hoch, you're right because it shows...it shows here. It's too German. It's more like an Inter-Deutsch, or Inter-German rather than an Inter-germanic...I dunno which it's really supposed to be. Please forgive me if I've gotten it wrong.

Also, if using modern forms to base IG, why the accusative "dik"? That is very German (although Scandinavian has similar "dig"). That is definitely not the least common denominator between High and Low German forms, is it? Seems to me more like High German minus the High German Consonant shift. Especially the ge- prefixes you use (I've seen your work). These are not modern germanic features. It's all good though, don't get me wrong.

>>the first person ind. -o is for flow and for asthetics, and to ward off such comments as these:

<"Ik liev dik."

LOL! Count english speakers out. >

which, yes, is a quasi-deliberate attempt (and prob not a good one) to cosmetically resemble a latinate language (however, this is actually our own ending). It is based, as I know you are aware already, on the old West Germanic first ind. ending -o/-u.<<

To me such an ending, though, is just too archaic; it seems very insular North Germanic (which is pretty archaic as Germanic languages get) or like some of the most archaic continental North Germanic dialects (i.e. Elfdalian)

>>"Ik liev dik" just looks and sounds , well, corny to an English speaker. It's too "German" sounding, and that's a problem getting it accepted. Sorry, but it's the truth. And I'm one of those crazy germanics.

I am fluent in German, but I also speak a little Dutch, and have a little familiarity with Platt. When you say that Platt is heavily influenced by Hoch, you're right because it shows...it shows here. It's too German. It's more like an Inter-Deutsch, or Inter-German rather than an Inter-germanic...I dunno which it's really supposed to be. Please forgive me if I've gotten it wrong.<<

It *is* German-sounding, and that is because I made a conscious decision to make IG non-Anglo-Frisian West Germanic, since the bulk of speakers of Germanic languages other than English speak some form of High or Low German. Also, I could not find any good way to really fold North Germanic into such due to such being too far from West Germanic, aside from recognizing Middle Low Saxon influence upon continental North Germanic. Hence you could say that it is really an inter-German, yes, in that it is really in between Low German and High German as a result of its design goals.

>>Also, if using modern forms to base IG, why the accusative "dik"? That is very German (although Scandinavian has similar "dig").<<

It was influenced by German "dich" and Scandinavian "dig"/"deg" more than anything else, even though I myself have reconsidered and think that "di" would probably be best for such.

>>That is definitely not the least common denominator between High and Low German forms, is it?<<

Tis true - the lowest common denominator would be "di".

>>Seems to me more like High German minus the High German Consonant shift. Especially the ge- prefixes you use (I've seen your work). These are not modern germanic features. It's all good though, don't get me wrong.<<

The "ge-" prefixes are there because they are found throughout both Low German and High German; while Northern Low Saxon *has* lost them, they were present in Middle Low Sxaon, and are still found in various forms in other dialects of Low Saxon (such as as /i/). While Anglic and North Germanic lacks "ge-" or its reflexes, IG is consciously not designed off of Anglic or North Germanic to begin with.