On Mon, 28 May 2007, Steve Rice wrote:

> On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:53:54 -0400, Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>> ISTR reading about an auxlang created in Vietnam at one time.
>>> (googling...)  Ah, found it.  It's called Frater, YAEC.
>> Frater (Lingua sistemfrater) is a euroclone, for all that it was
>> created in Vietnam.  The presentation language is English.  I have
>> a photocopy of it and once made a copy for someone in France.
> I'm reasonably sure you and I are the only ones on this list who have actually
> used Frater, so you should know better.

Better than what?  I don't really understand your response.  Are you
saying that Frater is not a euroclone?  It is not just my opinion.  The
LangMaker entry that was referenced in this thread specifically calls
Frater a euroclone.  (I looked up the entry.)

The vocabulary is explicitly based on Latin and Greek roots, just like
other euroclones, even if the phonology is somewhat simplified.  A
euroclone can have Greek roots as well as Latin.  I have no trouble
identifying most of the roots.  The grammar is highly similar to the
grammars of west-European Indo-European languages.  Yes, there are
schematic elements, but there are schematic elements in most of the
euroclonish IALs.  After all, they are constructed languages, not
existing natural languages, so some schematicism is almost to be

>                                         Let's review, and stop me if I mention
> anything that's not like a euroclone:
> [trim]

I find nothing in your list that would prevent me from calling Frater a
euroclone, even if it is more schematicised than, say, Occidental or
Interlingua.  Maybe we just have different notions of what a eurclone
IAL is.

Paul Bartlett