Re: Aesthetics

On 10/18/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>
> I'm a bit late entering this thread, but I'll add my twopenceworth.
>
> Edgard Bikelis wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I was wondering: as we surely are guided by some aesthetic principles in
> our
> > conlanging, what are those principles we use?
>
> Sorry to disappoint, but aesthetic principles don't figure in the three
> (work in progress) Conlangs on my website:
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Briefscript/
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Loglang/
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/EAK/
>
> They are very much determined by other principles. Indeed, I am not
> over-fond of the phonology of Piashi, but anyone who has followed the
> tortuous development of 'briefscript' and the Brsc over the years will
> know why it finished up the way it did. It was dictated by the way I
> understood its objectives and design principles:
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Briefscript/ObjAndDesign.html

Maybe aesthetics are just for vain tongues : ). Nah, but I agree there is
more to aim than it. I just woke up (uahh), will see your links later, when
I'm up AND really awaken, not the case now.

> Maybe it's not a fecund
> > subject, but let's give a try : ). As it's all subjective, care is
> needed
> > when commenting, but it would be nice to hear what other people think is
> > beautiful, and about what I think... or rather feel.
>
> I haven't really analyzed this. Maybe one day I'll get around to a
> 'pure' artlang. Who knows? I prefer Quenya to Sindarin. Like Tolkien, I
> find Finnish beautiful but, unlike Tolkien, I also like Gaelic. I rank
> Italian as the most aesthetically pleasing of the Romancelangs.

It was so strange to me to find Tolkien liked the palatal nasal, if I
remember well, in Que_ny_a. That would be the last nasal on my rank... but
pure velars are not so much better either : ). But I prefer Quenya too.
Gaelic not so much... their orthography is for crying about.

> 1) On phonology, good vowels are [a@eEioOuy]; not sure about nasals.
>
> [@] a good sound? Nah. I find the mid central vowel the less pleasing.
> Give me the cardinal vowels any day    :)
>
> > Good
> > consonants are velars, alveolars, and labials (both dental and
> bilabial).
> > Until recently I hated palatals... now I'm rather convinced that they
> are
> > allowed to exist ; ).
>
> But palatals are lovely.

Now I know ; ). It needed much sanskrit for realizing it.

> Glottal stop sounds very rude. Bilabial fricatives are
> > prettier than labiodentals. I like aspiration. Alveolar tap is much
> better
> > than retroflex.
>
> No, no - the only proper rhotic is trilled    :)

Ah, after some Greek I contaminated my portuguese pronunciation with trilled
rhotics... and it's more beautiful, indeed : ).

(snip)


> Ancient Greek is a mess, not so Latin, Sanskrit just a
> > bit. I can't think about much more here...
>
> Aw - Greek is great. Latin can have a rugged sort of beauty, but it's
> somewhat stolid compared with the exuberance of the ancient Greek
> language with all its diversity.

If by exuberance you mean several ways of saying the same thing in each
dialect, and by diversity several dialects, I can't disagree. I was hard on
Greek anyway. But Latin is more cute : P.

>
> > (After an epiphany on φθάνω, χθές and the like.)
>
> Ah, but how do you pronounce them? The modern way, ['fTano] [xTEs] or
> the ancient way [p_ht_hanO:] [k_ht_hes], the former with high tone on
> the first vowel? The combos [p_ht_h] and [k_ht_h] were probably [pt] and
> [kt] with simultaneous aspiration of both plosives.

That is a thing to decide. I read Vox Graeca and try my best with the two
aspirates, but it is so hard to pronounce! I can only speak [pt_hanO:]. I'm
quite a purist at pronunciation (for sanskrit I keep saying
[tat`atat`atat`a], [dad`adad`a] &c until I got it as a minimal pair ; ), but
this one is hard : /.

--
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> Entia non sunt multiplicanda
> praeter necessitudinem.


Edgard.

Reply