195280Re: On Creating Altlangs
- Feb 21, 2013On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!But elegance is a form of esthetics.
> On Thursday 21 February 2013 11:20:03 R A Brown wrote:
> > I'm away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting
> > may not be brilliant.
> Never mind. It came out OK.
> > On 20.02.2013 23:01, BPJ wrote:
> > > On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >>> 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.
> I have seen several bogolangs that were broken beyond repair,
> usually starting with an utterly implausible scenario (often
> involving Roman mercenaries in Africa, China or wherever).
> A common failure mode of bogolangs is to ignore those phonemes
> of the starting language which are not covered by the GMP because
> the language the GMP is based on does not have them, and leave
> them unchanged in the midst of the turmoil.
> > [snip]
> > > 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.
> Yes, that's how the word _bogolang_ is usually defined.
> > That is *not* the way I would develop, say, a Britanno-Romance lang.
> Indeed not!
> My Hesperic family, a family of European lostlangs meant to
> represent the residues of a Neolithic European language family,
> will not contain *any* bogolangs. Some of the languages are
> *inspired* by the phonologies of Indo-European languages of the
> relevant region, which I justify by assuming areal influences
> being in play, and some parallels in the sound changes occur
> here or there (for instance, Proto-Alpianic has undergone a
> consonant shift not unlike the High German consonant shift
> - in its complete and thorough form as found in Swiss German,
> complete with velar affricates - but it is not the same shift,
> starting, to mention one point, with *three* grades of stops
> rather than two in German, and many other things, such as the
> vowels, have developed in utterly different ways), and there will
> be three Albic languages showing some resemblance to Welsh, Irish
> and Quenya respectively, but even those won't be bogolangs. It is
> infinitely more realistic and especially more *fun* to develop
> your own sound changes than to apply those of an existing language
> to another language!
> Geoff Eddy, author of Breathanach, had a conlang family, named
> "Sunovian", which seemed to involve a great degree of bogolanging,
> applying sound changes of various IE languages and of Quenya to
> an a priori proto-language.
> > > 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.
> Yes. Some artlangs could never have so evolved. Of course, this
> does not necessarily mean that the language was a bad artlang, if
> the motivation is not one of realism. But an altlang or a lostlang
> must be crafted in a way that one can say, "Yes, this language
> could have evolved that way", otherwise it is a failure.
> > > 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.
> Nor am I. Ideal things live on a separate tier of existence
> which in turn only exists in the mind of Platonists ;)
> > 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.
> Yep. The dialects of northern Italy, I have been told, show
> many features where they are closer to Gallo-Romance than to
> Standard Italian.
> > essentially
> > [snip]
> > > 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...
> It did.
> > > unless it is spiced up
> > > with something which is probably implausible.
> > ...the implausible (IMO) spelling of [v] as _f_ in a Romancelang.
> Yes. Romance spelling is largely etymological, and you'd only
> get _f_ for /v/ if you have a /f/ > /v/ rule, which Brithenig
> IMHO doesn't have. (Not that I'd have a clue how _f_ ended up
> representing /v/ in Welsh, though.)
> > 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.
> Head on. Aesthetic gratification is a goal in many (but not
> all) artlangs; Tolkien's Elvish languages are a case in point.
> It is less of a concern of engelangers (who strive for a more
> rational notion of "elegance"),
> or of auxlangers.
> > 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
> > Outis
> > was concerned with aesthetics any more than his near contemporary
> > Philippe
> > Labbé was.
> > Ray.
> ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>