A major catalyst in my decision to do this were articles in Dragon, especially the pair that appeared in issue #75 (July 1983), the first of which I'll discuss in this post. Entitled "Even Orcish is Logical" and written by Clyde Heaton (who'd previously written another inspirational language article), it offered excellent practical and theoretical advice to the novice constructor of fantasy languages. That's important and big reason why the articles in this issue had such an impact on me: they were more than high-minded musings about language; they provided lots of advice and examples on how to make your own languages.
In the case of "Even Orcish is Logical," Heaton spent a lot of time talking about the "feel" of a language, from its sounds to its grammatical constructions to its vocabulary. His thoughts would probably not pass muster with actual linguists, but that was beside the point. Heaton was providing useful guidance to referees who wanted to make languages that are suitable for use in RPG campaigns rather than ones that could withstand the scrutiny of professional academics. So, for example, Heaton notes that the Orcish language, which he uses as is his example, has "mostly harsh, guttural sounds." While he attempts to ground this in something "real" – the protruding fangs and tusks of the Orcish mouth – that's not his main concern. Rather, it's that the Orcish language sounds "right" for the language of savage humanoid enemies in Dungeons & Dragons.
Heaton opts for a similar approach when looking at the grammar of Orcish. Orcs are not a refined people, so the grammar of their language is simple and direct. Again, this approach wouldn't stand up to careful study by a scholar of languages, but it works well enough for fantasy RPGs. At least, that's the lesson I took from it: establish a frame or lens through which to imagine the language you're planning to create and then make decisions about its sounds, grammar, and vocabulary that fit that frame or lens. Unless you're very dedicated and want to follow in the footsteps of Tolkien, this is a reasonable way to proceed, I think. Heaton also points out that there's no need to create an extensive vocabulary for game purposes, since even real languages use only a very small number of words for everyday communication. The number needed in a RPG are probably even smaller. This is important to point out, particularly to readers like my youthful self, who might otherwise have spent weeks or months coming up with words for all sorts of things I'd never need for my campaign.
"Even Orcish is Logical" is a terrific article, one of my favorites from the period when I was reading Dragon regularly. When paired with the other language article from the same issue (about which I'll write next week), it played a significant role in my development as a referee and roleplayer more generally. Re-reading it filled me with a lot of memories and good feelings from that summer just before I started high school. It was a frightening but heady time for me, as I made a transition from one stage of my life to another. Having RPGs and magazines like Dragon available to me made it much less scary than it otherwise might have been and, for that, I'll always be grateful.
Thanks for sharing memories on these language articles; it's a cool part of TTRPG and I really enjoy reading them.
ReplyDeleteIn the web series "Journey Quest" there is a great scene in the early episodes where the wizard Perf debates Orcish grammar with orcs."
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to find any biographical/ludographic background on Clyde Heaton. Anyone have any sources?
ReplyDeleteI've mentioned before that language is under developed and therefore ripe for further exploration in most RPG sessions. Spells like comprehend languages rarely see the light of day, but could be great game elements if well played. By the way, the title "Even Orcish is Logical" struck me as funny as most languages are anything but logical. In English, for example, indestructible means "cannot be destroyed" but inflammable means "catches fire easily"! And then there's the classic question, "Why do we park in the driveway and drive on the parkway?"
ReplyDeleteProfessor Tolkien taught me orcs spoke East End Cockney. And he was a linguist….
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely! If the father of conlangs wasn't afraid to take that route, then we shouldn't feel so bad :)
DeleteAegrod
Tolkein helped popularize conlangs, but he's by no means the "father" of the concept. There are examples of "mystic" conlangs dating back to the 12th century AD, and the early 17th century in particular was full of short-lived attempts at engineered "philosophical" conlangs created by the philologists and linguists of the era. Heck, even Esperanto predates Tolkein's birth by a good half a decade.
DeleteDid you mean to say "advice"instead of "device" in the second paragraph?
ReplyDeleteI did. Thanks for pointing out the error.
DeleteA naming language is all any RPG (TT or C) needs, but they really do benefit from having it. A method of some kind to generate personal names and place names that's coherent and (aesthetically) compelling. Something that tricks the readers/players into recognizing it how proper nouns pattern in their own language, at the minimum.
ReplyDeleteMuch beyond that and it gets... dysfunctional. To be polite. I say this as a conlang dweeb myself. Long and sorry experience has chastened me about these things. Don't let the nerdery streams cross!
I agree. We all know a “German sounding name” vs a “Spanish sounding name” (usually).
DeleteAt a minimum, I include lists of common male and female names for various cultures in my settings.
Zorbo, Ikinatu, and Gerring shouldn’t be from the same land. It goes a long way toward the suspension of disbelief/logical consistency.