Print

Print


On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:45:42 +0200,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kjell_Rehnstr=F6m?= <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>2004-08-27 kl. 17.24 skrev Rex May:
>
>&gt; Actually, Ceqli is not a priori to any extent.  About the same as
>&gt; Loglan.
>&gt; Now, neither is Volapük, as I understand it.
>&gt;
>&gt; And I will now have to get out my dictionary to read the rest
before I
>&gt; can
>&gt; reply to it:)
>
>I am very suspicious to the idea of a priori languages. It is somewhat
>like when an enthomologist has to dissect an insect in order to know
if
>it belongs to a given species of which he already has one specimen,
as
>they are - at least superficially - quite identical.
>
>If I construct a language and the person who sees or hears it cannot
>say where I have gotten the vocabulary from, the other person will
>think that it is an a priori language.
>
Yes, that seems to be the misunderstanding here.  A ceqli sentence
might look that way:

To hoq hon dan to dom hu beten to tri balu.
The red book is-in the house that belongs to the three bears.

Word origins may not be obvious, but:

To (Greek) hoq (Mandarin) hon (Japanese) dan (French) to (Greek)
dom (Russian) hu (English) be (Mandarin) ten (Spanish) to (Greek) tri
(Esperanto) balu (Hindi).

>I think that a much better way would be to describe a language as
>realated to this or that language or group of languages, and use the
a
>priori notion more as a technical term to describe the mere
>construction of the language in question.
>
>Kjell R