Aesthetic qualities of conlangs
Calvin
frequent messages. I'm just really excited to have found this site,
and I have tons of questions I just am dying to ask. I was just
wondering about the aesthetic qualities of languages, and how often
people think about this when making a language. Not specifying to any
specific taste, since tastes vary, it would be interesting to know who
does think about this in their conlangs?
And if you have time, I'd like to also know what languages do people
find to have a nice aesthetic quality to them? Personally, in terms of
non-created languages, I find that Latin, English, Italian, French,
Chinese, and Japanese have particularly nice "rings" to them. What do
you think? As for created languages, I find Tolkien's languages,
Quenya etc.. very beautiful. :)
Hikaru Shizuka
"Calvin" <tier...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34145718.0304...@posting.google.com...
Hmmm, I can agree with you with Latin, Italian, French, and Japanese, as for
Chinese, Cantonese I find harsh and I can't say I like it at all, although
Mandarin does sound very lovely. English I think is just so... I dunno, it
doesn't flow very well, IMHO, its a very practical language, but as for
aesthetic quality I think I leave it out of that category.
-Hikaru
Ebenezer T. Squint
> frequent messages. I'm just really excited to have found this site,
> and I have tons of questions I just am dying to ask. I was just
> wondering about the aesthetic qualities of languages, and how often
> people think about this when making a language. Not specifying to any
> specific taste, since tastes vary, it would be interesting to know who
> does think about this in their conlangs?
AFAIK there is no limit, you can post as long as you have ideas to share.
I agree that aesthetic quality may be a motivator for conlangers who do not
like the sound of existing languages. Alternatively, one could also attempt
to create an unaesthetic language.
> And if you have time, I'd like to also know what languages do people
> find to have a nice aesthetic quality to them? Personally, in terms of
> non-created languages, I find that Latin, English, Italian, French,
> Chinese, and Japanese have particularly nice "rings" to them. What do
> you think? As for created languages, I find Tolkien's languages,
> Quenya etc.. very beautiful. :)
I read somewhere (the Ardalambion website?) that Tolkien meant the Elven
languages to be as aesthetic to his taste as possible.
Ebenezer T. Squint
news:DI_na.751902$Yo4.72...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
<snip>
> Hmmm, I can agree with you with Latin, Italian, French, and Japanese, as
for
> Chinese, Cantonese I find harsh and I can't say I like it at all, although
> Mandarin does sound very lovely. English I think is just so... I dunno,
it
> doesn't flow very well, IMHO, its a very practical language, but as for
> aesthetic quality I think I leave it out of that category.
Your opinion is not surprising, considering the diverse background of
English. It is rather a "Frankenstein" of languages.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> I really hope there isn't a daily post limit here; Please excuse my
> frequent messages. I'm just really excited to have found this site,
> and I have tons of questions I just am dying to ask. [...]
There is no daily message limit that I know of. Some people are
not aware of the CONLANG mailing list, which is devoted exclusively to
constructed languages OTHER than those intended to be actual
international auxiliary langauges. (There is another list for that.)
I haven't been subscribed to CONLANG in several years, but it used to
be quite active. To subscribe, send an email to
with (to make sure) Subject: and one-line body as
subscribe conlang
--
Paul Bartlett
bartlett at smart.net
PGP key info in message headers
Viktoro
"Ebenezer T. Squint" <sp...@spam.com>
> "Hikaru Shizuka" <bran...@shaw.ca> wrote
>
> > English I think is just so... I dunno, it
> > doesn't flow very well, IMHO, its a very practical language, but as for
> > aesthetic quality I think I leave it out of that category.
>
> Your opinion is not surprising, considering the diverse background of
> English. It is rather a "Frankenstein" of languages.
>
Japanese has a "diverse background" considering the extensive borrowings
from Chinese, English, and other languages, yet it has kept its "feng shui"
quality about it. Spanish has integrated Arabic words well into its
substratum; many languages are greatly influenced by others too. But my
opinion is that English has little balance or "feng shui" quality. I agree
with Hikaru that "it doesn't flow very well." The "qi" just doesn't flow
well with the way the letters and words are arranged in English.
--Viktoro
Donald J. Harlow
I'm not sure how much of the "beauty" of a language is intrinsic and how much is due to external factors. To use an example I've used before (*): Danish, when spoken by a beautiful young woman, is mellifluous. When spoken by a burly dockworker, it sounds like somebody talking through a mouthful of potatoes. (This is a personal opinion, and your mileage may vary.)
Chinese? I rather enjoy hearing the _putonghua_. On the other hand, one early afternoon I was having a pre-San-Francisco-Esperanto-Regional-Organization-meeting lunch at the apartment of a friend of mine whom I often drove to such meetings. Suddenly the phone rang and she abandoned me to pick it up. She and the person on the other end proceeded to carry on a ten-minute conversation in their native Shanghainese. When she hung up, I asked her why she was scolding him. She seemed rather surprised at the very idea, but that's what the language sounded like to me.
---
(*) Because I was once an exchange student in Denmark.
--
-- Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/don/don.html
http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/
Garth Wallace
Everything in Japanese sounds distinctly Japanese regardless of the
source because every word it borrows has to be force-fit into Japanese's
strict phonotactic rules. English, on the other hand, allows all sorts
of clusters & such, allowing loanwords to remain close to their original
sounds--therefore, English sounds like a hodgepodge of languages.
--
Happy denizen of the Nightstar IRC Network
Webcomics discussion: irc://us.nightstar.net/webcomics
Progressive rock chat: irc://us.nightstar.net/progrock
Garth Wallace
> I really hope there isn't a daily post limit here; Please excuse my
> frequent messages.
Don't worry about post limits. It's a newsgroup, and newsgroups don't
have post limits (in general--some binary groups have limits because
they get so much traffic, but that's something set by individual servers
ad is not an inherent quality of any group). So post away!
> I'm just really excited to have found this site,
> and I have tons of questions I just am dying to ask. I was just
> wondering about the aesthetic qualities of languages, and how often
> people think about this when making a language. Not specifying to any
> specific taste, since tastes vary, it would be interesting to know who
> does think about this in their conlangs?
In my current project, aesthetic considerations are incredibly important
(along with relative simplicity...the basics of grammar should fit on a
page or two). In my other projects, it's somewhat less important, as
they're generally intended to be more naturalistic--however, one of my
languages is called "Samadurian", from a mangling of "cellar door"
(Tolkien's term for a combination of sounds that trips off the tongue
smoothly).
> And if you have time, I'd like to also know what languages do people
> find to have a nice aesthetic quality to them? Personally, in terms of
> non-created languages, I find that Latin, English, Italian, French,
> Chinese, and Japanese have particularly nice "rings" to them. What do
> you think? As for created languages, I find Tolkien's languages,
> Quenya etc.. very beautiful. :)
I mostly agree, although I'm not as fond of French as some people are.
Welsh is also very nice. Finnish is also strangely beautiful.
BishiRaver
subscribed to... but I unsubscribed a few days later because it was so
active! I even set up a filter with my mail application, and it was way
too much for me to keep up with...
Paul O. BARTLETT wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2003, Calvin wrote:
>
>
> >I really hope there isn't a daily post limit here; Please excuse my
> >frequent messages. I'm just really excited to have found this site,
Logan Kearsley
> Welsh is also very nice. Finnish is also strangely beautiful.
I agree with that. I find French aesthetics range from nauseating to
bearable. But that's just me.
Viktoro
"Garth Wallace" <gwa...@despammed.com> wrote
>
> Everything in Japanese sounds
> distinctly Japanese regardless of the
> source because every word it borrows
> has to be force-fit into Japanese's
> strict phonotactic rules. English, on the
> other hand, allows all sorts
> of clusters & such, allowing loanwords
> to remain close to their original
> sounds--therefore, English sounds
> like a hodgepodge of languages.
>
Well, 'karaoke' and 'karate' don't sound at all like their originals when
rendered into English...
--Viktoro
Paul O. BARTLETT
> [cut] English, on the other hand, allows all sorts
> of clusters & such, allowing loanwords to remain close to their original
> sounds--therefore, English sounds like a hodgepodge of languages.
Some of us native speakers consider that the willingness to
grab words from all over everywhere is part of the genius of the
English-speaking peoples. English is so rich precisely because
we have no scruples about adopting useful words no matter where
they come from. To a great extent, English IS a hodgepodge of
languages. That is part of the reason why I love it so much.
Garth Wallace
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Garth Wallace wrote:
>
>
>>[cut] English, on the other hand, allows all sorts
>>of clusters & such, allowing loanwords to remain close to their original
>>sounds--therefore, English sounds like a hodgepodge of languages.
>
>
> Some of us native speakers consider that the willingness to
> grab words from all over everywhere is part of the genius of the
> English-speaking peoples. English is so rich precisely because
> we have no scruples about adopting useful words no matter where
> they come from. To a great extent, English IS a hodgepodge of
> languages. That is part of the reason why I love it so much.
I didn't say it was a bad thing! ;) Being able to borrow words here and
there is very useful, and may be one reason why English has been so
readily adopted as a lingua franca (along with all of the
political/cultural reasons, of course). I'm a native speaker too BTW.
Noé Falzon
first, I would like to apologize for any english mistakes, or even
linguistic mistakes I could do in this post. I'm not gonna tell the
truth, only what I believe is the truth. Thanks for those who will read
to the end ;P
Calvin <tier...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I really hope there isn't a daily post limit here; Please excuse my
> frequent messages. I'm just really excited to have found this site,
> and I have tons of questions I just am dying to ask. I was just
> wondering about the aesthetic qualities of languages, and how often
> people think about this when making a language. Not specifying to any
> specific taste, since tastes vary, it would be interesting to know who
> does think about this in their conlangs?
I don't know if it is a good idea, but my projects are almost only based
on what they will sound like. Of course, I give an important attention
to gramar and linguistic interest, but for the system of languages I'm
making, I've already the idea of the way they will sound, even before
the first grammar point. Well, for the moment, it's quite working, but I
don't know if they will finaly seem natural.
> And if you have time, I'd like to also know what languages do people
> find to have a nice aesthetic quality to them? Personally, in terms of
> non-created languages, I find that Latin, English, Italian, French,
> Chinese, and Japanese have particularly nice "rings" to them. What do
> you think? As for created languages, I find Tolkien's languages,
> Quenya etc.. very beautiful. :)
Well, as a post by Donald J. Harlow told it before, it really depends on
who is speaking. A quite "obvious" example is found in every language :
even if you perfectly know how the words have to be pronounced, if
you're not a native (or old experienced) speaker, it might sound
differently, and sometimes less good (do you say "less good" in english
? I don't know, sorry if there's a mistake). When I hear a Spanish man
talking, I often find it beautiful, but sometimes, when I speak it
myself, even with 5 years of learning, and hearing and speaking quite
often the language, well, that's not terrible...
The difference, I think can also be found in the accent (is it the word
?). Someone from Paris won't speak the same way that someone in
Marseilles. Some can think one is better than another (well, the French
example in not very accurate, because there's not natural stress in the
"proper" way to speak it. In the south of France, they say it with
stress and a slight difference in sounds). The same thing can be found
between Spain and South America. Some sounds are not exactly the same
(for example the "c" and "z" are, in Madrid, dental voiceless
fricatives, while in other countries, it became a simple "s" ; or, the
"ll" in some lands is almost between "li" and "di", somewhere else : a
kind of "y" (I believe it's called retroflex but I'm not sure), and in
Columbia, for exemple, that's even "dj" (the j here is as pronounced in
french).
And finaly, I would say that the pronouncation depends also on what text
is said. I'll take example of french because it's my mothertongue. There
is a great (very huge !) difference between the every speaking and, for
example, poetry. French poetry is based on metric, rhymes (these two
first are only true in calssical conception of peotry. Now the poets
write more freely), "transfiguration" (that means : use an incommon way
to describe a common thing), style figures (metaphors, repetitions,
lexical domains...), and of course sonorities ! That's the point, here.
When you write poetry, the aim is to say (of course) what you want to
say, but also to say it in a beautiful way.
Voici des fruits, des fleurs, des feuilles et des branches,
Et puis voici mon coeur qui ne bat que pour vous.
Ne le déchirez pas avec vos deux mains blanches,
Et qu'à vos yeux si beaux l'humble présent soit doux
That's an extract from "Green" by Paul Verlaine. I don't like to cut
poetry, but I don't remember the end.
In the first verse, you have 3 "f", a "v", a "b". All three are labial,
true ? That's what creates the special effect. And also two "eu"
(fleurs, feuilles)
In the second, three "k" (coeur, qui, que). Same thing.
In the fourth : if you care, you hear "... z ... b ... b ... z ... ".
The first "z" is the link between "vos" and "yeux", the second is the
"s" in "présent". That's, in french, a "chiasme" (say kiazme). It makes
the sentence and the sounds sound really better...
Maybe that's only exemples to what make different parts of a same
language beautiful or not.
But, I must say that I find some langages nicer than other. A few
examples :
French, but only in poetry. I believe (but maybe it is due to the fact
that I speak it everyday) that in itself it is not so nice to hear.
I like very much Spanish. I think that's one of the most "singing"
langage I've ever heard, and that's a pleasure to speak it.
In other roman languages, Italian seems a bit less nice. I believe it is
too much exuberant. But there is a nice stress, and it is quite warm.
Latin is beautiful by its "clockwork" sound. I've been studying Latin
for a while, and I always like the consonnant chaining (ie
"Taraconensis"), and recursive sounds (due to the case system).
I dislike German and other germanic tongues. Mmm, however, German is a
perfect language when sang (at least in classical music) because, I
believe, the natural stress almost always corresponds with the musical
stress. And it's true. But when spoken usualy, I don't find any
beautiful sounds. That's the same in Nederlands.
English is apart from the other. I don't know if linguists have ever
said something like this, but I think that English has a particular
sound system. There are only diphtongs (in the way that you can always
write an english vowel as two french ones), and a few sounds like dental
fricatives makes it really "fluid" and pleasant to hear. Maybe it is
due, once again to the fact that it is not my mother tongue, but some
things sound really better in english than in french, for exemple. I
think that it is a very "voiced" tongue. When you say "You've pretty
eyes", there is no... snag, and even the hard consonnants are sweet.
Maybe that's just an idea of mine and it's not true, but it is what I
feel.
But once again, it can be an ugly tongue. For exemple, I don't really
like the american accent (sorry folks ;P ), while english spoken by a
welshman gets a little charming tone.
Other languages I like to hear are Russian, Arabic... And my favorite
are doubtless the celtic langages. I don't know very much Breton, but I
had a nice overview of Welsh, and I think it's marvelous. And Irish (I
think we used to call it gaelic, but lately this word has been reserved
to Scottish, because these two are both parts of gaelic). I recognise
that I only heard a few bits of Irish, but it immediately enchented me.
Maybe I'm making myself illusion, but that's probably the most beautiful
sound I've ever heard.
Of course, I have not heard all tongues on Earth, but these few one seem
nice to me.
About conlangs, I don't know very much ones. Yes, Tolkien's one are
nice. I believe he wanted to make them look like the people who spoke
them. Even the "Black langage" has impressive tones.
Well, I hope I could help you to answer your question, and again, I do
not pretend to have specific knowledge about all this, I just tell what
I see and hear.
Regards,
Noé
--
"Je ne deteste que les bourreaux" -- Albert Camus
Pour m'écrire, veuillez enlever PASDEPUB de mon adresse ;P
Ygor Coelho
> And if you have time, I'd like to also know what languages do people
> find to have a nice aesthetic quality to them? Personally, in terms of
> non-created languages, I find that Latin, English, Italian, French,
> Chinese, and Japanese have particularly nice "rings" to them. What do
> you think? As for created languages, I find Tolkien's languages,
> Quenya etc.. very beautiful. :)
I think the Romance languages are very beautiful, because most of them
flows very well. I think English, though sometimes it doesn't flow
well, is a very beautiful language. In my opinion, Japanese and
Chinese aren't beautiful languages... I think Portuguese is one of the
most beautiful languages I've ever heard, because the words sound soft
and the phrases flow very beautifully.
Viktoro
"Ygor Coelho" <ygor_...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I think Portuguese is one of the
> most beautiful languages I've ever heard,
> because the words sound soft
> and the phrases flow very beautifully.
I like Spanish better than Portuguese because the vowels are "purer."
--Viktoro
Automort
>and sometimes less good (do you say "less good" in english
It's passable.
"Not so good" is passble.
"It might not sound well."
It really depens here less on grammar rules than on what you are trying to
emphasize.
That it might not sound as well as something else sounds or that it might not
have an aesthetically pleasing sound. The distinction troubles native speakers
even when they don;t realize it.
Logan Kearsley
> on what they will sound like. Of course, I give an important attention
> to gramar and linguistic interest, but for the system of languages I'm
> making, I've already the idea of the way they will sound, even before
> the first grammar point. Well, for the moment, it's quite working, but I
> don't know if they will finaly seem natural.
That's almost exactly what I do, except that I usually have a list of
interesting grammar concepts that I want to play with, and then I match one
up with a phonemic/phonotactic system.
> But once again, it can be an ugly tongue. For exemple, I don't really
> like the american accent (sorry folks ;P ), while english spoken by a
> welshman gets a little charming tone.
I couldn't agree more. English seems inherently harsh to listen to, but some
people can make it pleasant.
> Other languages I like to hear are Russian, Arabic... And my favorite
> are doubtless the celtic langages. I don't know very much Breton, but I
> had a nice overview of Welsh, and I think it's marvelous. And Irish (I
> think we used to call it gaelic, but lately this word has been reserved
> to Scottish, because these two are both parts of gaelic). I recognise
> that I only heard a few bits of Irish, but it immediately enchented me.
> Maybe I'm making myself illusion, but that's probably the most beautiful
> sound I've ever heard.
Another point I agree with.
responses only to the list}abyss@nutter.net Dana Nutter
>... I was just
>wondering about the aesthetic qualities of languages, and how often
>people think about this when making a language. Not specifying to any
>specific taste, since tastes vary, it would be interesting to know who
>does think about this in their conlangs?
>
>And if you have time, I'd like to also know what languages do people
>find to have a nice aesthetic quality to them? Personally, in terms of
>non-created languages, I find that Latin, English, Italian, French,
>Chinese, and Japanese have particularly nice "rings" to them. What do
>you think? As for created languages, I find Tolkien's languages,
>Quenya etc.. very beautiful. :)
I seem to have very different tastes than most here because I really
don't care much for the sound of Romance languages. French, Italian
and Portuguese don't appeal to me at all. Spanish flows well, but
still doesn't have much appeal for some reason. On the other hand, I
like Classical Latin.
I do have a bias towards a group that hasn't been mentioned yet, the
Slavic languages, Russian is one of my favorites.
Japanese has to be one of the most beautiful sounding languages I've
ever heard.
Hawaiian also hasn't been mentioned yet, but I really like the way it
sounds too.
Mandarin sounds very choppy and broken, as do many other East Asian
languages like Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai. Don't care much for any
of them.
As for Germanic languages, High German can be very nice, but the
Nordic languages sound a bit strange with their tonal qualities. Which
leads us to my mother tongue, English, I do like the sound qualities
but there are some dialects which do sound absolutely disgusting to
me while others are very appealing.
This of course now brings up another question, especially for those
whose native tongue is something other than English. What dialects of
your native language appeal to you more? Why?
Ygor Coelho
> I like Spanish better than Portuguese because the vowels are "purer."
>
> --Viktoro
Well, nasal vowels don't mean impure vowels. I think the Portuguese is
richer in vowels and because of this is more melodic. Spanish is also
badly articulated and spoken too fast, what makes the language sound
something like 'messy'!
Ygor Coelho
Dana Nutter {post responses only to the list}
Same here regarding French. I think it's those nasalized vowels. They
make it sound like someone with bad congestion is speaking.
There is something about Finnish that is very unique and very pleasant
sounding.
Noé Falzon
> How about Portuguese? What do you think about it? :)
Yes of course ! I knew i forgot one. Yes, Portuguese has a really
nice... how could I say... sizzling, or voiced sonority. I have a
portuguese TV channel at home, and it's always a pleasure, even if I
understand nothing...
Ygor Coelho
> Ygor Coelho <ygor_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How about Portuguese? What do you think about it? :)
>
> Yes of course ! I knew i forgot one. Yes, Portuguese has a really
> nice... how could I say... sizzling, or voiced sonority. I have a
> portuguese TV channel at home, and it's always a pleasure, even if I
> understand nothing...
Portuguese is my native language and I've noticed that the best
characteristic of Portuguese is the good sonority, the phrases flow
well and clearly. Some people here say English is a harsh language,
but I don't think so. I think English can sound very beautiful and
very ugly according to the speaker! It's something like this: the
words by theirselves sound very beautiful and clear, but when they
form a phrase, it seems that everything is unarticulated and unclear.
Viktoro
Ygor Coelho skribis:
>
> Well, nasal vowels don't mean impure vowels. I think the Portuguese is
> richer in vowels and because of this is more melodic. Spanish is also
> badly articulated and spoken too fast, what makes the language sound
> something like 'messy'!
As far as nasality is concerned, I do like French somewhat now! I recently devoted some time to study French
so I could grow to appreciate English more because both languages have illogical spelling and various
ambiguous vowel shades, traits which I considered "messy." I didn't really like French when I was in school,
but it was a mandatory subject at the time. If only Esperanto or Lojban was taught then, I would have been
happier...
--Viktoro
Logan Kearsley
> don't care much for the sound of Romance languages. French, Italian
> and Portuguese don't appeal to me at all. Spanish flows well, but
> still doesn't have much appeal for some reason. On the other hand, I
> like Classical Latin.
>
> I do have a bias towards a group that hasn't been mentioned yet, the
> Slavic languages, Russian is one of my favorites.
>
> Japanese has to be one of the most beautiful sounding languages I've
> ever heard.
>
> Hawaiian also hasn't been mentioned yet, but I really like the way it
> sounds too.
>
> Mandarin sounds very choppy and broken, as do many other East Asian
> languages like Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai. Don't care much for any
> of them.
>
> As for Germanic languages, High German can be very nice, but the
> Nordic languages sound a bit strange with their tonal qualities. Which
> leads us to my mother tongue, English, I do like the sound qualities
> but there are some dialects which do sound absolutely disgusting to
> me while others are very appealing.
Wow! That's almost exactly how I feel. Except that I don't like Spanish in
any way at all. And I thought I was the only one who didn't like Romance
languages....
> This of course now brings up another question, especially for those
> whose native tongue is something other than English. What dialects of
> your native language appeal to you more? Why?
I like people with Irish accents. I don't know why, I just do. Perhaps its
because it's one of a very few accents that I can't immitate very well.
Dana Nutter {post responses only to the list}
> > This of course now brings up another question, especially for those
> > whose native tongue is something other than English. What dialects of
> > your native language appeal to you more? Why?
>
> I like people with Irish accents. I don't know why, I just do. Perhaps its
> because it's one of a very few accents that I can't immitate very well.
>
Yeah, I like Irish too, but Scottish accents better. London accents
sound good, but most of the Southern England dialects sound too broken,
especiall Cockney.
Most of the Western U.S. is fine, but I'm biased since I grew up and
spent most of my life on the West Coast. I live in the South now, there
seems to be more of a variety of dialects out here, even from one county
to the next. On the ugly side, Accents from New York City have to be
the worst. They all sound like they are talking with a mouth full of
food or something.
Steve Cross
in news:fi66av0o63ho4pknp...@4ax.com:
> On the ugly side, Accents from New York City
> have to be the worst. They all sound like they are talking with a
> mouth full of food or something.
To me, the native New York / N. New Jersey accents sound extremely nasal.
The current generation is giving them up rapidly, probably because they're
also embarrassed by how that stuff sounds. These days, you often can't tell
if somebody's from up there until they say something like "Leave it sit
there" or "stand on line."
Steve Cross
Steve Cross
> I do have a bias towards a group that hasn't been mentioned yet, the
> Slavic languages, Russian is one of my favorites.
>
> Japanese has to be one of the most beautiful sounding languages I've
> ever heard.
>
> Hawaiian also hasn't been mentioned yet, but I really like the way it
> sounds too.
A lot of this is a matter of taste. For instance, I don't like French
because, once again, of those nasal vowels, but I've known other native
English speakers who've grown to love them. I've known people who
consider German harsh, but I find it appealing precisely because it
conveys forcefulness and vigor. I like Yiddish for the same reason.
Yiddish also happens to be a great language for someone with a sense of
humor, because it's very easy to sound funny (ON PURPOSE) when speaking
Yiddish.
I love the sound of spoken Hebrew, as well, but that's probably a
religious bias. I've heard so much liturgy sung in it in recent years,
especially at the seder.
> Mandarin sounds very choppy and broken, as do many other East Asian
> languages like Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai. Don't care much for any
> of them.
My Mandarin-speaking co-worker can be overheard talking to (I presume)
his wife on the phone. I also think Mandarin-Chinese sounds harsh, and
not in a good way like the alleged harshness of German.
OTOH, maybe it's his native Shanghai dialect I object to.
> What dialects of
> your native language appeal to you more? Why?
The question of dialect in one's native tongue is an emotional one, tied
up with personal feelings about one's family background and questions of
social status. For instance, I prefer the Upper South dialects. That is,
the Southern US accents that don't drop R after a vowel. We've had two
presidents in a row (Clinton and G W Bush) who grew up speaking it. Ross
Perot also uses it. An Upper South accent is the voice of political power
in America! Yee-haw! Just kidding.
Southern Accents are often alleged to sound sloppy and ignorant to people
from other parts of the USA. Damn Yankees! What do they know? Just
kidding?
Steve Cross
Levi Tooker
> frequent messages. I'm just really excited to have found this site,
> wondering about the aesthetic qualities of languages, and how often
> people think about this when making a language. Not specifying to any
> specific taste, since tastes vary, it would be interesting to know who
> does think about this in their conlangs?
>
> And if you have time, I'd like to also know what languages do people
> find to have a nice aesthetic quality to them? Personally, in terms of
> non-created languages, I find that Latin, English, Italian, French,
> Chinese, and Japanese have particularly nice "rings" to them. What do
> you think? As for created languages, I find Tolkien's languages,
> Quenya etc.. very beautiful. :)
I think German is a very beautiful language myself. I love the soft
"ch" sound, and the vowels, and the stress, and the fact that it
sometimes sounds distantly like something English (especially
Plattdeutsch, in which a sentence like "Gib mir das" can sound
perfectly intelligible to a monolingual Anglophone as "Give me that"),
and those consonant clusters are charming in their own way and...well,
I like it all! Some of my other aesthetic favorites are Russian,
French, Italian, Finnish, Hindi, Japanese, Mandarin, Swahili and
Turkish.
But most of all I love the sound of the Oceanic languages, especially
the more phonologically restricted ones. Tahitian, Hawai'ian, Samoan,
Tagalog, Bahasa...they're all very pleasant to listen to.
The most beautiful-sounding conlang I've ever encountered is Toki
Pona, but only in small doses. Long excerpts of the language sound a
bit awkward as the minimalist lexicon forces the same words to be
uttered over and over again. I am making a conlang with a slightly
more minimalistic phonology (CV and V are the only permitted syllable
types, and V only at the beginning of a word), partly for simplicity's
sake and partly because the language is trying to look vaguely Oceanic
in ways. I also thought Talossan was a nice-sounding conlang
(presumably...I never did hear any sound clips) but it seems to have
all but disappeared from the Internet.
The least aesthetic conlang i've encountered is probably Lojban. I
started to learn it as an intellectual project a while ago and had to
stop because I just didn't feel the same aesthetic connection I do to
other languages (including conlangs...I find Esperanto rather pleasant
sounding, especially sung), plus the ultra-logical nature of the
language was hurting my head. I rather prefer the structure of natural
languages, irregular as it can sometimes be. Also, Europanto strikes
me as very odd-looking, as I know at least basic Spanish, German,
English and French, and I can read Italian to a degree and it seems to
be a whole random jumble of unaltered or barely altered words from
those languages, creating an intelligible but awkward result. For
example, consider:
Dann whisper aan meine belmère oreille que seine voizine aan de komité
des locataires protested porqué ella der télé volume tropo loud tient,
porqué ella sekoue las nappes from le balcony sur der linge des
anderes y porqué laat seine kat pisseren lelong der eskalier.
I can understand nearly every word, but it rings so strange.
As for non-aesthetic natural languages, my native English is
definitely among them. Perhaps I'm biased because I've heard it spoken
every day of my life, but our retroflex r's don't compare with a
French uvular one or an Italian-style trilled one, especially
syllabically (ugh!). In addition, "pure" vowels appeal to me more than
the English tendency to swallow them in unstressed syllables or
diphthongize them in our stressed syllables (which are often *too*
stressed, I think). And I don't think we pull off the consonant
clusters as elegantly as the Russians. I still trip up trying to
enunciate "strengths"; luckily in my dialect it more or less rhymes
with "banks" so I don't have to enunciate it whenever I say it.
However, Russian "zdravstvujte" has never posed a problem for me, even
before I learned the first 'v' was silent.
Just my two cents.
Dana Nutter {post responses only to the list}
> Southern Accents are often alleged to sound sloppy and ignorant to people
> from other parts of the USA. Damn Yankees! What do they know? Just
> kidding?
Sometimes they sound ignorant and sometimes they don't. I really
depends on who is speaking. I've been living in E. Tennessee for the
past 3 years now. Long enough to where my ears have adjusted somewhat
to the local accents. The habit of stretching vowels out into two
syllables is one of my favorites. But then there are those words that
sound like other words "tars" = tires, "far" = fire, etc. My favorite
so far is hearing about some guy that called the front desk at my old
company and asked "Yunz harn?"
I did see a website recently that had an "Appalachian" version
available.
Steve Cross
> But then there are those words that
> sound like other words "tars" = tires, "far" = fire, etc.
Like the rest of English,
"bow" / "bough"
"bye" / "by"
"flee" / "flea"
Phonetic decay will do that.
> My
> favorite so far is hearing about some guy that called the front desk
> at my old company and asked "Yunz harn?"
I didn't think anybody said "you-uns" any more. I prefer "y'all" myself,
but that's just me.
Steve Cross
Dana Nutter {post responses only to the list}
> I didn't think anybody said "you-uns" any more. I prefer "y'all" myself,
> but that's just me.
I'm in a rural area. "Y'unz" is fairly popular, especially with the
younger crowd.
hs
I tend to think so, too - and that is is one reason why I love Italian, especially the variant spoken around
Florence. Very "pure" and very clear (the sicilian dialect, OTOH, is "messier").
But in my case it may laso be a matter of personal attachment to the country...
--
Hans Straub
hs
> As for created languages, I find Tolkien's languages,
> Quenya etc.. very beautiful. :)
Connected to this, here is a funny experience I had: I also find Tolkien's
languages beatuiful - especially when i read the words. Strange thing is,
when I watched the "Lord of the Rings" movies and actually heard the
language spoken, I was far less impressed than I had thought... Maybe they
spoke it with too much english accent?
--
Hans Straub
Ja Mess
>
>> "Viktoro" <vm...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<y6koa.7180$8r5.1...@news1.telusplanet
>>
>>> are "purer."
>>>
>>> --Viktoro
>>
>> Well, nasal vowels don't mean impure vowels. I think the
>> Portuguese is
>> richer in vowels and because of this is more melodic.
>> Spanish is also
>> badly articulated and spoken too fast, what makes the language sound
>> something like 'messy'!
>
> I tend to think so, too - and that is is one reason why I
> love Italian, especially the variant spoke
> dialect, OTOH, is "messier").
> But in my case it may laso be a matter of personal
> attachment to the country...
Well, being romanian, and having studied italian, spanish, catalan and
french, I have to confess that I love catalan, like portugues, and I
like so much the dialects from Lecce (south Italy) and Sicilia.
Also el Muntanar and dialects from Foggia (also Italy). They are very
beautiful as the emotive and artistic charge of the words is incredible.
Italian seems to me very artificial, with less power of expressing
details and subtile thigs. It's the worst of all these languages. And
spanish comes next. Also dialects maintain the strange and beautiful
combination of words and sounds to express things otherwise difficult to
express in standard italian.
That's why I don't like artificial languages... because the language is
the key to the culture and the being of a people.. so an artificial
language cannot neither have nor achieve this feature
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.language.artificial
Automort
>That's why I don't like artificial languages... because the language is
>the key to the culture and the being of a people.. so an artificial
>language cannot neither have nor achieve this feature
If used a long while by many, it can.
But the nature of "artificial" languages requires this. They must largely be
the creation of single individuals.
Their values aren't the same as those of natural languages.
Ja Mess
Hm... Then I can understand one who uses it for coding and encription...
But then don't understand esperanto... Are we that lazy that cannot
learn a few languages of universal use because we think they are
difficult?
Automort
>Then I can understand one who uses it for coding and encription...
>But then don't understand esperanto... Are we that lazy that cannot
>learn a few languages of universal use because we think they are
>difficult?
No, people here are creative and interested in languages and indulge in this
because it's fun.
I doubt very many people are concerned with whether their language becomes the
lingua franca of Melanesia or such.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> No, people here are creative and interested in languages and indulge in this
> because it's fun.
> I doubt very many people are concerned with whether their language becomes the
> lingua franca of Melanesia or such.
This newsgroup attracts a mixed set of participants. The larger
number seem to be those who construct languages for pleasure (hobbies)
or literary purposes. The smaller number are interested in working (or
workable) constructed international auxiliary languages (conIALs). To
this extent it resembles the old CONLANG mailing list before it was
split into AUXLANG (conIALs) and CONLANG (hobby/literary).
--
Paul Bartlett
bartlett at smart.net
PGP key info in message headers
Automort
> This newsgroup attracts a mixed set of participants.
All the better.
> The larger
>number seem to be those who construct languages for pleasure (hobbies)
>or literary purposes.
My own bent.
>The smaller number are interested in working (or
>workable) constructed international auxiliary languages (conIALs).
Well, who knows? Maybe in a century somebody's language will be just what some
country/organization needs.
Perhaps these languages function like mathematical speculation. Not that I know
much about that, but I recall reading that imaginary numbers were worked out
long before it was discovered that they can be used for a succinct and useful
description of electrical resistance.
Maybe a time will come when people will shop for languages to fit their needs
and will comb through archives of conlangs for the one that works for them.
Ja Mess
Hehe, than I am a minority... for I definitely don't construct
languages... and it's not a hobby. Maybe it could help me in the future
if I do some programming in the matter.
The main thing is that I am very curious and I respect languages... so I
am glad that I found a bunch of people who care for the language(s) in a
way or another... and who don't think that I'm crazy or something for
being interested in this.
Ja Mess
Garth Wallace
>
> That's why I don't like artificial languages... because the language is
> the key to the culture and the being of a people.. so an artificial
> language cannot neither have nor achieve this feature
Unless it's attached to an artificial[1] or fictional[2] culture.
[1] For example, languages for micronations. Micronations are basically
clubs that pretend to be nationalities. The most impressive
micronational language, IMO, is Talossan, which seems very much like a
natural language. It's a Romance language, you might like it.
[2] For example, a culture in a work of fiction, such as the elves in
Tolkien's works with their Quenya and Sindarin languages. Also, some
people like to come up with fictional societies with their own
traditions, social structures, and histories, just for the fun of it. I
fall somewhere between the two.
--
Happy denizen of the Nightstar IRC Network
Webcomics discussion: irc://us.nightstar.net/webcomics
Progressive rock chat: irc://us.nightstar.net/progrock
Ja Mess
>>
>> That's why I don't like artificial languages... because
>> the language is
>> the key to the culture and the being of a people.. so an artificial
>> language cannot neither have nor achieve this feature
>
> Unless it's attached to an artificial[1] or fictional[2] culture.
>
> [1] For example, languages for micronations. Micronations
> are basically
> clubs that pretend to be nationalities. The most impressive
> micronational language, IMO, is Talossan, which seems very
> much like a
> natural language. It's a Romance language, you might like it.
>
> [2] For example, a culture in a work of fiction, such as
> the elves in
> Tolkien's works with their Quenya and Sindarin languages. Also, some
> people like to come up with fictional societies with their own
> traditions, social structures, and histories, just for the
> fun of it. I
> fall somewhere between the two.
I've seen Talossan and Interlingua. It's incredible. Although Talossan
seems more romanian or catalan than french & italian... Maybe due to the
portugues influence...
The only difficult stuff in learning those languages is not mixing with
my own language, or with catalan, italian, spanish of which I already
have a very good knowledge.
Hm... I think I'll study Interlingua. Can you imagine that I had NO idea
of its existence? I had only heard of Esperanto, which I don't
understand...
Well, 10x for everything
Salut!
Cellus Purfluxius
>>(...)
>>
>That's why I don't like artificial languages... because the language is
>the key to the culture and the being of a people.. so an artificial
>language cannot neither have nor achieve this feature.
>
Le linguas national pote etiam esser visionate como artificial, a saper
si tu los solo cognosce via litteratura o in libros e nunquam incontra
parlatores native del lingua. Ego imagina que on pote imaginar un
alternante uso de varie typos de linguas.
Un lingua artificial es naturalmente artificial pro omne usatores, tanto
como anglese es un lingua artificial pro me, in mi uso! :-)
In un senso on pote vider un lingua artificial como un methodo
regularisate de usar un altere lingua national in un maniera que es
estranie al parlatores native!
Il es discussibile que iste via medie es functionante. In le majoritate
de casos "anglese con accento" es plenmente functionante.
Amicalmente
Cellus P.
>
>
Ja Mess
ok, allora potrei usare io il passato remoto quando parlo interlingua?
Passato remoto e un tempo passato, que esprime sia un'azzione molto
anteriore e finita (in italiano, spanyolo, francese e le altre lingue
neo-latine)
esepio: Nel settecento fu una grande rivoluzione. (in the years 700
there was a great revolution)
e piu, in romeno e alcuni dialetti italiani (siciliano, Lecce) puo
esprimere un'azione molto recente:
esempio: questa mattina feci tutti gli esercizi. (This morning I did all
the exercises)
or: Appena finii gli esercizi. (I have just finished the exercises)
or: que mi dicesti? (What have you just told me? )
As far as i remember, interlingua doesn't have this tense... It only has
a perfecto composto (verbo aver + perfecto) and some kind of imperfecto.
Would I be allowed to use this tense?
Ja Mess
Cellus Purfluxius
>>(...)
>>
>ok, allora potrei usare io il passato remoto quando parlo interlingua?
>Passato remoto e un tempo passato, que esprime sia un'azzione molto
>anteriore e finita (in italiano, spanyolo, francese e le altre lingue
>neo-latine)
>esepio: Nel settecento fu una grande rivoluzione. (in the years 700
>there was a great revolution)
>
> e piu, in romeno e alcuni dialetti italiani (siciliano, Lecce) puo
>esprimere un'azione molto recente:
>esempio: questa mattina feci tutti gli esercizi. (This morning I did all
>the exercises)
>or: Appena finii gli esercizi. (I have just finished the exercises)
>or: que mi dicesti? (What have you just told me? )
>
>As far as i remember, interlingua doesn't have this tense... It only has
>a perfecto composto (verbo aver + perfecto) and some kind of imperfecto.
>Would I be allowed to use this tense?
>
>
Parlatores de linguas romanic ha questionate le tempores in interlingua.
Sin approfundar se troppo (ego non es competente facer isto!) ego vole
dicer le temporef functiona multo como in anglese. Assi:
Presente. Ego nunc scribe in interlingua.
In mi urbe Uppsala ego sempre parla le svedese.
Imperfecto: Heri ego ascoltava un interessante programma per le radio.
Perfecto: Ego ha visitate Romania duo (2) vices como tourista.
Plusquamperfecto: Ante mi prime arrivata in Romania ego habeva studiate
le lingua un poco.
Il ha un altere forma del perfecto, que ego pensa se appella "perfecto
simple" illo expressa un action momentanee. Nostre grammaticas de
linguas romance sole describer le differentia inter le imperfecto e le
perfecto simple assi:
Il era un seren vespere. Ego ascoltava le sonos del strata. Subito ego
audit le clacson de un automobile. Ego me levat del lecto e curret verso
le fenestra.
era/esseva, ascoltava es imperfecto.
audit, levat, curret es perfecto simple.
Le forma perfecto simple es usate multo rarmente per le interlinguanos.
Sperante que isto es un sufficente responsa!
Cellus P.
Ja Mess
>
>>>(...)
>>>
>>ok, allora potrei usare io il passato remoto quando parlo
>> interlingua?
>>Passato remoto e un tempo passato, que esprime sia un'azzione molto
>>anteriore e finita (in italiano, spanyolo, francese e le altre lingue
>>neo-latine)
>>esepio: Nel settecento fu una grande rivoluzione. (in the years 700
>>there was a great revolution)
>>
>> e piu, in romeno e alcuni dialetti italiani (siciliano, Lecce) puo
Thank you! That's exactly the answer I needed. Because I couldn't find
that tense on the succint explanations regarding grammar. And yes, it's
called "perfecto simple" but only in romanian. Italians call it "passato
remoto" while spanish call it "preterito indefinito". Italians don't it
because they think it's too difficult, and spanish use it only to
express an action which took place long time ago and finished.
We use it either with this meaning, or as an "action momentanee" to
catch the dynamic feature when telling a story, or as a very recent
action to make the difference between past tense and present perfect.
(for ex: I did/I've just done)
Thanx again! I think I'm gonna study this Interlingua.
Ja Mess
____________________________
TRAIASCA REGELE!
hs
The expression "simple" may originate from french where the same thing is
called "passé simple".
Anyway, I thought the two perfect forms basically mean the same, but one
with a more literary and the other with a more colloquial flavour, passé
simple used nearly exclusively in written language, and in spoken language
nearly always replaceable by passé composé.
But maybe that's merely a teacher's trick for beginning language students...
--
Hans Straub
Cellus Purfluxius
It may be that what I called "simple perfect" was indeed an ordinary
perfect, because it seams to me that the pure Romance perfect works in
another way than it does in Swedish and English and perhaps even German.
The idea for the example that I wrote I took from a Spanish grammar I
read some years ago.
Cellus P.
Ja Mess
>
>>> Sin approfundar se troppo (ego non es competente facer
>>> isto!) ego vole
>>> dicer le temporef functiona multo como in anglese. Assi:
>>> Presente. Ego nunc scribe in interlingua.
>>> In mi urbe Uppsala ego sempre parla le svedese.
>>>
>>> Imperfecto: Heri ego ascoltava un interessante programma
>>> per le radio.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, within Romania only half of the country
uses it: the south. But the north had Austro Hungarian influence... and
Russian. The language didn't change, only the accent. And this tense.
I need it. In Italy I used to play with the words and construct
romanian-like structures. The people said it was either strange or not
right. But one guy from the south told me they are used to them, they
used them. And I was very happy. :-)
Ja Mess
Cellus Purfluxius
Tu va comprender isto in interlingua.
Quando ego visitava Romania como tourista, ego habeva antea studiate un
manual de romaniano. Ego usava le pauc parolas que ego memorava e
produceva mi proprie concoction ex parolas latin e francese e espaniol
in un forma que era simile a romaniano e parlava, e le gente me
comprendeva e ego comprendeva le gente post un numero de repetitiones.
In ille annos ego non sapeva interlingua.
Cellus P.
Ja Mess
Sure, I understand it :-) at 100%... And I'm sure that the people
understood you.
For me interlingua is fully understandable. So is Romanova. But to speak
it I have to study the grammar, vocabulary and to learn not to mix it
with other languages, which is not that difficult. After all I'm used to
think in the language I speak... And sometimes I'm surprised because
deductions are different in every language.
Ja Mess
Cellus Purfluxius
Probabilemente tu pote apprender interlingua per imitation e usar le
grammatica como un medio de referentia. I.e. "Es isto le correcte
maniera expressar le cosa?" Como face on con le verbos?
Apprende le regulas de pronunciation e lege le textos interlingua a
voce. Isto era un adjuta pro me.
Cellus P.
Anton Sherwood
> Hm... I think I'll study Interlingua. Can you imagine that I had
> NO idea of its existence? I had only heard of Esperanto, which I
> don't understand...
I understand Interlingua because I had previously studied Latin, French
and Italian; but most people don't have that advantage, and would have
less occasion to study such languages in a world where *any*
interlanguage is widespread.
Esperanto has some bad features (especially the number of distinct
sibilants), but I love its facility for coining words, which I've seen
nowhere else.
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Anton Sherwood
>> That's why I don't like artificial languages... because the language
>> is the key to the culture and the being of a people.. so an
>> artificial language cannot neither have nor achieve this feature
Most of us participate in subcultures (e.g. profession, hobby, religion)
that have special vocabulary not known to the People in general; and
much of this vocabulary is consciously invented. If a conversation
happens to be thick with such words, is it without soul?
Certainly Esperantism is a subculture whose members have been holding
conversations (in person and in writing) for many years; don't all those
letters and poems count for something?
Automort wrote:
> If used a long while by many, it can.
> But the nature of "artificial" languages requires this.
> They must largely be the creation of single individuals.
Why?
There's an interesting experiment going on in the "Conlangs In Use"
list: creation of pidgins. One writes something like
A foreigner comes to a market, approaches a cheese-seller
and says, "Trompin oayas kyu imin tosain?"
and another replies
The cheese-seller points to a cheese and holds up
four fingers. "Pwa oon pesao pleklai eiwi."
Not much progress yet, but they'll keep trying.
[I used crude encodings of Latin for each sentence;
one encoding is the reverse of the other.]
> Their values aren't the same as those of natural languages.
How so?
Anton Sherwood
> Well, who knows? Maybe in a century somebody's language will be just
> what some country/organization needs.
How?
> Perhaps these languages function like mathematical speculation.
> Not that I know much about that, but I recall reading that imaginary
> numbers were worked out long before it was discovered that they can
> be used for a succinct and useful description of electrical
> resistance.
True. With imaginary numbers oscillation can be described as a special
form of exponential decay; very useful where the two phenomena are mixed.
> Maybe a time will come when people will shop for languages to fit
> their needs and will comb through archives of conlangs for the one
> that works for them.
Well, there is no precedent for anything until it has been done the
first time.
Automort
> > Well, who knows? Maybe in a century somebody's language will be just
> > what some country/organization needs.
>
>How?
How would I know? It hasn't happened yet. However, people here study natural
and invented languages for their own purposes, don't they?
My statement was speculation, not prediction, so I don't have to give reasons.
>
>Well, there is no precedent for anything until it has been done the
>first time.
True. I recall reading that in the late 1800s people stated that there would be
no vast highway systems traversed by streams of privately owned automobiles
because there never had been such. (Leaving aside the Roman highways traversed
by streams of horses and various carts and coaches.)
Not much later it was stated that nobody would go to the Moon because nobody
ever had. Where do things start?
I read an interpretation of German history in some intellectual magazine
stating that Germany wasn't integrated early like other European countries
(apparently Poland, etc. don't count, just France, Spain, et al.) because it
was never conquered by the Romans and given an infrastructure of transport and
communication.
Since Rome wasn't conquered till long after it created the empire, one wonders
where this infrastructure came from if it must always be an external
imposition. Same for Iran (Persia), which preceded Rome by 1000 years but never
conquered Rome (despite defeating its armies).
Cellus Purfluxius
> (...)
>
> Esperanto has some bad features (especially the number of distinct
> sibilants), but I love its facility for coining words, which I've seen
> nowhere else.
>
Forsan al causa del facto que on lo non face. Del altere latere, pro
scriber comprensibilemente, interlingua postula un poco de disciplina.
Ma le facile formation de nove parolas es un avantage in esperanto,
particularmente si on vole demonstrar le formation de parolas in un
altere lingua.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
Un idea posse ser: on kompra un turistik biliet i viagia in Europa e
auskulta li lings ke on audi in li tren i prova far se komprendit.
Cellus P.
Noé Falzon
Can you tell me what language you used here ? I don't know it but I
understand all the words...
Noé
--
"Je ne deteste que les bourreaux" -- Albert Camus
Pour m'écrire, veuillez enlever PASDEPUB de mon adresse ;P
Cellus Purfluxius
>Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>In mi imaginari ling "komunikando" pro li mer jok(e).:
>>
>>Un idea posse ser: on kompra un turistik biliet i viagia in Europa e
>>auskulta li lings ke on audi in li tren i prova far se komprendit.
>>
>>Cellus P.
>>
>>
>
>Can you tell me what language you used here ? I don't know it but I
>understand all the words...
>
>
To e komunikando, mi propri kreation.
Cellus P.
Noé Falzon
> To e komunikando, mi propri kreation.
That's interesting. Was your aim to make a language understandable with
a few words from each of the basis languages, or just to make an
interlanguage ?
Cellus Purfluxius
>Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>To e komunikando, mi propri kreation.
>>
>>
>
>That's interesting. Was your aim to make a language understandable with
>a few words from each of the basis languages, or just to make an
>interlanguage ?
>
Primarily I do it for fun and curiosity. Sometimes I have used it when I
did not want to look to partial in favor of Interlingua or when my gut
feeling tells me that people will understand it easier than Interlingua.
Which I have no clue that they would do, but it is a funny experiment,
anyway.
I want to find understandable words in another way than Interlingua
does. The words for _and, is_ and _sister_ may indicate how I think.
The word for _and_ is _i_ because this is what it is in nealry all
Slavic languages + Spanish and Portugese.
In Komunikando _is_ = e (as in spoken Swedish, as in English _ain't_,
Italien _è_, Bulgarian and Roumanian _e_ (at least in the spoken
language) and the colloquial Persian -e. The most distributed word!
Adjectives can get the ending -i, because of Persian, English (Israeli,
Iraqi) Slavic _novi/novy_ etc.
I want the language to have a very peculiar form so that people easily
can remember it as somewhat strange and attractive.
Basically I use the Interlingua vocabulary, but I have taken some ideas
from Occidental as well and then I have thought that one could perhaps
use a very regular spelling. It is more or less pronounced interlingua,
but a little reshuffled.
The best thing would be if I could find rules to indicate how you can
form words in it, at least until and if I ever make some dictionaries!
The ideal would be that you could use any dictionary of foreign or
learned words and form the necessary vocabulary from that.
The best thing is if as many people as possible can understand it from
first glance.
Perhaps I shoud post some messages here to see what effect they might have.
Cellus P.
Noé Falzon
[...]
I think it's really a good idea.
Good luck for the following !
Noé