Yep, you guys are way over my head when it comes to all of this linguistic terminology. I barely understand anything in your second paragraph and it probably makes perfect sense to everyone else on the board. It reminds of when I'm speaking computer programming terms to non-programmers.sangi39 wrote: ↑26 Dec 2018 04:06One thing I should probably note, if it hadn't been clear at this point, is that we tend to be somewhat more "critical" of auxlangs in general than with other sorts of conlangs, most likely due to the fact they have specific aims beyond "interesting" or "based mostly on attestation".
For example, one of my conlangs, Proto-Sirdic, has morphosyntactic alignment which is depending on the perfectivity, telicity and duration of the verb, another, Proto-Skawlas, as direct-inverse marking and stress-related vowel alternations (resulting in pairs like /məˈnim/, "wing", and /ˌmemˈmim/, "wings"), while another one still, Lesi Kirra, has a total of 23 noun classes, marked by a distinct, stand alone word which can in turn be used as a sort of "generic" noun, referring back to the specific noun (for example the word for "father", /ˈtʼu.ɲu/, must always be preceded by the generic noun /ˈɲa.ʃa/, but if you wanted to refer back to the father later on, you could just use /ˈɲa.ʃa/).
Now, as far as I know, to some extent or another, those are all attested in some language or another, but the goal was never for these languages to be learned by anybody (not even myself), but instead to just, well, exist, to fill a world I'm slowly building from the ground up literally just because I want to.
The more "goals" you put in place, though, the more your language will be critiqued in response to those goals. For example, you've said you've aimed for simplicity, but then thrown in a gendered distinction in the 3rd person pronouns because you personally would get confused, while, as you rightly stated, such a distinction doesn't exist in spoken Mandarin (the written distinction is the result of European influence), nor is it a distinction made in languages like Finnish, and yet they get by perfectly fine without it. So if you aiming to remove "gender" from the language, why include it there when all it does is reflect English (which as noted only has that feature because it used to have gender classes for both nouns and pronouns, but lost them in nouns).
Similarly, your way of representing tense is notably "English", albeit represented by particles not auxiliary verbs and inflection, but some of the distinctions you're making aren't found in a number of languages, at least not in the way they're marked here. So, again, why go with what English does?
On the note of "simplicity", why have you chosen the phonemes you have (including a "hard 'k', whatever that means when you have't explained what <k> represents or what "hard" means)? And why that syllable structure? Some people's native languages don't have, for example, /f/, or a distinction between /v/ and /w/, or /r/ and /l/ (go one stem further with Cantonese, which in casual speech fully lacks a distinction between /r/, /l/, and /n/). Surely that would make it somewhat more difficult of them to learn the language since pronunciation is an immediate barrier. Once again, all seeming rather... "Englishy", which pokes its way through when you're talking about English vowels being a mess. Pronunciation-wise, English vowels aren't all that odd, it's just the way we spell them that's a pain (English might only have 5 "vowels" in writing, but the spoken language has around 25 or so vowels depending on how you count them), so "making the spelling of vowels" easier only makes sense in relation to English, but not in relation to, say, Spanish, which has a fairly straightforward link between its written and spoken vowels, which at least to me suggests that you're confusing written language with spoken language, which makes sense given your comment about gender in 3rd person pronouns in Mandarin.
Anyway, what I meant to say, if I hadn't made my point yet, is that you're probably going to get a lot of people going "why have you done this this way?" and "what do you mean by this?" on this board when it comes to auxlangs, because the results tend not to match the goals, at least as we understand them. For example, what do you mean by "simple"? Because so far it looks like you mean "no inflection", but then what about syntax? You're making the same distinctions are English does, but in a different way, so it's not "more simple".
I am different breed - an artist and an programmer and I like certain elements of math as well. When I conquered (at least in my mind) the puzzle of how to make a language much simpler for the majority of the population who might be able to use it (immigrants, migrants, foreign aid workers, students living abroad, families moving abroad, tourists, business travelers, etc., I just winged the first volume out in about 6 weeks and two of those weeks were dedicated towards the publishing process.
It's the way I work, just like when I write fiction stories; I never define any characters in advance, there is no outline, there is no plot, it is just flying out of my brain and I have to type it up as fast I can remember it. So it's likely there will be considerable misunderstanding between my thought processes and perhaps everyone else on this board.
So I can understand why there will be plenty of constructive and non-constructive criticism. I'm targeting the people in the world who don't have the time or desire to spend years learning a new language. A lot of the material in my books is contextual. Even half-way through the first volume, I begin switching to a light-hearted, contentious romance story as the way to reinforce the grammar and vocabulary. That way the student can forget about the complexities of the language grammar, structures (or whatever the correct terminology might be) and just get immersed into the story, learning the language that way.
Believe me, I'm already well aware that I will get lots of critique from this board. You guys might drive me away yet and at some point it might be better just to focus my energy elsewhere towards the gals that I already know who are interested in learning it. I kinda get the feeling that I'm treading other people's language toes. Oops, sorry, that's not my intention.
The purpose of removing the gender was because I found it hard to try and remember the gender for the particles, adjectives and nouns in French and Spanish. It was always a barrier so I nixed it. But I did leave elements of English in because of how many people already know it so I figured it would make it simpler for them to learn my language. I just changed the vowels to be completely consistent in pronunciation to avoid pronouncing the same vowels in a different way, like I pointed out somewhere, either here or on YouTube, with the words "could, shout, trouble and through", all having the same vowels but different sounds.
Maybe the difference here is that I just want to tell someone to pick up a saw and start cutting a piece of wood, versus, you all might want to first describe the metal characteristics of the blade, the number of teeth, the type of material it cuts, etc, before then showing how to hold the saw properly, use their hips when cutting it, and then have them cut it. That's all very valid as well, but for a mass market approach to reaching billions of people, my approach might be a little more pragmatic. Your approach is likely better suited to academic circles, intellectual types and those who simply love the particulars of language design. Both approaches have their place.
I sincerely appreciate your point of view, however. And seriously, I will have to study the details of your second paragraph as I simply don't understand most of the terminology in there.