Talk:A priori (languages)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Constructed languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about constructed languages, aka conlangs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. If listing this article for deletion or if there is an active edit war, please post a note here.	Constructed languages Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the class scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Merge? 2 Jespersen 3 Oranges 4 A priori != classificational 5 A posteriori language?

[edit] Merge?

• Removed merge tag per discussion. Kerowyn 12:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• As a lay person, it seems to me that philosophical language is very much the same thing as a priori language. I propose a merge of these two pages. This was not discussed in the archived discussion mentioned above. -Pgan002 10:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jespersen

Did Otto Jespersen first use this term in one of his books?--Jeffrey Henning 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oranges

For example, "oranges" might be described as "red fruit".

I thought oranges were, you know, orange.--AdamHeurlin 14:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to apple. 66.46.152.30 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A priori != classificational

In a more narrow sense, a priori constructed languages are those which try to categorize their vocabulary, either to express a philosophical underlying system, or to make it easier to memorize the completely new vocabulary. The first letter or syllable of a word may express the class (verb, noun, attribute), while the second may serve to classify the word in case as referring to something alive, dead, or artificial, and so on.

I think this is falsely making an equivalence between a priori languages and classificational languages. Not all a priori languages are classificational, and perhaps not all classificicational languages are a priori (though two of the examples given in the article, Ro and Solresol, are both). Can anyone cite support for this narrow usage of the term? --Jim Henry 17:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A posteriori language?

Shouldn't there also be an article about a posteriori constructed languages? Currently, that redirects to constructed languages. Or should the content of this article (A priori (languages)) be included in Constructed languages? Or perhaps there should be an article about a priori and a posteriori languages, redirected to both from a priori language and from a posteriori language? -Pgan002 11:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)