Page 2 of 8

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 03 Jan 2017 21:19
by qwed117
To the guy who created the Italian dialects:
CHANGING ONE PHONE DOESN'T COUNT AS A NEW LANGUAGE.

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 04 Jan 2017 00:38
by All4Ɇn
tseren wrote:
Shemtov wrote:So the the other board has this thread, so why not start one here (I don't go there anymore, because that's were the fun of conlanging goes to die.)

So anyhow:
Who created Gaelic really has a fetish for historical spellings, moreso then the guy who did English. I mean, in his or her "Irish" version /vʲəurə/ is written <Mheabhraigh>, what the Hell? I mean, don't get me wrong, there's a logic to his or her orthography, but why write /u/ with <bh>? Who does that?
You weren't there for the Old Irish project. There were 42 different consonants, but the orthography only used 13 letters. The system specified the sound based on word position and the flanking vowels. This posed no problem, because there were only 11 monophtongs and 13 diphthongs to use up those five letters, anyway. It's all very intuitive once you get used to it. The whole project was abandoned due to the verb inflection system. At first there, were just the two verb stems, absolute and conjunct. When they added the whole infixed pronouns idea, the stress shifts meant the generation of prototonic and deuterotonic stems as well. Then, the suffixed object pronoun idea really took hold. By the time they were done, we're writing <condidnderoímed> /kondəðnʲdʲe:roi̯ṽʲəðʲ/ "so that he should protect him" and verbs conjugated along the lines of <do·tuitet> "they fall" and <do·rochratar> "they have fallen".

There were also 14 noun declensions. Some people just don't know when to stop. They pretended people spoke this stuff. When they decided to scrap the whole project, half the phonemes got thrown out. The orthography stuck around for a daughter language just to give it a sense of diachrony. The whole thing is just an excuse to see what would happen if you applied a bunch of sandhi to the more obscure PIE inflections while trying to make Classicists cry.
I've never looked at Old Irish and figured it wasn't much different than it currently is but now I'm super interested in checking this out

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 04 Jan 2017 07:08
by Keenir
Egerius wrote:English revisitedorthography:
Someone played around with the sound changes and forgot to update the orthography accordingly. Then others took over and only tweaked unnecessary details! What even...?
Oh it gets worse -- I don't know if its one person doing it, or English's creator has a fan base, but they've been busy spamming everywhere with that orthography.

I mean, we get it, you guys're proud of your "Danger: Fire Hazard" signs. But why are you putting them everywhere, including that polar continent? Penguins can't pronounce your 'lang!

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 04 Jan 2017 16:11
by Adarain
qwed117 wrote:To the guy who created the Italian dialects:
CHANGING ONE PHONE DOESN'T COUNT AS A NEW LANGUAGE.
[serious]
Of course many italian dialects are actually really divergent from standard italian. I showed some italians a video on Pus'chiavin (spoken in southern switzerland) and they couldn't understand it apart from some words, while I (who studied some romansh) could actually somewhat follow it. Just compare the inflection of "to be" in the present:

Standard Italian:
(io) sono
(tu) sei
(lui/lei) é
(noi) siamo
(voi) siete
(loro) sono

Pus'chiavin:
(mì) sém
(tì) t'és
(lü) l'é
(nualtri) sém
(vualtri) sév
(lur) gli énn.

(Note: I have no clue what the diacritics mean, this is from a wikipedia article)

[/serious]

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 04 Jan 2017 17:00
by HinGambleGoth
tseren wrote:Some people just don't know when to stop. They pretended people spoke this stuff.
Goidelic is terrifying.

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 11 Jan 2017 03:04
by k1234567890y
Chinese languages are diachronic conlangs derived from Proto-Sino-Tibetan and created by professional conlangers, and they certainly are conlangs because their numeral systems are pretty regular.

Japanese is a pretty well-made conlang, but its creator(s) has an obession towards honorific systems.

Pirahã is an artistic language created by a sci-fi novelist as an thought experiment to explore a world without numerals.

Rotokas is an experimental conlang aimed at phonological minimalism.

Wakashan languages and Salishan languages are somewhat noobish as they seem to have crazy phonological systems.

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 11 Jan 2017 03:11
by All4Ɇn
k1234567890y wrote:Japanese is a pretty well-made conlang, but its creator(s) has an obession towards honorific systems.
That's nothing compared to that conlang Korean's honorific system. It's creator and Japanese's clearly have been influenced by some of the same work but neither one of them want to accept it.

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 11 Jan 2017 13:47
by Frislander
All4Ɇn wrote:
k1234567890y wrote:Japanese is a pretty well-made conlang, but its creator(s) has an obession towards honorific systems.
That's nothing compared to that conlang Korean's honorific system. It's creator and Japanese's clearly have been influenced by some of the same work but neither one of them want to accept it.
Or Javanese.

Iau is some weird phonology someone cooked up for the Bad Conlanging Ideas Tumblr page.

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 19 Jan 2017 06:26
by k1234567890y
Sino-Tibetan are professional conlangs as the way to reduce initial clusters in Chinese languages and Modern Tibetan are not very obvious but still naturalistic.

English is a nooblang, its phonological system is somewhat kitchen-sinky, and its creator assigns the forms of irregular verbs in a somewhat random way.

Creators of Altaic languages aim at making international auxiliary languages, as many Altaic languages are highly regular in terms of grammar; the creator of Malay-Indonesian is aim at making an international auxiliary language.

French, Swedish, Polish, Georgian, Ubykh, Chechen and Yeli Dnye also look like some kinds of kitchen-sink conlangs in terms of phonology.

The creator of Mandarin Chinese and Polish might be the same person who likes retroflexes.

The creator of Finnish swings between fusional languages and agglutinating languages when making Finnish.

The creator of Old High German might speak Italian and wants to make a Germanic language that looks like Italian.

Armenian is a crypt language created by someone speaking an Indo-European languages.

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 19 Jan 2017 11:26
by Creyeditor
k1234567890y wrote: The creator of Old High German might speak Italian and wants to make a Germanic language that looks like Italian.
So true. Did not succeed though, got into diachronic conlanging and lost interest in Italian Germanic [:D]

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 19 Jan 2017 11:46
by Frislander
Whoever created Marshallese was trying to one-up Ubykh with vertical vowel systems, but can't pronounce it all properly so is losing the distinction between the two middle vowel heights. And just look at the number of height-harmonic diphthongs which you find phonetically!

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 19 Jan 2017 12:12
by Egerius
Creyeditor wrote:
k1234567890y wrote: The creator of Old High German might speak Italian and wants to make a Germanic language that looks like Italian.
So true. Did not succeed though, got into diachronic conlanging and lost interest in Italian Germanic [:D]
I guess he moved on to English...
And I swear, the original creator of English was driven away from his project by the above guy, who had no idea about the existing West Saxon.

Scandinavian languages: The creator loved his first creation (Icelandic) so much, but he had so many ideas for diachronic developments that he decided to make more, with weirder changes the further east you go.

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 19 Jan 2017 23:47
by qwed117
Look, creator of the Austronesian languages: changing one letter doesn't make a new language. At best it's a dialect. And this is for virtually every language you made. Seriously, in every language you made, the word for eye is "mata"

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 21 Jan 2017 09:55
by Imralu
qwed117 wrote:Look, creator of the Austronesian languages: changing one letter doesn't make a new language. At best it's a dialect. And this is for virtually every language you made. Seriously, in every language you made, the word for eye is "mata"
No, it's maka in Hawaiian. #creativity

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 21 Jan 2017 18:56
by All4Ɇn
Speaking of Austronesian languages, what the hell Rapa Nui? Don't know why it's creator made a script that no one's still been able to figure out and then just left it for latin characters. At least tell us what the old one said first

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 21 Jan 2017 19:41
by Frislander
All4Ɇn wrote:Speaking of Austronesian languages, what the hell Rapa Nui? Don't know why it's creator made a script that no one's still been able to figure out and then just left it for latin characters. At least tell us what the old one said first
Yeah, and make it so totally unlike any script we've seen ever that other people don't even know if it is a script. Worse they abandoned it before they could build up a large corpus, so we probably can't decode it ever.

And that bit where they have this weird-as alignment no other language family has, but it was a collaborative diachronic project, so most of the daughters lost it/simplified it apart from a few of the groups, which just so happens to include Malagasy of all things (someone else can follow me up on that one).

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 21 Jan 2017 20:58
by lsd
Speaking Italian with Scandinavian intonation and a whole bunch of pseudo logical rules is not earnest ...
WTF con-people could speak français...

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 22 Jan 2017 04:14
by Keenir
Frislander wrote:And that bit where they have this weird-as alignment no other language family has, but it was a collaborative diachronic project, so most of the daughters lost it/simplified it apart from a few of the groups, which just so happens to include Malagasy of all things (someone else can follow me up on that one).
I actually don't mind that Malagasy was put all the way over in Madagascar, a geographic outlier of its family.

What bugs me is that all that work was put into sending them within an arm's reach of several language families in Africa...and Malagasy's creator barely tweaked it. We could have witnessed Malagasy's becoming The Holy Mother of all creoles...only, it never happened. (to be fair, I think there was a fire that burned the notes for that development? i'm just glad our fellow conlanger's okay - that's more important)

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 24 Jan 2017 03:25
by Axiem
Imralu wrote:
qwed117 wrote:Look, creator of the Austronesian languages: changing one letter doesn't make a new language. At best it's a dialect. And this is for virtually every language you made. Seriously, in every language you made, the word for eye is "mata"
No, it's maka in Hawaiian. #creativity
Aren't /k/ and /t/ allophonic in Hawaiian?

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Posted: 24 Jan 2017 03:41
by Imralu
Axiem wrote:
Imralu wrote:
qwed117 wrote:Look, creator of the Austronesian languages: changing one letter doesn't make a new language. At best it's a dialect. And this is for virtually every language you made. Seriously, in every language you made, the word for eye is "mata"
No, it's maka in Hawaiian. #creativity
Aren't /k/ and /t/ allophonic in Hawaiian?
Yes, but as I understand it, [t] only occurs in certain dialects and is absent from most Hawaiian.