De Digisk Folkspraakinstitut


Welcome to the language of the Digisk Institute of Folkspraak, the website where you can get all the information you need about the Digisk dialect of the Folkspraak language, which is intended to be a pan-Germanic language, developed as a community effort.


The objective is to make the Digisk dialect of Folkspraak:


If you need to lookup anything on Folkspraak, the reference grammar is here to view. The grammar is available in the following formats: PDF.

The grammar is still work in progress.


The previous dictionary with about 600 words was lost in a computer crash. I am recreating it now (properly backed up) and taking the chance to improve the process of coining words a little by using proto-germanic here and there.

Questions or not-so-questions

About this page

Spelling and grammar

Q: My question is not on the list!

A: Send me an e-mail or join the Folkspraak Yahoo group to ask the question there.

Q: "Folkspraak" has a double "a" in it, while the grammar does not allow this!

A: The name Folkspraak was coined years before the grammar was made, and has become so wide-spread that changing the name would not be practical. And it is not a problem - do you mind it that the name "English" is not conform the English spelling rules?

Q: Word X should be spelt differently! Conjugation Y should not be done that way!

A: My main rule is not to fix what isn't broken. Any change made to the grammar gives more confusion to any (potential) users of the language, and might scare them. Therefore I will not make any change to it other than adding rules where they don't exist yet, except if there is a very good reason to do so. On the other hand, when no rules exist on a particular subject, there is nothing against it to make them, if possible based on common use.

To illustrate this: Esperanto is the best-known international auxiliary language. It is also the one which has had the same grammar and spelling rules since it was invented. That cannot be a coincidence. The official Esperanto FAQ, the book "Spellingverandering van zin naar onzin" and EspEire all underscore the importance of stability:

"Many of the people who have attempted to promulgate international languages more "perfect" (i.e., more "international", more "logical", or whatever) than Esperanto have failed to understand that -- given a certain minimum standard of internationality, aesthetic quality, and ease of learning -- further tinkering not only fails to substantially improve the product, but interferes with the establishment of a large community of speakers."

"Ido has had a large number of people backing it, and could have taken over Esperanto. However, after 1930 the language quickly drowned away. Under the lead of Jespersen there were constantly made "scientific" changes, that caused much emotional resistence and made the learning books unusable again and again. (...) Jespersen has never understood that (...) almost nobody wants to spend his whole life to constantly learn the many changes.

Until now, the tightly organised Esperantists have successfully rejected any attemt to change anything of the language. This resistance has a very rational (...) side. What applies to natural languages, applies equally to Esperanto: changes create arguments, make reading and writing more difficult and makes the 10.000 books translated to Esperanto less accessible, and that causes the number of reasons to learn the language to shrink. Who starts to learn Esperanto, also knows that his knowledge will not immediately be outdated because a Language Congress is inventing an Optimala Ortografio."

"The Delegatation subsequently recommended that this modified version should be implemented in place of Esperanto which resulted in a large number of Esperanto speakers converting to Ido. However, Ido was to eventually lose most of it's supporters due to an inability on the part of it's adherents to refrain from continually "modifying" the language which eventually resulted in most of it's speakers giving up on Ido because they were unable to keep track of all the changes."

Q: Rule Z should be changed, as it is irregular and inconsistent!

A: No, in most cases, it shouldn't. See this question for more information. Inconsistency is not a very good reason to change something. Again, Esperanto also has it's irregularities, though these do not cause any problems at all.

This page is copyright(c) 2003, Daan Goedkoop. All rights reserved. Nothing of this page may be duplicated and/or redistributed without preserving this copyright notice.

URL made possible by