Language Aesthetics
-
- roman
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48
Language Aesthetics
Often, people want to make the most beautiful language possible, and many of the "beautiful languages" look more or less the same. Sometimes people will intentionally make a language to sound harsh or match some other kind of aesthetic. I think a lot of language aesthetics has to do with associations, but some might legitmately just have to do with how sounds sound. What kinds of things have you noticed about languages designed to have certain aesthetics? Do you think it's more about associations between similar-sounding languages or about how sounds themselves sound?
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
Re: Language Aesthetics
I think orthography has a lot to do with it. Once, I tried designing a language to be as ugly as possible, but I found that if I changed up the orthography it seemed a bit nicer. I think I remember reading something by Mark Rosenfelder that makes this observation as well, but I can't find it at the moment. (Oh, it's in the Language Construction Kit: the example is Ďarcaln vs. Dhârkalen.)
Aside from that, it's mainly opinion I think. Who knows. There's no real source of knowledge on this subject that I'm aware of.
Weirdly, I'm somewhat neurotic about trying to create "aesthetic" languages myself, but I also think it's a silly goal, and I find it crass to judge natlangs on "aesthetic" grounds. I feel like any language can sound beautiful. Despite this, I also think that the way my English sounds is unpleasant, for some reason, and I prefer how it sounds when I say French words. It's all so subjective.
Sample of Uglish-the Ugly Language, in the original spelling:
Sample of Uglish-the Ugly Language, in the revised spelling:
Sample of Uglish-the Ugly Language, in IPA:
Or anyway, it was something like that.
Aside from that, it's mainly opinion I think. Who knows. There's no real source of knowledge on this subject that I'm aware of.
Weirdly, I'm somewhat neurotic about trying to create "aesthetic" languages myself, but I also think it's a silly goal, and I find it crass to judge natlangs on "aesthetic" grounds. I feel like any language can sound beautiful. Despite this, I also think that the way my English sounds is unpleasant, for some reason, and I prefer how it sounds when I say French words. It's all so subjective.
Sample of Uglish-the Ugly Language, in the original spelling:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Language Aesthetics
My hatelang Omlueuet was really supposed to sound harsh and angry.
Here is a sample:
Yeksën írdën trem knólfs.
[ ˈjek.sən ˈʔiːr.dən trem knoːlfts]
yaks\i-ën ird\i-ən trim\a knulf\au-s
bang\-COM.SG.FEM loudest\-COM.SG.FEM disappear\3.SG.PFV courage\-NOM.SG.FEM
My courage vanished with a bang, louder than anything else around.
Xa szokolötsrë ümëstë.
[ha ʂo.ko.ˈløt.srə ˈʔy.məs.tə]
xa szokolats\iu-rë um\i-ëstë
DEO chocolate\-COM.SG.M 1.SG\-NOM.SG.M
I need chocolate!
I also made (the phonology of) a nice-ish dialect of Omlueuet:
Jekasa írada etare ekanólafa.
[ ˈʒe.ka.sa͜ ˈiː.ra.da͜ etaˈre͜ ekaˈnoːlafa]
yakas\i-a irad\i-a etari\a ekanulafa\au
bang\-COM.SG.FEM loudest\-COM.SG.FEM disappear\3.SG.PFV courage\NOM.SG.FEM
My courage vanished with a bang, louder than anything else around.
A jokoletasara imasata.
[a ʒo.ko.ˈle.ta.sa.ra ˈi.ma.sa.ta]
a szokolatasa\i-ra um\i-asata
DEO chocolate\-COM.SG.M 1.SG\-NOM.SG.M
I need chocolate!
Kobardon (a related language) on the other hand is supposed to feel like an old but vivid language (its project name was LATINOID):
Friuat tredanton deprofo iumfon ob frēuon iēpat.
[frìwát trènón dépròfó jùmfón òb fréwòn jépàt]
friu-at trent<da>-on de-prof-o iumf-on ob freu-on iep-at
begin-ADVLZ.SUB.SG god<AUG>-NMLZ.SG.DEF 3SG.SUB.VBLZ-live-3.OBJ.CAUS fly-NMLZ.SG.DEF and fall-NMLZ.SG.DEF past-ADVLZ.SUB.SG
In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth.
Ook has a crazy feel to it and I think of it as a "she" actually, even though the only speaker is male.
Aesthetics is really subjective I think
Here is a sample:
Yeksën írdën trem knólfs.
[ ˈjek.sən ˈʔiːr.dən trem knoːlfts]
yaks\i-ën ird\i-ən trim\a knulf\au-s
bang\-COM.SG.FEM loudest\-COM.SG.FEM disappear\3.SG.PFV courage\-NOM.SG.FEM
My courage vanished with a bang, louder than anything else around.
Xa szokolötsrë ümëstë.
[ha ʂo.ko.ˈløt.srə ˈʔy.məs.tə]
xa szokolats\iu-rë um\i-ëstë
DEO chocolate\-COM.SG.M 1.SG\-NOM.SG.M
I need chocolate!
I also made (the phonology of) a nice-ish dialect of Omlueuet:
Jekasa írada etare ekanólafa.
[ ˈʒe.ka.sa͜ ˈiː.ra.da͜ etaˈre͜ ekaˈnoːlafa]
yakas\i-a irad\i-a etari\a ekanulafa\au
bang\-COM.SG.FEM loudest\-COM.SG.FEM disappear\3.SG.PFV courage\NOM.SG.FEM
My courage vanished with a bang, louder than anything else around.
A jokoletasara imasata.
[a ʒo.ko.ˈle.ta.sa.ra ˈi.ma.sa.ta]
a szokolatasa\i-ra um\i-asata
DEO chocolate\-COM.SG.M 1.SG\-NOM.SG.M
I need chocolate!
Kobardon (a related language) on the other hand is supposed to feel like an old but vivid language (its project name was LATINOID):
Friuat tredanton deprofo iumfon ob frēuon iēpat.
[frìwát trènón dépròfó jùmfón òb fréwòn jépàt]
friu-at trent<da>-on de-prof-o iumf-on ob freu-on iep-at
begin-ADVLZ.SUB.SG god<AUG>-NMLZ.SG.DEF 3SG.SUB.VBLZ-live-3.OBJ.CAUS fly-NMLZ.SG.DEF and fall-NMLZ.SG.DEF past-ADVLZ.SUB.SG
In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth.
Ook has a crazy feel to it and I think of it as a "she" actually, even though the only speaker is male.
Aesthetics is really subjective I think
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Language Aesthetics
Yeah, the weird thing is that those Omlueuet sentences don't actually sound ugly to me. It's all a matter of preference!
Re: Language Aesthetics
Sumelic wrote:Weirdly, I'm somewhat neurotic about trying to create "aesthetic" languages myself, but I also think it's a silly goal, and I find it crass to judge natlangs on "aesthetic" grounds.
I agree that language aesthetics have to do mostly with associations. I guess if you step outside the confines of naturalistic sound inventories, you could construe some patterns, but most of these border on cliché and really tell us nothing useful about aesthetics. Things like:
-A harsh language with only nasals and voiced stops probably sounds less harsh than a harsh language with voiceless stops and fricatives.
-A language with only close and mid front vowels would sound like it's all made of diminutives.
And stuff like that. The point is it's not information you could reliably use to design a language that's aesthetically interesting (whatever that means).
Personally, what I think is far more interesting than designing "beautiful" languages is exploring why certain sounds or sequences are judged so by the very speakers of that language. For instance, what would the speaker of a typical "harshlang" think is a pleasant sound or word? IMHO, the challenge is not to aim for a euphonic phonology, but to design whatever phonology you want and then make something that's beautiful according to it. Individual opinions notwithstanding, every language has its own quiet guidelines for what isn't beautiful and what is (even Klingon). Hence, each lends itself (better) to a certain metre, tolerates alliteration to different degrees, etc. Discovering these guidelines (hell, I reckon even making them up) is probably way more fun. Anyway, that's just an opinion, I don't mean to jump on anyone's method of conlanging.
To give a quick example of what I mean, my conlang Bha has two series of sounds with the same POA that have some sound symbolism attached to them:
/ɸ/ < /p/ < /pɸ~ph/
[ɸɪ] < [pɪ] < [pɸɪ]
bhi 'small' < pi 'tiny' < phi 'teeny tiny'
/θ/ < /t/ < /tθ~th/
[θe] < missing [te]* < [tθe]
dhe 'what?' < the 'what?! (annoyed or surprised)'
Examples like those are actually few and far between, but there's enough of them to make speakers assume certain qualities of those sounds. So... whether the language is beautiful or not is up to the listener, I suppose. However, if one of its speakers heard a poem with lots of /pɸ~ph/ or /tθ~th/ and a song with lots /ɸ/ and /θ/, you couldn't really blame him for thinking the former is forceful and the latter is soft.
Re: Language Aesthetics
I like to believe that good aesthetics come naturally from good conlangs.
Oh, and not being Arabic or written Irish. :p
Oh, and not being Arabic or written Irish. :p
Re: Language Aesthetics
Some aesthetically pleasant gibberish:
Æthjité quàjen maçizé qóu-qóu tzérequí, jumçè qutsûm thrípízoucàt.
/æθʒɪteː kʷɒʒen matʃɪzeː koʊ̯w̯koʊ̯w̯ tsˁeːʁekʷɪː ʒʊmtʃə kʊtsɥʊ̯m θʁɪːpɪːzoʊ̯kɒt/
I suppose the closest to the most beautiful language to my ears would be some type of French-Tibetan-Icelandic.
Æthjité quàjen maçizé qóu-qóu tzérequí, jumçè qutsûm thrípízoucàt.
/æθʒɪteː kʷɒʒen matʃɪzeː koʊ̯w̯koʊ̯w̯ tsˁeːʁekʷɪː ʒʊmtʃə kʊtsɥʊ̯m θʁɪːpɪːzoʊ̯kɒt/
I suppose the closest to the most beautiful language to my ears would be some type of French-Tibetan-Icelandic.
Re: Language Aesthetics
An increase of sample size is recommended.HoskhMatriarch wrote:Often, people want to make the most beautiful language possible, and many of the "beautiful languages" look more or less the same.
I think "beauty" - and for that matter "sound" - are in the ear (or eye) of the beholder.HoskhMatriarch wrote:Do you think it's more about associations between similar-sounding languages or about how sounds themselves sound?
No two conlang(er)s have the same goal, aesthetically or otherwise. Some strive for pleasing sounds, some strive for a grammatical perfection. There is no single thread of commonality that runs through conlanging in general. Other than, of course, them being conlangs.HoskhMatriarch wrote:What kinds of things have you noticed about languages designed to have certain aesthetics?
g
o
n
e
o
n
e
Re: Language Aesthetics
I don't see this very often. I don't think this is a thing most conlangers aspire too. There is a stereoptypical notion out there that dorsal and radical consonants and complex phonotactics are ugly, and coronals and sonorants and open syllables are beautiful. But do people really take this idea seriously? Not really. Not much. At least I don't think so. The belief that people believe this stereoptype, is itself a stereotype.HoskhMatriarch wrote:Often, people want to make the most beautiful language possible, and many of the "beautiful languages" look more or less the same.
I think most conlangers have a rather broad, malleable notion of beauty, and are not terribly concerned with making beautiful conlangs anyway, as opposed to conlangs that are distinctive, and sound like themselves.
And of course, beauty is subjective and is about as easy to nail down as water. And it depends heavily on who is speaking, and in what context, and what the emotional tone is, and how this all subjectively impacts the listener.
Re: Language Aesthetics
Yes, exactly. Plus, a lot of people like to be different and sophisticated, conlangers being no exception. So it's easy to take pride in liking "non-stereotypically beautiful" languages, and a lot of conlangers actually like different "odd" things. I have a (not at all logically proven) feeling that the common dislike among conlangers for the sound of French (see this ZBB thread) may be related to this (since French is often considered one of the "stereotypically beautiful" languages).cromulant wrote:I don't see this very often. I don't think this is a thing most conlangers aspire too. There is a stereoptypical notion out there that dorsal and radical consonants and complex phonotactics are ugly, and coronals and sonorants and open syllables are beautiful. But do people really take this idea seriously? Not really. Not much. At least I don't think so. The belief that people believe this stereoptype, is itself a stereotype.HoskhMatriarch wrote:Often, people want to make the most beautiful language possible, and many of the "beautiful languages" look more or less the same.
I think most conlangers have a rather broad, malleable notion of beauty, and are not terribly concerned with making beautiful conlangs anyway, as opposed to conlangs that are distinctive, and sound like themselves.
And of course, beauty is subjective and is about as easy to nail down as water. And it depends heavily on who is speaking, and in what context, and what the emotional tone is, and how this all subjectively impacts the listener.
Re: Language Aesthetics
Heh, I think French is one of the most beautiful languages in the world... but only when it's spoken by women.Sumelic wrote:I have a (not at all logically proven) feeling that the common dislike among conlangers for the sound of French (see this ZBB thread) may be related to this (since French is often considered one of the "stereotypically beautiful" languages).
Re: Language Aesthetics
Obviously, stuff like that makes a huge difference.Vlürch wrote:Heh, I think French is one of the most beautiful languages in the world... but only when it's spoken by women.Sumelic wrote:I have a (not at all logically proven) feeling that the common dislike among conlangers for the sound of French (see this ZBB thread) may be related to this (since French is often considered one of the "stereotypically beautiful" languages).
Comparing aesthetics of natlangs seems analogous to me to discussing the relative sexual attractiveness of different ethnic groups. Lots of people's views will be shaped by prejudice or cultural associations, people may prefer one gender over another, very specific individual features can make a large difference, etc. There are general trends about what features are attractive in an individual, and most people find roughly the same sort of features attractive, but other types of generalizations are always subjective (is red hair or black hair more appealing?).
And just like most people do not have the goal of designing "the sexiest con-culture possible," most people also do not have the goal of designing "the most beautiful language possible."
- KaiTheHomoSapien
- greek
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
- Location: Northern California
Re: Language Aesthetics
Kind of a side-comment here, but: there are some languages that I think sound better when sung than when spoken. When Japanese is spoken it doesn't sound particularly beautiful to me; not "ugly" by any means, but it's often spoken quickly and there's not a whole lot that makes it stand out to me. When it's sung it can be one of the most beautiful languages there is.
Romanian sounds kinda like Italian-Slavic hybrid when spoken. It's not especially remarkable then, but when sung, especially by women, it's hot. I listen to a lot of Romanian pop music just because I like the sound of the language, almost like it's an instrument itself. Words like soarele, fetele, and fericita always sound really nice when sung (to me).
But I also find that almost any language can sound beautiful to me when sung. I had never thought much about Finnish until I listened to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRSL6R20OY4 Now I'm ranking Finnish up there with the best-sounding ones. Singing can really bring out the best in a language.
So yeah...not really sure what makes a language "beautiful"; I think a lot of it has to do with our native language. English speakers often say Romance languages sound beautiful, but those are also the first non-English languages they're going to be most exposed to and thought of as "foreign". And languages like German and Russian get a bad rap because of stereotypes that we associate it with (like angry totalitarians lol).
And there are of course specific sounds people like, like sonorants (as someone said). To me, I like the sound of a lot of fricatives and that's why my conlang has so many of them.
Romanian sounds kinda like Italian-Slavic hybrid when spoken. It's not especially remarkable then, but when sung, especially by women, it's hot. I listen to a lot of Romanian pop music just because I like the sound of the language, almost like it's an instrument itself. Words like soarele, fetele, and fericita always sound really nice when sung (to me).
But I also find that almost any language can sound beautiful to me when sung. I had never thought much about Finnish until I listened to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRSL6R20OY4 Now I'm ranking Finnish up there with the best-sounding ones. Singing can really bring out the best in a language.
So yeah...not really sure what makes a language "beautiful"; I think a lot of it has to do with our native language. English speakers often say Romance languages sound beautiful, but those are also the first non-English languages they're going to be most exposed to and thought of as "foreign". And languages like German and Russian get a bad rap because of stereotypes that we associate it with (like angry totalitarians lol).
And there are of course specific sounds people like, like sonorants (as someone said). To me, I like the sound of a lot of fricatives and that's why my conlang has so many of them.
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: Language Aesthetics
Funny you should say that, because I couldn't agree less. I love the sound of spoken Japanese, while it sounds bland and uninteresting to me when sung.Kai wrote:When Japanese is spoken it doesn't sound particularly beautiful to me; not "ugly" by any means, but it's often spoken quickly and there's not a whole lot that makes it stand out to me. When it's sung it can be one of the most beautiful languages there is.
- KaiTheHomoSapien
- greek
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
- Location: Northern California
Re: Language Aesthetics
See we all have such different perceptions of pleasant sound; it's very hard to explain beauty!
-
- cuneiform
- Posts: 188
- Joined: 20 Mar 2012 22:46
Re: Language Aesthetics
David J. Peterson talks about this very briefly in his interview on the Daily Show:
Video Clip
@ about 5:05, Noah asks, "what would the sexiest language be?" David responds by suggesting that there isn't anything inherent about a language that makes it sound sexy. It's all about a speakers particular voice or intonation. Any language can be made to sound pleasant or harsh. It depends on how you go about pronunciation.
Video Clip
@ about 5:05, Noah asks, "what would the sexiest language be?" David responds by suggesting that there isn't anything inherent about a language that makes it sound sexy. It's all about a speakers particular voice or intonation. Any language can be made to sound pleasant or harsh. It depends on how you go about pronunciation.
"Peace...? No peace!"
-
- roman
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48
Re: Language Aesthetics
I've heard people talk about making a language that sounds like it should be spoken by xyz, that seems like an kind of aesthetic goal too. What makes a language sound like it should be spoken by xyz? In other words, why wouldn't it sound right for elves to speak Klingon and Klingons to speak Elvish?
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
Re: Language Aesthetics
I think when people say things like that, they're groping in the dark for a kind of aesthetic equivalence. Doesn't really mean anything. If you were to tell me that such-and-such a conlang "sounds it should be spoken by Englishmen", I'll point you to recordings of Geordie, West Country and the Queen and ask, okay, which English? Which aesthetic system do you mean by "English"?HoskhMatriarch wrote:I've heard people talk about making a language that sounds like it should be spoken by xyz, that seems like an kind of aesthetic goal too. What makes a language sound like it should be spoken by xyz? In other words, why wouldn't it sound right for elves to speak Klingon and Klingons to speak Elvish?
As far as "Elvish" is concerned, that whole name is pretty much contaminated by Peter Jackson's vision of Elves, what they look like and how they speak, as well as Tolkien's own slant on how they speak. He went for a certain aesthetic system and just about every fantasy writer since has more or less followed aesthetic suit with their Elves. Wispy, pointy-eared, scantilly clad, woodwise folk with all sonorous vowelly and arry and elly and endy languages -- it's a cultural expectation in Western fantasy and RPGdom.
I think there are not many of us out there who think of Elves very differently -- I know the Weeping Elf and myself posit "Elves" that are not at all, well, "elvish", they're completely human. (Though we do differ rather radically on what that actually entails.)
I personally have no problem at all if someone makes an Elvish language that's got lots of "hard" or "non-mellifluous" sounds, .i. a language that is unlike the Standard Average Elvish of fantasy literature, or even of Tolkien himself. Your choices are basically "give your Elves a language everyone expects" or "give them the language they actually speak (and don't bother with what everyone else expects)". It comes down to a matter of art: and it falls to the artist who is working on Elves to determine what "elvish" actually means and how it should apply in his world or story setting and also how it should be expressed through language and what that language should sound like.
Re: Language Aesthetics
To add to that, the old view of the Elves was most varied. Elves could be little more than mischievous pixies, or nightmare-ish shadows of the old pagan gods.elemtilas wrote:As far as "Elvish" is concerned, that whole name is pretty much contaminated by Peter Jackson's vision of Elves, what they look like and how they speak, as well as Tolkien's own slant on how they speak. He went for a certain aesthetic system and just about every fantasy writer since has more or less followed aesthetic suit with their Elves. Wispy, pointy-eared, scantilly clad, woodwise folk with all sonorous vowelly and arry and elly and endy languages -- it's a cultural expectation in Western fantasy and RPGdom.
I think there are not many of us out there who think of Elves very differently -- I know the Weeping Elf and myself posit "Elves" that are not at all, well, "elvish", they're completely human. (Though we do differ rather radically on what that actually entails.)
It all comes down to what you want to paint a picture of in the end.
: | : | : | :
Conlangs: Hawntow, Yorkish, misc.
she/her
Conlangs: Hawntow, Yorkish, misc.
she/her
-
- roman
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48
Re: Language Aesthetics
Well, my stories feature elves, and they have languages that vary as much as human languages (they also tend to be fluent in human languages from interacting with humans a lot) but I almost don't want to call them elves because they're inspired by folkloric and mythological elves (and equivalent creatures from non-European cultures) and I don't want people to assume they're Tolkein's elves. I also have an equivalent to folkloric/mythological dwarves but I'm definitely not calling them dwarves since they're not even short, much less industrial treasure-hoarders. There are basically fairies and all sorts of things, but again, I don't want stereotyped images of the tooth fairy with little butterfly wings or something. Ah, the problem of names... I have been making up names for a lot of things though, like "spirit rider" for these sort of shamanic people, so people don't think of stereotyped Native Americans from saying "shaman" (I've also heard the term shaman itself is appropriative of Siberians, I'm not sure if that's true but even if it's not, using it will lead to incorrect cultural associations for my concultures). "Spirit rider" is by parallel with "rider" which is like a knight (basically, they're a member of the nobility who fights, wears armor, and rides a horse).
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light