So it's time to make my language public

If you're new to these arts, this is the place to ask "stupid" questions and get directions!
User avatar
Visinoid
roman
roman
Posts: 908
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 05:13
Location: Sparta

Re: So it's time to make my language public

Post by Visinoid »

I'd suggest you to read this and this. I hope those links help you. Once you've finished your reading, tell us about your language toward your new knowledge.
Jarhead
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 151
Joined: 28 Oct 2010 21:53

Re: So it's time to make my language public

Post by Jarhead »

If it makes you feel better about it, you can be sure that my language is intented to be everything but an auxlang. I have the ambition of having somebody learn how to speak Eil, but for fun and aesthetic reasons, not because it would be a good replcement for a natlang. I, personally, don't believe any auxlang is ever going to replace any other language on a large scale. Would you consider Eil an euroclone? Unfortunately my knowledge of linguistics is so limited that I'm sure there are a lot of interesting features that I would somehow add - if I only knew about them. I'm probably going to stick with european-linke languages for a while.
L1: :ita:
Fluent (on a good day): :eng:
Written: :lat:
Beginner: :esp:
Working on: :con: ~ Eil
User avatar
Visinoid
roman
roman
Posts: 908
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 05:13
Location: Sparta

Re: So it's time to make my language public

Post by Visinoid »

And that's probably what most people speaking an euro-lang do at first. Those links were there to help. ;D
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: So it's time to make my language public

Post by eldin raigmore »

(I can't tell who or which post this should be a reply to.)

I don't think Esperanto does or did have a taxonomic lexicon.

Esperanto is the world's and history's most successful auxlang so far, as near as anyone can tell. (Certain natlangs are rumored to have started out as auxlangs, but most scholars think there's insufficient evidence for that; or in some cases too much evidence against that.)

As I recall, no auxlang with a taxonomic lexicon has been successful even a little bit.

There are major practical problems with the "taxonomic lexicon" idea.

(Not that I want to discourage Jarhead from trying it! At worst s/he'll (there are girl Marines) find out why it's hard to make it work.)

If I'm wrong, and Esperanto's lexicon is (or at least was) taxonomic, please show me a reference containing the proof? Or, provide your own set of examples.
Spoiler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language#17th_and_18th_century:_advent_of_philosophical_languages wrote:17th and 18th century: advent of philosophical languages
The 17th century saw the rise of projects for "philosophical" or "a priori" languages, such as:

Francis Lodwick's A Common Writing (1647) and The Groundwork or Foundation laid (or So Intended) for the Framing of a New Perfect Language and a Universal Common Writing (1652)
Sir Thomas Urquhart's Ekskybalauron (1651) and Logopandecteision[11] (1652)
George Dalgarno's Ars signorum, 1661
John Wilkins' Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language, 1668

These early taxonomic conlangs produced systems of hierarchical classification that were intended to result in both spoken and written expression. Leibniz had a similar purpose for his lingua generalis of 1678, aiming at a lexicon of characters upon which the user might perform calculations that would yield true propositions automatically, as a side-effect developing binary calculus. These projects were not only occupied with reducing or modelling grammar, but also with the arrangement of all human knowledge into "characters" or hierarchies, an idea that with the Enlightenment would ultimately lead to the Encyclopédie. Many of these 17th-18th centuries conlangs were pasigraphies, or purely written languages with no spoken form or a spoken form that would vary greatly according to the native language of the reader.[12]

Leibniz and the encyclopedists realized that it is impossible to organize human knowledge unequivocally in a tree diagram, and consequently to construct an a priori language based on such a classification of concepts. Under the entry Charactère, D'Alembert critically reviewed the projects of philosophical languages of the preceding century. After the Encyclopédie, projects for a priori languages moved more and more to the lunatic fringe. Individual authors, typically unaware of the history of the idea, continued to propose taxonomic philosophical languages until the early 20th century (e.g. Ro), but most recent engineered languages have had more modest goals; some are limited to a specific field, like mathematical formalism or calculus (e.g. Lincos and programming languages), others are designed for eliminating syntactical ambiguity (e.g., Loglan and Lojban) or maximizing conciseness (e.g., Ithkuil).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Vocabulary wrote:Vocabulary
Main article: Esperanto vocabulary

The core vocabulary of Esperanto was defined by Lingvo internacia, published by Zamenhof in 1887. This book listed 900 roots; these could be expanded into tens of thousands of words using prefixes, suffixes, and compounding. In 1894, Zamenhof published the first Esperanto dictionary, Universala Vortaro, which had a larger set of roots. The rules of the language allowed speakers to borrow new roots as needed; it was recommended, however, that speakers use most international forms and then derive related meanings from these.

Since then, many words have been borrowed, primarily (but not solely) from the Western European languages. Not all proposed borrowings become widespread, but many do, especially technical and scientific terms. Terms for everyday use, on the other hand, are more likely to be derived from existing roots; komputilo "computer", for instance, is formed from the verb komputi "compute" and the suffix -ilo "tool". Words are also calqued; that is, words acquire new meanings based on usage in other languages. For example, the word muso "mouse" has acquired the meaning of a computer mouse from its usage in English. Esperanto speakers often debate about whether a particular borrowing is justified or whether meaning can be expressed by deriving from or extending the meaning of existing words.

Some compounds and formed words in Esperanto are not entirely straightforward; for example, eldoni, literally "give out", means "publish", paralleling the usage of certain Western European languages (such as German). In addition, the suffix -um- has no defined meaning; words using the suffix must be learned separately (such as dekstren "to the right" and dekstrumen "clockwise").

There are not many idiomatic or slang words in Esperanto, as these forms of speech tend to make international communication difficult—working against Esperanto's main goal.
I don't think that sounds very taxonomic.

Jarhead wrote:If it makes you feel better about it, you can be sure that my language is intented to be everything but an auxlang. I have the ambition of having somebody learn how to speak Eil, but for fun and aesthetic reasons, not because it would be a good replcement for a natlang. I, personally, don't believe any auxlang is ever going to replace any other language on a large scale.
Yeah. Usually a completed conlang has 1 speaker and 0 fluent speakers. It's an ambition to have 2 fluent speakers; that would make it a nose ahead of the average finished conlang. (Not even counting all the unfinished ones!)

Jarhead wrote:Would you consider Eil an euroclone? Unfortunately my knowledge of linguistics is so limited that I'm sure there are a lot of interesting features that I would somehow add - if I only knew about them. I'm probably going to stick with european-like languages for a while.
Somewhere there's a list of what the family-resemblance shopping-list of Standard Average European language features and characteristics are; and which of them are significantly more common in the SAE sprachbund (linguistic area) than in the world at large.

I imagine someone on this thread has already posted a link to it? Or at least a link to something that contains a link to such a list?

Many conlangers make a "kitchen sink conlang" at some point -- one that's supposed to have all the features they've found out about and thought were cool. (The stereotype is that your first conlang is just a re-lexification of some natlang you're fluent in, e.g. your native L1, while your second conlang is a kitchen-sink conlang (KSlang).)

But certain features don't work so well with certain other features. IMO it's better to tackle them singly, or in pairs, or in groups of three.

In other words I recommend making your conlang as "average" as possible, with the exception of the one (or two or three) feature(s) you're interested in.

In your case you seem to be most interested in the taxonomic lexicon. I'd recommend that for this conlang you keep everything else as typical as you can.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Jarhead
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 151
Joined: 28 Oct 2010 21:53

Re: So it's time to make my language public

Post by Jarhead »

Visinoid wrote:And that's probably what most people speaking an euro-lang do at first. Those links were there to help. ;D
I read them thoroughly with pleasure [:D]
eldin raigmore wrote: I don't think Esperanto does or did have a taxonomic lexicon.
That's great news for me.
There are major practical problems with the "taxonomic lexicon" idea.

(Not that I want to discourage Jarhead from trying it! At worst s/he'll (there are girl Marines) find out why it's hard to make it work.)
I'm a guy and thank you for the incouragement :)
Francis Lodwick's A Common Writing (1647) and The Groundwork or Foundation laid (or So Intended) for the Framing of a New Perfect Language and a Universal Common Writing (1652)
Sir Thomas Urquhart's Ekskybalauron (1651) and Logopandecteision[11] (1652)
George Dalgarno's Ars signorum, 1661
John Wilkins' Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language, 1668
I'm going to have to check these out!
Many conlangers make a "kitchen sink conlang" at some point -- one that's supposed to have all the features they've found out about and thought were cool. (The stereotype is that your first conlang is just a re-lexification of some natlang you're fluent in, e.g. your native L1, while your second conlang is a kitchen-sink conlang (KSlang).)
In other words I recommend making your conlang as "average" as possible, with the exception of the one (or two or three) feature(s) you're interested in.

In your case you seem to be most interested in the taxonomic lexicon. I'd recommend that for this conlang you keep everything else as typical as you can.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Well this is good for me because it means I'm already ahead of the average conlanger's first step [B)] What would you consider as typical as you can though? In this sense I think that being an euroclone could be an advantage. I have some big chunks of the language inspired by latin, such as the tense and mood verb system, and what I was planning to do is to copy it stripping it of irregularities. I think this would be the least extravagant option. What do you think?

EDIT: I began to write some sentences in Eil, but they just sound awful. Just from an aesthetic point of view, what do you think? What does it remind you of?

Lunimdule dharmei (teachings on the riverside)
Narwe têmme ur ethin knaroth leydre îyl ayi ur lêdse, fearedhledel leyttem ômse.
The warrior who knows when to keep his sword hidden and when to show it, holds the secret for a good reputation.


Eth yêdual nermirellarle. Adoth êdhuwmeth (âl).
One should begin every day saluting the sun. It’s a quick method to make oneself feel happier.


Lemre matirimnealle êyl; seth varre leyttemei îreil.
Listen closely (with attention) to the sound of the rain on stones; it whispers powerful secrets.


Lumindule nermirruynle ûruyn urôth, aldule edhledin temnûrsele.
One should take the time to wait for the sunset on the riverside, to remind himself of the beauty in the universe.
L1: :ita:
Fluent (on a good day): :eng:
Written: :lat:
Beginner: :esp:
Working on: :con: ~ Eil
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: So it's time to make my language public

Post by eldin raigmore »

Jarhead wrote:What would you consider "as typical as you can", though?
Well, see my reply to the next part of your quote, but I have a list of what's typical in WALS.info. For some features no single value is the majority value; you may have a choice of two or a few values for a feature, all of which may be considered "equally typical".
http://www.box.com/s/i85p4a9088qqutjbgizg is "EZ2Read".
http://www.box.com/s/8o0axalj9v0t0znb2vte is mostly the same information.

I also have a list of what's rare in WALS.info. You should avoid these features of these values, unless you specifically want to use one or two or three of them.
http://www.box.com/s/5y3za063j3y7f10a632z is "EZ2Read".
http://www.box.com/s/4nto31enqcx5k90o8rsy is mostly the same information.

Jarhead wrote:In this sense I think that being an euroclone could be an advantage.
Absolutely. That might be the easiest way to choose a "typical" language. Many of the feature-values shared by most European languages are also shared by most non-European languages. (Of the 26 features Haspelmath mentioned in his 2001 article, 14 are common world-wide, while 12 are common in Europe but uncommon outside Europe. There are also 9 more features common in Europe that Haspelmath didn't mention in 2001; but I don't know which of them are also common outside Europe and which are not.)

It might (or might not? take your choice) help you to see
http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/tools-at-l ... avcsik.pdf
or some of the other links in this search.

This wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Average_European has a list of SAE areal features.
http://webh01.ua.ac.be/vdauwera/sae.pdf might be interesting for you.
Conlanger Joerg Rhiemeier has this: http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/sae.html. I think it's easy-to-read and gets most of the information a conlanger would like to know about the SAE sprachbund.
http://archives.conlang.info/tau/bilzha ... whuan.html answers some questions about it, but it really has more questions than answers IMO.
http://exadmin.matita.net/uploads/pagin ... dammer.pdf is a useful and brief summary of linguistic areas in general; it has little about the SAE sprachbund specifically.
I think http://www.frathwiki.com/Standard_Average_European mostly has

Jarhead wrote:I have some big chunks of the language inspired by latin, such as the tense and mood verb system, and what I was planning to do is to copy it stripping it of irregularities. I think this would be the least extravagant option. What do you think?
Most Romance languages, particularly the Western ones, are in the SAE sprachbund, so making them like Latin would be reasonable.

As for simplifying and regularizing the language, that depends.

The average language is not simple nor regular.
However the languages spoken by the most people are simple and regular.

How this happens in real life is, in the absence of sound-recordings, broadcast technology, and writing, many adults have to acquire the language as an L2 while past the age (somewhere in the 'teens; probably around 15 or 16 IIRC) to do so easily, completely, and naturally; then they have to spend at least as much time speaking that L2 with others who acquired it as adults, as they spend speaking it with native-speakers or those who acquired it young (under age 15 or 16 or whatever the real number is); all still without the aid of sound-recording or broadcasting technology or writing of the L2.

Now there historically have been several reasons why that might happen; and not all of them have to do with the language being "a language of empire". Swahili, for instance, is the native language of a rather small group of people living in a rather small area. But it's the "lingua franca" or trade language of a large number of people speaking various languages related to Swahili and to each other and living in a much, much, larger area. It's much simpler than most other Bantu languages. It has fewer noun-classes, and has no lexical nor morphological tone.

So it's not really unrealistic for your 'lang to be simpler than the Standard Average European language; nor simpler than any particular one of the languages in the SAE linguistic area. You just need a good backstory to make it be reasonable.

OTOH if you want you can skip the reasonableness and realism and naturalism and just make your language a bit simpler just because you feel like doing so.

Jarhead wrote:I began to write some sentences in Eil, but they just sound awful.
They do? I can't tell that they sound awful. Can you post a YouTube or some such thing letting us hear how they're pronounced?

Jarhead wrote:Just from an aesthetic point of view, what do you think?
I think they look fine! I imagine they probably sound fine, too.

Jarhead wrote:What does it remind you of?
The conlang does not particularly remind me of any natlang nor group of natlangs (nor any group of conlangs either).
What did you expect it to remind me of?
Jarhead wrote:Lunimdule dharmei (teachings on the riverside)
Narwe têmme ur ethin knaroth leydre îyl ayi ur lêdse, fearedhledel leyttem ômse.
The warrior who knows when to keep his sword hidden and when to show it, holds the secret for a good reputation.


Eth yêdual nermirellarle. Adoth êdhuwmeth (âl).
One should begin every day saluting the sun. It’s a quick method to make oneself feel happier.


Lemre matirimnealle êyl; seth varre leyttemei îreil.
Listen closely (with attention) to the sound of the rain on stones; it whispers powerful secrets.


Lumindule nermirruynle ûruyn urôth, aldule edhledin temnûrsele.
One should take the time to wait for the sunset on the riverside, to remind himself of the beauty in the universe.
Thanks! [:)]
Jarhead
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 151
Joined: 28 Oct 2010 21:53

Re: So it's time to make my language public

Post by Jarhead »

I'm having trouble going through all those sources (they are very specific and use specific jargon) but eventually I will grasp them. I'm especially confident that the tables showing the frequency of the features in the different languages are extremely useful in determining what I should use when in doubt.
eldin raigmore wrote: So it's not really unrealistic for your 'lang to be simpler than the Standard Average European language; nor simpler than any particular one of the languages in the SAE linguistic area. You just need a good backstory to make it be reasonable.
Boom. In my conworld, this language is a conlang too. It's a lovely little story, I'll post that too when I finish writing it. The idea is that to save humanity humans leave earth and create a new civilization on a different planet, and that civilazation uses this language.
They do? I can't tell that they sound awful. Can you post a YouTube or some such thing letting us hear how they're pronounced?
He. Hehe. Funny thing, I can't really pronounce the 'r' the way it's supposed to be, even if I'm italian so I'm supposed to be able to. I'm working on it. As a rule of tumb they are supposed to be read mostly like you would read italian or spanish.
The conlang does not particularly remind me of any natlang nor group of natlangs (nor any group of conlangs either).
What did you expect it to remind me of?
I'm actually glad it doesn't resemble too closely any other thing, because I feel that originality would make my work more valuable. Influences in thinking the language come from celtic, ithkuil, quenya, portuguese and some more.
Thanks! [:)]
Thanks to you :mrgreen:
L1: :ita:
Fluent (on a good day): :eng:
Written: :lat:
Beginner: :esp:
Working on: :con: ~ Eil
Post Reply