195261Re: On Creating Altlangs
- Feb 21, 2013I'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,
2. the conlanger has the nous to allow such a break in a
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
> 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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>