Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Comparison of philosophical languages

From:Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>
Date:Saturday, January 18, 2003, 10:53
--- Andrew Nowicki <andrew@...> wrote:

> Andrew Nowicki wrote: > > Philosophical languages are defined as > > conlangs > > which do not derive their root words from > > other languages. > > I probably goofed. I know that Ro is a > philosophical > language because it divides words into > categories.
All languages divide words into categories.
> I guess that the difference between a priori > language and a philosophical language is that > a priori language may not have a method to make > compound words and categories.
Priori and posteriori refer only to whether the language in question is based on some language that already exists or not. I.e., your language is priori because its vocabulary is not based on an existing language. Arvorec is posteriori because its vocabulary is based on Gaulish, a language that already exists. A philosophical langauge is something philosophers got up to, usually to make some philosophical point like the "language of heaven" or "the original human language". They may or may not be based on existing languages.
> Some linguists > also talk about logical languages, whatever > that means...
Logical, like the name implies. As if language can ever really be logical! Generally, IALs pretend to logic. Padraic. ===== ay aci kes? ao o may mech? si ay 'ci kes, feri kes; si nay ne kes mech, feri que láes! .


Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@...>