Print

Print


On 4/6/2011 3:29 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> On 5 April 2011 21:50, Cullen Kain<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>> I suppose so.  Really, dividing languages into the black-and-white
>> categories of "a priori" and "a posteriori" is bound to lead to some
>> inaccuracies.  A more accurate idea would be a scale, with "completely a
>> priori" on one end and "completely a posteriori" on the other.
>
> The thing is, at what point does a conlang become more a priori or more a
> posteriori? In my opinion, those categories refer only to the origin of the
> vocabulary. If the vocabulary is mostly derived from existing natlangs, and
> recognisably so, then the language is a posteriori. If a majority of the
> vocabulary is completely invented without any (conscious) influence from
> existing natlangs, the language is a priori. Whether the language's grammar
> is related to other languages or not is irrelevant to this category,
> although languages with grammar that are not consciously derived from an
> existing group of natlangs are more likely to be a posteriori than languages
> with consciously grammatical isolates.
>
> Still, in my experience "a priori" and "a posteriori" are not
> black-and-white categories: people have always treated those as a scale.
>
>
>> Çideaux is probably closer to a posteriori, but I have had some innovations
>> in both the grammar and the lexicon (e.g., a pronoun meaning "then" (as in,
>> at that time) to parallel French's "y" (there) and "en" (difficult to
>> translate but sort of means "about which")).
>>
> "y" is not "there". It just replaces "à"+3rd person pronoun or demonstrative
> (when the referent is inanimate). That it sometimes can be translated as
> "there" is just a consequence of this definition. Similarly, "en" is not
> "about which". It just replaces "de"+3rd person pronoun or demonstrative
> (also when the referent is inanimate). I call them "adverbial complement
> pronouns". My romlang Narbonese has three of those: _ie_ (close equivalent
> to "y"), _eim_ (similar to "en") and _né_ (represents _em_: "in/at"+pronoun,
> or nouns using the partitive article).
I speak French (hence its influence over my conlang).  "Adverbial 
complement pronoun" is an excellent description, which (of course) I 
never heard in class.  My teacher simply called them "pronouns," which 
really doesn't accomplish much.  Nonetheless, I love "y" and "en" and 
one of my major complaints about French is that it doesn't have a 
similar word for "then."
> And adding a few innovations doesn't make your language suddenly a priori.
I agree, but it does make it "more a priori" (I'm using that term 
loosely) than if the grammar were copied wholesale from another language.

>>>   I have the conception (possibly a wrong one) that romlangs tend to
>> overuse case systems because their creators probably don't speak (at least
>> not as an L1) a language with a case system, and because of that, case
>> systems are "exotic."  Combine this with a conlanger's tendency to want his
>> language to be interesting (no harm in that!), and romlangs with case
>> systems become popular.  This is purely an opinion.
>>
> As far as I'm aware, the majority of Romance conlangs lack a case system or
> have a vestigial one (mostly in pronouns), like Romance natlangs. My
> Narbonese, for instance, completely lacks a case system except for personal
> pronouns. As for my Reman, it has a vestigial genitive used mostly with
> proper nouns, but that's about it. Even Romanian has a stronger case system!
>
My perception must have been wrong, then.  This is good news, as I can 
stop feeling like my case system is a cheap cop-out attempt at being 
interesting!
>> version of French's "souhaiter," which derives from
>>>> (according to cntrl.fr) /sous /+ /haitan/.
>>>>
>>> Ménage (1694) says it's derived ultimately from sub + optare. Although he
>>> does also mention a German derivation: haitinga.
>>>
>>> Also, the verb "sudéllir" ( [sudejir] ) is my made-up
>> I saw that a related word (I forget which language it was from) was
>> "heizzan," which I simply love.  My made up pronunciation for this word was
>> [etsan], but unfortunately I haven't been able to work it into Çideaux just
>> yet.  Maybe I'll use it as a synonym for sudéllir.
>>
> Çideaux looks like an interesting language. I'm quite curious to see more
> about it, especially since French is my mother tongue :) .
Thank you.  I've found that motivating myself to work on a conlang is 
significantly easier when I like the sound (this is my third attempt at 
a conlang) of it.  French has such a natural rhythm to it, as well as 
some adorable phonemes (I simply love [J], even though I can hardly tell 
it apart from [nj]), so I've tried to take those sounds that I feel are 
"most French" (completely opinion-based) and use those with a greater 
frequency than French does.  For example, I cut out [N] because it 
sounds so very English and I use [R\] more than French does because it's 
one of French's defining features.  All this has contributed to me 
liking the sound of Çideaux, which means I'll have something nice 
written up soon (hopefully)!