If natlangs were conlangs

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3015
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Shemtov »

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
21 Feb 2019 18:15
(Another English post cuz I'm unoriginal)

What's with the random nominal declension?! You have basically two cases: a half-assed genitive and everything else, and the markings are all the same in 3 of the four cases! You only needed 4 endings and all you came up with was
-Ø -s
-s -s
Oh, and while they claim it's a genitive, I've seen people argue it's a possessive clitic as they specify that one can say <John and Mary's dog> but
*<John's and Mary's dog>. At least admit when your terminology is unclear!!
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5595
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by eldin raigmore »

Creyeditor wrote:
31 Jan 2019 21:20
Why do people always say bad things about natlangs in this thread? I just want to say that I would really enjoy the crazyness of the languages of Vanuatu if they were conlangs. They are so nicely crafted.
Look at Creyeditor’s post from a quasi-“meta” PoV, and supposing any naivete (if that’s the right word) was “put on” for effect in accordance with the spirit of this thread, my opinion is that it was the perfect post!

User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1591
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by All4Ɇn »

Somehow French has the character ù even though it literally only occurs in the word où (where) and serves no other purpose than to disambiguate it from ou (or). Am I really to believe that any language written in the 21st century would actually have this still around? With an orthography that's as weird as it gets, by now they certainly would've switched it to oue or oû. And who the hell thought that it made any sense for this conlang's keyboard layout to include this almost completely pointless character and meanwhile œ, which is used in several extremely common words, isn't on it at all?

User avatar
Ser
sinic
sinic
Posts: 265
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Ser »

All4Ɇn wrote:
19 Mar 2020 00:59
Somehow French has the character ù even though it literally only occurs in the word où (where) and serves no other purpose than to disambiguate it from ou (or). Am I really to believe that any language written in the 21st century would actually have this still around? With an orthography that's as weird as it gets, by now they certainly would've switched it to oue or oû. And who the hell thought that it made any sense for this conlang's keyboard layout to include this almost completely pointless character and meanwhile œ, which is used in several extremely common words, isn't on it at all?
It's because the national keyboard layouts usually descend from schemes made by IBM in the turn of the late 80s / early 90s to type languages as well as they could be in ISO standards. The standard for Western European languages, ISO 8859-1, published in 1987, did not include <Œ œ> because the delegate from France at drafting time, who had been chosen on the basis of being a trusted polyglot, thought <Œ œ> weren't real letters in French but just common typographical conventions (according to him, using <OE oe> was presumably also acceptable...), like the joining of <fi fl> or the occasional joining of <ct st>.

This article where the story is told (in French) says that there was a lively debate between the anglophone delegate from Canada, who didn't know French but said he was sure <Œ œ> were letters used in Quebec, and the French delegate. A delegate team from Bull Publishing Company, an American publishing house, which apparently had weight in the discussion, supported the French delegate because they themselves never used <Œ œ> when printing French books. None of them bothered to use reference works, in spite of being in the middle of setting long-term international computing standards. Thus <Œ œ> were not included in the Western European ISO standard, and therefore did not make it to the early spread of keyboard layouts.

I find it hilarious that the Spanish ª and º (the latter distinct from °, the degree symbol), sometimes used when writing abbreviated ordinal numbers but optional in the language, were included instead. Note that the Spanish language actually uses all four of a, o, e and r for this, so even here I think that whoever decided on Spanish coverage failed to do their job well too. It is true that ª and º are more common, but er is also needed.

Examples of abbreviated ordinals: 1er (primer), 1ª (primera), 1º (primero), 2ª (segunda), 2º (segundo), 3er (tercer), 3ª (tercera), 3º (tercero), 4ª (cuarta), 4º (cuarto), ..., 10ª (décima), 10º (décimo), 11er (décimo primer), 11ª (décima primera), 11º (décimo primero)...

These are more commonly written as 1er., 1a., 1o., 2a., 2o., 3er., 3a., 3o., etc.
Last edited by Ser on 20 Mar 2020 05:18, edited 2 times in total.
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.

User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1591
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by All4Ɇn »

Ser wrote:
19 Mar 2020 03:23
This was a really informative post and definitely explains a lot. Thanks! [:D]

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 402
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Pabappa »

there was also the inclusiuon of lowercase ÿ but no uppercase. this could be because in Dutch, ij can appear like a ÿ when handwritten, but I have never seen it typed that way. i think the explanation for all of this is that they ran out of space (only 128 chars avail) and had to cut corners all over the place.

i dont know much frenhc, but the argument against œ sounds solid to me, even if its just a matter of opinion. replacing œ with oe never results in a misspelling or even an ambiguity, afaik, so its like english which also uses æ & œ but even more rarely than frenhc does. there are good points on both sides but they had to make a decision because there were only a few dozen code points available and thats the decision they made.

do other langs besides spanish use those superscirpts? maybe that helped them get in .... œ was wanted by just one language but perhaps the superscript a & o had use in Portguuese, Italian, etc too
I'll take the theses, and you can have the thoses.

User avatar
Ser
sinic
sinic
Posts: 265
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Ser »

Pabappa wrote:
20 Mar 2020 16:35
there was also the inclusiuon of lowercase ÿ but no uppercase. this could be because in Dutch, ij can appear like a ÿ when handwritten, but I have never seen it typed that way. i think the explanation for all of this is that they ran out of space (only 128 chars avail) and had to cut corners all over the place.

i dont know much frenhc, but the argument against œ sounds solid to me, even if its just a matter of opinion. replacing œ with oe never results in a misspelling or even an ambiguity, afaik, so its like english which also uses æ & œ but even more rarely than frenhc does. there are good points on both sides but they had to make a decision because there were only a few dozen code points available and thats the decision they made.

do other langs besides spanish use those superscirpts? maybe that helped them get in .... œ was wanted by just one language but perhaps the superscript a & o had use in Portguuese, Italian, etc too
That's a good point, actually, I've seen ordinal superscripts in Portuguese before.

But still, consider that ISO-8859-1 was based on an older encoding scheme where <Œ œ> appeared instead of <× ÷> (this is why <× ÷> are squished between the letters <Ö ö> and <Ø ø> in ISO-8859-1), that no such argument seems to have been made about <Æ æ>, and that <Þ þ> and <Ý ý> were also added because of Icelandic only. We could've perfectly kept using <*> and </> from the first block for multiplication and division (as, in fact, we continue to do the vast majority of the time), retaining <Œ œ>. But the French delegate and the team from Bull Publishing didn't believe in the separate existence of <Œ œ>...

To me, it seems that they had extra space that they just couldn't decide what to do with very well, hence the lack of Spanish <er>.

Regarding <ÿ>, the older scheme did have both of <Ÿ ÿ>, which, in Western European languages, basically only French uses in some proper nouns (the House of Croÿ, L'Haÿ-les-Roses), where it distinguishes <ay> /ɛ/ and <oy> /wɑ/ from the diphthongs <aÿ> /ai/ and <oÿ> /wi/. The drafters of ISO-8859-1 noticed there was no counterpart for German <ß> in the lowercase range (there was simply nothing there), and knowing that French would only rarely use diacritics on these (the only situation being all-caps text some of the time), they made <ÿ> the "lowercase counterpart" of <ß>. Then they used the two old codepoints for <Ÿ ÿ> to insert Icelandic <Ý ý> instead.
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.

User avatar
Mándinrùh
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Aug 2016 20:37
Location: New England

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Mándinrùh »

Basque is terribly unrealistic, I'm afraid. Nobody could ever possibly reliably produce the s̻/s̺ distinction, which the designer doubled down on with corresponding affricates, let alone actually hearing the distinction.
Creator of Image Redentran
Creator of Image Bwángxùd
Creator of Image Atili
My website | My blog

User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1591
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by All4Ɇn »

Mándinrùh wrote:
01 May 2020 03:23
Basque is terribly unrealistic, I'm afraid. Nobody could ever possibly reliably produce the s̻/s̺ distinction, which the designer doubled down on with corresponding affricates, let alone actually hearing the distinction.
Even less realistic when you remember that the entire rest of the phonology is just that of a generic Romlang

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3928
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Creyeditor »

Just wanted to mention that I really like the work that the Palauan creator put into consonant clusters. Onset /θp/ and /km/? Check. Coda /tp/ and /bl/? Check! Really gives a unique feel to the lang.
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]

User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1591
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by All4Ɇn »

Creyeditor wrote:
01 May 2020 07:37
Onset /θp/... Coda /tp/
I wasn't familiar with Palauan at all and what makes this even more interesting is that /p/ on its own is only used in loanwords

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3015
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Shemtov »

protondonor wrote:
30 Dec 2016 19:57

Albanian and Armenian: is anyone getting tired of these single language branches of Indo-European?

I could write a whole essay on how weird Albanian is. Its phonology is odd for the Balkans, and WTF is that phonotactics doing in Europe? And who in their right mind would use <x> for /d͡z/ and /xh/ for /d͡ʒ/?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3928
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Creyeditor »

Shemtov wrote:
23 Jun 2020 00:51
And who in their right mind would use <x> for /d͡z/ and /xh/ for /d͡ʒ/?
I really like this actually. It makes everyday names look like Alien Emperors. I once had a classmate called Xhuljo [:D]
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]

Post Reply