Skip to main content

A Common Conlanging Pitfall

Don't have time for a long post today, so I thought I'd make a quick post about one of the common conlanging pitfalls I've experienced and hear others talking about a lot.

I've been guilty of as this as well: throwing in TOO MUCH. Putting in too many phonemes, morphemes, and basically throwing in everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink! I think this happens because all of us speak a very developed, rich language, whatever it is. We want our conlang to be as full and rich, but this will NOT happen overnight or even in a few years. THINK SIMPLE. ESPECIALLY if you are working on your first conlang.

Think about this for a few minutes. When are we most creative? When we have less to work with, because we have to be. Think of preparing a meal: you are in a huge kitchen with fully stocked cupboards and freezer. You can make ANYTHING. What do you make? You're paralyzed for a few moments as you consider the possibilities. Then maybe you start making something, but start looking through that cupboard at all the other ingredients in there. And that pantry over there. And all through the freezer, wondering just how many different meats and fish they have in there. BUT, what if you were in a small kitchen? What if you only had ten ingredients, but you only want to use five, so that you have something left over for another meal tomorrow? You work more quickly, and you get more creative. The end result may not be a masterpiece, but that doesn't mean that its worthless. Conlangs are, by their nature, works that are continually updated, tweaked, and polished.

Choose fewer building blocks and be more creative with them. Once you've done a conlang or two, even if you get thrown into the huge kitchen, you will know how to make a few things and you can make them again, and start experimenting with other ingredients, or more ingredients.

Comments

Mia said…
That's some good advice there. I've been at this conlanging thing for years now, and I still sometimes fall into the pit of "too much, too soon".
Matthew Shields said…
Yeah, the more I've thought about it, the more I think its pretty much a universal cure-all for conlangers. Just make everything MUCH simpler, even if you feel like you're gutting the conlang, because you'll probably be adding stuff back in later. Make it work well enough on a simple level and understand it more thoroughly, first. Then go to the next level.
Menzies said…
Given the problems I've been having with Agrazún, I think that's pretty true. Though in my case it's not really related to the alphabet, I still agree that simplicity should be essential.
Miekko said…
it's not a universal cure-all by far.

the universal problem in conlanging is the superficiality of nearly all descriptions of conlangs - most conlangs basically amount to a list of features, and no description whatsoever of how these things actually interact, whereas in real languages, that interaction is central. E.g., adpositions that mark objects of various verbs in Germanic languages often carry aspectual information in various slightly unpredictable ways, likewise, case usage often carries all kinds of information in languages that have case, and so on and so on.
Anonymous said…
I'm glad to see more people replying to your posts. It makes your blag feel more interactive, and that's a very good thing.

Like others before me, I've found myself getting into trouble by adding too much too soon. In my current project, I've restricted myself to twelve phonemes and a glottal stop, and I intend to implement a very strict system of phonotactics focusing on the coda of a syllable.

By making things simple, I don't feel as overwhelmed. Removing options can truly help to make sorting through what you have left much easier. I would share this wisdom to anyone interested in undertaking a project, let alone a conlang.

- Baalak Nalzar-aung.
Anonymous said…
No one in my life is interested in linguistics or langauges--especially "fake" languages! I have no one to bounce ideas off of, so I really don't know if mine is ridiculously complicated or not.

I like the way it's coming together, but it is my first one.

--Moriah
Anonymous said…
Although this is some excellent advice, I am simply stuck in place with my first conlang "in an avarege-sized kitchen", not knowing where to start. I have no ideas, and am literally starting from scratch. Please, if you know somebody who is good at this, convince them to make extensive data readily available :)

--Draco

Popular posts from this blog

Tolkien's Alphabets

I was working on my fonts for my conlang again and I starting thinking about alphabets in general, and I thought it would be fun to do a post on Tolkien's Middle Earth alphabets, Cirth and Tengwar. First, let's take a look at Cirth , which was used to write Khuzdul, the dwarvish language, as well as Quenya and Sindarin, the elvish languages. It was based on the Norse & Anglo-Saxon Futhark runes. There's nothing very fancy about this alphabet, it functions much the same as our own; each glyph represent one character. But note that the different letters correspond to each other in certain ways: letters that are phonetically close to each other look similar. P and B, for example. B is pretty much the "voiced" form of P (voiced means that your vocal chords are engaged and vibrating). B looks just like P but its got that extra little stroke sticking out there, making it look like an R. Same thing for T and D, and K and G. And those are just the plosives; lo...

Orthography - Making Your Own Alphabet

This is Part One, Part Two , Part Three The idea of making up my own alphabet was probably the first thing that attracted me to conlanging. After I learned Bulgarian, I made up a code that was based on Cirth and Bulgarian . I sent my brother the code and would mail him letters using it, just for fun. I started thinking about developing a new alphabet later, when I was playing the Myst games, and I saw the flowing script of D'Ni  (D'Ni is a conlang Cyan/Richard Watson developed for their games and books). First things to consider as you start developing your alphabet - What do you want? a phonetic alphabet a non-phonetic alphabet (like English) or a syllable-based alphabet (meaning one character per syllable, like po, kee, ot, or kel, would be represented by one character/Tibetan is syllabic) or an abjad, which would be a consonant-only-alphabet, and all vowels would be represented by diacritic marks (Hebrew and Arabic are examples) A little research on Omniglot will...

How to Make a Conlang out of English

Ok.  My experience has been that some conlangers out there do not like it when your conlang is too... Englishey . This generally means your conlang has basically the same syntax and grammar as English, and the same sounds, too.  There might be a few twists in there - an extra case, some extra phonemes, a different alphabet, but overall, pretty close to English. And really, who can blame them?  For those that take the time to learn and understand linguistics and all the concepts behind it, it looks and feels lazy and uninspired. For the record, I do not encourage conlanging snobbery, I'm just saying that I understand where it comes from. But... if you DON'T know lots of linguistics, and don't care to study all the principles and so forth, what else can you do?  If you know a second language you can mash up the two languages you know.  But aside from that, how else can you build a language? Being the conlang contrarian I am, I think you can transform English...