Re: Poll by Email No. 11
|From:||Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>|
|Date:||Monday, May 20, 2002, 16:43|
Daniel Andreasson wrote:
>John Cowan wrote:
> > It's typically applied to a conlang (usually an auxlang) based
> > on the source of the vocabulary: drawn from natlangs (a posteriori)
> > or not (a priori).
>Um. I consider my Cein to be a posteriori and it's a daughter
>lang to Quenya. So you might say that if the vocab is drawn
>from _any_ specific lang (be it con or nat), then it's a posteriori.
We-ell, the significant distinction is surely that it's based on something
you'ven't made yourself? Since by the definition you suggest, a conlang
designed as the daughter of an a priori language by the same conlanger would
also be a posteriori, which I don't think we want.
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com