Re: Most developed conlang
| From: | Harold Ensle <heensle@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, April 21, 2007, 20:03 |
|---|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:01:55 -0400, Carsten Becker
<carbeck@...> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:23:56 -0400, Harold Ensle
><heensle@...> wrote:
>
>>Taking words from other languages, by definition, is not "a priori".
>>Its true, of course, that languages can have loan words, but I
>>got the impression here that it was more pervasive than that.
>
>Under these circumstances, you may not count Verdurian as an a priori
>conlang either. Mark Rosenfelder says himself that Verdurian has been
>influenced quite a bit by Russian among others.
>
>Regards,
>Carsten
Yes...this is an issue. I had vacillated between allowing non-systematic
posteriori's (i.e. whose derivation was not easily recognized) and
having strictly original lexicons. But it is evident, that if Verdurian
is included, so should Idrani be included...or..neither.
Harold