Re: Poll by Email No. 11
| From: | Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, May 18, 2002, 19:06 |
|---|
On 18 May 02, at 10:48, Peter Clark wrote:
> "On which point, I would be interested to hear which *a priori*
> conlangs out there are functionally complete, as functionally complete as a
> natlang."
Can someone remind me what an *a priori* conlang is? Is that one which
is not based on any natlang but is kind of created from scratch? And
what's an *a posteriori* language?
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
Replies