Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Euphonic phonology (Was: 'Nor' in the World's Languages)

From:John Vertical <johnvertical@...>
Date:Wednesday, August 9, 2006, 10:53
>On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 Henrik Theiling <theiling@> wrote: > > > > Anyway, do others also have such a hard time finding personally > > pleasing phonologies? I find it awefully difficult. > > > > ------------------------------ > > >Christian Thalmann replied: > > > > Not at all, I absolutely love making phonologies. Disappointingly > > (?), I usually end up with rather simple vowel systems, and no > > hard-to-pronounce consonants. But maybe that's just the recipe > > for pleasing phonologies? It seems to work for Quenya, IMHO the > > hallmark of pleasing phonology.
True, Quenya has a very pleasing phonology, but I really don't think it's the only method of getting a pleasing-sounding language. I like very much exploring alternate routes, both for the sake of exploration itself & for not coming off "n00bish". (I'm starting to think that the phonology for my first project, uwjge, is too kitchen-sinkish and diacronically contrived. Maybe I should scale back and transfer sum' parts elsewhere...) Aspirated plosivs and moderately restricted codas are two features I seem to recycle from phonology to phonology, but I also like to thow wierd consonants in from time to time, from clicks to epiglottals... it's good pronunciation practis, plus they add a definit flavor to the language. A distinctiv flavor is one of the most important things I'm after, and this applies both to the sound and the writing.
> > Dirk Elzinga replied: > > > > It's a fairly easy thing to collect a list of > > sounds that are appealing in themselves, but to get them to work > > together in a pleasing, or at least convincing fashion is the real > > trick.
I don't start from sounds itself, but rather from words. They tend to already imply a certain degree of phonology (more so than plain phonemes), and then it's just a question of figuring out which parts fit together & filling holes. It takes work, but the results look good.
> > Kate <snapping.dragon@> replied:
> > What I wonder, is does anyone have the same problem when it comes to > > morphology, syntax, etc?
Yeah, me. I haven't really been able to get anything interesting done with either. With syntax it's mostly due to me kno'ing next to about nothing about the subject, but with morphology I gess I just don't have any good ideas ... or rather, have visions bigger than I can work out. This greatly hinders the growth of my lexicons, even if I have plenty of ideas about _what_ to lexicalize. :( Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote: (...)
>Kate says she tosses a language that, for ten reasons, she shouldn't; but >for one, overriding one, she does - it offends her sense of beauty. I >reckon that is a valid artistic choice. The only fault I could find with >this procedure is that it's rather wasteful! ;-)
Plus phonology is probably the most independant part of a language and could relativly easily be replaced with sumthing else, occasionally even in an 1:1 fashion (so you needn't even scrap the lexical entries). John Vertical