Print

Print


Je 09:52 atm 11/8/99 -0800, Leo MOSER skribis
 
>Once upon a time, either Dr. Gode or Mario Pei, when
>describing Gode's position, did a hypothetical translation
>of a text into a hypothetical IAL form using not just
>European but a proportion of Asian roots:
>
> > The text in English:
>
>   > The sun says: My name is sun. I am very brilliant. I rise in the
>   > east, and when I rise it is day. I look through your window with my
>   > eye as bright as gold, and I tell you when it is time to get up.
>   > And I say to you: Lazy one, get up. I don't shine so that you may
>   > stay in bed sleeping, but that you may get up and work, that you
>   > read and go walking.
>
>The Hypothetical semi-Asian Interlingua translation was :
>
>   > Mata-hari yu: Wo-ti nama mata-hari. Wo taihen brillante. Wo leva
>   > wo a est, dan toki wo leva wo, ada hari. Wo miru per ni-ti fenestra
>   > sama wo-ti mata brillante como kin, dan wo yu ni toki ada tempo a
>   > levar ni. Dan wo yu ni: Sust, leva ni. Wo non brilla sam-rap ni
>   > tomaru a toko a nemuru, sed wo brilla sam-rap ni leva ni, dan que
>   > ni suru kam, ni yomu, dan ni aruku.
>
>The point was to show that the use of nonEuropean roots
>would lead to a loss of recognizability for everyone,
>and gain little for Asians.
 
Problem is that Gode's argument is fallacious because he addresses only one=
=20
point of the entire complex that goes into defining a language --=20
recognizability of vocabulary (for a limited subset of humanity:=20
well-educated Westerners) -- and ignores all others, e.g. removal of=20
morphological and syntactical idiosyncrasies. Or euphony. I would have to=20
agree with Robin Turner that the "intercontinentalized" Interlingua=20
actually sounds quite nice -- to my ear, nicer than the=20
"southwest-European" version.
 
As far as I am concerned, the only really valid reason for limiting the=20
source of an IAL's vocabulary is that ... the creator of the IAL simply=20
finds himself better able to work with that limited source. From my point=20
of view, in the long run it doesn't really matter to the ultimate user=20
whether a single source language (e.g. English) contributes the vocabulary,=
=20
or it is proportionally taken from all the languages of the world. There=20
are other, more important factors to consider.
 
>It is mentioned several places (including Pei's "One Language
>for the World" 1958) but I'd like to clarify the origin? Was
>this something done by Gode?
 
Pei writes: "By way of demonstration, he offers the following passage..."=20
Since the last person referred to in the text is Gode, presumably the "he"=
=20
refers to the good Doctor. Cf. the work you mention, pp. 171-172.
 
>And more importantly, how would this text come out in
>normal Interlingua?
 
Gode did, in fact, include this, and Pei quotes it.
 
"Le sol dice: 'Io me appella sol. Io es multo brillante. Io me leva al est,=
=20
e quando io me leva, il es die. Io reguarda per tu fenestra con mi oculo=20
brillante como le auro, e io te dice quando il es tempore a levar te. E io=
=20
te dice: "Pigro, leva te. Io non brilla a fin que to resta al lecto a=20
dormir, sed que tu te leva e labora, que tu lege e que tu te promena."'"
 
Chris Burd's translation, for comparison, read:
 
"Le sol dice: Mi nomine es sol. Io es multo brillante. Io me leva in le=20
est, e quando io me leva, il es die. Io regarde per tu fenestra con mi=20
oculos tanto brillante como le aure, e io te dice quando il es tempore a=20
levar te. E io te dice: Pigro, leva te. Io non brilla a fin que tu resta=20
dormiente in lecto, ma a fin que tu va levar te e laborar e que tu va leger=
=20
e ambular."
 
Most differences between the two would appear to be normal "choice"=20
differences between two different and equally legitimate ways of expressing=
=20
the same thing. Two of them would, I would guess, be due to typos in Pei's=
=20
presentation ("reguarda" instead of "regarde" -- though there might be some=
=20
question about the ending -- and "to" instead of "tu"). I'm a little=20
worried about "aure" vs. "auro". Chris's plural "oculos" is obviously a=
 typo.
 
>Or in Esperanto -- or other languages?
 
Esperanto
 
"La suno diras: 'Mia nomo estas suno. Mi estas tre brila. Mi levi=F8as en la=
=20
oriento, kaj kiam mi levi=F8as, estas tago. Mi rigardas tra via fenestro per=
=20
mia okulo tiel brila kiel oro, kaj mi diras al vi, kiam estas horo (*) por=
=20
levi=F8i. Kaj mi diras al vi: "Mallaboremulo, elliti=F8u. Mi ne brilas tial,=
 ke=20
vi povu resti en la lito dormante, sed ke vi povu levi=F8i kaj labori, ke vi=
=20
legu kaj promenu."'"
 
(*) "horo" instead of "tempo" -- in Esperanto, a defined time of day is=20
usually rendered by "horo" (hour) instead of "tempo", which generally=20
refers to a duration or period.
 
If you are familiar with the Esperanto hymn, Zamenhof's poem "La Espero",=20
you may also want to take a look at a somewhat "intercontinentalized"=20
version, "La Tojvo", at:
 
http://www.forst.uni-muenchen.de/~refo/poezio/tojvo.html
 
 
-- Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/
(English version: http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)
 
F. Tuglas, Mira=F8o, nun legeblas (Latin-3) =E6e
   http://www.best.com/~donh/Esperanto/Literaturo/Noveloj/miragxo.html
a=FD Unikode =E6e
   http://www.best.com/~donh/Esperanto/Literaturo/Noveloj/miragxou.html