[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Backtracking quite a bit, but I'm just throwing in some clarifications (and maybe another penny's worth of thoughts). I don't have much input on many later messages at this point anyway; I have a few left to read, though, so I might later on. --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Marko <codename_gimmick@...> wrote: >Why should yóu be embarassed? It's not your conlang, and unless you've seriously >studied it, there'd be no reason why anyone should expect you to completely >understand it! That was just me poking fun at my own poor knowledge of Latin (by transitivity). ;-) [...] >One truly Good Thing that comes from these kinds of exchanges, whether here in >this list or out in some chat room, is that holes in the lexicon become quite >apparent. A lot of the vocabulary of a conlang is "virtual". Once you know how >to put words together, the conlanger sort of intuitively knows how a word should >look, even if it's missing from his dictionary. There were several instances of >having to fill in such virtual lexical entries since wielding Kerno the last >couple days. I don't think I've written so much as two words of it the last >year! >I've also found a few idioms, for which I am in Capsicum's debt. Happy to be of help. ;-) >>There may be some romlangs so distant from Latin, or Romance languages >>familiar to us, that some of us will be left struggling to communicate at >>all. (That said, that doesn't mean it's not worth a try to anyone who's >>willing to invest the effort.) >Sure. Tis always worth the effort. As I said, chat rooms and the like aren't my >cup of tea. Not usually mine either, all told, but I'm particularly curious about the outcome of this experiment. [...] >>I actually have scrapped the notion of any Grand Master Plan for my >>(first) romlang, because unlike other conlangs I'm invested in, it is >>intended for use as a personal language (rather than, say, demonstrating >>the results of any certain contrafactual historical/diachronic->>linguistic anomaly). >Makes sense. If you're going to use a conlang for personal use (a lot of people >use them to write journals, etc), then it makes sense for it to be easy to use! >>You can see some rough patterns of phonological change in what tentative >>words I *have* coined, but they're far from consistent. I just want to >>create something fun that I can use to write with or what-have-you, for >>no other reason than that I would enjoy using it. I'm rather surprised to >>hear that (from the sound of it) you're working out a GMP in a conlang >>you intend to make that kind of use of-- that'll be a lot of work, at >>least insofar as you intend to have a reasonably complete corpus of words >>(but don't let me discourage you, as your ideas sound fascinating and I'm >>sure you can pull it off!). >No doubt! A GMP doesn't have to be terribly complex. It's just a basic set of >alchemical rules -- how you transmute a Latin (usually) word into a Romance >word. It could be as simple as only a few rules on how to deal with final >consonants; or it could be byzantine in its complexity, full of exceptions and >intended to show detailed transmutation across tens of centuries. Mine is not >terribly complex, though are some odd twists; and there is some diachronic data >(particularly in the paradigms) that offer snapshots of early and medieval and >early modern forms of the language. >If you use a cheat sheet (like Latin to Romance in Sound Charts), it can become >a matter of a half hour's work. Well put. In that sense, I do have a cursory sort of GMP... rough rules, but chances are that if I implement any programmed sound changes, they will be few. The rest is just a general pattern of certain consonant changes, minor vowel shifts, etc. I'm the first to admit that it probably sounds a bit undisciplined, but like I said, it's all about *personal* aesthetics, so I'm more concerned with the fact that it has a Romance motif but still takes on all the forms I have in mind, however "feasible" or otherwise. (In the spirit of objectivity, I have experimented with programming sound changes, and while the final product is often fulfilling in its own way, there's an element of the process of creating [or at least manipulating] roots that gets lost in the process.) >>I'm not really sure if Padraic's response was in any sort of negative >>spirit, but this dialogue does raise the notion that it's important not >>to be imposing when suggesting such a forum. >I wasn't suggesting that Capsicum was being imposing! Only that the suggested >forum may be of limited use for most conlangers. Of course, anyone who ìs >interested should do it. Oh, it wasn't my intention to single you out. I was simply referring to the fact that this is one of those discussions that could lead to bad things if not handled with care (in particular, I was fearfully anticipating someone bringing up the notion that perhaps someone else's romlang was somehow inadequate because it wasn't developed for regular use, which is, of course, absurd.) When I referred to not knowing the spirit of your message, I was simply recalling how I very literally wasn't sure what it meant. ;-) >>I agree that this group is quite fine for showing off conlangs and >>exchanging ideas-- my interest in a romlang chat simply comes from (a) an >>interest to see some of them used in more expedient communication >Good point. Though this could be done here as well as anywhere else. "Expedient >communication" in your native language will be a little different and much >faster than a conlang where you have to look up words and make new words on the >fly and check grammar. >>and (b) the fact that it would prevent this group from becoming flooded >>with back-and-forth exchanges of that kind in the event that your >>proposal were to take off (all due respect, if I were not involved in >>such exchanges myself, I don't know that I'd be dying to read through >>them to find other posts here). >A valid concern. Though it must be noted that Romconlang is not exactly a high >volume list! Our all-time record for monthly posts is 164 (Jan 2007). High >traffic lists like Conlang, before posting limits were imposed, could manage >that in a day. >A system of subject line tags could be used to mark such exchanges. That way >anyone not interested could simply delete unread. All true. It may come to that eventually, but in the meantime it seems we're taking this endeavor aside simply because we're the only ones involved ATM. >>I almost hate to suggest this, but it really is one of your better >>options, in terms of finding interested parties. Have you considered >>inviting speakers of Romance-based auxlangs? Most of them seem quite >>enthusiastic to speak the ones they know, but I imagine someone would >>have to stipulate that issues of advocation are not to be introduced in >>order to keep the mood light. >Cor. Now thát's Pandora's box. As I recall, the gods separated the Auxlangers >from the Conlangers (the debate rages as to who are the demons and who are the >angels!) in order to keep all the superheated politics in a separate place. I'm >not entirely convinced that auxlang politics can be kept separate from auxlang >use (by partisans or creators, mind). They seem to be pretty tightly bound! Indeed, I nearly bit my tongue when I asked. I'm on the auxlang list, but I don't visit often, and with all due respect to anyone here who may also be part of that list, there's a reason for that. I don't really have many opinions on the auxlang debate, certainly none worth *SHOUTING* about-- I simply learned Esperanto for fun. Certainly there have to be others like me out there, though, no? :-P >>All told, I still think this is a good idea, and I'll happily join in >>even if it just turns out to be a two-man ordeal. :-) >Then like I said before: I wish you two well! ;))) Thanks, Padraic. ;-) -Marko