Dear Tomaso,

James indicated that, unlike Gode, De Wahl had gone to
the modern European languages and thus come up with a
much better, less archaic result than Interlingua.

Yet, in the cases you cite (derived from the Latin
ablative, by the way, not the genitive - though the
genitive does have the same stem)
Occidental/Interlingue mostly takes the SAME
prototypical form, e.g. nomin, tempor, corpor.

As these enable the derivation of nomin/al, tempor/al,
corpor/al, etc. this appears to me to be highly
appropriate and far from a flaw, fatal or otherwise.

Incidentally, with regard to "bankrupt", why do you
classify Spanish/French/Italian/German as "modern
languages" but apparently not English. If a form is
commonly used in English it cannot be described as

Modernistically yours,


--- Thomas Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Don Gasper:

> Certainly I cannot speak for James here, but I can
> say what comes to my mind when I read James's words
> about "archaic vocabulary" in Interlingua...

> Interlingua looks past simple forms of words (like
> homme, nomme, and corps) and insists that these bear
> genitive endings from Latin:
>    nomINE/nomo
>    homINE/homo
>    hirundINE/hirundo
>    tempORE/tempo
>    corpORE/corpo
> Alghough I like the word "BIBERage", the reason that
> I like it is that it's so weird -- insisting on
> making
> a link between the verb and the noun which modern
> languages (like English and Italian) don't preserve.
> Another example - along the lines of septimana - is
> "bankarupta."  Modern languages (Spanish, French,
> Italian, and German) all support a form like
> "bankarota" - but IALA fell back on English
> "bankrupt"
> and the etymology in the other languages.
> I will draw the line short of saying that any of
> this
> is an indication of a fatal flaw, however.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.