What's wrong with this conlang?

[pdusen]

So I'm making my first real attempt at a basic conlang. I come up with a set of sounds that I think work, come up with a romanization of those sounds for easy typing, and then start making up words. I write a brief example paragraph, but that only produces a handful of words, so after that I throw in a swadesh list (I figure there are worse places to start...). Anyhow, I get through the list and look it over a little bit later.

Something about these words bothers me. I can go to Ardalambion and look at any word Tolkien ever produced and think to myself, "Yup, that's a word. I buy that." But every word that I put down just looks completely fake to me. Obviously I'm not trying to replicate Elvish, and my sounds are different, but is that really all it is? Or is it completely in my head?

Anyway, I didn't intend to share this language with anyone, but at this point I need people who are more experienced at this than I am to tell me if there's something I'm doing noticeably wrong, and maybe give me pointers on how to fix it. Any feedback at all is appreciated.


Sounds

IPA
Consonants: ɱ ɳ b̪ ɖ ɢ v ʐ h ɽ ɭ
Vowels: e̞ ɐ o̞ ʉ

Romanization
Consonants: m n b d g v z h r l
Vowels: e a o u

Lexicon
aban - weep
abo - day
abod - bone
ada - ten
ado - climb, ascend
adu - look
alar - hand
alud - mountain
am - under, below
amul - starve
an - You (2.sg)
ana - say (verb)
anub - bird
aru - mammoth
aval - full
avuz - good
az - eye
ba - who?
barage - grease (fat)
bave - cold (of weather)
beda - seed (noun!)
benu - smoke (noun, of fire)
bero - name
bo - nose
bohe - head (anatomic)
bolu - stone
da - that
dag - sit (verb)
dabo - hear
dama - sky, the heavens
do - two
dono - sleep (verb)
duga - heart
dura - how, in what way
eb - we (inclusive)
eber - come (verb)
edub - dog
ego - sand (opposite to following)
egun - walk (verb)
elul - root (botanics)
en - I (Pers.Pron.1.Sg.)
enav - stand (verb)
erav - swim (verb)
ev - green (colour)
evod - tail
evor - give (verb)
ez - earth (=soil)
ezan - bark (of tree)
ezed - fish (noun)
ezun - mountain (not hill)
ezur - breasts (female)
gadu - water (noun)
gal - fly (verb)
gamo - see, look
gedo - neck (not nape!)
geha - cloud (not fog)
godu - valley
gora - lie (on side, recline)
goz - hair (on head)
gu - what?
gulal - woman
gure - leaf (botanics)
guzu - kill (verb)
ha - this
halo - many
han - tongue (anatomical)
harul - man (adult male)
heno - claw
hune - bite (verb)
huv - belly (abdomen)
levol - person (individual)
lod - dry (substance!)
mada - shout, mighty call
naze - new
nohu - egg
noub - hear (verb)
nu - one
oba - ear
ober - all (of a number)
odar - big
odez - knee
oh - tell, say
ohad - blood
olob - burn (verb intr.!)
oma - family
onah - rain (noun)
onob - ash(es)
onoz - liver
orag - foot (not leg)
oz - white (colour)
ra - mouth
rala - long (not 'wide')
ranu - tree (not log)
rolo - star
rozar - die (verb)
rule - horn (of bull)
ruol - louse
ud - see (verb)
udov - night
uhod - round
ul - not
uler - sun
umo - live; to live
unuz - path (trail)
urov - know (facts)
uvan - small
uz - black (colour)
vezo - fire
volo - flesh (meat, flesh)
voru - hot (adjective)
vu - red (colour)
zado - eat (verb)
zahul - drink (verb)
ze - yellow (colour)
zoda - skin (person’s)
zode - tooth (front, rather than molar)
zoge - feather (large, not down)
zover - moon

[Click]

The first thing wrong with your conlang is the very phoneme inventory . Seriously, look at Wikipedia articles about real languages and make an inventory based on one of them.

[WeepingElf]

I know what you are talking about. It is indeed not easy to find words that sound right. But Tolkien has set a very high standard. He was an academic linguist, had a superior feeling for language, and worked on his Elvish languages for decades. You just cannot expect your first conlang to be an equal of Quenya or Sindarin.

Also, your phonology is markedly off the kilter. It is full of "weird" sounds that are rare among the world's languages, while common phonemes such as /t/ are missing. This is not a good way of "jazzing up" a phonology. It is like Klingon, only worse. If you look at the phonologies of Tolkien's Elvish languages, you will see that he used rare phonemes only sparingly, and designed phonologies that are indeed quite "normal", yet interesting.

This is not meant to discourage you; but you should be aware what you are trying to do, and what errors to avoid.

[Pazmivaniye]

In addition to what those above me said, varying the length of your words a bit more might make them feel more natural. In my experience with filling out the lexicon of my main conlang, I've often found myself with very many bisyllabic words. Being willing to make some longer and shorter ones makes the lexicon look better.

[Buran]

I second WeepingElf and Pazmivaniye. That said, I like your word structure; it feels quite smooth.

If you're going for a sound similar to Tolkien's Elvish, I would advise looking at Welsh and Finnish, two of the languages that inspired Tolkien most (if I remember correctly, Sindarin phonology was partially modelled on Welsh). Try looking at the phonologies of languages which sound pleasant to you, and find out what makes them sound like that. A phonology doesn't have to be exotic to be interesting, although "exotic" is relative; each phonology generally has its own oddities (e.g. vowel harmony in Finnish, palatisation in Russian, German's many vowels ), but not too many (e.g. palatisation, vowel harmony, and an abnormally large number of vowels all in one language would be odd- what we call a "kitchen sink" language).

[Imralu]

While I agree with what others have said before me, I think a lot of it's in your head too. When you come up with the word, it's different from when you discover a word in another language. When you've made them, you're aware of how arbitrary it is.

My core vocabulary in my conlang has been with me for years, through different conlangs. Words that I don't like have been gotten rid of. I've been tweaking it for years and I'm getting to really like it. I still have words that I don't like though, but if this conlang collapses and I start again, they'll be gone and the ones I like will stay.

[Cedh]

Another idea would be to try and find more interesting definitions for your words. Granted, what you have are mostly fairly basic concepts that exist in almost all natural human language. But no two real languages - no matter how closely related they are - divide up the semantic space in exactly the same way. So maybe you could lump together two or three related meanings that are distinct in English. For instance, your language might use a single word for "hand" and "arm". Or you could make a distinction that English doesn't make. Your list has two words for "mountain" - maybe one of them is only used for very steep mountains with rocky cliffs on their side, and the other one only for forested mountains. Also, real languages have secondary meanings for many words (especially for basic words), often arising through metaphorical usage. Maybe your language would use the word for "skin" also for the bark of a tree. Or the word for "rain" also for "weep". Or whatever seems interesting and plausible to you...

[Nortaneous]

I had the exact same problem when I was starting out and I solved it by 1) adding agglutinativity (so the root never appeared on its own, but had an affix attached -- repetitive elements make things look more realistic) 2) allowing consonant clusters.

[ObsequiousNewt]

I had the exact same problem when I was starting out and I solved it by 1) adding agglutinativity (so the root never appeared on its own, but had an affix attached -- repetitive elements make things look more realistic) 2) allowing consonant clusters.

I dunno, I think there's something æsthetic about his lack thereof.

[Basilius]

Consonants: ɱ ɳ b̪ ɖ ɢ v ʐ h ɽ ɭ

Yes, this looks wrong.

But interestingly, if you simply go this way:

<m n b d g v z h r l > /m n p˭ t˭ k˭ v z h r l /

- it would be basically OK with me (lack of voiceless fricatives looks a bit bizarre but isn't unprecedented, although adding /s/ will further improve the inventory in terms of plausibility). (In case you wondered, [p˭ t˭ k˭] are unaspirated voiced plosives which most English speakers will mostly hear as /b d g/.)

Also, if you reinterpret your vowels e. g. this way:

<e a o u> /ɪ ɐ ʊ ʉ/

- you'll have essentially a plausible vowel inventory, and may even retain [e̞ ɐ o̞ ʉ] as most frequent allophones.

So, if in choosing the shapes of your words you were more motivated by the spellings than by exact sounding (as it often happens), you may retain most stuff as is.

Also, no, I don't see anything wrong in your vocab .... which probably means that I didn't understand your intended aesthetics

EDIT: the 2nd person pronoun above was referring to pdusen, if that wasn't obvious.

[Imralu]

I have to say, I quite like it. I like the lack of any voiceless sound except [h]. I've always wanted to have a language with pretty much the exact same phonology. I tend to like conlangs with quite simple phonologies, like Sano's Kala. I've got one I'm not really working on right now that only has /t k m n ŋ h a i u/ (as well as /ː/ which lengthens any sound except /h/) and no consonant clusters.

Having virtually every word as two syllables is going to make sentences sound weird, depending on your stress pattern.

although adding /s/ will further improve the inventory in terms of plausibility

But maybe he doesn't want any voicing distinction ...

<e a o u> /ɪ ɐ ʊ ʉ/

I fail to see how that's any more plausible. It just looks more random.

[Hallow XIII]

Well, no voiceless stops happens in Australia. The problem with the consonants is simply that all consonants are at strange POAs.

[Basilius]

<e a o u> /ɪ ɐ ʊ ʉ/

I fail to see how that's any more plausible. It just looks more random.

Code: Select all

ɪ   ʉ   ʊ 
    ɐ

Better?

[ObsequiousNewt]

<e a o u> /ɪ ɐ ʊ ʉ/

I fail to see how that's any more plausible. It just looks more random.

Code: Select all

ɪ   ʉ   ʊ 
    ɐ

Better?[/quote]
That just looks worse to me... /I U/ will be more easily confused with /}/ than /e o/.

[Basilius]

Well, no voiceless stops happens in Australia.

Be specific. I've seen so many cases where this is merely a spelling convention that I won't buy it without details.

(Systems with truly voiced plosives *more frequent* than voiceless do happen to exist, though.)

[Basilius]

That just looks worse to me... /I U/ will be more easily confused with /}/ than /e o/.

(Assuming you meant /ɪ ʊ/ vs. /ʉ/...) Maybe, but that wasn't why pdusen's original inventory looked wrong.

[ObsequiousNewt]

That just looks worse to me... /I U/ will be more easily confused with /}/ than /e o/.

(Assuming you meant /ɪ ʊ/ vs. /ʉ/...) Maybe, but that wasn't why pdusen's original inventory looked wrong.

Yep, I was using X-SAMPA 'cause I'm on an iPad and I don't feel like copypasting right now.

[Yagia]

@pdusen. I agree with

My core vocabulary in my conlang has been with me for years, through different conlangs. Words that I don't like have been gotten rid of. I've been tweaking it for years and I'm getting to really like it.

Don't get stuck in this phonology thing. My experience is that figuring out an vocabulary that feels really nice and that is suitable for your own concepts and dreams, is much more fun and much more rewarding. For me, shaping words that really leave an image in my mind, is the goal. Phonology for me is a tool, it can be adjusted afterwards, ad infinitum if need be. It is the clothes that cover the body. You change them if you want to.

[Melteor]

Quenya was very Finnish in its phonology but it had a lot of indoeuropean vocabulary.

Creating your vocabulary and tweaking the phonology and digging into the phonetics sounds like a good way. You could even work with a basic grammar and easy sentences and grow it from there.

I would say also listen to a lot of different languages and try to find out what you're hearing, what makes it sound that way, if you need such-&-such grammar to do that, and what you like. Sometimes it's an aesthetic leap you get from digging around and finding this particular thing that works for you.

[Buran]

@pdusen. I agree with

My core vocabulary in my conlang has been with me for years, through different conlangs. Words that I don't like have been gotten rid of. I've been tweaking it for years and I'm getting to really like it.

Don't get stuck in this phonology thing. My experience is that figuring out an vocabulary that feels really nice and that is suitable for your own concepts and dreams, is much more fun and much more rewarding. For me, shaping words that really leave an image in my mind, is the goal. Phonology for me is a tool, it can be adjusted afterwards, ad infinitum if need be. It is the clothes that cover the body. You change them if you want to.

Imralu said that, not me.

[Drydic]

@pdusen. I agree with

My core vocabulary in my conlang has been with me for years, through different conlangs. Words that I don't like have been gotten rid of. I've been tweaking it for years and I'm getting to really like it.

Don't get stuck in this phonology thing. My experience is that figuring out an vocabulary that feels really nice and that is suitable for your own concepts and dreams, is much more fun and much more rewarding. For me, shaping words that really leave an image in my mind, is the goal. Phonology for me is a tool, it can be adjusted afterwards, ad infinitum if need be. It is the clothes that cover the body. You change them if you want to.

Imralu said that, not me.

We're all Imralu.

[Imralu]

Well, no voiceless stops happens in Australia.

Be specific. I've seen so many cases where this is merely a spelling convention that I won't buy it without details.

(Systems with truly voiced plosives *more frequent* than voiceless do happen to exist, though.)

There generally isn't a voicing distinction. Stops at the beginning of a word are voiceless and voiced elsewhere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... _inventory

[Basilius]

Well, no voiceless stops happens in Australia.

Be specific. I've seen so many cases where this is merely a spelling convention that I won't buy it without details.

(Systems with truly voiced plosives *more frequent* than voiceless do happen to exist, though.)

There generally isn't a voicing distinction. Stops at the beginning of a word are voiceless and voiced elsewhere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... _inventory

Yes. A bit different from "no voiceless stops", isn't it?

And what I meant was more-less this:

Most Australian languages do not distinguished between voiced and voiceless stops, so that e.g. t and d both occur as variants of the same sound. Both the voiced and voiceless allophone will usually be written the same way, but whether to use the voiceless symbol or the voiced symbol varies depending on which occurs more frequently in the language. Some languages have been written using the voiced symbols by one linguist and the voiceless symbols by another. Moreover, some linguists choose to use voiceless symbols for some consonants in a language and voiced symbols for others.

So, if Inversion knows an obscure Australian language where all plosives are indeed voiced, and this isn't just conventional spelling nor a pervert phonologist's fancy, that would be interesting, but a mistake is too probable.

[Hallow XIII]

No, I don't know of one. There are enough though where there is only one stop series and the voiced allophone is significantly more frequent, so that you can analyze them as phonemically only having a voiced series.

Anyway: quite frankly what is wrong with this conlang is that it is both completely a priori (that is, it was not worked out from a con-protolanguage) and phonologically extremely strange, with makes the plasticky artificial fakeness shine through with the light of a thousand suns. The fact that phoneme frequency laws haven't been paid attention to does not help.

If you've ever wondered why people obsess about realism, here is the reason.