Re: OT: What makes a good conlang? (was Re: Super OT: Re: CHAT: JRRT)

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:50:59AM -0500, David Peterson wrote:
[...]
> Now, I don't disagree.  In fact, I agree with what you wrote
> here--especially when you consider universalists, who've taken the view
> that not only can all languages be systematically described, but they
> can all be systematically described in basically the same way, with a
> handful of language-specific stipulations (which usually amount to, IMO,
> the language itself).  The counterexample to this would be a linguist
> who assumes that a language can only be understood within itself, and so
> the linguist attempts to discover the systematicity of the language on
> its own, rather than on comparing it to other languages, or trying to
> make it conform to universal constraints.
In my view, a language expresses the culture that produced it, not
necessarily in a superficial sense (eg. in the precise phonemes or word
endings), but certainly within its deeper fabric. While it may certainly
be possible to extricate a natlang from its cultural context and use it in
a utilitarian way, my opinion is that doing this deprives the language of
its unique identity. What sets a language apart are its idioms, unique
way(s) of expressing something, and idiosyncrasies. Without these, it
might as well be an auxlang. (Not to be perjorative, but I find auxlangs a
bit too mechanical and inorganic.)

> While I value this method more highly (for a natural language), I still
> agree with Teoh (I'm sorry, but is this your name?  I get the impression
> that it's your last name...  :( I'm sorry!), and say that if such a
> linguist assumes that every aspect of the language can be systematically
> explained, from within or without, I think s/he'd be assuming too much.
In fact, "Teoh" is my last name, but I've gotten so used to being called
by it that it doesn't bother me in the least. (Actually I was the one who
initially suggested the idea to people who found my non-Western first name
difficult to pronounce and/or remember.)

> From a design point of view, I think one should consider realistic
> anachronisms.  Just because something can't be explained systematically
> doesn't mean that it should be totally off the wall.
Right. Which is why, after I started to gain more conlanging experience, I
realized that some aspects of Ebisédian went a bit too far. That's why I
started working on Tamahí before Ebisédian was developed enough to my
satisfaction. (My original plan was to complete Ebisédian, or at least
bring it to a more-or-less "complete" state in the sense And described,
before I work on any other conlang.) Nevertheless, I didn't---and still
don't---feel that the case system was too off-the-wall. ;-)

[snip]
> [...] a plural, some have the standard form, whatever that may be.  Now
> you've got a rather unsystematic (fairly), completely nonproductive,
> universal-violating anachronism in your language, but it's more
> believable because it gives the hint of a previous status, i.e., it may
> be indicative of a productive process from the past.
That is what I've tried to do in the Ebisédian lexicon. Although most of
the entries are more-or-less arbitrary, I did try to give an impression
that there is some internal, unseen consistency; eg., I would recycle
suffixes, infixes, etc., to give the impression that they are vestiges of
an ancestor lang, although in reality there really isn't any consistent
pattern.

[snip]
> With a phonemic inventory, let's say you had...
>
> p t k
> b d g
> m n N
> f s x
> v z G
> w l j
>
> It'd be particularly strange if you had, in addition to these, a voiced
> lateral fricative.  It'd be totally out of left-field.  It'd be less
> strange if you had /q/, though.
Now as far as Ebisédian phonology is concerned, it is strange not because
of the presence of off-the-wall sounds, but because it has an overly
consistent set of sounds. It has the full range of velars, dentals, and
labials (voiced/unvoiced fricatives, nasal, voiced/unvoiced/aspirated
stops) and an almost full range of postalveolar affricates, plus [l] and
[r`]. Not that having such a rich inventory of sounds is odd, just that I
basically catalogued all the sounds I could pronounce at the time and just
threw them all into Ebisédian. The complete lack of vowel glides and
diphthongs was also strange, especially with the admittedly artificial
device of inserting glottal stops between every pair of vowels. I tried to
remedy this unrealistic situation in Tamahí by dropping out many of the
sounds (most of the fricatives were elided, and the all-too-prevalent
glottal stops were completely gone... and there are now nice diphthongs!
:-P).

[snip]
> So, what I would say is that a knowledge of linguistics and typology can
> still give you an idea about realistic unsystematicity.
As they say, before you can break the rules, you have to first know what
the rules are.

[snip]
> Joerg wrote:
>
> <<People who follow their intuition often create better and more
> realistic art than people who try to be exact.>>
>
> The only caveat I'd add to this is that, with visual art, for example,
> there's little chance of someone being influenced by anything other than
> their own intuitions if they choose to follow simply their own
> intuitions.  In conlanging you run the risk of emulating your L1, or any
> other language you know.
OTOH, one should be careful not to go on an anti-L1 binge, which usually
produces frankenlangs like Ebisédian. :-P :-P

> So I'd say it's important to draw a distinction between the instinct of
> what sounds right/makes sense, and what sounds right/makes sense
> *within* the framework of the language one's inventing. After all, I
> think we've all probably seen examples (and, indeed, I've *been* an
> example) of someone doing something because they think it sounds/feels
> right, and what they do ends up emulating English, or some other known
> languages, almost exactly.
Totally agree. A realistic conlang, IMHO, must be consistent within its
own framework, both linguistically and culturally. Strange as the result
might have been, when I was designing Ebisédian I felt that it would be
stranger if a language spoken in such an alien universe had an Earth-like
vocabulary. So I allowed the perceptions of the Ebisédi to be molded by
the universe around them---perhaps a bit too much in retrospect, but
nevertheless---and thus, indirectly, through the culture that the Ebisédi
formed, the language was influenced to a large degree to reflect the
con-world. The result may make one cringe, but I do feel quite happy with
many parts of Ebisédian that I feel match the con-world beautifully, much
more than would have been possible if I had simply transplanted a Terran
language (or Terran-like lang) into the con-world.


T

--
Give a man a fish, and he eats once. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit
forever.

Reply