Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[werothegreat]

So, given why we're all here, I think we can accept that we're all pretty nerdy.  One of my nerdiness outlets is conlanging - I've been working on one particular created language for about three and a half years now - I've even got YouTube video lessons (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11584378F260955E&feature=mh_lolz).  Anyone else also into conlanging, or at least interested in the language I've created?

[Thisisnotasmile]

I don't get it. First of all, why create a new language? There are already more than enough on this planet and a vast majority of them are much more widely used than yours (or any new language), so it's not like anyone's ever going to be using this language. Second of all, I watched the first video on your YT channel (Greetings), and well... It just seems that everything's more complicated than it needs to be for no particular reason. "Here's the word for hello... oh but there's actually this one as well and you have to use one or the other depending on when in the conversation you are speaking". You've got seemingly unpronouncable combinations of letters (Z followed immediately by R). Hell you've even bastardised my own name! "You have to add different letters to the end of your name depending on when you say it" just seems rediculous to me. My name is my name, it does not change whether I am telling you it or you are talking to somebody else about me.

Don't mean to cause any offence and this certainly isn't a dig at your language Dangin Nira in particular. I just don't really 'get' the "I'm creating my own language" thing as a whole. If you do it simply for your own enjoyment, and you do actually have fun doing it, then I'm all for you continuing, but it's not for me. If there's any other reason then I'd certainly be interested in hearing it. Might help me to get whatever it is that I'm missing.

[rspeer]

Conlanging is fun. I used to be pretty good at Lojban. Feel free to make Lojbanist jokes at my expense.

And that's a weird reply, Thisisnotasmile. You're talking like the entire hobby of conlanging was dreamed up by werothegreat, and implying that he should feel bad that you don't enjoy it. And based on the objections you have to Dangin Nira, real languages would blow your mind.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Sorry if it seemed that way but that's not how I was trying to put myself across. I understand werothegreat is just one person who's decided to take part in the hobby of Conlanging, and I stated that I'm glad he takes enjoyment from it. It is the hobby as a whole that I don't really understand. I used Dangin Nira as some examples of things that I don't 'get', because that's the language that I'd just watched a video about (and in fact, the only language I've watched a video about). Sorry if it seemed I was taking any cheap shots at Dangin Nira in particulay, that wasn't the intention. I'm sure I'd be able to find examples from other language if I were to look into them too.

As for real languages, I accept your comment, however I would argue that in those cases it's a different matter. I know French and German (for example) are confusing... I spent 5 years trying to learn each of them back in my school days. I got good grades for each and to be honest, I don't understand them at all. I just did what I needed to to pass. I've travelled to both countries the languages are named after since and I spoke English. I was understood perfectly but I also understand the view that it's rude to expect them to speak my language, but they do so all is good as far as I'm concerend. Getting a bit off topic here but the point I'm trying to make is yeah, you're right, real languages (other than English) do blow my mind.

Real languages are different though, as they've been around for a long time and have a lot of (i.e. countries and countries full of) fluent speakers who use those languages as part of their every day life. Dangin Nira, or Lojban, or a language I could make up myself are different because well... There just aren't enough users of them to have any meaningful use in real life. That's just my perspective though and I'd welcome the views of people who do enjoy the hobby to tell me why it is that these languages matter. There's probably something that I'm missing and I'd like to find out what.

A new language I'd be interested in would be one that simplifies language as we know it (and enough people adopt it, which sadly is the point I see every single new language is going to fail on, the only way we will acheive this is by adapting a current language into simpler forms). As you pointed out, real languages are strange enough already and I could see use in simplifications. This is why I chose the examples I did in my original post, I picked out points where (in my opinion) the language had made things more complicated than they already are. I don't see the use in this but I certainly don't mean to offend anyone by pointing it out.

[Ozle]

Esperanto! Hahaha

[Lekkit]

Tinas: What do you think about writing as a hobby? Or sculpting? Or worldbuilding? I think it's pretty much the same thing.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Fair enough. I have no interest in any of those hobbies either.

[Davio]

Tolkien did conlanging back in the 30's.

I'm glad he did, because the Elvish languages really add to the story.

[Kirian]

You've got seemingly unpronouncable combinations of letters (Z followed immediately by R).

Conlanging is--mostly--done in the context of worldbuilding/storytelling.  Otherwise it is, as you imply, less than useful, though it can be an amusing linguistic exercise.

That said, I imagine our resident Serbian would tell you that the consonant cluster "zr" is perfectly pronounceable.  The similar cluster "vr" shows up in both Serbian and Romanian.  And I'm sure other languages have them too.

When we say "unpronounceable" it's important to remember that there are languages that use things like alveolar and palatal clicks as consonants.  Human phonology is much broader than just English phonology.

[Brando Commando]

Tinas: What do you think about writing as a hobby? Or sculpting? Or worldbuilding? I think it's pretty much the same thing.

I think this is an interesting point, but I agree with TINAS (which is the primary reason I'm posting -- giving him/her some solidarity here). I've actually taught ESL and learned Spanish and French well enough to have meaningful conversations, but in general, I think language is overblown as a mark of sophistication.

My disinterest in conlanging is similar to my ambivalent feelings toward learning new languages: By learning a language, I haven't gained access to new ways of thinking so much as I've gained access people with new ways of thinking. And since so many people speak English as the global lingua franca now, we have much less incentive to learn a language. (This really hit home for me when a Korean student of mine explained that, to prepare for his trip to Turkey he had put in extra time practicing his...English.)

I would say the difference between languages and these other hobbies is that languages are really just a means to communicate with people. So learning new ones that we can't use to communicate is not really exciting for me, TINAS, and many people.

[theory]

My disinterest in conlanging is similar to my ambivalent feelings toward learning new languages: By learning a language, I haven't gained access to new ways of thinking so much as I've gained access people with new ways of thinking.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?  I do think differently when I use a different language.  The easiest demonstration of this is how different programming languages also can compel different thinking patterns (see, e.g., Lisp vs Java).

[Davio]

I'd just use "functional vs imperative", but hey, why be general when you can be specific?

Anyway, it's my strong belief that people can do whatever they want in their spare time as a hobby as long as they're not harassing other people. So if you want to invent a new language, go ahead. I don't see why that's so different from playing board games.

[Brando Commando]

My disinterest in conlanging is similar to my ambivalent feelings toward learning new languages: By learning a language, I haven't gained access to new ways of thinking so much as I've gained access people with new ways of thinking.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?  I do think differently when I use a different language.  The easiest demonstration of this is how different programming languages also can compel different thinking patterns (see, e.g., Lisp vs Java).

It's funny, I hesitated to drop a reference to Steven Pinker in my post for fear of looking like an egghead...

Anyway, I've read a few linguistics books, but mostly by Pinker and his allies. They're pretty against linguistic relativity, so my perspective is a little skewed toward a non-linguistic-relativity view. That said, my impression is that Sapir-Whorf is not such a great thing to cite -- I think there are probably more modern, more refined theories of linguistic relativity to get into. Also, at the very least, the linguistic relativity probably takes more than a few lessons to set in -- more likely, it takes a great deal of being steeped in a culture to matter.

As for your example, I think the parallel to programming languages is misleading. Programming languages are designed specifically to construct new categories and types of information and ways of treating it. Two human languages, however, tend to used to represent the same basic ideas 99% of the time. I suppose by asserting this I'm just begging the question about linguistic relativity, but still, I don't think the comparison is apt.

Edit: I probably took us off track by bringing other languages into it. I kind of get it when someone says they want to learn another language, especially because, yes, it does tend to lead to other points of view and cultural forms.

But Conlanging seems like the opposite of that: Constructing a language that just connects you back to you and not to anybody else or any other cultures. Why not just spend that time learning somebody else's language and playing by somebody else's rules?

[Brando Commando]

Anyway, it's my strong belief that people can do whatever they want in their spare time as a hobby as long as they're not harassing other people. So if you want to invent a new language, go ahead. I don't see why that's so different from playing board games.

I'm not proposing outlawing conlanging. It's just a critique/question.

[Cuzz]

My disinterest in conlanging is similar to my ambivalent feelings toward learning new languages: By learning a language, I haven't gained access to new ways of thinking so much as I've gained access people with new ways of thinking.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?  I do think differently when I use a different language.  The easiest demonstration of this is how different programming languages also can compel different thinking patterns (see, e.g., Lisp vs Java).

Sapir-Whorf has been pretty widely debunked by most mainstream linguists as far as I know.

[werothegreat]

I see conlanging as an art.  Just like prose and poetry are art forms, the creation of the medium by which you write in prose and poetry is, itself, an art.  And literature depends vastly on the language in which it's written - there's a reason why we have the phrase "lost in translation," and why we are most often recommended to read something in its original language.  Alliteration, metaphor, consonance, diction - these all depend on the language you're writing in.  Each language has its own strengths and weaknesses, its own tracts of synonyms and peculiarities of syntax.

Language creation is not for everyone.  That's equivalent to saying that writing symphonies is not for everyone.

[theory]

My disinterest in conlanging is similar to my ambivalent feelings toward learning new languages: By learning a language, I haven't gained access to new ways of thinking so much as I've gained access people with new ways of thinking.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?  I do think differently when I use a different language.  The easiest demonstration of this is how different programming languages also can compel different thinking patterns (see, e.g., Lisp vs Java).

Sapir-Whorf has been pretty widely debunked by most mainstream linguists as far as I know.

As far as I am aware, although the strongest versions of the hypothesis (that thought is wholly determined by language) are debunked, the weaker version of the hypothesis (that thought patterns are influenced by language) is widely accepted.  But I am not a linguist.

[eHalcyon]

My disinterest in conlanging is similar to my ambivalent feelings toward learning new languages: By learning a language, I haven't gained access to new ways of thinking so much as I've gained access people with new ways of thinking.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?  I do think differently when I use a different language.  The easiest demonstration of this is how different programming languages also can compel different thinking patterns (see, e.g., Lisp vs Java).

Sapir-Whorf has been pretty widely debunked by most mainstream linguists as far as I know.

For the second time in just a few days, I feel the need to link this article on the Piraha tribe.

[cayvie]

color words

[Morgrim7]

I love creating new languages. I tried a couple times before, but didn't get very far. Don't have that kind of time.

[werothegreat]

I love creating new languages. I tried a couple times before, but didn't get very far. Don't have that kind of time.

Well, I can say that my language is pretty extensive.

[Davio]

I guess the hard part is creating new words that aren't just translations from existing words in another language.

Like in the Dominion rulebook: The look shared between two people when one wants the other to do something, but he doesn't want to say it.

[werothegreat]

I guess the hard part is creating new words that aren't just translations from existing words in another language.

Like in the Dominion rulebook: The look shared between two people when one wants the other to do something, but he doesn't want to say it.

Well, most of your words are just going to be translations, but words in different languages have different scopes - in English, "bear" can mean an animal, or it can mean "to carry."  Obviously you wouldn't have one word in another language that means both of those things - you'd spread them out into multiple words.  English is just sort of weird like this.

Though I do have words in my language for "impossible mutual infatuation", "to unhealthily obsess over," and "friend kept only on the off chance you might have sex someday."

[Drab Emordnilap]

"friend kept only on the off chance you might have sex someday."

What is this word?

[Davio]

"friend kept only on the off chance you might have sex someday."

What is this word?

Fahrvergnugen.

[Ozle]

"friend kept only on the off chance you might have sex someday."

What is this word?

Im my circles its called 'Ozle'
*winks*

[Captain_Frisk]

I think the next game of mafia should be played exclusively in wero's language.  With modkilling penalties for grammatical mistakes.

[werothegreat]

"friend kept only on the off chance you might have sex someday."

What is this word?

Ilbasamga.  Pronounced "ill-bah-SAHM-gah."

[blueblimp]

My disinterest in conlanging is similar to my ambivalent feelings toward learning new languages: By learning a language, I haven't gained access to new ways of thinking so much as I've gained access people with new ways of thinking.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?  I do think differently when I use a different language.  The easiest demonstration of this is how different programming languages also can compel different thinking patterns (see, e.g., Lisp vs Java).

I don't know about your main point, but I wouldn't put too much trust into an analogy to programming languages. Programming languages are far more rigid than natural languages, so if you want to express something that's not easy in the language, you're best off thinking differently. In a natural language, you can freely adapt existing vocabulary and grammar to fit what you're trying to say, provided listeners can still understand you.

[werothegreat]

I think the biggest disproof to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not having the words to describe something - the feeling where you know exactly what something is like, but language has failed you, thus suggesting that language does not have purview on how you think.  This is most often the case with smells.

[eHalcyon]

I think the biggest disproof to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not having the words to describe something - the feeling where you know exactly what something is like, but language has failed you, thus suggesting that language does not have purview on how you think.  This is most often the case with smells.

I don't think that's disproof.  Did you read the Piraha tribe article I linked?  It is seriously super interesting.  One thing they talk about is how this tribe does not seem to have numbers in their language, and this ends up affecting their ability to track amounts.  They did an experiment where they puts objects into a container and then took out objects one by one, asking the people if any objects were left.  They would be fine when something like 1-3 objects were there, but above that the people could not track it.

[cayvie]

I guess the hard part is creating new words that aren't just translations from existing words in another language.

Like in the Dominion rulebook: The look shared between two people when one wants the other to do something, but he doesn't want to say it.

Well, most of your words are just going to be translations, but words in different languages have different scopes - in English, "bear" can mean an animal, or it can mean "to carry."  Obviously you wouldn't have one word in another language that means both of those things - you'd spread them out into multiple words.  English is just sort of weird like this.

Though I do have words in my language for "impossible mutual infatuation", "to unhealthily obsess over," and "friend kept only on the off chance you might have sex someday."

you created an entire language to translate my livejournal entries from 2001??

[Ozle]

I guess the hard part is creating new words that aren't just translations from existing words in another language.

Like in the Dominion rulebook: The look shared between two people when one wants the other to do something, but he doesn't want to say it.

Well, most of your words are just going to be translations, but words in different languages have different scopes - in English, "bear" can mean an animal, or it can mean "to carry."  Obviously you wouldn't have one word in another language that means both of those things - you'd spread them out into multiple words.  English is just sort of weird like this.

Though I do have words in my language for "impossible mutual infatuation", "to unhealthily obsess over," and "friend kept only on the off chance you might have sex someday."

you created an entire language to translate any livejournal entries from 2001??

Ftfy.
Any blog around that time were generally like that!

[Brando Commando]

I think the biggest disproof to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not having the words to describe something - the feeling where you know exactly what something is like, but language has failed you, thus suggesting that language does not have purview on how you think.  This is most often the case with smells.

I don't think that's disproof.  Did you read the Piraha tribe article I linked?  It is seriously super interesting.  One thing they talk about is how this tribe does not seem to have numbers in their language, and this ends up affecting their ability to track amounts.  They did an experiment where they puts objects into a container and then took out objects one by one, asking the people if any objects were left.  They would be fine when something like 1-3 objects were there, but above that the people could not track it.

You know, I'm not totally against Sapir-Whorf, and actually, I'm happy you linked to that article because I've been meaning to reread it for years. (You and I seem to have similar interests...) It is super-interesting and great proof for relativistic linguistics (right term? something like that), I admit.

If anything -- and I tried to emphasize this when I brought up this critique -- it's not the possibility of relativistic linguistics I opened this argument with ... it's more like, as I understand it, Sapir-Whorf has a bad rep even if you believe in this kind of thing.

There was a NYT magazine article a few years ago on new approaches to relativist linguistics, and it mentioned a lot of interesting, subtle ways that your native language can make you see reality somewhat differently, but on a pretty small scale that you might not notice much, not anything nearly as sweeping as, "Inuits have many words for snow, so they see the world much differently."

Anyway, I'd like to hear from somebody with real roots in linguistics what they think about the Piraha article -- I mean, yes, it's pretty incredible evidence, but it's also just one article, and I've never heard anything about it since.

[werothegreat]

I think the biggest disproof to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not having the words to describe something - the feeling where you know exactly what something is like, but language has failed you, thus suggesting that language does not have purview on how you think.  This is most often the case with smells.

I don't think that's disproof.  Did you read the Piraha tribe article I linked?  It is seriously super interesting.  One thing they talk about is how this tribe does not seem to have numbers in their language, and this ends up affecting their ability to track amounts.  They did an experiment where they puts objects into a container and then took out objects one by one, asking the people if any objects were left.  They would be fine when something like 1-3 objects were there, but above that the people could not track it.

I would consider that more an insight on how culture affects language, rather than how language affects thought.

[rspeer]

Indeed, as far as I know the general linguistic consensus on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis -- though there are still arguments to one side or the other -- is:

* The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (you can only think things you can express in your language) is loony.
* The weak Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (your language affects the way you think) is probably true, and there are some experiments where you can draw it out, but dang it's weak. You expect it to affect a lot more things than it does.

It's interesting that it comes up so much in the context of conlangs. I guess a lot of people want to try to get a Sapir-Whorf effect on themselves, by learning a language with interestingly different assumptions in it. But then, if you're interested in the language, you might already be prone to think that way. (Does Lojban make you think like a mathematician or a computer, or do people who enjoy thinking like mathematicians and computers learn Lojban?)

[Davio]

The weak Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is quite weak and also doesn't show the entire picture.

I mean, the way you think is affected way more by your upbringing, culture, environment, genetics, etc...
How big a part does language play in this? Language itself is also based on all of these aspects.

So it's a pretty useless hypothesis, I mean, is language the result or is language the cause? It's integral, so it's probably both.

[werothegreat]

What came first, Newspeak, or Sapir-Whorf?

[jonts26]

For those interested in conlanging, this AMA is worth a read.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1chmc4/eseneziri_im_david_peterson_the_creator_of_the/