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

On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 10:42  PM, Garth Wallace wrote:

> And Rosta wrote:
>> 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).
I think this is getting too specific. Remember, the Code is meant to
give an outline of the typological profile of a language; not to
provide all of the specifics -- that's better left for the reference
grammar.

>>>> 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.
You can always combine attributes; e.g., Tepa++ (well look at that).

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga
Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"I believe that phonology is superior to music. It is more variable and
its pecuniary possibilities are far greater." - Erik Satie