The flight-lang--A concept I'd really like to share

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
User avatar
LittleLynx_53
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 17
Joined: 13 Mar 2022 17:35

The flight-lang--A concept I'd really like to share

Post by LittleLynx_53 »

This is the concept for a language. The only reason I haven't plunged into the syntax or the grammar for it yet is that it's a sister language to my main conlang, Manaic, and that language needs to have it's grammar settled enough for me to back-engineer more traits of their common ancestor. But I felt the concept was interesting enough to share.

This is the language of a group of human-like people with wings and the ability to fly. Now, flying (unless you can hover, which they can't) involves a lot of speed, which means wind, and wind makes communication harder. Hand-signs are not really a viable option either: they need to keep their eyes on where they're going.

It's phonemic inventory is:
æ i o
æ: i: o:
ʔ
(u could be allophonic of o, maybe?)

If you've ever tried to shout to a friend over a distance and high wind, maybe you'll see where I'm going with this. If your friend tried to shout "helloooo," you would probably only hear /˧ɛ˥˧o:/ or maybe /˧ɛʔ˥˧o:/. You're hearing the vowels, if they're distinct enough, and the tone, but not the consonants. That means that in any language that's used in this kind of environment, and only that one, for long enough, any and all consonants should (I'm assuming) either get dropped or become allophonic to the glottal stop. You just are not going to hear that closed-up humming of any voiced consonants, and certainly not the tiny puffing of p and t over that kind of constant wind. All you can hear is that the stream of vowels has been interrupted.

The common ancestor to this and Manaic was tonal. Modern Manaic slowly lost it's tone, but the flight language needed it so badly that not only did it keep the original tones, it went crazy with them and used them in as many ways as it could. This is where my knowledge tapers off and the reason I'm holding off on this language until I've had some experience making a conlang in the first place--it is going to need to wring those tones for everything they've got to make up for the tiny phonetic inventory.

It would also have some lexical quirks due to its purpose. It's nobody's first language, but almost every single Avian-person would be bilingual with it as their second. There would be very few, if any, words for household items like "cup" and "rug." At most, the relics of those words from the mother language would have been re-purposed to describe terrain or weather features. "plate" could mean a flat space of ground suitable for landing. "Blanket" could mean a cloud formation. There would be many words for altitude, direction, kinds of wind etc. Maybe they even have a way of forming long compound words to indicate the position of something on the horizon in latitude and longitude.

I'm tentatively calling this kind of language a "jargon creole." It's as if mores code were needed not just for communication between ships but between the crew as well, 24/7, with no other options. Even after radios were invented in this world, it was a LONG time before they became light and reliable enough for Avian people to consider using them.

The interesting thing is that this could be an entire category of languages rather than one. On a whole planet, multiple flight-langs are bound to develop. It might even be adopted by non-flying populations for use in loud industrial environments.

Let me know your thoughts. I'm fascinated with this idea.
Never fight a land war in (that fictional group of countries heavily based on Asia.)
User avatar
Nel Fie
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 139
Joined: 23 May 2022 15:18

Re: The flight-lang--A concept I'd really like to share

Post by Nel Fie »

My main thought was that I'm not sure if the language could actually be used. I'd imagine that past a certain speed of movement/wind, sound of any form would be lost. It might depend on how fast your speakers are actually moving, how they are positioned in regards to each other and what the weather is - though maybe these could be integrated into when and how the language is used?
The closest real-life situation to this I can think off is parachuting, and I think parachutists can't communicate by voice without radio devices. I've never jumped myself though, so the only way to know would be to ask someone who has.

Other than that, the origin and general purpose of the language seems very close to real-life whistled languages - though I think they greatly exploit reverbration caused by natural geography, which might be less productive in the open sky.
:deu: Native (Swabian) | :fra: Native (Belgian) | :eng: Fluent | :rus: Beginner
DeviantArt | YouTube | Tumblr
User avatar
LittleLynx_53
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 17
Joined: 13 Mar 2022 17:35

Re: The flight-lang--A concept I'd really like to share

Post by LittleLynx_53 »

Nel Fie wrote: 05 Jun 2022 11:23 My main thought was that I'm not sure if the language could actually be used. I'd imagine that past a certain speed of movement/wind, sound of any form would be lost. It might depend on how fast your speakers are actually moving, how they are positioned in regards to each other and what the weather is - though maybe these could be integrated into when and how the language is used?
The closest real-life situation to this I can think off is parachuting, and I think parachutists can't communicate by voice without radio devices. I've never jumped myself though, so the only way to know would be to ask someone who has.

Other than that, the origin and general purpose of the language seems very close to real-life whistled languages - though I think they greatly exploit reverberation caused by natural geography, which might be less productive in the open sky.
Thank you for your feedback.

They definitely would not be able to do it during a steep dive or certain weather, but my idea is that without the option of radio or hand signs, it has a better chance of being heard than some things.

... I know I said "high winds," but I wanted to clarify the sort of situation I was thinking of. The way avians fly is to get up high somewhere, catch a thermal and go up, then take a long slow glide to cover distance. During that long glide you would have time in lower wind to converse. You're not in free-fall arrested only by a price of canvas: it's more like a wing-suit. But Avians are lighter and have much more wing-surface. They might not be as graceful as birds, but it's definitely slower than free-fall. Also, unlike parachuting, Avians are capable of flying very close to each other safely--if they desperately need to convey a message, they could briefly drop into a close formation with one behind the other so they can catch the sound before it gets blown away. The language can be screamed at the top of your lungs if it needs to be. A language that had enough features to be intelligible even when heard very faintly would... I don't know, just have a better chance in that environment. Imagine seeing an avian formation up in the air on a clear day and faintly catching some of the formation leader's commands as he takes them through practice maneuvers.
At least it's probably enough for suspension of disbelief in a novel, right?
Never fight a land war in (that fictional group of countries heavily based on Asia.)
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3030
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: The flight-lang--A concept I'd really like to share

Post by Salmoneus »

LittleLynx_53 wrote: 05 Jun 2022 15:22
Nel Fie wrote: 05 Jun 2022 11:23 My main thought was that I'm not sure if the language could actually be used. I'd imagine that past a certain speed of movement/wind, sound of any form would be lost. It might depend on how fast your speakers are actually moving, how they are positioned in regards to each other and what the weather is - though maybe these could be integrated into when and how the language is used?
The closest real-life situation to this I can think off is parachuting, and I think parachutists can't communicate by voice without radio devices. I've never jumped myself though, so the only way to know would be to ask someone who has.

Other than that, the origin and general purpose of the language seems very close to real-life whistled languages - though I think they greatly exploit reverberation caused by natural geography, which might be less productive in the open sky.
Thank you for your feedback.

They definitely would not be able to do it during a steep dive or certain weather, but my idea is that without the option of radio or hand signs, it has a better chance of being heard than some things.

... I know I said "high winds," but I wanted to clarify the sort of situation I was thinking of. The way avians fly is to get up high somewhere, catch a thermal and go up, then take a long slow glide to cover distance. During that long glide you would have time in lower wind to converse. You're not in free-fall arrested only by a price of canvas: it's more like a wing-suit. But Avians are lighter and have much more wing-surface. They might not be as graceful as birds, but it's definitely slower than free-fall.
In reality, it's very fast. When you're relying on a wing, you have to go through the air at a certain speed in order to generate lift - otherwise you will just fall out of the sky. And yes, gliding is falling out of the sky with style - but gliding just transfers some of the downward speed into forward speed, so you still have lots of speed. The bigger your wings, the faster you go - both the faster you need to go to fly, and the faster you accidentally go when you fall and your wings turn it into a glide. And the wings of a human-size flyer would be IMMENSE. Moreover, in order to fly fast enough to not drop out of the sky, you need to fly very high, which means less air, which makes communication by sound less possible. And of course when you're talking about audibility, what matters is not your speed of travel, but the net relative airspeed around you, which combines your own speed with the speed of the wind itself (because you're probably gliding into the wind to generate lift).


To give a concrete example on Earth: condors fly the way I think you imagine your people flying. That is, other than initial take-off, condors don't flap their wings (a study found they flap their wings less than 1% of their time in the air, and that's mostly in take-off or when thermals are weak; one was found travelling 170km without a single wingbeat; even in poor conditions they flap only around 2 seconds per kilometre travelled). Instead, they go up on thermals, and glide down. But they're not slow - their average glidespeed is around 30-35mph, and can go up to 55mph. Not bad for something that's not even exerting energy. [if your wings aren't designed for speed, you'll probably go more slowly flapping than you would gliding, although you'll stay in the air longer].


Condors, however, are tiny compared to people. Fortunately, however, something with wings big enough to lift a human has flown in the past: an azhdarchid. The largest azhdarchids are now thought to be even bigger than people, with the largest up to 500 pounds. Nonetheless, weight is controversial, and a very big human (eg a big human with gigantic wings) would actually be within the margin of possibility; even if not, even if Quetzalcoatlus was twice the size of a human, this is still a much better comparison than any living bird. In addition, wingspan goes up slower than bodyweight [compare 4g/5 inch hummingbird with 1500g/130 inch condor (only 26 times wider, but 325 times heavier), and the 225,000g/430 inch quetzalcoatlus (another 150 times heavier, but only 3.5 times wider)], so a human-weight flyer will not be a great deal smaller than quetzalcoatlus. And quetzalcoatlus... well. Simulations suggest a level flying speed of 80mph, perhaps a little (but not much) less if gliding. If it used powered flight, it could probably fly for 7-10 days at a time, with a range of around 12,000 miles before needing to find a meal. Large fliers live in a whole different world from the rest of us! Oh, and it would have flown around 15,000 feet.

The real problems, though, aren't just from the noise of the wind rushing past, but what that does to the sound of my voice. Sending you a message by sound through the air when you and I are moving forward rapidly, and the air between us is probably moving in the opposite direction due to the wind, is kind of like sending a toy boat to you across a rapidly-flowing river. At best, you have to wonder how the need to fight against the current is going to affect the boat - OK, the speed of sound is way faster than birdspeed, so the sound should get there eventually, but will be arrive un-warped? And the bigger issue is about the aerodynamics of the wind flow between us, which is not even, but will tend to form sheets and tubes at different speeds, and chaotic eddies, which could block sound propagation entirely, and could certainly warp a sound enough to make it hard to understand it.

Imagine being halfway up Everest, in an 80mph gale, trying to talk to someone on the other side of a wall of chaotic air that's moving at 80mph. And probably doing it while keeping your head pointing forward!

I don't know about you, but I've been in a convertible pootling around at 40mph or so with the top down, and even with a big windscreen protecting us I've had to turn my head and shout to make myself just about audible to someone in the backseat!



Fortunately, of course, it's unlikely that anyone flying would have anything to say to anyone else that couldn't wait until they reached the ground anyway... [but if they DID want to talk in the air, how on earth would you prevent them from jabbering on about cups and plates and whatnot? If people can talk, they'll talk small talk!]



I disagree with you on 'needing to look where they're going', though. In the air you don't need to pay much attention - the air is so much safer than the ground! Keeping the head pointed mostly forward would help aerodynamically, but they can look in any direction, and move their head now and then if needed. Consider, after all, the incredible eyesight of many birds, which is mostly concentrated 99% of the time on things going on on the ground, not in the air around them.
User avatar
Lorik
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 98
Joined: 27 Nov 2021 12:30
Location: Brazil

Re: The flight-lang--A concept I'd really like to share

Post by Lorik »

Well, I don't know if it would help much, but you could make your conpeople not just humans with wings, but humans with many other adaptations for flight, such as hollow bones and the presence of air sacs - that is, cavities other than the lungs that are made for carrying air. This would greatly reduce the weight of these people, and perhaps it could allow them to fly slowly enough to communicate.

As a side note, I've already galloped around with friends at about 50km/h (31mph) many times, and even with the noise of the horses' hooves, we've managed to communicate with each other by shouting, and it was pretty audible.
Native: :bra: | Fluent: :eng: :fra: | Intermediate: :rus:
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3030
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: The flight-lang--A concept I'd really like to share

Post by Salmoneus »

Lorik wrote: 06 Jun 2022 01:09 Well, I don't know if it would help much, but you could make your conpeople not just humans with wings, but humans with many other adaptations for flight, such as hollow bones and the presence of air sacs - that is, cavities other than the lungs that are made for carrying air.
I was assuming that, yes.
This would greatly reduce the weight of these people, and perhaps it could allow them to fly slowly enough to communicate.
Other way around: reducing weight increases speed!
As a side note, I've already galloped around with friends at about 50km/h (31mph) many times, and even with the noise of the horses' hooves, we've managed to communicate with each other by shouting, and it was pretty audible.
OK. Although I would reiterate the point about windspeed: if you're 6000 feet up, then on average, even if you're hovering on the spot, you're already in a 30mph gust. At 15000 feet, it's more like a 40mph gale. At 30,000 feet, it's around 50mph. So for a start, if you're actually flying forward at 30-80mph yourself, you're effectively surrounded by a 60-120mph gale.

Most birds fly low, so windspeed's not a huge issue. But big birds that ride thermals fly high - condors, eagles, geese, vultures, etc. An exception is the albatross, which can spend a lot of time near the surface - but they only do this over water, and they do it by a dynamic soaring process that requires them to go at high speeds (basically they swoop down, using gravity to accelerate them, to hit the wind at high speed, to generate lift, to rise in the air, so they can swoop down again). Albatrosses regularly fly at 50-70mph.

Now, just for a little context here:
- over 30mph is a 'high wind', of the kind that you'll experience difficulty walking into
- over 55mph is a 'storm', of a kind rarely experienced inland, that will uproot trees
- over 70mph is a 'hurricane force' wind, that will bring devastation

Any large bird is likely to systematically (though perhaps not always, depending on wind conditions of course) fly with an effective net windspeed (their speed plus the wind) of a severe storm or mild hurricane. Imagine talking to someone 20 metres away in the middle of a hurricane.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3030
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: The flight-lang--A concept I'd really like to share

Post by Salmoneus »

I should say, though, that Lynx's reasoning on the nature of the language seems correct - if you did have difficulty being heard, you probably would reduce consonant distinctions first, and use tone extensively. However, I'm not sure they go far enough! I would have expected all details of formants to be lost, and for the language to be based entirely on tone, and perhaps rhythm. This is what is done in real-life so-called whistle languages, which are similar in function - situation-dependent codes with high audibility (although some whistle languages do have to meet the additional requirement of sounding non-human, if they are used for hunting purposes). I'd have thought a whistle cipher of the language they speak on the ground would have been more likely than an entirely different language with multiple vowel qualities. And of course birds themselves are famous for their whistle languages!

On which note, one note of reassurance: some birds DO speak in the sort of gales these people would be experiencing. Very few, I think, if you exclude combat-screaming, but some certainly do. Specifically, some geese (which travel at very high altitudes, and thus face very strong winds) are famous for their loud 'booming', 'honking' or 'whooping' sounds in flight. [although... do they still do this when they're 30k up, or is that just something they do to coordinate landing and take-off when they're near the ground? I don't know, you'd have to ask someone who knows about birds].
Post Reply