On 6/8/2014 10:39 AM, R A Brown wrote: > On 07/06/2014 23:53, Herman Miller wrote: >> On 6/7/2014 3:10 PM, R A Brown wrote: >> >>> The confusion arises IMO in that we are taking >>> categories that were designed and have been used for >>> more than a century for categorizing auxlangs and >>> trying to apply them to a very different sort of >>> conlang. Does any artlanger actually fashion her/his >>> artlang without taking natural languages into account? >> >> Jaghri might be an example, > > http://archives.conlang.info/fu/zhuansaen/khianjhaultuen.html > > Tho i notice you did write "but Jaghri pretty much has > traditional grammatical categories, cases of nouns, aspects > of verbs", so those features at least do take natlangs into > account :) Well, it's hard to avoid ány influence from natlangs. If you've got phonemes, you've got natlang influence. If you write it with marks on paper, there's natlang influence. So strictly speaking, very few languages would fall at the extreme "a priori" end of the spectrum. (Rikchik, perhaps? Solresol?) >> Tilya is probably the best example from my languages. >> It's probably significant that I haven't written much >> about either Jaghri or Tilya. Those aren't the kind of >> languages that I think about much, but they do exist. > > I couldn't find anything significant about Tilya ;) It was a short-lived experiment inspired by Lojban. https://www.prismnet.com/~hmiller/lang/Tilya.html I see even then I was translating song lyrics... Ke pasya a hotsa qe nahpa ke hirkinofha. Mema bo a le ka dahwa? some bird MP fly at area.above some rainbow. why? I MP not can do "Birds fly over the rainbow. Why can't I?"