Re: Poll by Email No. 11

On Saturday 18 May 2002 14:09, Philip Newton wrote:
> 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?
        Oops. Really ought to have done a better job of defining those terms. Yes,
"a priori" means that the conlang has not been based on any natlang but
created from scratch. Note that this does not mean "inspirations" from
natlangs are forbidden; merely that as a whole, the grammar and the
vocabulary are created ex nihilo ("from nothing," since we're on a Latin
kick).
        Examples of a posteriori conlangs would be (to pick a couple out of the air)
Brithenig and Esperanto. In the case of Brithenig, the grammar and the
vocabulary are formed from Celtic and Latin bases; in the case of Esperanto,
the grammar and vocabulary are formed from various European langauges.
        HTH,
        :Peter