Stan's "offer"
auliuniv
Well, I'd like to see your source for myself. What was changed and why?
What were the words that were changed?
Bob: You will, when the book is finished.
[kut]
}
}By the way, where are my copies of the booklets you promised me about the
}Unacceptable defects of Interlingua, etc? I know why you ILaistes don't
}want such information floating around in the "wrong" hands. Among other
}things other ILaistes hold that they should release about Occidental
}materials. ;-)
This is "paranoid" thinking, Bob. No one is conspiring to supress this
information. It's lost in people's old files, boxes in attics and
basements, and people have other things to do besides resurrecting it.
Bob: Not paranoid at all Stan. You freely throw these words around, don't
you? i.e. "paranoid", etc. Somehow you must feel they justify your stance.
"Why, look folks I'm having to deal with someone who is paranoid." I don't
have to use those kind of words in presenting the material. All I have to do
is let the facts and quotes from IALA stand for themselves. Besides, you
have no idea of what I based the above comment on. Here's a clue. It didn't
come from me. ;-)
Bob, I don't recall actually "promising" you to send them. You asked for
them. I'm busy. And for someone who accuses me of "diatribes", why do you
think that makes me now willing to do you a favor? That's an afternoon's
job - driving over to Kinko's, getting the copies, getting them into an
envelop and driving to the Post Office. What's in it for me? Especially
after you say such nasty things about me.
Bob: Well, go back and look at auxlang archives, and/or your sent mail to
me. ;-) And, even then you used the excuse of being busy not to send them.
Yet, you have plenty of time to take care of it if I will "deal". What's in
it for you? Simple. You said you would do it and you would be keeping your
word. However, I wouldn't worry now.
But I tell you what. I'll make you a deal. In return for sending me a copy
of the source that you say shows that the IED was changed at the last
minute, I'll send you a copy of "Spiritu de Occidental: Li Ovre de Edgar de
Wahl" published in 1938. The latter was sent to me by L. M. de Guesnet when
we were corresponding back in the 1950's-1960's. In return for sending me
copies of all of the IALA General Reports except that of 1945 (which I
have), I'll send you a copy of Haas' "Li defectes inacceptabil de
Interlingua Gode". Otherwise, I'll have to order some of these materials
from the New York City Public Library.
Bob: The source and examples will be listed in the book I'm about 50%
finished with. Now, I must explain something. These are NOT GENERAL Reports.
They are the ANNUAL Reports from 1936 - 1944. The GENERAL Report, which is a
different report altogether was printed in 1945. Note the word difference,
ANNUAL ReportS, and the GENERAL Report.
I won't begin on this unless you agree here in public. Is it a deal?
Bob: Stan, thanks for the offer of a "deal". Unesim: I am not interested in
a deal to give you material for material I already have. Duesim: I'm not in
a position where I have to "deal". Triesim: All the pertinent material will
be in the book, and I don't believe it a good idea to "deal" away the
material before it is presented in a complete orderly form so that anyone
can follow the events and make their own decision.
Bob then said:
}P.S. Your quotes give me much pleasure for finally someone is causing this
}material to be flushed out in the light of day.
Well, it's causing some of us to go back to the basement and attic to locate
materials that refute your interpretations of Interlingua history.
Bob: I am glad you are being motivated again. However, so far you have not
presented anything that refutes anything. You have given more proof of what
I have been saying.
BTW, are you going to comment on the fact that there are other dictionaries
that list the English entries in the same order on numerous pages as does
the Concise English-Interlingua Dictionary of Gopsill and Sexton? That
undermines your suggestion that they somehow simply copied their dictionary
from the Kemp-Pope English-Occidental Dictionary.
Bob: Why certainly. The Gopsill not only has the English entries as you
mention, but the format is the same as the KP.
KP
ABSCESS: abscesse
ABSCOND: fugir, escapar secretmen, forcurrer
ABSENT: a. - (-ie). -MINDED: obliviaci, distractet; v. absentar se
GOPSILL
ABSCESS: abscesso
ABSCOND discampar
ABSCENCE absentia
ABSCENT absente; -ONESELF absentar se
ABSENT - MINDED distracte
Now, please notice a couple things.
1. Both dictionaries are set up in the same basic format. CAPS with
lowercase definition.
2. The KP places more words in Occidental after the English word.
3. Gopsill breaks the words out so that it gives the impression of having
more words than the KP.
4. KP uses absentie, Gopsill uses absentia. [Now, how difficult is it to
change from an ie to an ia when recopying a dictionary?]
5. KP uses abscesse, Gopsill uses abscesso. [Now, how difficult is it to
change from an e to an o when recopying a dictionary?]
6. How difficult is it to break out the group of words into primarily single
entries, like GOPSILL does, when recopying a dictinary?
7. In the group of words above only one is really "different", that is
discampar versus fugir, escapar secretmen, forcurrer.
8. GOPSILL breaks out ABSCENT and ABSENT - MINDED. The KP doesn't. Thus,
GOPSILL appears to have more words in its listings.
9. GOPSILL uses absentar se, KP uses absentar se
10. GOPSILL uses distracte for absent-minded, KP uses distractet.
Of course, one can respond, "Bob, these are only 5 or 6 or so words out of
thousands". Yep. But, the whole comparison is the same throughout, no matter
how many pages one does, or how many words one picks out.
ILa is Occidental warmed over with less internationality in the result. If
it were more international, I would shut up and start using ILa. Occidental
is a true INTER- national language, i.e. it works within other national
languages. ILa is an international language, not an INTER-national language.
i.e. It doesn't work withing the framework of other national languages. It
is a language that partially works within a small 3-4 language group of
south romance national languages and that's about it. It doesn't compare
with Occidental's ability to work WITHIN other language frameworks.
If one understands the original goal of IALA in its use of SIX specific
auxiliary languages, then it becomes clear, Gode fulfilled that goal with
his language.
His language is a version of Occidental, not a version of the other five
languages, nor is it a totally new language separate from Occidental. It's
whole fundamental base is Occidental, not any or all of the other five.
Their goal was to find the one of the six which could be changed without
destroying its basic ability to function. And, that is what Gode did. It
still functions, but it lost much of its internationality in favor of a
south romance base. Not understanding the concept of an INTER-national
language, Gode went for what he was most familiar with, Spanish, French,
German, Italian, Port. That was his base, along with old Latin. Thus, he
changed Occidental from a comprehensive INTER-national language, to a
LIMITED [word from IALA] "international" language. In other words, a
beautiful language, but a major step backwards.
Here are the words direct from IALA itself, if you will.
".. the Committee for Agreement had decided to consider as candidate
languages the following:
Esperanto (reformed)...... by Dr. L.L. Zamenhof
Esperanto - II ................. by Dr. R. de Saussure
Ido.................................. by the Marquis de Beaufron
Novial............................ by Prof. E. de Wahl
Occidental..................... by Mr. E. de Wahl
Latino sine flexione....... by Prof. G. Peano
Now, please read over that list carefully, and then ask yourself, what
language was chosen of these six?
We all know that the first four were finally decided against. That leaves
two, right?
Now, ask yourself, of these two, which one of these two was used in
"correcting" the choice of international words for the ILa word list?
Eaton says, which we all know now, that only three (3) auxiliary language
word lists were used, and Latino sine flexione was not one of them.
She mentions Esp, Ido and Occidental. The Esp and Ido languages were not
used for the final result. The final result of IALA went against such
artificiality.
What was left was the Occidental word list. There is not question about this
as it is recorded in the IALA ANNUAL reports, and in Eaton's book.
Now, let's go one step further. What was the GOAL of IALA reference these
SIX languages? And, these SIX alone? You see, these six languages were
chosen for a purpose. One of them was to become the BASIS of the work of
IALA. You don't believe that?
"Professor Collinson defined as TWO of the TASKS of IALA: [please note, the
caps and *** are my emphasis.]
(1) to ASCERTAIN to what EXTENT each of the SIX candidate languages CONFORM
TO or DIVERGE FROM each criterion which has ALREADY been agreed upon. [note:
these were ALREADY agreed upon, in 1936 or earlier! ] [The criteria had to
do with "learning criteria", "Psychological" criteria, "Educational" and
"Social" criteria.]
(2) to ASCERTAIN to what extent EACH candidate language is -- WITHOUT
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE to its FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE -- ***MODIFIABLE *** so as
to MAKE ***IT*** CONFORM to the AGREED CRITERIA."
Now, ask yourself, what languages were to be used? What was the purpose of
these six? Answer: point 2 above. To find out which ONE of the SIX could be
MADE to CONFORM to the agreed criteria, and would survive "without
irreparable damage to its fundamental structure". And, if one could be found
of the six, then IT, that ONE of the SIX, was to be "MODIFIABLE" so as to
MAKE IT [ not them, IT], CONFORM...."
This is not dreaming, paranoia, etc. It is nothing more than the simple
statement of the folks from IALA who were in charge. This is the simple
explanation of what they planned to do, and they did it. The ONLY language
of the SIX that could survive such a modification was OCCIDENTAL. They rest
could not, because not only could they not be modifiable, but they also had
to fit the other criteria mentioned. So, the only viable solution was
Occidental. So, IALA modified Occidental, and placed upon it the
"grammatical" structures preferred by Dr. Gode. So, from the beginning, the
above Specific Purpose Statement from IALA itself, mentioned above, to the
end when Dr. Gode himself says, it is HIS lexico and HIS grammar, we have a
poor modification of Occidental. From a true INTER-national language to a
South Romance language using the latinisms and south romanic preferences of
Dr. Alexander Gode. All the picky arguments to the contrary cannot negate
the flow of history, the end results, AND the actual explanations of the
IALA organisation itself. Of course, today, the only recourse is to deny the
above means what it says. But, just read it slowly and carefully. It tells
us what IALA was attempting to do quite clearly, and nothing was changed in
1951, 1950, 1949, 1948, etc. Gode didn't change the above goals.
The above is quoted from page 10 and 11 of the 1936 ANNUAL REPORT, NOT the
General Report of 1945.
Look, read the history of IALA from 1924 till today through the publications
of IALA and Occidental and it is clear. And, it has the stamp of approval by
Dr. Gode himself in his own letter written in German in 1957 explaining in
his own hand, and EMPHASIZED in his own hand. When above I wrote HIS lexico,
and HIS grammar, I emphasized the HIS. Why do you think I did that? Because
that is what Dr. Gode did himself. He marked the emphasis in his statement.
There is no question. ILa is NOT the undisputed work of a scientific group.
It is the work of a staff following instructions, not a staff doing
scientific research. Thorndike and Eaton did the "scientific" work. i.e.
Found the FREQUENCY of the words to be used. The "scientific gruppe" idea
was just the PR used to support continued funding and donations. Nothing
wrong with that, its done all the time, even today.
So, Stan, no deal. I have the information we need. And, the above is an
actual word for word quote, verbatim, from the IALA 1936 Annual Report,
which is supported in other IALA material. But, with my emphasis. It is not
a rehash of some old Cosmoglotta, or from some "paranoid" Occidentalist.
Just the words of IALA itself. And, your quotes so far only substantiate the
above.
Cordialmen,
Bob, x+O~
Stan Mulaik
Shop online without a credit card
http://www.rocketcash.com
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary
--
Posted from mail9.wlv.netzero.net [209.247.163.66]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
auliuniv
----- Original Message -----
From: "auliuniv" <auli...@netzero.net>
To: <europa....@mailgate.org>
Cc: <inter...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:31 PM
Subject: [interlingue] Stan's "offer"
[kut]>
Please make corrections for Esp and Novial.
Esperanto (unreformed)
Novial...........Prof. O. Jespersen
Thanks,
> Here are the words direct from IALA itself, if you will.
>
> ".. the Committee for Agreement had decided to consider as candidate
> languages the following:
>
> Esperanto (unreformed)...... by Dr. L.L. Zamenhof
> Esperanto - II ................. by Dr. R. de Saussure
> Ido.................................. by the Marquis de Beaufron
> Novial............................ by Prof. O. Jespersen
> Occidental..................... by Mr. E. de Wahl
> Latino sine flexione....... by Prof. G. Peano
Shop online without a credit card
Stanley Mulaik
Sorry that my offer to exchange materials with you did not interest you.
You seemed to be the one who initially wanted to do it, and more in a
one-way fashion, that would have entailed some inconvenience, and from which
I would have obtained nothing in return. O.K., you don't want to deal. No
problem.
Stan Mulaik
--
Posted from johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]
Stanley Mulaik
}}By the way, where are my copies of the booklets you promised me about the
}}Unacceptable defects of Interlingua, etc? I know why you ILaistes don't
}}want such information floating around in the "wrong" hands. Among other
}}things other ILaistes hold that they should release about Occidental
}}materials. ;-)
}
}Stan: This is "paranoid" thinking, Bob. No one is conspiring to supress
this
}information. It's lost in people's old files, boxes in attics and
}basements, and people have other things to do besides resurrecting it.
}
}Bob: Not paranoid at all Stan. You freely throw these words around, don't
}you? i.e. "paranoid", etc. Somehow you must feel they justify your stance.
}"Why, look folks I'm having to deal with someone who is paranoid." I don't
}have to use those kind of words in presenting the material. All I have to
do
}is let the facts and quotes from IALA stand for themselves. Besides, you
}have no idea of what I based the above comment on. Here's a clue. It didn't
}come from me. ;-)
}
What's paranoid is suggesting that "ILaistes" conspire to suppress
Occidental materials, and from that, that I do. You also seem a bit
insensitive to the fact that to fulfill you request, I would have to
go to a bit of trouble for nothing in return.
[deletion]
}Bob: The source and examples will be listed in the book I'm about 50%
}finished with. Now, I must explain something. These are NOT GENERAL
Reports.
}They are the ANNUAL Reports from 1936 - 1944. The GENERAL Report, which is
a
}different report altogether was printed in 1945. Note the word difference,
}ANNUAL ReportS, and the GENERAL Report.
}
Thanks for the clarification.
}
}Bob: I am glad you are being motivated again. However, so far you have not
}presented anything that refutes anything. You have given more proof of what
}I have been saying.
It's still not clear to me precisely what it is you are saying. Are you
accusing
Dr. Gode of simply plagiarizing the Occidental-English dictionary? Are you
attributing the conception of Interlingua uniquely to Dr. Gode while denying
that anyone else, e.g. Stillman and the philologists he worked with for
three years at Liverpool before moving to New York, had an influence on
that conception?
}
}BTW, are you going to comment on the fact that there are other dictionaries
}that list the English entries in the same order on numerous pages as does
}the Concise English-Interlingua Dictionary of Gopsill and Sexton? That
}undermines your suggestion that they somehow simply copied their dictionary
}from the Kemp-Pope English-Occidental Dictionary.
}
}Bob: Why certainly. The Gopsill not only has the English entries as you
}mention, but the format is the same as the KP.
}
}KP
}
}ABSCESS: abscesse
}ABSCOND: fugir, escapar secretmen, forcurrer
}ABSENT: a. - (-ie). -MINDED: obliviaci, distractet; v. absentar se
}
}GOPSILL
}
}ABSCESS: abscesso
}ABSCOND discampar
}ABSCENCE absentia
}ABSCENT absente; -ONESELF absentar se
}ABSENT - MINDED distracte
ABSENTEE - absentista [note this similarity to dictionary below:]
GOPSILL and SEXTON did not spell "ABSCENCE" and "ABSCENT" but
"ABSENCE" and "ABSENT"
The Bantam New College Italian and English Dictionary, English-Italian:
abscess s ascesso
abscond intr scappare; to abscond with svignarsela con
absence s assenza
absent adj assente; tr --TO ABSENT ONESELF assentarsi
absentee assente
absent-minded distratto, assente
It looks to me that Gopsill and Sexton were closer to the Bantam
New College Italian and English Dictionary in that they include
"ABSENCE" between "ABSCOND" and "ABSENT". You leave it out
in KP above. So, someone uses another dictionary to get a list of
English words to find the corresponding words of another language.
That has no significance as to the nature of Interlingua.
The similarity in format between the KP dictionary and the CEID of
Gopsill and Sexton is not unusual, considering that both were
produced with rather limited typesetting capabilities and distinguishing
words from one language with capital letters from that of the other
with lower case letters is a common practice under these circumstances.
And I would grant that they may even have gotten the idea for their
format from KP. It doesn't prove anything about the nature of
Interlingua and its differences or similarities with Occidental.
}
}Now, please notice a couple things.
}1. Both dictionaries are set up in the same basic format. CAPS with
}lowercase definition.
Proves nothing about the nature of Interlingua or Occidental.
}2. The KP places more words in Occidental after the English word.
Doesn't that show that the dictionaries are different?
}3. Gopsill breaks the words out so that it gives the impression of having
}more words than the KP.
So does the BANTAM dictionary and many others as well.
}4. KP uses absentie, Gopsill uses absentia. [Now, how difficult is it to
}change from an ie to an ia when recopying a dictionary?]
Maybe not difficult at all, but regardless, it is the correct Interlingua
word as found in the Interlingua-English dictionary. And -ia is the
prototype ending from the Latin "absentia". "absentie" is not a
prototype. My Petit Robert French dictionary cites "absentia" as the
origin of "absence".
Are you arguing that Gopsill and Sexton created Interlingua words
by simple transformations of the Occidental words? Then what did
Gode do, if Gopsill and Sexton are now the creators of Interlingua?
How did Gopsill and Sexton know to always use etymological
prototype affixes to append to the so-called Occidental stems?
}5. KP uses abscesse, Gopsill uses abscesso. [Now, how difficult is it to
}change from an e to an o when recopying a dictionary?]
You'd have to know that the -e corresponded to an -us in Latin (the
prototype word) and know that in Interlingua -us becomes -o, because
it did so in protoromance via -us -> -u -> -o. The prototype word
is the Latin word, in this case, "abscessus" (My French Petit Robert
indicates the Latin origin of "abcès" as "abscessus".)
}6. How difficult is it to break out the group of words into primarily
single
}entries, like GOPSILL does, when recopying a dictinary?
No problem at all. Many dictionaries vary in this practice.
}7. In the group of words above only one is really "different", that is
}discampar versus fugir, escapar secretmen, forcurrer.
This should be evidence against your theory that G-S were simply
transforming Occidental words into Interlingua words.
}8. GOPSILL breaks out ABSCENT and ABSENT - MINDED. The KP doesn't. Thus,
}GOPSILL appears to have more words in its listings.
Again, this may be evidence against your theory that they simply
followed the KP dictionary. They may be influenced by other
dictionaries available to them.
}9. GOPSILL uses absentar se, KP uses absentar se
You'd get that using an English-Italian dictionary which lists, as does
my Bantam English-Italian:
--to absent onself assentarsi.
The -si is the reflexive suffix corresponding to the pronomial se of
Interlingua and Occidental.
}10. GOPSILL uses distracte for absent-minded, KP uses distractet.
"distracte" is the adjective with English meaning "absent-minded" in
the Interlingua-English Dictionary. It is derived from the supine
past participle form of Latin "distrahere" , i.e. "distractus", and
in Interlingua [whose grammar has no adjective-noun concordance
of gender] -us of the adjective is replaced with -e. KP's Occidental
"distractet" is the past participle form of that language. Interlingua's
past participle would be "distrahite" or "distracte" (both are allowed).
The latter forms the past participle on the supine stem by simply
adding -e to it. If G-S were simply transforming the Occidental words,
then they would have listed the more common past participle form
"distrahite" of Interlingua instead of "distracte" which is the
standardized form of the adjective:
Eng. distracted Fr. distrait It. distratto Sp. distraído Pt. distraido
The English, French and Italian forms are based on the Latin supine
"distractus". Spanish and Portugese in contrast with French and Italian
often did not form past participle forms and subsequent adjectives on
the basis of the supine stem but on the regular stem. The Interlingua
regular past participle of "distraher" is "distrahite" and is similar to S/P
forms. But the adjective for absent-minded is "distracte" in Interlingua.
The IED lists the supine forms of those verbs having
them, in this case "distraher [-trah-/-tract-]. Many adjectives
in English borrowed from Latin come from Latin supine past participles.
For example, the adjective "complete" comes from the supine
past-participle "completus" of Latin from the verb "complere".
"complete" is also an Interlingua adjective based on "compler".
Other Romance languages have similar adjectives with the same
origin, but they retain the -o, -a endings of the noun-adjective
agreement of their grammars.
Bob your argument that G-S or Gode or any one else simply copied
the KP English-Occidental dictionary by simple replacements of certain
affixes is not believeable when we look at the details.
}
}Of course, one can respond, "Bob, these are only 5 or 6 or so words out of
}thousands". Yep. But, the whole comparison is the same throughout, no
matter
}how many pages one does, or how many words one picks out.
But if we look at the details when you provide them, we see how far
off you are from understanding the similarities and the differences
between Interlingua and Occidental. I suspect the same is true of
your other arguments, if we can see the details of your sources.
Similarities between English listings of dictionaries are common and
prove nothing of your case. You would need evidence from the authors
themselves to support your argument. Why not write them and ask
them how they produced the CEID?
(To be continued).
Cordially,
Stan Mulaik
--
Posted from tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]
Stanley Mulaik
in the result. If }it were more international, I would shut up and start
using ILa. Occidental }is a true INTER- national language, i.e. it works
within other national }languages. ILa is an international language, not an
INTER-national language. }i.e. It doesn't work withing the framework of
other national languages. It }is a language that partially works within a
small 3-4 language group of }south romance national languages and that's
about it. It doesn't compare }with Occidental's ability to work WITHIN other
language frameworks.
Again, this shows your philological naivité. English is a contributor, and
it does so to a large extent by contributing Latin forms that are closer to
the Latin prototypes than those in the southern Romance languages.
English's Latinity forces a great majority of prototypes to Latin forms
rather than protoromance forms, particulary south-Romance protoromance
forms. German makes a similar contribution in cases like German
"extrahieren" which forces the prototype to Latin "*extrahere" and
Interlingua's "extraher" rather than "extraer" of the South-Romance group.
}If one understands the original goal of IALA in its use of SIX specific
}auxiliary languages, then it becomes clear, Gode fulfilled that goal with
}his language.
What was that goal? What was IALA trying to do? Give us some quotations to
see what you are referring to.
}His language is a version of Occidental, not a version of the other five
}languages, nor is it a totally new language separate from Occidental. It's
}whole fundamental base is Occidental, not any or all of the other five.
}Their goal was to find the one of the six which could be changed without
}destroying its basic ability to function. And, that is what Gode did. It
}still functions, but it lost much of its internationality in favor of a
}south romance base. Not understanding the concept of an INTER-national
}language, Gode went for what he was most familiar with, Spanish, French,
}German, Italian, Port. That was his base, along with old Latin. Thus, he
}changed Occidental from a comprehensive INTER-national language, to a
}LIMITED [word from IALA] "international" language. In other words, a
}beautiful language, but a major step backwards.
Bob Occidental is a forerunner of Interlingua. De Wahl saw the Latin- Greek
- Romance language base of the international vocabulary. But he couldn't
resist the Lorelei beckoning to him from the Rocks of Esperanto-like
schematicism which led him to pull back from a purer naturalism to create
artificial stems for verbs. IALA and Gode made paramount the registration
of the international forms as they are and then later considered how one
might adapt a grammar to them. Gode, decided to use a simple grammar that
modified very little the prototype forms common to the source languages. But
he left his Dictionary for all the other constructed languages to use with
grammars of their choosing.
} }Here are the words direct from IALA itself, if you will. }
In what year were these words written?
}".. the Committee for Agreement had decided to consider as candidate
}languages the following: } }Esperanto (reformed)...... by Dr. L.L. Zamenhof
}Esperanto - II ................. by Dr. R. de Saussure
}Ido.................................. by the Marquis de Beaufron
}Novial............................ by Prof. E. de Wahl
}Occidental..................... by Mr. E. de Wahl }Latino sine
flexione....... by Prof. G. Peano } }Now, please read over that list
carefully, and then ask yourself, what }language was chosen of these six?
None of them. IALA decided by 1945 that a synthesis of the ethnic and
constructed languages was a possible route to go. Then it settled on
establishing what were the international forms and their corresponding
international meanings. (Basically three source languages had to have
similar variants with the same meanings). Next, these were standardized *in
form* according to their prototypes. Then, and only after this
standardization project was completed, IALA considered various grammatical
systems with various degrees of schematization in word derivation would be
applied to the standardized forms (with appropriate modifications in the
case of schmatic word-formation). The 1945 report shows they were
considering three major variants of the grammar, (1) an Esperanto like
language with rigid schematic word formation rules, (2) a moderately
schematic language, and (3) a simple but naturalistic grammar (which was
very similar to current Interlingua) which did not greatly modify the words
in word-derivation from their prototype forms.
}We all know that the first four were finally decided against. That leaves
}two, right? }Now, ask yourself, of these two, which one of these two was
used in }"correcting" the choice of international words for the ILa word
list? }Eaton says, which we all know now, that only three (3) auxiliary
language }word lists were used, and Latino sine flexione was not one of
them.
Oh, the Eaton word-list again. Again you don't make explicit what her list
was, and how, in detail, it was used, and in particular how the three
auxiliary languages (Esperanto, Ido, Occidental?) were used to "correct" the
list. I haven't been able to get my hands on her 1940 published Semantic
Frequency List, but is was not about forms of words, but about establishing
the most frequent words *with the same meanings* in several languages. (It's
been many years since I last read her work).
}She mentions Esp, Ido and Occidental. The Esp and Ido languages were not
}used for the final result. The final result of IALA went against such
}artificiality.
Obviously. IALA decided to determine the words in their variant forms with
the same meanings across the source languages and then to standardize their
forms according to the prototypes and then to consider what kind of grammar
(simplified affixes, tense forms, etc.) to apply to the standardized forms.
}What was left was the Occidental word list. There is not question about
this }as it is recorded in the IALA ANNUAL reports, and in Eaton's book.
Does Eaton provide the "prototype" forms corresponding to the most frequent
words with common international meanings? Or does she simply list the
meanings and the variant forms in the various languages that have these
international meanings? (I think this is what she did).
} }Now, let's go one step further. What was the GOAL of IALA reference these
}SIX languages? And, these SIX alone? You see, these six languages were
}chosen for a purpose. One of them was to become the BASIS of the work of
}IALA. You don't believe that?
No, especially after 1936 when IALA embarked on developing a language from
scratch. From 1936 - 1939 the Liverpool group under Collinson and his
assistant Stillman tested several methods of compiling international word
material. They were not choosing to work just with Occidental. What do the
Annual Reports of 1937, 1938 and 1939 say was going on in Liverpool? Were
they working with Occidental as the basis for the language, or were they
testing different methods based on several of the constructed languages?
}"Professor Collinson defined as TWO of the TASKS of IALA: [please note, the
}caps and *** are my emphasis.] } }(1) to ASCERTAIN to what EXTENT each of
the SIX candidate languages CONFORM }TO or DIVERGE FROM each criterion which
has ALREADY been agreed upon. [note: }these were ALREADY agreed upon, in
1936 or earlier! ] [The criteria had to }do with "learning criteria",
"Psychological" criteria, "Educational" and }"Social" criteria.]
Collinson was not immediately in charge of IALA's research after 1939, when
the research materials were moved to New York to avoid the war. Stillman, an
American, took over the direction of the New York research in 1939 and
remained there until 1942, when he left to do war work, turning the
direction of the research over to Dr. Alexander Gode. Stillman brings to
New York some of the thinking of the philologists in Liverpool. He teaches
this to Gode. Ideas, methods were evolving.
} }(2) to ASCERTAIN to what extent EACH candidate language is -- WITHOUT
}IRREPARABLE DAMAGE to its FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE -- ***MODIFIABLE *** }so as
to MAKE ***IT*** CONFORM to the AGREED CRITERIA." } }Now, ask yourself, what
languages were to be used? What was the purpose of }these six? Answer: point
2 above. To find out which ONE of the SIX could be }MADE to CONFORM to the
agreed criteria, and would survive "without }irreparable damage to its
fundamental structure". And, if one could be found }of the six, then IT,
that ONE of the SIX, was to be "MODIFIABLE" so as to }MAKE IT [ not them,
IT], CONFORM...."
That may have been 1936, but we know that after Stillman assumed the helm,
the emphasis was on a strictly scientific, objective methodology of
identifying the prototype forms for the international words. But none of
this is contradictory to what was done by IALA under Stillman and then Gode,
although, as in any organization, there was some evolution of thinking.
The 1945 General Report of IALA says
"Our exploratory studies of natural, or ethnic, languages, and of the many
constructed languages already devised, led to the conclusion that there is a
practical contribution which IALA could make to the science of
interlinguistics... The practical contribution would be the development of
a system by which the impersonal methods of science might be applied more
thoroughly than ever before in determining what material in the many
languages of the world is sufficiently common to be the basis of
standardization for the vocabulary of an international language.... ...The
Committee conceived of the auxiliary language not as altogether a new
language, but rather as a synthesis based upon existing ethnic and
constructed languages...." Gen. Report 1945 pp. 18-19.
} }This is not dreaming, paranoia, etc. It is nothing more than the simple
}statement of the folks from IALA who were in charge. This is the simple
}explanation of what they planned to do, and they did it. The ONLY language
}of the SIX that could survive such a modification was OCCIDENTAL.
Bob, if the 1945 General Report of IALA is any indication, they were not
even at that late point, working with just Occidental, but three variant
grammars and word-derivation affix systems, to be applied to the
standardized forms of the international vocabulary. One of the variants,
E, had an affix system similar to Occidental's, but it was not Occidental.
IALA was seeking a synthesis of the prototypes determined by the ethnic
languages with some simplified grammar (and corresponding affix system)
suggested by previous constructed languages. Nowhere will you find it
explicitly stated that Occidental was the final system and it was to be
modified in a few slight ways. Occidental just happens to be the most
naturalistic of previous systems with a vocabulary closest to what is
produced by a prototype methodology. But Interlingua is based on the
prototypes and not on Occidental.
} The rest }could not, because not only could they not be modifiable, but
they also had }to fit the other criteria mentioned. So, the only viable
solution was }Occidental. So, IALA modified Occidental, and placed upon it
the }"grammatical" structures preferred by Dr. Gode.
This is shere fantasy and wishful thinking on your part. We've already shown
how the very details of Interlingua, do not accord with a simple
modification of Occidental words, as in the case of "distracte", which you
imagine to be derived from the past participle "distractet" in Occidental.
You have no understanding of the philological reasoning behind the forms of
Interlingua. You operate on superficial similarities.
}So, from the beginning, the }above Specific Purpose Statement from IALA
itself, mentioned above, to the }end when Dr. Gode himself says, it is HIS
lexico and HIS grammar, we have a }poor modification of Occidental.
It would be better to say that Occidental was a good but not optimal
approximation of the standardized prototypes derived from the ethnic
languages, used by IALA.
}From a true INTER-national language to a }South Romance language using the
latinisms and south romanic preferences of }Dr. Alexander Gode.
The "latinisms" are usually the most international forms found borrowed in
the Germanic languages. The Romance languages tended to mutilate the Latin
forms, unless they took them from Latin in "learned" words. Even so,
Occidental in 1938 had words like "distinyer", "leer", "attinyer", which are
not international. IALA did not use those forms, but rather the
international forms of "distinguer", "leger", and "attinger" based on
English, say, "distinguish", "legible", and "attingent" or French
"distinguer", lisible and atteindre", Italian "distinguere, leggere,
leggibile, attingere", Spanish "distinguir", "leer", "legible","atingente"
.
} All the picky arguments to the contrary cannot negate }the flow of
history, the end results, AND the actual explanations of the }IALA
organisation itself. Of course, today, the only recourse is to deny the
}above means what it says. But, just read it slowly and carefully. It tells
}us what IALA was attempting to do quite clearly, and nothing was changed in
}1951, 1950, 1949, 1948, etc. Gode didn't change the above goals.
There is no indication that the New York effort of IALA had settled on
Occidental as the basis for its vocabulary. The General Report of 1945 says
nothing of this. It describes a methodology for standardizing the
international vocabulary that is essentially the same methodology described
by Gode in the Introduction to the Interlingua-English Dictionary. The most
naturalistic variant of the three proposed languages was very similar to the
final Interlingua and less similar to Occidental. This most-naturalistic
variant exhibited the prototype forms in their least modified form.
Stillman, by the way, was an Esperantist, famous for his Esperanto poetry.
I doubt if he would have been overly sympathetic with Occidental, but rather
he wanted to produce a linguistically sophisticated solution that was
totally objective in its methodology. So, he brought the prototype ideas to
New York and found Gode an easy convert to them.
} }The above is quoted from page 10 and 11 of the 1936 ANNUAL REPORT, NOT
the }General Report of 1945.
Thinking evolved after 1936, especially after Collinson was no longer able
to lead the research project. We have no reason to believe that Stillman's
views were out of sorts with those of the linguistic group under Collinson
between 1936 and 1939, over which Stillman was the assistant director in
Liverpool at that time. What do the reports say they were doing in
Liverpool in 1937, 1938 and 1939?
} }Look, read the history of IALA from 1924 till today through the
publications }of IALA and Occidental and it is clear. And, it has the stamp
of approval by }Dr. Gode himself in his own letter written in German in 1957
explaining in }his own hand, and EMPHASIZED in his own hand.
He says that he used the Occidental dictionary to finalize his own
dictionary? Poppycock!
}When above I wrote HIS lexico, }and HIS grammar, I emphasized the HIS. Why
do you think I did that? Because }that is what Dr. Gode did himself. He
marked the emphasis in his statement. }There is no question. ILa is NOT the
undisputed work of a scientific group. }It is the work of a staff following
instructions, not a staff doing }scientific research. Thorndike and Eaton
did the "scientific" work. i.e. }Found the FREQUENCY of the words to be
used. The "scientific gruppe" idea }was just the PR used to support
continued funding and donations. Nothing }wrong with that, its done all the
time, even today.
This is ridiculous. After 1939 Mrs. Morris provided the funding. She had no
need to do any PR work to get funding. She was a multimillionaire, a
Vanderbilt, remember? She also demanded professional work for the money she
paid out. She hired the linguists and paid their salaries. They sought
prototypes (even Martinet says so). That was philology, a linguistic
science. Stillman and Gode settled on a scientific methodology for
establishing their vocabulary. The details were carried out by linguists
using elementary philological principles based on the prototype concept.
The staff was following guidelines, but they had to use their expertise to
determine the prototypes and to reconcile differences in the prototypes
listed in the various language dictionaries, which often did not list the
prototype form closest to all of the variants. That was the scientific
effort. The methodology used also followed well-established methods in
philology. That was scientific.
Stan Mulaik
--
Posted from johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]