And it's done. Almost 4 months in the making and many difficulties, episode one is finally here! It's an absolute colossus, but hopefully you enjoy. If you haven't seen the intro video ("episode 0", let's say), I recommend you give it a watch - it'll contextualise the whole series. There's a link in the description or check my channel page. More exciting things coming soon, so stay tuned! Btw, what do you think of the new music? I'm thinking of transitioning to it fully from my old one - it's much easier on the ears. Let me know your thoughts! :D
Thanks so much for this vid! Very well done. Honestly, the music was very distracting to me and a bit too loud as I was trying to listen hard to the subtle differences in the sounds you were making. You could turn the music volume way down or even leave the music out altogether. Nevertheless, I very much appreciate all the work you put into it and will definitely save this vid for future reference.
@serenityphawx Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed and thanks for that feedback. I think it definitely could come down on phonology-centred videos - that's a really good point. I really struggle with audio balancing still, but I'll keep working at it to find the right levels. :D
I’ve watched a lot of conlang tutorials and I’ve unfortunately found rather few of them that feel very practical. Ironically, perhaps the most helpful tutorials for me were the ones that didn’t encourage naturalism and instead focused on the artistic side of constructing a language. Regardless, I think this is a good video.
Thank you! I had worried it might be a bit theory-dense, but hopefully I explained it well enough! I think non-naturalistic langs probably are easier, but the core concepts are the same and I personally tend to prefer the naturalism. Glad you enjoyed! :D
Thank you very much for explaining of all this in detail! I see that all of this sounds pretty nerdy but I‘m still happy that you explain everything so that I understand everything possible! I hope the future episodes don‘t take too long, but I also hope that they explain how languages derive their morphology, since Biblaridion didn‘t explain that part too well in his series, and at the same time it‘s very important! Well done!
Thank you! I'll do my best to maintain the quality! Can I ask, what do you mean by "derive their morphology"? As in where morphemes come from? I'd really like to make this as good as possible, so if there's something you'd like to see, I'd love to know so I can be sure to include it. If that is what you meant, just know that that may pop up later in the series, but I will try to wave it all in. :D
@LexisLang exactly, I was struggling to derive case marking and verb conjugations like latin does (since I know latin the best grammatically wise) because I don't even know how to derive the morphemes in the first place, and I hope later on you'd show me how to do it, since I need a head start, but still, good video nonetheless!
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed - I'm very happy to have you! And your English is fine - if you hadn't said you weren't native, I wouldn't have been able to tell! :)
Heya, this was the best video for explaining the basics that I've come across. I was eager to watch the rest in the series. Are you still planning on making them?
Absolutely! I was hoping to get the next episode out this Sunday, but it's taking an age to edit, so may take a few more days. Really glad you liked the video - I'm still trying to find the balance of staying simple and being complete, so I'm glad it worked for you! Hope to see you on the next one! :D
I will, yes. If you go back and watch the intro video to the series, I talk through all the planned episodes and what they should include. There will be a whole episode on evolution, once we've got through all the main content, but I'll also sprinkle some through the rest of the episodes where relevant. I've already done the evolution talk for orthography in that episode, since it's a bit separate from the rest of the linguistic system. Thanks for watching, I'm really happy you enjoyed! :D
@LexisLang Yeah, sorry! I didn't see that vid! I'll check it out rn! BTW I think it's really cool that you're replying to all comments even 4 months after the fact!
Regarding 'phonoaesthetics', the simple frequency of sounds also makes a difference. A word like 'lekel' sounds nicer than 'kelek', despite having the same phonemes and even syllable structure. Also, real languages rarely have their phonemes equally represented. In English for instance, the phone /z/ is famous for being rare. Though your phoneme inventory itself can have an effect on frequency. If you have really harsh-sound dorsal sounds, this will be mitigated if you have a high number of coronals since if all are equally represented, then the dorsals will be rarer than the coronals simply because there's more coronals. Another thing to note is that humans tend to find vowel-heavy words nicer sounding than consonant heavy ones. Just look at how people describe Spanish compared to German. You see this demonstrated in fantasy conlangs. Elvish languages tend to be really heavy on liquids, vowels, and open syllables. Orcish conlangs though tend to be really heavy on dorsals and stops, and have lots of closed syllables and even consonant clusters. I really think more research needs to be done to determine what effect phonemes and phonotactics have on a language's sound. Its hard to pick something when you're given no hint as to what effect everything has. Worse yet, on the freak occasions someone brings it up, they tend to just tell you how to make an Elvish conlang and an 'evil' one, seriously. Also, in the past I've seen it stated that preferably a language should sound as flat as possible. Can you imagine a woman speaking a harsh-sound orc conlang? Or writing a comedy in it? Or telling a joke? Or writing a horror story in a language like Quenya? Obviously, if you want a language to be usable, or at least make it realistic, it needs to sound as neutral as possible. Nobody however ever says a thing about how to accomplish that. Phonoaesthetics is a neat idea that was sorely needed, but its still a new field that clearly needs a lot of development.
Absolutely! I agree with pretty much all of that. I did originally want to talk more about this side of things in the video, but with it being so long already and all I had to think about and the rewrites, it clearly slipped my mind. Frequency is an important thing a lot of beginners don't much consider and I should like to learn more about. Phonaesthetics is quite subjective, though. In your Spanish vs German example, I'm not actually sure the phonology makes so much difference. It makes some of course, but there are loads of languages way more "gutteral" than German. I suspect it's more thanks to many people's exposure to the language being from war films, with nazis shouting in German and the like. Context is important, as you mention. I don't really come across the idea of "phonaesthetics" in actual linguistics - I think it's more a conlang thing, but certainly there are studies on speaker perceptions and the effects of some sounds on the language from a more objective perspective.
wait... did you mean to call it invaluable? Edit: just looked it up, invaluable means "indespensable", while I thought it meant "not valuable" that's my bad
@@lukeishere3579 Lol. The idea is that something invaluable is so good or so expensive that it cannot be valued (given a price). Certainly seems confusing at first, but makes sense, unlike "inflammable"... :D
I'm happy to have helped! Out of interest, have you seen any of my conlang videos before or have you just spent the last day since this one released conlanging non-stop? Either's a good strat to be honest. ;D
Great video! The only nitpick I maybe would give it is that your example of /s/-/z/ variation in English plurals is not one of allophony, as both /s/ and /z/ are two properly distinct phonemes in English. The example you presented is instead one of allomorphy! Where one morpheme (the plural marker) will change forms according to its environment. A better example of allophony in English could be how the phoneme /h/ will change to a [ç] when in front of an /i/!
You're absolutely right - that's the first thing that comes to mind when I think English allophony, but it is actually allomorphy. Thanks for watching though - I'm glad you enjoyed! :)
34:00 I remember that I ever read paper of natural language with 1 phonemic vowel and even 0 phonemic vowels. Yes, I'm not kidding. These langauge occured in Caucasus linguisitc area. (unfortunately, I can't remeber their name) 1) One vowel language is literally as their name have only 1 vowel and then have a bunch of allpphone depend on environment. 2) Zero vowels language is more tricky, it doesn't mean it doesn't have phonetic vowel but just phonemic vowel doesn't exist. For example if it syllable structure is CV(C)(C), the [bʲerʷɡʷ] [bʲerʷɡu] and [birʷogʷ] or even [birugu] are just diffrent realisation of /bʲrʷɡʷ/, which I know it sound pretty crazy.
Yeah, the Caucasus is wild. From my understanding, 2 is about the minimum most linguists take, but analyses of some languages bring up certain weird stuff like that. Very fun. :)
@@LexisLang Yeah, And in that language, not some ways of anlysis, but only way since syllablic resequencing can occur at any point even across morpheme boundaries such as /kʷsʲ‿lˠ‿tˠ/ may realise as [kʷosʲlɑtˠ], [kusilɑtˠ], [kusʲelˠtˠ] or [kusʲelˠtɑ] and maybe more as long as doesn't produce sequence of 3 consonants.
@@LexisLang Unfortunately, I have no idea about language names even I just read it a few day ago, since I also didn't save file of that paper but surely that language came from caucasus linguistic area. It maybe very hard thing to rediscover it. However It might be interesting thing to see how conlang with 0 phonemic vowels. That sound fun! For some rules about consonant sequence in that language is it prefer to follow sonority sequencing principle that if first consonant have sonority more than second consonant. if this principle be violated then epenthetic vowel is added to word. However despite language can resequencing syllable in anyway, it still prefer to make use of least epenthetic vowel as possible.
Is it Kabardian? Most recognize the language having three vowels, those being [a] [ə] and [a:], but _Phoneme and Morpheme in Kabardian (Eastern Adyghe)_ by Aert Kuipers argued that there's only one phonemic vowel in the language.
Thank you! I'm glad you like the video. The music's the one I use for all my main videos these days; much less intrusive than the last. It's called "Spirit of Fire" by Jesse Gallagher. You can find it in YT studio's audio library. Hope to see you for the next episode! :D
19:03 /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ aren't combination of alveolar stop with post alveolar fricatuve but both are post alveolar stop and release as fricative and can transcribed strictly as [t̠͡ʃ] and [d̠͡ʒ] also same case with /tɕ/ and /dʑ/ as [c̟͡ɕ] and [ɟ͡˖ʑ] but that just too complicate. note: [t̠ʲ] and [d̠ʲ] are equivalent to [c̟] [ɟ˖]
Why did you pair-up /s/ and /ɬ/ in the Welsh table as having symmetry? There is no symmetry between these two sounds: they're both unvoiced and different places of articulation.
I wasn't saying they form a symmetrical pair - it was just space efficiency. I maybe should have put /ɬ/ in with /l/, but I just wanted to avoid having extra rows or confusing people (not sure it helped on that). But they're both voiceless alveolar fricatives - it's just a difference of lateral vs central. It technically shows symmetry with /l/, but yeah, it is just to save adding a whole extra row. Thank you for watching! :)
I did an introduction video a few months ago, but this is the start of the main series. I finished editing it just 2 or 3 hours ago! Hope you enjoy! :D
great video but making ortography already the second episode seems slightly backwards... why would you create a writing system when there is still nothing to write with it?
Writing tends to rely far more heavily on sound than grammar. Even for non-phonetic scripts, grammar barely has a hand. Wordmaking comes at the end of the series, but you have the basics of it already from this video. Orthography could honestly go almost anywhere from this point because it's extra to an actual language, but some of the stuff I'll discuss (romanisation for instance) makes more sense to know going into the series. You'll probably only use the info later, but it's good to know sooner. I also think it's quite a fun topic, so should help lighten up the series after the theoretical colossus of this episode. As much as I enjoy the theory, I don't want to put other people off. How that explains my thoughts. Thanks for watching - I'm glad you enjoyed! :D
@@LexisLang yeah honestly that makes more sense now. i still think it would be useful to touch on ortography again on a later episode to explore how the spelling system would develop some of it's irregularities tho (it is a natlang afterall). still this first episode was really good so thank you for making it :)
@@EndaWida How would you like to help? I suggest you email me if you have a proposal. I can also shoot you my discord so we can chat real-time if you like. Email address is on my channel page. :)
@ uses Latin alphabet along with ð,æ,þ,ø. þ has the Icelandic pronunciation (eyy) A sentence:Pædþ alabæzybøxidanuþ tucho ðichþ erepozøbaidu opchf Michik!
I'm sorry, that's partly just how I speak. This is also a series where I'm trying to teach complex topics to total beginners, so it merits taking things quite slowly. I definitely talk slower in my videos than irl, but I'm quite slow generally too. Really happy you enjoyed the video though! I'll try to find a balance in future videos. :)
@@LexisLang Hey, don't mind me-still excellently thorough (& easy to understand; can't fault you on that... better slow but clear than the inverse!), so overall I say: 9.5/10 (and the closest competitor is, like... 7-/10) 👊
@@Kveldred Thank you! As you say, I'd rather be a little too slow than a little too fast - especially since I've had comments from non-native English speakers before saying they appreciate the slower pace for their comprehension. I'm very glad you enjoyed, but figuring out these details is still important to me (I'd love to get it up to 10 if that's even possible). Out of interest, who do you consider the "closest competitor"? :D
@@LexisLang tbh, I've gotten little use out of most conlanging videos I've watched: • e.g., a lot of them waste a lot of time with introductions saying "now, let's think about WHY you want to make a conlang!"-like dude if I'm searching for this topic I probably already have something in mind, yeah? I don't need you to tell me "it's okay if you simply want to make one for fun!" either _(I_ decide what's okay around here, entiende cabrón?!); • or else the organization is sort of scattered (one guy seems to have uploaded parts of livestreams which suffer from this); • or else there's very little detail about why or when something might happen, or why something might make a language more or less naturalistic, or... etc.; • or else no/few examples are given ("some languages take a different approach"... okay, what languages, and what is the difference?! if I'm just gonna have to look it up after this for basic ideas & understandings, why am I watching?!). so, all that said, one of the only other video serieseses I've found from which I felt I actually got a good amount of useable knowledge & understanding... ...was... uh, how do you spell it, crap. Biblaridion, or something like that, heh. this looks to be a good amount more complete in its treatment, though, so far! 👊
@@Kveldred I knew you'd say Biblaridion, lol. That series has been the gold standard for years. It's very good - it's actually the series that taught me most of the basics and it 100% inspired this series (and in fact he was a main inspiration for my whole channel!). It's been a few years since that came out, though and I felt there was a decent amount missing and that could be reworked, hence why I wanted to have a go. :) I totally agree about the examples part. I love seeing examples and from my video analytics, I can tell I'm not alone. Anyway, thanks for watching and thank you so much for the feedback - you're really valued for both those things! :D
And it's done. Almost 4 months in the making and many difficulties, episode one is finally here! It's an absolute colossus, but hopefully you enjoy. If you haven't seen the intro video ("episode 0", let's say), I recommend you give it a watch - it'll contextualise the whole series. There's a link in the description or check my channel page. More exciting things coming soon, so stay tuned!
Btw, what do you think of the new music? I'm thinking of transitioning to it fully from my old one - it's much easier on the ears. Let me know your thoughts! :D
Thanks so much for this vid! Very well done. Honestly, the music was very distracting to me and a bit too loud as I was trying to listen hard to the subtle differences in the sounds you were making. You could turn the music volume way down or even leave the music out altogether. Nevertheless, I very much appreciate all the work you put into it and will definitely save this vid for future reference.
@serenityphawx Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed and thanks for that feedback. I think it definitely could come down on phonology-centred videos - that's a really good point. I really struggle with audio balancing still, but I'll keep working at it to find the right levels. :D
I’ve watched a lot of conlang tutorials and I’ve unfortunately found rather few of them that feel very practical. Ironically, perhaps the most helpful tutorials for me were the ones that didn’t encourage naturalism and instead focused on the artistic side of constructing a language.
Regardless, I think this is a good video.
Thank you! I had worried it might be a bit theory-dense, but hopefully I explained it well enough! I think non-naturalistic langs probably are easier, but the core concepts are the same and I personally tend to prefer the naturalism. Glad you enjoyed! :D
This is very informative without muddling around the topic. Seems you have put a lot of work into this script
Thank you! I had to fully rewrite it, but we got there in the end! Glad you enjoyed! :D
Thank you very much for explaining of all this in detail! I see that all of this sounds pretty nerdy but I‘m still happy that you explain everything so that I understand everything possible! I hope the future episodes don‘t take too long, but I also hope that they explain how languages derive their morphology, since Biblaridion didn‘t explain that part too well in his series, and at the same time it‘s very important! Well done!
Thank you! I'll do my best to maintain the quality! Can I ask, what do you mean by "derive their morphology"? As in where morphemes come from? I'd really like to make this as good as possible, so if there's something you'd like to see, I'd love to know so I can be sure to include it. If that is what you meant, just know that that may pop up later in the series, but I will try to wave it all in. :D
@LexisLang exactly, I was struggling to derive case marking and verb conjugations like latin does (since I know latin the best grammatically wise) because I don't even know how to derive the morphemes in the first place, and I hope later on you'd show me how to do it, since I need a head start, but still, good video nonetheless!
You've truly knocked it out of the park with this one! Amazing video, can't wait for the other ones of this series
Thank you, that makes me very happy to hear! I'm so glad you enjoyed - look forwards to seeing you for the next one (whenever that is!). :D
I can feel your passion for languages. I’d love to learn more from you.
(Excuse my English, I’m not a native.)😅
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed - I'm very happy to have you! And your English is fine - if you hadn't said you weren't native, I wouldn't have been able to tell! :)
I love this series, keep up the good work
Thank you so much! Not sure when the next one'll come out, but thanks for your support and I hope to see you when it does! :D
@LexisLang Take your time, great things take time after all ;)
Heya, this was the best video for explaining the basics that I've come across. I was eager to watch the rest in the series. Are you still planning on making them?
Absolutely! I was hoping to get the next episode out this Sunday, but it's taking an age to edit, so may take a few more days. Really glad you liked the video - I'm still trying to find the balance of staying simple and being complete, so I'm glad it worked for you! Hope to see you on the next one! :D
This is very cool! I'm really looking forwards to seeing the whole series. BTW, will you touch on language evolution? What episodes are planned?
I will, yes. If you go back and watch the intro video to the series, I talk through all the planned episodes and what they should include. There will be a whole episode on evolution, once we've got through all the main content, but I'll also sprinkle some through the rest of the episodes where relevant.
I've already done the evolution talk for orthography in that episode, since it's a bit separate from the rest of the linguistic system.
Thanks for watching, I'm really happy you enjoyed! :D
@LexisLang Yeah, sorry! I didn't see that vid! I'll check it out rn!
BTW I think it's really cool that you're replying to all comments even 4 months after the fact!
Regarding 'phonoaesthetics', the simple frequency of sounds also makes a difference. A word like 'lekel' sounds nicer than 'kelek', despite having the same phonemes and even syllable structure. Also, real languages rarely have their phonemes equally represented. In English for instance, the phone /z/ is famous for being rare. Though your phoneme inventory itself can have an effect on frequency. If you have really harsh-sound dorsal sounds, this will be mitigated if you have a high number of coronals since if all are equally represented, then the dorsals will be rarer than the coronals simply because there's more coronals. Another thing to note is that humans tend to find vowel-heavy words nicer sounding than consonant heavy ones. Just look at how people describe Spanish compared to German. You see this demonstrated in fantasy conlangs. Elvish languages tend to be really heavy on liquids, vowels, and open syllables. Orcish conlangs though tend to be really heavy on dorsals and stops, and have lots of closed syllables and even consonant clusters.
I really think more research needs to be done to determine what effect phonemes and phonotactics have on a language's sound. Its hard to pick something when you're given no hint as to what effect everything has. Worse yet, on the freak occasions someone brings it up, they tend to just tell you how to make an Elvish conlang and an 'evil' one, seriously.
Also, in the past I've seen it stated that preferably a language should sound as flat as possible. Can you imagine a woman speaking a harsh-sound orc conlang? Or writing a comedy in it? Or telling a joke? Or writing a horror story in a language like Quenya? Obviously, if you want a language to be usable, or at least make it realistic, it needs to sound as neutral as possible. Nobody however ever says a thing about how to accomplish that.
Phonoaesthetics is a neat idea that was sorely needed, but its still a new field that clearly needs a lot of development.
Absolutely! I agree with pretty much all of that. I did originally want to talk more about this side of things in the video, but with it being so long already and all I had to think about and the rewrites, it clearly slipped my mind. Frequency is an important thing a lot of beginners don't much consider and I should like to learn more about.
Phonaesthetics is quite subjective, though. In your Spanish vs German example, I'm not actually sure the phonology makes so much difference. It makes some of course, but there are loads of languages way more "gutteral" than German. I suspect it's more thanks to many people's exposure to the language being from war films, with nazis shouting in German and the like. Context is important, as you mention.
I don't really come across the idea of "phonaesthetics" in actual linguistics - I think it's more a conlang thing, but certainly there are studies on speaker perceptions and the effects of some sounds on the language from a more objective perspective.
Thanks for your effort. Your content is trully invaluable :)
Aw, thank you so much, I'm glad you enjoyed it! :)
wait... did you mean to call it invaluable?
Edit: just looked it up, invaluable means "indespensable", while I thought it meant "not valuable" that's my bad
@@lukeishere3579 Lol. The idea is that something invaluable is so good or so expensive that it cannot be valued (given a price). Certainly seems confusing at first, but makes sense, unlike "inflammable"... :D
@@LexisLang toki Inli li ike 🥲
@@lukeishere3579 It's not my favourite, that's for sure, but it has its moments. Ala mute pona, taso ala mute ike kin. :D
I’ve made many languages thanks to you
I'm happy to have helped! Out of interest, have you seen any of my conlang videos before or have you just spent the last day since this one released conlanging non-stop? Either's a good strat to be honest. ;D
@@LexisLang I know how to make a conlang, I use your _ evolution in 22 words
Ah, that's good to hear! I've used them that way before too. I have hoped that it'd be a useful conlanging resource - glad to see it is! :)
Great video!
The only nitpick I maybe would give it is that your example of /s/-/z/ variation in English plurals is not one of allophony, as both /s/ and /z/ are two properly distinct phonemes in English. The example you presented is instead one of allomorphy! Where one morpheme (the plural marker) will change forms according to its environment.
A better example of allophony in English could be how the phoneme /h/ will change to a [ç] when in front of an /i/!
You're absolutely right - that's the first thing that comes to mind when I think English allophony, but it is actually allomorphy.
Thanks for watching though - I'm glad you enjoyed! :)
This helps a lot thanks :)
Glad to hear that, thank you for watching! :D
34:00 I remember that I ever read paper of natural language with 1 phonemic vowel and even 0 phonemic vowels. Yes, I'm not kidding. These langauge occured in Caucasus linguisitc area. (unfortunately, I can't remeber their name)
1) One vowel language is literally as their name have only 1 vowel and then have a bunch of allpphone depend on environment.
2) Zero vowels language is more tricky, it doesn't mean it doesn't have phonetic vowel but just phonemic vowel doesn't exist.
For example if it syllable structure is CV(C)(C), the [bʲerʷɡʷ] [bʲerʷɡu] and [birʷogʷ] or even [birugu] are just diffrent realisation of /bʲrʷɡʷ/, which I know it sound pretty crazy.
Yeah, the Caucasus is wild. From my understanding, 2 is about the minimum most linguists take, but analyses of some languages bring up certain weird stuff like that. Very fun. :)
@@LexisLang Yeah, And in that language, not some ways of anlysis, but only way since syllablic resequencing can occur at any point even across morpheme boundaries such as /kʷsʲ‿lˠ‿tˠ/ may realise as [kʷosʲlɑtˠ], [kusilɑtˠ], [kusʲelˠtˠ] or [kusʲelˠtɑ] and maybe more as long as doesn't produce sequence of 3 consonants.
Do you know what the name of this language is by chance? :)
@@LexisLang Unfortunately, I have no idea about language names even I just read it a few day ago, since I also didn't save file of that paper but surely that language came from caucasus linguistic area. It maybe very hard thing to rediscover it. However It might be interesting thing to see how conlang with 0 phonemic vowels. That sound fun!
For some rules about consonant sequence in that language is it prefer to follow sonority sequencing principle that if first consonant have sonority more than second consonant. if this principle be violated then epenthetic vowel is added to word. However despite language can resequencing syllable in anyway, it still prefer to make use of least epenthetic vowel as possible.
Is it Kabardian? Most recognize the language having three vowels, those being [a] [ə] and [a:], but _Phoneme and Morpheme in Kabardian (Eastern Adyghe)_ by Aert Kuipers argued that there's only one phonemic vowel in the language.
When you said that, I got a Benylin ad. B, the voiced bilabial plosive.
When I said what, sorry? :/
@@LexisLang Sorry, thought I had a timestamp. It was supposed to be when you mentioned Bilabial sounds.
Amazing video sorry Im a little late haha. Just one question: What is the music used? It sounds so etherial and imposing, yet calm, and I love it.
Thank you! I'm glad you like the video. The music's the one I use for all my main videos these days; much less intrusive than the last. It's called "Spirit of Fire" by Jesse Gallagher. You can find it in YT studio's audio library. Hope to see you for the next episode! :D
19:03 /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ aren't combination of alveolar stop with post alveolar fricatuve but both are post alveolar stop and release as fricative and can transcribed strictly as [t̠͡ʃ] and [d̠͡ʒ] also same case with /tɕ/ and /dʑ/ as [c̟͡ɕ] and [ɟ͡˖ʑ] but that just too complicate.
note: [t̠ʲ] and [d̠ʲ] are equivalent to [c̟] [ɟ˖]
Example for non-hamogenous affricate is german /pf/ as [p͡f] bilabial stop and release as labialdental fricative.
That's certainly often the case. Not always so, but either way, this is a beginners video, so I'm not going to go too deep into stuff like that. :)
Why did you pair-up /s/ and /ɬ/ in the Welsh table as having symmetry? There is no symmetry between these two sounds: they're both unvoiced and different places of articulation.
I wasn't saying they form a symmetrical pair - it was just space efficiency. I maybe should have put /ɬ/ in with /l/, but I just wanted to avoid having extra rows or confusing people (not sure it helped on that). But they're both voiceless alveolar fricatives - it's just a difference of lateral vs central. It technically shows symmetry with /l/, but yeah, it is just to save adding a whole extra row. Thank you for watching! :)
Wait this is new i thought this was like months old
I did an introduction video a few months ago, but this is the start of the main series. I finished editing it just 2 or 3 hours ago! Hope you enjoy! :D
@@LexisLangcan’t wait for part 2! ^ - ^
great video but making ortography already the second episode seems slightly backwards... why would you create a writing system when there is still nothing to write with it?
Writing tends to rely far more heavily on sound than grammar. Even for non-phonetic scripts, grammar barely has a hand. Wordmaking comes at the end of the series, but you have the basics of it already from this video. Orthography could honestly go almost anywhere from this point because it's extra to an actual language, but some of the stuff I'll discuss (romanisation for instance) makes more sense to know going into the series. You'll probably only use the info later, but it's good to know sooner. I also think it's quite a fun topic, so should help lighten up the series after the theoretical colossus of this episode. As much as I enjoy the theory, I don't want to put other people off.
How that explains my thoughts. Thanks for watching - I'm glad you enjoyed! :D
@@LexisLang yeah honestly that makes more sense now. i still think it would be useful to touch on ortography again on a later episode to explore how the spelling system would develop some of it's irregularities tho (it is a natlang afterall). still this first episode was really good so thank you for making it :)
Good thought - I've added that to my plan! :)
@@LexisLang Yes, but you need words before writing, as orthography begins naturally with logographs (1 symbol per morpheme).
oo
I hope this is an "oo" of enjoyment or perhaps appreciation, rather than an "oo" of malcontent or disinterest? So much possible subtext. ;D
@@LexisLang i like how much detail this goes into.
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed! :)
@@LexisLang is it possible i could help you with episode 2?
@@EndaWida How would you like to help? I suggest you email me if you have a proposal. I can also shoot you my discord so we can chat real-time if you like. Email address is on my channel page. :)
25:48 Diphthongs in hiatus?
Yep! :)
I’ve made a conlang
Oh yeah? What kind of thing? :)
@ uses Latin alphabet along with ð,æ,þ,ø. þ has the Icelandic pronunciation (eyy)
A sentence:Pædþ alabæzybøxidanuþ tucho ðichþ erepozøbaidu opchf Michik!
hi :3 UwU
Hello! Thank you for watching, I hope you enjoyed the video! :)
@@LexisLang :3
Great video, but _why must you speak so slowly aaaaaah_
I'm sorry, that's partly just how I speak. This is also a series where I'm trying to teach complex topics to total beginners, so it merits taking things quite slowly. I definitely talk slower in my videos than irl, but I'm quite slow generally too. Really happy you enjoyed the video though! I'll try to find a balance in future videos. :)
@@LexisLang Hey, don't mind me-still excellently thorough (& easy to understand; can't fault you on that... better slow but clear than the inverse!), so overall I say: 9.5/10 (and the closest competitor is, like... 7-/10) 👊
@@Kveldred Thank you! As you say, I'd rather be a little too slow than a little too fast - especially since I've had comments from non-native English speakers before saying they appreciate the slower pace for their comprehension.
I'm very glad you enjoyed, but figuring out these details is still important to me (I'd love to get it up to 10 if that's even possible).
Out of interest, who do you consider the "closest competitor"? :D
@@LexisLang tbh, I've gotten little use out of most conlanging videos I've watched:
• e.g., a lot of them waste a lot of time with introductions saying "now, let's think about WHY you want to make a conlang!"-like dude if I'm searching for this topic I probably already have something in mind, yeah? I don't need you to tell me "it's okay if you simply want to make one for fun!" either _(I_ decide what's okay around here, entiende cabrón?!);
• or else the organization is sort of scattered (one guy seems to have uploaded parts of livestreams which suffer from this);
• or else there's very little detail about why or when something might happen, or why something might make a language more or less naturalistic, or... etc.;
• or else no/few examples are given ("some languages take a different approach"... okay, what languages, and what is the difference?! if I'm just gonna have to look it up after this for basic ideas & understandings, why am I watching?!).
so, all that said, one of the only other video serieseses I've found from which I felt I actually got a good amount of useable knowledge & understanding...
...was... uh, how do you spell it, crap. Biblaridion, or something like that, heh.
this looks to be a good amount more complete in its treatment, though, so far! 👊
@@Kveldred I knew you'd say Biblaridion, lol. That series has been the gold standard for years. It's very good - it's actually the series that taught me most of the basics and it 100% inspired this series (and in fact he was a main inspiration for my whole channel!).
It's been a few years since that came out, though and I felt there was a decent amount missing and that could be reworked, hence why I wanted to have a go. :)
I totally agree about the examples part. I love seeing examples and from my video analytics, I can tell I'm not alone.
Anyway, thanks for watching and thank you so much for the feedback - you're really valued for both those things! :D