Print

Print


Kjell R. skripted:

> And while I am at it: Is Dyer
> talking about Interlingua?!

Dyer was writing in 1923, and was defending Ido against Occidental,
Lsf, and people like Guerard.  His arguments, at least the ones I
copied up, also apply to IALA Interlingua.

> The common words in our European languages are mostly from mediaeval Latin.
> A secretary is _ab epistulis_ in Classical Latin. The _secretarius_ came
> much later. THAT was the common word in nearly all European languages and
> therefore in Interlingua as well. Train, traino, treno is a common word so
> it is _traino_ in interlingua.

"Train" presumably comes under the same heading as "telephone, boycott"
in Dyers classification.

> Un texto in interlingua dice plus in re iste lingua que mille parolas de
> explication.
>
> A text in interlingua says more about this language than a thousand words
> of explanation.

A text in Interlingua can only say so much.  It cannot tell me, for
instance, whether the indef. art. UN is optional or compulsory,
whether the -O of TEXTO is a regular sb ending or part of the root,
how I am to pronounce C in DICE, whether the -E of ISTE is a regular
adj ending, whether I am to pronounce MILLE with a double or a single
L, on which syllable I am to stress PAROLAS, and whether that follows
a regular stress rule or an exception, whether EXPLICATION is a
derivative proper in the language or a ready-made word, and if it is
a derivative, what the precise rule is for its construction from
root and suffix, and what are the forms of each.
In short, not really very much at all.

James Chandler
[log in to unmask]