What IS natural?
What IS natural?
Considering the essence of modern, definable linguistics is only about 200 or so years old, at best, and we have a plethora of different examples of what we can call naturalistic languages, ranging (at least, phonetically) from click tongues and Ubykh all the way to Iau and Rotokas, what is the basis of our precious idea of so-called "naturalism?" What can, honestly, be unnatural?!
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
Re: What IS natural?
While unrelated languages at times look very different, there are always commonalities. For one these include very simple universal statements about human language. Every language uses phonemes (including sign languages). Every language has hierarchical syntax allowing for things like embedding sentences (Everett will disagree here if I understood his claims correctly, but I’ve seen counterarguments).
Additionally, we have various other universal claims that rely on the existence of other feature. For example, no language has phonemic /qʷʲ’/ without having /k/. You can make lots of these claims; and even more if you replace “no language has” with “it is very rare for a language to have”. Thus you could in theory make a massive chart of what things usually exist in a language if a certain feature is present. If you go look at what languages have /qʷʲ’/ you’ll find that they all have quite large consonant inventores. You could then say that Rotokas and Ubykh follow the same rules and merely change the size of the consonant inventory (of course a bit more than just mere number plays into it, otherwise all languages with 20 consonants would have the same 20).
Naturalism is hard to define on paper. But you can get good intuition for it if you read and study enough about it. There are tons of these “occurence hierarchies” in every part of language (as another example, usually for a language to have a marked Dative it will also have a marked Accusative or Ergative; violations exist of course but they’re uncommon).
Additionally, we have various other universal claims that rely on the existence of other feature. For example, no language has phonemic /qʷʲ’/ without having /k/. You can make lots of these claims; and even more if you replace “no language has” with “it is very rare for a language to have”. Thus you could in theory make a massive chart of what things usually exist in a language if a certain feature is present. If you go look at what languages have /qʷʲ’/ you’ll find that they all have quite large consonant inventores. You could then say that Rotokas and Ubykh follow the same rules and merely change the size of the consonant inventory (of course a bit more than just mere number plays into it, otherwise all languages with 20 consonants would have the same 20).
Naturalism is hard to define on paper. But you can get good intuition for it if you read and study enough about it. There are tons of these “occurence hierarchies” in every part of language (as another example, usually for a language to have a marked Dative it will also have a marked Accusative or Ergative; violations exist of course but they’re uncommon).
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Re: What IS natural?
This seems like a rant to me, although I might be misreading it. If you don't find the idea of naturalism helpful, you can ignore it. If people are bothering you by bringing it up in your threads and you're not interested, you can tell them "I'm not interested in naturalism."DV82LECM wrote:Considering the essence of modern, definable linguistics is only about 200 or so years old, at best, and we have a plethora of different examples of what we can call naturalistic languages, ranging (at least, phonetically) from click tongues and Ubykh all the way to Iau and Rotokas, what is the basis of our precious idea of so-called "naturalism?" What can, honestly, be unnatural?!
For people who do find it a helpful idea (like me), it's often hard to define, as Adarain says.
It's very easy to come up with examples of things that would obviously be unnatural, like a language that makes no use of consonant sounds, or a language where every word is pronounced the same way (e.g. /tɑŋ/), or a language that is based on multiplying prime numbers with particular meanings and expressing the result with a pronounced version of place notation.
Re: What IS natural?
Far from it. I was simply looking over the phonologies. I just wanted to play devil's advocate on this topic. And i am as naturalistic as they come.Sumelic wrote:This seems like a rant to me, although I might be misreading it. If you don't find the idea of naturalism helpful, you can ignore it. If people are bothering you by bringing it up in your threads and you're not interested, you can tell them "I'm not interested in naturalism."DV82LECM wrote:Considering the essence of modern, definable linguistics is only about 200 or so years old, at best, and we have a plethora of different examples of what we can call naturalistic languages, ranging (at least, phonetically) from click tongues and Ubykh all the way to Iau and Rotokas, what is the basis of our precious idea of so-called "naturalism?" What can, honestly, be unnatural?!
For people who do find it a helpful idea (like me), it's often hard to define, as Adarain says.
It's very easy to come up with examples of things that would obviously be unnatural, like a language that makes no use of consonant sounds, or a language where every word is pronounced the same way (e.g. /tɑŋ/), or a language that is based on multiplying prime numbers with particular meanings and expressing the result with a pronounced version of place notation.
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
Re: What IS natural?
With time everything becomes natural... when the stone with the most particular form has rolled enough in the river, it becomes similar to the others...
The impatient, polish the stone in their shoe (or in their mouth) before showing them to others... So are the followers of naturalist conlang ...
The impatient, polish the stone in their shoe (or in their mouth) before showing them to others... So are the followers of naturalist conlang ...
Re: What IS natural?
I see. In terms of phonologies, as Adarain says, many so-called "universals" are more like generalizations, not literally universal and necessary elements of natural human language.DV82LECM wrote: Far from it. I was simply looking over the phonologies. I just wanted to play devil's advocate on this topic. And i am as naturalistic as they come.
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: What IS natural?
I think "naturalness" can't really be defined in a way that is satisfactory to all. Rather, it is best judged after long exposure to the languages of the real world in all their diversity, i.e. those doing the judging should have (collectively or encapsulated in a single person) experienced knowledge of languages from all parts of the world. Now I know that's not a definitive answer and there is still room for debatable cases like Kelen, but it's something (I rely on it every time I make a judgement on these issues), and it's enough to tell you stuff like Klingon could never occur in a naturalistic language.
Re: What IS natural?
That's kinda the pointFrislander wrote:stuff like Klingon could never occur in a naturalistic language.
Re: What IS natural?
Thank you to all for indulging this idea I know we've all mulled over. It should be a universal to say, I think, that all things we think are natural are such because we have witnessed them. Because so much of what we perceive is what it happens to be, displaying patterns which illuminate identities within language as "HUMAN constructs," but what those things are, are still yet to be determined as for being how they totally came to be and what further extremes those extremes we have witnessed might still become. All of that means, as for speaking of my favorite part of linguistics: phonological theory, that there are extremes on either side of the size of human phonetic range which I still feel might push our boundaries of what we feel is "natural."
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
Re: What IS natural?
But with "rolling stone theory" it could became a naturalistic language (if many users use it enough time...)Frislander wrote:stuff like Klingon could never occur in a naturalistic language.
I do not believe in languages given by God but by men (Even the Holy Bible thinks a man invented language)...
The only time gives them patine called naturalness and universal rules...
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6352
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: What IS natural?
I guess I'll just lurk here for at least a few days ...
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: What IS natural?
...eldin raigmore wrote:I guess I'll just lurk here for at least a few days ...
Re: What IS natural?
On my thread?!eldin raigmore wrote:I guess I'll just lurk here for at least a few days ...
𖥑𖧨𖣫𖦺𖣦𖢋𖤼𖥃𖣔𖣋𖢅𖡹𖡨𖡶𖡦𖡧𖡚𖠨
Re: What IS natural?
Probably.DV82LECM wrote:On my thread?!eldin raigmore wrote:I guess I'll just lurk here for at least a few days ...
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: What IS natural?
Certainly. I personally feel conlanging should (could? might?) be all about pushing the boundaries of what works in a language. Relying solely on attested features gets dull after a while. On the other hand, as Adarain pointed out, a phonology with /pˤ qʲʷ’/ as its only stops (or the phonology of Klingon) simply isn't very interesting as the phonemes do not form a coherent system.DV82LECM wrote:... All of that means, as for speaking of my favorite part of linguistics: phonological theory, that there are extremes on either side of the size of human phonetic range which I still feel might push our boundaries of what we feel is "natural."
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm perfectly happy to see highly "unnaturalistic", contrived phonologies (see my own TLFKAT as an example), as long as they come together to form an interesting system that 'works' (whatever that means).
Re: What IS natural?
I'd agree with "could" and "might". I'm far less certain about "should" -- people come to their conlanging projects for different reasons, and pushing the envelope may not be one of them.DesEsseintes wrote:Certainly. I personally feel conlanging should (could? might?) be all about pushing the boundaries of what works in a language.
Perhaps. The reliance on checking-in with the conlanging community about attested features, lest one's conlang be monikered "unnaturalistic", can get a little tiresome. And I wonder if peer pressure (particularly of the Internet variety) is the most positive influence on any creative endeavor.Relying solely on attested features gets dull after a while.
On the other hand, as Adarain pointed out, a phonology with /pˤ qʲʷ’/ as its only stops (or the phonology of Klingon) simply isn't very interesting as the phonemes do not form a coherent system.
I'd use the term "organic" for this -- "coherency" and "working" on its own terms, without caring a fig about what's happening in Ojibwe or Kavalan.I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm perfectly happy to see highly "unnaturalistic", contrived phonologies , as long as they come together to form an interesting system that 'works' (whatever that means).
I feel I'm overly sensitive about this, but when I hear, "There are those of us who choose to create naturalistic conlangs.", it sounds like "We have this amazing breadth of linguistic knowledge and sit over at the cool table." And the inverse of that is, "Well, gee, that's not very naturalistic, which is fine, if that's what you want/meant to do. "
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: What IS natural?
Absolutely. I'm not really sure why I wrote "should" in the first place, but the "feel" earlier in the sentence was meant to convey that I was talking about my personal goals in conlanging.Lao Kou wrote:I'd agree with "could" and "might". I'm far less certain about "should" -- people come to their conlanging projects for different reasons, and pushing the envelope may not be one of them.DesEsseintes wrote:Certainly. I personally feel conlanging should (could? might?) be all about pushing the boundaries of what works in a language.
Your consistently expressing my sentiments better than me can get a little tiresome.Perhaps. The reliance on checking-in with the conlanging community about attested features, lest one's conlang be monikered "unnaturalistic", can get a little tiresome. And I wonder if peer pressure (particularly of the Internet variety) is the most positive influence on any creative endeavor.Relying solely on attested features gets dull after a while.
In case it's not clear, I mean this in the best possible way.
See above^I'd use the term "organic" for this -- "coherency" and "working" on its own terms, without caring a fig about what's happening in Ojibwe or Kavalan.
Apparently I'm also a bit too sensitive about this, so much so that I've been branded "highly ill-tempered and I'll-mannered" for it.I feel I'm overly sensitive about this, but when I hear, "There are those of us who choose to create naturalistic conlangs.", it sounds like "We have this amazing breadth of linguistic knowledge and sit over at the cool table." And the inverse of that is, "Well, gee, that's not very naturalistic, which is fine, if that's what you want/meant to do. "
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: What IS natural?
Just a quick note: if we'd find a system with [pˤ] and [qʲʷ’] as the most frequent realization of its stops, people would probably still find a way to analyze it as /p t k/. And on the other hand some people (maybe in an overspecification approach) might propose an analysis of some language with /pˤ/ and /qʲʷ’/ as the only underlying stops, if the distribution of /t/ and maybe other stops is (almost) predictable.DesEsseintes wrote:DV82LECM wrote:On the other hand, as Adarain pointed out, a phonology with /pˤ qʲʷ’/ as its only stops (or the phonology of Klingon) simply isn't very interesting as the phonemes do not form a coherent system.
That said, I think this would just be linguistic theory mumbling and not that interesting, so I agree with the main point.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: What IS natural?
And one respects this.DesEsseintes wrote:I was talking about my personal goals in conlanging.
I took it as the highest form of praise, my good sir.Your consistently expressing my sentiments better than me can get a little tiresome.
In case it's not clear, I mean this in the best possible way.
Dewd, where do you hang? "Branding" of that sort is not especially useful or helpful. I'm all for reasoned debate, but frequent chiller locales, like this one.Apparently I'm also a bit too sensitive about this, so much so that I've been branded "highly ill-tempered and ill-mannered" for it.
If the elephant in the room is the ZBB, I haven't been there in quite a while, so I don't know if it's gotten any more civil. And the incivility there has become a cliché, which may or may not not be fair. I personally found the atmosphere there exasperating; I don't want to don asbestos when I visit an Internet space (OMG, I joined the Salon chatspace back in the late 90s -- it was positively toxic. At least for me, it took a while to figure out that you don't really know these people and don't have to engage -- if you met obnoxious people like this at a cocktail party, you'd just smile, bow out, and make your way over to the iced prawns)
Last I checked, the ZBB prided itself as being a place to go if you wanted to hear the raw deal about your project, and the CBB was dismissed as too huggingly soft (the first CB standing for Care Bear). Well, to each his own. I don't want to smother in a vat of pot-pourri-smelling teddy bears, but a warm fuzzy with the dose of useful criticism is nice. I think shimobaatar has, unintentionally, really helped to set the bar on the timbre of the CBB.
Back on point: I have never found the way you express yourself here to be ill-tempered or ill-mannered.
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
- Dormouse559
- moderator
- Posts: 2945
- Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
- Location: California
Re: What IS natural?
I rely a lot on the ANADEW school of naturalism. As long as something feels plausible, I don't worry that much about whether I have a ready precedent because chances are some natlang has already done the same thing and taken it a step farther.Lao Kou wrote:Perhaps. The reliance on checking-in with the conlanging community about attested features, lest one's conlang be monikered "unnaturalistic", can get a little tiresome. And I wonder if peer pressure (particularly of the Internet variety) is the most positive influence on any creative endeavor.