Re: Poll by Email No. 11

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.

                                                     Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com