Crossing our fingers
https://verduria.org/
Not at all.HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:19 amThe most spread usage of the phonological space of human language, in such a way so that the number of discernable phonemes is maximized... but without doing something crazy like including affricates, click consonants or rare articulations that make no logical sense.
Is that intuitive?
Perhaps I should explain my intention:Creyeditor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:51 amNot at all.HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:19 amThe most spread usage of the phonological space of human language, in such a way so that the number of discernable phonemes is maximized... but without doing something crazy like including affricates, click consonants or rare articulations that make no logical sense.
Is that intuitive?
Very Good. Let us proceed.Creyeditor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:45 am Okay, I see. This is an engelang and not a (naturalistic) artlang. I won't question the LLM premise then.
I think my questions are:
The greatest number of phonemes that are strong and discernable to the human ear (which connects to your question of "maximal distance between phonemes?")Creyeditor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:45 am [*]What is optimal in a spread? Maximal number of phonemes? Maximal distance between phonemes? Some compromise between the two? If you need a compromise, this is not trivial at all and I doubt that there is a single optimal solution.
This was intended to be more of a boundary condition, meaning don't simply include every possinle phoneme in the IPA.Creyeditor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:45 am [*] What does it mean for an articulation to "make no logical sense"? Is that a subjective judgement on your part or is it based on some objective complexity measure?
Rare means "no discernible pattern in the distribution of world languages; only occurs sporadically here and there, or is idiosyncratic to one group or even one language."Creyeditor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:45 am [*]What does it mean for an articulation to be "rare"? Is there an objective limit, e.g. less than 10% of the languages in PHOIBLE have it means an articulation is "rare".
They get crazy when it becomes time to construct the phonotactics, that is, the permissible consonant clusters. But yes, /ts/ and company very probably do belong on the list.Creyeditor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:45 am [*]Why are affricates "crazy"? They are among the most frequent sounds among the languages of Earth. /ts/ for example occurs in 22% of phoneme inventories in PHOIBLE.
Next question: what does ‘strong’ mean?HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 2:03 amThe greatest number of phonemes that are strong and discernable to the human ear (which connects to your question of "maximal distance between phonemes?")Creyeditor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:45 am [*]What is optimal in a spread? Maximal number of phonemes? Maximal distance between phonemes? Some compromise between the two? If you need a compromise, this is not trivial at all and I doubt that there is a single optimal solution.
It's objectively easier to search thoroughly all the strong and discernable vowel sounds than it is to do the same for the consonants.
There’s a bit of subtlety to it. If your click inventory is something very small and simple like /ᵑǀ ᵑǁ ᵑǃ/, then yes, this is fair enough. But most click languages have inventories which are far more complicated, and rapidly get very very difficult to both produce and distinguish. Even pronouncing a tenuis click can be difficult for someone who isn’t used to it.
A bit off-topic, but this is unfair to the point of being incorrect. The linguistics literature is fascinating and can give you answers to many of the questions you’ve been asking. (For instance: the ones on aspirated fricatives which Nort sent you, especially the last one.)HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:27 am And academia articles are designed for avant-garde, state-of-the-art, and intellectual illegitimacy. They're not intended for discerning the Truth. Just boosting the academics clout.
That was pleasantly surprising. Thank you and thank @Nort for the good research.bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 4:17 am A bit off-topic, but this is unfair to the point of being incorrect. The linguistics literature is fascinating and can give you answers to many of the questions you’ve been asking. (For instance: the ones on aspirated fricatives which Nort sent you, especially the last one.)
You’re welcome!HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 5:09 amThat was pleasantly surprising. Thank you and thank @Nort for the good research.bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 4:17 am A bit off-topic, but this is unfair to the point of being incorrect. The linguistics literature is fascinating and can give you answers to many of the questions you’ve been asking. (For instance: the ones on aspirated fricatives which Nort sent you, especially the last one.)
Then why bother emulating human phonology at all? Computers could easily handle something more compact and built around their native data processing like hexadecimal numbers or something.HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:24 amThe goal is to create a language for knowledge storage, for the benefit of LLM's like ChatGPT. Given this, interoperability with extant human languages is not necessary.
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 4:17 amand what is The Truth??HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 2:03 am And academia articles are designed for avant-garde, state-of-the-art, and intellectual illegitimacy. They're not intended for discerning the Truth. Just boosting the academics clout.
and people who are specialists in linguistics, if they have clout, its because they are discerning the truth of things. so you're either mistaken or lying.
…did your quotes get mangled here, perchance? I don’t follow.keenir wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:31 ambradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 4:17 amand what is The Truth??HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 2:03 am And academia articles are designed for avant-garde, state-of-the-art, and intellectual illegitimacy. They're not intended for discerning the Truth. Just boosting the academics clout.
and people who are specialists in linguistics, if they have clout, its because they are discerning the truth of things. so you're either mistaken or lying.
For once, I kind of agree with malloc.malloc wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:11 amThen why bother emulating human phonology at all? Computers could easily handle something more compact and built around their native data processing like hexadecimal numbers or something.HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:24 amThe goal is to create a language for knowledge storage, for the benefit of LLM's like ChatGPT. Given this, interoperability with extant human languages is not necessary.
not really, no. how do affricates 'make no logical sense' but voicing in trills does? also, why would an LLM language need a phonology? if what you want is a language for llms and humans to interact (are you sure you understand what devops means? it's a way for managers to order devs around, like scrum, not a kind of dev), wouldn't the obvious choice be the languages the llm is trained on?HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:19 amThe most spread usage of the phonological space of human language, in such a way so that the number of discernable phonemes is maximized... but without doing something crazy like including affricates, click consonants or rare articulations that make no logical sense.
Is that intuitive?
I feel like this is circular reasoning to some extent. The click languages we know of have large, complex inventories of click consonants, but they have large, complex inventories of everything so I don't think it's inconceivable a language could evolve click consonants and then simplify its overall phonology such that it ends up with a small but contrastive inventory of click consonants (in line with the somewhat anecdotal evidence that clicks tend to be "sticky", in that once a language acquires them there's a tendency to start clicking non-click consonants in the rest of the language).bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 4:17 am There’s a bit of subtlety to it. If your click inventory is something very small and simple like /ᵑǀ ᵑǁ ᵑǃ/, then yes, this is fair enough. But most click languages have inventories which are far more complicated, and rapidly get very very difficult to both produce and distinguish. Even pronouncing a tenuis click can be difficult for someone who isn’t used to it.
Because everything a computer does has to have a human interface in order for humans to receive that information. And English is a crummy interface for many reasons.malloc wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:11 amThen why bother emulating human phonology at all? Computers could easily handle something more compact and built around their native data processing like hexadecimal numbers or something.HolyKnowing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:24 amThe goal is to create a language for knowledge storage, for the benefit of LLM's like ChatGPT. Given this, interoperability with extant human languages is not necessary.
There are only five fundamental clicks, and they do not interact well with the rest of human phonology. They are definitely a bad idea.
Six, actually.
They interact just fine. Plenty of people speak languages with clicks, and they don’t seem to encounter any problems doing so.and they do not interact well with the rest of human phonology.
Yes. That is exactly what I am seeking to overturn.