Hallo conlangers!

On Thursday 26 May 2011 08:48:00, R A Brown wrote:

> On 26/05/2011 02:28, Padraic Brown wrote:
> > --- On Wed, 5/25/11, Jan van
> > 
> > Steenbergen<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
> >>>>> Euroclones could more accurately be described
> >>>>> (decried?) as "variations on the same theme" or
> >>>>> "different expressions of the same idea".
> >> 
> >> Depends a bit on how you define "euroclone", but yes, I
> >> agree.
> > 
> > Here, largely, I mean the many Anglo-Romance-esque ones,
> > like E-o, I-a, etc. The concept could easily be expanded.
> > I wouldn't necessarily include "regional" auxlangs like
> > *Panslovenko or *Alnorsk. But again, the term could
> > easily be broadened to include these other "clonelangs".
> 
> I think it is both unhelpful and misleading to call would-be
> regional auxlangs 'Euroclones'.  Obviously a pan-Slavic must
> per_se resemble Slav languages; these languages are neither
> pan-European nor confined to Europe. A language like
> Folkspraak must have a Germanic look by definition; to call
> it a Euroclone, however, implies - or could imply - a rather
> different position for the Germanic speakers in Europe.
> 
> To exclude the role that Latin played throughout the Middle
> Ages in western and central Europe and to exclude the modern
> Romance languages in any definition of 'Euroclone' is IMHO
> simply perverse.

We are speaking of different definitions of "Euroclone" here:

1. The definition as I used on my "What's wrong with euroclones?"
   web page: any conlang based on the Standard Average European
   linguistic type.

2. What is apparently your definition: a conlang, preferably
   but not necessarily an auxlang, which distills the linguistic
   landscape of western and central Europe into a single
   language.  This goes beyond just SAE type and includes such
   things as a vocabulary drawn from Latin, Romance and
   Germanic languages.

Of course, a euroclone by definition (2) is also a euroclone by
definition (1), as the Standard Average European type is part
of the linguistic landscape of Europe, of course.  Esperanto
is a euroclone by definition (2); Verdurian, a fictional
language by Mark Rosenfelder, is not, but as it follows SAE
typological patterns, it is a euroclone by definition (1).
Though I think that implies a meaningless criticism: it is
meant for a conculture that is modelled after European
examples (though drawing from more than one country), and
the language is actually a gem of detail and completeness
that few other artlangers have ever reached.
 
> > But then again, a whole new pejorative moniker could be
> > poufed into existence, should the need arise, such
> > "Slovoclone". And according to snippets I read about your
> > research into Slavic auxlangs, this word could be quite
> > handy.
> 
> I agree that 'Euroclone' tends to be used with a pejorative
> meaning - but more of that below. But to accord a pejorative
> meaning to "Slovoclone" would IMO be both pointless and
> unhelpful.  If one is attempting to produce a inter-Slavic
> auxlang or to devise a Slavic looking artlang, then surely
> one will have failed if it is _not_ a "Slovoclone"!

Yes.  But any term with the element "clone" is easily perceived
as pejorative, as "clone" stands for lack of originality.
 
> [snip]
> 
> > How we define language in this context might be a rather
> > differen kettle of kippers than English and Scots! As I
> > wrote earlier, the above languages are attempts by two
> > different authors to achieve the same goal. They happened
> > to choose the same basic source material. I certainly
> > don't see them as "dialects" of the "same langauge"; but
> > I think it can truly be argued that they are "variations"
> > on the "theme" of ideal IAL.
> 
> Yes, I agree - variations on the same theme, the theme being
> "the world needs a global auxiliary based on the languages
> of western and central Europe."
> 
> The reason why some of us find the term pejorative is that
> we see this theme as belonging to a time of European empire
> and colonization and not appropriate for the 21st century.

Yes.  The notion of European world dominance is now considered
passé, and justifiedly so (but let us not digress into politics
here).

> But by saying this, I am now making implicit comments on
> what an auxlang should and should not be like which, unless
> AUXLANG has changed considerably since I subscribed to it,
> was a topic that tended to fan flames.  This is why I have
> been very reluctant to pursue the matter further on this list.

We can put it to rest.  From my latest brief visits to the
AUXLANG archive, I have gained the impression that they
currently aren't all that flameprone over there.  Yet, I
am utterly disinterested in discussing merits and flaws of
auxlangs, and it is off topic here.

> [snip]
> 
> > Naturally. IALists historically take themselves far too
> > seriously for an obviously disparaging term to be used
> > seriously by them!
> 
> Oh it can be, alas. "My IAL is is superior to yours because
> it takes account of Arabic, Chinese, Japanese" etc. is
> certainly an attitude that I have encountered. As Rick
> Harrison wrote in his essay 'Farewell to auxiliary
> languages': "The debate over desirable auxlang
> characteristics has been raging for several centuries."
> 
> In my experience 'raging' is the appropriate word. Rick's
> essay very much echoes my own experience and attitude to
> auxlangs:
> http://www.rickharrison.com/language/farewell.html
> 
> This again is why I feel uncomfortable with this thread.

Yes.  Enough said about this sordid debate.
 
> [...]
> >> But then, I've also seen Folkspraak, Brithenig, Wenedyk
> >> etc. being called euroclones, which rather proves how
> >> problematic the term really is.
> > 
> > Indeed. One could suggest that such opinions are based on
> > an erroneous conception of conlanging as a whole
> 
> Quite so. I've commented on Folkspraak above.  If you're
> trying to construct what a modern Romance language of
> Britain may look like if Vulgar Latin had persisted after
> the legions withdrew from Britain, wouldn't you expect it to
> resemble the Romance languages?

Of course!

>       So dubbing Brithenig a
> Euroclone tells us nothing.

Especially as it shows some non-SAE traits such as initial
consonant mutations.

>       In fact it is IMO misleading:
> the Romance languages are not the only ones spoken in the
> Eurozone!

The Eurozone even includes the non-IE languages Finnish,
Estonian, Saami and Maltese!

> OK - Brithenig also has some "Celtic" features - "Celtic"
> features don't actually form any part of the languages that
> are usually dubbed "Euroclone"     ;)

The Insular Celtic languages are definitely *not* SAE!
And their significance for international communication
is practically nil, as the Irish, Scots and Welsh also
speak English and the Bretons French.

> [snip]
> 
> >> In my understanding, there's no problem with
> >> discussing auxlangs in linguistic terms at all,
> 
> Agreed.

Sure.  But there is always the hazard that such a linguistic
discussion turns into a discussion whether those linguistic
features are beneficial or detrimental to the purpose of the
language, and from there it is only a short road to auxlang
advocacy.
 
> >> as long
> >> as we avoid auxlang advocacy and texts of the "e-o sux,
> >> x-q rulez" type.
> > 
> > Not even for a little fun? ;)))
> 
> Fun is fine - but I guess maybe I still bear a few scars
> from wandering into Auxlandia many years ago.
> 
> Certain things stir the old war wounds, don't you know?
> What, what!   :)

Yep.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Êm, a Êm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Êmel." - SiM 1:1