Language Aesthetics

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Vlürch
greek
greek
Posts: 452
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by Vlürch »

cntrational wrote:The only common feature between "harsh" languages is /x/ and how the speakers are/were viewed.
I disagree, although of course me being Finnish probably has some effect on it and kind of excludes me from having a valid point in the sense that I can't really speak for Western Europeans, but for example, Mongolian is "harsh" even though no one ever perceives there to be anything negative about Mongolians except for white supremacists and other racists, but those are people whose opinion doesn't really matter in 99% of contexts, and at least I don't perceive Kazakhs, Armenians or Georgians negatively but still consider their languages "harsh". Hell, even Turkish and Hungarian are often pretty "harsh", yet Turks and Hungarians are viewed as nice people... they're even seen as family by some, but those same people can go on about how their languages are ugly because they're "harsh".

Personally, I feel like the perceived harshness in languages has more to do with a combination of consonant clusters, vowel harmony and the ratio of voiced/voiceless consonants. If a language has more voiced consonants than voiceless consonants, it's more likely to sound "harsh". Same goes for consonant clusters, especially those of voiced consonants. Vowel harmony can also enharshen (if that's a word) a language if the ratio of back vowels is high.
cntrational
greek
greek
Posts: 661
Joined: 05 Nov 2012 03:59

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by cntrational »

Well, I mean it's about a martial or warlike stereotype, not being considered bad.
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by Creyeditor »

Vlürch wrote:
cntrational wrote:Personally, I feel like the perceived harshness in languages has more to do with a combination of consonant clusters, vowel harmony and the ratio of voiced/voiceless consonants. If a language has more voiced consonants than voiceless consonants, it's more likely to sound "harsh". Same goes for consonant clusters, especially those of voiced consonants. Vowel harmony can also enharshen (if that's a word) a language if the ratio of back vowels is high.
I agree on conconant clusters. However, from a German POV voiceless consonants sound much harsher. Also German (often perceived as harsh) has very few voiced consonants in most dialects.
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]
GrandPiano
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2080
Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
Location: USA

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by GrandPiano »

Ahzoh wrote:Would explain why people think Arabic sounds ugly, people think negatively of Arabs.
I think the fact that Arabic is perceived as harsh may also have to do with the fact that it contains several sounds often perceived as "harsh": /x/, /ɣ/, /ħ/, /ʕ/, /q/... Although people's perception of Arabs probably has a good deal to do with it as well.

It seems like all of the "harsh" sounds are pretty far back in the mouth. I wonder... If English didn't have /k/ and /g/, would they be perceived as "harsh"?
Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 940
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by Ælfwine »

English is a rather bland language...coming from a native English speaker at least. I dont think a lack of /k/ or /g/ would affect it much.
My Blog

A-posteriori, alternative history nerd
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4094
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by qwed117 »

Ælfwine wrote:English is a rather bland language...coming from a native English speaker at least. I dont think a lack of /k/ or /g/ would affect it much.
It has its uglies, and its pretties.
Spoiler:
My minicity is [http://zyphrazia.myminicity.com/xml]Zyphrazia and [http://novland.myminicity.com/xml]Novland.

Minicity has fallen :(
The SqwedgePad
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 641
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien »

Ælfwine wrote:English is a rather bland language...coming from a native English speaker at least. I dont think a lack of /k/ or /g/ would affect it much.
I think English sounded best around the 15th-16th centuries. After that it kinda became more bland ;)

Something like "I syng of a mayden" is English at its best sounding to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_syng_of_a_mayden
Image
GrandPiano
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2080
Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
Location: USA

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by GrandPiano »

Ælfwine wrote:English is a rather bland language...coming from a native English speaker at least.
Perhaps that's because you're a native English speaker and everything in English seems normal to you?
Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 940
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by Ælfwine »

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
Ælfwine wrote:English is a rather bland language...coming from a native English speaker at least. I dont think a lack of /k/ or /g/ would affect it much.
I think English sounded best around the 15th-16th centuries. After that it kinda became more bland ;)

Something like "I syng of a mayden" is English at its best sounding to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_syng_of_a_mayden
It all started going down after the great vowel shift, I tell ya. [:P]
GrandPiano wrote:
Ælfwine wrote:English is a rather bland language...coming from a native English speaker at least.
Perhaps that's because you're a native English speaker and everything in English seems normal to you?
I've heard some Spaniards give the same remarks about English... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Although that could be true as well.
My Blog

A-posteriori, alternative history nerd
User avatar
Sights
sinic
sinic
Posts: 210
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 20:47

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by Sights »

For what it's worth, I as a non-native speaker think English sounds awesome and not bland at all. And I don't even mean poetry or songs, just normal, everyday conversations.
User avatar
Egerius
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1587
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 21:29
Location: Not Rodentèrra
Contact:

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by Egerius »

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
Ælfwine wrote: I think English sounded best around the 15th-16th centuries. After that it kinda became more bland ;)

Something like "I syng of a mayden" is English at its best sounding to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_syng_of_a_mayden
It all started going down after the great vowel shift, I tell ya. [:P]
Nah, it already started when those Northerners killed the crisp Kentish of the London area and the capital was moved away from Winchester to London.
GrandPiano wrote:
Ælfwine wrote:English is a rather bland language...coming from a native English speaker at least.
Perhaps that's because you're a native English speaker and everything in English seems normal to you?
Depending on what dialect you're looking at, English sounds either educated, hip, or provocative.
Languages of Rodentèrra: Buonavallese, Saselvan Argemontese; Wīlandisċ Taulkeisch; More on the road.
Conlang embryo of TELES: Proto-Avesto-Umbric ~> Proto-Umbric
New blog: http://argentiusbonavalensis.tumblr.com
HoskhMatriarch
roman
roman
Posts: 1500
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

Re: Language Aesthetics

Post by HoskhMatriarch »

Vlürch wrote:
Personally, I feel like the perceived harshness in languages has more to do with a combination of consonant clusters, vowel harmony and the ratio of voiced/voiceless consonants. If a language has more voiced consonants than voiceless consonants, it's more likely to sound "harsh". Same goes for consonant clusters, especially those of voiced consonants. Vowel harmony can also enharshen (if that's a word) a language if the ratio of back vowels is high.
So, do you think this language is likely to be perceived as harsh? I think it is the kind of language people would think sounds harsh, but it doesn't match your description at all. At the very least, it's the kind of language people think other people would think sounds harsh, since I've gotten comments from people saying that they like how the words I posted sound but think other people would call it harsh and guttural. It does have a whole lot of back-of-the-throat sounds, but that's mostly because I think the darker and heavier quality of back-of-the-throat sounds can be quite beautiful if you use them right, not a desire to make my conpeople seem militaristic or whatever.
Ælfwine wrote:English is a rather bland language...coming from a native English speaker at least. I dont think a lack of /k/ or /g/ would affect it much.
English isn't a bland language at all. English is quite exotic and strange. I love the sound of Scottish English and many dialects from Northern England, but every English dialect is interesting-sounding, even the horribly ugly ones. I think I just got un-used to hearing just one English dialect or even just English all the time and that's why I think even standard English dialects sound interesting. But really, even if you find standard English dialects bland, there's always all sorts of really different-sounding accents even among native English speakers like this, this, this, this and this (all the most different-sounding ones are influenced by other languages, but they're still spoken by native English speakers who might not even be bilingual).
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
Post Reply