Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Uber newbie-conlanger conlang

From:Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>
Date:Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 22:01
Sally Caves skrev:
> How kludgy do you want it to be? I mean, I can go back as far as my > pubescent days, with absolutely NO knowledge of linguistics. Is the kludgy > conlang by someone who's had a taste of other conlangs? Or is he a conlang > VIRGIN? Here are a few mistakes I made at eleven, peppered with naivetes > I've seen in some of the nineteenth-century conlangs I've been studying:
Let's see what I did at eleven (or somewhat later).
> 1) Make it a TOTAL calque of English. Or French. Or whatever your native > language is. Even the homonyms match: > > Can I put this in the can? > Sens eep tupa eda do ra sens?
Nope. I was bilingual enough not to fall into that trap. At least I remember distinguishing "know" and "feel" à la German and not merge them as in Swedish.
> > 2) Having been exposed to Spanish, however, or French, on an elementary > basis, make a few adjustments in syntax. Have the kludgy conlanger be > impressed by a new word order: > > Not can I put this in the can. > Poni sens eep tupa eda do ra sens.
Did that, including having verb-final secondary clauses.
> > 3) Have the kludgy conlanger invent words that are phonically similar to > words in his native language, borrowing shamelessly from function words in > Spanish and French: > > Go I to the field of poppies? > Ag eep a ra fleea de paparon? > > (Poppies are good, since they're the state flower of California, which may > or may not have survived the Apocalypse.)
I did almost that. I had a mangling scheme borrowed from a "pig latin" type language, which I complicated further.
> 4) Having been exposed to Spanish and French (and perhaps German), and > impressed by the diacritical marks, add a little orthographic flair to the > conlang: > > Go I to the field of poppies? > Ach íp â r'Flia de Päp'ron?
I did use some random diacritics after exposure to Tolkien.
> 5) Decide that every "s" sound is going to be expressed by |x|, and every > "p" is going to be expressed by |ph| to lend more "exoticism." > > Not can I put this in the poppy. > Phon' xenx íp tûpha èda do rá Phäpro.
Check. I used |j| for /S/ since I thought that was what French did. I also used |ch| for /x/ untill I realized I could use |k| for /k/ and use only |c| for /x/, |x| being /ks/ of course! After my father corrected me WRT French |j| (and thought me to pronounce [Z]) I decided all |j|s were /Z/, and started introducing |ç| for /S/. At first I used |z| as a random variant of |s|, later to decide that it was |ts|. BTW |tj| remained for /tS/ -- or was it /s\/? ;) An early auxlang of mine had only those consonant phonemes which occur in Swedish but used strange mappings for some combos, notably |z| for /ds/ -- there was no /z/!
> > 6) Having suddenly discovered CASES, make about twenty of them to cover > every preposition you can think of: with the poppy, to the poppy, by the > poppy, on the poppy, in the poppy, over the poppy, away from the poppy, of > the poppy, alongside the poppy, under the poppy, after the poppy, before > the > poppy, behind the poppy, into the poppy, out of the poppy, during the > poppy, > without the poppy, etc. and attach them as suffixes.
Ho hum. Now you are tickling my current lang Sohlob. I guess that's why it is in danger of losing all its cases...
> > 7) Having picked up a book like Comrie's, decide that you're going to make > it ergative, and that you're going to get rid of the verb at the same time. > :) This will take some planning, so it's a clean erase, and back to the > blackboard. > > Is this kludgy enough? ;)
Sure. -- /BP 8^)> -- Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant! (Tacitus)