Print

Print


On 12/25/14, Kjell Rehnström <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> In my experience yet another
> "Kotava", but chronologically Sona
> comes first and then Staren
> Fetcey's Kotava.

Although the sources are often unclear, Sona is theoretically a
posteriori--a worldlang, in fact, though more widely-sourced
worldlangs can easily be mistaken for a-priori projects.

I understand the
> propency for aprioristic languages
> as some kind of psychological
> thing. It reminds me of the
> examples of mind-mapping some
> lecturers used to sell to me in the
> 70's. Yo draw lines on a blackboard
> or paper uniting different things,
> mainly your own associations. The
> thing is just that "your"
> associations are not "mine". And I
> think apriori languages work in the
> same way. The form of the language
> is evident, intelligible to the
> inventor, but how about others? It
> doesn't work on me, though.

It depends on the type of a-priori project. Strict taxonomic systems
such as Ro and Solresol I don't work--I once tried to update Ro's
vocabulary, and the result wasn't pretty. But a loose taxonomy, such
as Solresol II, can work if the lexical system is reasonably well
designed, which seldom happens. Indeed, the great weakness of a-priori
projects is their lexical system, which is why I put my own project
into storage more than 15 years ago. I recently re-assessed the
situation and concluded that a reboot might work now--I can in
principle resolve the earlier issues. Not that I think an a-priori
project could work in the current intellectual climate, but it could
serve as proof of concept, demonstrating that a well-designed a-priori
system is possible and what it might look like.

Spoiler alert: It doesn't look like Kotava. In theory an a-priori
system can be the best, because the creator has complete freedom of
design. But that also makes it difficult to do well, because you can't
simply borrow pre-existing code, so to speak, from a source language.

> In this sense Volapük and Urópi are
> hanging in a way in the middle. I
> can to a certain extent understand
> how Schleyer and Landais may have
> been thinking, but I cannot
> understand what analogy to use when
> trying to create vocabulary on my own.
>
> In this way IALA's Interlingua is a
> good model, as youu can understand
> the mechanics of the language. The
> negative side is that too few takes
> the pain to understand them.

The associations are still problematic, as anyone outside IE and even,
to some extent, Romance can attest. You must have noticed them
yourself. But they have considerable support from people within those
spheres.

Steve