Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Solitarian]

Because Dwarven lacks pronouns, you would need to specify what "this" is. Perhaps "Mulonbidok lushôn-zalud" could work. It means "All acts will end". There apparently isn't a Dwarven word for "thing" or "object". Perhaps I should invent one. There also is no word for also, additionally, too, as well, etc. I should add such a word to the list of adverbs.

[Miuramir]

DF humans, elves, and goblins do nearly as much writing as dwarves, and tend not to engrave stuff. I expect dwarves would use runic on stone surfaces and whatnot, but they might plausibly borrow the script of another race for books and paperwork. ...

In our world, the prototypes of the major scripts were spread by either expansionist seafaring traders (Phoenicians with the proto-Latin script), or by large continental empires where it spread along rich river trade systems and with additional religious impetus (proto-Chinese, various proto-Indian Brahmic scripts).  Presumably some of this will, or at least may, be modeled / modified by the advanced myth world gen upcoming (e.g. "god X hands down Writing to society Y"). 

In a "typical" current DF world, the trade contact between the caravan-launching races is high enough at an early point in history that I'd guess they would have a common writing system unless each started with a divinely-granted different one (a distinct possibility).  First-mover advantage is quite high for writing. 

That said, it is entirely possible for there to be two (or more) different script systems coexisting for different purposes; old Roman cursive vs. Roman square capitals being an obvious example set that comes from the same time period and culture, but different purposes and materials.  Of course, the Roman square capitals designed for engraving evolved into the Rustic capitals over years of people using them with pen on papyrus or parchment, and faded into being a header / display font over time. 

One possible way to game this is to have two base scripts, a brush/pen optimized "cursive" and an engraving-optimized "runic".  Dwarves tend to use runic for most things, elves tend to use cursive for most things, and humans tend to use runic on buildings, proclamations, and formal documents while using cursive for everyday use, poetry, and songwriting. 

[Pvt. Pirate]

i watched the video and my first thought was "it had to be a german - only we can focus so precisely on such seemingly irrelevant matters"
now i want to learn dwarven.

[DerMeister]

Make other in-game languages. Especially goblin! Kobold language is nonsense names or glossolaly.

[Pvt. Pirate]

Make other in-game languages. Especially goblin! Kobold language is nonsense names or glossolaly.

I second this request
Pvt. Pirate Usen IsethlongDerMeister

[Solitarian]

I'm glad you like it! The video is a bit obsolete due to a few linguistic reforms, but it is still mostly accurate. The first post of this thread is the official codification with the most updated rules.

I explained earlier in this thread that I will not codify the other languages because 1) the other races are not nearly as popular as dwarves and 2) the game's word creation system is the same regardless of language. I based Dwarven grammar on in-game names, so I would do the same for the other languages. However, the other languages follow the same rules for name creation, so they would be the same as Dwarven.

[Pvt. Pirate]

so all it is lacking are some words you added and the same syntax- and grammar-rules would be applied to them?

[Solitarian]

The video? Some of the vocabulary of the video is obsolete, as are some conjunctions and postpositions. All the basic stuff is the same, which is why I have not replaced the video. Refer to the post for the official list of grammar. Dwarven's lexicon also needs to be expanded, as it lacks many words for important things. It has no word for "snow", for example. However, I don't want to sit and invent words, so I rely on the community to present words for approval. If I like them, I will add them to the lexicon.

[Gabrote42]

Wow. This is most exciting and worthy of being my first PTW. I love it! Now I gotta figure out how to quote.

[Superdorf]

Wow. This is most exciting and worthy of being my first PTW. I love it! Now I gotta figure out how to quote.

Ah, you can just click the "Quote" button on the top-right of other posts. It'll create for you a post with the relevant quote inserted in BBC format, or insert the quote into the post you're writing.

Welcome to the forums!

[Loam]

Well, Solitarian might not codify the other languages, but that doesn't stop someone else from doing it! I probably won't do it... but if someone was minded to, I have PHONOLOGICAL DATA on the other langs to share, since I apparently had nothing better to do:

Elvish:

Structure: exact opposite of Dwarvish - all syllables are open, meaning they all end in a vowel (V and CV)

Consonants:
   p b       t d   c ç k q g
   f v   th  s z
   m         n 
   w         r l    y ÿ

   In order of occurence:
   r l n m th c f v d s t y w b p ÿ [q z k ç g]
   
   Points of interest:
   1) q, k, ç, g, & z all have extremely low incidences (47, 17, 14, 10, 19; compare with y: at 106!) This may suggest scribal conventions rather than actual phonemes.
      a) q, as in English, always precedes u: the sound is probably [kw], and written <qu> is merely an allograph of cw
      b) k could easily be an allograph of c -- cf. Latin, which used <k> mainly in words borrowed from Greek
      These, and the high incidence of c, suggest that Elvish <c> is the base phoneme, probably always a "hard c" - Elvish cebela is pronounced kebela, not *sebela
      c) ç may also be scribal, but I have no idea what for. It could just be a rare phoneme.
      d) Now, if g and z were scribal, it would disrupt the voiceless-voiced pairs we see in the rest of the consonant inventory (p/b, t/d). Therefore, it's probably best to treat these as rare phonemes also.
   2) A single th phoneme also disrupts the voiceless-voiced pairings; th also has a fairly high incidence (466) compared to other fricatives. I wonder if <th> isn't used for two phonemes, voiced and voiceless, just as in English...
   3) What is ÿ? It's not much less common than y (104 vs. 141 occurences), so it's probably a separate phoneme - maybe a velar or uvular glide?
   
   Clusters: Elvish has only two clusters: qu and sl. The latter is exceedingly rare, with only 10 occurences.
      Due to the strict open-syllable rule, no clusters are possible at syllable boundaries.
      
Vowels (in order of occurence):
   a e (é è) i (í ì) o (ó ò) u (ú ù)
   
   Points of interest:
   1) a, though the most common vowel, lacks the accented forms seen in the other vowels. Does this suggest a is a very weak vowel, perhaps a schwa?
   2) o and u have very low occurences (451 and 193 respectively - compare with i at 1398!).
   3) The accented forms are roughly even in distribution, making up ~8-10% of each vowel's occurence. What they represent is anyone's guess - as with Dwarvish, there's not much way to tell.
   
Human:

Structure: Human allows both open and closed syllables

Consonants:
   p b      t d       k c q g
   f v  th  s z  sh  h
                j?      x
   m        n     ñ   ng
   w        r l    j?
   
   In order of occurence:
   s t r l m d k th p c b n g sh h z ng q w ñ j v f x
   
   Points of interest:
   1) q is, again, only found as qu, and therefore probably allographic.
   2) Both k and c are found in respectable proportions (316 and 255 occurences resp.), so both may be phonemic; however, c may very well be an allograph of k, which would make the /k/ phoneme rank just below /r/ in the order - which wouldn't surprise me, since /k/ is a very common phoneme IRL.
   3) As with Elvish th, Human th (and sh) seem to disrupt the pattern of voiceless-voiced pairings. h is not a problem in this case, since a voiced h would be almost indistinguishable from a vowel.
   4) What is j? Under the assumption of English orthography it should be an affricate (as in "jewel"); but it might also be a glide, making a y-sound as in German (Johann etc). The latter placement would fit nicely into the pattern, opposite w. Less likely is French pronunciation, as the voiced pair of sh.
   5) I am assuming ñ is pronounced as in Spanish, something like n + y.
   6) j, ñ, and q(u) never appear word-finally.
   
   Clusters: other than qu, a cursory look shows the following:
      sm, st, sl, sp, str, thr
   There are, of course, other clusters at syllable boundaries, as in Dwarvish.
   
Vowels (in order of occurence):
   a (á) o i e u
   
   Aside from a (1000+) the other vowels fall in the 700-800 occurence range in pretty even distribution.
   á is the only accented character, and occurs 48 times. Again, not much to go on. It could just be a fancy scribal a.
   Human vowels are pretty boring.
   
Goblin:

Structure: Goblin allows both open and closed syllables.

Consonants:
   Now, Goblin consonants are interesting. Let's start with just basic phonemes:
   p b   t d   k g
          s z
            x
    m    n   ng
          r l
               th?
   
   A pretty small, standard-looking inventory. Other than outlier x everything is nicely paired up and symmetrical. th has so few occurences (only 6!) that I think it best to treat it as an allograph of t, not a separate phoneme.
   
   And in order of occurence:
      s t m n l r k ng z d g p b x [th]
   with s standing out at a whopping 1523 occurences; the next highest, t, has only 650. x has 262.
   
   BUT: Goblin has an immense amount of clusters, all involving s: sp, st, sm, sn, and sl. Together these clusters involve a quarter of all consonants in the Goblin lexicon. If we count these clusters as individual "sounds", our list looks like this:
      r st k ng z m n t d s g sp b l sm x sl sn [th]
   r has 384 occurences; sn has 165. That's only a 220-point range, so the consonants (& clusters) are pretty evenly distributed. Note also that p disappears: it only occurs in the cluster sp.
   
   Based on this, it seems clusters are fundamental to the Goblin consonant system. I don't know what that means, phonologically, but such an overwhelming prevalence can't be ignored.
   
Vowels:
   u (û) o (ö ô) a (å â ä) e (ë ê)
   
   u and o predominate at ~1300 occurences each. a has ~700, and e has only ~350. There is no i.
   The accented forms are fairly uniformly distributed.
   
Wierdly, Goblin seems to have the most regular and evenly-distributed phonology of all the languages. You'd think it's be more... chaotic.

Kobold:
Wait, isn't kobold-speak just jibberish? Well yes, but it's interesting jibberish, at least from a phonological point of view.
Since Kobold has no lexicon, I had to draw from kobold names.
   From my inquiries, it seems kobold words (or at least names) are made up of 2-3 parts: an optional PREFIX, a ROOT, and an ENDING.
   Every name has a ROOT + ENDING, each of which is a single syllable; thus, the shortest kobold name is two syllables, e.g. Jlalmer, Thorsnin, Kaymin.
      The ROOT is characterized by one of several vowels: simple vowels o, i, a, u; or uniquely ROOT vowels ay and ee. The ROOT seems always to be a CVC syllable, where C can be any consonant/cluster.
      There are only four possible ENDINGs: -in, -is, -us, -er. Every kobold name ends with one of these.
   I suspect the ROOT bears primary stress, and the ENDING takes secondary. ROOT vowels may also be long (at least ay and ee).
   The PREFIX is not nearly as structured, but still shows some patterns:
      It can be 1, 2, or 3 syllables in length
      All syllables begin with a consonant/cluster* and end with a vowel (CV)
         *The first syllable may begin with a cluster, but no subsequent syllables may - only single consonants.
      Every syllable in the PREFIX has the same vowel: a, e, u, or o.
      
   The PREFIX seems to be the most "glossolalic" part of the name, a kind of ecstatic "introduction" to the meat of the word, the ROOT-ENDING. The ROOT-ENDING is structured enough where it probably has actual meaning - I especially suspect the ENDINGs have specific meanings, probably relationships or other descriptors.
   
   Due to the lack of an easy wordlist I haven't examined kobold phonemes (yet).

   And here's a short list of kobold names, in case anyone wants to check my data:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

prakalalolin dludreelis pologreelis chadajleerbis strobotrinkus jlamer chreelmis thromis klastrunger stolodojlaydis slikipalmin bolbus stradatlaylgis shribleekis srugubujrarsnis slabadastirbis gukujralgin dagaflilbus fombis jatrurbis dibigrogis flafaglaymin thathrayldin prugujrorbin brambin flasraybin chrufuguthleelbis lushleedis peeldis chidreegus fleengis sraymin thumbin tasleemis lathilis klagafafalbin shofofojolmis dobogrumber dlododotunkin grochrarsner chlochreemis seemis shludukuteembus flidreersnus sribififaymus kakus stlomus grulukilbis praylgus sonkin dolobobager trirbus krorsnus pabis fluchaydin jrildus plijleelgis glipluder thrumer jrakalilmus chlidikitayrsnus jrugruldis glodosrarbus shafachomber gimbus jaklulmer tidibiprilmis pralaymbus thastreeldus glugubulalus gripulder guplakus shilichlarbis throgodobrambis slofofluder shikus chokolriris dadalakraymbus frubuthaymin trakalastreelmis dlogofrungis shrudufulreerbus tlubudlobis chlagapreengis tleemis stadashlayrer chlokolopaynker forsnus jloglaybin bushleedis shalmer frisholgin stobobrungin drogofolraydis thidiglomber slichlilgus chafajrigis dlirsnus shrothalbis tligayker sadafumbus jrakabis klifigijlaymin thrulushralgis gagasakis protrolis trukuthlaylbis trudushrorbis payrus deerus sababajalbin lrikis tafathlugin frajraymis kifikithrulgin lrobopuger strugustaker thraylmin taldis bigitlokin chrolosrurus brukugusralmin chlukufulrankus dronkin glikis bleenkus gladin gikikijlilmus shofogothodus tridibislolmin stluflibus jajridus trijlayder tadobis pludreemus dlabrimbus chaylgis dikikitreeldus thlalin stalber kaymin grobothlager stipulmer tlododraynkin glubuplongus flursnis thilislayrber preelgus shrodoboshangus jrilifisleebis chrogofokangis shriligichlirbis fuglimbis slayder chigilibrabus stlubunkis trilmis shafaslilbis flichrumin jradakadirus klafalagrubin kudis shidikidungus thrakabrayrsner broldus blosteemis plijirulgus chloboblidus pleerus flafafeerbus chrukufankin stitheelgis lalalashreembus fladabagleekus lraynker plodolotligus thilgus shligis pabalreembus fagabakaldin trasribis shrilis thribifrikis groburus lrutrilgus dlikikus truducheegis klilmus thrikis klarin jluthayngis drulushraler thorsnin griseebis dayngus dlukudrarbus stajaylmin bithumbin stayrsnus bluluglirsnis katraylgin

That's about as far as one can get with the available data. Everything else needs to be made up, pretty much.

[Solitarian]

Bravo! I should note that you are not analyzing phonology, but rather orthography. Because these languages have no pronunciations, all we can do is examine how they are written. We cannot know what these letters are supposed to represent, if anything. Unless Tarn or Zach gives us hints, of course...  You are correct that I will not codify the other languages, and I applaud your effort here. I am satisfied with Dwarven's current codification, despite its flaws. Because the language would only ever be used for simpler sentences anyway, I think this is acceptable. I think if different people codified the different languages, that would make more interesting linguistic variation. For example, I don't like words that end in vowels, so I avoid them. If someone who likes vowel endings codified Elven (Elvish?), then he would make a language different from what I would make. Maybe Elven could be made a declination nightmare like Latin. So if anyone wants to work on the other languages, then please do!

I would be particularly impressed by a codification of Koboldish... Koboldic... Kobold-talk. I think it only appears to be gibberish, while it actually follows rules that can be codified. Now that I think about it, Koboldian might be the easiest language to codify because it has no lexicon that the codification must match. It can be much more freely invented, so long as it matches the orthographic structures you mentioned.

[Superdorf]

You people make me so happy.

[Loam]

I should note that you are not analyzing phonology, but rather orthography. Because these languages have no pronunciations, all we can do is examine how they are written. We cannot know what these letters are supposed to represent, if anything.

Sort of. Phonology isn't about the sounds per se, but about the system of sounds. True, we can't "know" what the letters represent, but that doesn't much matter if we have a few basic presumptions:
    1) every letter will represent the same phoneme everywhere, at least in one language -- so, <k> won't be [k] in kulet but [p] kel
    2) every letter will, where plausible, represent the closest English equivalent -- so, <k> won't represent [p]
       (I say English because I expect that's Tarn and Zach's native language, and they probably transliterated sounds/characters into a close approximation)
       (I should probably say closest IPA equivalent since that's, well, international)
With these presumptions (barring a few exceptions) we can reconstruct a phonological system, albeit a crude one. It's far from complete (cf. accented vowels everywhere), but it's enough to start us off. More importantly, if we don't make these presumptions, then we can't even begin, so I think it's fair to assume.

Anyway, that's a very minor point and not really worth arguing.

On the other languages, I had some ideas:

Elvish, with its strict open-syllable structure, puts me in mind of Japanese or some Polynesian language -- none of which I am familiar with. I'd say, however, that structurally it'd work well as a polysynthetic language, as tiny (C)V morphemes could be tacked on ad infinitum without making the words too hard to pronounce: cacame awemedinade monipalothi comes to mind...

Human... many ways you could go. Inflections are near-and-dear to my heart, so I'd be all for an Indo-European-style case/conjugation system. Structurally Human is pretty unremarkable, so it's easy to work with.

I haven't really given much thought to Goblin, except that it should be something alien. Do Underworld creatures have the same ideas we do about language? Do they interpret signals/symbols in similar ways? It's also possible that the Goblin "clusters" aren't clusters at all, but crude human attempts to represent utterly alien phonemes -- maybe strange quasi-fricatives or glides?

Kobold would be cool as a sort of semi-jibberish, an off-the-cuff language with a few guiding principles and the rest supplied by individual speakers emotions or personalities or whatnot. I strongly doubt any human language is analogous, but that's why it's a fantasy world for goodness' sake...

[Superdorf]

An analogous language for kobold-speak eh? How about Finnish, but crazier? Ever-expanding and ridiculously specific compound words invented on the spot, all based off a relatively simple root lexicon. "I wonder if I should run around aimlessly" becomes, oh, "filichibugaslubeegidubis" or something.