[log in to unmask]
English Version of previous posting...
Re: Accent in Interlingua (was: World Internet? World Language!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Considering some things while answering your question, Paul...
You ask what is interlingua?
Well, Interlingua is a simple language for use by people who want to
communicate with others although not having the same mother tongue.
Take for example Kjell Rehnstroem and Allan Kiviaho, if they wrote
to me in Swedish or Finnish, I wouldn't understand them, however, since
we have Interlingua, I can enjoy what they have to tell about.
The International Auxiliary Language Association (IALA) included more than
just A. Gode, as you make mention of, there were also: F. G. Cottrell,
Prof. H. N. Shenton, Prof. E. L. Thorndike, Prof. W. E. Collinson, Prof. O.
Jespersen, Prof. E. Sapir, Prof. A. Martinet, etc. --some worked part and
full time to help with the project of the Association. Some of these
held very strong and varied opinions.
But in 1951 after some 27 years of research and development, this beautiful
international language was published. It, however, was not
an artificial invention as Esperanto is... No, but it was extracted
from the common vocabulary and common grammatical points of Romance
languages, and compared with English, German and Russian.
Then purging the irregularities that plage these modern languages.
So here was Interlingua but not in the form of an artificial Fundamento
rather in a natural and logically developed form.
The purpose always being "to answer the growing world wide communication
problems with one language, that even the man on the street could learn
in a brief study time." as F. P. Gofsill says. So please note, Paul,
that it says "that even the man on the street", the man on the street is
you and me and not just academics, for everybody, "the man on the street"
includes many people, everybody, whether of much academic learning or not,
but more correctly the average fellow, and by extension thus to everyone.
Moreover, F. P. Gopsill also says this: "To be honest, the man on the
street who has learned a modern language in school would find it extremely
difficult to understand all speakers of these modern languages
whether he read papers and magazines or watched tv and radio programs.
So what's the reward here for all these years of study? If one years later
wants to make use of the language one needs to refresh one's memory
but as it happens a person would take less time to learn Interlingua." (I
am translating loosely FPG's words here).
But concerning Esperanto, Paul, I admit that I am no expert, I had studied
it with great enthusiasm in my teenage years, but when I found Peano's
Interlingua, Latino sine Flexione, I became convinced that this was a
much more worthy alternative. Then when I read IALA's Interlingua I noticed
that it was more modern and it did away with a lot of classicisms found
in LsF. I am now of the opinion that IALA's is really the best alternative
for an IAL. I never was in full accord with the Fundamento and in many
ways I believe Ido is better suited for this than Esperanto, as we are
talking about other International Auxiliary languages, but I feel IALA's is
the best for the western world--Yes, because Interlingua is easy to
understand and learn, its vocab is maximized towards internationality/
Western that is. It is easy to learn and include modern scientific
and technologic wordstock. Its formations are truly neutral, not leaning
towards french or english, Spanish or Italian. And it is independent as
regards politics, or national and religious influences. It is easy to find
etymological roots and helps in one's study of these roots in other
languages. It is systematic and not schematic, natural and not artificial.
Paul, please take note of what this professional translator said...
"Facile como toto. Interlingua porta le sigillo authentic de linguistas
professional".
"As easy as falling of a log. Interlingua bears the hallmark of
professional linguists". --Michael Powell, Conference Interpreter, European
Parliament.
When I read what this translator said I felt he was right, not because
Interlingua is an artificial fabrication of professional linguists, but
instead because it was compiled with the professionalism and the insight
of intelligent linguists.
So Interlingua is a viable solution for the man on the street, western
streets however, and to the non-western nations Interlingua serves as a
portal, a gateway to the undestanding of its root languages. Please note
that there are speakers of these western languages in every continent. And
it is in this gobal respect that Interlingua can bridge differences so that
it is beneficial for all those who wish to communicate better in all parts
of the whole world, the globe.
But the question now is this... Would you Paul, want to help to promulgate
and promote the Interlanguage? Or if you have doubts and questions would
you keep seeking answers, learning more about the merits of Interlingua?
And thus as you have just done, ask. Never stop learning, and help others
to learn. Here then the reward of all this effort, to learn and help others
learn to communicate, it is without doubt the key to finding pleasure in
studying languages, specially the Interlanguage. It has always been my
pleasure to read your postings explaining grammatical
points to others, and seeking answers yourself at times, this too is
good to see. We all need to keep on learning and continue to grow.
In friendship,
Jay B.
From: Paul O Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
> > {followup deliberately crossposted to AUXLANG and
> > {INTERLNG although not in Interlingua for the latter}
> >
> > On 27 Jul 1997, STAN MULAIK wrote on
> > alt.language.artificial (two snippets):
> >
> > > In the present case I am emphasizing the etymological connections as
a
> > > benefit one gets from studying Interlingua.
> >
>
> {Stan: in iste caso io hic pone le emphase sur le connexiones etymologic
> que
> on trova como beneficial al studiar Interlingua}
>
> > > This sort of presupposes that English speakers will not be curious
> about
> > > the etymology of their own language. I doubt it.
> >
>
> {Stan: isto presuppone que le parlantes de anglese non essera curiose
super
> le etymologia de su proprie linguage. Io lo dubita.}
>
> > In the latter case, I certainly do doubt it. I suspect that many
> > native speakers do not know and do not give a damn about the etymology
> > of their own language. In the former case, I do not see "etymological
> > connections" as worth a whole lot to a non-Romance-non-English speaker
> > trying to learn Interlingua as an international auxiliary language.
> >
>
> {Paul: Al ultime caso, io certemente lo dubita. Io suspecta que multe
> parlantes
> native non sape e non se interessa in apprender re le etymologia de
> su proprie linguage. In le caso prime, io non vide le "connexiones
> etymologic" como habente multe valor pro un parlante non-romanic-e-non-
> anglese qui vole apprender Interlingua como un lingua international
> auxiliari}
>
>
>
> > I think the Interlingua community needs to ask itself a very
> > serious question: Just what is Interlingua for? Is it susposed to be
> > a real, global IAL? Is it supposed to be a (non-geographic) regional
> > auxiliary language for Anglo-Romance speakers? Or is it supposed to be
> > merely a quaint tool for academic study? If Interlingua *is* to have
> > some use as a global IAL, to what extent, if any, does it have autonomy
> > outside the Anglo-Romance orbit?
> >
>
>
> {Paul: Io pensa que le communitate de Interlingua necessita facer se le
> question summamente importante: Que vermente es le proposito de
> Interlingua? An essera un ver lingua auxiliari internationa (global)?
> An se suppone que illo es un lingua auxiliari regional (ma no
> geographicamente) pro le parlantes de linguas anglo-romanic? O es que
illo
> essera mermente un utilitate de interesse passante pro le academicos? Si
le
> Interlingua "habera" alcun uso como un lingua auxiliari global, usque
> a qual extento, si alcun, habera autonomia a foras del orbita
> anglo-romanic?}
>
> > For non-Anglo-Romance users, will there ever be growth as an
> > independent language, as with Esperanto, or will it forever be
> > enslaved to its original source languages? (Recall the
> > "american(o)/statounitese" disagreement on INTERLING some time back.)
> > Are Alexander Gode's original ideas about Interlingua a new "Fundamento
> > de Interlingvo"? Even though keeping within its 1905 "Fundamento,"
> > Esperanto has managed to grow beyond Ludwig Zamenhof. Will Interlingua
> > ever grow beyond Alexander Gode and his philosophically questionable
> > and the-common-man-in-the-street-doesn't-give-a-damn notions of
> > philological prototypes? In fact, is Interlingua even *for* the
> > non-scholarly man in the street, or is it only an intellectual
> > plaything?
> >
>
> {Paul: Pro le usatores non-anglo-romanic, habera crescimento independente
> como
> occurre con Esperanto, o essera in eternemente ligate a su linguas de
> fonte? (Rememora le discordia inter le parolas "americano"/"statounitese"
> in le lista INTERLNG jam face alcun tempore). An le ideas de A. Gode
> deveni un nove "Fundamento de Interlingvo"? Esperanto habente
> su"Fundamento"
> de 1905 usque nunc cresce, plus ultra del ideas de L. Zamenhof. Crescera
> Interlingua plus ultra del ideas de A. Gode e su questionabile
philosophia
> re le persona in le strata que non se interessa in le notiones del
> prototypos philologic? De facto, es Interlingua pro le homine del strata
> non academic, o es illo solmente un joco intellectual?}
>
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Paul <[log in to unmask]>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
> > Finger, keyserver, or WWW for PGP 2.6.2 public key
> > Home Page: http://www.access.digex.net/~pobart
|
