Ak

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 619
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 23:01

Re: Ak

Post by Sumelic » 23 Apr 2015 16:36

eldin raigmore wrote:
Darvince wrote:This is so ridiculous, at least three phonemes could potentially support a language! And this has syllables yet only two phonemes? You're mad! [xP]
Well, don't we already have a conlang with only two consonant phonemes and only two vowel phonemes and all syllables CV?
Can't remember what it's called, and my impression was that it also was a joke.
But if one allowed words of one to six syllables one could have a lexicon of ((4^7-1)/(4-1))-1 = (16383/3)-1 = 5460 different words in such a language.

More seriously, a phoneme inventory of six consonants and two vowels is naturalistic/realistic:
http://wals.info/chapter/1 wrote:Rotokas (West Bougainville; Papua New Guinea) has only six consonants.
http://wals.info/chapter/2 wrote:There are 4 languages in the sample with only two contrasting vowel qualities; these are languages in which only the height of the vowel has any distinctive function according to at least one possible interpretation of their phonetic patterns. An example of this extreme is Yimas (Lower Sepik-Ramu; Papua New Guinea).
The statements
"Phoneme inventories with 6 consonants are naturalistic" and
"Phoneme inventories that can be interpreted as having 2 vowels if you look at them a certain way are naturalistic" (according to Wikipedia Yimas has 4 vowels, so it clearly depends on your phonemic analysis)
do not imply "Phoneme inventories with 6 consonants and 2 vowels are naturalistic".

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6349
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Ak

Post by eldin raigmore » 23 Apr 2015 21:47

Sumelic wrote: The statements
"Phoneme inventories with 6 consonants are naturalistic" and
"Phoneme inventories that can be interpreted as having 2 vowels if you look at them a certain way are naturalistic" (according to Wikipedia Yimas has 4 vowels, so it clearly depends on your phonemic analysis)
do not imply "Phoneme inventories with 6 consonants and 2 vowels are naturalistic".
Indeed, I don't remember reading about a natlang with fewer than 11 phonemes total.
But the fact that two statements don't imply a third, doesn't make that third one false.

If a real natlang does something, does that make it naturalistic and realistic?
If a conlang does both of two naturalistic realistic things that no natlang does both of, does that make it unnaturalistic or unrealistic?

User avatar
masako
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2025
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 16:42
Location: 가매
Contact:

Re: Ak

Post by masako » 24 Apr 2015 01:48

Leave it to eldin to take a joke very seriously.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6349
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Ak

Post by eldin raigmore » 24 Apr 2015 07:04

masako wrote:Leave it to eldin to take a joke very seriously.
I think/thought I was replying to a couple of post(er)s who had taken it seriously.
So you don't need to leave it to me.
And I said I knew it was a joke. ( I took it as a joke at first.)
But then I said that I was going to take it seriously.
So nobody should think I didn't know what I was doing.

And besides: I joke about so many of the serious topics; why shouldn't I be serious about some of the joke topics?

[hr][/hr]

Deliberate topic drift:

I asked:

  1. If a real natlang does something, does that make it naturalistic and realistic?
  2. If a conlang does both of two naturalistic realistic things that no natlang does both of, does that make it unnaturalistic or unrealistic?


Can someone answer? (I'd prefer at least one serious answer, though any number of jokes are also welcome.)

Possibly I could also ask:
If a conlang does all of three naturalistic realistic things that no natlang does more than two of, does that make it unnaturalistic or unrealistic?
etc.: If a conlang does all of a set of naturalistic realistic things that no natlang does more than a proper subset of, does that make the conlang unnaturalistic or unrealistic?

Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 619
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 23:01

Re: Ak

Post by Sumelic » 24 Apr 2015 07:50

More clarification requested for your statement #2. It depends on your definition of "something".
Consider 3 features, called A B and C.
Natlang 1 does A B.
Natlang 2 does B C.
Natlang 3 does A C.
No natlang does A B C.
Conlang does A B C.
If we only consider A B C as individual things, we conclude that the Conlang doesn't have two naturalistic realistic things that no natlang does both of.
If we can group two of these features together somehow, and that pair is considered as "doing a naturalistic realistic thing", then Conlang does do two naturalistic realistic things that no natlang does both of. (E.g. if we group A and B and denote this as AB, then Conlang does AB (naturalistic due to Natlang 1) and C (naturalistic due to Natlangs 2 and 3) but there are no natlangs that do AB and C.)

I don't know if the above was serious or a joke; take it how you will.
Well, I guess I missed the last part of your post. In that case, it's a pretty boring question, since it's basically reduced to affirming or denying a statement that a "naturalistic" conlang must be a relex or incomplete relex of one single natlang. Since most conlangers don't aspire to make relexes, affirming this statement would probably gut the category of "naturalistic" langs and remove a lot of the prototypical members. Since it's a useful term, we probably don't want to do that. Because of considerations like these, I think it's obvious that no-one actually agrees with your second statement, so I am somewhat doubtful of your motivations in asking this question (in particular, I feel like you're setting up a straw man here for my previous comment). But who knows, maybe someone will reply who's willing to answer "yes" to it.

A phonology is a system, not a collection of isolated elements. And a judgement of linguistic "naturalism" or "realism" can only be made in the context of a linguistic system. If a real natlang does something, that something is by my definition naturalistic and realistic in the context of that natlang, although it may not be probable. If that same something is included in a conlang, the conlang may be naturalistic, or it may not be. Naturalism is not guaranteed, even if all the independent features of a conlang or phonology have some natlang precedent.

Post Reply