Print

Print


On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 23:00:55 +0200, Joerg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Right.  The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" were coined by people
>who concerned themselves with auxlangs, and ONLY with auxlangs, and
>refer to auxlangs with entirely artificial vocabulary vs. ones with
>words taken from one or more natlangs.  Most a priori auxlangs are
>"philosophical" languages, i.e., languages which construct their
>vocabulary systematically from a general taxonomy of ideas.  This
>is the reason why many auxlangers consider the terms "a priori
>language" and "philosophical language" synonyms - which they really
>aren't, but non-philosophical a priori auxlangs are so exceedingly
>rare as to be virtually non-existent.  (I can't think of any, apart
>from tongue-in-cheek proposals to use Quenya or Klingon as an IAL.)

Hm, this suggests to me another way to construct the basic vocabulary of an
auxlang that's neither a posteriori nor philosophical: based on
cross-linguistic patterns in sound symbolism or mimesis.  Has anything like
that ever been tried?  

Alex