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

Re: Ṫirdonic, my f irst serious conlang

Expand Messages
  • Padraic Brown
    ... Indeed, though I think part of this must come from the fact that when WE look at proto-languages, we are looking at them / constructing them BACKWARDS. We
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 12, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      > OTOH, Yash has indicated that this is a proto-language. Proto-languages often do
      > look artificially regular thanks to the disappearance of certain irregularities
      > from all attested branches.

      Indeed, though I think part of this must come from the fact that when WE look at
      proto-languages, we are looking at them / constructing them BACKWARDS. We
      don't see them as one point along a continuum so much as a spring whence flows
      all the descendent languages. Neither PIE nor Nostratic is anywhere close to being
      such a starting point. They are simply wayposts along the way. Another part is our
      tendency to rely on reconstructions as if they were the real thing. PIE is *not* a
      real language. It's what scholars think is pretty close to what some real language
      might have been like.

      I had simply assumed that Yash's proto-language was not, like Charlie's Senjecas,
      The Original Language, so much as a language from some point in the midst of the
      history of those wandering nomadic barbarians he mentions.

      If we look at a proto-language from the perspective of its own speakers, we see
      that it has antecedents and could very well evolve into descendants. If it survives
      the rigors of civilisation!

      > If the original immigrants were small in number, but
      > derived from an alliance of even smaller groups, one could get a highly regular
      > language.

      I suppose like a creole. Only Yash can answer these kinds of questions.

      > Or, if the case endings were recently derived from clitics/particles,
      > there could be a high degree of regularity. I am interested to see how
      > irregularities develop in the daughter languages

      As am I.

      Padraic
    • Padraic Brown
      (Sorry Joerg! Yahoo screwed up the reply to again... And by the way, thank you for clarifying / amplifying some aspects of my reply!) Hallo conlangers! ...
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 13, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        (Sorry Joerg! Yahoo screwed up the reply to again... And by the way, thank
        you for clarifying / amplifying some aspects of my reply!)

        Hallo conlangers!

        On Friday 13 September 2013 01:06:04 Padraic Brown wrote:

        > > OTOH, Yash has indicated that this is a proto-language. Proto-languages
        > > often do look artificially regular thanks to the disappearance of
        > > certain irregularities from all attested branches.
        >
        > Indeed, though I think part of this must come from the fact that when WE
        > look at proto-languages, we are looking at them / constructing them
        > BACKWARDS. We don't see them as one point along a continuum so much as a
        > spring whence flows all the descendent languages. Neither PIE nor
        > Nostratic is anywhere close to being such a starting point. They are
        > simply wayposts along the way.

        Very much so.  It is a common misunderstanding that these
        "proto-languages" were original languages without ancestors.
        This is often found in the popular press, and partly fuelled
        by the misfortunate use of the word "protolanguage" in
        language origins studies for a hypothetical stage in the
        evolution of Language (this is mainly Derek Bickerton's fault
        - yes, the same Derek Bickerton who gave us the nonsensical
        "bioprogram hypothesis").  Of course, there are creationists
        who opine that languages such as Proto-Indo-European and
        Proto-Uralic were among those languages that came into being
        with the Confusion of Tongues at Babel.  I think it need not
        be said what kind of bullshit that is.

        >      Another part is our tendency to rely on
        > reconstructions as if they were the real thing. PIE is *not* a real
        > language. It's what scholars think is pretty close to what some real
        > language might have been like.

        Also correct.  They are only models of languages that are lost
        in time, not the lost languages themselves.

        > I had simply assumed that Yash's proto-language was not, like Charlie's
        > Senjecas, The Original Language, so much as a language from some point in
        > the midst of the history of those wandering nomadic barbarians he
        > mentions.

        At least, this is what I understand it to be like, too.  The
        language of a prehistoric culture (quite similar to the
        mainstream view of the Proto-Indo-Europeans) in a particular
        conworld which has a number of descendants to be worked out,
        not The Original Language of that conworld.
         
        > If we look at a proto-language from the perspective of its own speakers, we
        > see that it has antecedents and could very well evolve into descendants.
        > If it survives the rigors of civilisation!

        Very certainly so.  PIE was about 5,000 to 6,000 years before
        our time (OK, there are people who'd like to add a few thousand
        years to this figure, but even that doesn't matter much as it
        doesn't change the argument), while it is pretty certain that
        human beings have been using full-fledged languages (and not
        "protolanguages" in the Bickertonian sense) for about 20 times
        as long if not longer.

        > > If the original immigrants were small in number, but
        > > derived from an alliance of even smaller groups, one could get a highly
        > > regular language.
        >
        > I suppose like a creole. Only Yash can answer these kinds of questions.

        Yep.

        > > Or, if the case endings were recently derived from clitics/particles,
        > > there could be a high degree of regularity. I am interested to see how
        > > irregularities develop in the daughter languages
        >
        > As am I.

        And I.

        --
        ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
        http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
        "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
      • Cosman246
        ... Speaking of which, when the time comes I must ask advice on this. -Yash Tulsyan
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 13, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          >> > Or, if the case endings were recently derived from clitics/particles,
          >> > there could be a high degree of regularity. I am interested to see how
          >> > irregularities develop in the daughter languages
          >>
          >> As am I.

          >And I.

          Speaking of which, when the time comes I must ask advice on this.


          -Yash Tulsyan


          On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:

          > (Sorry Joerg! Yahoo screwed up the reply to again... And by the way, thank
          > you for clarifying / amplifying some aspects of my reply!)
          >
          > Hallo conlangers!
          >
          > On Friday 13 September 2013 01:06:04 Padraic Brown wrote:
          >
          > > > OTOH, Yash has indicated that this is a proto-language. Proto-languages
          > > > often do look artificially regular thanks to the disappearance of
          > > > certain irregularities from all attested branches.
          > >
          > > Indeed, though I think part of this must come from the fact that when WE
          > > look at proto-languages, we are looking at them / constructing them
          > > BACKWARDS. We don't see them as one point along a continuum so much as a
          > > spring whence flows all the descendent languages. Neither PIE nor
          > > Nostratic is anywhere close to being such a starting point. They are
          > > simply wayposts along the way.
          >
          > Very much so. It is a common misunderstanding that these
          > "proto-languages" were original languages without ancestors.
          > This is often found in the popular press, and partly fuelled
          > by the misfortunate use of the word "protolanguage" in
          > language origins studies for a hypothetical stage in the
          > evolution of Language (this is mainly Derek Bickerton's fault
          > - yes, the same Derek Bickerton who gave us the nonsensical
          > "bioprogram hypothesis"). Of course, there are creationists
          > who opine that languages such as Proto-Indo-European and
          > Proto-Uralic were among those languages that came into being
          > with the Confusion of Tongues at Babel. I think it need not
          > be said what kind of bullshit that is.
          >
          > > Another part is our tendency to rely on
          > > reconstructions as if they were the real thing. PIE is *not* a real
          > > language. It's what scholars think is pretty close to what some real
          > > language might have been like.
          >
          > Also correct. They are only models of languages that are lost
          > in time, not the lost languages themselves.
          >
          > > I had simply assumed that Yash's proto-language was not, like Charlie's
          > > Senjecas, The Original Language, so much as a language from some point in
          > > the midst of the history of those wandering nomadic barbarians he
          > > mentions.
          >
          > At least, this is what I understand it to be like, too. The
          > language of a prehistoric culture (quite similar to the
          > mainstream view of the Proto-Indo-Europeans) in a particular
          > conworld which has a number of descendants to be worked out,
          > not The Original Language of that conworld.
          >
          > > If we look at a proto-language from the perspective of its own speakers,
          > we
          > > see that it has antecedents and could very well evolve into descendants.
          > > If it survives the rigors of civilisation!
          >
          > Very certainly so. PIE was about 5,000 to 6,000 years before
          > our time (OK, there are people who'd like to add a few thousand
          > years to this figure, but even that doesn't matter much as it
          > doesn't change the argument), while it is pretty certain that
          > human beings have been using full-fledged languages (and not
          > "protolanguages" in the Bickertonian sense) for about 20 times
          > as long if not longer.
          >
          > > > If the original immigrants were small in number, but
          > > > derived from an alliance of even smaller groups, one could get a highly
          > > > regular language.
          > >
          > > I suppose like a creole. Only Yash can answer these kinds of questions.
          >
          > Yep.
          >
          > > > Or, if the case endings were recently derived from clitics/particles,
          > > > there could be a high degree of regularity. I am interested to see how
          > > > irregularities develop in the daughter languages
          > >
          > > As am I.
          >
          > And I.
          >
          > --
          > ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
          > http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
          > "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.