<h3>NO.</h3>
<p>Videos and how to books often present a cookie cutter method of language construction. There is nothing wrong with this at all. Except that it leads many people to a) follow the recipe and b) get stuck on phonology.</p>
<p>The truth is we can start working on a new language anywhere. We can start with phonology or grammar or syntax. I often start with poetry. The other truth is that there is no particular benefit to the glossopoet or to the language maker of starting in one place over another.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-18T12:21:53.683Z
There is at least one conlang that I am aware of ([Rikchik](https://www.suberic.net/~dmm/rikchik/rikchik.html)) that does not have a phonology because it is used by an alien species that does not speak.
Jeff Zeitlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-18T14:05:12.777Z
@JeffZeitlin -- I remember Rikchik from the Long Ago.
elemtilas
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-02-07T20:26:01.593Z
2022-02-07T20:26:01.593Z
elemtilas
<p>You don't have to start there. But it is a convenient place to start; it's hard to create words or grammar if there's nothing to make them concrete. If I have a phonology, I can start creating words and then short sentences. If I don't have a phonology, I can't create words without creating some sort of phonology; &quot;london&quot; and &quot;rover&quot; and &quot;fog&quot; imply an l-r contrast and nasals and fricatives and plosive and some sort of voicing or aspiration distinction. If you want to have a reasonable Latin orthography, you either have to change the words or accept a phonology consistent with that. If you don't have a phonology or words, grammar is a lot more figurative; &quot;plurals are indicated by an s on nouns and a lack of an s on verbs&quot; implies you have an s in your phonology and that noun + &quot;s&quot; is reasonable for your phonology. Starting with phonology leaves everything else a blank slate; starting somewhere else is going to create a lot of phonology implicitly.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-02-23T23:19:42.777Z
I think if I am not as focused on phonology I'm fine to create it implicitly
AncientSwordRage
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-02-24T17:55:38.570Z
Not to mention that "accepted" sounds change over time and/or region. The sounds may not be the consistent thing in the language.
PipperChip
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-02-24T18:55:59.757Z
@PipperChip Compare the phonology of English and German, two languages separated by a couple thousand years. Sounds aren't that inconsistent over even a long period. If you're an English speaker and create a phonology implicitly, it's likely to be English phonology, possibly without as many vowels, as the English writing system is most ambiguous about vowels.
prosfilaes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-02-25T01:20:30.103Z
@prosfilaes Even with such a close relationship, how these languages use the sounds is still very different!
PipperChip
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-18T14:08:51.710Z
@prosfilaes - Point taken, but Modern English and  (modern) German aren't separated by more than about a thousand years; it's less than a thousand years since Old English was contaminated into Middle English, and Old English is very definitely closely related to (then-)contemporary German/Gothic.
Jeff Zeitlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-02-23T22:22:39.293Z
2022-02-23T22:22:39.293Z
prosfilaes
<p>You don't have to start there, but it is a good place to start.  What often tends to happen if you don't start with phonology is that you will default to the phonology of your native language, perhaps with an additional &quot;weird sound&quot; or two thrown in if you try hard.</p>
<p>There's nothing <em>necessarily</em> wrong with this.  That said, if you don't set your phonology at the beginning, it's very hard to make changes later.  Everything else you build about your language will use your implied phonology, which again, is likely to be the same as your personal native language's phonology with minor changes.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-02-25T06:09:23.973Z
2022-02-25T06:09:23.973Z
Richard Winters
<p>No, you don't. However, it may be easier to start with phonology, especially when you don't have specific features you want your language to have. If you do have features you do want in your language, you can think about the sound changes that could lead to those features and work backward to figure out what phonology would have led to those changes. Biblaridion actually does this in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7FrW1Al4T0&amp;list=PL6xPxnYMQpquwsIRfg0BqJuKUCZEBzQtc&amp;index=4&amp;t=8s&amp;pp=iAQB" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Conlang Case Study: Part 4 - Phonology">Conlang Case Study series</a></p>
<p>You do still need to come up with the phonology early on.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-08T05:23:01.433Z
2023-05-08T05:23:01.433Z
just Paul
<p>The few conlangs I've read about/watched being developed in videos (such as those by Biblaridion) either started with phonology, or the description begins that way.</p>
<p>Whether that's a representative sample or not, is there a benefit to starting with phonology, especially when making a natural conlang?</p>
<p>It feels like an easier thing to add in later, vs. things like grammar.</p>

<conlang-creation><phonology>
Do I need to start with a phonology when creating a new conlang?
# Do I need to start with a phonology when creating a new conlang?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-02-07)

The few conlangs I've read about/watched being developed in videos (such as those by Biblaridion) either started with phonology, or the description begins that way.

Whether that's a representative sample or not, is there a benefit to starting with phonology, especially when making a natural conlang?

It feels like an easier thing to add in later, vs. things like grammar.

**Tags:** conlang-creation, phonology


---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-02-07. Score: 8

### NO.

Videos and how to books often present a cookie cutter method of language construction. There is nothing wrong with this at all. Except that it leads many people to a) follow the recipe and b) get stuck on phonology.

The truth is we can start working on a new language anywhere. We can start with phonology or grammar or syntax. I often start with poetry. The other truth is that there is no particular benefit to the glossopoet or to the language maker of starting in one place over another.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: There is at least one conlang that I am aware of ([Rikchik](https://www.suberic.net/~dmm/rikchik/rikchik.html)) that does not have a phonology because it is used by an alien species that does not speak.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 -- I remember Rikchik from the Long Ago.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2022-02-23. Score: 7

You don't have to start there. But it is a convenient place to start; it's hard to create words or grammar if there's nothing to make them concrete. If I have a phonology, I can start creating words and then short sentences. If I don't have a phonology, I can't create words without creating some sort of phonology; "london" and "rover" and "fog" imply an l-r contrast and nasals and fricatives and plosive and some sort of voicing or aspiration distinction. If you want to have a reasonable Latin orthography, you either have to change the words or accept a phonology consistent with that. If you don't have a phonology or words, grammar is a lot more figurative; "plurals are indicated by an s on nouns and a lack of an s on verbs" implies you have an s in your phonology and that noun + "s" is reasonable for your phonology. Starting with phonology leaves everything else a blank slate; starting somewhere else is going to create a lot of phonology implicitly.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I think if I am not as focused on phonology I'm fine to create it implicitly  
> **username_4**: Not to mention that "accepted" sounds change over time and/or region. The sounds may not be the consistent thing in the language.  
> **username_3**: @username_4 Compare the phonology of English and German, two languages separated by a couple thousand years. Sounds aren't that inconsistent over even a long period. If you're an English speaker and create a phonology implicitly, it's likely to be English phonology, possibly without as many vowels, as the English writing system is most ambiguous about vowels.  
> **username_4**: @username_3 Even with such a close relationship, how these languages use the sounds is still very different!  
> **username_2**: @username_3 - Point taken, but Modern English and  (modern) German aren't separated by more than about a thousand years; it's less than a thousand years since Old English was contaminated into Middle English, and Old English is very definitely closely related to (then-)contemporary German/Gothic.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2022-02-25. Score: 3

You don't have to start there, but it is a good place to start. What often tends to happen if you don't start with phonology is that you will default to the phonology of your native language, perhaps with an additional "weird sound" or two thrown in if you try hard.

There's nothing *necessarily* wrong with this. That said, if you don't set your phonology at the beginning, it's very hard to make changes later. Everything else you build about your language will use your implied phonology, which again, is likely to be the same as your personal native language's phonology with minor changes.


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2023-05-08. Score: 1

No, you don't. However, it may be easier to start with phonology, especially when you don't have specific features you want your language to have. If you do have features you do want in your language, you can think about the sound changes that could lead to those features and work backward to figure out what phonology would have led to those changes. Biblaridion actually does this in his [Conlang Case Study series](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7FrW1Al4T0&list=PL6xPxnYMQpquwsIRfg0BqJuKUCZEBzQtc&index=4&t=8s&pp=iAQB "Conlang Case Study: Part 4 - Phonology")

You do still need to come up with the phonology early on.


---

