From time to time I toy with the idea of a "musical" conlang - a conlang based on pitches and rhythms rather than consonants and vowels. The broad phonological framework I use generally goes about like this:

Beats are equivalent to syllables. A word contains a whole number of beats.
Each beat can be divided into up to 4 notes.
There are 7 notes, corresponding to the notes of a standard western scale.

*Which* scale can vary, though, to express things like mood. You could speak the same sentence in a major or minor scale, or a scale that's neither of those.

Also, rhythm within a beat can vary.

There may be phonotactic rules restricting which notes can occur in sequence, and adjusting some notes to avoid impossible sequences.

I've never gotten as far as inventing actual words or syntax for this language.
The ages of the world are accounted from the shining of the first star, from whom all other stars ultimately sprang. Before the first star shone was the time before the ages.

The First Age
The first age began with the shining of the first star. In this age, stars began to spread through the heavens, but they could speak only with their neighbours, since the language of light did not yet exist. At first this was little problem, because all stars were only a few steps from the first mother star.[1] Humans and elves were not yet awake on the earth.

The Second Age
The second age began with the invention of the language of light, and for the first time stars could communicate directly with far off stars.[2] In this age the stars continued to spread through the heavens.

The Third Age
The second age ended and the third age began with the death of the father star. In this age the stars finished populating all the heavens.

The Fourth Age
The fourth age began with the waking of elves and humans upon the earth. The elves woke first, and humans slightly later - unless it was that the stars noticed the elves first since they were more active at night. In this age the elves and humans knew nothing of each other's lands, and there was no traffic between the two.

The Fifth Age
This age began when elves first found a way to humanland, and traffic between elves and humans began. Over the course of this age the interactions between elves and humans worsened.

The Sixth Age.
The sixth age was a troubled age in humanland. It began with the founding of the first elven tyranny in humanland, and in it, tyrannies of elves came to dominate much of humanland.

The Seventh Age.
The seventh age began with the destruction of the elven tyrannies in humanland.

---

I don't know about the ages past this. I worry a bit that after the beginning of the Fifth Age, the definitions of ages are too humanland-focused. (I'm not too worried about definitions being based on events on earth rather than events in the heavens among the stars, since one of the major things stars do is observe earth. But they observe both sides of the earth equally.) One thing that should be included in the account but I don't know yet where it goes is mention of when communication is established between stars and elves, and when it is established between stars and humans.

[1] Stars, reproducing by asexual reproduction, have neither sex nor gender. When they communicate with earthlings using encodings of spoken languages, they refer to themselves with masculine and feminine terms interchangeably and apparently randomly, using both masculine and feminine terms to refer to the same star.

[2] It begins to seem as though mind-to-mind root-communication is the native communication system of stars, while the language of light is something learned secondarily - similar to reading and writing for humans.
Some more thoughts on my flat-like-a-penny world.

I've mentioned at one point or another the three major kinds of rational beings that I know of for this world: humans, elves, and stars.

As I mentioned in my post on flat world astronomy problems, stars are rooted in the sky like trees, but are thinking, speaking beings. They are extremely long-lived, but not immortal; their lifespans are probably thousands of years long. They have two major methods of communication, both fairly foreign to humans; one is more like telepathy, and another is more like speech. Stars are rooted in the sky; I think they reproduce by runners. So their roots are intertwined with their ancestors. But I think also, stars that grow near one another may come to entwine their roots even if one didn't spring from the other. Stars are able to communicate basically telepathically through the root system, but only to a star that they are directly connected with. For a telepathic message to be transmitted to a non-root-adjacent star, the intermediate stars would have to pass the message along. And the message may get garbled in transmission, like a game of telephone. So telepathic communication is usually only used with near neighbours.

For more distant communication, stars use a language. Their language is based on the shining of their light; it is encoded by the different colours that a star can twinkle, and their durations/speeds. Essentially, stars twinkling is (or can be) their speech. (I say "can be", because it may be like humans making sounds, or even like signing humans speaking sign language - the basic bodily mechanisms that we use for producing language are also used for other non-speech purposes.)

Stars have extremely keen sight, and can see considerable detail of things that happen on earth, both in humanland and in elvenland (probably enough to recognize different individuals, but probably not enough to be able to be able to read a book with ordinary-sized letters.) However, they can only see things that happen at night; during the day, the sphere of the day sky is lit by the sun and becomes opaque to them. They also can't hear anything that happens on earth. (They may very well have no sense of hearing at all, even for things that happen in near them.) And even at night, their view is sometimes blocked by clouds.

As a result, they have a very different perspective on what happens on earth than anyone on earth does; they can perceive both more and less at the same time.

I am beginning to suspect that elves are nocturnal and have vision that works best at night. Their eyes work well enough in low-light conditions that they can see well enough to get around even under starlight with no moon; they see most clearly, however, under a bright moon or at mid-dark twilight. They do not see particularly well in daylight. Bright sunshine is not painful to them, but it dazzles their vision, and they can't see well in the overwhelming brightness; it's actually comparable to being too dark - as things get brighter, their vision is more and more overwhelmed with light and they have a harder and harder time seeing, until in fully-bright daylight they may be able to see very little or nothing (but still without pain). When elves do venture out during the daytime, it tends to be on darkly clouded, often stormy days. Thus, when humans encounter elves, it's usually either at night or in storm.

Because humans are mostly diurnal, while elves are mostly nocturnal, stars see much more of elven activity than they do of human activity.

Regarding the night sky and the day sky:
The outside of the universe is a hard boundary. Coating that is the material - I'm not sure exactly what it is, but light permeates it - that the stars grow in. Covering the sky-soil is a layer of dark stuff - I'm not sure if it's turf-like small sky vegetation, or if it's a flexible skin/cloth like material. But it's dark and thick enough to prevent any of the light from coming through, except where the stars poke through and drink up the light through their roots and release it out to the world through their branches.

The sun and moon go around the world considerably closer in than the night sky. Outside the course of the sun is a crystal sphere; the sun lights it up during the day, making the blue day sky. This is what blocks the stars' view of the world during the day.
"Some think it is possible to read messages in the motions of the Sun and the Moon and the other Wanderers" she said. "They do not understand. It is not the Wanderers who speak from the sky; they dance a beautiful dance, but it has no words; it is the Stars who speak, by their glittering and their flickering colours. It needs a keen and quick eye to read their speech, and it is strange and difficult to understand, but some have learnt it."

vega(n)(s)

May. 25th, 2012 06:26 pm
For some weeks (months?) now, the following forms have been sticking to each other in my mind:

Vegas (the city)
Vega (the star)
vegan (not eating animal products)/Vegan (relating to Vega)
vegans/Vegans

They look a lot like the different case/number forms of an Indo-European (non-neuter) noun, and I've been wanting to work out what that paradigm could look like, and what the developments from Proto-Indo-European to the hypothetical language with this paradigm would be. So today I decided to actually try to work it out

My first draft was:

Singular
Nominative: *weg-os > vegas
Accusative: *weg-om > vegan
Vocative: *weg-e > vega
Genitive: *weg-os > vegas

Plural
Accusative: *weg-ons > veg-ans

Sound developments:
Stress: becomes fixed on first syllable of root
*w > v
*e > e in stressed syllable
*g > g
*e, *o > a in unstressed syllable
*n > m word-finally

Then I realized that if I derived it from a root *weǵh-, it could be an o-stem noun from the same IE root that English way comes from. Also, I can work out what a few of the other forms are based on these rules - and some of them actually surface the same as these forms.

So, here are the parts of the paradigm I could work out, with an additional rule that long vowels merge with short vowels, and typical handling of laryngeals:

Singular:
Nominative: *weǵh-os > veg-as
Accusative: *weǵh-om > veg-an
Vocative: *weǵh-e > veg-a
Genitive: *weǵh-os > veg-as
Ablative: *weǵh-ōd
Dative: *weǵh-ōi
Locative: *weǵh-oi
Instrumental: *weǵh-oh1 > veg-a

Plural:
Nominative: *weǵh-ōs > veg-as
Accusative: *weǵh-ons > veg-ans
Genitive: *weǵh-om > veg-an
Dative: *weǵh-omus
Locative: *weǵh-oisu
Instrumental: *weǵh-ōis

Sound development rules
Vowel + laryngeal = long vowel (coloured by laryngeal as appropriate)

Stress becomes established on the first syllable of the root.
Long vowels are shortened.

*w > v
*e > e in stressed syllables
*e, o > a in unstressed syllables
*ǵh > g
*m > n word-finally
*s > s

None of the other forms have a necessary development based on the already established rules, and for none of them have I been able to come up with an obvious English form that should be thrown in to this silly-derivation mix, so the rest of the paradigm is blank for the moment. One possible extension is to have *weǵh-ōi and *weǵh-oi become "veggie" and *weǵh-ōis become "veggies", with *oi > /i/ and palatalization of /g/ before /i/. Although "veggies" is problematic because it would have *s > /z/ while "vegas" has *s > /s/. And the equivalences work better in pronunciation, while the original equivalences work better in spelling. So I think I won't incorporate them for now.
I've long had a not-very-well-worked-out idea of a semi-language. It's a communication system that's much more limited than natural human languages, but still has more properties of language than known animal communication systems. (Who or what would use this semi-language? I don't know.)

It has words. It doesn't have morphology: every word is monomorphemic. And the only syntactic unit larger than a word is a two-word sentence. Anything beyond that is pragmatically determined.

At the moment, I think the way I'd work this out is that every sentence has a subject and a predicate. The subject comes first, the predicate comes second. (Okay, single-word sentences, as just a "nominal" or just an argumentless predicate, are probably also possible.) There are no pronouns. There are obviously no transitive predicates, but there may be corresponding (morphologically unrelated) predicates for the two halves of a transitive relationship:

man strike
tree be.struck

where "strike" and "be.struck" are two monomorphemic independent words.

Obviously the kinds of things that could be communicated with this system would be more limited than what can be expressed with natural language.
I've been getting frustrated with the fact that I can't name my blind society or give any of their words for anything, because I don't have any of the language invented. So I started coming up with some of the basics for it this morning. All this is very much first-draft and subject to revision.

Morphologically, it's largely isolating with regard to inflection, but it does have derivation and compounding. Kind of like Ikanirae Seru (my best-developed conlang) that way, and not entirely accidentally - it's what I find easiest, even if it's not what I like best. (Over the course of time, some independent words may turn into inflectional affixes, but that hasn't happened in the main period I'm focusing on.)

I don't know anything about syntax yet.

For phonology I'm drawing on Pacific Northwest native languages, Proto-Indo-European, and Semitic, but not relying only on them for possibilities. I don't have the full phoneme inventory worked out, but I have a lot of the ingredients.

The vowel system is a basic 5-vowel system.
Syllable structure is C(C)V(C): Onsets are obligatory, initial two-consonant clusters are possible, and single-consonant codas are possible.

There's a glottalized/unglottalized division running through pretty much the whole consonant system, including sonorants as well as obstruents. (Glottalized obstruents are ejective, but it's manifested differently in sonorants.) Obstruents additionally have a voiced/voiceless distinction in unglottalized sounds.

Places of articulation for obstruents and nasals include labial (probably bilabial for stops and labiodental for fricatives), dental/alveolar, velar, and labiovelar. Fricatives may make more distinctions in the coronal area (i.e., in addition to /s/ there may be /θ/ and/or /ʃ/, and their voiced and glottalized counterparts); I do know that there's an alveolar lateral fricative /ɬ/. I'm not sure if there are affricates, or if affricate-like clusters just come together when a fricative follows a stop.

For non-nasal sonorants there are /l/, /r/ (not sure what kind of r yet), /w/, /j/.
There's also glottal stop and /h/.

There are phonotactic restrictions and phonological rules relating to how different laryngeal specifications combine in clusters. They can almost be summed up by saying that there can only be one distinctive laryngeal specification in a cluster, though that's probably not quite true when sonorants are involved.

If any consonant in the cluster (sonorant or obstruent) is glottalized, the whole cluster counts as glottalized; although the glottalization may be more manifest in one part of the cluster than others, there are no distinctively non-glottalized sounds in the cluster.

When there are no glottalized consonants involved, if any obstruent in the cluster is voiced, all other obstruents in the cluster are voiced. Clusters with multiple voiceless obstruents only occur when both obstruents are underlyingly voiceless.

Since sonorants don't have a voicing distinction, a voiced (non-glottalized) sonorant can combine with either a voiceless obstruent or a voiced obstruent in a cluster.

I'm not quite sure how /h/ and /ʔ/ fit in with these rules.

Profile

steorran_worulde

November 2020

S M T W T F S
123 4 567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 6th, 2026 01:53 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios