Re: Question about Romlangs/CeltiConlangs

En réponse à Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@...>:

>
> Now, I have a very simple question to the creators of these languages.
>
> Are your languages really 100 % a posteriori, or did you introduce a
> priori
> elements (words, grammar) as well? Just curious.
>
Narbonese is strictly a posteriori, although the rules of derivation are not as
well defined as a "Grand Master Plan" ;))) . Even the grammar is completely a
posteriori (even the subjunctive future is ;)) . After all, if it can appear in
Portuguese, why not? :))) ).

Reman is a bit different, because when I created it I didn't use any consistent
rule of derivation from Latin. Also, its grammar was not really built on the
one of Romance languages, but I created it kind of a priori and made it fit to
the Romance mould ;))) . Thing like the natural pair dual I introduced
completely a priori, and thought of a possible explanation for it only much
later. In fact, most of the strange features of Reman (like the fact that
conjunctions and prepositions are conflated in a single class of words, and
that the language normally drops subject pronouns except in subclauses, where
they are not only mandatory when a subject is not explicitly given, but they
must be in the indirect form and directly follow the particle (the name given
to the conjunctions-prepositions)) are still not explained, and thus can be
considered a priori.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.