Phonoaesthetics

Substantial postings about constructed languages and constructed worlds in general. Good place to mention your own or evaluate someone else's. Put quick questions in C&C Quickies instead.
CalebWhite
Niš
Niš
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:21 pm

Phonoaesthetics

Post by CalebWhite »

As many of you know, it is often said that "cellar door" is said to be the most beautiful phrase in English without regard to spelling or meaning. First of all, what makes {sɛ.lə.dɔː] or [sɛ.lɚ.dɔː] euphonic or phonetically aesthetic? Secondly, how could we, as conlangers, use this to our advantage to keep our conlangs sounding beautiful?

User avatar
din
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:02 pm
Location: Brussels

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by din »

I haven't got much to say about this except for: A conlang never ends up sounding how you intended it to.
— o noth sidiritt Tormiott

User avatar
Aurora Rossa
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:46 am
Location: The vendée of America
Contact:

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Aurora Rossa »

CalebWhite wrote:As many of you know, it is often said that "cellar door" is said to be the most beautiful phrase in English without regard to spelling or meaning. First of all, what makes {sɛ.lə.dɔː] or [sɛ.lɚ.dɔː] euphonic or phonetically aesthetic? Secondly, how could we, as conlangers, use this to our advantage to keep our conlangs sounding beautiful?
Well obviously people disagree considerably on what constitutes linguistic beauty. You could spend all day arguing over what languages sound the best or worst. I personally rank languages between certain Germanic languages that I found terrible sounding and melodious Finnish or Japanese, but many would have totally different criteria.
Last edited by Aurora Rossa on Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
"There was a particular car I soon came to think of as distinctly St. Louis-ish: a gigantic white S.U.V. with a W. bumper sticker on it for George W. Bush."

User avatar
Anguipes
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 6:11 pm
Location: Assiah of Yesod
Contact:

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Anguipes »

CalebWhite wrote:As many of you know, it is often said that "cellar door" is said to be the most beautiful phrase in English without regard to spelling or meaning. First of all, what makes {sɛ.lə.dɔː] or [sɛ.lɚ.dɔː] euphonic or phonetically aesthetic? Secondly, how could we, as conlangers, use this to our advantage to keep our conlangs sounding beautiful?
IIRC this was strictly the opinion of Tolkien, who never said it was a universal and was also into a rather simplistic set of phonaesthetics where "soft" sounds (e.g. vowels, glides, approximants) equaled civilization and refinement while "harsh" sounds (anything further back than palatal that isn't a stop or a nasal) equaled coarseness, barbarism or downright evil.
"It is quite certain, in particular, that I have always been insane." ~ Aleister Crowley

"Save us all from arrogant men/And all the causes they're for/I won't be righteous again/I'm not that sure any more." ~ Shades of Grey, Billy Joel

CalebWhite
Niš
Niš
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:21 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by CalebWhite »

Anguipes wrote:
CalebWhite wrote:As many of you know, it is often said that "cellar door" is said to be the most beautiful phrase in English without regard to spelling or meaning. First of all, what makes {sɛ.lə.dɔː] or [sɛ.lɚ.dɔː] euphonic or phonetically aesthetic? Secondly, how could we, as conlangers, use this to our advantage to keep our conlangs sounding beautiful?
IIRC this was strictly the opinion of Tolkien, who never said it was a universal and was also into a rather simplistic set of phonaesthetics where "soft" sounds (e.g. vowels, glides, approximants) equaled civilization and refinement while "harsh" sounds (anything further back than palatal that isn't a stop or a nasal) equaled coarseness, barbarism or downright evil.
I guess that's how I view it, too.

User avatar
2+3 clusivity
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by 2+3 clusivity »

CalebWhite wrote:harsh" sounds (anything further back than palatal that isn't a stop or a nasal) equaled coarseness, barbarism or downright evil.
Don't Sindarin and Quenya both have /x/?
CalebWhite wrote:First of all, what makes [sɛ.lə.dɔː] or [sɛ.lɚ.dɔː] euphonic
Don't forget [sɛ.lɚ.dɔɻ].

I think what seems to be the real criteria here is that the consonants are present in a listener's L1. Second, maybe a (C)V or (C)(appxomiant)V syllable structure, which maybe suggests ease of production is a criteria. Third criteria, If you look at J.R.R.'s "good"--i.e. more developed languages--he's basically just mixed Spanish and Finnish phonology which are SAE all the way.
Last edited by 2+3 clusivity on Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
linguoboy wrote:So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.

User avatar
makvas
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:13 pm
Location: The Southland

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by makvas »

My own aesthetic sense is quite different from that of Tolkien's, so it's certainly not universal even if common to prefer soft phones.

Phones I quite like: (x-sampa)
k m v z x E

Phones I dislike:
b p w u 2 h

I'm not sure what the pattern here is, if there is any. I do tend to really like voiced fricatives of any sort though.

CalebWhite
Niš
Niš
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:21 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by CalebWhite »

2+3 clusivity wrote:Don't Sindarin and Quenya both have /x/?
CalebWhite wrote:harsh" sounds (anything further back than palatal that isn't a stop or a nasal) equaled coarseness, barbarism or downright evil.
CalebWhite wrote:First of all, what makes [sɛ.lə.dɔː] or [sɛ.lɚ.dɔː] euphonic
Don't forget [sɛ.lɚ.dɔɻ].

I think what seems to be the real criteria here is that the consonants are present in a listener's L1. Second, maybe a (C)V or (C)(appxomiant)V syllable structure, which maybe suggests ease of production is a criteria. Third criteria, If you look at J.R.R. he's basically just mixed Spanish and Finnish phonology which are SAE all the way.
J.R.R. Tolkien's point of view makes sense, but this all too subjective to put specific criteria on. Really, this should all be about what makes "cellar door" beautiful, ugly, or neither to you and why? Also, what constitutes beautiful phonology to you?

User avatar
2+3 clusivity
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by 2+3 clusivity »

My "criteria" are just pointing out that asthetics are subjective.

My ideal, for what it is worth would be:

p, t, c, k
b, d, j
ʃ, h
ʒ
r
l

i, ĭ, ĩ, u, ŭ, ũ
e ẽ, ă, o, õ
ɛ, ɛ̃, ɔ, ɔ̃
a, ã


I'm really not sure whether "cellar door" is that beautiful objectively considering that english speakers alone have such ranging variations.
linguoboy wrote:So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.

CalebWhite
Niš
Niš
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:21 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by CalebWhite »

Agreed

cromulant
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 402
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:12 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by cromulant »

I reject the premise of the question.

CalebWhite
Niš
Niš
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:21 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by CalebWhite »

cromulant wrote:I reject the premise of the question.
Do any specific phones appeal to your ears more than others at all?

User avatar
Kereb
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Flavor Country™
Contact:

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Kereb »

my own "cellar door" would probably be something like "Krakatoa".

User avatar
Pinetree
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Pinetree »

JCD wrote:My own aesthetic sense is quite different from that of Tolkien's, so it's certainly not universal even if common to prefer soft phones.

Phones I quite like: (x-sampa)
k m v z x E

Phones I dislike:
b p w u 2 h

I'm not sure what the pattern here is, if there is any. I do tend to really like voiced fricatives of any sort though.
You have no excuse for not using IPA

User avatar
Anguipes
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 6:11 pm
Location: Assiah of Yesod
Contact:

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Anguipes »

2+3 clusivity wrote:
CalebWhite wrote:harsh" sounds (anything further back than palatal that isn't a stop or a nasal) equaled coarseness, barbarism or downright evil.
Don't Sindarin and Quenya both have /x/?
Even the elves can be bastards sometimes.
"It is quite certain, in particular, that I have always been insane." ~ Aleister Crowley

"Save us all from arrogant men/And all the causes they're for/I won't be righteous again/I'm not that sure any more." ~ Shades of Grey, Billy Joel

Cael
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 12:58 am
Location: Elezai

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Cael »

I find /v/ and ejectives to the sexiest sounds to dip into my pallet. but labials are just icky and gross.

Ambrisio
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Ambrisio »

For me, the most "beautiful" sounds are /ɤ/ and /æ/, and nasalized laterals (I particularly love the retroflex one as it sounds so resonant).

The last one I haven't seen in any conlangs, while the former two are generally rare (in both conlangs and natlangs - I have included both in Proto-Ginösic).

I personally think Tolkien's Elvish languages sound too much like Latin. Especially Quenya.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Salmoneus »

Hubris Incalculable wrote:
JCD wrote:My own aesthetic sense is quite different from that of Tolkien's, so it's certainly not universal even if common to prefer soft phones.

Phones I quite like: (x-sampa)
k m v z x E

Phones I dislike:
b p w u 2 h

I'm not sure what the pattern here is, if there is any. I do tend to really like voiced fricatives of any sort though.
You have no excuse for not using IPA
Fuck off.
We've been using x-sampa here since before you learned to read.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Salmoneus »

Anguipes wrote:
CalebWhite wrote:As many of you know, it is often said that "cellar door" is said to be the most beautiful phrase in English without regard to spelling or meaning. First of all, what makes {sɛ.lə.dɔː] or [sɛ.lɚ.dɔː] euphonic or phonetically aesthetic? Secondly, how could we, as conlangers, use this to our advantage to keep our conlangs sounding beautiful?
IIRC this was strictly the opinion of Tolkien, who never said it was a universal and was also into a rather simplistic set of phonaesthetics where "soft" sounds (e.g. vowels, glides, approximants) equaled civilization and refinement while "harsh" sounds (anything further back than palatal that isn't a stop or a nasal) equaled coarseness, barbarism or downright evil.

Sorry, but while that may be what people say about Tolkien, it really isn't accurate. Sindarin, for instance, has /x/, and Quenya itself isn't a particularly 'soft' language (it's certainly less 'soft' than Sindarin, though it's meant to be more civilised). Adunaic, the language of the noble Numenoreans, had such unsoft sentences as "Kadô Zigûrun zabathân unakkha". Most tellingly of all, the greatest and most noble language is surely that of the Valar themselves, and that is anything but soft! The elves described their language as like the glitter of swords and entirely unpleasing to Elvish ears. Known words include Ezellôchâr, Mâchananaškad, Tulukhedelgorûs, Tulukhastâz, and A3ûlêz. The language closest to the pure language of the gods may actually the Black Speech...
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

User avatar
Anguipes
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 6:11 pm
Location: Assiah of Yesod
Contact:

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Anguipes »

Meh, then I'm wrong. Not that I find any of Tolkien's languages particularly harsh. Too polysyllabic, not enough consonant clusters.
"It is quite certain, in particular, that I have always been insane." ~ Aleister Crowley

"Save us all from arrogant men/And all the causes they're for/I won't be righteous again/I'm not that sure any more." ~ Shades of Grey, Billy Joel

User avatar
Buran
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:28 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Buran »

I personally find the way Russian and German sound very appealing, what with the complex clusters of consonants, the way everything fits together; like a complex piece of music performed with great skill. On the other hand, Māori, with its relatively simple and elegant phonology and phonotactics, is beautiful to me in its own way; a tune that's not technically difficult or complex, but simply beautiful. There is not a single standard of beauty, even in one person.

As for individual phones, ts/dz and pf/bv have always appealed to me, but tʃ/dʒ, not as much. f/v, ɸ/β, and of course x are cool; ʁ I don't mind; h is okay (but recently, I discovered word-final h, and that's... pretty cool). Though it might be my English bias, θ/ð have always sounded nice to me. Dentals (t̪/d̪, n̪, l̪) have really grown on me.

However, I think that a phonology is more than the sum of its phones; it's the way it's put together that makes it sound the way it does. So I include sounds that are "ugly" to me sometimes, because when I look at the phonology as a whole, it sounds right.
Last edited by Buran on Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
masako
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1731
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:31 pm
Location: 가매
Contact:

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by masako »

din wrote:I haven't got much to say about this except for: A conlang never ends up sounding how you intended it to.
I'm gonna stop you right there only to say that you're talking crazy.

Aside from the fact that one can indeed choose almost any combination of phonemes that one wants, allophony, syllable structure, diachronics, and morpho-syntax can all be adjusted to reach what the creator may describe as euphonic. The absence of natlang or conlang precedent in any of these aspects is not the limiting factor, only one's imagination.

User avatar
Chagen
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Chagen »

Cael wrote:I find /v/ and ejectives to the sexiest sounds to dip into my pallet. but labials are just icky and gross.
Eh, I like Labials alot. One of my favorite words in my conlang Pazmat is "Wuub" [waUb], for instance. I especially love /b/, but a lot of people don't for some odd reason.
Nūdhrēmnāva naraśva, dṛk śraṣrāsit nūdhrēmanīṣṣ iźdatīyyīm woḥīm madhēyyaṣṣi.
satisfaction-DEF.SG-LOC live.PERFECTIVE-1P.INCL but work-DEF.SG-PRIV satisfaction-DEF.PL.NOM weakeness-DEF.PL-DAT only lead-FUT-3P

User avatar
masako
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1731
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:31 pm
Location: 가매
Contact:

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by masako »

Chagen wrote:I especially love /b/, but a lot of people don't for some odd reason.[citation needed]

Ambrisio
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Phonoaesthetics

Post by Ambrisio »

This seems kind of strange, considering that it's Zompist BBoard.

And yes, I love the /b/ in the third person singular present forms of Estonian verbs (like kirjutab "writes" or tuleb "comes"). It just sounds so exotic, probably since I am used to third-person forms ending in some sort of coronal or just a vowel, as in Indo-European and Dravidian languages.

Post Reply