Print

Print


On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:58:24 -0400, Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 May 2007, Steve Rice wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:53:54 -0400, Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:

>>> 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.
>>>
>> SAY WHAT?!
>>
>> 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.)

Congratulations. I don't take their categorizations at all seriously myself.

>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.  

So there are west European IE languages that *always* place demonstratives 
after the noun? That indicate tense and mood not just by a separate particle 
but by a regular word ("futur" = "future," "pas" = "pass, past, etc.")? That 
employ absolute functional shift without any PoS marker but position--always? 
(There are other points I could raise, but let's start with those.)

>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.

If it is or looks a lot like Interlingua, it's a euroclone to me. But let's try a 
thought experiment.

Suppose I take the Babel text in Chinese and relex it using Interlingua 
morphemes (tricky, but not impossible, I think), and also relex the Interlingua 
Babel text with Chinese morphemes. Now I set both texts before you and ask 
you whether either, neither, or both are euroclones. What is your answer? Is 
Chinese dressed in Interlingua vocabulary a euroclone? Is Interlingua with a 
Chinese veneer a euroclone?

I would say that the first is not a euroclone and that the second was a partial 
euroclone. If the lexicon alone suffices to identify a euroclone,  the term is 
meaningless--for the lexicon is the most changeable aspect of any language. 

This is why the claim that Eo is a euroclone reduces the term to a nonsense 
word: there is no IE language on the face of the earth that has ever acted like 
Eo. It resembles some IE languages in relatively superficial ways, but it's about 
as different from them as Loglan is. Ido is closer, but I still would refuse to call 
it a euroclone. Occidental is at the edge for me, as is LsF--and LFN, for that 
matter, though some of the anglophone tweaks push it more in the euroclone 
direction. Interlingua is there, Romanova, Romanice, Eurolengo, etc. For me, a 
language has to look AND act European (and usually at least part Romance) to 
qualify.

Steve