En réponse à Greg Williams <[log in to unmask]>:

> Question:
> Have any of yall created an 'a priori' language with a lot of 'a
> posteriori' vocabulary (i.e., with a lot of the lexicon from natlangs)
> or the reverse (an 'a posteriori' language with a lot of 'a priori'
> vocabulary)?

Maggel is an example of a mix of both. It has quite a few words borrowed from
natlangs (but often with some change in pronunciation and/or meaning), as well
as some grammatical features consciously borrowed (but seriously twisted in the
Maggelish sense ;)) ), but its core is still a priori.

> I was thinking of creating a "fun" personal sort of conlang picking out
> things from languages I like and adding my own stuff.  I want to know if
> and how often others do mixes like that.

I think it's quite frequent, even if it's not always done voluntarily :)) .


Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.