On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 03:17:12 -0700 David Peterson wrote:
>> You have to understand these terms in the appropriate historical
>> context. The terms came to exist during the Auxlang movement.

> Right.  The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" were coined by people

I've revised the terminology guide at

to say something about a priori / a posteriori classification.  It
probably needs more work.  Feel free to edit it, or email me with
suggested edits if you're not comfortable editing wiki pages.

> to an artificial word-formation machinery.  In this sense,
> Occidental and Interlingua are naturakistic, while Esperanto and
> Ido are not (such languages are sometimes called "autonomous"),

Or "schematic".

The conlang terminology page should probably also say something about
the different senses of "naturalistic"; but I'm too tired to write it
now and will be too busy for it for the next few days.  I think
there's a discussion of the different senses of "naturalistic"
somewhere on Wikipedia, but I can't recall where.

Jim Henry