What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Further derailment
Dialects and language contact. I've given these areas little to no thought at all. It's funny because whenever I read up on those subjects, I get the impression they'd be really good ways to flesh out conlangs. I just can't be bothered to do it...
Spoiler:
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
I think, in my heart of hearts, I'd rather like to state my two most important aspects of conlanging to me:
1) Trying out your own conlang that you made...proudly, or otherwise. Show us your {best Crocodile Hunter or Marlon Perkins or Marty Stouffer voice} in its natural habitat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't just tell us how Proto-Slobovian became Upper and Nether and Southwestron Slobovian, show us!!!!!!! Don't just explain away the sound changes involved in the journey from Old High Catawumptian to New Low Colloquial Catawumptian; give us examples!!!!!!!!!
One of the biggest intellectual tickles I get on this forum is when I communicate using someone else's , and they write back and tell me that their confolks would never say that now: here's how you'd say XYZ now. It makes me feel sort of like Doctor Who, and I've somehow time-travelled into the future of your conlang/culture/world, but, by using what utterances you've left behind on CBB, it kind of glaringly shows the last time I would have visited your nook of the space-time continuum. It's a funny, tiny, squeaky con-culture shock, but thoroughly & utterly enjoyable.
2) Avoiding the big red shiny candy-like scrap/erase button. At all costs. Always and forever. Really. Not kidding here. Ne touchez pas!
I don't know how exactly these would translate into least important aspects, but, well, there it is.
1) Trying out your own conlang that you made...proudly, or otherwise. Show us your {best Crocodile Hunter or Marlon Perkins or Marty Stouffer voice} in its natural habitat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't just tell us how Proto-Slobovian became Upper and Nether and Southwestron Slobovian, show us!!!!!!! Don't just explain away the sound changes involved in the journey from Old High Catawumptian to New Low Colloquial Catawumptian; give us examples!!!!!!!!!
One of the biggest intellectual tickles I get on this forum is when I communicate using someone else's , and they write back and tell me that their confolks would never say that now: here's how you'd say XYZ now. It makes me feel sort of like Doctor Who, and I've somehow time-travelled into the future of your conlang/culture/world, but, by using what utterances you've left behind on CBB, it kind of glaringly shows the last time I would have visited your nook of the space-time continuum. It's a funny, tiny, squeaky con-culture shock, but thoroughly & utterly enjoyable.
2) Avoiding the big red shiny candy-like scrap/erase button. At all costs. Always and forever. Really. Not kidding here. Ne touchez pas!
I don't know how exactly these would translate into least important aspects, but, well, there it is.
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
See this is why like conlanging because I'm the exact oppositeKaiTheHomoSapien wrote:/x/ is a great sound; my conlang has it in many places. It's /χ/ I don't like :p
As far as least important aspect goes I'd say logistics. As long as you like your language that's all that matters. Now if you're trying to make a descendant of another language or something than yeah logistics might play apart, especially if you're trying to make it as realistic as possible but it's far from 100% necessary in my opinion
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Attestation of features in a natlang; compliance with universals.
-
- roman
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
This is my Conworkshop page for my language so far. My page has very little information so far, but it isn't the stereotypical pretty language. Look at all those closed syllables, for one thing. I find German pretty mellifluous but I'm probably one of the few (if more people heard Goethe poems instead of WWII movies, probably more people would be with me).Lao Kou wrote:Derailment
Spoiler:
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
- gestaltist
- mayan
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
cromulant wrote:Attestation of features in a natlang; compliance with universals.
Although I think what I really don't care about at all is a conlang's completeness. I don't care whether its grammar is developed enough to express every possible thought. I don't care if the phonotactics is defined to the last detail, etc. I like "neat details" of conlangs and get excited by them. The bigger whole doesn't interest me all that much.
-
- roman
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
I guess I'm the opposite then. I like seeing how all the things in conlangs work together rather than just the little details. I'm also really big on pragmatics too so I like to see how thoughts are expressed.gestaltist wrote:cromulant wrote:Attestation of features in a natlang; compliance with universals.
Although I think what I really don't care about at all is a conlang's completeness. I don't care whether its grammar is developed enough to express every possible thought. I don't care if the phonotactics is defined to the last detail, etc. I like "neat details" of conlangs and get excited by them. The bigger whole doesn't interest me all that much.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Lao Kou wrote:Derailment
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
-JRR Tolkien
-
- mongolian
- Posts: 3885
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
- Location: California über alles
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Tolkien wanted his Dwarves to sound "rough" (from my understanding -- I could be mistaken), so he gave Khuzdul phonemes like /ʔ/, /ɣ/ and /ʀ/. On the other hand, his Elves were supposed to represent "beauty", and he considered the sounds of Finnish and Welsh beautiful so he based Quenya and Sindarin off of them in order to make them sound like a language for a "beautiful" people. So I would say Tolkien created the aesthetic before he created the phonology. Would you say you disagree?Sights wrote:But isn't this a weird idea? Sound-wise, the "personality" of a language emerges only after the observer has some notion (or so he thinks) of the "personality" of its speakers. If the phonologies of Quenya or Sindarin or Khuzdul or even Kankonian were completely different, my guess is the assertion of them "fitting" their speakers would still hold. Which is another way of saying there's no language that doesn't fit its speakers, nor could there ever be.*
/i/ for small and /a/ for large seems to be widespread.Unless of course we go back to the idea some people find tedious and some interesting: that certain sounds or sound combinations or syllables or sequences or whatever tend to evoke a certain range of semantic or aesthetic qualities. A phonoaesthetic universal or, to be more cautious, a phonoaesthetic feature that is typologically common. I personally think no such thing exists and that even if it did there would be little hope of discovering it. But I admit the idea is entertaining.
♂♥♂♀
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 87,413 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 87,413 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Doesn't that actually prove the previous point?
Bottomline, that some languages are soft and mellifluous while others are harsh has more to do with people constantly handing down the notions that they are so than with any actual properties of those languages.
Had Tolkien regarded /ʔ/, /ɣ/ and /ʀ/ as beautiful sounds, surely it would have been just as sensible to include them in the language of the beautiful Elves. Had he regarded Finnish and Welsh as "harsh" languages, their phonologies would have been fitting inspirations for Khuzdul.the "personality" of a language emerges after the "personality" of its speakers.
Bottomline, that some languages are soft and mellifluous while others are harsh has more to do with people constantly handing down the notions that they are so than with any actual properties of those languages.
True. This example in particular always brings me back to the topic of innateness.Khemehekis wrote:/i/ for small and /a/ for large seems to be widespread.
- Thrice Xandvii
- runic
- Posts: 2698
- Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
- Location: Carnassus
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Is that so? I've never heard this before. Do you mean, globally? Or just European languages?Khemehekis wrote:/i/ for small and /a/ for large seems to be widespread.
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Doesn't work out so well for English: small & big; nor Latin: parva & ingens.Thrice Xandvii wrote:Is that so? I've never heard this before. Do you mean, globally? Or just European languages?Khemehekis wrote:/i/ for small and /a/ for large seems to be widespread.
- KaiTheHomoSapien
- greek
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
- Location: Northern California
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
I've heard this as well, but mainly with /i/. /i/ apparently has a high frequency, and higher frequency sounds are associated with babies, so that might make sense.Thrice Xandvii wrote:Is that so? I've never heard this before. Do you mean, globally? Or just European languages?Khemehekis wrote:/i/ for small and /a/ for large seems to be widespread.
Words like "teeny-weeny" sort of emphasize this point (and the Italian diminutive -ini, the Japanese words "chibi" and "chiisai", etc.)
I think of /o/ more when I think of big, though.
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Little v. large? Teeny-weeny? Wee? Itsy-bitsy? Anyhoo, this sounds vaguely familiar, though reading it my mind went rather to Bouba-kiki.elemtilas wrote:Doesn't work out so well for English: small & bigThrice Xandvii wrote:Is that so? I've never heard this before. Do you mean, globally? Or just European languages?Khemehekis wrote:/i/ for small and /a/ for large seems to be widespread.
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Interestingly, Mandarin has /a/ in both: 大 dà "big" and 小 xiǎo "small". Xiǎo does have a non-syllabic /i/, though. Cantonese fits the pattern better, with 大 daai6 and 小 siu2.
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Japanese also breaks the pattern with its big/small prefixes 大 ō- "big" and 小 ko-/o- "small", e.g. 大型 ōgata "large-sized", 大雨 ōame "heavy rain" vs. 小型 kogata "small-sized", 子猫 koneko "kitten" etc.
I think ō- vs. o- is particularly weird, though o- mostly only appears in names, and is usually accompanied by onbin, so it's not a big deal, e.g. 大川 Ōkawa vs. 小川 Ogawa.
I think ō- vs. o- is particularly weird, though o- mostly only appears in names, and is usually accompanied by onbin, so it's not a big deal, e.g. 大川 Ōkawa vs. 小川 Ogawa.
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
Actually, now that I think about it, Mandarin has quite a few size words with /a/:
大 dà "big"
小 xiǎo "small"
长 cháng "long"
短 duǎn "short (in length)"
高 gāo "tall, high"
矮 ǎi "short (in height)"
宽 kuān "wide"
窄 zhǎi "narrow"
狭隘 xiá'ài "narrow"
No idea why this is. All the ones that have a non-syllabic /i/ are of the "small" type, though.
大 dà "big"
小 xiǎo "small"
长 cháng "long"
短 duǎn "short (in length)"
高 gāo "tall, high"
矮 ǎi "short (in height)"
宽 kuān "wide"
窄 zhǎi "narrow"
狭隘 xiá'ài "narrow"
No idea why this is. All the ones that have a non-syllabic /i/ are of the "small" type, though.
-
- mongolian
- Posts: 3885
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
- Location: California über alles
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
This is a good point! So in a way, yes it does prove your previous point.Sights wrote:Doesn't that actually prove the previous point?Had Tolkien regarded /ʔ/, /ɣ/ and /ʀ/ as beautiful sounds, surely it would have been just as sensible to include them in the language of the beautiful Elves. Had he regarded Finnish and Welsh as "harsh" languages, their phonologies would have been fitting inspirations for Khuzdul.the "personality" of a language emerges after the "personality" of its speakers.
To my ear and tongue, Kankonian doesn't sound either like a mellifluous meal of nectar or Swiss fondue, nor like a cacophony of castor beans. It tastes like almond roca and Thin Mints (as in, the Girl Scout cookie).
♂♥♂♀
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 87,413 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 87,413 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
-
- mongolian
- Posts: 3885
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
- Location: California über alles
Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?
I understand that /i/ for small is found all around the world.
In Kankonian, the word for "small" is pies, while the word for "big" is dom, so the i/o contrast is conformed to.
In Kankonian, the word for "small" is pies, while the word for "big" is dom, so the i/o contrast is conformed to.
♂♥♂♀
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 87,413 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 87,413 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!