Re: Introducing myself, and several questions

Damian Yerrick wrote:

>My name is Damian, and I'm a conlanger.
Welcome aboard, Damian!

>Here's where I want help:
>LEXICAL ICONICITY
[...]
>Are there some general procedures that govern lexical innovation
>in natlangs and naturalistic conlangs?  Has anybody successfully
>implemented ding-dong or ta-ta in their conlangs?
There are a few patterns that show up here and there (words for little
things tend towards front vowels and words for big things tend to have back
vowels in them etc etc) but they aren't hard rules and they don't stick in a
lot of places (English "big" and "small" for example are the exact reverse
of this). There's also onomatopoeia, but that's a very small part of any
lexicon.
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.

>DEFAULT SETTINGS OF GRAMMAR
>
>I don't want to make euroclones all the time, but I don't want to
>make an unspeakable language that violates fifty-two universals
>either.  What structures are "easier" for the developing hominid
>brain to parse?  For example, do learners intrinsically prefer
>object-verb order or verb-object order?  What about adjective-noun
>or noun-adjective?  Is there any appeal to iconicity for this?
EVERYBODY knows that the word and phrase order of (pick your first language)
is inherently more logical than the rest. I mean, "(phrase in your first
language)"! What could be more straightforward?

... in other words, there's no way to answer this one without hearing from a
horde of people who say the exact opposite. I personally find OV, head-final
order very easy on the brain, maybe even more so than English's (mostly) VO
structure.

>CULTURAL-PHONETIC CORRELATION
>
>Does tendency for open or closed syllables, for softer or harder
>sounds, or for tones or no tones, depend on culture?  I've heard
>of the Inuit and the Arabs, whose languages have fewer distinct
>vowel heights and more back consonants because their harsh
>environments make it painful to open the mouth to the elements
>in order to produce low vowels.  In addition, Tolkien's chaotic
>orcs speak a phonaesthetically "harsher" language than his
>lawful elves.  Is such correlation the rule or the exception?
I'd say it's an exception. There's this stereotype that good guys go
"ellinnilathienithiethiaeaenennelli" and bad guys go "blug blag ugga chunk
jukblag zoglogga gluk". I even saw one site** that prescribed these as rules
to use in giving sounds to the language of your conculture (!). Tolkien had
an aesthetic preference in sounds and it shows in which sounds he assigned
to which cultures. But there's no reason why you MUST use his template.
(I'm prejudiced, of course; by JRRT's standards my Rhean is an "ugly"
language, but not by mine!)

A lot was snipped above; sorry I can't be of more assistance beyond my
opinions on the subjective stuff.

M

** which I can't find anywhere now. Anyone wanna own up to writing it?