Euroclones (fi: Indika)

 --- Padraic Cornomorus skrzypszy:

> A euroclone is a very specific kind of conlang.
>
> First, it is an auxlang (thus putting it in the
> same category as Ido, E-o, Volapuk, etr.)
> Secondly, it closely mimics one or another of the
> previously introduced european based constructed
> auxlangs in grammar, vocabulary or structure.
Is that so? In the Euroclone collection on Langmaker.com I find quite a number
of languages that do to meet one or even both of this criteria. Just some
examples: Aingeljã, Ignota, LaAdan, Nadsat, and even Solresol! Of course, many
of these language were terribly misclassified.

Yet, I find the term Euroclone interesting and dissatisfying enough to give it
some more thinking. Here are two not-too-different definitions that I found on
the Net.

Jeffrey Henning:
"Euroclone - An international auxiliary language derived primarily from
European stock. Most have primarily Romance vocabulary and/or use Classical
roots (Greek and Latin) and/or some English roots. (Usually, but not always,
used pejoratively.)"

Rick Harrison:
"The term 'euroclones' refers to those language projects that closely resemble
Ido or Interlingua or a hybrid of the two. These projects are numerous and are
virtually indistinguishable from one another, although connoisseurs claim they
can tell the difference."

Well, both definitions have their pluses and minuses. IMO an important feature
of a Euroclone would be that it is based on more than one European language; a
language like Basic English or *Simplified French would not qualify as a
Euroclone.
Another thing is that a Euroclone incorporates elements from natlangs or other
Euroclones, usually in a simplified form, without having any special features
on its own. In other words: if you would stand up tomorrow and proclaim Kerno
as the new IAL to end all IALs, would that suddenly make it a Euroclone? No,
because it has too many original features of its own (not to mention the fact
that its grammar isn't exactly what one would call "simplified").
Third, although Rick Harrison's definition is not a real definition (at least,
according to the golden rules of definition making), he has a point when he
calls Euroclones "projects that closely resemble Ido or Interlingua or a hybrid
of the two". Practically all Euroclones look like Romlangs, to such a degree
that I wonder if it would really make sense to include languages like Volapük,
Tutonish or Slovio. Perhaps we should just limit the term Euroclone to its
pejorative use, and baptise the languages in question "Esperantoids".

> > I thought euroclone was a language
> > which was based on European languages.
>
> Not exactly. We don't really have a word for that
> - I suppose Eurolang would do. [Compare with
> Romlang, which is a Romance conlang, and all the
> other conflations of some descriptor plus -lang.]
So, what would in your opinion be the difference between a Eurolang and a
Euroclone?

Jan

=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

Reply