Conlang Class

[Kuhron]

My school has a club that lets people teach a class or have regular study sessions about pretty much anything, so I've organized one for conlangs! I intend to use it for a collaborative conlang. All the group efforts I've seen before don't seem to get very far, so I was wondering if anyone has suggestions of how to conduct something like this. I've collaborated with one other person before, but the times I tried it with more people everything always just fell apart.

I'll do some posting of updates as we develop something. I've made conlangclass.tumblr.com, and I'll just post each update in this thread as well, for any who may wish to spectate.

[Creyeditor]

David J. Peterson has done something similar. Just read this
On the other hand, if you want to do a real Collaborative Conlang, I really can't give you any advice. I'm sorry, I don't know much about that.

[Tanni]

... but the times I tried it with more people everything always just fell apart.

How did you tackle the project?

[alias]

I've never played it myself, but there's a game called Glossotechnia which seems like a good source for ideas, at the very least. The goal, as I understand it, is to cooperate in creating a language, which is then used to translate certain sentences so that they can be understood by the other players. Winner is the one who translates his/her own sentence first.

[Kuhron]

David J. Peterson has done something similar. Just read this

That was a good read, and it had some nice suggestions about how one should go about teaching/organizing something like this. Thanks!
Also jealous of this guy for being the one to create Dothraki.

... but the times I tried it with more people everything always just fell apart.

How did you tackle the project?

There were two attempts, both with the same group of people. One of them was through Skype and Google Docs, and it didn't really gain momentum because the person who sort of led the whole effort put in a lot of stuff that he liked, but not many of us contributed very much. I was quickly turned off by some of the stuff he put in it (can't remember the specifics, but I could go try to dig it up if you want details).

The other was more like a game, where each of us had our own notepad. The first step was to write an inventory and then pass the pad to the next person in the circle. The steps were something like inventory, phonotactics, writing system, basic grammar, basic lexicon, further development. It didn't really get past the basic grammar step for various reasons: some people didn't know any phonology and so chose some of the randomest stuff I've ever seen, people were too eager to do ridiculous stuff like make grammatical number some function using modular arithmetic, etc. This attempt's fate was probably because it wasn't done very seriously.

[Kuhron]

First update:

Spoiler:

October 17, 2012 (this is the date of the class discussed, not necessarily the post date)

Today was the first ever conlang class! We had a turnout of 7 people (if I remember correctly). We just discussed things like what languages each person knows, who has conlanged before, and features people like or dislike. We then went on to attempt some word creation. This also turned into everyone trying to make certain sounds that were suggested by various people.

Soon I will post an introduction to the regular participants.

I didn’t record anything this time, but as far as I can remember, these are the lists of preferences people came up with.

Like:

•Greek’s middle voice

•variation of morphological strategy (i.e. not predominantly prefixing, suffixing, or infixing; mutations of the root were also mentioned as preferred),

Dislike:

•Unpredictable or confusable gender (German was mentioned)

•Slavic phonology (my doing)

•seemingly arbitrary or confusable inflectional paradigms (this is due to me as well, but someone else expressed a disdain for when a certain ending means two or more completely different things)

We discussed some sounds. I talked briefly about labiodentals and how I think they’re fascinating even though it would be a bit crazy to put the nasal or the stops as phonemes in a conlang. When I asked people what sounds they liked, the following list came up:

y ø œ t͡s d͡z k͡p g͡b (i e ɛ a so there wouldn't just be front rounded vowels) ɯ s

As with my previous experience, making up words goes rather slowly when you don't even have a phonology or any direction for what the language is going to be like. So this was more like a brainstorming exercise.

The only words I can remember were: dyɱ g͡bøl

I have requested that the people in the class create phonemic inventories they would like, so we can actually begin locating features to put in the language we create.

[Tanni]

... but the times I tried it with more people everything always just fell apart.

How did you tackle the project?

There were two attempts, both with the same group of people. One of them was through Skype and Google Docs, and it didn't really gain momentum because the person who sort of led the whole effort put in a lot of stuff that he liked, but not many of us contributed very much. I was quickly turned off by some of the stuff he put in it (can't remember the specifics, but I could go try to dig it up if you want details).

So you just organized it, and somebody else did the teaching?

Did the people attending the class had previous knowledge about conlanging? It is recommended to plan the class according to that, using approbriate teaching materials.

If it is a class in your school dedicated to conlanging, why do you need Skype? Zamenhof and Tolkien got by without modern technology, which is very likely to distract people from the subject.

The other was more like a game, where each of us had our own notepad. The first step was to write an inventory and then pass the pad to the next person in the circle. The steps were something like inventory, phonotactics, writing system, basic grammar, basic lexicon, further development. It didn't really get past the basic grammar step for various reasons: some people didn't know any phonology and so chose some of the randomest stuff I've ever seen, people were too eager to do ridiculous stuff like make grammatical number some function using modular arithmetic, etc. This attempt's fate was probably because it wasn't done very seriously.

Again, why so much technology for conlanging? Maybe it would be better to first explain some basic stuff, e.g. about phoneme inventories and then provide one whereupon the conlang should be based. (If they're eager to add a few sounds, that would be ok.) I would ditch to cover the writing system, it's distracting form the subject of your class, at least at the beginning. Remember that the LCK is something you can read again and again, but a course in class should go on. You must reflect that in the planning of the course.

If you start conlanging as a kid, you normally don't know about all that linguistic stuff. You just begin with making up words, using the grammar of your mother tongue. As this is a school class, you should plan your course as close to that as possible, carefully introducing selected linguistic concepts like phoneme inventory etc. to not scare them away by all that highly complicated phonetical and grammatical terms. You could do that by comparing natlangs or conlangs, observing that they differ in the sounds they use, deducing that there is something like a phoneme inventory.

The teacher is responsible for the course not running in the wrong direction.

[Kuhron]

So you just organized it, and somebody else did the teaching?

Maybe I didn't explain it too well, but you're a bit mixed up. Here are the three collaborative attempts:
1. Someone else both organized it and did most of the work. This was conducted over Skype because all the participants were from different areas of the US and Canada. The participants were already familiar with linguistic concepts. This was not a class.
2. Someone else organized it and it was just for fun (the notepad game), even though some people didn't know linguistic concepts very well. This was not a class.
3. This is the class. I organized it. Most people seem relatively familiar with linguistic concepts (they all know IPA and the grammatical concepts of at least the languages they speak), and I will go over anything that they aren't clear on before jumping into it.

The other was more like a game, where each of us had our own notepad.

Again, why so much technology for conlanging? Maybe it would be better to first explain some basic stuff, e.g. about phoneme inventories and then provide one whereupon the conlang should be based. (If they're eager to add a few sounds, that would be ok.) I would ditch to cover the writing system, it's distracting form the subject of your class, at least at the beginning.

I intend to start with phonemic inventories. This will be the focus of this week's class, and only after we have that as well as a small lexicon will we decide on the writing system.

[...] a course in class should go on. You must reflect that in the planning of the course.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

If you start conlanging as a kid, you normally don't know about all that linguistic stuff. You just begin with making up words, using the grammar of your mother tongue. As this is a school class, you should plan your course as close to that as possible, carefully introducing selected linguistic concepts like phoneme inventory etc. to not scare them away by all that highly complicated phonetical and grammatical terms. You could do that by comparing natlangs or conlangs, observing that they differ in the sounds they use, deducing that there is something like a phoneme inventory.

That's how I conlanged as a kid. But as I said, most people in the class are familiar with advanced grammatical concepts, so I doubt that will scare them away. I intend to display inventories from natlangs as well as conlangs this week before we make one of our own.

[Tanni]

So you just organized it, and somebody else did the teaching?

Maybe I didn't explain it too well, but you're a bit mixed up. Here are the three collaborative attempts:
1. Someone else both organized it and did most of the work. This was conducted over Skype because all the participants were from different areas of the US and Canada. The participants were already familiar with linguistic concepts. This was not a class.
2. Someone else organized it and it was just for fun (the notepad game), even though some people didn't know linguistic concepts very well. This was not a class.
3. This is the class. I organized it. Most people seem relatively familiar with linguistic concepts (they all know IPA and the grammatical concepts of at least the languages they speak), and I will go over anything that they aren't clear on before jumping into it.

My school has a club that lets people teach a class or have regular study sessions about pretty much anything, so I've organized one for conlangs! I intend to use it for a collaborative conlang. All the group efforts I've seen before don't seem to get very far, so I was wondering if anyone has suggestions of how to conduct something like this. I've collaborated with one other person before, but the times I tried it with more people everything always just fell apart.

Considering that, I thought that you did all the three, and the group efforts you've already done just refer to internet conlanging board collaborations.

[...] a course in class should go on. You must reflect that in the planning of the course.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

The course goes on, covering another topic each lesson. You cannot afford that much explaining the same things every lesson again and again. By just reading written material -- like the LCK -- you can repeat as much as you like, focussion on what interests you.

If you start conlanging as a kid, you normally don't know about all that linguistic stuff. You just begin with making up words, using the grammar of your mother tongue. ...

That's how I conlanged as a kid. But as I said, most people in the class are familiar with advanced grammatical concepts, so I doubt that will scare them away. I intend to display inventories from natlangs as well as conlangs this week before we make one of our own.

So this is a high school class?

[Kuhron]

The course goes on, covering another topic each lesson. You cannot afford that much explaining the same things every lesson again and again. By just reading written material -- like the LCK -- you can repeat as much as you like, focussion on what interests you.

Oh, I gotcha now. If I used concepts they didn't understand, I'd have to waste time going back over them in the future. But I intend to structure it so that doesn't happen.

So this is a high school class?

No, college. As far as I know they're all undergrads.

[Valosken]

I wouldn't do a collaberation until the end. People should get a taste of every aspect first.

[Kuhron]

I wouldn't do a collaboration until the end. People should get a taste of every aspect first.

It's possible that I'm just too excited to finally have a conlang I can speak with others. And I don't really see anything wrong with coming up with basic stuff like phonemes, allophony, and some words (at least roots) before talking about morphosyntax and such.

[Tanni]

I wouldn't do a collaboration until the end. People should get a taste of every aspect first.

It's possible that I'm just too excited to finally have a conlang I can speak with others. And I don't really see anything wrong with coming up with basic stuff like phonemes, allophony, and some words (at least roots) before talking about morphosyntax and such.

I would second Valosken to a certain degree. But as they're undergraduates with more or less decent previous knowledge on the topic, collaboration could start earlier. You need not teach theory first and do collaborative conlanging practice later. As there are seven participants, you will have seven deviant opinions on how the conlang should be, besides your own. This is the most severe obstacle for a successful project. That's why I recommend to give some predefined guiding lines on how the conlang should look like.

[Kuhron]

As there are seven participants, you will have seven deviant opinions on how the conlang should be, besides your own. This is the most severe obstacle for a successful project. That's why I recommend to give some predefined guiding lines on how the conlang should look like.

I agree, this is likely going to pose a problem at some point or another. I haven't exactly figured out how such disputes may be resolved. What I plan to do is have the class come up with the phonology together, with input from everyone and discussion of options, so that we develop something everyone can be satisfied with. Hopefully the same procedure can be applied to the next steps as well. What I don't want to do is make the guidelines myself, as this feels too much like dictating the project, and it's one of the reasons attempt #1 (the Skype one) failed. I also don't want to a have a system where we vote among several different options. I'd rather we all sort of build it together before anyone develops solid ideas of what they want.

[Kuhron]

Second update:

Spoiler:

October 24, 2012

This week we focused on phonemic inventories. I began by writing that of Navajo on the board to illustrate how different an inventory can be from what speakers of Indo-European languages are used to. Then we discussed different kinds of contrasts that are made, chiefly in vowels and plosives. Getting people to say ejectives and articulate trills was rather entertaining. Clicks never came up, interestingly. After discussing these things, we started making an inventory. There were some disputes about the vowels that should be included, mostly regarding the (a)symmetry of the mid vowels. Then we started considering what kinds of plosive contrasts we wanted. Some people were too uncomfortable with ejectives, so we settled on aspirated, plain, and voiced for each included place of articulation except uvular. However, some people have expressed difficulty with distinguishing plain from voiced stops. Depending on whether they learn to hear the difference, an ejective series may replace the plain one.

This is the inventory we created:
m , n , ŋ~ɴ
pʰ , p , b , tʰ , t , d , kʰ , k , g , q~qʰ
v , s , z , ʒ , x~χ
t͡s , d͡z
ɹ~ɾ~r , l , ɫ

i , y , ɨ , u
e
ɛ , ɔ
a

We came up with two rules of allophony as a class:
[v ʒ]>[f ʃ] next to a voiceless consonant
>[j ɥ w] before a vowel

Other allophony, as well as allowed clusters, diphthongs, syllable structure, stress, and everything else remains to be decided and will probably be addressed next week.
I have requested that the participants offer any suggestions they may have for changes to the inventory or allophony and that they create a few words so that we can get an idea of how the language may sound.

[Kuhron]

Third update:

Spoiler:

October 31, 2012

This week we focused on writing systems. We showcased examples of the writing systems with which different participants are familiar: Latin (Turkish), Latin (Nahuatl, used to show how defects can arise from “importing” orthographies), Arabic, Chinese, Tibetan, Devanagari (Hindi), Hiragana, Greek, Hebrew, and Cyrillic (Russian). One comment I like was that Devanagari is “swooshy”.

We then went on to create a Latin orthography for our phonology. This will be used mainly to facilitate the development of the language, and more unique writing system may be devised later. In the process of creating the orthography, we made a few revisions to the phonology, mainly to lend more symmetry to the consonants. The vowel inventory, however, remains just as asymmetric. So the new phonology and orthography are as follows:

Inventory and Allophony:
m , n , ŋ~ɴ
pʰ , p , b , tʰ , t , d , kʰ , k , ɡ , q~qʰ
v , z , ʒ , x~χ
t͡sʰ , t͡s , d͡z
ɹ~ɾ~r , l , ɫ
i , y , ɨ , u
e
ɛ , ɔ
a
[v z ʒ]>[f s ʃ] when next to voiceless consonant
>[j ɥ w] before vowel
[b d ɡ v z ʒ]>[p t k f s ʃ]/_#

Orthography:
m , n , nn (except /ŋɡ/<ng> and /ŋk/<nk>)
pp , p , b , tt , t , d , kk , k , g , q
v , s , j , x
cc , c , z
r, l , ll
i , y , u , w
ee
e , o
a

As we created the orthography, people became more reluctant to use any diacritics or letters other than the 26 of English. There was a significant division between the participants regarding the symbol for /e/. One faction wanted <ee>, and the other wanted <h>. It was decided when one person changed their vote that <ee> would represent /e/ and <h> would represent a hiatus between adjacent vowels, if this is to occur. These decisions are generally subject to change. The choice of double letters as a way of representing different sounds came about after a general agreement that gemination and vowel length will not be contrastive.

We then created a small lexicon. For now, I will post words here, but once we have a large number of them I will likely keep a Google Doc or such to function as the language’s dictionary. It was proposed and not opposed that verbal infinitives (whether we will have what is actually considered an “infinitive” remains to be decided) begin in aspirated consonants (4 options).
ccando /t͡sʰandɔ/ = to eat; kkongo /kʰɔŋɡɔ/ = to drink; ttaj /tʰaʃ/ = to cook; ppeex /pʰex/ = to go; ttin /tʰin/ = to see; ppyvty /pʰyfty/ = to fly; qo /qɔ/ = boy; ji- /ʒi-/ = ergative prefix; tam /tam/ = ball; ccak /t͡sʰak/ = to kick; dyete /dɥɛtɛ/ = cake; llej /ɫɛʃ/ = water
In the bisyllabic words we began naturally using penultimate stress. Stress patterns have otherwise not been considered.

Finally, as you might suspect from one of the “words”, we chose to have ergative-absolutive alignment and generally prefixing morphology.

[Creyeditor]

Interesting
I thought about double letters at the beginning of the word and if they look okay to you, but you just regulized that. I like that

[Kuhron]

Interesting
I thought about double letters at the beginning of the word and if they look okay to you, but you just regulized that. I like that

Yeah, it still looks pretty funky to me, but I'm getting used to it. It'll be fun to use words that look like "ccwttynn"

[Kuhron]

Fourth update:

Spoiler:

November 7, 2012

This week we focused on making decisions regarding the language’s grammar. Some minor changes to phonology and orthography are as follows:

• No word-initial consonant clusters are permitted. If affixation causes a word to begin with a consonant cluster, add a meaningless a-.
• > [ɨ]/_[q x ɫ]
• <nq>[ɴq], <nx>[ŋx~ɴχ], <nll>[ŋɫ]

We decided on the VSO word. Verbs are marked with prefixes for the subject and direct object, with the one in the absolutive case coming first. The verb and these two arguments are double-marked, i.e., the verb receives prefixes for the case, number, and person of the subject and direct object, and the nouns receive prefixes denoting their case and number. So far overt pronouns have not been used; it was assumed that a sentence such as “He sees us.” will consist solely of an inflected verb. The prefixes used for these purposes are fusional. The proposed verb tenses are future, present, past, and remote past.

For the present tense at least, the initial aspirated consonant of the citation form is changed to the corresponding voiced consonant. (e.g. ccak → zak)

The grammatical numbers are singulative, paucal, plural, and collective plural. The collective is not used and the paucal is not distinguished from the plural for first and second person.

Verbal prefixes:


Noun prefixes:


The symbol N indicates a nasal assimilated to the following consonant. If the following sound is a vowel, N defaults to [n].

Nouns may be definite. The semantics of this are not yet formalized. The definite prefix is N- and comes directly before the noun itself, after case and number prefixes. The indefinite is unmarked.

One new word was created for the purpose of using adjectives: vel [vɛl] = beautiful.

Numbers: ata = 1, asi = 2, agon = 3, anne = 4, alla = 5. If the number is modifying a noun, the initial a- drops off to cause the number to cliticize. Nothing may come between a noun and a number modifying it. The paucal and collective numbers may not be used together with a cliticized number.
Examples: one boy = qo ata → qota; one beautiful boy = qo ata vel → qota vel.

Besides prefixing in the ergative and absolutive, other noun morphology was not considered. However, the following additional cases were proposed: genitive, instrumental, locative, ablative, allative, directive (it was said to have similar semantics to a partitive direct object, e.g. “He eats the food-directive.” = “He eats of the food.”)
It was proposed that the genitive case involve a prefix ki-.

Adjectives and nouns are the same part of speech. If the word is a substantive, it follows the described rules for nouns. If the word modifies another adjectivally, a suffix –a is added.

Example sentences:
The boy drinks the water.
Wvagongo jinqo wnllej.

One beautiful boy drinks a water.
Ryvagongo juqota vela llej.

I see the beautiful ones.
Answdin mevel.

[eldin raigmore]

... The verb and these two arguments are double-marked, i.e., the verb receives prefixes for the case, number, and person of the subject and direct object, and the nouns receive prefixes denoting their case and number. ...

1) Yay double marking!

2a) I can conceive of no reason whatsoever for marking the verb with the case of any participant.
Grammatical/syntactical/functional cases, such as Nominative or Absolutive, Accusative or Ergative, Dative or Dechticaetiative, and Genitive or Construct, really only tell you what Grammatical/syntactical Relation/function the thus-cased noun has; so the morpheme marking the case of the Subject or of the primary Object on the verb could only ever have one value.

2b) OTOH it's both naturalistic and realistic to mark the semantic role of the Subject on the verb; that's Grammatical Voice.
And marking the semantic role of the primary Object on the verb is a kind of Applicative "voice".
For instance there might be no marking to show that the Subject is the Patient (Absolutive), and likewise none to show that the primary Object is the Agent (Ergative). But if the Subject is the Agent the verb might be marked as Anti-Passive Voice. And if the primary Object is the Recipient the Verb might be marked in some particular Applicative "Voice".

If the Case-marking of the Subject just tells you its Grammatical Relation to the verb is "it's the Subject", and does not tell you what Semantic Role (or Thematic Role or Theta-Role or Deep Case Role) it plays, then that information must be marked somewhere else, such as on the verb; if it is in fact marked on the verb, that's a Voice-marking.
And, if the Case-marking of the primary Object just tells you its Grammatical Relation to the verb is "it's the primary Object", and does not tell you what Semantic Role (or Thematic Role or ... etc.) it plays, then that information must be marked somewhere else, such as on the verb; if it is in fact marked on the verb, that's a "Voice-like" marking (a kind of Applicative "voice").

For that matter, if the Case-marking of the secondary Object just tells you its Grammatical Relation to the verb is "it's the secondary Object", and does not tell you what Semantic Role it plays, then that information must be marked somewhere else, such as on the verb; if it is in fact marked on the verb, that's a "Voice-like" marking too, though I don't know what to call it.

Assuming your language is Absolutive/Ergative/Dative, then the Subject will be assumed to be the Patient or Theme, the Primary Object will be assumed to be the Agent, and the Secondary Object will be assumed to be the Recipient, unless voice-marking on the verb says different.

Possibly your language has only two Grammatical Relations, namely Subject and Object; in which case you won't have any Secondary Objects, and the case-marking of the third participant in any ditransitive clauses, will specify its Semantic Role (not its Grammatical Relation).

[hr][/hr]

Does your language have three-valent verbs? Ditransitive verbs? Two kinds of Object? Three Grammatical Relations?
Suppose it does.
Then you must have at least three "syntactical" (i.e. not "semantic") cases to handle the difference between the Donor, the Recipient, and the Theme (entity located or moved) in ditransitive clauses. These cases will mark those particular Semantic Roles unless the verb's Voice-marking says different.

It also needs at least two syntactical cases to distinguish the Agent from the Patient in the prototypical monotransitive clauses. Again these cases will mark particular Semantic Roles, depending on the verb, unless the verb's Voice-marking indicates differently.
For most languages exactly two of the cases for ditransitive clauses will be re-used in the monotransitive clauses.
If you have A=D and P=T that's called Dative alignment. If you have A=D and P=R that's called Dechticaetiative alignment.
(Other alignments exist; for some of them all three ditransitive cases can be used in monotransitive clauses, while for others there's a case used in monotransitive clauses that's not used in ditransitive clauses.)

Your language also needs a syntactical cases for the Subject of monovalent (that is, one-participant) intransitive clauses.
For most languages exactly one of the cases for monotransitive clauses will be re-used in the intransitive clauses.
If you have S=A that's called Nominative/Accusative alignment. If you have S=P that's called Ergative/Absolutive alignment.
(Other alignments exist; for some of them both monotransitive cases can be used in intransitive clauses, while for others there's a case used in intransitive clauses that's not used in transitive clauses.)

The names "Absolutive" and "Nominative" were both chosen because those cases are usually "zero-marked"; that is, nothing happens to the noun's root or stem to show that its case is Absolutive or Nominative.
There are languages with marked Absolutives or marked Nominatives, but that's not the usual thing.
It's one of Greenberg's "Universals" that, if one of the cases is zero-marked, one of that case's meanings is "subject of an intransitive clause". IIRC that has turned out (since Greenberg) to be true "with overwhelmingly greater than chance frequency", rather than for absolutely every language with cases.