(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2319
Joined: Sun 24 Jun 2012, 06:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by clawgrip » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 13:02

Thanks for the suggestions.

One of the two languages in this family has a ten vowel system (including ɨ and ə) that is the result of several stages of vowel mergers (this was the language I back-derived the proto-language from, which is why so many weird vowel sequences are permissible), and the other main member has nasalized vowels that actually underwent lowering as you suggested (close nasals and close-mid nasals merged, and then those nasals dropped to open-mid):

Code: Select all

i ɨ u
e ə o
ɛ   ɔ
  a

Code: Select all

i   u
e ə o
ɛ̃   ɔ̃
 a ã
Still, it might be neat to have the vowels lowered but not actually get nasalized, and trying out the unrounding might be interesting. I've never really done much with ablaut and umlaut either, so I might consider something like that. I have a couple stages of languages to get a "modern" language (contemporaneous to the ones mentioned above), so I will try a few things, maybe.

Thanks for the suggestions.
User avatar
thaen
roman
roman
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2011, 21:01
Location: Plano

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by thaen » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 17:18

eldin raigmore wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 02:10
thaen wrote:
Mon 13 Nov 2017, 01:31
How (un)reasonable is the "overloading" of certain cases to handle multiple different jobs?
In general, that's what happens.
In fact, according to Barry J. Blake (author of "Case"), if I remember correctly, some linguisticians won't call a language's nominal-inflection system a "case system", unless at least one of the cases has both a semantic job and a syntactic job. (For instance, maybe "dative" means both goal (semantic) and indirect object (syntactic)).
Most cases are named for their main function, or for one of their main functions, rather than for their only function.
In addition, most "cased" languages have a "workhorse" case, or a "lord high everything else" case, that is used for multiple jobs; namely, any job it isn't obvious one of the other cases should be used for. An example (apparently; I don't know Latin myself) is the ablative case in Latin.

Is any of that useful to you?
Absolutely! This is a big help [:)]
I thought that this might be the case ( [;)] ) but I was not sure.
:con: Nillahimma
:con: Øð!
:con: Coneylang

I am the Great Rabbit. Fear me, O Crabs!
Spoiler:
ı θ ð ʃ ɲ ŋ ʔ ɛ ə ø ʑ ɕ ʷ ʲ ⁿ
User avatar
gestaltist
roman
roman
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by gestaltist » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 17:34

eldin raigmore wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 02:10
linguisticians
It makes me irrationally angry that this word exists. It's "linguists" dammit!
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4472
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by DesEsseintes » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 17:37

gestaltist wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 17:34
eldin raigmore wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 02:10
linguisticians
It makes me irrationally angry that this word exists. It's "linguists" dammit!
[+1]
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Frislander » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 18:13

DesEsseintes wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 17:37
gestaltist wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 17:34
eldin raigmore wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 02:10
linguisticians
It makes me irrationally angry that this word exists. It's "linguists" dammit!
[+1]
[+1]

Seriously, the only reason this word is a "thing" is because laypeople don't know the word "polyglot" exists. I'm not normall one for prescriptivism but misuse of linguistic terminology really infuriates me!
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 703
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013, 22:01

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Sumelic » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 18:56

Frislander wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 18:13
DesEsseintes wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 17:37
gestaltist wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 17:34
eldin raigmore wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 02:10
linguisticians
It makes me irrationally angry that this word exists. It's "linguists" dammit!
[+1]
[+1]

Seriously, the only reason this word is a "thing" is because laypeople don't know the word "polyglot" exists. I'm not normall one for prescriptivism but misuse of linguistic terminology really infuriates me!
I don't think the usage/meaning of the word "linguist" (and "linguistics", etc) is really the best prescriptivist hill to die on. The OED indicates that the word was first used with the sense "A person who is skilled in the learning or use of foreign languages." It only later came to refer to a scientist who studies language (and it competed for a while with "philologist"; see the discussion in the comments on this Language Hat post). In the present day, some generativists seem to be trying to restrict the use of "linguists" to refer even more specifically to people who study the faculty of language, rather than people who study languages (for whom a neologism has been coined, "languists": I find it kind of an ugly and unnecessary word): see the following quote from the start of Norbert Hornstein's blog post "The future of (my kind of) linguistics" at the generativist blog "Faculty of Language":
I have been pessimistic of late concerning the fate of linguistics. It’s not that I think it is in intellectual trouble (I actually cannot think of a more exciting period of linguistic research), but I do think that the kind of linguistics I signed up for as a youth is currently lightly prized, if at all. I have made no secret of this view. I even have a diagnosis. I believe that the Minimalist Program (MP) has forced to the surface a tension that was inchoate in the field since its inception 60 or so years ago. Sociologically, within the profession, this tension is becoming resolved in ways that disfavor my conception of the enterprise. You have no doubt guessed what the tension resides in: the languist-linguist divide. Languists and linguists are interested in different problems and objects of study. Languists mainly care about the subtle ways that languages differ. Linguists mainly care about the invariances and what these tell us about the overarching capacities that underlie linguistic facility. Languists are typologists. Linguists are cognitivists.
Note: "Languist" is supposedly not meant to be derogatory, per se, but I find the linguist-languist distinction a bit irritating anyway.

Anyway, my point is that "linguist" is a multiply ambiguous word, so I don't see the point of getting worked up about when it should and shouldn't be used (and I hope some of this contextual information helps people to avoid having that reaction).

Side note: I don't really like the new icons on this site. A pencil for editing? Two circles for linking? They aren't completely unintuitive, but they weren't obvious to me at first glance either.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 19:44

Sumelic wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 18:56
In the present day, some generativists seem to be trying to restrict the use of "linguists"
I actually think I have to jump in here. It wasn't necessarily the generativists that first started this game. Some earlier paper introduced the terms B-linguists, C-linguists and D-linguists, which in itself sound dangerous, and I think only the terms C-linguists and D-linguists have survived into today. Haspelmath actually has a series of blogposts on that matter. Of course it's from his perspective, but it is still rather objective I would say.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
Davush
sinic
sinic
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Davush » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 20:36

I am having difficulty coming up with sound changes that seem organic and make the language feel different from the original language. Lots of sound changes seem to be merely replace X with Y which doesn't seem to be how sound change actually operates.

Do you usually just look at the phonology of your proto-lang and come up with sound changes, then apply them to a list of words? Or maybe you look at words and imagine how they might reasonably change then note down changes? Usually I prefer the second option because I can see how they are affecting words, and the resulting phonology is a bit of a 'surprise' but it becomes tedious and messy and the changes end up being *too* conditioned and actually affecting very few words. Or do you have a 'goal' phonology in mind that you try to derive from an early phonology, or something else? Basically I am trying to find a way of making sound changes seem coherent, but also not too painstaking to come up with and apply.
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 703
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013, 22:01

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Sumelic » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 20:41

Creyeditor wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 19:44
Sumelic wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 18:56
In the present day, some generativists seem to be trying to restrict the use of "linguists"
I actually think I have to jump in here. It wasn't necessarily the generativists that first started this game. Some earlier paper introduced the terms B-linguists, C-linguists and D-linguists, which in itself sound dangerous, and I think only the terms C-linguists and D-linguists have survived into today. Haspelmath actually has a series of blogposts on that matter. Of course it's from his perspective, but it is still rather objective I would say.
Oh, interesting! I don't really know that much about the history of academic linguistics, so I appreciate the link. It looks like the C-linguist D-linguist description was proposed by opponents of generativism/ critics of "C-linguists", and I can't say if the critique is accurate or justified. But just considering the terms, and ignoring their validity as classifications, I think "C[homskyan/onstituency]-linguists" and "D[iversity/ata/arwinian(?!)]-linguists" seem slightly less dismissive than "linguists" vs. "languists". I mean, many linguists are proud to work in a research program/tradition influenced by Chomsky's ideas, whereas I don't think many people would proudly identify as being "not a linguist, but a languist". I guess there is a pre-existing asymmetry, though: my impression is that Chomsky's opponents aren't really in a position to dismiss his ideas, even if they wanted to.
User avatar
gestaltist
roman
roman
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by gestaltist » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 21:03

Davush wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 20:36
I am having difficulty coming up with sound changes that seem organic and make the language feel different from the original language. Lots of sound changes seem to be merely replace X with Y which doesn't seem to be how sound change actually operates.

Do you usually just look at the phonology of your proto-lang and come up with sound changes, then apply them to a list of words? Or maybe you look at words and imagine how they might reasonably change then note down changes? Usually I prefer the second option because I can see how they are affecting words, and the resulting phonology is a bit of a 'surprise' but it becomes tedious and messy and the changes end up being *too* conditioned and actually affecting very few words. Or do you have a 'goal' phonology in mind that you try to derive from an early phonology, or something else? Basically I am trying to find a way of making sound changes seem coherent, but also not too painstaking to come up with and apply.
I do something else. I like to be surprised by my sound changes so I work with the goal of introducing new phonemic distinctions. I.e., I work out the allophony in some detail, and then I go to work with the actual sound change, all the while looking for allophones that either become phonemes or merge with other phonemes than before.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 15 Nov 2017, 21:21

gestaltist wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 21:03
Davush wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 20:36
I am having difficulty coming up with sound changes that seem organic and make the language feel different from the original language. Lots of sound changes seem to be merely replace X with Y which doesn't seem to be how sound change actually operates.

Do you usually just look at the phonology of your proto-lang and come up with sound changes, then apply them to a list of words? Or maybe you look at words and imagine how they might reasonably change then note down changes? Usually I prefer the second option because I can see how they are affecting words, and the resulting phonology is a bit of a 'surprise' but it becomes tedious and messy and the changes end up being *too* conditioned and actually affecting very few words. Or do you have a 'goal' phonology in mind that you try to derive from an early phonology, or something else? Basically I am trying to find a way of making sound changes seem coherent, but also not too painstaking to come up with and apply.
I do something else. I like to be surprised by my sound changes so I work with the goal of introducing new phonemic distinctions. I.e., I work out the allophony in some detail, and then I go to work with the actual sound change, all the while looking for allophones that either become phonemes or merge with other phonemes than before.
I haven't actually done sound-changes yet.

I have an in-story rationale why the prestige dialect of Adpihi would remain "constant" (that is, any feature it has at one point it would continue to have at all later times; of course it would add vocabulary as time goes on, but no changes in phonology or phonetics or syntax, and no word would lose meanings though perhaps some would sometimes gain meanings). (Among the reasons are; some of the speakers would be AIs, and the prestige dialect would be a multi-species multi-planet imperial lingua franca.) So though it's "canon" that there are, in fact, around 500 or 5000 dialects of Adpihi, I've done no work on any of them except the prestige 'lect; and I'm sure most of the CBBers who've "known" me for a while know how slow that's going.

As for my other conlang(s?); so far I haven't planned more than one dialect apiece for them. (There aren't that many!)

thaen wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 17:18
eldin raigmore wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 02:10
thaen wrote:
Mon 13 Nov 2017, 01:31
How (un)reasonable is the "overloading" of certain cases to handle multiple different jobs?

In general, that's what happens.
In fact, according to Barry J. Blake (author of "Case"), if I remember correctly, some l*nguist*s won't call a language's nominal-inflection system a "case system", unless at least one of the cases has both a semantic job and a syntactic job. (For instance, maybe "dative" means both goal (semantic) and indirect object (syntactic)).
Most cases are named for their main function, or for one of their main functions, rather than for their only function.
In addition, most "cased" languages have a "workhorse" case, or a "lord high everything else" case, that is used for multiple jobs; namely, any job it isn't obvious one of the other cases should be used for. An example (apparently; I don't know Latin myself) is the ablative case in Latin.
Is any of that useful to you?
Absolutely! This is a big help [:)]
I thought that this might be the case ( [;)] ) but I was not sure.
Thanks for saying so!
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Wed 15 Nov 2017, 21:26, edited 1 time in total.
Davush
sinic
sinic
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Davush » Thu 16 Nov 2017, 10:48

@Gestaltist: Yeah I like to be surprised too, especially when the words end up quite different from how you imaged. But I find this way to be very slow and I get bored fast and then abandon it. Perhaps I would be better off coming up with generic changes first, then adding a few conditioned ones.

@Eldin: That's interesting. I also want Qutrussan (my main language) to be a prestige language, although it will develop into new languages. I am hoping that it remains spoken for a longer period than Latin or Classical Arabic, though.

How does everyone come up with names for languages (and especially proto languages or language families)? Do you have detailed etymologies for the name, or is it just based on what sounds nice? I want to come up with a name for a small branch of languages, but as Qutrussan is the dominant language, I feel like it should be named from a Qutrussan perspective.
User avatar
gestaltist
roman
roman
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by gestaltist » Thu 16 Nov 2017, 11:35

Davush wrote:
Thu 16 Nov 2017, 10:48
How does everyone come up with names for languages (and especially proto languages or language families)? Do you have detailed etymologies for the name, or is it just based on what sounds nice? I want to come up with a name for a small branch of languages, but as Qutrussan is the dominant language, I feel like it should be named from a Qutrussan perspective.
I always think of the name first, and rationalize it later (either by finding an etymology for it or simply saying its meaning has been lost to time).
User avatar
Evynova
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun 01 Jan 2017, 18:28
Location: Belgium

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Evynova » Thu 16 Nov 2017, 19:33

Have any of you implemented some system of avoidance speech in one of your conlangs? I've been thinking about it for a new project, but I'm not sure how to go about it. What did you come up with? Are some words completely banned, or is substituting a phoneme with another accepted? Must a synonym or paraphrase be used instead? Does grammar change in any way? Which words did you decide to ban? And what about the paralinguistic elements; did you also associate certain behaviours with avoidance speech?
User avatar
Reyzadren
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun 14 May 2017, 09:39
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Reyzadren » Fri 17 Nov 2017, 01:38

Davush wrote:
Thu 16 Nov 2017, 10:48
How does everyone come up with names for languages (and especially proto languages or language families)? Do you have detailed etymologies for the name, or is it just based on what sounds nice? I want to come up with a name for a small branch of languages, but as Qutrussan is the dominant language, I feel like it should be named from a Qutrussan perspective.
My conlang is named to show its phonotactics. It should show the possibility of a front consonant blend, end consonant blend, pseudo-medial consonant blend from 2 syllables, diphthong, and a single vowel somewhere because why not. Play around with the consonant and vowel inventory, and finally it is obtained: griuskant.

In-conworld, griuskant doesn't mean anything. It's just an ordinary proper noun of the language, though I'm quite sure that won't stop the conpeople from having etymological theories of it being "a name that is able to show its phonotactics".
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
darkness
darkness
Posts: 3655
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Thrice Xandvii » Fri 17 Nov 2017, 06:39

I doubt that most con-peoples would get that meta about a name that to them isn't really thought about too much at this point. Unless, of course, your conpeople are relatively modern. (Which I have no idea if they are.)
Image
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Fri 17 Nov 2017, 18:58

gestaltist wrote:
Thu 16 Nov 2017, 11:35
I always think of the name first, and rationalize it later (either by finding an etymology for it or simply saying its meaning has been lost to time).
Me, too. Although "always" is a bit of hubris, coming from me; I should say "so far", instead of "always".
User avatar
gestaltist
roman
roman
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by gestaltist » Fri 17 Nov 2017, 20:45

eldin raigmore wrote:
Fri 17 Nov 2017, 18:58
gestaltist wrote:
Thu 16 Nov 2017, 11:35
I always think of the name first, and rationalize it later (either by finding an etymology for it or simply saying its meaning has been lost to time).
Me, too. Although "always" is a bit of hubris, coming from me; I should say "so far", instead of "always".
Or you could accept that this is one of the pragmatic ways "always" is used. ;)
User avatar
Reyzadren
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun 14 May 2017, 09:39
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Reyzadren » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 01:28

Thrice Xandvii wrote:
Fri 17 Nov 2017, 06:39
I doubt that most con-peoples would get that meta about a name that to them isn't really thought about too much at this point. Unless, of course, your conpeople are relatively modern. (Which I have no idea if they are.)
Define meta. Define thought. Define modern. Otherwise, I'm not sure I can provide an accurate response, but I'll try.

Relative to other conworlds here, I think mine is slightly modern, though it might not be depending on definitions imo. There are things like jazz bands, shopping malls, social media, health insurance, laser beams, photon cannons, particle accelerators and quantum technologies.

Foreigner: Why is griuskant named as such?
Native griuskanter: Griuskant doesn't mean anything, but some people think its name symbolically represents its phonotactics.
^This conversation doesn't sound too meta to you, no? o.o
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
darkness
darkness
Posts: 3655
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Thrice Xandvii » Sun 19 Nov 2017, 08:39

A bit... Since an average citizen prolly wouldn't know what phonotactics are.

(And i would mos def call that setting "modern.")
Image
Post Reply