Andrew Nowicki wrote: AN> Philosophical languages are defined as conlangs AN> which do not derive their root words from other AN> languages. Christopher Wright wrote: CW> I thought, in the first place, that philosophical CW> languages were something else entirely, though CW> I'm not exactly sure how to define them, only CW> that Laadan would be one. I probably goofed. I know that Ro is a philosophical language because it divides words into categories. I guess that the difference between a priori language and a philosophical language is that a priori language may not have a method to make compound words and categories. Some linguists also talk about logical languages, whatever that means... "H. S. Teoh" wrote: HST> It's interesting that you claim word order HST> is essentially free: how would one distinguish HST> between, say, "dog ate cat" and "cat ate dog"? I am just learning the grammar from Patrick Hassel-Zein, but I do know that functional vowel /i/ is used as the empty preposition that marks accusative. There are a few examples of this functional vowel in the Ygyde primer. If the cat is eaten, /i/ is placed before the cat.