Re: Word Construction for a New Conlang

Ed Heil wrote:
>
> I'm finding myself in a state of throwing away all the beginnings of
> conlangs I've started and wanting to start over again.  And I'm just
> not sure how to start, so I turn to you (pl) for help...
>
> It's the phenomenon of making words and making phonologies.  Think
> back, if you can, to when you first started on your conlangs (or first
> started on a new project)...  How did you go about making a phonology
> and then making words?
Well, in my case, Teonaht started so early that it was almost instinct.
I think we've had this discussion! <G>  In other words, I haven't
recently
set out to invent a new conlang.  I'm obsessed about refining (and
becoming fluent in) Teonaht.

> Let's assume for the moment that the thing to do is (1) settle on a
> phonology and phonotactics and (2) make words according to that
> pattern.
Ed, a person you might ask, who deliberately set out to limit the sounds
of his language, is Matt Pearson.  What makes Tokana distinctive to my
mind is that he decided to eliminate our distinction between voiced
and voiceless stops like t/d p/b k/g.  I was very impressed by that.
But I can see where your concern is: do you make the rule first and then
stick to it, or do you experiment with sounds, and then decide which
sounds occur most often?  I've often worried that Teonaht had too many
phonological options (still impressed by Tokana).  When I look at it,
though, I've noticed that it definitely favors certain clusters, and
while there IS an option for initial sp, st, fp, and so forth, few
words actually start out that way.  "H" is also increasingly /x/ in
Teonaht.  But this is a lang that has been put to the test for years,
and is being most rigorously tested now, in the last year, since I've
joined conlang and started making all those webpages and soundbytes.

> Not being a professional linguist, I'm not sure I've ever seen a
> complete description of the phonotactics of a natlang, so I'm not sure
> how I would go about describing such a beast.  I don't explicitly know
> the phonotactics of any of the few natlangs I've studied, nor of my
> native language.  As for phonologies, I've seen phoneme inventories
> but I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like a complete analysis of
> the phonology of a natlang (allophones and all).
>
> Given a "sound" that I might want a language to have, when I try,
> clumsily, to analyze that sound and make a formula for creating it, I
> usually don't end up getting anywhere near it.  And when I try to make
> a system from scratch, not following a vision but just making up some
> rules and seeing where they lead, I don't often get anywhere I want to
> be.
I know.  I want to reserve the right to create any number of sound
combinations that please me, which is why I followed with interest the
thread on vowel rhyme and how difficult it was to adhere to it in
the invention of a language.

> I've tried using Jeffrey Henning's _Langmaker_ and Christopher
> Pound's  _werd_ and you can do some cool stuff with them, but again, I
> suffer from an inability to come up with formulas for word creation
> that produce quite the sets of words I want.
I think what I would suggest is to apply limitations sparingly.  Make
a list of limited consonant clusters that your words will start with
in your language.  If that gives you leeway, then apply other
limitations.  Or:  decide what sound combinations please you.  Tim
and I have talked about this.  We both like certain closed syllables,
those ending in "nd" for instance:  enda, vanda, vandi, rendi, londa:
or "mb":  vamba lumba remba lemba bamba; or "mp":  fempa rempa lempa,
nizempa, zampa, vendizamp.  I often make up words and fit definitions
to them later.  To avoid the mistakes I've made in Teonaht, make up
basic morphemes with basic meanings.  As a neophyte, I often started
out with long words and attached a definition to them that prevented
me from parcing the word:  tatilynarpim: "disgust."  Where did that
come from?????  What's tatily?  narpim?
>
> Do the rest of you start with this kind of harcore linguistics
> description and proceed to specific words,
Nah!!  T. was purely visceral in its origins.  Still is to a great
extent.

 or vice versa, or somewhere
> in between, or some cycle between the two, or something entirely
> different?  Where did your words come from?
Spelling things backwards, often.  Matthias spelled backwards is:
Saihttam-- adjusted: saihtam, pronounced /'saiTam/.  I'll let him
apply a meaning to it!

> I'm curious how other people work, especially people who, like me, do
> not have a really hardcore linguistics background with exposure to a
> lot of natlangs and formal descriptions thereof.
>
They buy Dixon, Comrie and Trask, and they pore over books on
comparative linguistics!  They get those cheap Teach Yourself series.

Sally
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/teonaht.html