Forum:Group Project

Hey guys!

Does anyone want to get together and create a language as a group? We can plan the basics here and eventually create a separate page for it.

I was thinking of a basic auxiliary language for conlangers, any other ideas?

Razlem 17:55, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently working on an auxlang with some friends. Community help would be nice. LINK —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 22:56, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wanted to start with something a bit more simple. If this gets going nicely, then we can make it more complex. Razlem 23:42, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. And by "simple" you mean "like English," right? At least just for starters… —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:40, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so simple is relative. But just for the time being, I'd like to avoid complex grammatical concepts. Razlem 03:17, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I have been considering opening a project like this for some time. I had a talk with EmperorZelos about it and was letting the idea maturing before posting. I surely want to work in this project! Panglossa | Talk 03:12, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Simple? ah this is going to be a pidgin! The Emperor Zelos 04:20, May 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a pidgin per se; it doesn't have to be simple nor does it have to be only for conlangers. Just tossing some ideas around. Razlem 04:40, May 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you dont want to avoid grammatical concepts pidgin is what you want The Emperor Zelos 08:46, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

When do we start? Before anything, we have to define general guidelines for the language. I mean, not the language elements themselves, but things like: I think it is a good start. Panglossa | Talk 13:25, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it a Terran or an alien language?
 * 2) Is it meant to be an artificial auxiliary, or a natural language?
 * 3) Is it highly inflectional, completely isolating, or any level (and if so, what level) between these extremes?
 * 4) Do we want a plain regular language without any innovations (for this is our first project), or will we include unique, original or even exotic features in it?

For our first project, let's go with Terran, auxiliary, infl-iso mix, and a few unique innovations. Razlem 14:02, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

For me it is OK. Panglossa | Talk 14:28, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Another important thing: is it an open project (anyone can contribute), or there is going to be a defined group of members? Panglossa | Talk 14:35, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

It can be an open project, but we have to make sure that people follow the rules of the language if they want to contribute. Or would you rather have a more selective group of users? Razlem 15:36, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should define at least a group of members with decision power. Imagine e.g. we have to vote on something, we must know how many votes are needed. Members could be accepted with the ongoing project, if someone finds it interesting, the definition of the group is simply to give us some parameter. Panglossa | Talk 15:56, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. So how do we want to start this language? Razlem 16:08, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, we can define a time for decisions to be taken. Just like in the Featuring process. We establish a limit date or a standard period of time, then we work on the opinions issued in that period. Panglossa | Talk 16:26, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good to have some discussion time, but the intervals should be short (like 2 or 3 days). Razlem 16:44, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I guess we should start with the alphabet. Are there any particular sounds that we want? Razlem 19:35, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Vowels: a, e, i, o (ɔ), u, ǝ (^), y

Stress: à (aʔ), á (a:), ã

Consonants: p, t, k, s, f, r, m, n, ng (ŋ), nq (N), q, x, w, y (j), h, nh (ɲ); little bit of caucasian feel; all same as IPA unless specified in parentheses —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 20:38, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Do we want voiced consonants or l, that's what I can't decide? I don't like either :P —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 20:41, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

There are many more things to decide before the alphabet. First of all, we must agree upon what has already been proposed. Current proposals are:
 * 1) Terran
 * 2) Auxiliary language (i.e., not thought of as a natural language)
 * 3) Lightly inflected, with a tendence to isolating
 * 4) A few unique innovations

My vote is PRO for all these points, with one addendum to the last one: these innovations should have some "tactical" motivation; as it is an auxiliary language, any innovation must have the objective of giving some positive practical feature to the language.Panglossa | Talk 21:01, May 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am PRO for all of these as well. Razlem 01:55, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Do you have any ideas? Razlem 21:28, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Dual pronouns. But only if there aren't conjugations because if there are, just conjugate them in. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 21:40, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

If it's an auxlang for conlanging (have we decided on that yet?), then perhaps there should be 2 genders: one for natural, and one for artificial. Razlem 23:10, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe for distinction yes, but certainly not for any of this gender agreement stuff. Artificial has last vowel as i, e, or ǝ, while natural has a last vowel as a, o, u. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:28, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Innovations (proposed)

 * Dual Pronouns


 * It would be interesting to include, but would it offer a tactical advantage over a natlang? Razlem 01:55, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly efficiency. In Hungarian it is a lot easier to say "Szeretlek" for I love you rather than "Téged szeretem." —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:44, May 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Artificial/Natural "Genders"
 * We should inflect for nouns (Ex. artificial nouns end in [X], natural, in [Y]). Plural markers would stay the same, as would any other modifiers. Should words agree or not? Razlem 16:17, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Concerning head direction and alignment, how do you all feel about a head-first nominative-accusative? Razlem 03:28, May 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why having nom-acc rather than direct? The Emperor Zelos 14:02, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's up for debate. Would direct be better for this auxlang? Razlem 18:11, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Auxlang is meant ot be easy, how much easier can it get than all words taking 1 shape ni all positions? throw off everything unneccisery, dont have anything but present past and future too The Emperor Zelos 18:57, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's starting to sound like a pidgin. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:44, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a fine line between easiness and laziness; nom-acc languages can be made easy. I'm not sure what you mean by "dont have anything but present past and future"- as opposed to far future or far past? Razlem 23:13, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. What he wants is no past perfect, conditional, etc. If you take an approach like Mandarin, it can be done, but it gets quite confusing rather than easy. Otherwise it's just a pidgin. As for nom accus, I agree with Zelos, because nom-accusative markings are overly European and pointless unless the word order is VSO or SOV (or VOS or OSV). —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 00:40, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, we'll go with direct then. I'm not familiar with Mandarin though; how do they approach the tenses and moods? Razlem 01:01, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * They use words. There are no inflections at all, and only one or two conjunctions, so they use words for everything. Take the sentence "I eat/ate/will eat meat." Present "wǒ chī ròu" or any combination of the bolded particles "wǒ zhèng zài chī zhe ròu ne." Past "wǒ chī le ròu." Future "wǒ huì chī ròu" (informally). Experential (I have eaten meat) "wǒ chī guo ròu." Present perfect negative (ish) "wǒ méi chī ròu." Near future "wǒ yī kuàir chī ròu." Conditional (If I eat meat, I will be full), "yào shi wǒ chī ròu, wǒ jiù chī le bǎo," lit. If I eat meat, I thus ate (until) full. Those are mostly random particles added. But they get confusing at times, especially when dealing with stuff they would call conditional, subjunctive, etc. in English/Spanish.


 * That seems like it would be taxing on one's memory. But I suppose that's what you have to do for an isolating language. What I did in Logiano is just attach an ending to the verb without conjugating it, and separate it with a dash for clarity. I know Logiano is far from perfect, but it seems more efficient to just attach an ending, as in the romance languages. Another option is to totally regulate the particles.Razlem 03:01, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * But the big problem you may notice is the problems when you run into the conditional, you have to say "If I eat meat, I thus ate full," (for If I eat meat, I will be full) and there are a lot of other time problems because there are no tenses. I agree that we should have some system, probably inflections, for tenses, but it also should include perfect tenses, conditional, etc. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 10:43, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. What about agglutination? Infixes possibly... Razlem 01:43, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Infixes? Why not suffixes? <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:01, May 26, 2010 (UTC) ust
 * I just realized my own auxlang has infixes. But be more specific on the uses. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:02, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * The infixes could be placed after the first vowel. (A random example word) lovajl "eat", lodaavajl "have eaten". Razlem 02:29, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Infixes are detrimental for auxlangs as they are even harder dealing with than suffix or prefix, You should reall use neither because that generates irregularities which in turn is against auxlang purpose, better is having it isolated where additional words do the change and is used in a specific order aka grammar The Emperor Zelos 17:14, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposal: (example) "Subject [pastparticle] [perfectiveparticle] [conditional particle] Verb Object". Tense particle precedes perfective precedes conditional. I think we can omit infinitive, reflexive, active, and passive. Razlem 03:57, May 27, 2010 (UTC)