On Jun 9, 2010, at 1◊15 AM, Jen Runds wrote:

> How the heck is Quenya considered to be an a priori conlang? My impression
> was that it's based heavily off Welsh/Finnish and therefore should be quite
> firmly a posteriori. How is Quenya different from any of the alternate
> history type conlangs?

I hope you'll pardon the questions, but based on my understanding
of Quenya and the terms "a posteriori" and "a priori", I don't see how
Quenya could be a posteriori. Here are the assumptions I'm operating

(1) The terms a prior and a posteriori refer *only* to vocabulary.
So a conlang like this:

to blik u derndi filto mo se ploru.
/I see a red book on the lawn/
"I see a red book on the lawn."

Would be a priori, even though it's just a relex of English.

(2) Quenya's vocabulary is, by and large, completely a priori:
novel phonological forms created for lexical items. Even if its
grammar was influenced by Welsh and Finnish, it remains a
priori because of the definition of "a priori" given above.

Am I mistaken about either (1) or (2)?

"Sunlü eleškarez ügrallerüf üjjixelye ye oxömeyze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

LCS Member Since 2007