Re: The Language Code, take 2 (or 3)

And Rosta wrote:
> Dirk:
>
>>>>However, another distinction should IMO be made within this category:
>>>
>>>between a
>>>
>>>>priori and a posteriori (a scale would be useful here, something like
>>>
>>>a+++)
>>>
>>>Good suggestion, except it applies to all non-natlangs
>>
>>It applies to all non-natlangs, but it's only really relevant for
>>auxlangs, no? In any case, I think it's a parameter worth including
>
>
> It applies also to other conlangs; cf. Wenedyk, Shemspreg, Brithenig &c.
> Though these are a special sort of historically plausible a posteriori,
> not mere eclectical aposteriorism.
Maybe there should be a few options? Naturalistic a priori,
philosophical a priori, ad hoc a posteriori, "scientific"/"historically
plausible" a posteriori. And maybe a way of specifying the language
family or parent language if applicable (not sure how concreoles should
be handled).

>>>My feeling is that philosophical langs fall into the class of
>>>engineered
>>>langs
>>>(which would also include logical langs)
I'd consider "philosophical" to be a type of design principle rather
than a purpose. A philosophical language can be intended as an
engineering experiment, an auxlang, an element of a fictional setting, etc.

>>Okay, so that answers another question I had. You consider logical
>>languages to be a subtype of engineered languages then. If this is a
>>widespread feeling, then it lends more support to changing the label
>>from "l" to "e"
>
> Yes, except it was me that said this both times, so it's me that is
> lending my suggestion more support. That said, I am convinced I'm 'right',
> because conlangingwise that's my hometurf.
Well, I agree, at least.

Replies