Orthographic Reunision

[Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu]

Here’s a thought: why don’t we just reform the language completely

I’ve never done too much with Talossan. I’ve volunteered for a few projects, but none of them ever took off (*cough cough* SIGN). The Talossan language is what initially brought me to Talossa. I’ve been reading the threads, but never commented or shared my thoughts until now. In my personal opinion, Talossan has a shit ton of diacritical marks that are completely unecessary. Yes, they make the language look and sound unique, but are they really needed? No. Maybe a few here and there, but as a native English speaker, seeing “äéîöù” in every word gets annoying, especially when every word is pronounced completely different than how it’s written (or maybe the fact that nobody can agree on a standard pronunciation in the first place). Maybe it’s just me being ignorant. In school, I took French for one year and German for two, and I’m also fairly proficient in Esperanto. I got into conlanging in middle school, and like Ben was as a teenager, I was interested in a new language every other week. I’d say I have a basic, if not decent understanding of languages.

Here’s my 2¢: Reform the whole language, using universally accepted orthography and phonology. And for Christ’s sake, lose all the diacritics. Like I said, maybe a few here and there. Maybe each of us come up with our own variant of “Talossan,” then we share our creations and decide which is the best one. Reform the grammar so it’s simple enough to be learned without spending countless hours reviewing the rules. Maybe adopt a grammatical system similar to Esperanto (maybe I’m just being biased since it’s the only other language I speak “fluently”). Hell, go ahead and create a character replacement system (a=e, u=i, etc.). That way EVERYONE is able to instantly speak, read, and write Talossan. Not too sure how y’all feel about this, but I’m willing to create and share my own variant of Talossan. Let’s just get this over with and make some progress.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Cresti, if you want to start your own conlang, please do so. But Talossan's complexity and arbitrariness are part of its history.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

Jul 2, 2018 2:08:20 GMT -6 Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu said:

Here’s a thought: why don’t we just reform the language completely

My biggest problem with the 2007 Arestada was precisely that it wasnt just a spelling reform -- it was also a phonology reform. You can't just reform sounds away from a language, that's not how it works, for fuck's sake. Reforming the entire language is the absolute last thing anyone needs.

In my personal opinion, Talossan has a shit ton of diacritical marks that are completely unecessary. Yes, they make the language look and sound unique, but are they really needed? No. Maybe a few here and there, but as a native English speaker, seeing “äéîöù” in every word gets annoying, especially when every word is pronounced completely different than how it’s written (or maybe the fact that nobody can agree on a standard pronunciation in the first place). Maybe it’s just me being ignorant.

Which diacritics do you find unnecessary? The umlauts that mark completely different phonemes, like Ä [æ], Ö [ø], Ü [y] or Î [ɨ]? The stress marks that mark, again, phonemic stress? You do know that the diacritics aren't just decorative (at least not since 2007), yeah? The second point is that Talossan spelling is actually very close to pronunciation (as in: it's easy to read a word if you know the rules) as there are only a handful of irregular spellings. The actual point of contention seems to be whether to have Î or not, which was reformed away in 2007.

In school, I took French for one year and German for two, and I’m also fairly proficient in Esperanto. I got into conlanging in middle school, and like Ben was as a teenager, I was interested in a new language every other week. I’d say I have a basic, if not decent understanding of languages.

Þáriqeux cumpetensen, va colega. So you do understand that diacritics aren't just for show, then.

Here’s my 2¢: Reform the whole language, using universally accepted orthography and phonology.

See above~

And for Christ’s sake, lose all the diacritics. Like I said, maybe a few here and there.

Even if they serve a real purpose? No thanks.

Maybe each of us come up with our own variant of “Talossan,” then we share our creations and decide which is the best one. [...] Not too sure how y’all feel about this, but I’m willing to create and share my own variant of Talossan. Let’s just get this over with and make some progress.

We already have enough division as is.

Reform the grammar so it’s simple enough to be learned without spending countless hours reviewing the rules. Maybe adopt a grammatical system similar to Esperanto (maybe I’m just being biased since it’s the only other language I speak “fluently”).

Talossan grammar is already simpler and more English-y than that of any other Romance language. And, I'm sorry, Esperanto's grammar is really nothing worth approximating. Esperanto failed on all accounts.

Hell, go ahead and create a character replacement system (a=e, u=i, etc.). That way EVERYONE is able to instantly speak, read, and write Talossan.

So, basically creating a cypher? Why the hell would we do that?

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

I don't know a lot of Talossan lexicon other than a few words, but I love grammar and I have background in Conlanging. If you need people who can participate in discussions and give ideas despite not speaking Talossan, please count me in.

I just think the language is an important part of our cultural heritage, so something has to be done. and maybe those discussion will help me get some grasp of the language.

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

I also agree with almost everything Marcel has just said.

I understand S:reu Nouacastra's inclination to not overusing the diacritics, because too much diacritics is a hallmark of bad conlanging, but when you get to a point when all the diacritics you have left serve their purpose well - then you can't afford to shrink down further - Marcel is right here.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

Jul 1, 2018 22:34:34 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jul 1, 2018 20:13:40 GMT -6 Iac Marscheir said:

I did basically that when I first declared the SIGN.

*sigh* Well, let's start again. I'm in. That's 2.

Yknow what, I'm desperate. I'm in.

[Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu]

Jul 2, 2018 3:14:05 GMT -6 Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial said:

Jul 2, 2018 2:08:20 GMT -6 Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu said:

Here’s a thought: why don’t we just reform the language completely

My biggest problem with the 2007 Arestada was precisely that it wasnt just a spelling reform -- it was also a phonology reform. You can't just reform sounds away from a language, that's not how it works, for fuck's sake. Reforming the entire language is the absolute last thing anyone needs.

In my personal opinion, Talossan has a shit ton of diacritical marks that are completely unecessary. Yes, they make the language look and sound unique, but are they really needed? No. Maybe a few here and there, but as a native English speaker, seeing “äéîöù” in every word gets annoying, especially when every word is pronounced completely different than how it’s written (or maybe the fact that nobody can agree on a standard pronunciation in the first place). Maybe it’s just me being ignorant.

Which diacritics do you find unnecessary? The umlauts that mark completely different phonemes, like Ä [æ], Ö [ø], Ü [y] or Î [ɨ]? The stress marks that mark, again, phonemic stress? You do know that the diacritics aren't just decorative (at least not since 2007), yeah? The second point is that Talossan spelling is actually very close to pronunciation (as in: it's easy to read a word if you know the rules) as there are only a handful of irregular spellings. The actual point of contention seems to be whether to have Î or not, which was reformed away in 2007.

In school, I took French for one year and German for two, and I’m also fairly proficient in Esperanto. I got into conlanging in middle school, and like Ben was as a teenager, I was interested in a new language every other week. I’d say I have a basic, if not decent understanding of languages.

Þáriqeux cumpetensen, va colega. So you do understand that diacritics aren't just for show, then.

Here’s my 2¢: Reform the whole language, using universally accepted orthography and phonology.

See above~

And for Christ’s sake, lose all the diacritics. Like I said, maybe a few here and there.

Even if they serve a real purpose? No thanks.

Maybe each of us come up with our own variant of “Talossan,” then we share our creations and decide which is the best one. [...] Not too sure how y’all feel about this, but I’m willing to create and share my own variant of Talossan. Let’s just get this over with and make some progress.

We already have enough division as is.

Reform the grammar so it’s simple enough to be learned without spending countless hours reviewing the rules. Maybe adopt a grammatical system similar to Esperanto (maybe I’m just being biased since it’s the only other language I speak “fluently”).

Talossan grammar is already simpler and more English-y than that of any other Romance language. And, I'm sorry, Esperanto's grammar is really nothing worth approximating. Esperanto failed on all accounts.

Hell, go ahead and create a character replacement system (a=e, u=i, etc.). That way EVERYONE is able to instantly speak, read, and write Talossan.

So, basically creating a cypher? Why the hell would we do that?

My goal isn’t to go off and start from scratch - that’s not what I was saying at all. By reform the language, the idea I was trying to share was just an overall simplification of Talossan. Yes, in my opinion there are too many diacritics that we could easily just use slightly different spelling variations for. If you disagree, that’s your opinion. I understand how they work, perfectly actually. I get they’re not just there for aesthetic purposes. Again, there are simpler ways. No need to start WW3 over a language that barely anyone speaks anyways...

The cypher idea was a joke, not my fault if you didn’t catch onto that one. I’m not saying we turn Talossan into some sort of Pig Latin language.

P.S. I wouldn’t say Esperanto failed in all aspects. Esperanto has native speakers - Talossan can’t even get 10 L2 speakers

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

Talossan also doesn't aim to be a universal utility language.

Simplification is a good thing, I think, standartization (which we are trying to achieve) almost always implies certain simplification.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

Jul 2, 2018 3:27:19 GMT -6 Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu said:

Yes, in my opinion there are too many diacritics that we could easily just use slightly different spelling variations for.

Again: which diacritics are superfluous in your opinion? I'm genuinely curious.

P.S. I wouldn’t say Esperanto failed in all aspects. Esperanto has native speakers - Talossan can’t even get 10 L2 speakers

Esperanto having native speakers is not the product of its grammar but the consequence of irresponsible Finvenkistoj procreating. But regardless -- Esperanto's goal was never to have native speakers at all, quite the opposite in fact. What was Esperanto's goal however was to be a simple, neutral and universal second language for mankind. Since it failed at being either of these three things, I'd say calling it a failure in all accounts is more than warranted.

[Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu]

Jul 2, 2018 3:33:20 GMT -6 Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial said:

Jul 2, 2018 3:27:19 GMT -6 Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu said:

Yes, in my opinion there are too many diacritics that we could easily just use slightly different spelling variations for.

Again: which diacritics are superfluous in your opinion? I'm genuinely curious.

P.S. I wouldn’t say Esperanto failed in all aspects. Esperanto has native speakers - Talossan can’t even get 10 L2 speakers

Esperanto having native speakers is not the product of its grammar but the consequence of irresponsible Finvenkistoj procreating. But regardless -- Esperanto's goal was never to have native speakers at all, quite the opposite in fact. What was Esperanto's goal however was to be a simple, neutral and universal second language for mankind. Since it failed at being either of these three things, I'd say calling it a failure in all accounts is more than warranted.

For example, the umlauts. As we all know, certain vowels can be marked using either an umlaut, or acute accent marks. Why not remove the umlauts and opt for something like "ae" and "oe" and "ue" as a standardized spelling? Even in German, umlauted vowels can be written this way (and it's even more aesthetic in my opinion). I understand the acute accents are used to indicate stress on a certain syllable, so those are fine, I actually like them, and as you said, they still serve a purpose, and serve it well. And to be quite honest, I don't even know what's up with "î."

I dunno guys, these are just my thoughts. Everyone here has their own thoughts about the workings of Talossan, so I'm done arguing about it. So what are we doing? Restarting SIGN? Whatever it is, I'm in the same boat as Alèx - I don't speak much Talossan as it is, but I'm down to help wherever needed if it means we can all agree on something. 

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jul 2, 2018 3:14:05 GMT -6 Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial said:

Esperanto failed on all accounts.

Amiko, tiuj estas batalantaj vortoj!

Anyway: KR1 was fond of saying "Talossa is not Esperanto". I.e., it's not supposed to be simple, neutral and easy to learn. It's supposed to be... Talossan, in the full sense of that word.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Anyway, if we're not waiting for CÚG to come to the party, I say that we decide for ourselves what to do about î.

I vote "restore" because that's the way I learned the language in 1997, Goddammit.

[Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu]

Jul 2, 2018 14:38:17 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Anyway, if we're not waiting for CÚG to come to the party, I say that we decide for ourselves what to do about î.

I vote "restore" because that's the way I learned the language in 1997, Goddammit.

I know this has been mentioned in the past, but what if the CÚG and SIGN merge as one big committee? I mean hey, we’re all here (and by all, I mean the ones that actually care enough to share ideas about what we should do next). Perhaps the CÚG continues to reform the language, and SIGN put the language into action by speaking it, like the original plan. As for Î, I’ve no opinion. If we decide to officially use it or drop it, that works either way.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

Jul 2, 2018 14:38:17 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Anyway, if we're not waiting for CÚG to come to the party, I say that we decide for ourselves what to do about î.

I vote "restore" because that's the way I learned the language in 1997, Goddammit.

I'm quite fond of the "Restore but respell as i before nasals" thing that Gariçeir proposed, so... I'll probably do that.

[Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu]

Jul 2, 2018 15:32:39 GMT -6 Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial said:

Jul 2, 2018 14:38:17 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Anyway, if we're not waiting for CÚG to come to the party, I say that we decide for ourselves what to do about î.

I vote "restore" because that's the way I learned the language in 1997, Goddammit.

I'm quite fond of the "Restore but respell as i before nasals" thing that Gariçeir proposed, so... I'll probably do that.

It sounds like what we’re all guilty of here is having our own preffered way of speaking and writing Talossan, which is something called an “idiolect.” Idiolects are different from “dialects” in the sense that idiolects are unique to the individual, and not the group as a collective. There aren’t any “dialects” of Talossan that I’m aware of, but definitely many idiolects. I think it’d be useful if we all agree on a standardized Talossan, but if some of us continue to use certain letters and slight changes that we initially learned, like in Miestrâ’s case, using Î, I don’t see the big deal, as long as we can understand each other.