Re: Comparison of philosophical languages

Andrew Nowicki wrote:
AN> Philosophical languages are defined as conlangs
AN> which do not derive their root words from other
AN> languages.

Christopher Wright wrote:
CW> I thought, in the first place, that philosophical
CW> languages were something else entirely, though
CW> I'm not exactly sure how to define them, only
CW> that Laadan would be one.

I probably goofed. I know that Ro is a philosophical
language because it divides 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. Some linguists
also talk about logical languages, whatever that
means...

"H. S. Teoh" wrote:
HST> It's interesting that you claim word order
HST> is essentially free: how would one distinguish
HST> between, say, "dog ate cat" and "cat ate dog"?

I am just learning the grammar from Patrick Hassel-Zein,
but I do know that functional vowel /i/ is used as
the empty preposition that marks accusative. There
are a few examples of this functional vowel in the
Ygyde primer. If the cat is eaten, /i/ is placed
before the cat.

Replies