Bird-Like Language
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:17 pm
Howdy your suggestions merited and requested!
I'm thinking of trying to create a constructed language that is based on what birds do to communicate with each other.
Quick version of the question -- which grammatical categories carry (for you; in your opinion; generally speaking) the most meaning. Which are the most dispensable, which the most mandatory?
I have been listening to birds lately. They say the same thing over and over. My fictional characters spend a lot of time with their birds. So, in creating a bird-like language, I might hope to use reduplication of sounds, particularly of syllables, as a major meaning-bearing element. Say it twice, it means negative; say it three times it means formal; that kind of thing. Also, tack-on syllables at the front or back of an otherwise consistent phrase. Say the phrase, then say it with the middle part repeated; or, say the phrase, then say two syllables before it and repeat the phrase; then repeat the phrase with that two syllables after it; that kind of thing; and each change would bear a new (and perhaps unrelated) meaning.
I would hope that I'd produce an end-product of a language that did NOT look like a typical "skin put on top of English". My suspicion is that I'd be radically departing from many of the standard English and/or Indo-European structures and requirements, such as most, or all, of the linguistic concepts of person, number, case, aspect (a.k.a. telicity), tense. Will it be ergative-absolutive or nominative-accusative or will it be something new? I don't entirely know. I'd be excited to break new ground but ... uh ... it's daunting. I wonder which grammatical categories I can blithely eradicate, and which I just can't survive without.
So my inquiry is more directed at the act of creating a language, than at the idea of what this particular language should have. In your experience, when doing without a certain grammatical category or other, how debilitating was it? With other categories, was it not difficult at all to excise it from your con-lang?
Just getting started, thinking my way through it, thanks for any commentary!
I'm thinking of trying to create a constructed language that is based on what birds do to communicate with each other.
Quick version of the question -- which grammatical categories carry (for you; in your opinion; generally speaking) the most meaning. Which are the most dispensable, which the most mandatory?
I have been listening to birds lately. They say the same thing over and over. My fictional characters spend a lot of time with their birds. So, in creating a bird-like language, I might hope to use reduplication of sounds, particularly of syllables, as a major meaning-bearing element. Say it twice, it means negative; say it three times it means formal; that kind of thing. Also, tack-on syllables at the front or back of an otherwise consistent phrase. Say the phrase, then say it with the middle part repeated; or, say the phrase, then say two syllables before it and repeat the phrase; then repeat the phrase with that two syllables after it; that kind of thing; and each change would bear a new (and perhaps unrelated) meaning.
I would hope that I'd produce an end-product of a language that did NOT look like a typical "skin put on top of English". My suspicion is that I'd be radically departing from many of the standard English and/or Indo-European structures and requirements, such as most, or all, of the linguistic concepts of person, number, case, aspect (a.k.a. telicity), tense. Will it be ergative-absolutive or nominative-accusative or will it be something new? I don't entirely know. I'd be excited to break new ground but ... uh ... it's daunting. I wonder which grammatical categories I can blithely eradicate, and which I just can't survive without.
So my inquiry is more directed at the act of creating a language, than at the idea of what this particular language should have. In your experience, when doing without a certain grammatical category or other, how debilitating was it? With other categories, was it not difficult at all to excise it from your con-lang?
Just getting started, thinking my way through it, thanks for any commentary!
