Print

Print


Newsgroups: europa.linguas
*       From: [log in to unmask] (Stanley Mulaik)
*       Subject: Re: ILa and 1943, 1939
*       Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 08:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
*       Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
*       Mail-From: [log in to unmask] from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]

------------------------------------------------------------------------


}
Stan said:
}}And that Occidental has many synonyms is not the
}}issue here.  The list I've given, taken from the
}}Radicarium, would be the language IALA saw in
}}1939.  Somehow what they saw did not satisfy them.
}}They thought they could do it better with a more
}}scientific methodology (in the sense of the
}}science of philology).
}
}
}Bob: this is NOT true. They had the full lists developed after the
}Radicarium, specifically sent to them by Occidentalists.

Keep in mind that IALA of 1936 and 1937 and 1939 was
controlled by Esperantists. Collinson was Esperantist.
Mrs. Morris was an Esperantist.  Stillman was an Esperantist.

                            It was they who were
holding off de Wahl at arms length, and he especially
resented Mrs. Morris, the Esperantist.  It was they
who were saying that they needed to do an independent
job with professional philologists.  They looked at
Occidental through linguist (Collinson) eyes and
decided it was not sufficiently scientific to
gain the support of linguists.  Gode was not on the scene
yet. Not at the decision making level.

                                    Your attempt now
to formulate a connection between Gode as German and
the German Occidental dictionary may or may not have
a basis in fact.  If so, again think of it as  your
man on the inside.  But I can assure you Gode was
not interested in a priori linguistics and he would
have only been interested in the problem of  how to
empirically and objectively register and standardize
the international vocabulary.  That was a real
question for a professional linguist to consider.

Remember also that when Martinet left IALA, the
European Occidentalists were totally deflated.
Mrs. Morris and her Esperanto inclinations were going
to prevail.

They didn't.  Naturalism prevailed.

The rule of three could also be seen as a reasonable
solution to the problem.  Given the constraints of
searching a limited number of languages to keep the
problem manageable, three languages in agreement
seems a reasonable minimum to insist on. Two will
not produce something international enough. But
if you require more than 3 languages to be the minimum
number, you make it hard to get solutions.  So,
whether they copied from the German-Occidental
dictionary this method or arrived at it on their
own, we won't know.  It is paranoid to insist that
this is the way it happened without clear supporting
evidence.

So, if Gode introduced the rule, think of it as
IALA finally dealing with the naturalism issue in a
concrete way.  But there is more to it than just
finding three variants.  How do you standardize
their still differing forms?  Would you please
be so kind as to say  how Occidental did it?
Do you have supporting quotes?  We know how
Interlingua did it: they used the prototypes
common to three variants.  If the three variants
didn't have precisely the same prototypes, then
you didn't have a solution, but had to use
supplementary techniques.

}I am not trying to
}convince you to go to Occidental, use it, or study it. I am simply showing
}you that ILa is NOT the work of a "scientific"group of linguists in NY,
}except in the sense of manual labor. It is the work of Gode who used and
}changed Occidental resources PRIMARILY, into a form he called MY grammar
and
}MY lexico..
}All the evidence goes to that. Even Gode himself admits it in his GERMAN
}letter when he clearly explains that it is HIS grammar and HIS lexico.
}Nothing could be clearer.

No, I think you really have to have people who have linguistic
knowledge to do this sort of work.  I've done it myself.  I've
checked words in the IED and come out with the same solutions about
99.9% of the time. I have a full bank of dictionaries with
etymologies.  I've studied Romance philology.  It would be easier
and go faster if you know the words in the respective source
languages, and that is what you had with the team of 6 or so
linguists working together at IALA.   If it's Gode's lexicon
it's the result of the general methods and principles he worked out.
But as an empirical methodology, the result depended on what was in
the respective languages and their etymologies.  It's not just
these linguists shuffling papers around while Gode is feeding them
words from the German Occidental Dictionary.  There are too many
differences between Occidental and Interlingua that depend on
what's in the source languages and what the prototypes are for
them.  So, yours is a paranoid conspiracy theory - unless you
find independent documented confirmation
that Gode actually copied the Occidental dictionary.  I doubt if
you have that proof. Knowing that there is a reality of an
international vocabulary, which is plain for everyone to see,
as long as Gode worked out a reasonable methodology to capture
it in a standardized form, then it could have been done quite
independently of the Occidentalists.  It's a problem of pinning
down an objective reality. That's science. So, for me, because I've
done it myself, it's a scientific, objective process and I can accept
the IALA work as just that, because I can replicate it myself. The
prototypes as causal explanations of the similarities between
variants in the several languages is what gives it a scientific
character.

}So: conclusion?:
}
}Gode used Occidental's basic research as his own, [with
}Stillman] i.e. the vocabulary,

They may have used the same or similar methodology to
identify and standardize the international vocabulary,
but they didn't use the Occidental vocabulary as an already
prepared list.  They made their own list.  They certainly
credit de Wahl with the ideas of naturalism. But Stillman would
not have tolerated anyone using a prior constructed language
to guide their work.  It would have tainted the objective
image he wanted for their work.

But we won't know if they used precisely the same methodology
as Occidental unless you tell us what Occidental's methodology
of extracting words AND standardizing their form was.

AND
}stole the rule of three for derivation of international
}words, and, changed them.

Again if you were to accuse someone of theft or plagiarism,
you'd need more evidence than this.  Three could be a reasonable
minimum needed to insure solutions in most cases.  Two would
not produce enough internationality and four would make it
difficult to get solutions in too many cases.  The nature of
the raw linguistic data determines this.

You have no proof that they simply took a prepared Occidental
list and changed the words.  You have to explain model P in the
1945 Report.  Anyone who knows the etymologies would recognize
that language as a prototype language.

}The vocabulary was changed by dropping most of the non
}sud-romanic words, the rule was changed by, as written in the
}IED, LIMITING the source languages to English, French,
}Italian, Span/Port, Ger, russ. BIG MISTAKE. And, adding
}ancient forms of latin, instead of modernizing them when
}needed.

Limiting the languages was not a big mistake if it didn't
make much difference.  They tried that and decided it was
not worth the effort to search more languages--unless you
absolutely had to, as in the case of supplementary techniques.
You'd get the same results in most cases.  You can't have
it both ways: accuse Interlingua of not using enough languages
and then argue that they had essentially the same results.

Gode's use of a few pure Latin particles was simply a last
resort on his part.  I've already posted his letter to me
explaining that.  They only occur when there are no prototype
solutions among the three romance languages for the particles.
Are you saying that in those same cases Occidental went to
the Germanic languages.  Less coherent.  It makes the language
look artificial and amateurish.  Most current Interlinguaists
use more modern particles, so that's a moot issue.

As for other "Latin" forms, they are  usually in their modern
form in English or German.  These languages force the prototype
solutions back to Latin.  But the Latin forms have the greatest
coherence, compared to the often varying modern Romance forms.
So, I think you are uttering a hyperbole here.

}
}The extra 5% of differences between the two languages are
}primarily the percentage where Gode went in the wrong
}direction. And, this is what limits ILa's audience, versus
}the total audience potential of Occidental.

We'll see about that when you explain just what Occidental's
methodology was so that we can compare and see where and why
they differ.

But Gode would only admit that he went wrong if you could
show that he missed a truly international prototype.  He
didn't care for a priori schemes based on someone's subjective
idea of what constituted a useful and easy-to-learn language,
especially for the "uneducated masses".  He figured the
natural derivational structure was easy enough to learn.
And it is.

Cordially,
Stan Mulaik