Posted 4 Oct
At the risk of being stereotypical, maybe the general aesthetic should
be one of age and refinement. If it’s an artlang, perhaps we should
try to make it feel like, well, a work of art. :P
- Rob
Title
Body
At the risk of being stereotypical, maybe the general aesthetic
should be one of age and refinement. If it's an artlang, perhaps we
should try to make it feel like, well, a work of art. :P - Rob
or Cancel
Drag Trash Edit Posted 4 Oct
I would also recommend making it a priori.
- Rob
Title
Body
I would also recommend making it a priori. - Rob
or Cancel
Drag Trash Edit Collaboration? Posted 4 Oct
One thing I’m not clear on. Is this a collaborative lang we’re
making? Or are we all going to present languages conforming to the spec
and then one is going to get chosen for inclusion?
Title
Body
One thing I'm not clear on. Is this a collaborative lang we're
making? Or are we all going to present languages conforming to the spec
and then one is going to get chosen for inclusion?
or Cancel
Drag Trash Edit Posted 4 Oct
Well ideally it is a collaboration. I’d like to avoid favoritism or
‘voting’, and present languages probably will need some
manipulation to fit anyway.
Plus, a collaboration makes it easier to more neutrally tell a story
about its creation (which might not be, ah, 100% factually accurate).
And we’d be able to document it more clearly as it gets created,
preferrably using the same method / outline / progress as in the CL101
book – which most conlangers can’t really clearly remember about
their own languages.
- Sai
ps you need to sign your notes; it doesn’t do it for you :-/
Title
Body
Well ideally it is a collaboration. I'd like to avoid favoritism or
'voting', and present languages probably will need some manipulation to
fit anyway. Plus, a collaboration makes it easier to more neutrally
tell a story about its creation (which might not be, ah, 100% factually
accurate). And we'd be able to document it more clearly as it gets
created, preferrably using the same method / outline / progress as in
the CL101 book - which most conlangers can't really clearly remember
about their own languages. - Sai ps you need to sign your notes; it
doesn't do it for you :-/
or Cancel
Drag Trash Edit Posted 4 Oct
I guess the first question is, where do we start? There are a lot of
ways to make something feel old, and a lot of directions an a priori
lang could take.
Synthetic? Isolating? Do we want to purposefully make it “simple”
for ease of understanding for the reader? Just thoughts.
~John H.
Title
Body
I guess the first question is, where do we start? There are a lot
of ways to make something feel old, and a lot of directions an a priori
lang could take. Synthetic? Isolating? Do we want to purposefully make
it "simple" for ease of understanding for the reader? Just thoughts.
~John H.
or Cancel
Drag Trash Edit Posted 4 Oct
I appear to have misunderstood this. I offered myself to work on
creating a Germanic language from Old Low Frankish, but was not
informed you were looking for collaborative / a priori conlangs. Do I
need to withdraw?
- Jashan
Title
Body
I appear to have misunderstood this. I offered myself to work on
creating a Germanic language from Old Low Frankish, but was not
informed you were looking for collaborative / a priori conlangs. Do I
need to withdraw? - Jashan
or Cancel
Drag Trash Edit Posted 4 Oct
If we’re going to be making this language collaboaratively, perhaps
we should set up a discussion board to discuss topics on, rather than
in these notes? (We also wouldn’t need to manually sign our notes
that way. =D)
If the language is supposed to be “naturalistic,” I think we should
try to covey the large amount of variation in natlangs. So maybe we
could have some parts of the grammar be largely synthetic, while other
parts be largely isolating? I don’t think we should make the lang
intentionally “simple;” but we should definitely try avoiding
making a kitchen sink lang too.
—Chris.
Title
Body
If we're going to be making this language collaboaratively, perhaps
we should set up a discussion board to discuss topics on, rather than
in these notes? (We also wouldn't need to manually sign our notes that
way. =D) If the language is supposed to be "naturalistic," I think we
should try to covey the large amount of variation in natlangs. So maybe
we could have some parts of the grammar be largely synthetic, while
other parts be largely isolating? I don't think we should make the lang
intentionally "simple;" but we should definitely try avoiding making a
kitchen sink lang too. -- Chris.
or Cancel
Drag Trash Edit Posted 5 Oct
Jashan – Sorry for any confusion :-/
My suggestion was that you join the collaboration. I have no particular
guide for how the artlang should turn out (e.g. whether it should be
germanic), except for the primary principles you see above. How to
implement it is up to you guys; I will only be involved to make sure
it’s on track, and to ensure it stays relevant to the needs of the
book. You’re free to withdraw if you feel this isn’t what you
signed up for, with my apologies.
Chris – Dunno if another board would be a good idea, unless it can
replace the backpack entirely…? If so, then that needs to be done
immediately. I think that the combo of backpack + writely (for
permanent docs) + writeboard (for temporary docs) is workable, but
it’s definitely got room for improvement.
I would second the vote for ‘naturalistic’ meaning ‘not
regular’. Part of the implicit purpose of the nat-artlang in the book
is to take the sort of analysis that natlangs get in a regular ling 101
book, and thus teach people about what “real languages” are like.
Of course it still needs to be kept to a level that is comprehensible
to a ling 101 student, and communicable over the course of one
textbook. (We can add a supplement to the book that details the
language much further of course, but the core part needs to be there.)
But yeah, that’s definitely not the same thing as ‘simple’.
- Sai
Title
Body
Jashan - Sorry for any confusion :-/ My suggestion was that you
join the collaboration. I have no particular guide for how the artlang
should turn out (e.g. whether it should be germanic), except for the
primary principles you see above. How to implement it is up to you
guys; I will only be involved to make sure it's on track, and to ensure
it stays relevant to the needs of the book. You're free to withdraw if
you feel this isn't what you signed up for, with my apologies. Chris -
Dunno if *another* board would be a good idea, unless it can replace
the backpack entirely...? If so, then that needs to be done
immediately. I think that the combo of backpack + writely (for
permanent docs) + writeboard (for temporary docs) is workable, but it's
definitely got room for improvement. I would second the vote for
'naturalistic' meaning 'not regular'. Part of the implicit purpose of
the nat-artlang in the book is to take the sort of analysis that
natlangs get in a regular ling 101 book, and thus teach people about
what "real languages" are like. Of course it still needs to be kept to
a level that is comprehensible to a ling 101 student, and communicable
over the course of one textbook. (We can add a supplement to the book
that details the language much further of course, but the core part
needs to be there.) But yeah, that's definitely not the same thing as
'simple'. - Sai
or Cancel
Drag Trash Edit Posted 5 Oct
One thing that may help you get started:
Try coming up with a good concept for “Art the Artlanger” who is
making this conlang (as far as the book will be portrarying it up until
the end pages). I.e. what motivates Art to do this? Maybe a novel
he’s making?
This should in turn imply the aesthetic that needs to be used. Flesh
that out next.
Once there’s concensus on this, then start making an internal design
spec for what the language should “feel like”, and what that means
for the various aspects of the language.
Perhaps more importantly, come up with milestones from the POV of Art.
What does “he” need to decide and in what order? This should
parallel the order of the chapters in the CL101 book. Some should
probably involve mistakes or reconsideratiosn – e.g. Art is a newb so
he makes something that simply doesn’t “feel right”
phonologically… this gives us an excuse to talk about phoneme groups
and the like, and to show how real corrections and evolutions can be
made.
- Sai
Title
Body
One thing that may help you get started: Try coming up with a good
concept for "Art the Artlanger" who is making this conlang (as far as
the book will be portrarying it up until the end pages). I.e. what
motivates Art to do this? Maybe a novel he's making? This should in
turn imply the aesthetic that needs to be used. Flesh that out next.
Once there's concensus on this, then start making an internal design
spec for what the language should "feel like", and what that means for
the various aspects of the language. Perhaps more importantly, come up
with milestones from the POV of Art. What does "he" need to decide and
in what order? This should parallel the order of the chapters in the
CL101 book. Some should probably involve mistakes or reconsideratiosn -
e.g. Art is a newb so he makes something that simply doesn't "feel
right" phonologically... this gives us an excuse to talk about phoneme
groups and the like, and to show how real corrections and evolutions
can be made. - Sai
or Cancel
Drag Trash Edit Posted 5 Oct
Perhaps he should make some mistakes in each chapter, and then one of
the exercises is to find and correct them – the version of the
language used in the next chapter is one in which they have been
corrected, so we don’t end up with a n00blang by the end :P, but
maybe there could be an apendix discussing the
...
read more »
|
