If natlangs were conlangs

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4399
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by qwed117 » Tue 03 Jan 2017, 21:19

To the guy who created the Italian dialects:
CHANGING ONE PHONE DOESN'T COUNT AS A NEW LANGUAGE.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat 01 Mar 2014, 07:19

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by All4Ɇn » Wed 04 Jan 2017, 00:38

tseren wrote:
Shemtov wrote:So the the other board has this thread, so why not start one here (I don't go there anymore, because that's were the fun of conlanging goes to die.)

So anyhow:
Who created Gaelic really has a fetish for historical spellings, moreso then the guy who did English. I mean, in his or her "Irish" version /vʲəurə/ is written <Mheabhraigh>, what the Hell? I mean, don't get me wrong, there's a logic to his or her orthography, but why write /u/ with <bh>? Who does that?
You weren't there for the Old Irish project. There were 42 different consonants, but the orthography only used 13 letters. The system specified the sound based on word position and the flanking vowels. This posed no problem, because there were only 11 monophtongs and 13 diphthongs to use up those five letters, anyway. It's all very intuitive once you get used to it. The whole project was abandoned due to the verb inflection system. At first there, were just the two verb stems, absolute and conjunct. When they added the whole infixed pronouns idea, the stress shifts meant the generation of prototonic and deuterotonic stems as well. Then, the suffixed object pronoun idea really took hold. By the time they were done, we're writing <condidnderoímed> /kondəðnʲdʲe:roi̯ṽʲəðʲ/ "so that he should protect him" and verbs conjugated along the lines of <do·tuitet> "they fall" and <do·rochratar> "they have fallen".

There were also 14 noun declensions. Some people just don't know when to stop. They pretended people spoke this stuff. When they decided to scrap the whole project, half the phonemes got thrown out. The orthography stuck around for a daughter language just to give it a sense of diachrony. The whole thing is just an excuse to see what would happen if you applied a bunch of sandhi to the more obscure PIE inflections while trying to make Classicists cry.
I've never looked at Old Irish and figured it wasn't much different than it currently is but now I'm super interested in checking this out
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2525
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Keenir » Wed 04 Jan 2017, 07:08

Egerius wrote:English revisitedorthography:
Someone played around with the sound changes and forgot to update the orthography accordingly. Then others took over and only tweaked unnecessary details! What even...?
Oh it gets worse -- I don't know if its one person doing it, or English's creator has a fan base, but they've been busy spamming everywhere with that orthography.

I mean, we get it, you guys're proud of your "Danger: Fire Hazard" signs. But why are you putting them everywhere, including that polar continent? Penguins can't pronounce your 'lang!
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri 03 Jul 2015, 14:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Adarain » Wed 04 Jan 2017, 16:11

qwed117 wrote:To the guy who created the Italian dialects:
CHANGING ONE PHONE DOESN'T COUNT AS A NEW LANGUAGE.
[serious]
Of course many italian dialects are actually really divergent from standard italian. I showed some italians a video on Pus'chiavin (spoken in southern switzerland) and they couldn't understand it apart from some words, while I (who studied some romansh) could actually somewhat follow it. Just compare the inflection of "to be" in the present:

Standard Italian:
(io) sono
(tu) sei
(lui/lei) é
(noi) siamo
(voi) siete
(loro) sono

Pus'chiavin:
(mì) sém
(tì) t'és
(lü) l'é
(nualtri) sém
(vualtri) sév
(lur) gli énn.

(Note: I have no clue what the diacritics mean, this is from a wikipedia article)

[/serious]
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.
User avatar
HinGambleGoth
greek
greek
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue 01 Jul 2014, 04:29
Location: gøtalandum

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by HinGambleGoth » Wed 04 Jan 2017, 17:00

tseren wrote:Some people just don't know when to stop. They pretended people spoke this stuff.
Goidelic is terrifying.
[:D] :se-og: :fi-al2: :swe:
[:)] :nor: :usa: :uk:
:wat: :dan: :se-sk2: :eng:
[B)] Image Image :deu:
User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 04:47
Contact:

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by k1234567890y » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 03:04

Chinese languages are diachronic conlangs derived from Proto-Sino-Tibetan and created by professional conlangers, and they certainly are conlangs because their numeral systems are pretty regular.

Japanese is a pretty well-made conlang, but its creator(s) has an obession towards honorific systems.

Pirahã is an artistic language created by a sci-fi novelist as an thought experiment to explore a world without numerals.

Rotokas is an experimental conlang aimed at phonological minimalism.

Wakashan languages and Salishan languages are somewhat noobish as they seem to have crazy phonological systems.
私のアツい人工言語活動!言カツ!始まります!!
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat 01 Mar 2014, 07:19

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by All4Ɇn » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 03:11

k1234567890y wrote:Japanese is a pretty well-made conlang, but its creator(s) has an obession towards honorific systems.
That's nothing compared to that conlang Korean's honorific system. It's creator and Japanese's clearly have been influenced by some of the same work but neither one of them want to accept it.
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2920
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Frislander » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 13:47

All4Ɇn wrote:
k1234567890y wrote:Japanese is a pretty well-made conlang, but its creator(s) has an obession towards honorific systems.
That's nothing compared to that conlang Korean's honorific system. It's creator and Japanese's clearly have been influenced by some of the same work but neither one of them want to accept it.
Or Javanese.

Iau is some weird phonology someone cooked up for the Bad Conlanging Ideas Tumblr page.
User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 04:47
Contact:

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by k1234567890y » Thu 19 Jan 2017, 06:26

Sino-Tibetan are professional conlangs as the way to reduce initial clusters in Chinese languages and Modern Tibetan are not very obvious but still naturalistic.

English is a nooblang, its phonological system is somewhat kitchen-sinky, and its creator assigns the forms of irregular verbs in a somewhat random way.

Creators of Altaic languages aim at making international auxiliary languages, as many Altaic languages are highly regular in terms of grammar; the creator of Malay-Indonesian is aim at making an international auxiliary language.

French, Swedish, Polish, Georgian, Ubykh, Chechen and Yeli Dnye also look like some kinds of kitchen-sink conlangs in terms of phonology.

The creator of Mandarin Chinese and Polish might be the same person who likes retroflexes.

The creator of Finnish swings between fusional languages and agglutinating languages when making Finnish.

The creator of Old High German might speak Italian and wants to make a Germanic language that looks like Italian.

Armenian is a crypt language created by someone speaking an Indo-European languages.
私のアツい人工言語活動!言カツ!始まります!!
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4417
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Creyeditor » Thu 19 Jan 2017, 11:26

k1234567890y wrote: The creator of Old High German might speak Italian and wants to make a Germanic language that looks like Italian.
So true. Did not succeed though, got into diachronic conlanging and lost interest in Italian Germanic [:D]
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2920
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Frislander » Thu 19 Jan 2017, 11:46

Whoever created Marshallese was trying to one-up Ubykh with vertical vowel systems, but can't pronounce it all properly so is losing the distinction between the two middle vowel heights. And just look at the number of height-harmonic diphthongs which you find phonetically!
User avatar
Egerius
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2412
Joined: Thu 12 Sep 2013, 20:29
Location: Not Rodentèrra
Contact:

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Egerius » Thu 19 Jan 2017, 12:12

Creyeditor wrote:
k1234567890y wrote: The creator of Old High German might speak Italian and wants to make a Germanic language that looks like Italian.
So true. Did not succeed though, got into diachronic conlanging and lost interest in Italian Germanic [:D]
I guess he moved on to English...
And I swear, the original creator of English was driven away from his project by the above guy, who had no idea about the existing West Saxon.

Scandinavian languages: The creator loved his first creation (Icelandic) so much, but he had so many ideas for diachronic developments that he decided to make more, with weirder changes the further east you go.
Languages of Rodentèrra: Buonavallese, Saselvan Argemontese; Wīlandisċ Taulkeisch; More on the road.
Conlang embryo of TELES: Proto-Avesto-Umbric ~> Proto-Umbric
New blog: http://argentiusbonavalensis.tumblr.com
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4399
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by qwed117 » Thu 19 Jan 2017, 23:47

Look, creator of the Austronesian languages: changing one letter doesn't make a new language. At best it's a dialect. And this is for virtually every language you made. Seriously, in every language you made, the word for eye is "mata"
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
Imralu
greek
greek
Posts: 840
Joined: Sun 17 Nov 2013, 22:32

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Imralu » Sat 21 Jan 2017, 09:55

qwed117 wrote:Look, creator of the Austronesian languages: changing one letter doesn't make a new language. At best it's a dialect. And this is for virtually every language you made. Seriously, in every language you made, the word for eye is "mata"
No, it's maka in Hawaiian. #creativity
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific, AG = agent, E = entity (person, animal, thing)
________
MY MUSIC
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat 01 Mar 2014, 07:19

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by All4Ɇn » Sat 21 Jan 2017, 18:56

Speaking of Austronesian languages, what the hell Rapa Nui? Don't know why it's creator made a script that no one's still been able to figure out and then just left it for latin characters. At least tell us what the old one said first
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2920
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Frislander » Sat 21 Jan 2017, 19:41

All4Ɇn wrote:Speaking of Austronesian languages, what the hell Rapa Nui? Don't know why it's creator made a script that no one's still been able to figure out and then just left it for latin characters. At least tell us what the old one said first
Yeah, and make it so totally unlike any script we've seen ever that other people don't even know if it is a script. Worse they abandoned it before they could build up a large corpus, so we probably can't decode it ever.

And that bit where they have this weird-as alignment no other language family has, but it was a collaborative diachronic project, so most of the daughters lost it/simplified it apart from a few of the groups, which just so happens to include Malagasy of all things (someone else can follow me up on that one).
User avatar
lsd
roman
roman
Posts: 895
Joined: Fri 11 Mar 2011, 21:11
Contact:

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by lsd » Sat 21 Jan 2017, 20:58

Speaking Italian with Scandinavian intonation and a whole bunch of pseudo logical rules is not earnest ...
WTF con-people could speak français...
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2525
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Keenir » Sun 22 Jan 2017, 04:14

Frislander wrote:And that bit where they have this weird-as alignment no other language family has, but it was a collaborative diachronic project, so most of the daughters lost it/simplified it apart from a few of the groups, which just so happens to include Malagasy of all things (someone else can follow me up on that one).
I actually don't mind that Malagasy was put all the way over in Madagascar, a geographic outlier of its family.

What bugs me is that all that work was put into sending them within an arm's reach of several language families in Africa...and Malagasy's creator barely tweaked it. We could have witnessed Malagasy's becoming The Holy Mother of all creoles...only, it never happened. (to be fair, I think there was a fire that burned the notes for that development? i'm just glad our fellow conlanger's okay - that's more important)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Axiem » Tue 24 Jan 2017, 03:25

Imralu wrote:
qwed117 wrote:Look, creator of the Austronesian languages: changing one letter doesn't make a new language. At best it's a dialect. And this is for virtually every language you made. Seriously, in every language you made, the word for eye is "mata"
No, it's maka in Hawaiian. #creativity
Aren't /k/ and /t/ allophonic in Hawaiian?
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
User avatar
Imralu
greek
greek
Posts: 840
Joined: Sun 17 Nov 2013, 22:32

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Imralu » Tue 24 Jan 2017, 03:41

Axiem wrote:
Imralu wrote:
qwed117 wrote:Look, creator of the Austronesian languages: changing one letter doesn't make a new language. At best it's a dialect. And this is for virtually every language you made. Seriously, in every language you made, the word for eye is "mata"
No, it's maka in Hawaiian. #creativity
Aren't /k/ and /t/ allophonic in Hawaiian?
Yes, but as I understand it, [t] only occurs in certain dialects and is absent from most Hawaiian.
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific, AG = agent, E = entity (person, animal, thing)
________
MY MUSIC
Post Reply