What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Khemehekis
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3883
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Khemehekis »

In a recent thread, Thrice Xandvii wrote:
To me, perhaps the least important aspect of a conlang is the size of its lexicon. In fact I kinda just roll my eyes at the postings of word counts and such... but that's a separate thing.
So what's the least important aspect of a conlang to me? To me, it would be whether the phonology of the language sounds "beautiful". This is more a pathology of the ZBB than the CBB, but a lot of conlangers seem concerned with making their language pretty in a conventional sense of the world, or want to make it sound "like Quenya".

Beauty is a subjective concept. What the creator thinks sounds beautiful may sound harsh to another member of the conlanging community. I personally think Arabic sounds beautiful, and I know lot of people disagree, what with all the velars and pharyngeals.

Do I like the sound of Kankonian? Yes. But more importantly, it sounds like the kind of language one would expect Kankonians to speak. Similarly, Hapoish sounds like the kind of language Hapoishans would speak, Tentan like the kind of language Tentans would speak, Bodusian like the kind of language Bodusians would speak, Javarti like the kind of language Javartis would speak, Shaleyan like the kind of language Shaleyans would speak, and so on. People have praised Tolkien's Quenya and Sindarin for their euphony, but they often forget that Quenya and Sindarin "fit" Tolkien's elves just as much as Khuzdul "fits" his dwarves.

Also, in Kankonian, the word for "eyes" is bwolwu, but the word for "roughy" is burneoph and the word for "to grunt" is khoerd. Instead of every word sounding Italian or Celtic for the sake of being euphonious, the words in Kankonian sound like what they mean.

So that's the least important aspect of a conlang to me. What's the least important aspect of a conlang to YOU?
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 86,336 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
HoskhMatriarch
roman
roman
Posts: 1500
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by HoskhMatriarch »

I don't know what the least important part of a conlang is to me, but aesthetics are important to me. Choskch (why must I change the romanization so often) is supposed to sound good to me, although my idea of what sounds good involves a lot of things most people wouldn't think sound good like [x] (but then, my idea of what sounds good largely does involve what fits the speakers).
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 940
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Ælfwine »

I'm not sure, everything seems important. Making dialects, I guess? Although I'll probably even include that down the road.
My Blog

A-posteriori, alternative history nerd
User avatar
Lao Kou
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 5089
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Lao Kou »

Derailment
Spoiler:
HoskhMatriarch wrote:my idea of what sounds good involves a lot of things most people wouldn't think sound good like [x]
I am left yet again to wonder who these "most" people are. [x] is a fricative, for goodness' sake, and when "most" conlangers want their lang to sound "purdy" (in a field of violets with unicorns and rainbows kind of way), they often reach for the croony, sustainable, non-stoppy fricatives (I can paint vague generalities, too). Whether that's the goal or not, a quick noodle around recent entries here shows plenty of [x]: Vestmarkic has it; stages of O and Ngade n Tim Ar seem to have it; Goerim has it; Proto-Ṭelö has it; recent Shemtovian languages have it: Basilese, Islagallese, Angelnisc, and Proto-Atlantic. Certainly, Géarthnuns has it. Quenya and Sindarin have it (are these normally considered non-mellifluous and harsh?). It's hardly unique.

Have I stacked the deck by including conlangers into "most" people? Why would "most" people in the general (Americo-European) public balk at [x]? Is it really the sound an sich (Spanish has it. How often is Spanish labelled "gutteral" or "harsh"?), or is it an averse reaction to Nazism, goose-stepping, and the Third Reich? Would 18th-century non-German-speaking romantics have considered odes in German waxing rhapsodic about studying in Heidelberg in the springtime "gutteral" or "harsh"? (I genuinely don't know). Are we stuck in a post-war trope that a bellicose people would speak a "harsh" language (Hi, Klingon.)?

"[la:x]" said long and softly could evoke pleasant memories of sticking your foot in the water of a summer afternoon as you lazily punt down a river toward a riparian picnic and poetry reading. "[la:x]" shrieked by a bug-eyed megalomaniac with a jugular thrombosis is clearly going to subjectively be less pleasant. Does it inform us about the actual nature of [x]?

With this in mind, how does your phono-aesthetic sense differ significantly or uniquely from "most" people in the speech communities you happen to be familiar with?
Last edited by Lao Kou on 27 Feb 2016 15:18, edited 2 times in total.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4331
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by DesEsseintes »

[+1] to Lao Kou's derailment. Please, Hoskh, just stop using the phrase "most people". Like, as in, do not use it ever again. Ever.

[x] is a lovely sound, and so is its uvular brother, in the right contexts.

Back on topic, one thing I'm not that interested in is carefully outlining the allophony of my phoneme inventories. I do like things like palatalisation and/or affricatisation of stops before high or front vowels, but carefully defining the exact allophones of vowels in this and that environment bores me to tears. I do it nevertheless though.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4331
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by DesEsseintes »

Xing wrote:The numbers 1-10.
This made me laugh cos it is SO TRUE! [xD]
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
runic
runic
Posts: 2698
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Thrice Xandvii »

Xing wrote:The numbers 1-10.
Yes.

This wins! (Even more so than my quote that keeps getting taken out of context!)
Image
User avatar
Lao Kou
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 5089
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Lao Kou »

Yeah, numbers, meh.

If we're talking about grammatical ground to cover, my least favorite is comparatives and superlatives. I hit new natlang grammars of new/unfamiliar languages like a pig in rut showing off her bid'ness while wallowing in the mud bath. Come comparatives and superlatives, and I don't care how wacky-zany novel those structures are, I just can't get enthused. And that lack of enthusiasm carries over to conlanging. So, Géarthnuns has 'em in place, but, meh, who cares?

In terms of design, I don't know if naturalism is the least important aspect, but meh. Géarthnuns has never gone out of its way to be unnaturalistic, but having started long before that became a preoccupation in conlanging online, Géarthnuns doesn't seem to mind a sprinkling of magic realism, if that's the right term. If someone levelled the criticism that Géarthnuns was wildly unnaturalistic, I doubt I'd care, and it'd be easy to point out the obvious "holes". If someone whose opinion I valued said Géarthnuns was inorganic, however, I'd be more concerned, particularly if there were no follow-up explanation. Still, final edit will always be mine and speakers there.

Thrice Xandvii wrote:(Even more so than my quote that keeps getting taken out of context!)
From my perspective, it might be helpful to understand what you think the actual context was, because as I read it (and I've gone back and looked at it again):
Thrice Xandvii wrote:To me, perhaps the least important aspect of a conlang is the size of its lexicon. In fact I kinda just roll my eyes at the postings of word counts and such... but that's a separate thing.

In your case where the focus is very much making it functional, I think you will end up solving your own problem as you move along. Is there a time where people who can't move their arms to gesture would need to use this language? If there is, maybe some words should be split into multiple smaller categories. Is there ever a time when someone would need to talk about a sparrow you can't see but is still close by and significant? Maybe "bird" still works. But is that enough if there is a different kind of bird visible in a nearby tree? I don't know. But the more you mess around with this language, the more likely you are to find out.
That second paragraph reads quite helpful and on-point to the OP, whereas the first sentence seemed to me at the time a bit of a non sequitur. The OP asks about "size" as a means of covering meaning, but not as a matter of "count". There were no previous postings in that thread about word counts or their importance or lack thereof, which made, to me, the mention of word counts, eye-rolling because of them, and its being a "separate thing" (which I read as: "peeve I don't wish to further elaborate on here"), a tangential but largely contextless aside.

So if I pulled you out of context, I apologize, but I didn't see/understand the context you were going for, and as such, I responded to what I saw as a "floating aside".
Last edited by Lao Kou on 27 Feb 2016 15:36, edited 1 time in total.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
runic
runic
Posts: 2698
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Thrice Xandvii »

Basically what it looks like I'm saying, is that having a large lexicon is something I scoff at. Which, isn't what I was going for. My intent in that post was to delineate the difference between having a vast word count and having a language you like in terms of division of semantic space. Basically I wish that first part of the post would die in a fire because it is so poorly stated as to be useless.

As you point out, it didn't relate at all well to what I meant to express, or was actually thinking at the time, but merely expresses my consternation with the idea that word count in and of itself is important.

So, perhaps the phrase "out of context" isn't precisely accurate. But just the same, I wish people would stop bringing it to the fore like this! (Especially in this thread, because it isn't even really my opinion on the matter.) No, I don't think the actual number of words is even slightly important, but I do think being able to express things is, a feat I rarely get to in my languages. As such, it looks like jealousy, which it isn't, it just means I prioritize coining words way lower than having a script for the language, among other things.
Image
User avatar
Lao Kou
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 5089
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Lao Kou »

Thrice Xandvii wrote:Basically what it looks like I'm saying, is that having a large lexicon is something I scoff at.
For the record, I never interpreted your comments to mean such.
my consternation with the idea that word count in and of itself is important.
I think we agree here that as an end in and of itself, we don't consider that a priority.
I wish people would stop bringing it to the fore like this! (Especially in this thread, because it isn't even really my opinion on the matter.)
It's indeed unfortunate that it's come up again in a form you don't agree with, but a "least important aspect" thread may spur some interesting discussion. One never knows.
As such, it looks like jealousy, which it isn't,
I certainly never came away with that.

And I'm certainly glad we didn't have to "take it outside". :mrgreen:
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 5405
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Lambuzhao »

I think almost all of my conlangs have /x/, or something very very close, in their sound inventories.
But, then again, I am certainly not most people.
And I am unanimous in that.

Least important aspect -
perfectly balanced, tinkly, glass-menagerie, phonemic inventories made of crystalline angels' tears, that just sing with otherworldly lissome quintessence in the slightest breeze....

....and then, like, most people {whoops, did I say that} never hear anything more about that conlang. Evar. And evaaaar.
Nary a couplet. Nor a grook. Not even a quip.

I kno for some people, that's like the be all and end all, so I keep quiet. But pristine, "accommodates for all linguistic environments" phonemic inventories smacks too much of some kind of mid-level Grad School Linguistics class final project.

Sorry to the phonemecists and Inventorieurs (inventorizers?). I respect your enjoyment of these aspects, and your serious application of linguistic norms in a more than armchairish way.
I do. Just, when the heckins are you gonna produce utterance A.1 ?
Never?!? Aw, c'mon [:'(]


Well, Norman Greenbaum's Spirit in the Sky is playing on the radio. So I have to make the obligate air-guitar jam.

But, mark my words, I'll be back someday.
And I will use your conlangs, and mebbe even make you think of something you never thunk before.
[}:D]
cntrational
greek
greek
Posts: 661
Joined: 05 Nov 2012 03:59

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by cntrational »

The phonetic phonemic inventory.
User avatar
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4191
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Ahzoh »

Everything is of equal importance to me, but I focus on one as I need to.
Except dialects, which is why I only have two and even then the secone one I have developed less.
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
runic
runic
Posts: 2698
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Thrice Xandvii »

Lao Kou wrote:And I'm certainly glad we didn't have to "take it outside". :mrgreen:
Oh, 老彄, I don't think I could ever actually be mad at you. (And so far, this is true. My mood with regard to the present discussion of that quote is... hmmm, ¿mild chagrin? I don't think that's quite right either.) Anyway...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by sangi39 »

Xing wrote:The numbers 1-10.
I don't know. I think numbers have their place, if you're going to do something interesting with them, or even if you're going to explain them, either in terms of how the system works or potential etymology. I agree, though, that when it comes to a simple list of the numbers from 1 to 10, most people don't seem to pay too much attention to how interesting that area of language can be.

Also... well... you know who [:P]

For me, I don't know. I'm not sure I've ever found any aspect of my conlangs the "least important". There are parts I focus on more than others, depending on what I want to do with that particular conlang (like noun classes in Proto-Sirdic and Lesi Kirra, ablaut in Proto-Skawlas and vowel harmony in Proto-Mesit), but I think overall I tend to focus on each area about as much as any other area.
Spoiler:
Admittedly, though, I've found conlanging fairly difficult over the last few months, just lacking the drive to do it, but I'm struggling in that area with basically everything other than getting up and going to work really
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 641
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien »

Lambuzhao wrote:I think almost all of my conlangs have /x/, or something very very close, in their sound inventories.
/x/ is a great sound; my conlang has it in many places. It's /χ/ I don't like :p

Anyway, I don't know what's "least important", but I'll admit that syllable weight and scansion doesn't play much of a role in my conlang. This is partly because I'm studying Latin right now and I find scansion incredibly tedious (and I'm just not that into poetry anyway, but I'm sure people have created some interesting poetry with their conlangs).
Image
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3021
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by elemtilas »

Lambuzhao wrote:....and then, like, most people {whoops, did I say that} never hear anything more about that conlang. Evar. And evaaaar. Nary a couplet. Nor a grook. Not even a quip.

Sorry to the phonemecists and Inventorieurs (inventorizers?). I respect your enjoyment of these aspects, and your serious application of linguistic norms in a more than armchairish way.
I do. Just, when the heckins are you gonna produce utterance A.1 ?
Never?!? Aw, c'mon [:'(]
[+1]
But, mark my words, I'll be back someday. And I will use your conlangs, and mebbe even make you think of something you never thunk before.
[}:D]
This is nòt a threat! Just a fact of life. One day, when you least expect it, you will find a PM or a message on the board and you'll think to yourself, gosh that conlang looks pretty familiar...

[o.O]



[O.o]



[O.O]

D'oh! No wonder it looks familiar: it's mine!

Let's see. Least important aspects of a conlang in my opinion. I'd have to say "somewhere within the Gnocchi Triangle of seeking to please everyone else, proctological focus on realism and the senseless pursuit of every last tiny detail". If we had more ordinary dimensions, then I might also add, in commiseration with the above, "ceaseless diddling about with phonology". [}:D]
Squall
greek
greek
Posts: 526
Joined: 28 Nov 2013 14:47

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by Squall »

cntrational wrote:The phonetic phonemic inventory.
I agree. Many conlangs have bizarre inventories, unpredictable orthography and no grammar.
Ælfwine wrote:I'm not sure, everything seems important. Making dialects, I guess? Although I'll probably even include that down the road.
Dialects are created when the conlanger has multiple options to choose for the same conlang.
Xing wrote:The numbers 1-10.
It is the most important thing. :mrgreen:
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:/x/ is a great sound; my conlang has it in many places. It's /χ/ I don't like :p
I like both, but I am not sure if I should keep both in the same conlang.

The lexicon is the least important thing, because I never memorize it. I do not have original lexicon in my conlangs and I use roots from other languages. Its not always good, because my conlang has phonemes that are absent in the source language.
Last edited by Squall on 27 Feb 2016 21:53, edited 1 time in total.
English is not my native language. Sorry for any mistakes or lack of knowledge when I discuss this language.
:bra: :mrgreen: | :uk: [:D] | :esp: [:)] | :epo: [:|] | :lat: [:S] | :jpn: [:'(]
User avatar
atman
sinic
sinic
Posts: 407
Joined: 05 Dec 2012 17:04

Re: What's the least important aspect of a conlang to you?

Post by atman »

elemtilas wrote: Let's see. Least important aspects of a conlang in my opinion. I'd have to say "somewhere within the Gnocchi Triangle of seeking to please everyone else, proctological focus on realism and the senseless pursuit of every last tiny detail". If we had more ordinary dimensions, then I might also add, in commiseration with the above, "ceaseless diddling about with phonology".
Absolutely! [:)]
But still I think that when it comes to projects like my own :con: Atlántika (that is, conlangs designed to belong in a slightly-slightly modified version of the real world), then realism is pretty important. One doesn't have to reach proctological excesses, but consistent and plausible diachronic developments (sound changes, loanwords...) are a requirement, at least for me.
Երկնէր երկին, երկնէր երկիր, երկնէր և ծովն ծիրանի.
Post Reply