Print

Print


>Paul O Bartlett wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Robert J. Petry wrote (small excerpt):
>>
>> > Again, Esperanto is capable now of reaching maybe 2 million people
>>with a scientific
>> > article.  [...]
>> >                                                               With
>>Occidental those 1-500
>> > million people can read most of the articles or letters without any
>>training.
>>
>>     I do not have the reference -- perhaps Don Harlow does -- but I
>> recall reading somewhere that an experiment was done with Interlingua.
>> A group of American medical doctors with no training in Interlingua
>> were given medical articles (or perhaps summaries) in Interlingua and
>> asked to translate them into English.  Specialized matter otherwise
>> familiar to specialists in that field.  The results were not totally
>> encouraging, as the physicians did not do as well as some prople had
>> expected.  Would it be any different with Occidental?
>
>Well, this doesn't surprise me. I wonder if Italian or French or
>Spanish-speaking doctors would
>do much better. I kind of doubt it.  "International" vocabulary works best
>at a kind of
>artificial level that's hard to describe. Sort of treating "which way to
>the bathroom?" as
>"What road to the convenient place?" if you follow me. I've seen first
>hand how Italians can
>converse with Catalans or Spanish (especially Spaniards). Judging from the
>Spanish part of
>those dialogues, I'd say there's a partly conscious, partly unconscious
>adjustment that goes on
>on both sides. A Spaniard I knew spoke differently to an Italian (with no
>training in Spanish),
>to other Spaniards and to me (non-Romance speaker with lots of Spanish
>classes behind him).
>
Io experientia lo mesme (the same): parlante con personas de varie partes e
gruppos in svedia, daneses, norvegianos, personas qui non parla svedese
como su lingua native mi cerebro naturalmente quasi non-conscientemente se
accostuma (gets accostumed) al capabilitate de reception del altere
persona.
 
>I wonder if they would have done better with one hour instruction? Two
>hours? Ten?
>Now that's an interesting experiment (and one with useful PR purposes)
>what's the least amount
>of training professionals need to be able to read specialized material in
>IALX.
 
Isto pone (poses) un grande responsabilitate al traductor/autor. Il es un
maladie in multe linguas artificial que on produce textos sin del toto (not
at all) pensar (to think; here: thinking) del lectores.
 
>The whole idea of a "you already know it!" language works best in informal
>situations where
>little in the way of new information is to be conveyed and there's some
>measure of good will on
>both sides. Otherwise it can be rough going.
 
Isto es un bon puncto (point). Le persona face le prime incontro con le
lingua in un situation quasi sin obligation. In loco (instead) de dicer que
isto es le lingua blah-blah-blah que es multo bon, on lo demonstra. Io
calcula isto como un del tractos (features) de interlingua que me place le
plus (that I like best).
 
 
 
[log in to unmask]
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64  UPPSALA
Svedia - Sweden