Print

Print


Hallo!

Here is my reply on the survey:

> == Part A: Personal and demographic data.  ==
> 
> 01. a. What is your name (or online handle)?

Jörg Rhiemeier, in some fora known as WeepingElf.

[rest of Part A not disclosed to the list]

> == Part B: The nature of your conlang. ==
> 
> If you have devised more than one conlang, please focus in these
> questions on those you are most (nearly) fluent in.
> 
> 17. What is the name of your primary conlang (the one you have
>     invested the most effort in or are most fluent in)?

Old Albic.

> 18. What are the basic purpose(s) and design goals of your conlang?  Is
>     it associated with an imagined world or culture?  If so, are the
>     speakers human?

Old Albic is the language of an imagined culture, a civilization
in early Iron Age Britain.  It is thus meant to be naturalistic.
The speakers of Old Albic are human.


> 19. Is your conlang a priori (devised from scratch) or a posteriori
>     (based on a specific natural language or language family), or a mix
>     of a priori and a posteriori elements?

A mix of a priori and a posteriori elements, mostly a priori,
but designed to resemble a distant cousin of Indo-European.

> 20. Describe the typology of your conlang - what is its primary word
>     order (SVO, SOV, VSO...; pre- or postpositional; etc.)?  Is it
>     isolating, agglutinating, fusional, polysynthetic?  Is its case or
>     word order system primarily accusative, ergative, active,
>     other...?

VSO, prepositional, modifiers follow nouns, agglutinating with
fusional tencendies, mostly suffixing, active (fluid-S) case system
and verb agreement.

> 21. a. How extensive or complete do you consider your conlang to be (in
>     grammar and vocabulary)?

The grammar is quite advanced, but some details still need work;
there are about 1000 words so far, with several semantic domains
still in need of more words.

>     b. If you are not yet fluent in it, do you consider the language
>     complete enough for fluency to be attainable, or would it need
>     considerably more development for that to be possible?

Not yet complete enough, needs more development.

> 22. Does your conlang have features that might be expected to make it
>     especially difficult for speakers of your native language?

The case system and morphosyntactic alignment probably need to
get used to.

> 23. Does your conlang have possibly unnatural features that might be
>     expected to make fluency difficult or impossible for humans?

No.
> 
> == Part C: Fluency in your conlang. ==
> 
> 24. a. Do you intend to become fluent in your conlang, or did you when
>     you started creating it?

I intend to become fluent in Old Albic some day.

>     b. If not, did you find yourself becoming fluent as an unexpected
>     result of developing and using it?
> 
> 25. If you intend to become fluent in your conlang, what are your
>     goals or purposes for learning it?

In order to be better able to write texts and sing songs in it.

> 26. What do you use (or intend to use) your conlang for?
>     a. Prayer?
>     b. Meditation?
>     c. Thinking?
>     d. Taking notes in the course of study?
>     e. Writing notes to yourself (grocery lists, etc.)?
>     f. Writing a diary?
>     g. Writing poetry or other literature?
>     h. Singing?
>     i. Writing the grammar or lexicon of the conlang itself?
>     j. Pretending in public that you are a native speaker
>         of your conlang?
>     k. Anything else?

g., h., i.

> 27. Can you write original text in your conlang, at least on some
>     subjects, without looking up words or grammatical structures?

Hardly.  I am quite familiar with the grammar, but I still have
to look up (and often *make* up) words.
 
> 28. Can you compose well-formed sentences in your conlang about as
>     fast as you can handwrite or type?

Not yet.

> 29. Can you read text you wrote some time ago in your conlang without
>     looking up words in the lexicon or pausing to consciously parse or
>     translate it?

Not yet.

> 30. a. Do you find yourself thinking spontaneously in your conlang?

No.

>     b. Are such thoughts often full sentences rather than single
>     words or short phrases?
>     c. Are they usually grammatical (as you intend your conlang to
>     work)?
> 
> 31. a. Can you think in your conlang, without deliberately constructing
>     sentences word by word?

No.

>     b. Are such thoughts usually grammatical (as you intend your
>     conlang to work)?
> 
> 32. a. Have you ever dreamed in your conlang?

No, but one dream featured a scholarly paper about the family
Old Albic is meant to be part of.

>     b. Did the speech or writing in your conlang from the dream turn out,
>     when remembered on waking, to be grammatical and/or meaningful?
> 
> 33. Can you read aloud at conversational speed from text written in
>     your conlang?

Not really, but close.

> 34. Can you speak spontaneously in your conlang at conversational
>     speed?  If native speakers of your conlang existed, could they
>     understand your pronunciation?

Not yet.

> 35. If you have recorded speech in your conlang, have you been able to
>     understand it in real time when played back a considerable time
>     after you spoke and recorded it?

I have no recordings yet.

> 36. If you are fluent in your conlang only when speaking or writing
>     about certain subjects, what are those subjects?

None so far.

> 37. Have you found anyone willing to learn your conlang and speak it
>     with you, or correspond with you in it?  If so, please describe
>     the experience.

Not yet.

> 38. a. What methods have you used to study your conlang and improve your
>     fluency in it?
>     b. Which have you found most effective?

So far, I haven't made real attempts to learn Old Albic because
I know that the language still needs more work, but much of it
has engraved in my mind from my work on it.
 
> 39. How do you do most of the primary work on your conlang?  In your
>     head, writing stuff down later if at all, or on paper with
>     pencil/pen, or with a voice recording/playback system, or at a
>     computer, or...?

It usually starts in my head, then to paper and pencil, then
the computer.

> 40. Have you made significant changes in your conlang due to your
>     experience using it?  In what way?

I have revised some words because I found them to sound bad or
inappropriate/disharmonious to their meaning.

> 41. Has your more or less fluent use of the language changed its
>     phonology, grammar or semantics in ways you did not consciously
>     intend?  Have you, for instance, changed the description of the
>     language's grammar based on the way you've noticed that you
>     actually use it, or changed a word's lexicon entry when you
>     realized you were using it in a different sense than the way you
>     originally defined it?

Not yet.

> 42. Has your developing fluency in your conlang slowed down its rate
>     of change?  Have you refrained from making changes in the language
>     that you would otherwise make because they would require
>     re-learning words or structures you already use fluently?

I change what feels wrong to me, but most of what I have today
I feel so "well-established" that I don't feel like changing it.
After all, I want my language to become something stable at some
point.

> 43. Has your handwriting in your conlang changed as you became more
>     fluent in it?  In what way?

The writing system I have developed for it has so far worked out
well and is quite stable; I think it is unlikely that I will
change it significantly some day.

> 44. Has your fluency in your conlang influenced the way you speak your
>     native language, or other languages you are fluent in?

Not much, but occasionally, some interference occurs.
 
> 45. Is there anything else you would like to add?

No.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
+