Re: Introducing myself, and several questions

Damian Yerrick wrote:
> My name is Damian, and I'm a conlanger.  I've dabbled for
> years, never "finishing" anything to the point that arbitrary
> conversation is possible.  I come to this list to ask for help
> in getting past roadblocks.  I've read some of the archives,
> but not all 6 1/2 years of them.  Here's where I want help:

Greetings

> LEXICAL ICONICITY
>
> When creating the a priori lexicon for Qenya (early drafts of
> Quenya), Tolkien chose sound patterns that he felt "fit" a given
> meaning.
> http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/vice.htm
>
> However, I seem to have a dulled sense of aesthetics, possibly
> caused by my Asperger syndrome that causes me to distrust vague
> hunches.  Much of the time, I can't seem to do better than creating
> phonotactic rules and then randomly assigning Swadesh-list glosses
> to sound patterns, possibly with the aid of a computer program.
> 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?
It's not that Tolkien has special insight into the aesthetics of
language; it's that he has special insight into _his_ asthetics
of language. Such aesthetics are always personal, to the extent
that I find it hard to make sense of the idea of "successfully
implementing" aesthetics. I tend to use phonotactic rules & random
generation to give me a start, too, since my aesthetic inventiveness
is also pretty dim. But I try to find something that catches my
fancy in the random results, and expand on that (usually with
monomaniacal persistency).

> 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.
Sounds like an urban myth. In particular, I don't see why it's
necessary to open the mouth to succesfully complete a gesture
involving making your tongue low. Bear in mind that Arabic is
only one of many languages that developed on the Arabian peninsula,
even if it's the dominant one today. If all these other languages
could be demonstated to have simple vowel systems, and we could
be reasonably sure that it's not a sprachbund phenomenon, then
maybe we might have ourselves some circumstantial evidence. 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.

Hmm, I've read analyses of the Irish vowel system that postulate
three underlying height destinctions, the rest of the surface
complexity of the vowel system being conditioned by the local
phonetic environment. Well, it does rain a lot here.

(I know, you weren't implying simple system => harsh conditions).

 > In addition, Tolkien's chaotic
> orcs speak a phonaesthetically "harsher" language than his
> lawful elves.  Is such correlation the rule or the exception?
In conlangs? Might be a rule, then, since I'm sure there a lot
of Tolkien-clone conlangs out there. If you're talking about
natlanngs, I'm not sure what the example refers too.



> CULTURAL-GRAMMATIC CORRELATION
>
> Likewise, are any grammatical qualities correlated to aspects
> of the culture?  Does an environmental or cultural constraint
> correlate with an OV or VO preference, with obligate marking
> of various properties of a noun or verb, or anything similar?
I don't know. As evidence against the strong form of this, I'd point
out how bilinguals in many places (e.g., Wales) use both VO and
OV languages, in more or less the same cultural milieu.

> I can see how a more paranoid culture might lead to evidentiary
> markers becoming grammaticalized; are there other examples?
I can see how a more paranoid culture might lead to evidentiary
markers becoming used; but I don't see why grammaticalisation is
likely or neccesary. Perhaps over a long time. If statements made
about other, especially public, people in the USSR were more likely
to be hedged ("... or so I hear", "... but it might not be true"),
might that have lead to grammatical hedging markers? I don't think
it did. For one thing, for grammaticalisation of forms, I guess you
need one particular form or formula to be used in most occasions.
I don't see how "free form" hedging involving whatever construction
comes to mind at the moment, would lead to grammaticalisation.


> SIMPLIFICATION
>
> I understand that the lexicon can be reduced to sizes that
> may initially appear absurd while retaining expressiveness.
> Evidence: A conlang called Toki Pona manages to convey every
> meaning one can think of in 120 basic words.
In a way completely lacking in specificity.

>
> FURTHER READING
>
> When I search for some of these topics, Google often gives me
> results that look promising but say "Download this article for $30".
> Once Google fails me for gratis web resources, and my local public
> library's search engine fails me for print resources, what are some
> good resources for learning about these subjects without spending
> $500 on buying books and buying individual PDF article downloads?
> Or is conlanging a rich man's hobby?
Well, it can be done with a pencil & paper. But you're right; knowledge
can be expensive. I know of no easy solution, but to use what you have.
Such constraints might make the result more interesting, too :-).

s.
--
Stephen Mulraney   ataltane@ataltane.net
     Klein bottle for rent  ...  inquire within.