Phonoaesthetics
-
- Niš
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:21 pm
Phonoaesthetics
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?
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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
- Aurora Rossa
- Smeric
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:46 am
- Location: The vendée of America
- Contact:
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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.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?
Last edited by Aurora Rossa on Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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."
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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.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?
"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
"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
-
- Niš
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:21 pm
Re: Phonoaesthetics
I guess that's how I view it, too.Anguipes wrote: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.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?
- 2+3 clusivity
- Avisaru
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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.
Don't forget [sɛ.lɚ.dɔɻ].CalebWhite wrote:First of all, what makes [sɛ.lə.dɔː] or [sɛ.lɚ.dɔː] euphonic
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.
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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.
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.
-
- Niš
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:21 pm
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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?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.Don't forget [sɛ.lɚ.dɔɻ].CalebWhite wrote:First of all, what makes [sɛ.lə.dɔː] or [sɛ.lɚ.dɔː] euphonic
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.
- 2+3 clusivity
- Avisaru
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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.
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.
Re: Phonoaesthetics
I reject the premise of the question.
-
- Niš
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:21 pm
Re: Phonoaesthetics
Do any specific phones appeal to your ears more than others at all?cromulant wrote:I reject the premise of the question.
Re: Phonoaesthetics
my own "cellar door" would probably be something like "Krakatoa".
Re: Phonoaesthetics
You have no excuse for not using IPAJCD 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.
Re: Phonoaesthetics
Even the elves can be bastards sometimes.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.
"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
"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
Re: Phonoaesthetics
I find /v/ and ejectives to the sexiest sounds to dip into my pallet. but labials are just icky and gross.
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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.
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.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: Phonoaesthetics
Fuck off.Hubris Incalculable wrote:You have no excuse for not using IPAJCD 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.
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!
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!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: Phonoaesthetics
Anguipes wrote: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.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?
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!
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!
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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
"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
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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.
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.
Re: Phonoaesthetics
I'm gonna stop you right there only to say that you're talking crazy.din wrote:I haven't got much to say about this except for: A conlang never ends up sounding how you intended it to.
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.
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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.Cael wrote:I find /v/ and ejectives to the sexiest sounds to dip into my pallet. but labials are just icky and gross.
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
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
Re: Phonoaesthetics
Chagen wrote:I especially love /b/, but a lot of people don't for some odd reason.[citation needed]
Re: Phonoaesthetics
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.
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.