The Principles of Doomspeak

"Doomspeak" is merely the working title until I have a suitable name within the language itself. Until then, it's Doomspeak.

A definition of Doomspeak begins with the following conventions:

1: Doomspeak is an aggultinative language, semantic meaning being derived from separate particles added to root words.

2: The basic word order of Doomspeak is in the form: Subject, Object, Verb.

3: Doomspeak syllables follow these constraints:
~3.1: All syllables shall have one nuclear vowel.
~3.2: A syllable may have one consonant as an onset.
~3.3: A syllable may have one consonant as a coda.
~3.4: A syllable may not contain doubled consonants. *Currently irrelevant.

4: The phonemes of Doomspeak are as follows:
~4.1: Vowels: [i] [ï] [e] [ë] [a] [u] [ü] [o] [ʌ] [ə], pronounced as in English bit, beet, bet, chaos, cot, boot, book, no, nut, appeal; respectively.
~~4.1.1: Diphthongs: [ei] [ai] [au] [ju] [ae] [ui] [oi] pronounced as in English bait, by, how, abuse, at, buoy, choice; respectively.
~4.2: Consonants: [t] [d] [k] [kh] [g] [gh] [m] [n] [nh] [ng] [ngw] [v] [th] [dh] [s] [sh] [zh] [l] [lh] [r] [rh] [j] [hw]

I have quickly built a simple computer program that has given me a preliminary list of all possible syllables under these rules.

More to come later (grammar, etc.). These rules are subject to change.

An explanation of the consonants is in order:

[t] as in "ten"
[d] as in "den"
[k] as in "Ken"
[kh] this is a "harder" k sound, between the 'k' pronunciation and German 'ch'. Make a 'k' sound a bit further back in your mouth, as if you're going to lead into an 'h'
[g] as in "get"
[gh] "harder" 'g' sound leading into an 'h', as with 'kh'
[m] as in "meet"
[n] as in "neat"
[nh] "harder" 'n' sound as in 'kh'
[ng] as in "finger"
[ngw] as in "penguin"
[v] as in "vase"
[th] as in "thin"
[dh] as in "this"
[s] as in "sail"
[sh] as in "pressure"
[zh] as in "fusion"
[l] as in "language"
[lh] "hard" 'l' sound, as with 'kh'
[r] as in "ring"
[rh] "hard" 'r' sound, as with 'kh'
[j] as in "you"
[hw] as in "when"

I am considering adding a trilled 'r'.

I have abandoned the attempt to make even the most rudimentary 2-syllable word generator after a little forethought, as over 150 million combinations will fry my computer.

Major revision 1: Some consonants removed, some added, some diphthongs removed, r-series added. Dropped rule 3.4.

Current number of possible syllables: 9576

Current phonemes:

[i] as in "bit"
[ï] as in "beet"
[e] as in "bet"
[ë] as in "bay"
[a] as in "cot"
[u] as in "boot"
[ü] as in "book"
[o] as in "no"
[ʌ] as in "nut"
[ə] as in "appeal"

[aï] as in "by"
[au] as in "how"
[ae] as in "at"
[eï] as in "bait"
[oï] as in "choice"
[ui] as in "ruin"

[ër] as in "air"
[ïr] as in "here"
[ur] best rendering: "oor"

[d] as in "den"
[dh] as in "then"
[dzh] as in "judge"
[g] as in "get"
[gh] glottal 'g'
[k] as in "can"
[kh] glottal 'k'
[kw] as in "quick"
[l] as in "let"
[lh] glottal 'l'
[n] as in "neat"
[ng] as in "finger"
[ngk] as in "tank"
[r] as in "ring"
[rh] glottal 'r'
[rk] as in "dark"
[s] as in "sail"
[sh] as in "pressure"
[t] as in "ten"
[th] as in "thin"
[v] as in "vase"
[z] as in "zip"
[zh] as in "fusion"
[zg] as in "Nazgul" (couldn't think of an English example of this one)

This boils down to 7 basic consonants: k, l, n, r, s, t, and v. All others are variations of these. This will be accounted for when the alphabet (which shall be phonetic) is created.

Current ruleset (forgive the terrible outline-style formatting):

1. Doomspeak shall be an agglutinative language.

2. The word order of Doomspeak shall be ‘Subject, Object, Verb’.

3. Syllables shall be constrained by the following limitations:
~3.1. Syllables shall have one nuclear vowel.
~3.2. Syllables may have one onset consonant.
~3.3. Syllables may have one coda consonant.

4. Phonemes shall be the following:
~4.1. Vowels: /a/ /e/ /E/ /i/ /I/ /o/ /u/ /U/ /uh/ /schwa/
~~4.1.1. Diphthongs: /ae/ /aI/ /au/ /eI/ /oI/ /ui/
~~4.1.2. R-series /Er/ /Ir/ /Ur/
~4.2. Consonants: /k/ /kh/ /kw/ /g/ /gh/ /l/ /lh/ /n/ /ng/ /ngk/ /r/ /rh/ /rk/ /s/ /sh/ /z/ /zh/ /zg/ /t/ /th/ /d/ /dh/ /dzh/ /v/
~~4.2.1. The consonant /kw/ is restricted to the onset of a syllable.
~~4.2.2. The consonants /ng/ /ngk/ /rk/ are restricted to the coda of a syllable.

5. Syllable list is complete.

6. Rules of grammar:
~6.1. Nouns:
~~6.1.1. A noun or pronoun may be made plural with a plurality suffix.
~~6.1.2. A noun may be made proper with a ‘properness’ prefix.
~~~6.1.2.1. A specific person shall be denoted with a ‘personal’ prefix.
~~6.1.3. A noun may be made possessive with a ‘possessiveness’ suffix.
~~6.1.4. A noun or pronoun may be marked as the subject of a clause by a subject marker added directly after the noun.
~6.2. Pronouns:
~~6.2.1. Pronouns fall into the following categories:
~~~6.2.1.1. First Person Singular
~~~6.2.1.2. First Person Plural
~~~6.2.1.3. Second Person Singular
~~~~6.2.1.3.1. Second Person Singular Formal
~~~6.2.1.4. Second Person Plural
~~~~6.2.1.4.1. Second Person Singular Formal
~~~6.2.1.5. Third Person Singular
~~~~6.2.1.5.1. Third Person Singular Formal
~~~6.2.1.6. Third Person Plural
~~~~6.2.1.6.1. Third Person Plural Formal
~~~6.2.1.7. Demonstrative Singular Category:
~~~~6.2.1.7.1. Impersonal Singular Proximal
~~~~6.2.1.7.2. Impersonal Singular Medial
~~~~6.2.1.7.3. Impersonal Singular Distal
~~~6.2.1.8. Demonstrative Plural Category:
~~~~6.2.1.8.1. Impersonal Plural Proximal
~~~~6.2.1.8.2. Impersonal Plural Medial
~~~~6.2.1.8.3. Impersonal Plural Distal

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7010/picardnx4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7010/picardnx4.jpg

---

I am constructing a language. I would have thought that such would be obvious by context.

Shall I draw you a diagram?

I actually laughed for once when I seen the picture. No offense man. But when you come at us like that with little explanation we're like Mr. Picard there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7010/picardnx4.jpg

---

Bricks were shat.

:hijack:

No more jacking in the Doomspeak thread! :mad:

By the way, I've dropped the rules making plural pronouns distinct, as I decided that they were redundant when plurality can be added with a suffix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDoom

No more jacking in the Doomspeak thread! :mad:

---

:shock:

Anyhoo, how about making it more SIMPLE? Instead of all this mumbo-jumbo, first start with a cover on English. Thats what I am doing! And my friend made her's that way to.

Yeah, basing a language on an already existing langauge tree is easier, than making a new one. I suggest germanian (German, english, danish, swedish, norwegian and some others)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

germanian (German, english, danish, swedish, norwegian and some others)

---

That would be Germanic.

This seems complicated to me, can you put a doomspeak example with translation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Identity X

That would be Germanic.

---

Right, my mistake. I've only heard the danish term :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

This seems complicated to me, can you put a doomspeak example with translation?

---

I have not created a lexicon nor a system for transliteration into Roman script (though I have a basic idea for that) for that matter. I do have a complete list of possible syllables (which also count as monosyllabic words in themselves, of course), generated by computer.

I want to create this language in a controlled, systematic manner. That means I begin by declaring what general form the language will take, then defining possible sounds, define constraints for syllable structure, then go on to grammar, THEN to lexicon, syntax, and finally any other baubles that are nice to have but thoroughly unimportant, like a writing system.

The reason I do this in such an order is for flexibility. At this stage, if I want to, I can go back and add or delete sounds quite easily, though it will get harder to do so the more developed the language becomes. Similarly, I can define grammar and how cases modify words BEFORE any such words are arbitrarily created, and modify the system should I change my mind, before it's too late. The same goes with syllable structure.

Boring? Yes, I don't have pretty writing systems or predefined words to dazzle you with, I won't have those for a long time, likely. But if and when completed, the language will be consistent. Symbolic language can exist without writing, such has been done for thousands upon thousands of years, before the creation of cuneiform (and with it, writing). The Native Americans had speech without writing themselves until Europeans came to the New World. Spoken language cannot exist without phonetic, syllabic, grammatical structure, on the other hand.

To begin by defining arbitrary words or an alphabet and working from there is, in my view, completely backwards and will eventually be self-defeating. You must begin with a comprehensive listing of possible phonetic values and nothing else. Anything more than that is distraction.

:hrm:

I also choose not to use English as a template because:
1) It will be a challenge,
and
2) English is a terrible language (coming from a native speaker)

I plan to make heavy use of grammatical cases which English does not support except in phrases and apositions (which I do not like).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDoom

2) English is a terrible language (coming from a native speaker)

---

Uh no. English is great, very versatile. Just the fact that you can turn any adjective into an adverb and just put words in between other words to form new words - awesome.
German is fucking garbage in comparison. You can't do any of that. Most German comedians already fail because German offers much less possibilities to be funny (as compared to English).

Mr Doom i think you are way above our level of intellect, i can't understand i thing you say xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizko

Mr Doom i think you are way above our level of intellect, i can't understand i thing you say xD

---

schizo much?

English cna be a pain though.

Words carry too many meanings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizko

Mr Doom i think you are way above our level of intellect, i can't understand i thing you say xD

---

Google is your friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

:shock:

Anyhoo, how about making it more SIMPLE? Instead of all this mumbo-jumbo, first start with a cover on English. Thats what I am doing! And my friend made her's that way to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

This seems complicated to me, can you put a doomspeak example with translation?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizko

Mr Doom i think you are way above our level of intellect, i can't understand i thing you say xD

---

Oh dear. :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDoom

2) English is a terrible language (coming from a native speaker)

---

Just no. I'm not even going to explain why that's wrong, and I could quite easily, because English is the most fucking expressive language there is.

Just no.

Not true.

Icelandish is much more expressive.