If natlangs were conlangs

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Ser
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 102
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Ser » 19 Jan 2019 16:54

Old Church Slavonic has many cases marked and distinguished by a single vowel: gradŭ grade grada gradě gradu gradi grady.

And there's a bit of syncretism of different case and number combinations, to make matters worse: gradŭ 'the city, of the cities', grade 'oh city!', grada 'of the city, the two cities', gradě 'in the city', gradu 'to the city, of/in the two cities', gradi 'the cities (nom.)', grady 'the cities (acc.), with the cities'.

Terrible conlang.
Shemtov wrote:
23 Nov 2018 14:49
To whoever did the Ethiopic subfamily of Semitic: Where did the emphatic biblabial come from? And why did you take a VSO family and make it SOV?
Many Arabic dialects have emphatic m and b (and r!) as well, even though they're not indicated in writing. Maybe there's something reconstructible here.

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 278
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Pabappa » 19 Jan 2019 19:46

I think the /ṗ/ is mostly found in loans, including loans from Greek where it takes the place of the unaspirated /p/, since the standard Ethiopic stops are fundamentally aspirated.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

User avatar
LinguoFranco
greek
greek
Posts: 463
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
Location: U.S.

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by LinguoFranco » 28 Jan 2019 02:13

I really hate whoever created Nuxalk. It gets ridiculous with some of the words having absolutely no vowels. And I thought Georgian was bad with consonant clusters. I guess having only aspirated and ejecting stops is pretty weird but nothing too unnatural. Still weird, though.

Just... why?

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3095
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Shemtov » 30 Jan 2019 18:23

To the creator of Zulu: Clicks, one implosive, and a lateral fricative? You really have a thing for uncommon phonemes. At least you restrained yourself from putting in ejectives. (To be fair, I use /ɬ/ a lot, too. I even have a language with /k͡ʟ̞/. But if there's any other weird phonemes, they're ejectives, which are attested as being in languages with /ɬ/, and I'm usually basing the conlang off of such a language.)
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4508
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Creyeditor » 31 Jan 2019 21:20

Why do people always say bad things about natlangs in this thread? I just want to say that I would really enjoy the crazyness of the languages of Vanuatu if they were conlangs. They are so nicely crafted.
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: 3496
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Frislander » 01 Feb 2019 12:14

Creyeditor wrote:
31 Jan 2019 21:20
Why do people always say bad things about natlangs in this thread?
Because it's more fun.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by eldin raigmore » 01 Feb 2019 16:07

@Creyeditor:
As Frislander is saying, this thread is (or appears to be) a fun way of expressing our opinions about how weird natlangs can be; a feeling often otherwise expressed as ANADEW.

Years ago on this board I expressed my perplexion re Swedish’s vowel-inventory by pretending the poster who described it was posting about their conlang, which they were proposing to call “Swedish”. My helpful, constructive criticism, was that their vowel-inventory was unnaturalistic and unrealistic for a conlang intended to be spoken by unmodified humans pretty much like RL humans.

I just looked for that post and can’t find it here anymore. But this thread contains several good posts in the same vein! Quite original, too, IMNSHO!

User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 251
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » 21 Feb 2019 08:23

Creyeditor wrote:
31 Jan 2019 21:20
Why do people always say bad things about natlangs in this thread? I just want to say that I would really enjoy the crazyness of the languages of Vanuatu if they were conlangs. They are so nicely crafted.
I take it as a way to poke fun at people criticizing the conlangs for being "unrealistic" by applying the same criticisms to languages that actually exist.

Iyionaku
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1667
Joined: 25 May 2014 14:17

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Iyionaku » 21 Feb 2019 10:40

Creyeditor wrote:
31 Jan 2019 21:20
Why do people always say bad things about natlangs in this thread? I just want to say that I would really enjoy the crazyness of the languages of Vanuatu if they were conlangs. They are so nicely crafted.
In a way, I think it doesn't really make sense to praise things about natlangs because that feels like a tautology - if natlangs were conlangs, they'd all be perfect, way better than any "real" conlang ever created. Look at the perfect grammar that allows to express every possible situation! The nicely crafted lexicon of at the very least 20,000 entries (most of the time, a lot more) which new entries almost every day! They even made dialects! And don't even get me started on their perfect diachronics that feel so real!

Making fun of weird features fits it better, imo. But you do you! I'd also love if you could share some resources about the Vanuatunian languages, all I know about them is that they are unbelievably many.
Wipe the glass. This is the usual way to start, even in the days, day and night, only a happy one.

User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 251
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » 21 Feb 2019 18:15

(Another English post cuz I'm unoriginal)

What's with the random nominal declension?! You have basically two cases: a half-assed genitive and everything else, and the markings are all the same in 3 of the four cases! You only needed 4 endings and all you came up with was
-Ø -s
-s -s

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 676
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 21 Feb 2019 18:39

^The creator of English spent way too much time on a non-intuitive and inconsistent orthography, but when it came to morphology, they really half-a***d it. [xD]

User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1830
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by All4Ɇn » 22 Feb 2019 08:35

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
21 Feb 2019 18:15
What's with the random nominal declension?! You have basically two cases: a half-assed genitive and everything else, and the markings are all the same in 3 of the four cases! You only needed 4 endings and all you came up with was
-Ø -s
-s -s
And then they went and added random apostrophes for seemingly no reason just to make all four forms look different :roll:

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3095
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Shemtov » 20 Aug 2019 07:03

The creator of Hausa must be a PhD in Linguistics, whose thesis was about theoretical morphosyntax, who created a test lang, and fell in with some fringe followers of Elijah Muhammad, thus placing it in an altversion of Africa. And probably barely passed Phonetics, because what is up with that emphatic series? The only people who could learn it as an L2 are altpeople who need it, or PhDs in Linguistics whose thesis was about theoretical morphosyntax.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4508
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Creyeditor » 21 Aug 2019 23:01

I see the morphosyntax part, but as for the phonetics part, he simply would not have been very well versed in Semitic linguistics. He just had a very general typological introduction à la bilabial implosives are least marked, velar ejectives are least marked, etc. He even did a very standard tone system.
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
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3095
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Shemtov » 22 Aug 2019 01:01

The palatal emphatic is a glottalized /j/. Does that look natural?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4508
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Creyeditor » 24 Aug 2019 19:02

We might talk about different varities of Hausa and from very different perspectives. I learned a variety were /j/ plus glottal stop gives a glottalized /j/.
From a semicist perspective having a glottalized palatal as your palatal emphatic indeed looks crazy. From a general perspective if you want some glottalized palatal, you might end up with a glottalized /j/. Both palatal implosives and palatal ejectives are rare. On the other hand, it breaks the nice pattern, because one would expect an ejective palatal judging from the velar ejective and the alveolar ejective affricate.
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
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3095
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Shemtov » 10 Sep 2019 03:07

Props to whoever did Quechua. It looks at first like they took Hungarian, removed the VH, made it more "Native American" and placed it in Tagalog-like relationship with Spanish. But no, a closer look shows a fine attention to detail: The vowel allophony before /x/ is great, and then there are some morphemes that are fusional, in an otherwise perfectly agglutanitive language, making it look like without the conquistadors, the language would be very fusional. Very nicely done.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by eldin raigmore » 10 Sep 2019 18:50

The last several posts exemplify the reason I keep lurking here!
[:D] [:)] [:O] [xD]

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3095
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Shemtov » 30 Oct 2019 00:14

Shemtov wrote:
22 Dec 2016 22:47
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?
Oh, and whoever did the Cois Fharraige dialect, what are you doing>? <oíche> is /i:/instead of /ˈiːçə/ or /ˈiːhə/ in the other dialects. I ask again: What are you doing?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 133
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 30 Oct 2019 16:44

Also, Danish's crazy vowel system (16 phonemic qualities in long and short form!). This is more complex than any conlang, including from Birdlang.

/i i: y y: u u:/
/ɪ ɪ: ʏ ʏ: ʊ ʊ:/
/e e: ø ø: o o:/
/ɛ ɛ: œ œ: ɔ ɔ:/
/æ æ: ɶ ɶ: ɒ ɒ:/
/a a:/

No explicit diphthongs of course, but then you have things like Vejle /ʋailə/, etc, with <j v g r> in the coda showing implicit diphthongs /Vi Vu Vi~Vu Vɐ/. What will happen to this in the future? The vowel orthography is almost as confusing as English, with <ig> representing /i:/, /ɪ:/, /ei/, /ɛi/, /ai/, and several others.

Post Reply