Print

Print


Dr. Alexander Gode in letter to Stanley Mulaik, November
27,1961:

In a more serious vein I must add my penny's worth to your
discussion of what you call the "plethora of alternatives
offered by the Dictionary" in the particle compartment. I do
not remember whether I ever explained to you that there was
method in this madness While working on the Dictionary I was
not yet completely disillusioned about interlinguists in
general. I considered it quite possible that a good many
Occidentalists, Idists, even Sumaists and Esperantists, would
welcome our Dictionary as an objectively solid anchoring
ground under the unstable waves of subjective preferences in
matters of the international vocabulary. I was naive enough
to foresee that some of these gentlemen would accept our
Dictionary as their lexical Bible, reserving for themselves
merely the right to remain faithful to their past in terms of
grammar. In this daydreaming, I foresaw trouble for my friends
in the matter of grammatical words, which are and are not
vocabulary and which are and are not grammar. I discussed the
problem with Blair and as a result of our discussion, proposed
that he collect from the dozen and two auxiliary language
systems he knows all the grammatical words which would not
look too silly in the neighborhood of Interlingua words and
stick them in brackets in our compilation. I do not believe
that I would use the same procedure today. Let me summarize
briefly what my approach has come to be after these many
years of practical trial and error. I know you can go along
with me only part of the way but that is quite as it should
be. (1) There is no question about the particles that emerge
without complication from the prototype methodology. Examples
are: "nos," "que," "con," etc. (2) I refuse to admit any
particle without adequate prototype credentials and revert
instead to straight Latin. "Tamben" looks as Chinese to me as
"ma," "anque" as "ti." I think it is only a slightly
journalesified expression of the essence of Interlingua if we
claim that any Interlingua text must be decipherable without
the help of an Interlingua Dictionary. If I don't know what
the Interlingua word "vison" means, I look it up in Webster,
and if I haven't got a Webster I take the Larousse instead.
If I don't know what "ma" means I also don't know where to
look it up. If I do not know the meaning of "sod" or "etiam"
I do recognize at least that these words are Latin, for I
have often been told that Interlingua is a modern version of
Latin. (3) I make extensive use of a tendency which seems to
prevail in all the living languages I know anything about, to
wit, the substitution of descriptive phrases for crystallized
particles. Since I very often substitute "at this time" for
"now", "in all parts of the world" for "everywhere", and
since I do the same in French, in German, and would no doubt
in Spanish and Italian if I were qualified to do anything at
all in those languages, I obviously feel free to say in
Interlingua "a iste tempore "in omne partes del mundo", "in
le mesme maniera", etc. It is quite interesting to note how
much can be done by means of such circumlocutions, which
actually enliven one's style rather than clumsify it.

--Alexander Gode