Re: Aesthetics

Salue! (for variation)

On 10/16/07, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
>
> Hallo!
>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:56:15 -0300, 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? 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.
>
> Sure, it's all very subjective.  That's the difference between
> artlanging and engelanging, after all :)
>
> > 1) On phonology, good vowels are [a@eEioOuy]; not sure about nasals.
> 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 ; ). Glottal stop sounds very rude. Bilabial fricatives
> are
> > prettier than labiodentals. I like aspiration. Alveolar tap is much
> better
> > than retroflex. Retroflex consonants are hard for me to pronounce, but I
> > think I like them, anyway...
>
> I like spirants and front rounded vowels.  "Throaty" sound such as
> uvulars and glottals should only be used sparingly.  An interesting
> phonology is not one which includes every phoneme it could, but one
> which does complex and plausible things with a moderate inventory.

Agreed, but most of my predilect sounds are allophones at least. Shame,
shame : ).

> 2) On morphology, I can't help liking indoeuropean morphology, but the
> more
> > regular the better. Ancient Greek is a mess, not so Latin, Sanskrit just
> a
> > bit. I can't think about much more here...
>
> Same to me!  IE-style morphology, but not too irregular.  But I like
> fluid-S active-stative morphosyntactic alignment.

Never heard of it before; neat! Do you use it in Old Albic?

> 3) On syntax, I can just think of parataxis versus hypotaxis. Parataxis is
> > beautiful, short, 'rhythmic', but hypotaxis, if not of Ciceronian style,
> may
> > be so too.
>
> Both have their virtues.
>
> >       About rhythmic, it's too vague a word, and here I mean the
> > reading memory, used to get the relationship between each phrase on a
> > sentence, is not too heavily used. Herodotus is just right, not too
> short,
> > not too baroque. BTW, I'm not still decided if indirect speech is neat
> or
> > just more complicated than useful.
>
> I have a preference for free word order with an underlying VSO head-first
> pattern.  Among the IE languages, the Celtic ones have the most
> interesting
> syntax, and Old Albic syntax is similar (which also makes sense
> intrafictionally).

That is a bold choice, VSO. For me SOV is better, but that's I'm too
latinate... curiously you posted about the Old Albic 'infinitive' / action
noun, I will comment on that soon. I've been struggling with vedic
infinitives for some time now ; ).

> Did anyone here ever wrote an 'aesthetic credo' before starting a conlang?
> I
> > think it's exactly what I will do, and then redo everything.
>
> Jesse Bangs once wrote a manifesto and posted it here:
>
>
> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0203b&L=conlang&T=0&F=&S=&P=27775
>
> Of the three criteria he gives ("naturalness", "complexity" and
> "creativity"), I whole-heartedly subscribe to the first one,
> but that is just my personal taste.  Others have different tastes.
> The others need qualification.  A well-crafted brief sketch is
> certainly better than a humdrum euroclone with 7,000 words and
> a 200-page grammar; it is also not a good move to add more
> complexity without adding more depth; and I see no virtue in
> avoiding similarity to familiar languages at all cost.

Conlang criticism is a very good idea. About naturalness sometimes we see
rare characteristics (as OVS for instance) as less natural, but they are
there even so, like those species in biology daring to be the only alive of
its family.

Complexity... hm, the more the rules the better ; ) but no exceptions, by
*Dyé:us. Just now I'm deciding how to deal with aorists in my IEuropean
conlang, Ausónya. Dental roots make aorists with zero-grade plus tonic
thematic vowel (stéud- studé-) or by -is- (stéud- stéudis-). That in vedic
tudáti is present is just a thing to not mention ; ). Deciding what to do
based on the last consonant seems complex to me, but... elegant too, if
exceptionless.

Now on creativity I disagree with that old message. That is easier for me,
speaking Portuguese, to create another romance language, that is plain; but
to say it is not creative, whatever I do with my hypothetical
con...rom...lang? is unfair. It doesn't need to be hard to be beautiful,
against what a teacher of literary criticism once said , on how everything
beautiful _must_ grow from suffering. Let one choose a burden he is capable
to bear, like Horace said somewhere.

Anyway, much of beauty comes from rarity. Euroclones are boring because most
of us at least thought once about creating one, saw quite a few others, and
speak something not that far from it. More from the same is like visiting a
huge museum... even if it's all good, after 30 paintings or so we get numb,
or very very picky.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
>
Edgard.

Reply