-------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.npiec.on.ca!dboese From: dboese@freenet.npiec.on.ca (Daniel Boese) Newsgroups: sci.lang Subject: Simple constructed language Date: 5 May 1997 02:13:10 GMT Organization: Business Education Council of Niagara Lines: 14 Message-ID: <5kjfnm$uva$1@brain.npiec.on.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet.npiec.on.ca X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: news.npiec.on.ca sci.lang:8523 I'm creating a fictional world (for my own amusement), and I'd like to make a simple language for the species that lives there. However, I know that I'm not a linguist, so there's probably some important things that I wouldn't think of that I should make decisions about - for example, I know a noun from a verb, but I'm not clear on the difference between tense and aspect. Can anybody suggest where I can find some resources for basic linguistics? Or, better yet, post a few words about some of the basic features of language? Hoping I don't sound too ignorant, -------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.npiec.on.ca!torn!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!access4.digex.net! pobart From: Paul O Bartlett Newsgroups: sci.lang Subject: Re: Simple constructed language Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 09:39:03 -0400 Organization: Express Access Private Account Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <5kjfnm$uva$1@brain.npiec.on.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: pobart@access4.digex.net In-Reply-To: <5kjfnm$uva$1@brain.npiec.on.ca> Return-Receipt-To: pobart@access.digex.net Xref: news.npiec.on.ca sci.lang:8556 On 5 May 1997, Daniel Boese wrote: > I'm creating a fictional world (for my own amusement), and I'd like to > make a simple language for the species that lives there. [...] Try the CONLANG mailing list. People there are making up fictional languages all the time and have had a lot of experience with it. The list address itself is conlang@brownvm.brown.edu so I suspect the subscription address is listserv@... I am not subscribed at the moment, so it is conceivable those addresses could have changed without my knowing about it. Good luck. -------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.npiec.on.ca!torn!newsfeed.direct.ca!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-ne ws-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!fu-berlin.de!informa tik.tu-muenchen.de!lrz-muenchen.de!not-for-mail From: Helmut.Richter@lrz-muenchen.de (Helmut Richter) Newsgroups: sci.lang Subject: Re: Simple constructed language Date: 5 May 1997 17:29:15 GMT Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany) Lines: 18 Distribution: world Message-ID: <5kl5db$5jv$1@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de> References: <5kjfnm$uva$1@brain.npiec.on.ca> Reply-To: Helmut.Richter@lrz-muenchen.de NNTP-Posting-Host: sun2.lrz-muenchen.de Xref: news.npiec.on.ca sci.lang:8564 dboese@freenet.npiec.on.ca (Daniel Boese) writes: > I'm creating a fictional world (for my own amusement), and I'd like to >make a simple language for the species that lives there. However, I know >that I'm not a linguist, so there's probably some important things that I >wouldn't think of that I should make decisions about - for example, I >know a noun from a verb, but I'm not clear on the difference between >tense and aspect. > Can anybody suggest where I can find some resources for basic >linguistics? Or, better yet, post a few words about some of the basic >features of language? Two references you might find useful: http://www.tezcat.com/~markrose/kit.html http://members.aol.com/JAHenning/mlindex.htm Helmut Richter -------------------------------------------------------- Path: news.npiec.on.ca!torn!howland.erols.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.um ich.edu!jlawler From: jlawler@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu (John M. Lawler) Newsgroups: sci.lang Subject: Re: Simple constructed language Date: 6 May 1997 11:52:48 GMT Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 60 Message-ID: <5kn62g$guf@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> References: <5kjfnm$uva$1@brain.npiec.on.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu Xref: news.npiec.on.ca sci.lang:8589 Daniel Boese writes: > I'm creating a fictional world (for my own amusement), and I'd like to > make a simple language for the species that lives there. However, I know > that I'm not a linguist, so there's probably some important things that > wouldn't think of that I should make decisions about - for example, I > know a noun from a verb, but I'm not clear on the difference between > tense and aspect. > Can anybody suggest where I can find some resources for basic > linguistics? Boy, can I. For precisely this purpose, Mark Rosenfelder has created The Language Construction Kit on the Web; the URL is http://www.tezcat.com/~markrose/kit.html There are also lots of resources available on the Eclectic Company, which I maintain sporadically (and which is due for an end-of-term upgrade soon, insha'allah). The URL is http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/lingmarks.html > Or, better yet, post a few words about some of the basic > features of language? Sorry, there is no such thing as a few words about some of the basic features of language. The thing about linguistics is that language is a *system*, and you can't understand just *some* of it; the only way things make sense is in a system with everything else. The next best thing is just one book about the basic features of language, and that book is David Crystal's "Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language", now in a very new, very-expanded and -improved Second Edition, in paperback. I've seen it at Border's at least. >Hoping I don't sound too ignorant, About normal on the scale of intelligent undergraduates I've developed from 25 years on the faculty at Michigan. Most of our students are Americans, who are usually taught only language mythology in school, and so come to college rather uninformed about its realities. In college they sometimes find out, but it's easy to miss. Takes a lot of rethinking of the mythology. This situation will no doubt improve over the coming centuries. It had better. Actually, you rank somewhat higher than average, because it occurred to you to find out about language instead of just assuming it. But then you're Canadian (or at least in Canada). Canada produces twice the number of bachelor's degrees in linguistics that the United States does (roughly 300 annually in the US, of which we awarded 23 this year at Michigan). Linguistics isn't as well-kept a secret there. -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 05 May 97 15:17:28 GMT From: Kristian Jensen To: Daniel Boese Subject: Re: Simple constructed language Hello Daniel, Join the club!! I'm also creating a fictional world for my own amusement! And I have also started to create a simple language for the species that live there. The only sources I have used are websites from the internet and an ordinary dictionary to define linguistic terms that I don't understand. Below I will give you the addresses of a few websites that I feel are good starters for you. I suggest that once you get to these websites, copy them into a disk for future reference. Then you do not have to surf the net everytime you need inspiration or information. First thing you might need is the "Language Construction Kit." It provides ideas to how your language might look like. It is found at http://www.texcat.com/%7Emarkrose/kit.html However, this may not be enough. If you want more detail on how to create a language and about linguistics in general, you may want to check out Rick Morneau's articles on the subject found at ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/r/ram/conlang These first two websites are merely linguistic information on how your language might "look" like (structure and sound). In fact, they give you an explanation of the basic features of languages that you asked for in your post. Allow me to also contribute though. The basic features of languages are sound and structure - i.e. phonology and morphology, and syntax. The two websites above explains this in more detail. But basically, the first thing you will need to do is to identify the possible sounds that your species can identify and produce. Secondly, you will have to identify the rules on how these sounds can be put together to produce morphemes (word roots, affixes, syllables, etc.). Then you can start creating a vocabulary. But I suggest that you start with the syntax at about the same time you are doing morphology because I have found that sometimes, syntax dictates the morphology of the language. Syntax is how meaning is created when the morphemes are put together. Note that not all languages have the same word classes (noun, pronoun, adjective, verb, adverb, prepositions, etc.) as English. Japanese for instance uses postpositions rather then prepositions. Many Austronesian languages (I speak Tagalog) doesn't have verbs or adjectives but uses something called statives instead. But why am I tellin you all this??? Check out the two websites, they can tell you much more than I can :-) But before you head straight into creating your language, it is adviceable to get inspired first. The best thing is of course to learn other languages. A short-cut would be to check out other model languages out there in the net. A good place to start is Jeffrey Henning's "Model Languages Homepage" where you will not only find a list of conlangs that are available in the net, but also free computer program that will aid you in creating a conlang - the Perseus Model Language Maker. The Model Language Homepage is found at http://members.aol.com/JAHenning/homepage.htm Another site where you might find some more inspiration and possibly more resource material is the "Constructed Human Languages" page at http://www.quetzal.com/conlang.html This page has a reference to the conlang mailing list. You might want to subscribe to this mailing list and ask your questions there. To subscribe to the list, send a message to: majordomo@diku.dk with textbody (not subject): SUBSCRIBE CONLANG If you want simplicity in your language, I can highly recommend Rick Harrison's Vorlin as a conlang for inspiration. This is found at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5383/vornet.html You may also want to check out a conlang called Allnoun which uses only nouns. Unfortunately, I don't have the website address for this conlang. It was too simple for me that it turned out to be too alien and artificial for my brain :-) Something more natural of course would be creoles and pidgins. Their grammar is extremely forgiving. So if you want inspiration from natural languages then check pidgins and creoles out. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a lot of info on pidgins and creoles in the net. (Fortunately for me, I speak Chavacano as well - a Spanish based creole spoken in the Philippines). But I'm sure there are several books in libraries around the world about creoles and pidgins which you can easily find yourself. ----- Now about the difference between tense and aspect. Let me try to explain (I do not have a PhD in Linguistics so pardon me if I don't make sense anyway - I'm sort of a self-taught linguist). TENSE, tells us when the events within a sentence occured. Did an event occur before the sentence was stated - i.e. past? - "I was hungry. I ate." Did it occur while the sentence was stated - i.e. present? - "I am hungry. I eat." Will it occur after the sentence is stated - i.e. future? - "I will be hungry. I will eat." ASPECT, on the other hand deals with the degree of completion of an event within a sentence. There are several aspect distinctions made in various languages, but the most basic are perfect and progressive aspects. Was an event already completed at the time the sentence was stated - i.e. perfect? - "I had eaten." (past perfect) the eating was already completed in the past. - "I have eaten." (present perfect) the eating was already completed in the present. - "I will have eaten." (future perfect) the eating will already be completed in the future. Was an event in progress at the time the sentence was stated - i.e. progressive? -The first examples I gave to illustrate tense were all in the progressive aspect. -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 17:23:08 -0400 From: "Steven H. Mesnick ('Steffan ap Kennydd')" Reply-To: steffan@pobox.com To: Daniel Boese Subject: Re: Simple constructed language > Can anybody suggest where I can find some resources for basic > linguistics? Or, better yet, post a few words about some of the basic > features of language? One of the most accessible introductions to the field of linguistics, in my opinion, is the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. (It isn't an encyclopedia in the sense of, say, the Brittanica, so don't be frightened ). The editor/author is David Crystal. The ISBN is 0 521 26438 3. Very readable and informative. It's also now available in softcover. Also, Mario Pei's classic "The Story of Language" if it's still in print. Probably at most libraries, anyway. Fascinating and very readable. Steve Mesnick only an amateur linguist -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 12:52:42 -0700 From: Dave Munroe To: dboese@freenet.npiec.on.ca Subject: Re: Simple constructed language Newsgroups: sci.lang You write: > I'm creating a fictional world (for my own amusement), and I'd like to >make a simple language for the species that lives there. However, I know >that I'm not a linguist, so there's probably some important things that I >wouldn't think of that I should make decisions about - for example, I >know a noun from a verb, but I'm not clear on the difference between >tense and aspect. > Can anybody suggest where I can find some resources for basic >linguistics? There's an excellent web page for this very type of thing. It's written by Mark Rosenfelder and it's at: http://www.tezcat.com/~markrose/kit.html If you can't access the page, I can email you the text - althoug it's fairly large. -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 05 May 97 10:31:52 PST From: "Stoddard, William" To: dboese@freenet.npiec.on.ca Subject: sources on linguistics Dear Mr. Boese: I have done a good bit of reading over the past few years on alternative possible language structures, with aims similar to yours. The single best book I have found for an overview of the subject is Bernard Comrie's "Language Universals and Linguistic Typology." The current edition is available from the University of Chicago Press for $15.95 paperback. They have a Web page that you can get to through http://aaup.uchicago.edu/ Alternatively, a college bookstore should be able to order the book for you, and most university libraries will have a copy at least of the first edition. I hope this information is helpful to your efforts. William H. Stoddard -------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Boese To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: New subscriber intro Heyla, all. I've been curious about languages of all sorts for some time now, and constructed languages for the past year or so. I've recently begun developing a fictional species, including its language, and I'm hoping for some input, help, suggestions, or whatever here. I would appreciate any comments on what I've written below. Skipping a number of details, the species is a sort of "foxtaur" - that is, they have the bodies and heads similar to those of foxes, but where a fox has a neck, these beings have a humanish-shaped torso, including arms and hands. The first, and hardest for myself right now, difficulty in creating a language for these beings is in figuring out what sort of phonemes a canine-shaped mouth and tongue can produce. (Actually, their tongues will probably be modified so that they can, in fact, speak, but I'm sure you know what I mean.) What I've thought of so far is that labials, labio-dentals, and dentals would be combined into a single category; the same with alveolar and palato-alveolar; and that palatal, velar, uvular and glottal would all be seperate categories. I've also decided to throw approximants out the window, "just because". One thing I'm debating with myself on is whether or not to include nasals - the shape of the nasal passages seems to prevent them. Vowels are the tricky part. I haven't figured out how height, frontness, roundedness, etc. would be affected by a mouth five times as long as it is wide. I'll likely just pick three or four distinct vowels, and use a lot of consonants. I've also decided to make the language tonal, with two or possibly three distinct pitches. After I finish with the phonetics, I'll work out phonemes, morphemes, syntax, grammar, and all the rest of the fun stuff. :) -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 17:30:02 -0600 From: Clinton Moreland-Stringham Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro On Tue, 6 May 1997, Daniel Boese wrote: > What I've thought of so far is that labials, labio-dentals, and dentals > would be combined into a single category; the same with alveolar and > palato-alveolar; and that palatal, velar, uvular and glottal would all > be seperate categories. I've also decided to throw approximants out the > window, "just because". One thing I'm debating with myself on is whether > or not to include nasals - the shape of the nasal passages seems to > prevent them. Fascinating!! I would think that clicks, barks, and grunts would be part of the phonemic inventory as well, and that there would be a variety of sonorants (seven kinds of "l", for example) with tongues that long! probably all of the labials would be manifested as varieties of dentals (e.g. b,p > t). As for nasals...I don't know. I'd think that there'd be more space, and so more room for different kinds of nasals. And definitely there'd be r variants - flapped, trilled, REALLY trilled, and so on, but probably not the "r" in English. > Vowels are the tricky part. I haven't figured out how height, > frontness, roundedness, etc. would be affected by a mouth five times as > long as it is wide. I'll likely just pick three or four distinct vowels, > and use a lot of consonants. I'd think that there would be MORE vowels. With so many places to articulate in a mouth thats longer, and given the canine penchant for howling... > I've also decided to make the language tonal, with two or possibly three > distinct pitches. Cool!!! Clinton -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 21:02:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Boese Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro On Tue, 6 May 1997, Clinton Moreland-Stringham wrote: >> What I've thought of so far [...] > Fascinating!! I would think that clicks, barks, and grunts would be part >of the phonemic inventory as well Good points; as soon as I figure out how to define them, I'll include them. (Anybody care to help me with this?) >and that there would be a variety of sonorants (seven kinds of "l", for >example) with tongues that long! An idea that I had thought of, but eventually decided to discard; using the assumption that the tongues may be longer, but don't have that much more flexibility, relative to a human's. >probably all of the labials would be manifested as varieties of dentals >(e.g. b,p > t). A good choice - though that would actually be b,p > d,t, wouldn't it? >As for nasals...I don't know. I'd think that there'd be more space, and >so more room for different kinds of nasals. Well, let me put it this way - when scent is your one of primary senses, would you want to use your nasal passages for speech? Sort of like having blinking being a major part of a spoken human language. (Hm... now there's a silly idea I'm sure somebody will pick up on. :) ) >And definitely there'd be r variants - flapped, trilled, REALLY trilled, >and so on, but probably not the "r" in English. Quite possibly. However, I'd need to know a bit more about the different r's. Could somebody please enlighten me? >> Vowels are the tricky part. I haven't figured out how height, >>frontness, roundedness, etc. would be affected by a mouth five times as >>long as it is wide. I'll likely just pick three or four distinct vowels, >>and use a lot of consonants. >I'd think that there would be MORE vowels. With so many places to >articulate in a mouth thats longer, and given the canine penchant for >howling... True enough... that first idea was mostly from laziness on my part. :) I suppose I'll just have to do a bit of research on how vowels are defined, and 'extend' the definitions accordingly. >> I've also decided to make the language tonal, with two or possibly three >>distinct pitches. >Cool!!! Thankee kindly. -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 18:53:53 -0700 From: "Mark P. Line" Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro Daniel Boese wrote: > > The first, and hardest for myself right now, difficulty in creating a > language for these beings is in figuring out what sort of phonemes a > canine-shaped mouth and tongue can produce. (Actually, their tongues > will probably be modified so that they can, in fact, speak, but I'm sure > you know what I mean.) clear voiced vowels pharyngealized vowels breathy vowels voiceless vowels uvular trill unreleased bidental stop exolabial sibilants, voiced & voiceless exolabial laterals, voiced & voiceless :) There's a chapter in Talmy Givo'n (1979?) _On Understanding Grammar_ about canine language, as a phylogenetic precursor to human language. It's not about the phonetics, though. -- Mark (Mark P. Line -- Bellevue, Washington -- ) -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 03:15:53 GMT From: Herman Miller Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro On Tue, 6 May 1997 21:02:11 -0400, you wrote: >On Tue, 6 May 1997, Clinton Moreland-Stringham wrote: >>> What I've thought of so far [...] >> Fascinating!! I would think that clicks, barks, and grunts would be part >>of the phonemic inventory as well > Good points; as soon as I figure out how to define them, I'll include >them. (Anybody care to help me with this?) Well, I disagree on the clicks; it requires making a closure at the back of the mouth and creating suction by pulling down on the front of the tongue, which I think would be difficult for vulpine tongues. Barks and such might be written as combinations of English letters (rf, rx, etc.) >>As for nasals...I don't know. I'd think that there'd be more space, and >>so more room for different kinds of nasals. > Well, let me put it this way - when scent is your one of primary senses, >would you want to use your nasal passages for speech? Sort of like having >blinking being a major part of a spoken human language. (Hm... now there's >a silly idea I'm sure somebody will pick up on. :) ) How about ingressive nasals? It would be hard to mix them in with regular speech, but they could be used for emphasis. >>And definitely there'd be r variants - flapped, trilled, REALLY trilled, >>and so on, but probably not the "r" in English. > Quite possibly. However, I'd need to know a bit more about the different >r's. Could somebody please enlighten me? Trilled r sounds involve holding the tongue close to the alveolar ridge or the uvula so that it (the tongue in the first case, the uvula in the second) vibrates as air passes by. This should be possible, I suppose, although I don't know of any foxes that produce sounds like that. I don't know if foxes' uvulas are in the right place, or if they even have a uvula. There are also other kinds of r sounds like the Czech fricative trill, which is very rarely encountered in human languages. -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 11:58:30 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 03:15:53 GMT >From: Herman Miller > >On Tue, 6 May 1997 21:02:11 -0400, you wrote: > >Well, I disagree on the clicks; it requires making a closure at the back of >the mouth and creating suction by pulling down on the front of the tongue, >which I think would be difficult for vulpine tongues. Barks and such might >be written as combinations of English letters (rf, rx, etc.) How about click-like "percussives", snapping the teeth/jaws together to make a sound by the teeth hitting each other? Human mouthparts can do this too; do any human languages use it? >>>As for nasals...I don't know. I'd think that there'd be more space, and >>>so more room for different kinds of nasals. >> Well, let me put it this way - when scent is your one of primary senses, >>would you want to use your nasal passages for speech? Sort of like having >>blinking being a major part of a spoken human language. (Hm... now there's >>a silly idea I'm sure somebody will pick up on. :) ) > >How about ingressive nasals? It would be hard to mix them in with regular >speech, but they could be used for emphasis. I'm no dog-owner, but I seem to recall hearing no small amount of snorting--ingressive AND egressive--from dogs. I could see various nasal sounds (like the ones that sound like sneezes) used, both for linguistic and extralinguistic communication. For instance, it may or may not count as a "word" sound, but a noisy, rapid nasal exhale could be an indication of disgust: Ugh, that idea leaves a foul smell in my nostrils, I want to clear it out. Similar sounds are used by humans too, right? ~mark -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 12:01:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Boese Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro >Mark P. Line wrote: >>...what sort of phonemes a canine-shaped mouth and tongue can produce. >clear voiced vowels >pharyngealized vowels >breathy vowels >voiceless vowels >uvular trill >unreleased bidental stop >exolabial sibilants, voiced & voiceless >exolabial laterals, voiced & voiceless >:) :) indeed. Now all I have to do is figure out what "pharyngealized" means, as well as all the rest - the only definitions for vowels I know of use height, frontness, roundedness, length, nasalization, and tenseness; and a similar set for consonants. Or, some kind person on the list could do me a /great/ favour and concend to give an explanation of both the individual words describing, and the actual sounds described, above... :) -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 12:16:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Boese To: Constructed Languages List Subject: Re: New subscriber intro On Wed, 7 May 1997, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: >>On Tue, 6 May 1997 21:02:11 -0400, Herman Miller wrote: >>Well, I disagree on the clicks; it requires making a closure at the back of >>the mouth and creating suction by pulling down on the front of the tongue, >>which I think would be difficult for vulpine tongues. Thank you for the definition - clicks seem to not be a sound I would use in (I might as well give it a temporary English name, so that I don't have to keep calling it 'my language'. :) ) Taurish. >>Barks and such might be written as combinations of English letters (rf, >>rx, etc.) This will depend on what the canine sounds another person mentioned turn out to actually sound like - I have no idea what 'exolabial' means, for instance. >How about click-like "percussives", snapping the teeth/jaws together to >make a sound by the teeth hitting each other? Actually, I had just thought about such sounds the other night. They are a definate possibility. >>How about ingressive nasals? It would be hard to mix them in with regular >>speech, but they could be used for emphasis. >I'm no dog-owner, but I seem to recall hearing no small amount of >snorting--ingressive AND egressive--from dogs. I could see various nasal >sounds (like the ones that sound like sneezes) used, both for linguistic >and extralinguistic communication. For instance, it may or may not count >as a "word" sound, but a noisy, rapid nasal exhale could be an indication >of disgust: Ugh, that idea leaves a foul smell in my nostrils, I want to >clear it out. Similar sounds are used by humans too, right? A /quite/ good idea; I hadn't started wondering how to say "Huh?", but you've just managed to answer my question before I even asked it. PS: I'm glad to read from both of you. I'm rather fond of Herman Miller's alien species and language, and Mark Shoulson doesn't know that he taught me a lot about tlhIngan Hol while I was subscribed to that mailing list. :) -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 13:36:12 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 12:16:27 -0400 >From: Daniel Boese > >On Wed, 7 May 1997, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: >>I'm no dog-owner, but I seem to recall hearing no small amount of >>snorting--ingressive AND egressive--from dogs. I could see various nasal >>sounds (like the ones that sound like sneezes) used, both for linguistic >>and extralinguistic communication. For instance, it may or may not count >>as a "word" sound, but a noisy, rapid nasal exhale could be an indication >>of disgust: Ugh, that idea leaves a foul smell in my nostrils, I want to >>clear it out. Similar sounds are used by humans too, right? > A /quite/ good idea; I hadn't started wondering how to say "Huh?", but >you've just managed to answer my question before I even asked it. I wasn't thinking of it so much as "Huh?" (in the sense of "I am confused, please explain WTF you are talking about") but more disgust: I understand the idea in question, and I'm not happy with it (it stinks). > PS: I'm glad to read from both of you. I'm rather fond of Herman Miller's >alien species and language, and Mark Shoulson doesn't know that he taught >me a lot about tlhIngan Hol while I was subscribed to that mailing list. >:) I don't know? Listen, when you're Grammarian on the Klingon list, you are privy to a great many things hidden from mortal eyes.... :) Seriously, thanks; I'm glad to have been of help! ~mark -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 13:43:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Boese Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro On Wed, 7 May 1997, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: >>>I'm no dog-owner, but I seem to recall hearing no small amount of >>>snorting--ingressive AND egressive--from dogs. I could see various nasal >>>sounds (like the ones that sound like sneezes) used, both for linguistic >>>and extralinguistic communication. For instance, it may or may not count >>>as a "word" sound, but a noisy, rapid nasal exhale could be an indication >>>of disgust: Ugh, that idea leaves a foul smell in my nostrils, I want to >>>clear it out. Similar sounds are used by humans too, right? >> A /quite/ good idea; I hadn't started wondering how to say "Huh?", but >>you've just managed to answer my question before I even asked it. >I wasn't thinking of it so much as "Huh?" (in the sense of "I am confused, >please explain WTF you are talking about") but more disgust: I understand >the idea in question, and I'm not happy with it (it stinks). True enough; I phrased that poorly. I should have said, "I hadn't started wondering how to say things like "Huh?", "Phew!", "Oof!", and other not-quite-words, but you've given me a good idea how for most of them.". Most likely an egressive snort would be "Ick!" (get that smell out!), and an ingressive one "Hunh?" (what's that?). -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 01:19:35 -0700 From: "Mark P. Line" Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > How about click-like "percussives", snapping the teeth/jaws together to > make a sound by the teeth hitting each other? Human mouthparts can do > this too; do any human languages use it? Just about anything above the neck that makes a sound is attested somewhere at least in paralinguistic utterances. This one is the "bidental stop" I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and I remember it being used somewhere paralinguistically (just can't remember where -- North Africa, I think). > For instance, it may or may not count > as a "word" sound, but a noisy, rapid nasal exhale could be an indication > of disgust: Ugh, that idea leaves a foul smell in my nostrils, I want to > clear it out. Similar sounds are used by humans too, right? The ingressive counterpart of that sound is a paralinguistic affirmative in Sango (Zaire). It is usually accompanied by a raising of the head. Emphasis is expressed by prolongation of both the sound and the head movement. The egressive you describe here is common _phonemically_ in South American languages. I guess they don't talk much when they catch cold... -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 01:46:47 -0700 From: "Mark P. Line" Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro Daniel Boese wrote: > > >Mark P. Line wrote: > > > >clear voiced vowels > >pharyngealized vowels > >breathy vowels > >voiceless vowels > >uvular trill > >unreleased bidental stop > >exolabial sibilants, voiced & voiceless > >exolabial laterals, voiced & voiceless > Now all I have to do is figure out what "pharyngealized" means, as well > as all the rest - the only definitions for vowels I know of use height, > frontness, roundedness, length, nasalization, and tenseness; and a > similar set for consonants. Or, some kind person on the list could do me > a /great/ favour and concend to give an explanation of both the > individual words describing, and the actual sounds described, above... :) I made up the term "exolabial", intended to mean the point of articulation is "outside the lips", and also the term "bidental", referring to articulation with both upper and lower teeth. >From Kennth L. Pike, _Phonemics_: "articulator": A movable part of the vocal organs which impedes or directs the air stream. "backing": The backward movement of the tongue during the production of some sound, or the acoustic effect of a sound produced by such a movement. "breathed sound": A sound which is pronounced with a light air stream with no strong friction in the throat or at the vocal cords. "fricative": A sound during which friction can be heard and identified at some point of articulation. "glottal": Involving articulation at the glottis. "glottis": The opening between the vocal cords. "lateral air escape": With air passing over the sides of the tongue but not over the tip. "pharyngealization": The modification of some sound by a constriction of the pharynx, especially by the backing of the root of the tongue towards the back of the throat. "pharynx": The throat, including glottal closure but excluding velic closure and uvular closure. "release": The opening of a passageway or releasing of some articulator. "root of tongue": That part of the tongue which faces the back wall of the throat. "sibilant": A fricative sound of a hissing type formed by a grooved tongue position. "stop": A sound during which the air stream is completely interrupted. "trill": A repeated, rapid, automatic opening and closing of some passageway. "uvular": With articulation at the uvula. "uvula": The fleshy lobe hanging from the back part of the soft palate. "velic": The nasal side of the soft palate. "velum": The soft palate. "vocal cords": The folds of membrane whih project into the larynx and which by vibrating cause voice. "voice": The sound produced by the vibration of the vocal cords. "voiceless": Without vibration of the vocal cords. [Applicable to vowels as well as consonants. -mpl] -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 13:23:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Boese Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro Thank you greatly for your lexicon, Mark; I'm sure I'll refer to it frequently in the future. Combining the two sets of definitions, this is what I come up with; does this seem about right to you all? (I'm using the usual ASCII method of using a / or ^ following a character to indicate an accent.) >>clear voiced vowels "Normal" vowels, such as 'a e i o u'. >>pharyngealized vowels Normal vowels with the throat constricted. Strangled-sounding? 'a^'. >>breathy vowels Normal vowels with no strong friction in the throat or larynx. 'Dying'-sounding (as in 'I'm not gonna make it Johnny... uuurk...)? 'a/'. >>voiceless vowels Whispered vowels. 'u\'. >>uvular trill 'Growling'? 'r^'. >>unreleased bidental stop Clicking the teeth together. 't^'. >>exolabial sibilants, voiced This is an interesting one.. I trieg saying 'gh, zh, z, v', then sticking my tongue out and saying the next in the sequence. 'v^'. >>exolabial sibilants, voiceless As above, with 'kh, sh, s, f, f^'. >>exolabial laterals, voiced I remember having fun playing with the Welsh 'tlh' when I first heard of it.. 'l^'. >>exolabial laterals, voiceless The best I can come up with is 'th^'. If the above is accurate, we can have a slightly :) unusual phonology: Vowels: e e^ e/ e\ (low, front) o o^ o/ o\ (low, back) i i^ i/ i\ (high, front) u u^ u/ u\ (high, back) Consonants: r^ t^ v^ f^ l^ th^ Which is quite the interesting set of phonemes to play with. -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 19:19:57 -0700 From: "Mark P. Line" Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro Daniel Boese wrote: > > Thank you greatly for your lexicon, Mark; I'm sure I'll refer to it > frequently in the future. There are _lots_ more terms that would go into a complete lexicon of articulatory phonetics, but I wasn't intending to supplant a good textbook. :) > >>clear voiced vowels > "Normal" vowels, such as 'a e i o u'. > > >>pharyngealized vowels > Normal vowels with the throat constricted. Strangled-sounding? 'a^'. > > >>breathy vowels > Normal vowels with no strong friction in the throat or larynx. > 'Dying'-sounding (as in 'I'm not gonna make it Johnny... uuurk...)? > 'a/'. > > >>voiceless vowels > Whispered vowels. 'u\'. I think you've got the picture with these. > >>uvular trill > 'Growling'? 'r^'. Some Germans pronounce /r/ with a uvular trill. Usually it's just a voiced velar fricative, though. I've seen French /r/ described as a uvular trill, but I've never heard one live. Also, I don't know if foxes have uvulas ... > >>unreleased bidental stop > Clicking the teeth together. 't^'. Yep. There could also be a bidental release, but that's different, and much less canine. > >>exolabial sibilants, voiced > This is an interesting one.. I trieg saying 'gh, zh, z, v', then > sticking my tongue out and saying the next in the sequence. 'v^'. I presume your tongue is rather shorter than that of a fox. Remember that sibilants have a grooved tongue. I don't think this would be a very dry sound for a fox, and the point of articulation might be on another fox. The [gh] and [v] you're thinking of are probably fricatives, not sibilants. > >>exolabial sibilants, voiceless > As above, with 'kh, sh, s, f, f^'. [kh], [f] and [f^] are probably fricatives. > >>exolabial laterals, voiced > I remember having fun playing with the Welsh 'tlh' when I first heard > of it.. 'l^'. I've seen dogs make this sound a lot -- when they're trying to tell you they want something, but don't want to bark. > >>exolabial laterals, voiceless > The best I can come up with is 'th^'. This one's very common in dogs, too. Panting, so you have both egressive (breathing out) and ingressive (breathing in) variants. > If the above is accurate, we can have a slightly :) unusual phonology: You have slightly :) unusual speakers, now don't you. -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 12:48:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Boese To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Re: New subscriber intro >> If the above is accurate, we can have a slightly :) unusual phonology: >>Vowels: >>e e^ e/ e\ (low, front) >>o o^ o/ o\ (low, back) >>i i^ i/ i\ (high, front) >>u u^ u/ u\ (high, back) >> >>Consonants: >>r^ t^ v^ f^ l^ th^ >You have slightly :) unusual speakers, now don't you. Quite true. :) Now, from what I understand, the next step would be deciding how to combine the phonemes into morphemes, and syntax as it relates to word-formation. (To make things simpler, I'll remove the ^'s from all of the consonants.) I'm still planning on having a two-pictch tonal language; lacking any better ideas, I'll use capitals for (high) and small letters for (low). One of my biases with "Taurish" is to make it as simple as possible - few word classes, few if any suffices, and I'm planning on a basic word order of VSO. I'd still like some information redundancy - though I'm not quite sure how yet. My first thoughts for morphology would be only using VC, VCVC, etc. and either C or CV for any prefices. So... could mean "be alive/living- thing", "to age/get old/be old/old-thing", <-RO-> the general "not/un/anti" morpheme; so that would be either "young one/child" or "living-not-aging". Perhaps I should decide on a set of word classes... what do you think? -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 19:01:17 GMT From: "Raymond A. Brown" Reply-To: Constructed Languages List To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG Subject: Canine trills (was: New subscriber intro) At 19:19 8/5/97, Mark P. Line wrote: > >Some Germans pronounce /r/ with a uvular trill. Usually it's just a >voiced velar fricative, though. I've seen French /r/ described as a >uvular trill, but I've never heard one live. I have, and very impressive it is too on first time of hearing (I mean the real trill, not the soft Parisian velar fricative). The priest that married my son & daughter-in-law (she's French), had a very impressive, vibrant uvular trill. I have also hear it from some other French speakers, but none so thrillingly trilling as he. Even the more common lingual trill of the Scots & Italian /r/ (also heard in South France, tho considered rustic) has often been considered doggish. In all probability the ancient Latin /r/ was just such a sound & the Romans called the letter 'littera canina' (the dog letter) -------------------------------------------------------- Vowels: e e^ e/ e\ (low, front) o o^ o/ o\ (low, back) i i^ i/ i\ (high, front) u u^ u/ u\ (high, back) Consonants: r t v f l th Tones: CAPITALS: high small letters: low My first thoughts for morphology would be only using VC, VCVC, etc. and either C or CV for any prefices. So... could mean "be alive/living- thing", "to age/get old/be old/old-thing", <-RO-> the general "not/un/anti" morpheme; so that would be either "young one/child" or "living-not-aging". Grammar: VSO -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- *** kimuf: son (sired-child) (n) kinuf: daughter (birthed-child) (n) muf: male, one-who-sires (n) muj: to sire (v) nuf: female, one-who-gives-birth (n) nuj: to give birth (v) pif: parent (n) pimuf: father (sire-parent) (n) pinuf: mother (birth-parent) (n) taf: mate (husband/wife) (n) taj: mate (v) The wheel's spinning, but the hamster's dead. -------------------------------------------------------- http://www.access.digex.net/~pobart