2 added 113 characters in body
source | link

Might be way off with this, but what the hey.

I don't think you'll get very 'human like' speech out of a race that developed language under water. Humans fit into a weird category where our hearing 'system' evolved from aquatic creatures (same deal with our sight), quite likely from early fish...however our language itself developed in more modern times when mammals freely roamed the land. So our vocals became directly tied to the medium (air) in which we spoke through and not the water our hearing stems from.

A species that remained underwater would not have that 'vocals tied to air' attribute to them and would quite likely develop speech directly tied to the water as a medium. Are you aware of 'tonal' languages? It's a foreign concept for a native English speaker (except for a few rare examples...an upwards inflection at the end of a sentence will denote a possible question for example), but to people used to detecting it, these tones mean as much as the letters. Mandarin contains the 'ma' case (it's the reverse of the rice/lice difficulties they have)...the word 'ma' has 4 different meanings... “mother”, “to scold”, “horse”, “hemp”. The difference between these 4 terms is entirely tonal..a falling tone vs a rising tone vs a high tone is the difference in these words (the end result here is english speakers saying they are off to feed their mother hay and kiss the horse goodnight).

In the case of an underwater species, there are several sounds in English that would be pretty much useless. Mouth out the 'p' sound and then the 'f' sound...both these sounds are a puff of air with lips touching for p and not touching for f (Indonesian languages lack this distinction). Same goes with the r vs l (say earl fuller to get the differences in tongue position there)...th vs d is simply a tongue flick off the top of the roof of your mouth vs the back of your teeth (a tongue motion the french lack resulting in them saying dis and den. English lack the French OE sound, which is kinda like saying oooo while your mouth is in the smiling eee shape).

This limitation on 'mouthed' sounds not being effective underwater would do much to limit the language in terms of sounds that could be effectively communicated. This gives the tonal nature of an underwater language that much more feasible as a fill in for letters that they can't quite do in an underwater sense (would also produce languages that sounded a little more like a whales song than a human language...almost a whistling language where the changing pitch of a letter means as much to the meaning of the word they are saying as the word itself).

This is a very long way of saying that the English language underwater only has an effective range of a good 5-10 feet before things start to get lost, and the majority of the sounds we are dependent on in determination of words are near impossible to effectively communicate. An aquatic species that developed on it's own would much more likely have a 'song' language of their own that could have a communication range of well over a few KM had the intentionally made a sound for long distance travel (IE a shout)

Might be way off with this, but what the hey.

I don't think you'll get very 'human like' speech out of a race that developed language under water. Humans fit into a weird category where our hearing 'system' evolved from aquatic creatures (same deal with our sight), quite likely from early fish...however our language itself developed in more modern times when mammals freely roamed the land. So our vocals became directly tied to the medium (air) in which we spoke through and not the water our hearing stems from.

A species that remained underwater would not have that 'vocals tied to air' attribute to them and would quite likely develop speech directly tied to the water as a medium. Are you aware of 'tonal' languages? It's a foreign concept for a native English speaker (except for a few rare examples...an upwards inflection at the end of a sentence will denote a possible question for example), but to people used to detecting it, these tones mean as much as the letters. Mandarin contains the 'ma' case (it's the reverse of the rice/lice difficulties they have)...the word 'ma' has 4 different meanings... “mother”, “to scold”, “horse”, “hemp”. The difference between these 4 terms is entirely tonal..a falling tone vs a rising tone vs a high tone is the difference in these words (the end result here is english speakers saying they are off to feed their mother hay and kiss the horse goodnight).

In the case of an underwater species, there are several sounds in English that would be pretty much useless. Mouth out the 'p' sound and then the 'f' sound...both these sounds are a puff of air with lips touching for p and not touching for f (Indonesian languages lack this distinction). Same goes with the r vs l (say earl fuller to get the differences in tongue position there)...th vs d is simply a tongue flick off the top of the roof of your mouth vs the back of your teeth (a tongue motion the french lack resulting in them saying dis and den).

This limitation on 'mouthed' sounds not being effective underwater would do much to limit the language in terms of sounds that could be effectively communicated. This gives the tonal nature of an underwater language that much more feasible as a fill in for letters that they can't quite do in an underwater sense (would also produce languages that sounded a little more like a whales song than a human language.

This is a very long way of saying that the English language underwater only has an effective range of a good 5-10 feet before things start to get lost, and the majority of the sounds we are dependent on in determination of words are near impossible to effectively communicate. An aquatic species that developed on it's own would much more likely have a 'song' language of their own that could have a communication range of well over a few KM had the intentionally made a sound for long distance travel (IE a shout)

Might be way off with this, but what the hey.

I don't think you'll get very 'human like' speech out of a race that developed language under water. Humans fit into a weird category where our hearing 'system' evolved from aquatic creatures (same deal with our sight), quite likely from early fish...however our language itself developed in more modern times when mammals freely roamed the land. So our vocals became directly tied to the medium (air) in which we spoke through and not the water our hearing stems from.

A species that remained underwater would not have that 'vocals tied to air' attribute to them and would quite likely develop speech directly tied to the water as a medium. Are you aware of 'tonal' languages? It's a foreign concept for a native English speaker (except for a few rare examples...an upwards inflection at the end of a sentence will denote a possible question for example), but to people used to detecting it, these tones mean as much as the letters. Mandarin contains the 'ma' case (it's the reverse of the rice/lice difficulties they have)...the word 'ma' has 4 different meanings... “mother”, “to scold”, “horse”, “hemp”. The difference between these 4 terms is entirely tonal..a falling tone vs a rising tone vs a high tone is the difference in these words (the end result here is english speakers saying they are off to feed their mother hay and kiss the horse goodnight).

In the case of an underwater species, there are several sounds in English that would be pretty much useless. Mouth out the 'p' sound and then the 'f' sound...both these sounds are a puff of air with lips touching for p and not touching for f (Indonesian languages lack this distinction). Same goes with the r vs l (say earl fuller to get the differences in tongue position there)...th vs d is simply a tongue flick off the top of the roof of your mouth vs the back of your teeth (a tongue motion the french lack resulting in them saying dis and den. English lack the French OE sound, which is kinda like saying oooo while your mouth is in the smiling eee shape).

This limitation on 'mouthed' sounds not being effective underwater would do much to limit the language in terms of sounds that could be effectively communicated. This gives the tonal nature of an underwater language that much more feasible as a fill in for letters that they can't quite do in an underwater sense (would also produce languages that sounded a little more like a whales song than a human language...almost a whistling language where the changing pitch of a letter means as much to the meaning of the word they are saying as the word itself).

This is a very long way of saying that the English language underwater only has an effective range of a good 5-10 feet before things start to get lost, and the majority of the sounds we are dependent on in determination of words are near impossible to effectively communicate. An aquatic species that developed on it's own would much more likely have a 'song' language of their own that could have a communication range of well over a few KM had the intentionally made a sound for long distance travel (IE a shout)

1
source | link

Might be way off with this, but what the hey.

I don't think you'll get very 'human like' speech out of a race that developed language under water. Humans fit into a weird category where our hearing 'system' evolved from aquatic creatures (same deal with our sight), quite likely from early fish...however our language itself developed in more modern times when mammals freely roamed the land. So our vocals became directly tied to the medium (air) in which we spoke through and not the water our hearing stems from.

A species that remained underwater would not have that 'vocals tied to air' attribute to them and would quite likely develop speech directly tied to the water as a medium. Are you aware of 'tonal' languages? It's a foreign concept for a native English speaker (except for a few rare examples...an upwards inflection at the end of a sentence will denote a possible question for example), but to people used to detecting it, these tones mean as much as the letters. Mandarin contains the 'ma' case (it's the reverse of the rice/lice difficulties they have)...the word 'ma' has 4 different meanings... “mother”, “to scold”, “horse”, “hemp”. The difference between these 4 terms is entirely tonal..a falling tone vs a rising tone vs a high tone is the difference in these words (the end result here is english speakers saying they are off to feed their mother hay and kiss the horse goodnight).

In the case of an underwater species, there are several sounds in English that would be pretty much useless. Mouth out the 'p' sound and then the 'f' sound...both these sounds are a puff of air with lips touching for p and not touching for f (Indonesian languages lack this distinction). Same goes with the r vs l (say earl fuller to get the differences in tongue position there)...th vs d is simply a tongue flick off the top of the roof of your mouth vs the back of your teeth (a tongue motion the french lack resulting in them saying dis and den).

This limitation on 'mouthed' sounds not being effective underwater would do much to limit the language in terms of sounds that could be effectively communicated. This gives the tonal nature of an underwater language that much more feasible as a fill in for letters that they can't quite do in an underwater sense (would also produce languages that sounded a little more like a whales song than a human language.

This is a very long way of saying that the English language underwater only has an effective range of a good 5-10 feet before things start to get lost, and the majority of the sounds we are dependent on in determination of words are near impossible to effectively communicate. An aquatic species that developed on it's own would much more likely have a 'song' language of their own that could have a communication range of well over a few KM had the intentionally made a sound for long distance travel (IE a shout)