What do Game of Thrones' Dothraki, Avatar's Na'vi, Star Trek's Klingon and LOTR's Elvish have in common? They are all fantasy constructed languages, or conlangs. Conlangs have all the delicious complexities of real languages: a high volume of words, grammar rules, and room for messiness and evolution. John McWhorter explains why these invented languages captivate fans long past the rolling credits.
To many, one of the coolest things about “Game of Thrones” is that the inhabitants of the Dothraki Sea have their own real language.
And Dothraki came hot on the heels of the real language that the Na’vi speak in “Avatar,” which, surely, the Na’vi needed when the Klingons in “Star Trek” have had their own whole language since 1979. And let’s not forget the Elvish languages in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, especially since that was the official grandfather of the fantasy conlangs.
“Conlang” is short for “constructed language.” They’re more than codes like Pig Latin, and they’re not just collections of fabricated slang like the Nadsat lingo that the teen hoodlums in “A Clockwork Orange” speak, where “droog” from Russian happens to mean “friend.”
What makes conlangs real languages isn’t the number of words they have. It helps, of course, to have a lot of words. Dothraki has thousands of words. Na’vi started with 1,500 words. Fans on websites have steadily created more. But we can see the difference between vocabulary alone and what makes a real language from a look at how Tolkien put together grand old Elvish, a conlang with several thousands words.
After all, you could memorize 5,000 words of Russian and still be barely able to construct a sentence. A four-year-old would talk rings around you. That’s because you have to know how to put the words together. That is, a real language has grammar. Elvish does.
In English, to make a verb past, you add an “-ed.” Wash, washed. In Elvish, “wash” is “allu” and “washed” is “allune.”
Real languages also change over time. There’s no such thing as a language that’s the same today as it was a thousand years ago. As people speak, they drift into new habits, shed old ones, make mistakes, and get creative. Today, one says, “Give us today our daily bread.” In Old English, they said, “Urne gedaeghwamlican hlaf syle us todaeg.”
Things change in conlangs, too. Tolkien charted out ancient and newer versions of Elvish. When the first Elves awoke at Cuiviénen, in their new language, the word for “people” was “kwendi,” but in the language of one of the groups that moved away, Teleri, over time, “kwendi” became “pendi,” with the “k” turning into a “p.”
And just like real languages, conlangs like Elvish split off into many. When the Romans transplanted Latin across Europe, French, Spanish, and Italian were born. When groups move to different places, over time, their ways of speaking grow apart, just like everything else about them. Thus, Latin’s word for hand was “manus,” but in French, it became “main,” while in Spain it became “mano.”
Tolkien made sure Elvish did the same kind of thing. While that original word “kwendi” became “pendi” among the Teleri, among the Avari, who spread throughout Middle Earth, it became “kindi” when the “w” dropped out. The Elvish varieties Tolkien fleshed out the most are Quenya and Sindarin, and their words are different in the same way French and Spanish are. Quenya has “suc” for “drink,” Sindarin has “sog.”
And as you know, real languages are messy. That’s because they change, and change has a way of working against order, just like in a living room or on a bookshelf. Real languages are never perfectly logical. That’s why Tolkien made sure that Elvish had plenty of exceptions. Lots of verbs are conjugated in ways you just have to know. Take even the word “know.” In the past, it’s “knew,” which isn’t explained by any of the rules in English. Oh well. In Elvish, “know” is “ista,” but “knew” is “sinte.” Oh well.
The truth is, though, that Elvish is more a sketch for a real language than a whole one. For Tolkien, Elvish was a hobby rather than an attempt to create something people could actually speak. Much of the Elvish the characters in the “Lord of the Rings” movies speak has been made up since Tolkien by dedicated fans of Elvish based on guesses as to what Tolkien would have constructed. That’s the best we can do for Elvish because there are no actual Elves around to speak it for us.
But the modern conlangs go further. Dothraki, Na’vi, and Klingon are developed enough that you can actually speak them. Here’s a translation of “Hamlet” into Klingon, although performing it would mean getting used to pronouncing “k” with your uvula, that weird, cartoony thing hanging in the back of your throat. Believe it or not, you actually do that in plenty of languages around the world, like Eskimo ones. Pronouncing Elvish is much easier, though.
So, let’s take our leave for now from this introduction to conlangs in Elvish and the other three conlangs discussed with a heartfelt quad-conlangual valedictory:
“A Na Marie!” “Hajas!” Na’vi’s “Kiyevame!” “Qapla!” and “Goodbye!”
Where do nicknames come from? Why are Ellens called Nellie and Edwards Ned? It's all a big misunderstanding from the early days of the English language, a misunderstanding that even the word nickname itself derives from. John McWhorter tracks the accidental evolution of some familiar diminutives.
All it takes is a simple S to make most English words plural. But it hasn't always worked that way (and there are, of course, exceptions). John McWhorter looks back to the good old days when English was newly split from German -- and books, names and eggs were beek, namen and eggru!
Over the course of human history, thousands of languages have developed from what was once a much smaller number. How did we end up with so many? And how do we keep track of them all? Alex Gendler explains how linguists group languages into language families, demonstrating how these linguistic trees give us crucial insights into the past.
What is the difference between "a hearty welcome" and "a cordial reception"? In a brief, action-packed history of the English language, Kate Gardoqui explains why these semantically equal phrases evoke such different images.
Why do arguments change people’s minds in some cases and backfire in others? Hugo Mercier explains how arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience, taking into account what the audience believes, who they trust, and what they value.
It can be hard sometimes, when speaking, to remember all of the grammatical rules that guide us when we’re writing. When is it right to say “the dog and me” and when should it be “the dog and I”? Does it even matter? Andreea S. Calude dives into the age-old argument between linguistic prescriptivists and descriptivists — who have two very different opinions on the matter.
