<p>Short answer: <strong>I've never seen or read a description of what you're seeking</strong>.</p>

<p>Long answer: <strong>What you're seeking is a most unlikely beast, reason being</strong>...</p>

<p>Generally speaking, <a href="http://www.frathwiki.com/International_auxiliary_language" rel="noreferrer">auxiliary languages</a> seek being completely or nearly completely <a href="http://www.frathwiki.com/A_posteriori_conlang" rel="noreferrer">a posteriori</a> for reasons of simple expedience. Common design goals of an auxiliary language are <em>ease of learning</em> and <em>simplicity of use</em>.  These goals are best met when vocabulary and grammar are familiar to the target audience.  This is why <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua" rel="noreferrer">Interlingua</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto" rel="noreferrer">Esperanto</a> are considered "easy" languages to learn and have gained considerable user communities, with Esperanto boasting a small community of native level speakers.</p>

<p>What you're describing, a completely <a href="http://www.frathwiki.com/A_priori_conlang" rel="noreferrer">a priori</a> invented language is most usually the domain of the <a href="http://www.frathwiki.com/Artlang" rel="noreferrer">artistic language</a>, the <a href="http://www.frathwiki.com/Engineered_language" rel="noreferrer">engineered language</a> and the <a href="http://www.frathwiki.com/Philosophical_language" rel="noreferrer">philosophical language</a>. With the exception of the philosophical inventors, most glossopoets are not interested in propagandising their languages as auxiliary languages.  Occasionally a philosophical language inventor will propose his language as a means of general communication, but this is usually done from a position of ignorance as to how language works (accomplished auxiliary language proponents are usually quite well aware how language works in the wild!).</p>

<p>Auxiliary languages tend not to be classified as a priori simply because they impose layers of difficulty that run contrary to the usual design parameters of the genre. However, it can potentially be argued that a priori invented languages can become auxiliary languages after a fashion and if the appropriate stars align. For example, it may be that Klingon has seen some use as an ad hoc auxiliary language if, for example, two groups of Star Trek fans who do not share a language in common other than Klingon happen to meet at a SciFi convention.</p>

<p>Needless to say, even if there were an actual auxiliary language that is classified as purely a priori, it certainly isn't famous. Otherwise, we'd know about it!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-25T15:02:21.387Z
2019-01-25T15:02:21.387Z
elemtilas
<p>There are various "a priori" constructed languages, though they are not as successful as "a posteriori" languages have been.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constructed_languages" rel="nofollow noreferrer">They include</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol>
  <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokil" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Spokil</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro_(language)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ro</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotava" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kotava</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solresol" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Solresol</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Babm</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blissymbols" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Blisssymbols</a> (Written, ideographic language only)</li>
  <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nal_Bino" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nal Bino</a> (modification of Volapuk)</li>
  <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sona_language_(artificial)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sona</a></li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-23T22:05:40.290Z
2019-04-23T22:05:40.290Z
Karlomanio
<p>We will have to go back some centuries in time to find a language like this. Since the success of Esperanto (and, to a lesser degree Interlingua, Glosa, and Toki Pona) it seems to be clear that an auxiliary language has to be naturalistic in some way to catch on. Nowadays, a priory languages (e.g., Loglan and its forks) are only designed with other purposes.</p>

<p>With this in mind, probably <a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solresol" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Solresol (1817)</a> is the most famous a priory auxiliary language.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-27T10:55:04.193Z
2019-04-12T17:18:46.157Z
2019-04-12T17:18:46.157Z
Sir Cornflakes
<p>Most auxiliary languages I know of, especially Esperanto, are primarily <em>a posteriori</em>—that is, their vocabulary or grammar are derived from other existing languages, and most are fairly Eurocentric. While many might have <em>a priori</em> grammar, but not vocabulary, I have yet to see another language that is entirely <em>a priori</em>—not derived from other languages. Do any such languages exist? Note I am talking about languages designed to be an international auxiliary language.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-25T12:45:33.420Z
I would say this is very hard, as we all speak language(s), and that limits our imagination somewhat. If you come up with a new language, you are bound to fall back on what you know already. Otherwise you might end up with a language which is unlike any other, but doesn't actually work as a language.
Oliver Mason
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-26T11:56:01.990Z
@OliverMason By that definition _every_ conlang would be a posteriori, except for things like [Europan](http://jbr.me.uk/euro/index.html). But that is not how those words are usually used. For example, my own main conlang has a lot of derivational morphology (inspired by Greenlandic), verbs have inherent lexical aspects affecting affixes (inspired by PIE) and the syntax features an absolutive pivot (inspired by Dyirbal). But both the lexicon and the complete grammar is entirely self-made with no relation to existing languages. Everyone has inspirations, that doesn’t make it a posteriori.
Sascha Baer
<list-of-languages><auxlangs>
Famous a priori auxilary languages?
# Famous a priori auxilary languages?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-01-25)

Most auxiliary languages I know of, especially Esperanto, are primarily *a posteriori*—that is, their vocabulary or grammar are derived from other existing languages, and most are fairly Eurocentric. While many might have *a priori* grammar, but not vocabulary, I have yet to see another language that is entirely *a priori*—not derived from other languages. Do any such languages exist? Note I am talking about languages designed to be an international auxiliary language.

**Tags:** list-of-languages, auxlangs

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I would say this is very hard, as we all speak language(s), and that limits our imagination somewhat. If you come up with a new language, you are bound to fall back on what you know already. Otherwise you might end up with a language which is unlike any other, but doesn't actually work as a language.  
> **username_2**: @OliverMason By that definition _every_ conlang would be a posteriori, except for things like [Europan](http://jbr.me.uk/euro/index.html). But that is not how those words are usually used. For example, my own main conlang has a lot of derivational morphology (inspired by Greenlandic), verbs have inherent lexical aspects affecting affixes (inspired by PIE) and the syntax features an absolutive pivot (inspired by Dyirbal). But both the lexicon and the complete grammar is entirely self-made with no relation to existing languages. Everyone has inspirations, that doesn’t make it a posteriori.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-01-25. Score: 5

Short answer: **I've never seen or read a description of what you're seeking**.

Long answer: **What you're seeking is a most unlikely beast, reason being**...

Generally speaking, [auxiliary languages](http://www.frathwiki.com/International_auxiliary_language) seek being completely or nearly completely [a posteriori](http://www.frathwiki.com/A_posteriori_conlang) for reasons of simple expedience. Common design goals of an auxiliary language are *ease of learning* and *simplicity of use*. These goals are best met when vocabulary and grammar are familiar to the target audience. This is why [Interlingua](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua) and [Esperanto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto) are considered "easy" languages to learn and have gained considerable user communities, with Esperanto boasting a small community of native level speakers.

What you're describing, a completely [a priori](http://www.frathwiki.com/A_priori_conlang) invented language is most usually the domain of the [artistic language](http://www.frathwiki.com/Artlang), the [engineered language](http://www.frathwiki.com/Engineered_language) and the [philosophical language](http://www.frathwiki.com/Philosophical_language). With the exception of the philosophical inventors, most glossopoets are not interested in propagandising their languages as auxiliary languages. Occasionally a philosophical language inventor will propose his language as a means of general communication, but this is usually done from a position of ignorance as to how language works (accomplished auxiliary language proponents are usually quite well aware how language works in the wild!).

Auxiliary languages tend not to be classified as a priori simply because they impose layers of difficulty that run contrary to the usual design parameters of the genre. However, it can potentially be argued that a priori invented languages can become auxiliary languages after a fashion and if the appropriate stars align. For example, it may be that Klingon has seen some use as an ad hoc auxiliary language if, for example, two groups of Star Trek fans who do not share a language in common other than Klingon happen to meet at a SciFi convention.

Needless to say, even if there were an actual auxiliary language that is classified as purely a priori, it certainly isn't famous. Otherwise, we'd know about it!


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-04-23. Score: 3

There are various "a priori" constructed languages, though they are not as successful as "a posteriori" languages have been.

[They include](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constructed_languages):

> 1. [Spokil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokil)
> 2. [Ro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro_(language))
> 3. [Kotava](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotava)
> 4. [Solresol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solresol)
> 5. [Babm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babm)
> 6. [Blisssymbols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blissymbols) (Written, ideographic language only)
> 7. [Nal Bino](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nal_Bino) (modification of Volapuk)
> 8. [Sona](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sona_language_(artificial))


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-01-27. Score: 2

We will have to go back some centuries in time to find a language like this. Since the success of Esperanto (and, to a lesser degree Interlingua, Glosa, and Toki Pona) it seems to be clear that an auxiliary language has to be naturalistic in some way to catch on. Nowadays, a priory languages (e.g., Loglan and its forks) are only designed with other purposes.

With this in mind, probably [Solresol (1817)](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solresol) is the most famous a priory auxiliary language.


---

