(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

[Senlozan]

Does anybody have any ideas for an unusual conlang? I was thinking of making one, purely because I'm bored and need something to do. Also, I'd prefer it be a "fun" conlang, ex. a chess-themed conlang or a 5-dimensional conlang.

[eldin raigmore]

“Speaks this conlang” vs. “cannot speak this conlang”, maybe?

ooooh, interesting

You (and anyone else on the CBB!) are welcome to take it and run with it. Just don’t hinder others (e.g. me) from doing the same (although it appears I have some difficulty “running” with conlingustic things!).
Anyone not on the board is also welcome to use it; I ask only that if non-CBBeans use it, they cite the CBB as the source for this idea.

(I would not be surprised to learn that some natlang does something similar! Or, at least, reminiscent!)

[Wintarus]

So one thing I'm working with for a new project is a play on the triconsonantal roots of Semitic languages, where most verbs (and a lot of other vocab) are derived from a small collection of root consonants, and one (to two) root vowels.

For instance pukw means "to write," and can be derived into puʔukwa, "book." Krko, to shimmer >> kuroki, "star [celestial body]."

Now, my concern is would this be plausible if the language is mostly CVC(h/n/k/p) / CV ? (sorry if that doesn't make sense, I'm rusty on that stuff). I'm basically asking if a language that has the derivation system of Arabic while sounding like Indonesian or an Algonquin language would be plausible.

[eldin raigmore]

So one thing I'm working with for a new project is a play on the triconsonantal roots of Semitic languages, where most verbs (and a lot of other vocab) are derived from a small collection of root consonants, and one (to two) root vowels.

For instance pukw means "to write," and can be derived into puʔukwa, "book." Krko, to shimmer >> kuroki, "star [celestial body]."

Now, my concern is would this be plausible if the language is mostly CVC(h/n/k/p) / CV ? (sorry if that doesn't make sense, I'm rusty on that stuff). I'm basically asking if a language that has the derivation system of Arabic while sounding like Indonesian or an Algonquin language would be plausible.

IMHO yes, if you mean a conlang.

[Arayaz]

So one thing I'm working with for a new project is a play on the triconsonantal roots of Semitic languages, where most verbs (and a lot of other vocab) are derived from a small collection of root consonants, and one (to two) root vowels.

For instance pukw means "to write," and can be derived into puʔukwa, "book." Krko, to shimmer >> kuroki, "star [celestial body]."

Now, my concern is would this be plausible if the language is mostly CVC(h/n/k/p) / CV ? (sorry if that doesn't make sense, I'm rusty on that stuff). I'm basically asking if a language that has the derivation system of Arabic while sounding like Indonesian or an Algonquin language would be plausible.

I'd also question the naturalisticness of your triconsonantal system. Most triconsonantal conlangs are poorly done and contrived. Of course, naturalism may not be a goal.

Also: Relevant.

[Omzinesý]

Most triconsonantal conlangs are poorly done and contrived. Of course, naturalism may not be a goal.

Can you elaborate?

[Arayaz]

Most triconsonantal conlangs are poorly done and contrived. Of course, naturalism may not be a goal.

Can you elaborate?

The triconsonantal system is an interesting feature, and it has only occurred in Afro-Asiatic languages (afaik), and mostly only in the Semitic languages. And like all interesting features, novice conlangers ─ and even advanced conlangers ─ replicate it without evolving it naturally. A naturalistic triconsonantal system *must* be evolved diachronically with an understanding of how it came about, and even then it is consciously directed down that path. For this reason I have never made a serious triconsonantal language, because it would feel contrived and "obviously a conlang."

[Imralu]

Also: Relevant.

Wow, he really lost me with his dogmatic assertions about the pronunciation of (tri)consonantal.

[Omzinesý]

Most triconsonantal conlangs are poorly done and contrived. Of course, naturalism may not be a goal.

Can you elaborate?

The triconsonantal system is an interesting feature, and it has only occurred in Afro-Asiatic languages (afaik), and mostly only in the Semitic languages. And like all interesting features, novice conlangers ─ and even advanced conlangers ─ replicate it without evolving it naturally. A naturalistic triconsonantal system *must* be evolved diachronically with an understanding of how it came about, and even then it is consciously directed down that path. For this reason I have never made a serious triconsonantal language, because it would feel contrived and "obviously a conlang."

I disagree.
Diachronists are a type of conlangers and I respect what they do but all conlangers do not have to be diachronists.
Of course you have to keep in mind not to make it too regular but that's true with all derivation.

[Arayaz]

Most triconsonantal conlangs are poorly done and contrived. Of course, naturalism may not be a goal.

Can you elaborate?

The triconsonantal system is an interesting feature, and it has only occurred in Afro-Asiatic languages (afaik), and mostly only in the Semitic languages. And like all interesting features, novice conlangers ─ and even advanced conlangers ─ replicate it without evolving it naturally. A naturalistic triconsonantal system *must* be evolved diachronically with an understanding of how it came about, and even then it is consciously directed down that path. For this reason I have never made a serious triconsonantal language, because it would feel contrived and "obviously a conlang."

I disagree.
Diachronists are a type of conlangers and I respect what they do but all conlangers do not have to be diachronists.
Of course you have to keep in mind not to make it too regular but that's true with all derivation.

What I say only applies to naturalistic languages. An engelang or auxlang or non-naturalistic artlang would be perfectly well-off without doing it as I've described above.

(Also, I specifically mean *a priori* diachronics. An a posteriori conlang from a triconsonantal stock would likewise be fine.)

[Creyeditor]

I personally believe that naturalistic conlang does not imply diachronic conlanging, especially when it comes to triconsonantal conlangs.

[WeepingElf]

I personally believe that naturalistic conlang does not imply diachronic conlanging, especially when it comes to triconsonantal conlangs.

Yes. There are plenty of good non-diachronic naturalistic conlangs. Also, while the diachronic method is a great way of making a naturalistic conlang, you need a starting point - either a natlang, or a non-diachronically made naturalistic conlang. The former is of course only an option if you are doing a future language, an altlang or a lostlang, so for a fantasy world or an alien race, you must do the latter.

[Arayaz]

I personally believe that naturalistic conlang does not imply diachronic conlanging, especially when it comes to triconsonantal conlangs.

Yes. There are plenty of good non-diachronic naturalistic conlangs. Also, while the diachronic method is a great way of making a naturalistic conlang, you need a starting point - either a natlang, or a non-diachronically made naturalistic conlang. The former is of course only an option if you are doing a future language, an altlang or a lostlang, so for a fantasy world or an alien race, you must do the latter.

Yes, I suppose so. But to make a naturalistic triconsonantal language, at the very least you must understand *how* they came about, and, if it's not diachronically evolved, it should emulate the peculiarities that do arise as artifacts of that process, in order to suggest it without actually doing it.

I understand very well that a language doesn't have to have diachronics to be naturalistic (Ruykkarraber, for example), but I do feel that it makes a language *more* naturalistic to have diachronics. Even in Ruykkarraber I have left false artifacts supposedly left behind by sound change.

And as for triconsonantal systems, I don't deny that there are good non-diachronic triconsonantal conlangs. I'm purely saying that *most* non-diachronic triconsonantal conlangs are not very well-done.

[Creyeditor]

Yes, I agree that a 'bad' triconslang is almost a neccessary step on the phase of very early conlanger steps. But I think this usually results from a fundamental misunderstanding of certain aspects of real existing tricons natlangs. Of course, learning the diachrony is one way of getting a deeper understanding of the actual mechanics of a RL tricons-natlangs. But there are others like conparing tricons-like patterns across RL natlangs, or learning about one specific RL tricons-natlang in all its synchronic details.

[sangi39]

Yes, I agree that a 'bad' triconslang is almost a neccessary step on the phase of very early conlanger steps. But I think this usually results from a fundamental misunderstanding of certain aspects of real existing tricons natlangs. Of course, learning the diachrony is one way of getting a deeper understanding of the actual mechanics of a RL tricons-natlangs. But there are others like conparing tricons-like patterns across RL natlangs, or learning about one specific RL tricons-natlang in all its synchronic details.

For me, this is the main reason that "bad" 3cons conlangs exist, and in part that's down to how their natlang counterparts are presented, i.e. "here's three consonants, throw some vowels between them, and oh look we have grammar", and unless you actually start looking into what else happens in those languages, e.g. when do the vowel change, what other affixes are used (if any) and where, then you just end up with "this slot marks person, 'u' for the first, 'i' for the second, and 'a' for the third, while this slot marks number..." and so on. I don't think it's necessary to have a diachronically derived conlang to have a "good" 3cons one, but I do agree that having some history behind it can definitely help, especially where you're trying to make things feel coherent, but also have those nice little features of "wait, why does this word break the pattern?"

I'll always point to Vrkhazhian as a very good example of this progression. From what I can remember, in the super early days of the project, it was very "template and slot" (better than most, though, in that even early on Ahzoh was using affixes as well), but over a couple of years of reading, asking questions, and trial and error, you could really see things coming together, and then the gradual inclusion of some diachronics to try to explain (and improve and introduce) some features here and there

I think it's also worth point out that no-one really knows how Proto-Semitic morphology came about, at least not in terms of specifics. The triconsonantal root system goes all the way back to that point, and exactly how that arose out of Proto-Afro-Asiatic (beyond the suggestion the PAA had biconsonantal roots, and that the 3cons system is PS developed out of that by means of things like derivational morphology, analogy, metaphony, etc.) isn't known for certain. It's fairly well established (I think?) how the PS system developed after it had arisen, in the various daughter languages, but not how it came to be in the first place. Similarly, no-one's really 100% sure where Proto-Uralic vowel harmony came from. It was there in the proto-language, and it's known (I think?) roughly how that system developed in the daughter languages, but it's not known how it got to be like that in the first place



So yeah, I don't think it's necessary to have a diachronic basis for Semitic-style non-concatenative morphology in a conlang to make it "good" (although including diachronic elements definitely can add a lot to that), but it does feel like having an understanding of how that kind of morphology works and how other languages use similar systems has the most noticeable impact on whether a 3cons conlang is "bad" or "good". Not necessarily "great", I do think that's where some diachrony is important, but at least worth looking at and responding in a way that goes into more depth besides "go and learn more, here's a bunch of resources)

[Arayaz]

Makes sense. I'd say this is a good resolution to the debate

Also: Relevant.

Wow, he really lost me with his dogmatic assertions about the pronunciation of (tri)consonantal.

Could you elaborate? I don't remember anything about pronunciation...

[Imralu]

Could you elaborate? I don't remember anything about pronunciation...

Right near the beginning when they're introducing topic. She says it as conson/æ/ntal (in agreement with the Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam Webster and American Heritage dictionaries), and he just keeps insisting that it's conson/e/ntal. I have found that listed as an alternative pronunciation for US English only, on Wiktionary only. He acts quite condescending about it and has a very absolutist, prescriptivist attitude as though there's an absolute correct and an absolute incorrect when it comes to things like this, and if there is, he loses both in terms of majority rule (or appeal to authority) and internal consistency of the language. He is the one with the minor variant pronunciation, not her.

Not that English spelling and pronunciation have a great correspondence, but the pronunciation with /e/ doesn't even make sense looking at broader patterns in the language. The only instances of stressed <a> saying /e/ that I can think of are "any" and "many". (Curious if anyone has any more. If you have /er/ for things like "care", I'm not counting that.) Words ending with <ant> and <ent> or <ance> and <ence> or <ancy> and <ency> usually have a reduced vowel in that syllable but regularly end up with /æ/ and /e/ respectively when they take suffixes that cause the stress to fall on that syllable and that is a basically failproof way to remember how to spell these words. For example, it's easy to remember that it's <existence> and <substance> and not <existance> or <substence> because of exist/e/ntial and subst/æ/ntial. Of course, that doesn't help when there's no common derivation where the stress gets shifted there, but where it exists, it's pretty reliable.

In any case, I would have found his attitude and the way he talks to her smug and condescending even if every dictionary I had found had agreed with him.

[Khemehekis]

Not that English spelling and pronunciation have a great correspondence, but the pronunciation with /e/ doesn't even make sense looking at broader patterns in the language. The only instances of stressed <a> saying /e/ that I can think of are "any" and "many". (Curious if anyone has any more. If you have /er/ for things like "care", I'm not counting that.)

Aside from "any" and "many", I have the vowel in "alphabet" and "catch" (also "marshmallow", albeit on a secondarily accented syllable).

[Arayaz]

Could you elaborate? I don't remember anything about pronunciation...

Right near the beginning when they're introducing topic. She says it as conson/æ/ntal (in agreement with the Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam Webster and American Heritage dictionaries), and he just keeps insisting that it's conson/e/ntal. I have found that listed as an alternative pronunciation for US English only, on Wiktionary only. He acts quite condescending about it and has a very absolutist, prescriptivist attitude as though there's an absolute correct and an absolute incorrect when it comes to things like this, and if there is, he loses both in terms of majority rule (or appeal to authority) and internal consistency of the language. He is the one with the minor variant pronunciation, not her.

I think he ─ and I, for what it's worth ─ are using the same vowel we use in "consonant." I'm not trying to defend condescending prescriptivism, which it may very well be, but I find the latter pronunciation more natural.

(Also, if you know David in person, you'll know that his dogmaticness is mostly sarcastic, even though he believes what he says. Probably what he meant there was more along the lines of "huh, I've not heard that pronunciation." Then again, if you know David in person, you might be more likely to defend him.)

[Reyzadren]

The problem isn't just condescending prescriptivism, it's that a lot of conlangers actually believe his BS. Likewise/henceforth, assuming diachronics to be a requirement for good conlanging is just silly, especially if one's conlang is tied to a conworld that doesn't need to adhere to the logic of the real world. I'd be quite insulted if someone said my conlang looks like a natlang tbh.

No, his dogmaticness is definitely real, just look at his presence across social media and the fandom. And no, I will not defend a person who is against many facets of my conlang.