The O Yis language

[Rik]

The website for my newest conlang, O Yis, is now live.

As ever, comments and feedback on the language and its presentation are always welcome.

Enjoy!

[Thakowsaizmu]

I am looking over the phonology, and have a question.

< f d c z x h > / f ð s ʒ x h / fricatives
< s tz dz > / ʦ ʧ ʤ / affricates

Why c /s/ and s /ts/? It seems counterintuitive to me. Is there a reason beyond being 'different'?

[Rik]

I am looking over the phonology, and have a question.

< f d c z x h > / f ð s ʒ x h / fricatives
< s tz dz > / ʦ ʧ ʤ / affricates

Why c /s/ and s /ts/? It seems counterintuitive to me. Is there a reason beyond being 'different'?

It's the way I chose to do it.

Most examples on the website come with IPA if people can't remember the romanisation.

[Thakowsaizmu]

Seeing as it has its own script anyway, the romanization should remain as intuitive as possible, for purposes of ease of pronunciation and understanding. I mean, it would be like transliterating ж as w.

[jseamus]

Seeing as it has its own script anyway, the romanization should remain as intuitive as possible, for purposes of ease of pronunciation and understanding. I mean, it would be like transliterating ж as w.

Or a better example: It would be like transliterating /z/ with <š> and /S/ with <z>.

<c> is used to represent /ts)/ in the romanization of all the Slavic languages, Esperanto, Ido, and many more conlangs. To switch it up seems questionably useful.

[Micamo]

This is a minor thing, but personally I love the "c = s" words in English. Ice vs. Ise. That said the added confusion isn't really worth the aesthetic, but if I could do so in a non-confusing way I would.

Plus c isn't the only weird letter in the orthography. v = w? tz = ch?

To discuss the actual language itself, I'm not really liking the alphabet. Do you have a diachronic explanation for how these forms came to be, or did you just come up with them out of nothing? It feels like there were originally two or even three scripts from which the characters came from, and the Istran was formed by a culture just borrowing characters from both and melding them into one script.

[Thakowsaizmu]

Seeing as it has its own script anyway, the romanization should remain as intuitive as possible, for purposes of ease of pronunciation and understanding. I mean, it would be like transliterating ж as w.

Or a better example: It would be like transliterating /z/ with <š> and /S/ with <z>.

<c> is used to represent /ts)/ in the romanization of all the Slavic languages, Esperanto, Ido, and many more conlangs. To switch it up seems questionably useful.

My point wans't to find the best analogue, it was to showcase the arbitrary nature of the assignments.

As for not saying anything against v as /w/, I can see that, as v was Latin /w/. That doesn't seem unnatural tome.

[jseamus]

Plus c isn't the only weird letter in the orthography. v = w? tz = ch?

To discuss the actual language itself, I'm not really liking the alphabet. Do you have a diachronic explanation for how these forms came to be, or did you just come up with them out of nothing? It feels like there were originally two or even three scripts from which the characters came from, and the Istran was formed by a culture just borrowing characters from both and melding them into one script.

I agree with Micamo that the romanization is not optimal, but i disagree about the native script.

It does look like it incorporates graphemes or grapheme features from multiple origins, but i don't think that's a bad thing. The vowels all (with the exception of /i/) obviously share an origin or theme, and the irregularities in the other consonants could be rationalized; possibly the irregular consonants are new additions.

My point wans't to find the best analogue, it was to showcase the arbitrary nature of the assignments.

That is an excellent cause, but not the sort I would pursue in a phonemic orthography. It just confuses potential readers/learners, challenging them to learn a new convention as opposed to using an already-existing (well established) one.

I have some more thoughts on this lang and I intend to offer them up for consideration once I get done watching some vintage stag. Later.

[Thakowsaizmu]

I believe you misquoted...

[Micamo]

It does look like it incorporates graphemes or grapheme features from multiple origins, but i don't think that's a bad thing. The vowels all (with the exception of /i/) obviously share an origin or theme, and the irregularities in the other consonants could be rationalized; possibly the irregular consonants are new additions.

Borrowings and evolution would give an interesting history, but for pure aesthetic considerations I prefer a more consistent-looking script.

[jseamus]

I believe you misquoted...

Are you referring to me? Where did I misquote?

NM: I see it. That's a lame mistake, and I don't know how I missed that. My apologies.

[Rik]

Many thanks for the comments, guys.

Seeing as it has its own script anyway, the romanization should remain as intuitive as possible, for purposes of ease of pronunciation and understanding. I mean, it would be like transliterating ж as w.

I understand the point you're making. I tried out several different orthographies before settling on this one. While I agree that an intuitive ortho is a Good Thing, I also like my conlangs to have a touch of the quirky about them.

TBH, nobody commented on the orthography when I introduced O Yis over at the old CBB. I didn't think my final choices were contentious.

To discuss the actual language itself, I'm not really liking the alphabet. Do you have a diachronic explanation for how these forms came to be, or did you just come up with them out of nothing? It feels like there were originally two or even three scripts from which the characters came from, and the Istran was formed by a culture just borrowing characters from both and melding them into one script.

I expect there is a diachronic explanation, given that the alphabet has been round for a few thousand years and probably developed in different ways on different islands and did all the merging and borrowing and adapting stuff. This is the alphabet used by O Yis speakers; other Istran languages will have variations on it.

As to the look of the alphabet, this is one particular font - a sort of Comic Sans representation of the alphabet. I haven't developed any alternative fonts yet, but I'm planning to find time to do just that in the coming months.

[Rik]

Nobody got past the phonology?

I suppose there must be something wrong with the website presentation.

[Ceresz]

So far I have only looked at the phonology and the script (which I really liked).
I'll try to make time to read the rest, and I'll get back to you when I have.

[Micamo]

Nobody got past the phonology?

I suppose there must be something wrong with the website presentation.

I can only speak for myself here but I have a terrible attention span. I have trouble reading really long stuff.

Furthermore it's really hard to comment on things that are so fleshed-out; Finding a problem with a full-on syntax and semantics presentation, for example, is next to impossible, as what simply looks like a mistake may simply be something creative on the conlanger's part (and in practice works just fine). Vocabulary's the same deal. I could chew you out on a few instances where you coin a new root instead of using a derivation, but really there's nothing horribly wrong with this. Language is necessarily so arbitrary the line between "different" and "wrong" is so fuzzy as to sometimes not exist at all.

[Rik]

... I could chew you out on a few instances where you coin a new root instead of using a derivation ...

No, chew away! None of the vocabulary has reached a 'fixed' state yet, as I coined most of the words before I worked on the derivation system. I have no problem with word changes.

My key worry was that there was something wrong with the website presentation - too difficult to follow, not explained in great enough detail (one comment I've received from elsewhere is for the need for more formal interlinears with the examples), etc, etc. All of which is fixable, as long as people tell me about it.

[Ashroot]

So I couldn't find your conlworld in the conworld's forum so I will ask here. Have you considered how much gold your planet would contain? The reason I ask is because where large amounts of lead and arsenic are found on Earth it is also often found with gold. I would know this from my time living in gold country. Good water filters cost a ton.

[Veris]

How has nobody asked the most important question? Rik; what are your intentions with this conlang? I can give you my opinion until I'm blue in the face, but what good is that? My opinion doesn't mean anything to your conlanging efforts -- no one's does or indeed should. If you tell us your intentions, though, we can tell you how well we think you're meeting them.

For instance, your script doesn't seem very natural. Something about the discontinuous lines and curves just seems off, as if humans wouldn't naturally devise such a script. This comment only has meaning, however, if naturalism is one of your goals.

Though I can and will echo others comments about the Romanization. IMO, the purpose of Romanization is ease of communication -- rather than having to give an IPA representation with every word you introduce, you can just list the IPA pronunciations of a given Romanization system once, and then use regular letters from then on. The purpose of a Romanization system is not, in my opinion, to be artsy or express yourself; that's what the conscript and grammar and vocabulary and so forth are for -- the Romanization should just be as straightforward and simple as possible. If a language is interesting and unique, it doesn't need a quirky Romanization. If a language is boring and hackeneyed, a fancy Romanization won't help it.

[cybrxkhan]

Though I can and will echo others comments about the Romanization. IMO, the purpose of Romanization is ease of communication -- rather than having to give an IPA representation with every word you introduce, you can just list the IPA pronunciations of a given Romanization system once, and then use regular letters from then on. The purpose of a Romanization system is not, in my opinion, to be artsy or express yourself; that's what the conscript and grammar and vocabulary and so forth are for -- the Romanization should just be as straightforward and simple as possible. If a language is interesting and unique, it doesn't need a quirky Romanization. If a language is boring and hackeneyed, a fancy Romanization won't help it.

I disagree. Slightly.

You can use Romanization to give a conlang a certain external, superficial feel to it, a superficial resemblance to a real world language that might conjure a certain atmosphere. Romanizing /ulex/ into <ulech> would make me think of German, whereas <ulex> might be Latin-esque, yet, on the other hand, <ulekh> might make me think of some Middle Eastern or Arabian-inspired language. Thus, there is a bit of freedom in Romanization, and choosing what represents what might help give your conlang and the conculture that uses it a certain feel.

That being said, Veris is still more or less correct. You can't do weird outlandish things, or even things you think are simply cool just because they are cool. Even with the examples I showed above, there are still limitations - you probably don't want to do /ulex/ as <üllëch> just to make it German, because even German wouldn't do that.

So my point is this: Romanization can significantly help give your language a certain feel to it, but, as Veris states, it can't be too weird. Likewise, and I think Veris would agree very much, that if you wish for your Romanization to mimic, say, Arabic, or German, or Chinese, or what not, then you have to state it as your intention. It's important for others here to know that you are trying to make a Romanization system that looks like Bantu, or like Hebrew, or like Hindi, so that gives everyone a clearer idea of what to expect.