Language Expert Needed for Fantasy TV Series

September 13th, 2018 by LCS

Description

A TV producer is looking for a conlanger to support our writer in creating lines of dialogue for fantasy characters including fairies and other mystical characters in a fantasy adventure TV series set in Medieval Britain (up to around 1100AD).
While we are not looking to construct a whole language, as in ‘Game of Thrones’ or ‘Lord of the Rings’, we are looking to add to the culture and texture of the world by having a dedicated set of rules / words / differences in the way that these non-humans communicate. We would ideally be looking for someone based in the UK, who has some familiarity with or understanding of Medieval British languages and/or folklore so that the dialogue created fits with our time period.
You will be working together with our writer to help create specific lines of dialogue within the existing scripts.

Employer

ND

Application Period

We are looking for to start initial conversations immediately with a view to start working together soon, so please send CVs, any examples of relevant work and why you think you would be suitable for the job. We will no longer accept applications after the 19th September, but will anticipate speaking to people earlier than this so please get your applications as soon as possible!

Term

We would expect work to start in September, to support the pre-production process. Deadlines will be established once the scale of the work has been assessed between you and the producer.

Compensation

The scale of work needed will be discussed between the successful applicant and the producer. Payment details will be confirmed during this discussion, but we are willing to start at £300 for all work up to and including the lines of dialogue for the first episode. Compensation for further work will be negotiated. All work created will be exclusively owned by the producer upon receipt of payment.
Besides compensation, the conlanger will be credited for their work.

To Apply

Please email Zack Fox at asst “at” pistachio “dot” uk to express your interest in the project. Please include qualifications and samples of previous work.

Note: Please assume that comments left on this post will not be read by the employer.

mustard is zinape

September 3rd, 2018 by Mariska
zinape = mustard (noun) (Some things Google found for "zinape": an unusual term; name of a school in Zimbabwe; user names; similar Zinapécuaro (often OCRed as Zinape'cuaro) is a municipality in the Mexican state of Michoacán)

Word derivation for "mustard" :
Basque = ziape, Finnish = sinappi
Miresua = zinape

This is a brand new word. I'm adding a word to show I'm still here.

Both the Basque word and the Finnish word are descendants of the Latin word for mustard. So the Miresua word appears derived from Latin too.

The word mustard appears in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland three times.
"HE might bite," Alice cautiously replied, not feeling at all anxious to have the experiment tried.

"Very true," said the Duchess: "flamingoes and mustard both bite. And the moral of that is — 'Birds of a feather flock together.'"

"Only mustard isn't a bird," Alice remarked.

mustard is zinape

September 3rd, 2018 by Mariska
zinape = mustard (noun) (Some things Google found for "zinape": an unusual term; name of a school in Zimbabwe; user names; similar Zinapécuaro (often OCRed as Zinape'cuaro) is a municipality in the Mexican state of Michoacán)

Word derivation for "mustard" :
Basque = ziape, Finnish = sinappi
Miresua = zinape

This is a brand new word. I'm adding a word to show I'm still here.

Both the Basque word and the Finnish word are descendants of the Latin word for mustard. So the Miresua word appears derived from Latin too.

The word mustard appears in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland three times.
"HE might bite," Alice cautiously replied, not feeling at all anxious to have the experiment tried.

"Very true," said the Duchess: "flamingoes and mustard both bite. And the moral of that is — 'Birds of a feather flock together.'"

"Only mustard isn't a bird," Alice remarked.

Slides for Linguistics 183: The Linguistics of Game of Thrones and the Art of Language Invention

September 1st, 2018 by Fiat Lingua

David J. Peterson received a BA in English and Linguistics from UC Berkeley in 2003 and an MA in Linguistics from UC San Diego in 2005. He created the Dothraki and Valyrian languages for HBO’s Game of Thrones, the Castithan, Irathient and Indojisnen languages for Syfy’s Defiance, the Sondiv language for the CW’s Star-Crossed, the Lishepus language for Syfy’s Dominion, the Trigedasleng language for the CW’s The 100, and the Shiväisith language for Marvel’s Thor: The Dark World, among others. He’s been creating languages since 2000.

Abstract

This article is a collection of all the Keynote slides and the syllabus of Linguistics 183: The Linguistics of Game of Thrones and the Art of Language Invention—a six week course taught at UC Berkeley during the A session of the 2018 summer session. Each build of each slide is included, though audio and video is not embedded. While there were audio and video components on certain slides, their use should be more or less clear given the context.

Version History

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Update on the Grammar Writing Process IX

August 21st, 2018 by carsten

And there I thought that the manuscript of my Ayeri grammar were basically done … Looks like I will have to do some reanalysis of noun phrases and adjective phrases after all. This blog article is a cross post from Conlang-L. While Jeffrey Brown already said over there that the apparent N⁰-to-D⁰ thing (in parallel of apparent V⁰-to-I⁰) shouldn’t be a problem, the question of what to do with APs hasn’t been answered yet. I’m leaving the comments on this article open because I’d like to know if the below is a reasonable analysis.

(In case the pictures of trees and stuff below appear too small on your screen, click to enlarge.)


OK, since two of you suggested to summarize what I’m uncertain about specifically … Ayeri is a VSO language, and I analyzed it previously as having the following basic sentence structure for transitive clauses where the subject NP is not a pronoun (view this email in a fixed-width font to see the examples and charts lining up):

As I said in my original post, I analyzed my conlang’s syntactic structure in terms of LFG, so the c(onstituent)-structure tree above contains functional annotations instead of relying solely on bar levels in order to identify syntactic functions; non-branching pre-terminal bar levels are moreover typically pruned for tidiness. ↑ = ↓ means that the semantic content of the current node is simply passed on to (or actually, united with, as in set theory) the next higher node; (↑ SUBJ) = ↓ identifies the current phrase as the superior node’s (and ultimately IP’s) subject, etc. This way, Ayeri relies on an extended head for its verb (the head of VP is empty but its functional equivalent is found as the head of IP), so that it is still “configurational,” also since I⁰ still c-commands V⁰’s modifiers this way.


I should add that the verb—normally branching off of VP to the left as V⁰—is analyzed here as being found in I⁰ instead. This way, I⁰ holds the inflected verb, its sister XP optionally holds e.g. an adverb. S contains the arguments of the verb: the left NP is the subject, its sister is the VP we extracted the verb from, and VP’s daughter is the object NP. So in linear order we get verb–subject–object (or VSO for short) for the constituents.


Now, the thing that is still puzzling me is that Ayeri very regularly places modifiers after heads, and since there is no agreement morphology on adjectives, adjectives follow their heads immediately to keep scope unambiguous, even though they are adjuncts and not complements. Complements move up further to the right if an adjective is present: NOUN–ADJ–COMP. To give an example:

  1. {Ang vacya} John koyās dano gindiyēri.

    ang=vac-ya Ø=John koya-as dano gindi-ye-eri

    AT=like-3SG.M TOP=John book-P green poem-PL-INS

    ‘John, he likes the green book of poems.’

Here, the adjective dano ‘green’ follows its head, koyās ‘book’ rather than the head + complement koyās gindiyēri ‘book of poems’ to signal that its head is ‘book’ rather than ‘poems’ (‘*green poems’ are maybe the kind of poetry colorless green ideas prefer, I don’t know). Functionally, this construction should be in no way different from the ‘normal’ constituent order N–COMP–ADJ. It’s simply a quirk of Ayeri to invert the order of complement and adjective/adverb, although as we will see below have seen above, this quirk is motivated.

Here, the part in question is the f(unctional)-structure labeled ‘OBJ’ for its function as an object: its lexical head (‘predicator’) is ‘book’, which subcategorizes for a complement. This requirement is satisfied by the subordinate f-structure labeled ‘COMP’. The object also contains an adjunct function (ADJ), and the only member of the set is given as the adjective ‘green’. The question is now, however, how to analyze this in terms of c-structure. In LFG, functional heads are regarded as co-heads of their equivalent lexical categories, which is why I⁰ and V⁰ are regarded as functionally the same: both functional and lexical heads of the same kind (verbal, nominal) write their semantic features into the same f-structure. The strategy of verbs should thus in principle also be applicable to D⁰ and N⁰, with D⁰ as NP’s extended head. However, I have so far analyzed NPs with adjuncts and complements in the following way and was wondering if this is correct:

While it is generally possible to adjoin a phrasal node to a phrasal node, the restriction according to LFG’s annotation rules is that phrasal nodes adjoined to another phrasal node either need to be unannotated (I suppose, this means ↑ = ↓) or not to embody an argument function, however, COMP is an argument function. For nouns, I suppose one could still invoke lexocentricity—the word as such identifies the NP as a complement, here by way of its case marking. This does not work for all phrase types, however, since e.g. CPs as complements of predicative adjectives (nice [CP that you’re here]) do not mark case. I was wondering therefore if the following analysis might not actually be better, also because it parallels the way Ayeri handles verbs:

The head noun is found as a functional head D⁰ here, while N⁰ itself is empty, however, its complement is still in place. This parallels how V⁰ is empty, while the object, as V’s complement, is still constructed as a daughter of VP. This also allows for annotation of the nodes according to the rules, or at least without bending them, as far as I can tell.

A question arising from this is how to deal with determiners. Since I modeled my analysis in (1) on Bresnan et al.’s (2016) analysis of Welsh—which they analyze as not using Spec as a parametric choice—I implicitly assumed for Ayeri as well not to make use of Spec. This means that I analyzed determiners like ‘my’ or sinya ‘which’ (as an interrogative pronoun) as heads of DP which are complemented by an NP, as in (6a). However, with the analysis in (5), can I still follow this strategy and have [DP [DP NP]], as in (6b), or is it preferred for DP not to recursively include another DP for some reason? This is probably a Syntax 101 question, but I’ve never really had a Syntax 101 class.

I mentioned above that adjectives can have phrasal complements. If an adverb is present, complements of adjectives move up as well, but adjective phrases do not have a functional equivalent. So what would I do there, if the strategy outlined for nouns in (5) is followed mutatis mutandis? Would I simply put an AP inside another AP, or would I maybe rather use DP, since adjectives are a nominal category in my conlang?

  • Bresnan, Joan et al. Lexical-Functional Syntax. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Print. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 16.

Bryatesle: Word-Order Sensitive Words

August 16th, 2018 by Miekko
A few words in Bryatesle have some fairly different uses depending on where in the clause they stand. These examples are part of literary Bryatesle, but also widespread in the areas on the dialects of which literary Bryatesle is based.

These are only a handful of examples, more will come at some later point.

Nominal Attributes

ralsem 'the wrong one' on the left, 'an unsuitable one' on the right. The difference is somewhat subtle - 'the wrong one' implies there is a specific right one, 'an unsuitable one' just implies that some quality of the noun makes it unsuitable.

sylsem 'another' (as in 'not this one') on the left, '(one) more' on the right. The difference between 'another' and 'the wrong one' is that this is not used for selecting/rejecting, it rather appears to point out e.g. that another one is introduced into the discussion.

Nouns

kauda, signifying 'house', means 'at home' when just to the left of the verb, if the verb signifies movement or location.

tagnas, 'a span of time', except when directly to the left of the verb, when it signifies 'an instance of the action referred to'.

Adverbs

'sagyk' can signify 'remaining, left' when directly to the left of a verb or to the left of a noun, but elsewhere it means 'back, backwards, turning back, in reverse'. After telic verbs it can also signify 'again'. The verbs sagkad and sagkit both derive from sagyk, the former signifying 'to remain (after others  have been removed)', whereas sagkit signifies turning back. However, there are dialects that conflate the two, or distinguish them by other morphemes.

Verbs

The verb 'tëlez' signifies 'being able to reach with one's arms' when at the right end of a sentence, but actually grasping something when to the left of the object.

The verb 'satët' likewise signifies 'being able to travel somewhere' when at the right end of a sentence, but actually arriving if it's to the left of the object.

The two verbs above only are distinguished in the atelic forms, the telic generally always implying actual realization of the grasping or arrival.

sïmet signifies 'residing somewhere' when anywhere else in the sentence, but 'existing' when used sentence-initially. It has no telic form.

Bryatesle: Word-Order Sensitive Words

August 16th, 2018 by Miekko
A few words in Bryatesle have some fairly different uses depending on where in the clause they stand. These examples are part of literary Bryatesle, but also widespread in the areas on the dialects of which literary Bryatesle is based.

These are only a handful of examples, more will come at some later point.

Nominal Attributes

ralsem 'the wrong one' on the left, 'an unsuitable one' on the right. The difference is somewhat subtle - 'the wrong one' implies there is a specific right one, 'an unsuitable one' just implies that some quality of the noun makes it unsuitable.

sylsem 'another' (as in 'not this one') on the left, '(one) more' on the right. The difference between 'another' and 'the wrong one' is that this is not used for selecting/rejecting, it rather appears to point out e.g. that another one is introduced into the discussion.

Nouns

kauda, signifying 'house', means 'at home' when just to the left of the verb, if the verb signifies movement or location.

tagnas, 'a span of time', except when directly to the left of the verb, when it signifies 'an instance of the action referred to'.

Adverbs

'sagyk' can signify 'remaining, left' when directly to the left of a verb or to the left of a noun, but elsewhere it means 'back, backwards, turning back, in reverse'. After telic verbs it can also signify 'again'. The verbs sagkad and sagkit both derive from sagyk, the former signifying 'to remain (after others  have been removed)', whereas sagkit signifies turning back. However, there are dialects that conflate the two, or distinguish them by other morphemes.

Verbs

The verb 'tëlez' signifies 'being able to reach with one's arms' when at the right end of a sentence, but actually grasping something when to the left of the object.

The verb 'satët' likewise signifies 'being able to travel somewhere' when at the right end of a sentence, but actually arriving if it's to the left of the object.

The two verbs above only are distinguished in the atelic forms, the telic generally always implying actual realization of the grasping or arrival.

sïmet signifies 'residing somewhere' when anywhere else in the sentence, but 'existing' when used sentence-initially. It has no telic form.

A consignlang where the sign for “to press against (something) lightly several times with a piece of…

August 6th, 2018 by Bad conlanging ideas

A consignlang where the sign for “to press against (something) lightly several times with a piece of absorbent material in order to clean or dry it or to apply a substance” is dropping your head with one arm raised and resting your face inside the elbow of your other arm.

Intro to Lexical Typology

August 1st, 2018 by Fiat Lingua

Aidan Aannestad is one more name on the long list of people who discovered linguistics through Tolkien, and he’s been conlanging ever since that seventh grade discovery. He’s learned a lot about linguistics since then, though, and now holds a BA in it from the University of Texas and is partway through a graduate degree. He holds himself (and sometimes others) to a very high standard of realism in his work, and he’s always striving to get a more complete perspective on the enormous variety found in the world’s natlangs. His creative output is so far mostly limited to the minimally-documented, though fairly well fleshed-out Emihtazuu language and its ancestors, but he hopes to someday increase his productivity and make a full linguistic area with multiple interacting families. He also speaks Japanese, and will happily discuss its history and mechanics for hours with anyone interested. He’s been on-and-off a member of a number of conlanging communities, and these days is most likely to be found on one of the relevant Facebook groups or lurking in the conlang mailing list.

Abstract

This article is a reprocessing and rewriting of an article by Leonard Talmy on the field of lexical typology, with a focus on its relevance for conlanging. Lexical typology is the study of how languages pattern their lexemes, and how those patterns can vary across languages. This article specifically focuses on verbs, especially motion verbs, and presents a variety of ways that languages can handle motion and other kinds of state changes, with some notes on wider applications of the principles involved.

Version History

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

#522

July 24th, 2018 by lucamorgens

Make a colour-coded conlang. In writing, the more red a sentence appears, the angrier, more violent or (confusingly) more romantic it is. More depressing sentences are more blue.

To convey this in speech, you have to repeat the colour name a suitable amount of times, anywhere within the sentence.

For example, if you’re slightly annoyed that you dropped your pen, you would say, “oh no I’ve dropped RED my pen”. If you’re absolutely furious because you’re a Suburban Mum™ and someone has just criticised your son’s football abilities, you might yell, “Susan RED how RED dare RED you RED he RED is RED my RED perfect RED angel RED and RED one RED Day RED he’s RED going RED to RED win RED the RED world RED cup RED we’ll RED see RED who’s RED laughing RED then RED”