Inkling Fan Language Sister Project: Octoling Language

[EclipseMT]

{sumasu}: to listen
{šikkensu}: to see
{šunantu}: to touch
{kamafu}: to smell
"To taste" should be a cognate (EDIT: It's {biyou}, which is {biyaou} in the volitional form).

 

[EclipseMT]

Gonna need help with subordinate clauses.

 

[G1ng3rGar1]

I know this is def not related to adding words, but I can't wait for this to be finished!

 

[EclipseMT]

As far as the January update is coming along, I modified several words compared to the last update.

The most significant thing I can reveal is the change of the negative verb form from {nu} + <verb> to {*u} becomes {*anau}.

It was gonna be {*anai}, but that's too Japanese, which I have loaned too many grammatical elements from.

Adjectives are handled the same way they are in French and Spanish: <noun> + <adjective>.

Another feature to distance the language from these hedonistic scum.

 

[EclipseMT]

Another feature to distance it from Japanese: Name order is first-(middle)-last-(patronymic).

Also, there are two distinct groups of adjectives, and those depend on where they go in relation to the modifying noun.

EDIT: Did I mention an individual can bear quite a bit of other names (like German)?

 

[EclipseMT]

New (subtle) update.

 

[The Mysterious Octoling]

This is a really really awesome project! I am already studying! <3

 

[EclipseMT]

This is a really really awesome project! I am already studying! <3

Would be, if I were to devote the effort that I used to do.

 

[The Mysterious Octoling]

I have to say though, learning Octoling is soooo much easier than learning Inkling...The Inkling guide is HUGE! And the time system is a bit weird but I will eventually get that down. And I have a real explanation as to why they all move so flipping fast!
If you can't tell, I am a MAJOR MAJOR NERD! Hehehe...

 

[The Mysterious Octoling]

Uhhh.....How do I get my posts approved so I can stop having that message thing appear at the top of my screen?

 

[The Mysterious Octoling]

Wow, I'm turning into a chat spammer.
The guide isn't loading....! Did you update it or something...?

 

[EclipseMT]

Here's the most recent version...which hasn't been worked on since probably December of last year.

It's been that long, and I didn't expect the small following. I already lost one major contributor.

 

[EclipseMT]

I am gonna do a major rewrite to standardize everything. My question is when.

 

[Jonathx]

Hi! I've been on the Inkling thread working with @Ikaheishi to try to create a standardized encoding of the fan language for fontmakers to work from so all Splatoon fonts are mutually compatible. We're mostly done with Inkling, so it's about time to get started working on encoding Octoling. To start on the encoding, however, I need to ask a few clarifying questions:

1. Is the canonical order for the consonants b č d ð f g h j k l m n p q r s š t þ c(ts) v w x y z ž as in the pronunciation section, or k g p b f v t d č j þ ð s z š ž m n l q r c h x y w -, as in the orthography section? I personally prefer the second since it seems to fit more naturally with the language itself, but if the first is how an Octoling would learn them in school, that should be the order in which they are encoded. The order for regular syllable codas (including standalone vowels) and irregular dissyllables (and the sections' relative positions) will be as in the orthography section of the document because it is a very natural scheme from a computer processing perspective, but alphabet don't have the same coding tricks to take advantage of as a syllabary, so any order would work.

2. Unicode standards require that the names of glyphs only be composed of uppercase letters of the English alphabet, so an alternative transcription, using polygraphs instead of non-English characters will have to be used for glyph names. Some letters have an obvious English-only equivalent (for example {þ} = <TH> and {ð} = <DH>}, but some have multiple, so I'd like your opinion on them

{č} {j} {š} {ž} can either be written <CH> <J> <SH> <ZH> or the more descriptive <SOFT CH> <SOFT J> <SOFT SH> <SOFT ZH> to recognize the fact that they are not quite how an English speaker would realize ch, j, sh, and zh. I bring it up because in Eastern European languages that distinguish between /ʃ/ and /ɕ/ (usually with {š} for /ʃ/ and an s with a grave accent for /ɕ/), the /ɕ/ is normally described as 'soft' and the other hard, but since Octoling doesn't have both it's not strictly necessary to specify. The fact that {č} does appear in the dissyllable glyph {iču}, which would be written <ICHU> either way, does lean me away from specifying <SOFT>, but <SOFT> is a useful descriptor, so I'd leave it up to you.

{l} could simply be transcribed <L>, but since this transcription already allows digraphs, unlike the standard one, and /ɬ/ is a VERY different sound from the English l, it might be better to use another alternative. Welsh uses {ll} to represent /ɬ/, and of languages with the /ɬ/ sound has probably had the greatest influence on English because of its geographic proximity, making <LL> a good candidate, but {sl} is used in several other European languages for the same sound and may be more representative to the reader of the actual sound it makes, so <SL> may be a good option.

Likewise, {x}, {q}, and {c} would work transcribed as <X>, <Q>, and <C>, and <X> even matches it's ipa pronunciation /x/, but since we're already using polygraphs in this transcription, <KH>, <TL> or <TLL>, and <TS>, respectively, would more intuitively describe their sounds for someone familiar with these kinds of transcriptions, where readers might otherwise assume as <X> = /ks/ or /x/, <Q> = /k/ /kw/ /ɣ/ or one of many other exotic sounds, and <C> = /k/ /s/ /ts/ or /tʃ/ depending on what previous transcriptions they've been exposed to.

{a}, {e}, {i}, {o}, {u} should probably just remain <A>, <E>, <I>, <O>, <U>, but there is a school of thought that would transcribe them <AW>, <EH>, <EE>, <OH>, <OO> to clarify since English has an absurd number of vowels represented by the same 5 letters and after the great vowel shift they don't align with the rest of Europe's pronunciation of {a}, {e}, {i}, {o} and {u} anyway.

If this were a pure alphabet, I'd transcribe {å} as <AA>, {ë} as <SCHWA> and {ü} as either <Y> <ROUNDED I> or <U WITH UMLAUT>, but only <AA> works when you have syllables involving them. The neutral schwa sound is often written uh in English, so <UH> would be an option, but if you want to preserve the e, <EH> is occasionally used for the schwa as well (though if you used <EH> for {e}, this obviously isn't an option). The IPA /y/ would normally be used for {ü} (as the ancient greek realization of upsilon was pronounced the same as a German u-with-umlaut), but since that is a consonant in the language already we'll have to get a bit creative: <IW> <IY> <UU> <UY> <UW> are all equally unsatisfactiory options, but {iw} and {iy} both appear in dissyllable characters and {üu} would be transcribed hideously as <UUU> if <UU> was picked, so I'd say <UY> or <UW> would be the best options...unless you transcribed {u} as <OO>, in which case {ü} could just be <U>.
​

Also, on a non-encoding note, there are Western (Indo-European) languages that use identifying markers instead of word order to identify roles in a sentence...just most of them are dead. The most notable is Latin, which, like Octoling, tends to put the verb at the end of the sentence in prose (though since the identifiers make it clear, it doesn't *have* to be) and native speakers would have a tendency towards a certain word order for certain sentence constructions as well, but the Romans were just fine letting the words fall where they may. The main difference being that Latin uses morphology (changing the ending of the word) instead of particles to identify words' roles, making Latin highly synthetic language where Octoling is a mostly analytic language (except in the verb department). And, of course that Latin has gender and number.

 

[EclipseMT]

1. Is the canonical order for the consonants b č d ð f g h j k l m n p q r s š t þ c(ts) v w x y z ž as in the pronunciation section, or k g p b f v t d č j þ ð s z š ž m n l q r c h x y w -, as in the orthography section? I personally prefer the second since it seems to fit more naturally with the language itself, but if the first is how an Octoling would learn them in school, that should be the order in which they are encoded. The order for regular syllable codas (including standalone vowels) and irregular dissyllables (and the sections' relative positions) will be as in the orthography section of the document because it is a very natural scheme from a computer processing perspective, but alphabet don't have the same coding tricks to take advantage of as a syllabary, so any order would work.

I will state right now that the second order is canon. The vowels, the vowel-n, vowel-o, vowel-u chars go first, and in that order, then the consonants in the second order, not unlike Japanese.

I wrote the first order when I tried to imitate Swedish's word order, which lists from A to Z, and then after Z, comes ÅÄÖ. The second order came when characters were assigned, and is more like Japanese gojuon order. Now, I just keep it for reference, which, in-universe, would allow speakers of the Common Tongue (represented by English in this case) to interpret the (already complex) orthography.

Go ahead and encode it with those specs; I did say I was gonna rewrite the entire guide, but orthography was not one of the rewrite sections.

2. Unicode standards require that the names of glyphs only be composed of uppercase letters of the English alphabet, so an alternative transcription, using polygraphs instead of non-English characters will have to be used for glyph names. Some letters have an obvious English-only equivalent (for example {þ} = <TH> and {ð} = <DH>}, but some have multiple, so I'd like your opinion on them

Like I did with Calamari, č can be CH, s can be SH, and so on.

In the case of {l}, it can be represented as LL because that was how I was presented (op of the idea presented the Llanfairpwllgwyngyll example, which ofc is Welsh). Likewise, {q} could be TLL.

{x} = KH, {c} = TS, {þ} = TH, and {ð} can be DH.

Vowels are as-is in the case of aeiou. For the diacritical vowels, ü can be UE to match Gerrman (which the vowel is pronounced like).
As far as ë and å are concerned, we could make them EH and AH, respectively, and even make ü UH. I might rewrite å into ä (which would remove one unnecessary diacritic), so remind me what you think about this. Besides, as far as I know in regards to Swedish phonology, å = English long o, which would be redundant in this case (even if it has an alternate pronunciation - the a in "father").

 

[Jonathx]

The vowels, the vowel-n, vowel-o, vowel-u chars go first, and in that order, then the consonants in the second order, not unlike Japanese.

do you mean vowel-i instead of vowel-o? Because that's what's currently in the guide. If that was one of the features you planned to change, that's totally fine, but the current guide has a Vi series, not a Vo one.

For the diacritical vowels, ü can be UE to match Gerrman (which the vowel is pronounced like).
As far as ë and å are concerned, we could make them EH and AH, respectively, and even make ü UH. I might rewrite å into ä (which would remove one unnecessary diacritic), so remind me what you think about this. Besides, as far as I know in regards to Swedish phonology, å = English long o, which would be redundant in this case (even if it has an alternate pronunciation - the a in "father").

I've sung a lot in German before, so I wouldn't personally describe the German {ü}, IPA /y/ sound as <UE>, but I agree that it's closer than any of the others I suggested, and I like it better than <UH> since {uh} makes me think of the standard non-IPA phonetic description of the neutral schwa sound (though I do appreciate the parallelism of <AH>, <EH>, <UH>). I would agree with decreasing the number of diacritics too--though I find it kind of funny that of the 3 standard meanings of the double-dot diacritic {ë} and {ü} managed to use two different ones and {ä} managed to avoid them all entirely.

(for the curious the standard uses for a double-dot diacritic are: 1. The ümlaut, used in German on a rounded back vowel to turn it into a rounded front vowel, used by Octoling's {ü}; 2. The centralized mark, used in IPA transcription, where it means the vowel is realized more centrally than it would normally, used by Octoling's {ë}; and 3. The diaresis, used on French and some more academic written dialects of English on the second of two adjacent vowels that would normally make a diphthong to signify that they are instead pronounced as two seperate syllables, used by none of the vowels in Octoling because it doesn't make sense if there aren't multiple vowels involved.)

 

[EclipseMT]

do you mean vowel-i instead of vowel-o? Because that's what's currently in the guide. If that was one of the features you planned to change, that's totally fine, but the current guide has a Vi series, not a Vo one.

Meant that. Sorry (I haven't looked in this project in a long while).

 

[EclipseMT]

I've sung a lot in German before, so I wouldn't personally describe the German {ü}, IPA /y/ sound as <UE>, but I agree that it's closer than any of the others I suggested, and I like it better than <UH> since {uh} makes me think of the standard non-IPA phonetic description of the neutral schwa sound (though I do appreciate the parallelism of <AH>, <EH>, <UH>). I would agree with decreasing the number of diacritics too--though I find it kind of funny that of the 3 standard meanings of the double-dot diacritic {ë} and {ü} managed to use two different ones and {ä} managed to avoid them all entirely.

Also, for those statements, I only chose UE because that is how Germans represent it without the umlaut. EH was chosen because that was the closest representation of its sound in the language, and so was AH if you account for its alternate pronunciation.
In regards to the the å -> ä case, do we agree that we should change all instances of the former into the latter? In Swedish, vowels have a short and long, just like English, but instead of changing the sound entirely, it just lengthens the vowel. Swedish å more or less equals our o, Swedish o equals our u (or, the oo in pool), and Swedish u equals the oo in hood.

 

[Jonathx]

Also, for those statements, I only chose UE because that is how Germans represent it without the umlaut. EH was chosen because that was the closest representation of its sound in the language, and so was AH if you account for its alternate pronunciation.
In regards to the the å -> ä case, do we agree that we should change all instances of the former into the latter? In Swedish, vowels have a short and long, just like English, but instead of changing the sound entirely, it just lengthens the vowel. Swedish å more or less equals our o, Swedish o equals our u (or, the oo in pool), and Swedish u equals the oo in hood.

Ah. I hadn't seen German written with only ASCII characters before (Professional music engravers are usually sticklers about notation, esp. when it comes to English, French, German, Italian and Latin, and I haven't read any student compositions in German)

And I certainly agree with the å -> ä. Can't speak for anyone else, but I like fewer diacritics when possible. But are you planning to change the sound along with it, or will it keep its more Swedish influence? As a singer, my first thought would normally pronounce {ä} as the rounded open-front vowel /ɶ/ or, because most people have trouble distinguishing rounded/unrounded on the open-front vowel I might simplify to the easier-for-an-English-speaker-to-pronounce /a/, both of which I would think of as "ah," where the {a} without the diacritic would be the open-back rounded vowel /ɒ/, which I'd visualize as "aw" (though {a} is commonly used for any open vowel, seeing the umlaut would, if given no other guidance, lead me to interpret {a} as it's back, rounded version)

 

[EclipseMT]

And I certainly agree with the å -> ä. Can't speak for anyone else, but I like fewer diacritics when possible. But are you planning to change the sound along with it, or will it keep its more Swedish influence? As a singer, my first thought would normally pronounce {ä} as the rounded open-front vowel /ɶ/ or, because most people have trouble distinguishing rounded/unrounded on the open-front vowel I might simplify to the easier-for-an-English-speaker-to-pronounce /a/, both of which I would think of as "ah," where the {a} without the diacritic would be the open-back rounded vowel /ɒ/, which I'd visualize as "aw" (though {a} is commonly used for any open vowel, seeing the umlaut would, if given no other guidance, lead me to interpret {a} as it's back, rounded version)

To clarify, Swedish "ah" sound exists. It's just not represented by å.

Danish, one of Swedish's lingual cousins, does, however.

Ultimately, I might even end up changing ë to ä and ü to ö (with accompanying sound change). The latter change is most likely to be taking place regardless, and then, in the guide, I could state that was an old form, and perhaps those can be allophones of the new sounds.

BTW, the other Scandinavian languages use å æ ø as their variants of å ä ö (probably because Swedish has some Finnish influence).