Re: Using word generators (was Re: Semitic root word list?)

Hi!

David J. Peterson writes:
> Jörg wrote:
> <<
> Yes, it is the same to me.  Many ad-hoc words I created for relay texts
> and similar purposes don't survive long, and are eventually replaced by
> better thought-of words.  Some, however, survive.
>  >>
>
> The only problem I have found with this approach is that it can
> lead to an unbalanced phonology. ...
That's the same danger I encountered for my engelangs because although
I use a random generator, I usually select what it proposes.  Another
danger is violating the phonotactics when doing it manually, which is
why I prefer using a random generator and manual selecting.

Luckily, so far the langs had quite a strict way of generating vocab
that prevented those accidents.  E.g.:

  - Tyl Sjok has very few syllables, so they are all used.  (There are
    a few constraints on selection of phoneme by semantics, but too
    few to prevent missing phonemes.)

  - In Qþyn|gài, each consonant represents a certain semantical core
    class, and so assigning the consonants cannot be influenced later
    when this mapping is done.  I select a core class, not a consonant
    when I add roots.  And since each consonant is assigned a core
    class, each one will be used at the frequency of its class.

    The free selection here is the second consonant of a root, which I
    select at free will, and one vowel for a stem, of which there are
    only four each one will be used simply because there are so few.

    All in all, I like the balance this produces while I still have
    the freedom of manually selecting two out of three components of a
    root/stem.

The other engelangs use random or otherwise computed assignment of
words, for different reasons that are part of the construction.

**Henrik