New language~!

[Taurenzine]

So, I haven't been on here in a while. I was making a language a while ago, but I dropped it because it was my first and was just a bit jumbled... a lot of decisions that I make were noob decisions and I decided making a new one would be best! So here I am. Because phonology and phonotactics are rather easy, I got through them first, so I'll get you caught up.
My Phonology is this:

My Phonotactics are these:
1.Onset-EVERYTHING(all vowels, Dipthongs, Consonants, and Blends/Clusters)
2.Nucleus-All Vowels and Diphthongs
3.Coda-All Nasals, Trills, Approximants, Fricatives, and Affricates, and ONLY LABIALISED Ploseives (With labialised plosives, if they end a syllable, it will be more like adding the vowel /u/ on the end despite that not being in my vowels list. so if you had something like /apʷ/ it'll sound more like /apu/)
4.The only cluster allowed is the Cluster that is present, /sn/ (labialised sounds could count as clusters to some, maybe like /pʷ/=/pw/, but whatever.)

So now that all of that is out of the way, the reason I created this topic is for one main reason: Lexicon Development. Are there any specific ways that you're supposed to create your dictionary? which words should you start with? should you just choose any word at random and give it some sounds? if there's no specific way to do it, then I'll just use this topic to post updates on the language.

[Frislander]

Several questions. Why is the alveolar trill only voiceless? Why do the velar nasal and glottal fricative not have labialised equivalents? Why is it that the labialised variants of consonants are possible syllable-finally? What's going on with those vowels? Why is /sn/ the only cluster? Are you saying your syllable structure is (C)(C)V(C)?

[Taurenzine]

Several questions. Why is the alveolar trill only voiceless? Why do the velar nasal and glottal fricative not have labialised equivalents? Why is it that the labialised variants of consonants are possible syllable-finally? What's going on with those vowels? Why is /sn/ the only cluster? Are you saying your syllable structure is (C)(C)V(C)?

you seem very... irritated. But nevertheless I will answer your questions:

Why is the alveolar trill only voiceless?: that sound is easier than the voiced alveolar trill. and it sounds cool.

Why do the velar nasal and glottal fricatives not have labialised equivalents?: I don't like /nʷ/ so I won't do that, but I guess I could do /hʷ/ and /ʀ̥ʷ/ and /ʀʷ/ sounds, but I don't like /ŋʷ/ either so I won't do that. Thanks, I'll add a couple of sounds.

Why is it that the labialised variants of consonants are possible syllable-finally?: Because I hate the sound of plosives when they end syllables. The only language I know that does it the way I would like it to happen is korean, because if you say something like, for example, 먹다, which is to eat, you barely pronounce the ㄱ at all, and there's no space or sound in between the ㄱ and the ㄷ, whereas if you were to pronounce an equivalent in english, if you said meog-da, it would be have a space in between it. its really hard to explain what I'm trying to say without examples, but I hope you understand. if you don't, reply back to me and I'll see what I can do. the reason why the labialised ones are allowed is because they have a reason to have something on the end that comes after the plosive itself.

What's going on w/ those vowels?: What the hell are you talking about? I don't understand at all they're just vowels

why is sn the only cluster:? I don't like /hn/ or /ʃn/, and I basically don't like any other clusters. technically you could count all of my labialised equivalents as clusters with /w/ if you wanted to.

Are you saying your syllable structure is (C)(C)V(C)?: Yes.

Any more questions? or can you help answer the one that I gave you?

[Creyeditor]

Why is it that the labialised variants of consonants are possible syllable-finally?: Because I hate the sound of plosives when they end syllables. The only language I know that does it the way I would like it to happen is korean, because if you say something like, for example, 먹다, which is to eat, you barely pronounce the ㄱ at all, and there's no space or sound in between the ㄱ and the ㄷ, whereas if you were to pronounce an equivalent in english, if you said meog-da, it would be have a space in between it. its really hard to explain what I'm trying to say without examples, but I hope you understand.

Korean sounds like it has unreleased plosives, maybe?

[Adarain]

What's going on w/ those vowels?: What the hell are you talking about? I don't understand at all they're just vowels

It's really a quite unbalanced vowel system. Vowel system usually follow some common patterns, which can be mostly explained by a simple underlying rule: Vowels try to be as distinct from each other as possible. Hence if you have a three-vowel system it's usually something like [ä i u]. Rounding has a similar effect as backing, so back rounded and front unrounded vowels are the most distant from each other. More variation can exist in high vowels than low ones due to the shape of the mouth. Additionally, but I don't know why, languages usually have more front than back vowels.

[Taurenzine]

Why is it that the labialised variants of consonants are possible syllable-finally?: Because I hate the sound of plosives when they end syllables. The only language I know that does it the way I would like it to happen is korean, because if you say something like, for example, 먹다, which is to eat, you barely pronounce the ㄱ at all, and there's no space or sound in between the ㄱ and the ㄷ, whereas if you were to pronounce an equivalent in english, if you said meog-da, it would be have a space in between it. its really hard to explain what I'm trying to say without examples, but I hope you understand.

Korean sounds like it has unreleased plosives, maybe?

Thats the perfect way to say it! thanks:)

[Taurenzine]

What's going on w/ those vowels?: What the hell are you talking about? I don't understand at all they're just vowels

It's really a quite unbalanced vowel system. Vowel system usually follow some common patterns, which can be mostly explained by a simple underlying rule: Vowels try to be as distinct from each other as possible. Hence if you have a three-vowel system it's usually something like [ä i u]. Rounding has a similar effect as backing, so back rounded and front unrounded vowels are the most distant from each other. More variation can exist in high vowels than low ones due to the shape of the mouth. Additionally, but I don't know why, languages usually have more front than back vowels.

Now this is why I still post on the beginners corner because I never would have known that. thanks :)

[Taurenzine]

So from the replies to what I was sent I guess I can change a couple of things: the vowels I guess, and maybe add some more clusters and labialised sounds? I mean I did ask a question that was unrelated to all of this but if to more veteran users my setup was just that weird I can hold off on the lexicon for a bit.

[Frislander]

So from the replies to what I was sent I guess I can change a couple of things: the vowels I guess, and maybe add some more clusters and labialised sounds? I mean I did ask a question that was unrelated to all of this but if to more veteran users my setup was just that weird I can hold off on the lexicon for a bit.

Actually if all your gonna have as a cluster is /sn/, why bother with onset clusters at all? Just have your syllable structure be (C)V(C) with a labialised series of consonants and have done with it, is what I'd do.

[Taurenzine]

So from the replies to what I was sent I guess I can change a couple of things: the vowels I guess, and maybe add some more clusters and labialised sounds? I mean I did ask a question that was unrelated to all of this but if to more veteran users my setup was just that weird I can hold off on the lexicon for a bit.

I suppose, but then I would need to make a glyph for each of the labialised versions... ahh, what the hell.I'll just slightly vary it from the original by some common feature like a dot or something. And your right,might as well just co cvc

Actually if all your gonna have as a cluster is /sn/, why bother with onset clusters at all? Just have your syllable structure be (C)V(C) with a labialised series of consonants and have done with it, is what I'd do.

[Taurenzine]

Actually, you know what I'm thinking? Syllable structure doesn't matter very much. only which clusters are which matter, and those rules in natural languages are made over time. those who speak languages don't spend time thinking about how syllable structures work, they just make sounds to represent things and as the vocabulary increases a syllable structure can fit it...

[Davush]

Actually, you know what I'm thinking? Syllable structure doesn't matter very much. only which clusters are which matter, and those rules in natural languages are made over time. those who speak languages don't spend time thinking about how syllable structures work, they just make sounds to represent things and as the vocabulary increases a syllable structure can fit it...

I don't think this is quite accurate. Basically, if a language previously did not have any onset clusters but gained /sn/, similar onset clusters would be expected to appear pretty rapidly. People don't actively think about the structure of their language, but language still has underlying patterns and structures.

[Taurenzine]

Actually, you know what I'm thinking? Syllable structure doesn't matter very much. only which clusters are which matter, and those rules in natural languages are made over time. those who speak languages don't spend time thinking about how syllable structures work, they just make sounds to represent things and as the vocabulary increases a syllable structure can fit it...

I don't think this is quite accurate. Basically, if a language previously did not have any onset clusters but gained /sn/, similar onset clusters would be expected to appear pretty rapidly. People don't actively think about the structure of their language, but language still has underlying patterns and structures.

your argument still supports my statement. My point is that natural languages do not morph to fit the syllable structure, but the language morphs on its own and rather the syllable structure can change in order to support it. It's helpful to know but its just not as set in stone as it could be, because languages change over time.

[Taurenzine]

So now that I've gotten rid of all the excess questions, I will ask this again:

Is there any specific way that I am supposed to develop a lexicon? or is it just random? is there some kind of strategy when it comes to creating words for a language or is it random? please help. I asked this question at the beginning of this topic and nobody seems to want to attempt to answer.

[Iyionaku]

I am not an expert (and hence I didn't reply until now), but I see two main ways to create a lexicon especially for a priori conlangs:

a) many people order their lexicon after roots than after translations. Therewith, the first words will be completely random (well not entirely, it's still based on your phonotactics and somewhat on other points like Zipf's Law), second you create derivational affixes and can start create new words with new meaning. It helps putting your lexicon together, but on the other hand you will easily get a language that is too regular, I suppose.

b) What I have done mostly is to create a lexicon on the fly, that means: While translating one text after another, subsequently accompanied by certain wordlist to fill in gaps. The main problem is obvious: You will very likely copy some idioms or word formations from the source language. On the other hand, you can create words freely (and in my opinion, it's way more fun).

[Taurenzine]

I am not an expert (and hence I didn't reply until now), but I see two main ways to create a lexicon especially for a priori conlangs:

a) many people order their lexicon after roots than after translations. Therewith, the first words will be completely random (well not entirely, it's still based on your phonotactics and somewhat on other points like Zipf's Law), second you create derivational affixes and can start create new words with new meaning. It helps putting your lexicon together, but on the other hand you will easily get a language that is too regular, I suppose.

b) What I have done mostly is to create a lexicon on the fly, that means: While translating one text after another, subsequently accompanied by certain wordlist to fill in gaps. The main problem is obvious: You will very likely copy some idioms or word formations from the source language. On the other hand, you can create words freely (and in my opinion, it's way more fun).

Thanks you, honestly. I think I'll take some quotes and just start moving. Maybe I'll translate an entire book someday! yeah right... but I'll try to get far.

[gestaltist]

I like how your justification for most things is simply "because I like it that way". I think those of us who have been dabbling in conlanging a little bit longer tend to worry too much about naturalism, precedents in real languages, and stuff like that.

As to coining words, you might wanna look up the Swadesh list - it is a list of most common words that's a good place to start. Another useful resource is the Conlanger's Thesaurus which you can download here: http://acta-lingweenie.blogspot.com/201 ... rsion.html It shows what meanings are commonly bundled in various languages (very helpful if you don't want your language to be too similar to English), but even if you ignore that aspect, it will at least give you the most important concepts your language should be able to express.

[Taurenzine]

I like how your justification for most things is simply "because I like it that way". I think those of us who have been dabbling in conlanging a little bit longer tend to worry too much about naturalism, precedents in real languages, and stuff like that.

As to coining words, you might wanna look up the Swadesh list - it is a list of most common words that's a good place to start. Another useful resource is the Conlanger's Thesaurus which you can download here: http://acta-lingweenie.blogspot.com/201 ... rsion.html It shows what meanings are commonly bundled in various languages (very helpful if you don't want your language to be too similar to English), but even if you ignore that aspect, it will at least give you the most important concepts your language should be able to express.

Thank you :)

[Taurenzine]

I decided to allow plosives to end syllables, but they will be unreleased. here is a full chart:

[Inkcube-Revolver]

I decided to allow plosives to end syllables, but they will be unreleased. here is a full chart:

I really like your setup, and especially with labialized consonants able to be codas (ending stems or sounds of words in case you didn't know), I'm eager to see what the vocabulary and grammar looks like.