Re: Introducing myself, and several questions

----- Original Message -----
From: "Damian Yerrick" <tepples@...>


> Mike Ellis wrote:
>>A suggestion: if you're having difficulty generating an a priori
>>vocabulary
>>that sounds right, try an 'a posteriori' language -- start with an
>>existing
>>language and then go nuts with sound/grammar changes etc.
>
> Wouldn't I have to worry about offending native speakers of
> the existing natlang(s) or creators of the existing conlang(s)
> if I include too many identifiable words?  I guess one solution
> is to take existing words, compound them, and then "erode" them.
Take a look at Ill Bethisad, Damian.  Here's the Wiki:

http://ib.frath.net/w/Main_Page

There's an honored tradition of a posteriori language invention that started
on this list and branched off.  Take a look at the Romlang and Conculture
lists.  Conlangers are hard to offend, and the point is to try everything.
:)

> Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
>
>>If you don't want euroclones, there's a very easy way to avoid it:
>>learn any non-European language!
>
> I've _read about_ other natlangs and their structures, but I've
> never tried hard to learn to speak one.  Am I the only one who
> got cheated by his middle school and high school, whose foreign
> language departments taught nothing but IE languages?
No... the only languages taught at my high school were Spanish, French, and
German.  And that was thirty five years ago.  I think it's even more reduced
in general these days.

 I guess I
> just haven't yet had the dedication to work through "teach yourself
> $LANGUAGE" books from the library, especially because they rarely
> come with a cassette or CD to compare my pronunciation to.
Hmmm.  They're abundant at Borders, but like you said, it can be expensive.
However, a terrific book is Bernard Comrie's Language Universals and
Linguistic Typology which gives examples from various non IE languages.  And
even a plain grammar can give you enough information about a language's
phonology and structure that you can go on from there.  That's one of the
beauties of invention: you can create the sounds of a new language in your
own mouth through some experimentation pulling the tongue back for
alveolars, etc.  Who cares if it isn't exactly like some natural language?

> Stephen Mulraney wrote:
>
>>But
>>a better reason for the low number of distinctive vowel phonemes
>>might be large array of consonants, which bear more functional
>>load in the language.
>
> So if being consonant-rich makes a phonetic system tend to be
> vowel-poor (cf. Caucasian languages), then what are the forces
> that help a language become consonant-rich?
Your own decision to make it so.  You might be trying to rebuild New York
City in minute detail.  No invented language will ever have the history of a
real language.  One can give it the look of one, though, to some extent.
You are right to want to learn everything you can about linguistics, first,
but don't let that delay your invention.  I gather you haven't! :)

> And about Toki Pona:  Don't the complaints about vagueness
> apply in theory to any isolating language, which can be as
> vague or as specific as the speaker's patience allows for?
I suppose.

> Sally Caves wrote:
>
>>This does sound like a twelve step program, doesn't it! :)
>
> If only it took only 12 steps to make a conlang :)
:)

>>Many of the
>>linguistic scholars of glossolalia were so sure they could identify the
>>artificial aspects of that linguistic practice by noting the 1) open
>>syllables, 2) reduced phonology, 3) echoism, etc. that we find in
>>Hawaiian,
>>for instance.  An over regularity of grammar?
>
> Turkish verbs?
Good point.  I do think that Turkish was at some stage consciously
redesigned.  My Teonaht--let me introduce you to another peevish element of
conlanging and that is the AFMCL remark ("as for MY conlang...")--has a
terribly regular verbal system, but a rather baroque maneuverability called
"The Law of Detachment."

>>Sounds, rather,  like that South American tribe whose name I can't
>>remember=
> ;
>>I have it on the tip of my tongue.  Their language was also almost devoid
>>o=
> f
>>abstractions, and they showed an inability to calculate, as well, i.e., to
>>think in abstractions.  We even discussed it about a year ago.
>
> Today I was scouring Wikipedia for information on language isolates
> on a hunch that they might have more off-the-wall ANADEWisms,
> and I read about Pirah=E3 spoken in Brazil.  Is this the one?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%FAra-Pirah%E3_language
Bingo! :)  But there's a better link:
http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/index.php?title=Piraha

>
> B. Garcia wrote:
>
>>Your own esthetcics, Damian will be different from mine. You may think
>>you don't have any, but they're there. Try not to judge what your
>>esthetics should be based upon what others have done with their
>>languages.
>
> So in other words, do you claim that people won't b***h at me
> because, say, the elf-counterparts in my conworld speak a more
> guttural language than the orc-counterparts? You say such a setup
> would amuse you, but would it offend others?
I think Barry also said that you shouldn't be worried about offending others
with your conlang.  The only way we get offended is by spam, outsiders
trying to sell their auxlangs to us, or reeeally offensive religious or
political remarks.  Feel free to do what you want with your conlang outside
of outrageous plagiarism.  Even that is allowed: I've picked up some terms
from Draseleq, for instance (with permission).  Felt very much like stealing
from Tatari Faran as well! :)


Sally
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/whatsteo.html

Reply