Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

195261Re: On Creating Altlangs

Expand Messages
  • carolandray+ray
    Feb 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting
      may not be brilliant.

      On 20.02.2013 23:01, BPJ wrote:
      > On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
      >>> Amen! I had to fudge the sound changes, especially the
      >>> vowel changes, *a lot* when I was doing Roman Germanech
      >>> because Common West Germanic is quite far away from
      >>> Vulgar Latin in terms of phonology!
      >> Always a problem for bogolangers. :)
      > But that's what allows them to break out of the
      > bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
      > ambiguous coinage!)

      _May_ allow them if:
      1. the situation is a plausible one, e.g. applying Bantu
      phonological developments to Vulgar Latin is IMHO not a
      plausible scenario and no altlang, as I understand the word,
      will result.
      2. the conlanger has the nous to allow such a break in a
      plausible situation.

      > so it's actually a good thing.

      Not necessarily IMO. Some bogolangs I've seen remain
      bogolangs & do not cross the threshold into the altosphere.

      > yet you generally need to peg even an
      > altlang on something, like what features of English and
      > Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
      > have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
      > still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
      > language B's turf,

      No - that is not the same as applying, say, Welsh or Irish or
      Germanic diachronic sound changes to Vulgar Latin. AIUI a
      bogolang is produced by:
      1. taking language A;
      2. forming a "master plan" from the diachronic sound of language B;
      3. applying the "master plan" to language A.

      That is *not* the way I would develop, say, a Britanno-Romance lang.

      > with the difference that one tries
      > to create something which *might* have evolved under
      > normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
      > by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
      > *could not* have so evolved.

      Of course.

      > My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
      > decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
      > Italian, which was certainly not realistic:

      I'm not sure what "ideal" means in that context.

      As this was a dialect _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy, there
      was in reality a whole band of "mix between French and Italian"
      languages. Some may well still survive despite attempts of schools
      to impose the national languages of the two countries within their
      national borders.

      > An altlang without side-glances on what actually grew
      > up in the same soil is just an arbitrary a-posteriori
      > conlang of indeterminate plausibility, and one which
      > does make such side-glances runs the risk of becoming a
      > parody of the thing glanced at,

      It does run such a risk, if the side glances are not checked
      and kept in balance. As I've observed before, I think Brithenig
      paid undue attention to Welsh, including...

      > unless it is spiced up
      > with something which is probably implausible.

      ...the implausible (IMO) spelling of [v] as _f_ in a Romancelang.
      Implausibility may add spice, but then the thing passes from the
      altosphere into the artosphere.

      > Neither
      > is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
      > one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
      > aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,

      Is it? I agree with "learning about language", but is all
      conlanging about "aesthetic gratification"? Some auxlangers
      may want a result that is aesthetically pleasing, but I am not
      convinced that they all do. I'm not certain that aesthetics are
      a prime concern of engelangers.

      Aesthetic considerations certainly do not play any part in TAKE; it
      was just an experiment in trying to produce an "ancient Greek without
      inflexions." Nor I convinced that way back in the 17th century Dr
      was concerned with aesthetics any more than his near contemporary
      Labbé was.

    • Show all 28 messages in this topic