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

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.

> > My feeling is that philosophical langs fall into the class of
> > engineered
> > langs
> > (which would also include logical langs)
>
> 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.

> So here's my revision for Type:
>
> T       type
>         x       auxiliary
>                 a       -/+     a priori/a posteriori
>         f       fictional
>         e       engineered
>         p       personal
>         n       natural
>         o       other
Very nice. These can of course combine, I take it.

--And.

Replies