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!
.
Reply