Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: The beautifulest phonology

From:Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Thursday, March 21, 2002, 21:21
At 2:37 pm -0500 20/3/02, John Cowan wrote:
>Raymond Brown scripsit: > >> The Arabic script is IMO more beautiful than any of the above; but not >> well-suited to non-Semeitic languages. > >Actually, it has problems even with those. The main difficulty with >Arabiform script is the paucity of vowels -- even worse than Roman.
Like, basically, having none - like (unpointed) Hebrew or Egyptian hieroglyphs. I understood that native speakers of Semitic & Hamitic languages, the vowels were pretty predictable and therefore the script could get by well-enough without them. Obviously for non-native speakers this is a bit of a bind! But the fact Egyptologists can read the ancient texts even though, for the most part, we haven't a clue what the 'missing' vowels were (and, therefore, can't speak the language except by using some modern, artificial convention) seems pretty good evidence to me that the vowels were secondary and didn't need indication for native speakers. Anyway, we will both violently agree it's not suited for the phonology I suggested.
>> Yep - if I were designing an artlang, I'd almost certainly include clicks. >> But I'm not sure that I'd class the as 'beautiful'; so if it's beauty, as >> Frank said, I don't think I can include them. >> >> But then, although much art has beauty, I don't think great necessarily has >> it, e.g. Guernica ;) > >Clicks and Guernica have that beauty that Blake said exuberance is.
Not sure I'd even class clicks here either; I guess I haven't been exposed to clicks enough. This is where I'd put the trills - both apical and uvular. Now they are truly exuberant, indeed magnificant. Languages that possess either of these are really serious about communication; the sounds are vigorous, vibrant and defeat all but the noisiest of backgrounds. ------------------------------------------------------------------ At 12:15 pm -0800 20/3/02, Frank George Valoczy wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Raymond Brown wrote:
[snip]
>> >> Why? Surely a beautiful phonology deserves a beautiful script. Cyrillic >> is so boring with most of the letters being the same height. At least the >> ascenders & descenders of the modern Roman and Greek alphabets lend them >> some attractiveness. > >IMO there is no script more beautiful than handwritten Cyrillic.
Ah, now the cursive script is something different. From what I've seen, cursive Cyrillic is like that cursive Roman style called "copperplate", that was popular here in the 19th cent & early 20th cent. Indeed, I see no formal difference, except their use of the different shapes. Yes, copperplate is very beautiful when written properly, but IME degenerates quickly when poorly written. I suppose well-written Arabic is beautiful because it's cursive. [snip]
>> ..all of which goes to prove how subjective aesthetics are :) >> > >Indeed. I could see two countries going to war over something like, > >Gulgustan: "/l/ is prettier than /r/" >Zomozgia: "No it's not" >Gulgustan: "yes it is" >Zomozgia: (to aide) "launch the Scuds"
Or even over /r/ itself when one recalls how many different ways the rhotic consonant gets pronounced. Rugistan: "Our /r/ is the only true way of saying /r/; your /r/ is ugly and harsh" Ravolia: "Nonsense, our /r/ has ancient beauty; indeed the prophet Raratoran said /r/ as we do." Rugistan: "You lie. If you read the ancient texts properly, you will see that the Prophet always said /r/ our way. Ravolia: "And you blaspheme! The Prophet would never have defiled his mouth with your /r/. ...and so another unholy 'Holy War' is launched. ------------------------------------------------------------------ At 8:49 pm +0000 20/3/02, Joe wrote: [snip]
> >My Ideal phonology:
'ideal' phonology, now that's another matter. The most (aesthetically) beautiful phonology - which must needs be subjective :) is not necessarily the most ideal. If you say ideal, my immediate question is: "Ideal for what?" Clearly the phonology I gave, e.g., is not ideal for any a_posterior conlang based on any European models. It's clear, e.g. from Tolkien's works that what he consider ideal phonolgies for elven languages what not all what he thought proper for dwarves, still less so for orcs. Ray. ========================================= A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language. [J.G. Hamann 1760] =========================================