Re: Additonal features for CALS
|Date:||Thursday, June 12, 2008, 1:28|
> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Arnt RichardJohansen
> > - A priori / a posteriori?
> I agree. This is *the* most important distinction in conlangs
> that does not apply to natlangs. But I do think we need to
> come up with a proper definition, lest it come down to each
> language author's gut feeling.
> It seems to me that the a priori/a posteriori is most
> well-defined when it comes to vocabulary, because the set of
> all possible grammatical features is much smaller, so it is
> more difficult to show that a conlang grammar does NOT have
> any real-world inspiration.
> On the other hand, Alan Libert's book _A Priori Artificial
> Languages_ includes Lojban, which is unusual in that, while
> it has a (supposedly) a priori grammar, a large part of the
> core vocabulary is algorithmically derived from the
> vocabulary of six different natural languages, although these
> words are for the most case not recognisable as such.
I've been too busy with other things lately so I've only been
glancing at this thread but I did check out the site and added a
couple of my creations. I like the site but I too could see a few
little things like the posteriori/priori distinction. I think it
would be kind of a good idea to maybe set the site up as a possible
alternative to Langmaker since it hasn't been updated in a long