Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Euroclones (fi: Indika)

From:Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@...>
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2003, 7:32
 --- 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 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


michael poxon <m.poxon@...>