Print

Print


Thank you Chris for supporting my putting out original documents.  But in
a way it was a bit insensitive on my part to expect people at auxlang to
have the patience to wade through such long postings. But I felt it very
important to provide documented evidence that showed that Interlingua was
not the product of a sole individual working outside of the parameters
laid down by the responsible leadership of IALA. I have gone back over the
General Report of IALA of 1945 and also read some pages in the introduction
to the Interlingua-English Dictionary that I had never paid much attention
to before.  But on pages xlix - li of the introduction to the IED, Dr. Gode
cites his acknowledgements.  Briefly he says "Very essential portions of
the groundwork on which we have built were laid out by Mr. E. Clark Stillman
whom I feel privileged to have as a friend and whom I am eager to acknowledge
as a teacher in the field of interlinguistics. The Dictionary is likewise
indebted to a number of fundamental ideas originally formulated by Dr.
Andre Martinet" (p. l=el). In the paper by Gode to the Modern Language
Association that I sent in one of my overly long messages, he cites a
"500 page tome written in 1943 in collaboration with the research staff of
the International Auxiliary Language Association by E. Clark Stillman and
A. Gode-von Aesch [his full name]" as the fundamental work on the theory and
methodology of Interlingua, which he said was unfortunately only available
in typescript.  So, I think Gode is telling us that he was not the sole
thinker behind this project, although he may have been responsible for
elaborating on some of the ideas.  The Introduction also lists some ten or
so individuals who were members of the Research Staff who contributed to
the Dictionary.  He stresses that the work could not have been the work of
one person.  The tracing of words in derivational series throughout the
base languages, standardizing their affix systems after a perspicuous
picture had been formed of them through such surveys, was an enormous task.
There also had to be checks and double checks that the meanings of the words
retained in the international vocabulary were the common, international
meanings and not meanings idiosyncratic to one or two base languages. This
was an enormous task. And Gode could not have done it all by himself between
1948 and 1951 when he assumed the full-time Directorship of the Research
Division that produced the vocabulary of the IED and the several variant
forms of the auxiliary language. I think that in 1948 most of the work had
been done on assembling the lists of words and their standardized forms.
Gode returns and uses his professional skills as an editor of Reference
Materials to get a final manuscript of the dictionary to the printer.
Even that would have taken at least two years to accomplish, given that
most of the linguistic work had been completed.

I think ad hominem criticisms of Gode rather than dealing with his and
his colleague's methodology on their own merits reflects calumny if not
ignorance of the true history of Interlingua.

Stan Mulaik