Re: LWII: Attack of the Euroclones (fi: Indika)

 --- Padryk Brãziej skrzypszy:

> > > 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?
>
> As I understand the term; and as is definded by
> Henning below (though better than I did!).
On the contrary, I think your definition is quite good. My only objection is
against the sentence "it closely mimics one or another of the previously
introduced european based constructed auxlangs", because it rules out Esperanto
itself.

> That is a _very_ confusing list! I think they
> must have misapplied the classifier "euroclone".
> Ignota? The roots have nothing to do with _any_
> European language's roots; Laadan? hardly
> European! Solresol? Come on! Solresol may well be
> an IAL, but it's not a euroclone IAL.
Indeed. I don't really know what motivated Jeffrey into classifying Ignota as a
Euroclone, since he provides another category that would fit perfectly:
superset language.
As for many other languages on langmaker.com: they were classified not by the
owner, but by the authors themselves, many of whom obviously were not familiar
enough with the terminology.
BTW, why don't you add Kerno to the collection of Langmaker.com?

> > Jeffrey Henning: [...]
>
> This is largely the definition I pieced together
> from hearing the word used in conversation. I
> would add only that a euroclone must be a
> conlang. After all, French is derived from
> European stock and has primarily Romance and some
> Greek roots! It's hardly a euroclone!
:)) No, indeed!! Of course, Jeffrey's definition was also pulled out of its
context (definitions of different conlang types).

> > Rick Harrison: [...]
>
> That's more a description than a definition.
My mistake. I should have added to Rick's defense that he didn't present it as
a definition.

> > 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?
>
> :D Well, no! It would, however, be the IAL to End
> All IALs! If for no other reason than that the
> world will unite and forever revolt against the
> very notion of IALs!! ;)))
Cool. I'll be the first to learn Kernanto, then!

> > 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").
>
> Oh, I don't know...I find it pretty easy! :)
Ha! But no so easy as Wenedyk. All you need to do, is learning four cases,
three genders, five tenses, four moods, and only a few irregular verbs, besides
practicing the sibilants a bit and installing a special keyboard definition on
your computer!

> > he has a point when he calls Euroclones
> > "projects that closely resemble Ido or
> > Interlingua or a hybrid of the two".
> > [...] 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".
>
> Are you saying that all european derived IALs
> (Volapuck and Tutonish included) should be called
> Esperantoids; and leave euroclone to the
> specifically Eo/Ia like IALs? A sort of
> classification scheme?
No, quite the opposite. You see, there are two kinds of conlangs that we are
talking about: the IAL/auxlang in general, and the subset that consists of all
those Romanesque auxlangs that includes Esperanto, Interlingua, Romaklono and
the like (the ones that I for the sake of convenience baptised "Esperantoids"),
but not auxlangs like Volapük, Tutonish, or Afrihili. In other words, I am not
looking for definitions, but trying to find a group name for that particular
category.
And well, the problem with the name euroclone is that it is ambiguous:
practically, it encompasses the esperantoids, but according to Jeffrey's
definition it would also include Volapük, Basic English, and, say, Celltiecc.
That just doesn't feel right to me. Besides, an additional problem with the
term euroclone is its pejorative connotation.
No, I think I'll settle for the term esperantoids, and leave euroclone in its
negative meaning. I don't feel we need a special name for the esperantoids +
Volapük and Basic English, anyway.

> Personally, I don't care -
> they're just IALs after all!!!
I'll grant you that! But that does not mean that an adequate name is couldn't
be helpful from time to time...

> > So, what would in your opinion be the
> > difference between a Eurolang
> > and a Euroclone?
>
> Well, the fundamental feature is IAL v. artlang,
> really. As I said (and according to Henning's
> def.), a Euroclone is "an IAL derived from
> European stock (specifically Romance)".
Well, that's doesn't solve much! Is it an IAL derived from Romance stock, or an
IAL derived from European stock (for example Romance)?

> A Eurolang would then be "any conlang (especially
> nonIALs) derived from any European stock".
>
> Kerno, Wenedyk and Brithenig would be Eurolangs;
> Ia, Ido and Eo would be Euroclones (as well as
> being Eurolangs).
Sure. But it seems to me that the term Eurolang is redundant, then. Wouldn't it
be enough to call Kerno, Wenedyk and Brithenig "romlangs" (even though the
latter term would not by definition exclude French and Romanian)?

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