Backstage - OOC Forums

EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => Player Driven Content => Topic started by: Kiro Kathora on 05 Jan 2013, 08:18

Title: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Kiro Kathora on 05 Jan 2013, 08:18
Some Toughts on Creating a Language

Since I have been a bit bored lately, I got some thoughts on an old and familiar subject, namely creating a language. I always wanted to do that, silly as it may seem... Of course I am not an expert, but I do have a somewhat linguistic background, so that as soon as I started thinking about it (and I did this before years ago), the ideas grew complex rapidly. However, I do think that writing them down first is not only useful for me, but for other people trying to construct languages as well. Anyhow, I will keep the notions discussed below in mind when I start the project of creating a ‘Gallente’ descriptive grammar.

I will briefly look at linguistic points that require the attention of someone who is creating a language, but naturally the list is by no means exhaustive. This is not my only point, though, because I believe that constructing a language, especially in this fictional world, is particularly meaningful if it gets a fictional history. After all languages do not appear out of nothing. This etymology gives a language its character, but is also of importance if people ever wish to elaborate on fictional history and describe fictional archaeological findings, because language is everywhere.

Let us begin with stating the obvious: language changes. It changes all the time, and this cannot be stopped, although mass media, education, reading, writing and institutional and governmental prescriptions can slow the process. In only some millennia Proto-Germanic has become virtually unrecognizable to speakers of Germanic languages, and this gap grows even stronger the further one goes back in time. Scrolling through the list of reconstructed roots of Proto-Indo-European (PIE), it is unlikely one finds a lot of recognizable features. And then we are still only talking about lexis, not even about grammar. PIE is said to be a real language six thousand years ago. Now, if one reasons the other way around, it is extremely unlikely that anyone can find something of modern earth languages after sixteen thousand years of change.

The second observation is more comforting, and that is the fact that language does not change completely random and totally unpredictable. That is, there are certain rules and discerned processes that can be abstracted from the on-going language change. Some changes are more likely than others.


Lexical change

Words come and go, so reconstructed forms should contain words that are lost in later phases. This can be a language internal process. It can, on the other hand, also be the consequence of contacts with other languages. Bear in mind, though, that loanwords occur especially when the ‘borrowing’ language does not have a word for the object the word denotes, or when the source language has more prestige. One has to account for all this.

Some words are more resistant to change. Frequently a vast group of normal and basic nouns and verbs remain fairly intact. Auxiliary verbs change more often in form and meaning, sometimes becoming affixes. The more abstract a word in its meaning is, the more likely it will semantically change. Another group of words that remain pretty constant is that of the proper names. Names of people and places can therefore be very archaic. Lots of names for towns and natural phenomena are hard to explain and understand. Some linguists even conjectured a pre-Indo-European source for lots of names for natural phenomena in Europe.

A third point is the effect of substrates. Language communities are not secluded from each other. There is contact and eventually migration. This can result not only in the borrowing of many words pertaining to certain sociolinguistic fields, but also in change of grammar. One language may adopt structures that are typical for another. Compare for instance the effects of English on Afrikaans.

Finally a remark on the shift of meaning. In general there seems to be a tendency of neutral words to get negative connotations in the course of time. This is for example the case with Middle Dutch wijf (‘woman’, cognate English wife). It eventually became negative, meaning something like ‘hag’. A new neutral word came instead, vrouw. It thus becomes clear that lexis is also influenced by semantics.

In all, some elements from e.g. German and especially English ought to be incorporated in the data that is used to construct Gallente.


Phonological change

NB: our alphabet does not have enough signs to represent all the sounds. For that purpose the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) has been developed. I will use it here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA.

All the sounds a human can make (and this is naturally limited) have specific ways of articulation. Some are made with the lips, hence they are called bilabial. Others are made with the point of the tongue, hence they are called coronal. And so forth. Now, if we have a coronal, say an R [r], and we wish to look at change, then we need to look at the articulation that changes, and therefore R is more likely to become L [l]. Thus from R to P [p] is rather absurd. On the other hand it is context that plays its part. Specific contexts with specific sounds may trigger specific changes in vowels and consonants. Think of the process of assimilation, where one sound gets one or more features of a nearby sound. One simple example is N becoming NG [ŋ] when followed by K: now NG and K are articulated pretty much at the same spot, while NG is still a nasal sound like N. This kind of change is partly due to the strive for efficiency in speaking. The other claim made above is the regularity of phonological change. One example can be found in Dutch, where Old Dutch [ u ] became Middle Dutch [y:] (a sound English does not have), and this in turn changed into Modern Dutch [ʌi]. This is regular. However, there is an exception, namely when [y] was followed by [r], and once again this exception is regular. Hence we get huis (‘house’) versus muur (‘wall’).

So if we take the French word préférer, it could change into: prefer (with the first syllable stressed) > prefɪr > prɪfɪr > pɪrfɪr > pɪrfi etc. We see that [e] becomes [ɛ] (as in bed), and [ɛ] becomes [ɪ] (as in hit). Moreover there is progressive assimilation of the first vowel to the second. After that, the desire for regularity in syllable structure comes in and causes metathesis, where the r shifts to the front. In the end, however, this regularity is obscured by another type of change, deletion. After all, it is the first syllable that is stressed, thus it is quite easy to lose material at the end of the word (a process attested in Germanic). If a language were to be created, these steps should be used for other words as well (e > i; loss of final r).


Morphology

Changes can be regular. In Germanic, the stress shifted to the first syllable of words (affixes not included), which made it possible that information at the end was lost. At the same time, the ‘full’ vocals in the latter syllables became nothing but schwa’s [ə]: an example of lenition. This explains why Old Dutch vogala (‘bird’) became Middle Dutch vogele [voxələ], and finally vogel. Nonetheless processes like these cannot continue forever, making words smaller and smaller, otherwise we would be left with nothing after some millennia. Affixes (e.g. be- and -ing) are one possible solution (but not the only one).

Take the aforementioned example of préférer. This became the fictional pɪrfi. For reasons of harmonization this might change once more in a syllabically rhythmic pirif. By now the word probably has altered conjugation as well, so this form is now a stem. What can happen next is the addition of the prefix a (‘by’): apiri. Semantically the meaning of prefer + by is not strange at all. It happened before. In the course of time this prefix can become transparent and thus becomes a fixed part of the word, and is incorporated into the stem. This enables the next forms:

apir [ɑpir] > hɑbir > hɔbər > xɔbrɛ > go:brɔ > ko:bjɔ > ko:vjɔ

This final product stands many thousands of years away from current French and has become unrecognizable. The trick with affixes can also be done with auxiliaries and even articles, who become clitics, prefixes and suffixes. The addition of these parts may trigger changes in stress patterns, thus leading to schwa forming etc.

Two stray notes. The first is that there seems to be a tendency of synthetic languages (e.g. case systems; Latin) to become more and more analytic (loose words; Italian, although Chinese is a far better example). At the same time verb conjugations become simplified and irregular. Think of English, Swedish and Afrikaans. Mind, though, that again words can only become so small. ‘After a while’ other elements may get attached so that the whole cycle starts again: morphological cyclization.

The second is that a language can be accusative or ergative. Most Indo-European languages are accusative, i.e., they mark the Object of a transitive sentence: I see him, where him (‘he’) has the accusative case. This is by far the most common way of marking. Rather marginal is the ergative option: marking the Subject in a transitive sentence: I(+ case) see he. Subsequently one should ask himself to what extend the language has a case system at all.

Furthermore there are questions like: does the language have past and future tens? Because not all languages have all tenses, like Afrikaans. It then must be abstracted from the context, by using additional adverbs like then and yesterday. In some languages tenses are explicated by morphemes on the verb, but other languages use auxiliary verbs, like Dutch: Ik zal dat doen (‘I will do that’), versus Italian: ‘Lo (io) farò …’


Syntax

Naturally a sentence is more than just a string of words. It has a structure. Language is a hugely complex system of rules, and these rules change all the time as well. For this reason it does not suffice to merely build up a vocabulary.

There are several types of sentences, such as declarative, interrogative and imperative ones. They may have different word orders. One way to label word orders is to look at the positions of Subject, Object and Verb (SOV) respectively. English is a harmonious SVO type (a very common type indeed): I look at him; I looked at him?; Look at him! Of course then there are the passive constructions as well…

Synthetic languages usually allow words to be moved around in sentences more than analytical languages, simply because the words keep their case, and the case makes it clear that it concerns a Subject, Object or Indirect Object. It follows that in a ‘caseless’ language the word order becomes fixed.

If one wants to construct and make clear syntactical rules (word order, it is best done by glossing. There are conventions for how to do it. http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php.

Additional points that require attention is how complex sentences are made, and if these subsentences get another structure or not.


In general

In general it is worth looking at the language universals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_universals. Think of the banal universality of verbs and nouns. For example, usually an SOV language tends to have postpositions, and not prepositions.  This class of words consists of e.g. in, from, towards and for.


Now Example

To make the matter concrete I have made an example, but this is not final. It is just a sketch to serve as an illustration. Also, I do not know much about French (this semester I am going to do a beginners course), so please excuse me for possible errors.

Modern Standard French
1.   ‘Le cadre du projet est défini par des principes fondateurs.’

Old Gallente (10.000 AD)
2.   i     chor    du       proi    e-depi-n    par i    prichip podatur
           the scope  of.the  project       is-define-PAST  by  the first    founder.PL 
           IPA: [i čɔr du prɔi edəpin phɑr i pričip phɔdatur]
           ‘The scope of the project is defined by the first founders.’

Modern Standard-Gallente: same sentence
3.   se šavos    as-aivelai    asθuza    an   fes    as-(e)vuz-e
           is  define    DET-project    scope      by   first   DET-founder-PL

Observed changes are:
Phonological changes:
    p > b > bh > v, or f when initial
    r > z > s > š > j > l, but deletion when followed by other coronal.
    č > t > θ
    r > z, when in between vocals
    ɔ > ɔi > ʌi > ʌ > u
Morphological changes:
There are remains of clitization and obliqueness of affixes: as- signals a determined object, built up by the now lost particle i, ‘the’, and an unknown -s-, which can be found elsewhere too. It may also be derived from Proto-Gallente *a, ‘is’.
The stem vuz- has an allomorph, evuz- after a prefix, possibly to avoid clustering of consonants.
Syntactical changes:
Originally the language must have been irregular in its base order of Subject, Object and Verb. Nowadays the order is perfectly SOV, accept for passive sentences, where it is exactly the opposite. The Verb is placed in front, followed by the Object, which of course is the focus in a passive sentence: VOS.
Lexis:
Also note vocabulary changes: depi- is replaced by the (indigenous!) word šavos.

Asaivelai is a good example of how changes work. French project became proi. This in turn changed as follows: ploi > hflɑi > həfelai > hafelai > avelai > aivelai. We now know to cut the word into these morphemes: as- and aivelai. Initial vocals are rather rare in Proto-Gallente, and it is conjectured that it arose from aspirating words (initial h), but this can only be so for short vowels, and not for the diphthong ai. Therefore this later ai is likely to be a form of progressive assimilation with final –ai. In the process, f became v because it stands between two vowels. Furthermore we see a tendency to avoid clustering of consonants, because of the inserted e: hfl is awkward. And indeed the Proto-Gallente phonotaxis does not have vl-clusters. It is likely that future developments result in a harmonious CV-structure (consonant-vowel) in Gallente.


NB: reconstructions are always marked with an asterisk *.

PS: for reasons of legibility I attached this as a Word-document.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language
Post by: Kiro Kathora on 05 Jan 2013, 08:20
I have no idea why most of the text appears underlined. I cannot seem to fix this error. Sorry for that.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language
Post by: Bong-cha Jones on 05 Jan 2013, 09:11
I have to say, I'm really fond of the fact that Gallente, of all the player factions and languages, is the only one that is fairly intuitive and easy for new players to pick up.  Nearly everybody can fake a little French.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language
Post by: Horatius Caul on 05 Jan 2013, 10:02
I have no idea why most of the text appears underlined. I cannot seem to fix this error. Sorry for that.
It's because [ u ] is interpreted as styling code, not IPA. Try using alt-codes instead of letters.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language
Post by: Kiro Kathora on 05 Jan 2013, 10:27
I have no idea why most of the text appears underlined. I cannot seem to fix this error. Sorry for that.
It's because [ u ] is interpreted as styling code, not IPA. Try using alt-codes instead of letters.
You're right. I fixed it right away.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language
Post by: Seriphyn on 05 Jan 2013, 11:03
I'm not a linguist (atm), but I would totally support you introducing a player-made Gallente language that is something original rather than French :3
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: orange on 05 Jan 2013, 12:26
Perhaps Greek instead of Latin?
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Kiro Kathora on 05 Jan 2013, 13:54
Perhaps Greek instead of Latin?
What do you mean?
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Arnulf Ogunkoya on 05 Jan 2013, 14:29
Perhaps Greek instead of Latin?
What do you mean?

Well I'm just guessing but.

Some people tend to use Latin when naming/discussing Amarrian things because of the empire that it was once a language for.

A lot of Gallentean ships have names lifted from Greek myth.

Greece & the Roman Empire were at one time rivals (until the Romans conquered Greece) and the Amarr are currently the main rivals of the Gallente. Of course if you extend this analogy it would imply that eventually the Amarrians will import a lot of Gallente memes to their own culture and their civil service will be dominated by freedmen from the former Federation.  :lol:

Of course I'm hideously simplifying a lot of history there, but I think that was the idea behind Orange's comment.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Seriphyn on 05 Jan 2013, 14:32
Latin for Amarr or not, it's sort of pedestrian IMO. Greek would be more interesting, mostly because I know nothing about it :3
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: orange on 05 Jan 2013, 15:30
Perhaps Greek instead of Latin?
What do you mean?

I mean that since French is a Latin based language, it might be more interesting to have the Federation's language be Greek based.

The "French-connection" can still be there, but instead of Parisian/Frankish it is more Marseilles/Mediterranean.

If the goal is to further separate the Gallente from the earlier French-in-Space references, taking on Greek as its language will help do just that.

I am not a Fed RPer (most of the time anyway), so whether it gets played or not is not up to me.  But hydropolis (water city) and astropolis (star city) seem like easy enough words to start using.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Kiro Kathora on 05 Jan 2013, 16:24
Well, what I basically was trying to point out in my initial post above is that it is pretty much impossible to really find good traces of a real modern language after 18000 years of language change. If I would resort to French, and I will, than this will only be for etymological purposes.

Besides, I prefer to keep things as 'historically realistic' as possible. Latin is a dead language, therefore making it, but that is just my humble opinion, unfit as a steppingstone for any future language in the first place, excépt as a source for loanwords and neologisms. The same goes for Ancient Greek. Moreover, the Greek language comunity is rather small, especially compared to French, which is, if I'm not mistaken, approximately the fourth language in the world. The contribution of modern Greek to a future mono-culture and the like is therefore relatively tiny compared to French. :)

Of course it would be a nice idea to use some Latin or Ancienc Greek simply as a form of decoration, though not as a real part of the constructed language, but more as a 'translation' of that language into 'our' language here and now. If Gallente for instance has an archaic but prestegious word, this will shine out only if we represent that word with its Latin equivalent.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Kiro Kathora on 05 Jan 2013, 17:41
By the way, Gallente language can be constructed in such a way that it shows features that remínd us of, say, Latin or Ancient Greek, if this is what lots of people like. It's not really it, it only looks like it. Take the typical oi-diphtong, or the singular and plural endings os - oi, on - a.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Bong-cha Jones on 05 Jan 2013, 22:18
Well, what I basically was trying to point out in my initial post above is that it is pretty much impossible to really find good traces of a real modern language after 18000 years of language change.

100% agreed, but that's not why people use French in the Gallente rp scene.  They use it because the game uses it a bit, because the Gallente are referenced as being descended from French colonists and because it's a convenient stand-in that identifies someone as playing in the Gallente pool.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 06 Jan 2013, 01:18
Besides, I prefer to keep things as 'historically realistic' as possible. Latin is a dead language, therefore making it, but that is just my humble opinion, unfit as a steppingstone for any future language in the first place, excépt as a source for loanwords and neologisms.

Well, Hebrew was a 'dead' language until in in the late 20th century Ivrit was developed as a continuation of biblical and mishnaic Hebrew. Also, how big a language community is might have little influence on whether it will be spoken on colonies, due to a founder effect. I think, though, that French just fits the Gallentean picture far better than ancient Greek.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Kiro Kathora on 06 Jan 2013, 04:43
Besides, I prefer to keep things as 'historically realistic' as possible. Latin is a dead language, therefore making it, but that is just my humble opinion, unfit as a steppingstone for any future language in the first place, excépt as a source for loanwords and neologisms.

Well, Hebrew was a 'dead' language until in in the late 20th century Ivrit was developed as a continuation of biblical and mishnaic Hebrew. Also, how big a language community is might have little influence on whether it will be spoken on colonies, due to a founder effect. I think, though, that French just fits the Gallentean picture far better than ancient Greek.
Good point. However, I do think that the revival of old languages will not occur randomly with every possible speech. That this Hebrew intiative was succesful has partly to do with profound religious reasons, along with of course social ones. It is not unconceivable that things like this will happen in the distant future again with e.g. (Classic) Arab. Religion as a life-support system for dead languages aren't uncommon: Sanscrit, Summerian, Hebrew, Arab, Latin... This principle is particularly interesting for Amar(rad?)

On the other hand, languages are revived for reasons of cultural identity, like Cornish. Only time will tell whether this will be succesful, but I think succes at least for some part depends on: 1) having a territory, like a state or province with language borders, 2) having media, 3) having education and from there textual production. These infrastructures provide a stable ground for further develpment, and when lacking, I do wonder whether learning the language is still worth while.

The consequences of the lack of such a ground can be seen all around the world: Evenki in Russia, Ainu in Japan, Bask in Spain/France, you name it. Even Flemish Dutch in Belgium, although there the required 'infrastructure' has been built in the course of the 20th century (I keep it simple). Anyhow, as a further elaboration on this point: it is estimated that world wide there are about 6000 languages, but most of them are minorities and dying, and certainly will die in the next two centuries. At the same time we see globalization and the spread of liberal capitalistic democracy (or at least the first part) and a movement towards a mono-culture. In this, and this is nothing but a prediction, doesn't allow all those 6000 languages to exist. Think of the substrate effect described earlier. Even if they still exist, they will undergo changes. Speakers will probably 'absord' in the more prestigious language community (unless there are strong nationalistic and religious reasons). Reasoning forward from the mono-culture, the chance that colonies are founded by English, French and Chinese speaking people (which is not the same as actual English, French and Chinese) is quite large. The development of the European Union could allow German to play a large part in it as well.

But colonies aren't founded for no reason. Even if there were some Greek native speakers who founded a colony, then there is still a huge chance that lots of non-Greek migrate to it because of the advantages the colony has to offer (be it economy, living space...). And for reasons mentioned, 1000 Greeks cannot overcome 10.000 English or Chinese, especially not in a global-interstellar society in which English and Chinese are already dominant (because the migrants are thus part of a larger akin community, with schools, political entities etc.). It reminds me of the Afrikaners in Johannesburg after Transvaal became economically interesting: the influx of migrants was so big, that Afrikaans more or less disappeard from the scene, making Johannesburg an anglophone city.

Another reason for believing in just a handful of dominant languages is deliberate assimilation. Johannesburg turned Anglophone, therefore providing the English rulers in Cape Town with an excuse to declare war on the Boer republics and 'help' their fellow anglophones. In the '30's, the Germans occupied Austria, Bohemia and wester Poland partly because these regions were linguistically and culturally related.

Of course this doesn't rule out the possibility of a substrate effect the other way around: minorities may alter the dominant language on a colony too. E.g. Afrikaans has a slight influence on South-African English.

Anyhow, these are some ideas/theories of mine.

As possible substrates for some primordial form of Gallente we could think of German and English. We could also assume a scenario in which many Spanish speakers migrate to the early colonies from South-America for economical reasons, thus creating a Spanish substrate.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Lyn Farel on 06 Jan 2013, 06:25
French only fits the Gallente culture due to the ideological revolutionnary aspects of it imo (which is already a good part of it but still).

But otherwise, the liberty/freedom and even ultra libertarianism usually put forward in the Gallente flavor is typically american (and quite opposed to the french culture), while the melting pot is of other inspirations as well. The Federation, for example, is the perfect counter example of what could be a french inspired governement, which has always favored a super strong and centralized power, and not a laissez faire federation of half independant lesser entities.

The french side of the Gallente fits more for the gallente sociocrat party than anything else, I think.

Also, I find that some gallente words sound almost more italian then french, sometimes.

Well, what I basically was trying to point out in my initial post above is that it is pretty much impossible to really find good traces of a real modern language after 18000 years of language change.

100% agreed, but that's not why people use French in the Gallente rp scene.  They use it because the game uses it a bit, because the Gallente are referenced as being descended from French colonists and because it's a convenient stand-in that identifies someone as playing in the Gallente pool.

I also think that's often seen as a fashion thing, much like IRL where french words are used here and there by english speakers. The Gallente have popularly turned into people that like to be dandy and use a lot of fashionable words (here, in french).

However yes, then we have the usual "Mr" turning into "Monsieur", "Yes" into "Oui", "Good day/Morning" into "Bonjour", etc. That's mostly used the same way people use "Saisa" when they want to introduce a bit of caldari napanii.

However as a native speaker, I also see too much of it from time to time, and that just sounds clunky. It sounds clumsy when people just simply try to translate a word here and there into french. Instead of just using the usual fashionable/dandy french words commonly used into english.

Edit : more on that last paragraph, it is best to keep in mind that the french language is nothing like english when it comes to be flexible and highly adaptable to the different cultures that use it.  Actually, it is quite the contrary for french, which is a super rigid language still under the scrutiny of the Académie Française (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise) which keeps a tight grip over the language and translates a lot of new words every year for example. It can also be seen in the accent, where french speaking foreigners are often difficult to understand for the average french due that. This is mostly why, I think, where you can get a lot of leeway when dealing with english in my experience, it is not so easy with french.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Kiro Kathora on 06 Jan 2013, 06:53
Some additional thoughts for my intial post:

Eventually this point would make the language more accessible and readible for most people too.[/list]

Primary:
1.   [ i ]   5.   [ u ]
2.   [e]   6.   [ o ]
3.   [ɛ]   7.   [ɔ]
4.   [a]   8.   [ɒ]
Secundary:
5.   [y]   9.   [ɯ]
6.   [ø]   10.   [ɣ]
7.   [ɶ]   11.   [ʌ]
8.   [a]   12.   [ɑ]
(Based on typological research.)


French only fits the Gallente culture due to the ideological revolutionnary aspects of it imo (which is already a good part of it but still).

But otherwise, the liberty/freedom and even ultra libertarianism usually put forward in the Gallente flavor is typically american (and quite opposed to the french culture), while the melting pot is of other inspirations as well. The Federation, for example, is the perfect counter example of what could be a french inspired governement, which has always favored a super strong and centralized power, and not a laissez faire federation of half independant lesser entities.
The french side of the Gallente fits more for the gallente sociocrat party than anything else, I think.
I like this thinking. Agreed. Perhaps we can mould a certain amount of ideologies into linguistic shape by introducing certain words and concepts. In some future setting, a French colony may be havily influenced by American ideology, thereby using American loanwords. Just an idea.

Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Mithfindel on 06 Jan 2013, 06:56
Also, I find that some gallente words sound almost more italian then french, sometimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_language)
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Lyn Farel on 06 Jan 2013, 07:24
That could be an idea, though keeping just an American flavor would only restrain the lore imho. The Federation is more than that, and the huge "all our different and various cultures are all buddies and living together" is not really american to my eyes. There is something more, maybe EU-like, but not only.

It is in any way difficult to perfectly picture what it would look like since we are speaking about an upper layer that simply does not exist IRL : the layers above planets, the layers of an interstellar entity. It is also where RL parallels stop working, they are good for inspiration, but they do not suffice in themselves.

Also, I find that some gallente words sound almost more italian then french, sometimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_language)

Yes, and I may be wrong but I think that Italian is probably the closest national language to french. A lot more than spanish.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Horatius Caul on 06 Jan 2013, 07:30
Yes, and I may be wrong but I think that Italian is probably the closest national language to french. A lot more than spanish.
They have a lexical similarity of 89%, which basically makes them dialects.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Kiro Kathora on 06 Jan 2013, 07:34
Naturally. In the end, a language is nothing but a dialect with its own army (I forgot the person's name, who said this). And on a dialectical level there are no borders between related 'languages' at all. There is only a continuum.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Kiro Kathora on 06 Jan 2013, 07:40
The Federation is more than that, and the huge "all our different and various cultures are all buddies and living together" is not really american to my eyes. There is something more, maybe EU-like, but not only.
It's Dutch. Lol, not. No, seriously, actually it's nothing. Not a single nation réálly has that principle. Repressive tolerance and scepticism is everywhere. Even in France, the credo of egalité etc. lead to the repression of other languages within France, because everyone should speak one language, thus creating one entity.
Title: Re: Some Thoughts on Creating a Language (Gallente)
Post by: Jev North on 06 Jan 2013, 07:41
Naturally. In the end, a language is nothing but a dialect with its own army (I forgot the person's name, who said this). And on a dialectical level there are no borders between related 'languages' at all. There is only a continuum.

Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy