Self-explanatory roots in conlang using Hangeul script?

[Arichichi]

Hello,

I'm new here. My strategy for learning about conlangs is to try and fail first before I sit to diligently study from others. However, before I admit failure, I need to recognize the pit falls of the system I'm working on.

I was thinking of using Hangeul script and phonology for my first attempt at conlangengineering.

My idea was to consider creating a conlang where even the roots admit an etymology. For example, the void consonant ㅇ would serve for pronouns. Thus 이 is 'I' 아 is male 'you' 어 is female 'you' 우 is 'he' and 오 is 'she', which allows to derive 와 and 워 as some appropriate ways of saying 'you' to someone who identifies as non-binary gender.

If you replace ㅇ with ㄴ you get possessive pronouns, if you use ㅁ instead you get location words, thus 마 means left 머 means right 모 means below from 'she' and 무 means above from 'he' not in a sexist fashion, but rather as a symbolism for the most natural and mainstream way both genders get to mingle.

I think it may be hard to build a language where every other close vocabulary sounds nearly the same, I have a hard time remembering the vocabulary myself. But doesn't it seem like an abstraction that would allow machines to organically understand human language?

I'm considering using ㄷ for verb inflections and build it's syllabic possibilities through deriving the meaning from previous syllables built with ㅇ ㄴ ㅁ and see how it goes.

In what way is my project a waste of time? I assume that one can help this project just by preserving the role the vowels play and substituting the consonants with different ones to make sure that the vocabulary is easier to remember, but then it would potentially undermine the advantages of having an etymologically appealing baby conlang where even roots have atoms.

[Salmoneus]

Hello,

Hi!

I'm new here. My strategy for learning about conlangs is to try and fail first before I sit to diligently study from others. However, before I admit failure, I need to recognize the pit falls of the system I'm working on.

This seems like a healthy attitude to have.

My idea was to consider creating a conlang where even the roots admit an etymology. For example, the void consonant ㅇ would serve for pronouns. Thus 이 is 'I' 아 is male 'you' 어 is female 'you' 우 is 'he' and 오 is 'she'

I'll stop you there - not for the idea, but to clarify terminology.
What we're talking about here isn't exactly etymology - where words historically come from - but just semantics (what they mean). And what you seem to be doing is having each phoneme have a meaning, which in my opinion means each phoneme is a root, although I'm not sure to what extent 'root' really has a single, translinguistic technical meaning so I guess it doesn't matter.

In any case, the underlying idea you're having here is "oligosynthesis": a language in which the meaning of every word is transparent, because it derives productively from meanings associated with small elements, such as one-meaning-per-phoneme.

Actually, oligosynthesis AIUI is defined as when a language has only a very small number of 'root' lexical items, and all surface words are composed of that core vocabulary through compounding. But of course functionally this is the same as the definition in the last paragraph, since on the one hand a useable language in which almost all words are complex compounds requires the roots themselves to be very short, and on the other hand a language in which short elements are the only roots must have only a very small number of roots, because human languages have a very small number of phonemes in each.

which allows to derive 와 and 워 as some appropriate ways of saying 'you' to someone who identifies as non-binary gender.

A sidenote: if you're concerned with having a language that accomodates alternative genders, the easiest thing by far to do would be to simply not have gender-specific pronouns in the first place. Once you have gender, you have gender: you've suggested too alternative pronouns, but that just means you've created two new genders, and you'll still be left with people who don't identfy as either - for a start, both your 'non-binary' gender suggestions are explicitly hermaphrodite in their semantics (both genders), which will not please people who see themselves as non-gendered (neither gender).

If you replace ㅇ with ㄴ you get possessive pronouns, if you use ㅁ instead you get location words, thus 마 means left 머 means right 모 means below from 'she' and 무 means above from 'he' not in a sexist fashion, but rather as a symbolism for the most natural and mainstream way both genders get to mingle.

... I have literally ZERO idea what you are talking about here, but the obsession with gender (as a location word!?) and use of words like 'natural' and 'mainstream' is disconcerting.

I think it may be hard to build a language where every other close vocabulary sounds nearly the same, I have a hard time remembering the vocabulary myself. But doesn't it seem like an abstraction that would allow machines to organically understand human language?

Not really, I'm afraid. Computers are really good at using dictionaries, no matter how arbitrary the meanings, so vocabulary is not the big problem computers have with human language.

In what way is my project a waste of time?

Well, other than the way any artistic endeavour is in some sense a 'waste' of time, it isn't really - it could be an interesting experiment for you.

However, there are at least three big reasons why oligosynthesis doesn't actually happen in real languages, and which would cause problems for your project...


1. People imagine that such a system would lead to transparent meanings in compounds. But in fact it does not. If you don't know the word for 'gannet', you can't guess it, because although you know it will be based on some semantic reasoning, you don't know what that reasoning is - you don't know if you should say 'idiot bird', 'man bird', 'white bird', 'bubble-skin bird', 'greedy bird', and so on. [the English 'gannet' actually comes from 'man bird', and the scientific name just means 'idiot'.] And vice versa, if you come across a compound like "white ocean bird", you don't know if it means a gannet or a tropicbird or a gull or a tern or a...

Therefore, each specific compound has to be learnt as though it were a lexical item in its own right, which it is. And then the fact that it's etymologically related to certain roots is not actually useful in any way.

2. This is a very inefficient way to assign strings of phonemes to meanings. For instance, even if you add additional roots to clarify details, you'll find lots and lots of words containing the roots for "white ocean bird", and very, very few words containing the roots for "invisible pink octopus". A large part of the vocabulary ends up needing certain roots, while most roots are virtually unused. That makes it difficult to make that vocabulary without it getting very lengthy. Compare "pointy white stupid-horny Scottish floaty seabird" with "gannet".

3. If every phoneme has a meaning, any change of phoneme changes the meaning. This means the language lacks 'redundancy' - the property of containing much more information than is necessary. It is common for a huge percentage of phonemes to be misheard or not heard at all in speech, and even text contains typos and invites misreadings. Normally this is not a problem: if you heard that last clause as "Mornally thiz iss nit a plublem", you still understand what I said - indeed, you probably don't even notice that it sounds odd (it's more odd in text than in speech because we expect text to be more accurate). But if every phoneme means a change iin meaning, confusing readings become much more common - and, more problematically, readings that you don't even realise are confusing but are just wrong. This is particularly likely in a highly 'structured' vocabulary like this, because it means that slightly different words have similar, and hence easily confused (because more likely to occur in the same situations), meanings, whereas in an arbitrary system slightly different words have random meanings, so it's easier to guess which is meant. In an oligosynthetic language, "tern" and "gannet" probably sound very similar, and when someone's talking about a tern they could equally plausible be talking about a gannet much of the time, so it's hard to guess which word they said if you didn't hear it correctly. But if I say "I saw a tern flying over the other day", you can be pretty certain right away that I didn't say "learn", "gurn", "burn", "term" or "torn", and are probably pretty confident I probably didn't say "fern" or "Herne". If "tern" means a tern and "dern" means a gannet, on the other hand, confusion is highly likely!


This oesn't mean you shouldn't experiment wih this project. One of the most famous conlangs, Toki Pona, claims to use only a small number of short root words and derives everything else through compounds (albeit it uses longer roots than just one syllable). It's very popular. But it also isn't really like a language exactly - because the compounds aren't treated as lexical items, and hence aren't fixed, every sentence is a sort of poem, or game of charades. People find this fun. They just wouldn't find it a useful way to communicate!

[Arichichi]

Thanks a lot for some quite lengthy answer I wasn't expecting. Your reply was very instructive and kind of covers all the concerns I had, plus some others I didn't even think of.
As for gender, I also happen to have 의 which is ambiguous and ambivalent at the same time, lending chance to designate the present, the absent, the few, the many, as well as being applicable to known or unknown person. This makes some words which can't exist without being possessed, have words with this pronoun. I can't say "hand" or "a hand" in my conlang, rather the word for it needs to be "one's hand" or "my hand", same for every "organ" of the body, which gets "one's organ" as a name. Also, when it comes to things such as top-left and bottom-right, I figured I should order my compounds alphabetically before I apply compounding to lend some kind of uniqueness to the compound-building strategy.

I feel so ashamed to ask a follow-up question given the time I took away from you, but do you think that, if I go along the route I started, there is a chance I could end up with a vocabulary mold that would allow me to output different languages with ease?

At least, what seems to me to be true when it comes to getting hands-on with things is that there comes a time when you want to know the theory behind what you are doing and it gets easier to absorb knowledge as you already have something to relate. (Vs.) When you have a lot of theoretical knowledge at first, you become the engineer that needs to plan everything ahead of time, and you end up putting hurdles before you that prevent you from mastering the craft.

Anyway, thanks for your thorough answer, and warm welcome to this blessed forum.

[Khemehekis]

Arichichi, I have to say I love your screenname! It reminds me of Ariana Grande and Vlchichi.

[Arichichi]

I have just written my first sentence in my conlang. I'm trying to make it self explanatory but it seems harder than I thought

니돠 우두 나둬드돠 우더.
I request that you do the work.
Transliteration:
Ni-doa u-du na-dueo-deu-doa u-deo.

Here is the lexicon:

Ni: I
Na: you
-doa: subject marker
-dueo: object marker
-deu: marker connector (dueo-deu-doa: object turning into subject of what's coming next, kind of relative clause)
U: he
U-du: to request
U-deo: work

It's like

I request you that you work.

What do you think of my grammar?

[lsd]

However, there are at least three big reasons why oligosynthesis doesn't actually happen in real languages, and which would cause problems for your project...

these are classic criticisms of a priori languages since Couturat...

however, the languages thus created are not the least, from that of Wilkins for the classical period, to solresol for the XIX, aUI in the 20th and toki pona in the 21st...

it's really a fun to play with...

for 1/ in language a priori it is not the predefined words that produce the discourse, but the discourse (the set of roots) that defines things... so it doesn't matter what the "name" of the bird is, but rather the qualities spoken of in the discourse that add up to define what it is...

for 2/ yet in writing these languages are often shorter...

for 3/ it's true that in the absence of double articulation, spelling mistakes are mistakes of meaning...
but they are easily spotted and the longer the discourse, the more they can be corrected, the brain is a formidable machine for producing combinations of signs and meanings...

[Creyeditor]

I have just written my first sentence in my conlang. I'm trying to make it self explanatory but it seems harder than I thought

니돠 우두 나둬드돠 우더.
I request that you do the work.
Transliteration:
Ni-doa u-du na-dueo-deu-doa u-deo.

Here is the lexicon:

Ni: I
Na: you
-doa: subject marker
-dueo: object marker
-deu: marker connector (dueo-deu-doa: object turning into subject of what's coming next, kind of relative clause)
U: he
U-du: to request
U-deo: work

It's like

I request you that you work.

What do you think of my grammar?

Glossing helps me to understand your sentence. Here is a gloss (try googling Leipzig Glossing Rules for more on this).

니돠 우두 나둬드돠 우더.
Ni-doa udu na-dueo-deu-doa udeo.
I-SUBJ request you-OBJ-CONN-SUBJ work
I request that you do the work.

I think your deu connector could be called a complementizer or a conjunction because it introduces an embedded/dependent/complement clause. Still, I like this idea and I think it looks pretty unique to me, yet naturalistic. How would you form a sentence like 'I request that I do the work'?

[Arichichi]

Thanks for the encouraging comments.

For 'I request that I do the work' I saw that the subject is reflexive in the first clause, and I don't want to repeat tokens too much in the language. So I thought I could use one feature which is the reflexive subject marker and make the subject appear after the verb

So it would give something like 'Request I-to-I-that-I do the work'

우두 니되드돠 우더.
U-du ni-doi-deu-doa u-deo.

As of now, I stumbled upon the question of dealing with the future and finding a way to express future tense, and I really like how Japanese and Chinese place the future behind them as something that they can't see, and the past in front them, as if walking in time suggests that you step backwards and discover what is behind you. So since I had room for connectors, I have one which means, 'with the knowledge of'...
So, future tense is 'with the knowledge of behind'

나돠 우도드먀댜 우더.
You-SUBJ serve-CONN-behind-INFL(with the knowledge of) work.
You will serve a work.
=You will work.

So, how it works is basically close to Chinese where a verb that can be intransitive is more often than not given a dummy object that quantizes the action. Like, "to run" becomes "to run steps".

So here, 우도 (serve) and 우더 (work) come both from 우 (he)
Where 도 conveys passivity but not in a grammatical sense, and 더 has something to do with objects. Returning to passivity, I would say the active version of serve is command, just so it may be clear in what sense I'm talking about passivity here.

[Creyeditor]

Thanks for the encouraging comments.

For 'I request that I do the work' I saw that the subject is reflexive in the first clause, and I don't want to repeat tokens too much in the language. So I thought I could use one feature which is the reflexive subject marker and make the subject appear after the verb

So it would give something like 'Request I-to-I-that-I do the work'

우두 니되드돠 우더.
U-du ni-doi-deu-doa u-deo.

As of now, I stumbled upon the question of dealing with the future and finding a way to express future tense, and I really like how Japanese and Chinese place the future behind them as something that they can't see, and the past in front them, as if walking in time suggests that you step backwards and discover what is behind you. So since I had room for connectors, I have one which means, 'with the knowledge of'...
So, future tense is 'with the knowledge of behind'

나돠 우도드먀댜 우더.
You-SUBJ serve-CONN-behind-INFL(with the knowledge of) work.
You will serve a work.
=You will work.

So, how it works is basically close to Chinese where a verb that can be intransitive is more often than not given a dummy object that quantizes the action. Like, "to run" becomes "to run steps".

So here, 우도 (serve) and 우더 (work) come both from 우 (he)
Where 도 conveys passivity but not in a grammatical sense, and 더 has something to do with objects. Returning to passivity, I would say the active version of serve is command, just so it may be clear in what sense I'm talking about passivity here.

Both ideas look really interesting. What does 'doi' mean in your first example?

우두 니되드돠 우더.
Udu ni-doi-deu-doa u-deo.
request I-???-CONN work
'I request that I work.'

And sorry for asking more questions. How would you say 'I request of you that he does the work'? This all reminds me of a phenomrnon known as 'switch reference' in some languages. They mark two connected clauses for the identity or non-identity of some argument.

The periphrastic future looks a bit like an auxiliary verb in English, except that it incorporates an adposition 'behind'. Can 'behind' and 'with the knowledge of' be used independently in contexts other than future reference?
Also, could you give a transliteration for your second sentence? I am really interested but I can't read hangeul.

[Arichichi]

우두 니되드돠 우더.
U-du ni-doi-deu-doa u-deo.

[...]So since I had room for connectors, I have one which means, 'with the knowledge of'...
So, future tense is 'with the knowledge of behind'

나돠 우도드먀댜 우더.
Na-doa u-do-deu-mya-dya u-deo
You-SUBJ serve-CONN-behind-INFL(with the knowledge of) work.
You will serve a work.
=You will work.

So, how it works is basically close to Chinese where a verb that can be intransitive is more often than not given a dummy object that quantizes the action. Like, "to run" becomes "to run steps".
[...]

Both ideas look really interesting. What does 'doi' mean in your first example?

우두 니되드돠 우더.
Udu ni-doi-deu-doa u-deo.
request I-???-CONN work
'I request that I work.'

And sorry for asking more questions. How would you say 'I request of you that he does the work'? This all reminds me of a phenomrnon known as 'switch reference' in some languages. They mark two connected clauses for the identity or non-identity of some argument.

The periphrastic future looks a bit like an auxiliary verb in English, except that it incorporates an adposition 'behind'. Can 'behind' and 'with the knowledge of' be used independently in contexts other than future reference?
Also, could you give a transliteration for your second sentence? I am really interested but I can't read hangeul.

우두 니되드돠 우더.
Udu ni-doi-deu-doa u-deo.
request I-???(INFL(=subject is object))-CONN-SUBJ work.

I hope these lines above answer your question.

Since subject is object, I don't put it as subject and I have a marker for when that is the case, most useful in case of reflexive verbs. Yet, you can see that the verb comes first, this is because I want least count of appearance of words so I prepare 'I' for the relative clause by not putting it first.

As for your other questions, it pleases me that you push me to think about my project, so with this, I'm the happiest conlanger ever.

'I request of you that he does the work'
Would become...

'I request of you concerning him that he does the work'

Seen in terms of location because all I have are location markers...

'I request of you (that you place yourself) on him so that he does the work'

'On' is myu 뮤

니돠 우두 나둬 누뮤드돠 우더.
Ni-doa udu na-dueo nu-myu-deu-doa udeo.
I-SUBJ request you-OBJ he-ADP(on)-CONN-SUBJ work.

So, all in all, the request is for you that concerning (on) him he does the work. So, in some sense, I also imply that it is under your supervision. I could have found a way to use (with the knowledge of) in this case in the following manner.

니돠 우두 나둬 누뮤드돠 나댜 우더.
Ni-doa udu na-dueo nu-myu-deu-doa na-dya u-deo.
I-SUBJ request you-OBJ he-ADP(on)-CONN-SUBJ you-INFL(with the knowledge of) work.

The nuance here is that not only it happens under your supervision, but you are requested to witness the act of him working.

As much as possible, the verb comes last, except for relative clauses or direct object. I'm not sure if I've been respecting my last statement in the examples.

[Arichichi]

Here is the transliteration you asked about...

나돠 우도드먀댜 우더.
ni-doa udo-deu-mya-dya udeo
You-SUBJ serve-CONN-behind-INFL(with the knowledge of) work.
You will serve a work.
=You will work.

[Creyeditor]

Interesting I guess you could gloss 'doi' as 'REFL' and 'myu' as 'on'. The 'myu' bit is interestingly different from English in that the other argument becomes marked with an adposition. Looking forward to seeing more of that connector system.

[Arichichi]

I was thinking of finding use for my conlang in a fantasy world where magic is possible. So, I was thinking of a way to incorporate a system related to how we use language as a means of creating spells.
To exemplify the way spells come into being, I want to create a cast system that my world will rely on: basically, everyone believes magic exists but only a few know how it works. Those who know how it works can't do spells, they can only create illusions like turning water into wine through the assassin teapot which has two inner chambers and two slits connected to each chamber that would allow you to select which chamber pours its content. Thereby, a magician would put wine into chamber A out of sight, fill chamber B with water in front of people, and select slit A and pour wine before people, thereby achieving an illusion, not a magical spell. To encourage people to create spells that do what the illusion does, the ruling cast enriches illusion craftsmen so that aspiring poor people would want to become like them by doing the same thing. Some succeed, and some don't. Illusion craftsmen have a network of spies who crawl the streets looking for people who perform spells in order to draw inspiration for new illusions that will allow them to remain rich and respected by the ruling class.
The aspiring magicians, who are originally poor, are sometimes carefully put forward as success stories so that the magic still lives on and the dream is kept alive. Thereby, they become in-the-know and lose their powers, and resort to crafting illusions. The true innate magicians however, are carefully protected by the illusion craftsmen, and the former are oblivious of the protection of the latter, yet the former's aspiration for fame and money keeps them breaking the natural laws and creating spells and spreading their knowledge about them, hoping that they would get some attention so that they climb the social ladder. Yet, as they don't want no business with real magicians, the rich cast, afraid of their illusion forgeries' repercussions on them and of some punishment from the poor true magicians, make sure, through their influence networks, that all the poor magicians keep spending all their accumulated money on how-to books, gadgets and amulets that are supposed to somehow ease the process of spell creation, oblivious of their innate capacities, since no one is ready to believe that they have magical powers. And because no one believes them, they keep breaking the laws of nature and inspiring the greater cast who keep creating illusions, how-to books, gadgets and amulets to keep them as the only ones in the know, and keep the poor class as the fuel for progress.
In this world, there's no need for an army to create technological progress, since all it takes is a learned middle class who are rational and pragmatic in order to push them to invent tools that will be commonplace and replace magic. The learned class hate the gods of this world and feel that magic connects the fate of the people with the will of the gods and the learned class don't want that. So they invent machines that do rationally magical things, to amass riches, gain influence, and cast down the illusion craftsmen. Yet, the craftsmen have many cards in their sleeves and spread fear into the learned class by killing carefully chosen people who tend to be too inventive. This lowers the morale of great inventors who resort to becoming poor magicians, and frames not so great inventors so that they don't aspire to solve some big monolithic problems with an ambitious invention project. This, in turn helps the progress be at a low pace, and no cultural jump is deemed possible, which eases recording history, and makes the question of identity, very stable throughout the ages.

[Keenir]

I was thinking of finding use for my conlang in a fantasy world where magic is possible. So, I was thinking of a way to incorporate a system related to how we use language as a means of creating spells.
To exemplify the way spells come into being, I want to create a cast system that my world will rely on: basically, everyone believes magic exists

even the pragmatic people who are ruling, or except for them?

but only a few know how it works. Those who know how it works can't do spells,

?

{{snip where I suspect i was not as helpful as could've been done}}

This, in turn helps the progress be at a low pace, and no cultural jump is deemed possible,

Cultural jump?

which eases recording history, and makes the question of identity, very stable throughout the ages.

Oh identity isn't tied to invention...at least not for humans.

[Arichichi]

By cultural jump, I meant cultural revolution, sorry.
And when it comes to the relationship between invention and identity, I tend to disagree. The way we see life, as 90s children is way different from 70s people who saw the technological boom happen slowly as they were waiting for the next big gadget, while our fellow millennial children are less thrilled by technological advances than us, and are more pragmatic when dealing with new features. They don't look at invention features from the perspective of art, rather they only see the practical aspect. Of course, I'm over generalizing because I'm talking about culture and identity, which are concepts that are only valid in a generalization point of view.

[Keenir]

By cultural jump, I meant cultural revolution, sorry.

no worries; thank you.

Though I'm wondering why nobody gets rid of those "hated gods" or tries to link magic to something that isn't seemingly as painful as those hated gods.

(also, why do people lose their magic when they learn a spell? and what keeps the spies and illusionists from taking over?)

And when it comes to the relationship between invention and identity, I tend to disagree. The way we see life, as 90s children is way different from 70s people who saw the technological boom happen slowly as they were waiting for the next big gadget, while our fellow millennial children are less thrilled by technological advances than us, and are more pragmatic when dealing with new features.

Possible sample bias, but I don't know many millenials who are technologically pragmatic or unthrilled by advances. (they're swamped by the glut of choices for things nowadays, but so are the 90s and 70s children)

They don't look at invention features from the perspective of art, rather they only see the practical aspect. Of course, I'm over generalizing

Now I'm curious where your (over)generalizations are based on.

[Salmoneus]

And when it comes to the relationship between invention and identity, I tend to disagree. The way we see life, as 90s children is way different from 70s people who saw the technological boom happen slowly as they were waiting for the next big gadget, while our fellow millennial children are less thrilled by technological advances than us, and are more pragmatic when dealing with new features. They don't look at invention features from the perspective of art, rather they only see the practical aspect. Of course, I'm over generalizing because I'm talking about culture and identity, which are concepts that are only valid in a generalization point of view.

Nobody would deny that technological changes can lead to cultural changes, and that cultural change can be a factor in distinguishing different identities. For instance, I've always felt that older millennials like myself, who grew up in a time of limited home computers and the early web - the Encarta-and-Messenger generation rather than the Wikipedia-and-Facebook generation - in many ways have more in common culturally with younger Gen-Xers (the Amipro-and-Usenet generation, as it were) than with later Millennials who grew up with a near-omnipresent web, including facebook/myspace, wikipedia, google usw.

However, it is a VASTLY stronger and more tendentious claim to make to that identity is ONLY the result of technological change. If you look at the great divisions of identity in european history - socialist and capitalist, or german and french, or whig and tory, or protestant and catholic, or guelph and ghibelline, these identities hardly ever reflect significant technological changes. Likewise, social and cultural change, including changes in identity, have frequently occured within long, long stretches of limited technological progress. Just look at the history of the roman empire!

---------------

A bigger issue with your proposed society, though, is just that it appears to require a mid-20th-century totalitarian state to actually implement it even for just a few times - and, you may remember, 20th century totalitarian states were not very long-lived themselves. Actual historical societies were far less conspiratorial, and more chaotic, than I think you realise. There were no society-defining secrets that the rulers kept from the populace, because there was no power structure that could enforce secrecy. Even in modern China today - arguably the society in the whole of human history in which the State has the most control over what people know - it is impossible to completely control access to information. This woud go double in a society in which you're trying to keep information from actual magic-users! And likewise, there would never be a vast, society-wide conspiracy to secretly assassinate prominent scientists, because that sort of organisation would just be completely out of reach of any pre-modern state. How would the Conspiracy even work out who to assassinate? Remember that in a pre-modern society the fog of war is permanent: it is almost impossible to get any extensive information about anybody not currently in your line of sight!

[Arichichi]

Replying to last criticism...

When it comes to implementation, it is noteworthy that the world isn't ours, obviously, since it doesn't happen to accommodate for magic.
Plus, if we consider that failure of totalitarian regimes could be traced to a dice roll, we can just accept that the dice roll led to different results. For example, my world could have a fewer people which would make the pool of clever ideas and decisions a little less massive. Which then would lead to the ruling class outpowering the poor, which in turn, cannot create riot movements because they're just not powerful enough in numbers to actually risk being killed lest some of them break through the ranks of ruling-class defensive powers.
One way to see my society, even I do use the word technology, would be closer to medieval times, where I would simply allow you to notice that in magical lands, you can have full-fledged spies who are actually sort of seers who scry the land for clues of what people think, where new thoughts arise, and the like, while those spies happen to have genetic extra-sensory perception capabilities that the establishment of the ruling class can detect early on in schools, where they would just kidnap those children and let them grow as infants of the state, as they forget about their parents and get accustomed to the ruling class' values.

[Arichichi]

I don't know why, but I feel like I want to turn this conlang into something useful for a tabletop RPG. The community is scarce around where I live. Even people that are aware that conlangs do exist are very few. I'm putting myself under pressure to actually start being productive. Yet, since my language will be akin to an engelang, it takes time to craft the vocabulary due to necessity of consistency from one word to the next. Any tips?

[Keenir]

I don't know why, but I feel like I want to turn this conlang into something useful for a tabletop RPG. The community is scarce around where I live. Even people that are aware that conlangs do exist are very few. I'm putting myself under pressure to actually start being productive. Yet, since my language will be akin to an engelang, it takes time to craft the vocabulary due to necessity of consistency from one word to the next. Any tips?

Yes. If your goal is productivity, you might want to start small...say, with a garden.

Seriously, a garden is a good idea (particularly if you label your crops and pots in your conlang)...and making an RPG would be interesting. Though I suspect this setting may be a bit too backstory-heavy to start with; maybe as a destination for the adventuring party to venture towards?

Replying to last criticism...
When it comes to implementation, it is noteworthy that the world isn't ours, obviously, since it doesn't happen to accommodate for magic.
Plus, if we consider that failure of totalitarian regimes could be traced to a dice roll, we can just accept that the dice roll led to different results. For example, my world could have a fewer people which would make the pool of clever ideas and decisions a little less massive.

eh, probably a bit of a roll of the proverbial die - Newton and Galileo didn't exactly lack for intellectual equals in England and Italy respectively...but okay; as a setting description, it works.

Which then would lead to the ruling class outpowering the poor, which in turn, cannot create riot movements because they're just not powerful enough in numbers to actually risk being killed lest some of them break through the ranks of ruling-class defensive powers.

wait...the poor don't riot...because not only are they not powerful, but they also are outnumbered by the rich...and also because the poor don't want to break through/into(?) the ranks of ruling powers?

that the establishment of the ruling class can detect early on in schools, where they would just kidnap those children and let them grow as infants of the state, as they forget about their parents and get accustomed to the ruling class' values.

But you said that, if anyone starts to grasp their powers and use them, they lose their powers...so what do the rulers do when their spies inevitably lose their scrying skills?

Or has that italicized portion been removed?


(though i do think it cool that the rich have set up schools for all the poor people, thus providing universal education, all in the hope that they get a scryer or five) :D