Re: This is not a conlang.

Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon) wrote:
> This is not a conlang; it is utter nonsensical gibberish:
>
> http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/say/gibberish1.mp3
[snip]
> Secondly, am I completely correct in my belief that the sample I have
> given really *is* indistinguishable from real speech, or would an
> appropriate statistical analysis of the phonetics probably reveal some
> hidden unnatural features?
The phrases sound a bit off.  It sounds like a news report, but just
when you think it's going to end or go to the reporter at the scene, it
doesn't.

Two of my school friends would occasionally have fake conversations in
language with lots of onomatapoea (and that related thing I can't
remember the name of), and plenty of [Slo], [flA], ["b&d@%g&d@], etc.
Temporary "words" would arise, usually for some person or (unknown)
ridiculable property of them (signalled by laughter, hand-gestures, etc).

Finally, Richard Feynmann recounts in his autobiography his attempts at
fake Chinese, and fake Italian, the latter of which had all the
(University-aged) girls listening in fits of laughter, but the Romance
language professors puzzled.
--
Simon Richard Clarkstone
s.r.cl*rkst*n*@durham.ac.uk / s*m*n_cl*rkst*n*@hotmail.com

Replies