Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: 03 Jan 2017 21:19
To the guy who created the Italian dialects:
CHANGING ONE PHONE DOESN'T COUNT AS A NEW LANGUAGE.
CHANGING ONE PHONE DOESN'T COUNT AS A NEW LANGUAGE.
Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
https://cbbforum.com/
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 outtseren wrote: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".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?
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.
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.Egerius wrote:English revisited – orthography:
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...?
[serious]qwed117 wrote:To the guy who created the Italian dialects:
CHANGING ONE PHONE DOESN'T COUNT AS A NEW LANGUAGE.
Goidelic is terrifying.tseren wrote:Some people just don't know when to stop. They pretended people spoke this stuff.
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.k1234567890y wrote:Japanese is a pretty well-made conlang, but its creator(s) has an obession towards honorific systems.
Or Javanese.All4Ɇn wrote: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.k1234567890y wrote:Japanese is a pretty well-made conlang, but its creator(s) has an obession towards honorific systems.
So true. Did not succeed though, got into diachronic conlanging and lost interest in Italian Germanick1234567890y wrote: The creator of Old High German might speak Italian and wants to make a Germanic language that looks like Italian.
I guess he moved on to English...Creyeditor wrote:So true. Did not succeed though, got into diachronic conlanging and lost interest in Italian Germanick1234567890y wrote: The creator of Old High German might speak Italian and wants to make a Germanic language that looks like Italian.
No, it's maka in Hawaiian. #creativityqwed117 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"
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.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
I actually don't mind that Malagasy was put all the way over in Madagascar, a geographic outlier of its family.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).
Aren't /k/ and /t/ allophonic in Hawaiian?Imralu wrote:No, it's maka in Hawaiian. #creativityqwed117 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"
Yes, but as I understand it, [t] only occurs in certain dialects and is absent from most Hawaiian.Axiem wrote:Aren't /k/ and /t/ allophonic in Hawaiian?Imralu wrote:No, it's maka in Hawaiian. #creativityqwed117 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"