New CBB

If I may interject my own question here, as it falls in line with what’s being talked about: From a lot of the conlang places I’ve been there seems to be the general consensus that a conlang sounding like English is bad. I’ve never really been given a good reason behind this. Is it just because, and I’m generalizing, that when creating a conlang it is considered ideal to make one removed from your own?
Personally I am a fan of European languages. I like the sounds English has (though not always the specific phonotactics) I have listened to languages from around the world and aesthetically they have not hit my ear as well as the European ones.

While I understand sound is the primary factor when judging how, shall we say, beautiful a language is, I guess my true question is: can a conlang sound like English (or any other Natlang) but be so different in other areas to merit it being unique, interesting and worthy of discussion?

PS. Loved the big post describing all three steps. I know what I’m going to be working on tomorrow.

Generally, reinventing English conflicts with a conlang's design goals. However, this is not necessarily true. For some languages, similarity with English is a very good thing.

If a language is meant to be spoken by a fictional group of people not related to any community of English speakers, then it isn't realistic for it to bear a noticeable resemblance to English.

Also, a conlang that too closely resembles English in whatever aspect is often a sign of ignorance—the conlanger didn't mean for the language to be overly-reminiscent of English, but because they didn't know enough about how different languages work, it didn't occur to them that certain things could be done differently. This, in my experience, is what most criticisms about English resemblance are really targeting.


For some definition of "beautiful"


Oh, most definitely.

_________________
任何事物的发展都是物极必反，否极泰来。

Thank you, that makes perfect sense. For an race of people with no front teeth, having a whole series of dental-plosives would certainly fit the description of ‘ignorant on behalf of the conlanger’/’going with the only sounds they know’. All this time I had incorrectly attributed it to a rebellious spirit against European language/ English’s presence on the world stage.



Thank you; this was what I was needing to hear. As, after listening to all the sounds in the IPA section of Wikipedia for a few days and picking the ones I liked, when I realized a good portion of them were native to English I came down with a case of ‘no-one’s-going-to-like-this-conlangitis’

You were not the first, you shall not be the last .


Whenever you post information about one of your projects, it's always a good idea to open with a quick rundown of what your design goals for the language are. Since it sounds like one of your big goals is to design a language that conforms to your personal phonological aesthetic, mention that at the beginning. Then if anyone criticizes the Englishyness of the phonology, just refer them to your design goals and say "Yes, and?" (Or perhaps more tactfully, "Yes, but it's supposed to be that way. What do you think of the morphology?")

Do be aware, of course, that people will only comment on your language if they find it interesting, and have something interesting to say. If the only driving force behind a phonology is to sound nice to the creator, then there is very little discussion to be had about it. So if you want comments, be sure to give people something to comment about. (But it seems you've figured this much out already.) Other possible areas for discussion include morphology, syntax, pragmatics, diachronics...

_________________
任何事物的发展都是物极必反，否极泰来。

As I understand it there is some African language -- I think it's Ewe -- which is so similar typologically to English that it amounts to a re-lex, though with no phonological similarity at all between English's morphemes and that language's morphemes.

So just because it isn't realistic doesn't mean it doesn't happen in a natlang.

ANADEW strikes again.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

Having learned some basic Ewe from a Peace Corps worker, I find that...surprising. It certainly didn't feel English-shaped when we were speaking it. Of the features the wiki mentions, only SVO, possessive-before-head, relative-clauses-after-head match English.


However, this is certainly true :)

_________________
任何事物的发展都是物极必反，否极泰来。

Maybe it wasn't Ewe.
Or maybe my source was wrong.
Or maybe I misunderstood my source.
Or possibly some combination of the above.

But thanks for agreeing with my main point; I think that will help M. Park.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

The reason conlangers don't like English clones is the same reason that people don't like stories that are storms of obvious "plot twists" and characters who are purely cliches: You already know everything that's going on right from the start. A good conlang, like a good joke, is one that subverts your expectations while at the same time making a good deal of logical sense.

_________________
♀♥Ø

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Latin ē makes the /ei/ sound while e is /e/, so what's wrong with the macron denoting a diphthong? I do however agree with the o accents being excessive. I never liked "ó" anyways. I'd like to keep the macron letters that denote diphthong sounds, partly because it gives the spelling more variety. I'd also like to keep "ō" for the /ox/ sound. And bear in mind, this is all supposed to be in my conscript, so getting the Latin orthography perfect isn't necessary. I just want to get it a little neater.

_________________
Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri. -Multomixtor

In Latin normalizations, ē is /eː/

_________________
КЕРВЕНСКИЙ

If you're attached to the macrons, I really suggest that they be used consistently, because having some for diphthongs, some for changed quality and one representing a vowel followed by a consonant is very unsystematic. You could use them to denote length (e.g. <ā> = [a:]), or you could do like you do with u and i, and use them to denote different vowel quality (e.g. <o> = [ɔ], <ō> = [o]), or a blend of the two systems (e.g. <o> = [ɔ], <ō> = [o:]).

_________________
Mereð netholic!
- | - | - | -
- wish list

Okay, work with me here. Is there another way that I can show a diphthong with a single letter? I can get rid of "ō" by simply putting "oh," but I need to have a way to distinguish between i in pit and ee in seen. Sorry for not using IPA, I'm not on a computer. :P

Edit: Or do I need to distinguish the i sounds orthographically at all?

_________________
Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri. -Multomixtor

Hmm...in my dialect, there isn't a diphthong in either <pit> or <seen>; I have /pɪt/ and /sin/. Are you sure the vowel quality is changing over the course of the syllable?

_________________
任何事物的发展都是物极必反，否极泰来。

I wouldn't object to the use of macrons (except for /ox/, which seems a bit counterintuitive). One could imagine a historical scenario, where the language originally had contrasting vowel length, but that this contrast evolved into various other kinds of contrasts, which may be different in different vowels (in some cases diphthongisation, i others tenseness, in yet others some further qualitative difference).

_________________
constructedlanguages.net

Nah, it's just anglophones who suck at pronouncing continental vowels sounds...

_________________
constructedlanguages.net

I know they aren't diphthongs, I'm trying to make the macrons stand for diphthongs and also have a way to distinguish between pIt and sEEn. And since I with a macron (sEEn) is not a diphthong, I'm trying to figure something else out.

_________________
Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri. -Multomixtor

Alright, I've been working on a slightly different orthography and have been organizing my phonology. I'll wait on phonotactics until I get the OK on this (don't worry, I have ideas.)

Vowels: /a ɛ i ɔ u ʏ/ <a e i o u ou> (I haven't decided on whether I should have a vowel lengthening system yet.)

Consonants: /b ʃ ʒ d ɸ g ħ x k l ɭ m n p r ʀ s t ts v j z ð θ/ <b c ç d f g h (h) k l (l) m n p r gg s t ts v j z dh th>


Diphthongs: /eɪ aɪ ɔɪ/
<ei ai oi>

Syllable stress is irregular and is marked with a macron.

The language is called Ruic. It will have free word order due to a vast case system, but its main word order will be VOS (in writing, VSO.) Its alignment is a Tripartite system, with the ergative case as the unmarked subject of transitive verbs, accusative as the marked direct object of transitive verbs, and the absolutive case as the marked subject of intransitive verbs.

_________________
Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri. -Multomixtor