Is simplicity King? Artlang/Celtic Conlang project questions

[druneragarsh]

I am thinking of trying to keep my urge to create baroque and elaborate consonant mutation rules in check.

Don't The more complex, the better!

[HoskhMatriarch]

I am thinking of trying to keep my urge to create baroque and elaborate consonant mutation rules in check.

Don't The more complex, the better!

Don't just keep things in check. Natural languages have quite odd and complex rules.

[Sgribh]

I am thinking of trying to keep my urge to create baroque and elaborate consonant mutation rules in check.

Don't The more complex, the better!

Your encouraging dark forces that cannot be controlled...

[Ælfwine]

At least for me, simplicity is king, but at the same time I like to attempt to do more complicated things (even when I don't have a clue).

Ultimately however, I always go back to the simplest route, even if it doesn't satisfy me a much as it would of by completing more complex sequences.

[HoskhMatriarch]

At least for me, simplicity is king, but at the same time I like to attempt to do more complicated things (even when I don't have a clue).

Ultimately however, I always go back to the simplest route, even if it doesn't satisfy me a much as it would of by completing more complex sequences.

If you're not satisfied, change what you're doing...

[Khemehekis]

As for a language that doesn't have "lots of grammatical rules", there is no such thing. Some may have more morphological rules, with inflections, affixation and what have you, but all languages can express all general ideas that any other language can, and they all have complex rules to do it.

I remember when we had this thread, and I stated that my Kankonian grammar included sentences like the following:

She wondered what was bothering me, so I told her it was my knee.

We saved the dog before the car hit it.

Sakha's climbing the flagpole made me laugh.

The boys from the band stood on the porch, one smoking a cigarette, one with his shirt off, two drinking lemonade.

If the world were going to end, I would want to have you with me.

That show is so popular because of its dance numbers, not because it accurately portrays teen life.

In Kebsabhaz, someone must be 27 for you to have sex with him or her.

I felt bad about having killed the chimpanzee.

The archaeologist discovered the emperor's tomb, robbed and vandalized.

Over the years, that comic strip has become less and less funny.

Statues are more timeless than life is long.

I can't remember what we were arguing over.

The days taking Ecstasy got to me.

I got more invitations than I knew what to do with.

There is joy in doing things other people tell you are wrong.

This bed has clearly been jumped on.

Testyal replied: "Ruddy 'ell! The grammar must be complicated in order to incorporate sentences like that!"

Does that mean Kankonian is too complicated? Or alternatively, is there a way your grammar can be complete without covering these kinds of sentence, or even a way a language can be complete without being able to express such thoughts?

[Ælfwine]

At least for me, simplicity is king, but at the same time I like to attempt to do more complicated things (even when I don't have a clue).

Ultimately however, I always go back to the simplest route, even if it doesn't satisfy me a much as it would of by completing more complex sequences.

If you're not satisfied, change what you're doing...

Okay?

[clawgrip]

Does that mean Kankonian is too complicated? Or alternatively, is there a way your grammar can be complete without covering these kinds of sentence, or even a way a language can be complete without being able to express such thoughts?

These sentences are not excessively complicated, so I don't see why your language would be.

I also don't think your grammar can ever be complete, because there is just too much stuff to write down, particularly pragmatics. The various interpersonal implications between various people of various ages, groups, status, relationships, etc., combined with the peculiarities of various words and intonation patterns make it next to impossible.

To address your third point, that any thought that can be expressed in one language can be expressed in any other is a fundamental part of language. Some languages may make it easier than others to expressed certain thoughts, but all languages can do it.

[Lao Kou]

I remember when we had this thread, and I stated that my Kankonian grammar included sentences like the following:

<snip>

Testyal replied: "Ruddy 'ell! The grammar must be complicated in order to incorporate sentences like that!"

Does that mean Kankonian is too complicated? Or alternatively, is there a way your grammar can be complete without covering these kinds of sentence, or even a way a language can be complete without being able to express such thoughts?

I can't speak for Testyal, of course, but I think if you swapped out "complicated" = "complex" for "well fleshed-out", it makes more sense.

These sentences are not excessively complicated, so I don't see why your language would be.

in tandem with

To address your third point, that any thought that can be expressed in one language can be expressed in any other is a fundamental part of language. Some languages may make it easier than others to expressed certain thoughts, but all languages can do it.

While some of these sentences sound culture-specific, the structures themselves that come into play to express similar kinds of thoughts don't seem at all "out there".

I also don't think your grammar can ever be complete, because there is just too much stuff to write down, particularly pragmatics. The various interpersonal implications between various people of various ages, groups, status, relationships, etc., combined with the peculiarities of various words and intonation patterns make it next to impossible.

Albeit, of course, true on one level, that seems a little harsh. By that criterion, no (reference) grammar of any language could ever be considered complete as it couldn't possibly cover every possible contingency, past or present. Add to that that conlangs at that level of development, without the breath of life, are mere simulachra of natlangs; one lone conlanger cannot possibly replicate the to-and-fro of an entire speech community (over a conlangingly condensed span of time, let alone real centuries) (well maybe Tolkien could, but I can't).

And for the reasons you cite: how do teenagers communicate amongst themselves, how does a teenager communicate to his/her gran, how do grans communicate amongst themselves, how do I talk to my plumber, how do I talk to my president? Will "Is it a little chilly in here?" mean "Shut the G.D. window!" or "Get me a sweater!", or will it elicit a commentary on the actual temperature of the room? Will "Do you have a pen?" get you a pen to borrow or a "Yes." and the person walks away? But these seem para- or supragrammatical considerations, and how can you cover that in one, however hefty, tome of "grammar"? Comprehensive, maybe. Complete, meh.

That said, you can get satisfyingly close enough. I have a shelf-ful of reference grammars I treasure, and they're pretty darned comprehensive, if not complete by your rigorous definition. And so I think one might cut conlang grammars a little slack. Perhaps one may consider them "complete" in the sense that the building blocks of expression have been brought to a point where the creator may feel satisfied enough to take the grammar (and lexicon) in a bottle to the end of the dock and fling it into the ocean and see if it gets the breath of life (Esperanto: love or hate it, Zamenhof good-spiritedly flung the bottle and it got such a souffle). If the breath of life is not a concern, another option is to assume that while you're chronicling a fraction of it here, all that supragrammatical stuff is marching on naturally there. That's the way I play it -- until such time as native informants there play ball.

[clawgrip]

What I want to say is that having your grammar "complete" is really a matter of personal decision. There is no cutoff point for "complete", thus you have to determine by your own means what point you want to reach. So to the question, "Can a grammar be complete without covering these things?" I would think probably not, since by singling them out in example sentences, it seems Khemehekis has decided these are important. But then maybe some of the grammatical points in the sentences are too minor for the kind of grammar description that Khemehekis is going for. So it is subjective.

[Lao Kou]

Agreed.

[Sgribh]

What I want to say is that having your grammar "complete" is really a matter of personal decision. There is no cutoff point for "complete", thus you have to determine by your own means what point you want to reach. So to the question, "Can a grammar be complete without covering these things?" I would think probably not, since by singling them out in example sentences, it seems Khemehekis has decided these are important. But then maybe some of the grammatical points in the sentences are too minor for the kind of grammar description that Khemehekis is going for. So it is subjective.

I suppose complete for me will be if I am satisfied with its ability in written form to compose stories in a satisfying manner. That is INCREDIBLY subjective of course, but it is sort of my yardstick for "Is this done?!" My test will be covering a few literary fields.

• Day to Day
• Religion and/or Mythology
• Horror
• History and/or Non-Fictional accounts of events.
• Poetry
• Love and/or Erotic

In terms of communication, Well, I have some IRL volunteers who may wish to learn a sentence or two assuming I don't go completely crazy and make insanely artistic and difficult grammar.

[HoskhMatriarch]

You're going to write in your conlang? Cool. I'm going to write in mine too, which might have to do with why I'm ending up with a bunch of low-frequency words when I don't yet have words for "one" or "blue"...

[Sgribh]

You're going to write in your conlang? Cool. I'm going to write in mine too, which might have to do with why I'm ending up with a bunch of low-frequency words when I don't yet have words for "one" or "blue"...

It is somewhat of a compromise for me, realistically I will likely not have anyone to speak to. So the language will be highly literary in nature. Plus via writing different things it will force me to construct words to describe what I am trying to say.

ALSO maybe I'll develop better communication abilities via this venture. XD

More or less a lot of stuff is being borrowed from my last project, OR I'm getting ideas from Welsh, Cornish or Manx. Likewise there are a few interesting Celtic Conlangs, a painfully small number but they exist.

One of the bigger challenges for me, or minor hickups depending will be deciding on verbs. I.E. the somewhat Englishy version of verb conjugation, or something akin to Spanish or Sindarin with various Stems, and even allowing me the ability to have Verb categories with different stems. So some stems are most verbs, some other stems are specifically dealing with meta things like "Want," "Desire," "Love," "Lust," "Believe," ect

What sorts of verbs do you guys tend to like?

[HoskhMatriarch]

Since you're asking what kinds of verbs I use, here's some Hoskh verbs/sentences:

Tesarnsolännḷnżorsenönn? - Do you not feel guilty already?

Ai, żalaiksjeppsjuchnosnakheⱨ! - Oh, that I had never been born!

Ⱨaapsjä röri gapfånozsthös. - Someone strong would go after it. (This one has two verbs, since "Ⱨaapsjä röri" is a relative clause and then "gapfånozsthös" means "they would go after it")

teatmächhⱨaiħetzjönnṃråchasjennmootsopfamonokhiⱨ - that I could talk belaboringly here and there and yonder and be mighty then go to be silent and exist already (I did this one when I had slightly more than 50 morphemes because I wanted to make the longest word I could, it's sort of nonsensical)

I don't think you want to do that though. If you can read glosses, I'll provide them. As for things that you might want to do, you can look up S and V languages (apparently there are also E languages). I like S languages better even though I just speak 2 Germanic languages and I feel like I'm obligated not to hav a preference for the languages I speak, much less go and make conlangs that are also S languages.

[clawgrip]

You're going to write in your conlang? Cool. I'm going to write in mine too, which might have to do with why I'm ending up with a bunch of low-frequency words when I don't yet have words for "one" or "blue"...

If you make a dedicated thread for your language, you'll end up with a word for "one" soon enough.

[clawgrip]

You're going to write in your conlang? Cool. I'm going to write in mine too, which might have to do with why I'm ending up with a bunch of low-frequency words when I don't yet have words for "one" or "blue"...

It is somewhat of a compromise for me, realistically I will likely not have anyone to speak to. So the language will be highly literary in nature. Plus via writing different things it will force me to construct words to describe what I am trying to say.

ALSO maybe I'll develop better communication abilities via this venture. XD

More or less a lot of stuff is being borrowed from my last project, OR I'm getting ideas from Welsh, Cornish or Manx. Likewise there are a few interesting Celtic Conlangs, a painfully small number but they exist.

One of the bigger challenges for me, or minor hickups depending will be deciding on verbs. I.E. the somewhat Englishy version of verb conjugation, or something akin to Spanish or Sindarin with various Stems, and even allowing me the ability to have Verb categories with different stems. So some stems are most verbs, some other stems are specifically dealing with meta things like "Want," "Desire," "Love," "Lust," "Believe," ect

What sorts of verbs do you guys tend to like?

Himmaswa is an analytic language that takes auxiliaries to mark aspect and mood, but it also has three inherent aspect classes that each verb belongs to. The inherent class affects which auxiliaries can be used, and sometimes what their meaning is.

Examples:

dynamic: chiat to weave
perfect: kdui to lose (something)
stative: tpaiyl to be wet

with the perfect auxiliary bgaiy:

dynamic: chiat bgaiy is weaving
perfect: kdui bgaiy has lost (something)
stative: * *tpaiyl bgaiy this construction is not possible

This is also kind of Englishy though, since we can use the same conjugation for different aspects, e.g.:
I have lost it. (perfect).
I have lived here for two years (imperfect).

Japanese does a similar thing too. So I guess it's not so original!

[Salmoneus]

What I want to say is that having your grammar "complete" is really a matter of personal decision. There is no cutoff point for "complete", thus you have to determine by your own means what point you want to reach. So to the question, "Can a grammar be complete without covering these things?" I would think probably not, since by singling them out in example sentences, it seems Khemehekis has decided these are important. But then maybe some of the grammatical points in the sentences are too minor for the kind of grammar description that Khemehekis is going for. So it is subjective.

I suppose complete for me will be if I am satisfied with its ability in written form to compose stories in a satisfying manner. That is INCREDIBLY subjective of course, but it is sort of my yardstick for "Is this done?!" My test will be covering a few literary fields.

• Day to Day
• Religion and/or Mythology
• Horror
• History and/or Non-Fictional accounts of events.
• Poetry
• Love and/or Erotic

In terms of communication, Well, I have some IRL volunteers who may wish to learn a sentence or two assuming I don't go completely crazy and make insanely artistic and difficult grammar.

That will be a very impressive language - I can't compose stories in a satisfying manner in English! I'm constantly finding English unable to concisely and clearly express what I want to express in my writing. English seems a very incomplete language, relative to yours...

[HoskhMatriarch]

You're going to write in your conlang? Cool. I'm going to write in mine too, which might have to do with why I'm ending up with a bunch of low-frequency words when I don't yet have words for "one" or "blue"...

If you make a dedicated thread for your language, you'll end up with a word for "one" soon enough.

I have a dedicated thread (see my signature, although the language has been changed a lot since then), and I've been Jankoed a long time ago, but I still don't have numbers, except ten for some odd reason, and I might change that too.

[Sgribh]

What I want to say is that having your grammar "complete" is really a matter of personal decision. There is no cutoff point for "complete", thus you have to determine by your own means what point you want to reach. So to the question, "Can a grammar be complete without covering these things?" I would think probably not, since by singling them out in example sentences, it seems Khemehekis has decided these are important. But then maybe some of the grammatical points in the sentences are too minor for the kind of grammar description that Khemehekis is going for. So it is subjective.

I suppose complete for me will be if I am satisfied with its ability in written form to compose stories in a satisfying manner. That is INCREDIBLY subjective of course, but it is sort of my yardstick for "Is this done?!" My test will be covering a few literary fields.

• Day to Day
• Religion and/or Mythology
• Horror
• History and/or Non-Fictional accounts of events.
• Poetry
• Love and/or Erotic

In terms of communication, Well, I have some IRL volunteers who may wish to learn a sentence or two assuming I don't go completely crazy and make insanely artistic and difficult grammar.

That will be a very impressive language - I can't compose stories in a satisfying manner in English! I'm constantly finding English unable to concisely and clearly express what I want to express in my writing. English seems a very incomplete language, relative to yours...

That is my ultimate end goal, a fun language for writing.