Newsgroups: europa.linguas
*	From: [log in to unmask] (Stanley Mulaik)
*	Subject: Re: Gode's ILa.
*	Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:19:02 +0000 (UTC)
*	Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
*	Mail-From: [log in to unmask] from hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]

The following is a history of Interlingua posted at the newsgroup AUXLANG
on 27 Mar 2001:

1)  Alexander Gode von Aesch is raised in a bilingual family: His father is  
    German and his mother is Swiss (speaking French). Gode studies at Univ. of 
    Vienna, the Sorbonne in Paris, and in 1927 comes to the U.S. and gets a  
    Ph.D. from Columbia U. in 1939 in German philology. He specializes in 
    Goethe.  He stays in US.
2)  In the early 1930s he teaches modern languages at Columbia and
    Univ. of Chicago.
3)  IALA was first organized in 1924 by the heiress Alice Vanderbilt Morris and 
    her husband, Dave Hennen Morris, ambassador to Luxemburg [sic, Belgium]
    from  U.S.
4)  Gode becomes involved with IALA in 1933.  But he says: "Depost
    1933 io habeva laborate pro IALA a intervallos irregular, semper
    sin preoccupation directe con problemas interlinguistic."  He
    was not working on projects that directly related to interlinguistics
    or creating an international language.
5)  1934 - Helen Eaton begins work on semantic frequency lists.
6)  1934-1936 - IALA and other granting agencies fund various projects
    like developing bibliographies on linguistics,
6)  1936 - IALA begins to develop its own international auxiliary language at
    Liverpool, England, under W. C. Collinson (philologist) and E. Clark
    Stillman.  Gode is in U.S.  This work was supported by Rockfeller
    Foundation and Research Corporation (later RCA).
7)  1938? - Gode gives some help to Helen Eaton on her
    semantic frequency lists study. 
8)  1939 - War breaks out between England and Germany. IALA moves  all of
    its linguistic data and library to New York and Stillman is named new
    Director.  The Liverpool staff is dispersed.
9)  1939+ - Helen Eaton recommends Gode to Stillman.  Stillman is hiring
    only professionals with no prior connection to any auxiliary language
    system.  He is suspicious of Gode because Gode had done on and off work
    for IALA before, but later accepts him because none of it was directly
    for any particular auxiliary language system.
10) Gode helps Miss Eaton complete her semantic frequency list for several
    languages - proof reads it?  It is published in 1940.
11) Gode surveys grammatical particles in Latin and the
    Romance languages (1940).  He also assists Miss Eaton on a frequency
    survey of affixes in the vocabulary of several (later) source languages.
    This is 1939-1940.
12) 1940 - 1943.  Gode and Stillman work together on developing a
    methodology for (a) establishing the internationality of words - the
    "rule of three" - (b) an objective way of establishing a standard form
    for words accepted, (c) establishing the international meanings of words.    
    Standardization (b) draws upon the "scientific" idea of the
    prototype, which had been used by philologists for over 100 years
    to explain similarities between languages as the result of their
    having diverged from a common ancestor or having borrowed a word
    from the ancestor of the other language. The prototype is the
    theoretical or historical common form of variants in current languages.
    English and the major Romance languages are also chosen as source
    languages because  (a) they are a coherent group of languages
    sharing Latin and Greek as ancestral languages (b) the
    prototypes are relatively well worked out for most words,
    sometimes with historical documentation (c) the languages have
    both absorbed and radiated outward words from and to other languages
    and likely already contain international words to be found in other
    languages - thus overcoming the need to examine more than just these
    languages. German and Russian are also to be consulted as back-up
    when three variants are not found.  In effect German and Russian
    could be considered in each case. In 1943 a typescript is
    prepared of this methodology. The details of this methodology
    are also given in the 1945 General Report.
13) Late 1942 - Stillman leaves to work for State Department. Gode is
    made Acting Director of Linguistic Research and continues work on the
    international vocabulary with a staff of romanicists (experts on
    romance languages with some philological course background for them).
14) Gode also works at a full time job as Editor of Reference Books
    for T. Y.  Crowell Co. in New York.
15) 1945 - General Report says "more than twenty thousand international
    words have been standardized according to our basic procedures."
    Work on selecting items for a dictionary in English and the auxiliary
    language is under way.  It will have about 10,000 entries.  A core
    set of entries was selected by correlating them with existing
    frequency lists in four languages of the Semantic Frequency List.
    The next step is to consider the grammar and derivational system
    for the international vocabulary so-far established. Models with
    varying degrees of schematicization are being worked on, as well
    as naturalistic versions.  (Mrs. Morris wants an Esperanto-type
    language. Gode prefers a naturalistic version).
16) 1946 - 1948.  Prof. André Martinet is brought from Paris to head up
    the Research.  He later notes that when he arrived Gode was still
    to be the Assistant Director of Research in charge of the group of
    linguists.  Furthermore, M.'s task was to determine a design for the
    final language. But he is told he must keep that design in conformity
    with the forms of the international vocabulary as developed by the
    group of linguists under Gode.  He notes that the linguists proudly
    claim that they have no interest in inventing a language, but rather
    they are extracting the international prototypes from the source
    languages.  He notes that Mrs. Morris' personal assistant, Hugh Blair
    is working hard to combine schematicism with naturalism.  Mrs. Morris
    schematicizes á la Esperanto to the foundations.  Martinet decides to work
    chiefly with Blair and Mrs. Morris.  He conducts a survey of experts
    seeking their opinion of 4 versions of the international language
    C, K, M and P. Variant P is purely naturalistic based on the prototype
    forms.  M is a modernized version of P.  It has same verb forms of
    current Interlingua, but drops -e from nouns and adjectives.  In
    that respect it is closer to C, which is similar to Occidental.
    K is a more schematicized language like Esperanto and Ido, but with
    their undesirable features eliminated.  All are based on the
    international vocabulary of the linguistic group, but with different
    affixes to conform to their degree of schematicism. The schematicism
    of K is soundly rejected.  C has fewer supporters than P and M. In
    preparing a short dictionary Gode notes that Martinet changed words
    submitted to him for approval to be more like Occidental words.
    Later when Gode becomes Director of Research, replacing Martinet,
    Gode discards most of the Occidental-like words of Martinet and returns
    the prototype forms he and the linguists had produced.

1948 - Martinet resigns at end of October.  The problem is that he had
    obtained a position at Columbia and wanted to be paid by IALA at the
    same level.  Mrs. Morris (who funded the work at this time) refuses.
    Martinet leaves.  Dr. Gode at the same time goes to Mrs. Morris to
    tell her that he negotiated a position at Vanderbilt and intended to
    leave since the work he and Stillman began is being ignored by
    Martinet and changed.  She offers him the position Martinet vacated.
    He says he'll take it only on the condition that she does not
    interfere with his decisions.  (Gode trusts his professional instincts,
    that the naturalistic product of his group is the most linguistically
    respectable product and stands his ground).  She concedes. He completes
    the dictionary, even after she dies and leaves no money for its
    completion.

1951 - Dictionary finished and published by Storm Publishers - Gode's own
    press. He writes a grammar for the use of the vocabulary in the
    dictionary.  He lines up work from Science Service and begins a
    career of translating medical and scientific abstracts into Interlingua.

1953 - IALA disbands.

All of the above is substantiated and documented somewhere.

Some Occidentalists have accused Dr. Gode of plagiarizing
the Occidental dictionaries in developing the IED. There is no
substantiated evidence to support this claim, other than the claim of
some that Martinet was choosing Occidental forms for words in place of
the prototypes.

In a letter to me dated Feb. 16, 1960 Gode wrote:  "The discussion of who
invented Interlingua will soon die down again. Mrs. Morris didn't. If she
had, the thing would be a spittin' image of Esperanto.  Dr. Martinet
didn't.  If he had, the thing would be a spittin' image of Occidental.
As for myself, I both didn't and did.  I had learned a lot from
Stillman and had learned a lot while working for IALA.  But what I
learned and saw and understood and salvaged I learned with my head, saw
with my eyes, understood in my way, and salvaged with my energy, for
the simple reason that I had no other head, no other eyes, etc.  I
really don't see what the hubbub is about.  A thing like Interlingua
just can't be the job of one man.  And I still think it's a rather
nice metaphor and one that satisfies my vanity completely if we agree
that I was the midwife of Interlingua."

De Guesnet, an Occidentalist, in letters to Berger and others when 
Martinet resigned at IALA expressed fears that Mrs. Morris would then 
favor an Esperanto-like solution. What was the basis for those fears?

Martinet said in his letter to Berger (before Berger left Occidental
for Interlingua) that "Mrs Morris schématise à fond" [tries to make 
schematic languages like Esperanto].

Stillman (1907-1995) was born in a small mining town about 65 miles from 
Salt Lake city. His father, Charles Clark Stillman was a Baptist Minister who also
ran a store for the miners. Later his father becomes a Dean at Ohio State
University and a building is named for him on campus.
  We don't know who influenced Stillman's conceptions. But he worked with
philologists in Liverpool before taking over the Directorate of the
new team he hires in New York.  In any case he hires Gode, and Gode
and he draws upon a concept as old as philology, the prototype, as the
way to find an objective form for the standardization of the international
word. The prototype is the closest common historical or theoretical form
from which the variants in the modern languages descended or was borrowed.
The prototype is the "cause" of the similarity between variants.  So,
Stillman and Gode provide the framework within which the linguists
under them will work.

An Occidentalist on AUXLANG accused Gode of plagiarizing from Occidental.
As evidence he pointed out how the list of words in the IED is similar
to those in an Occidental dictionary.
           If there is a list of words given to the linguists,
it would be a word list, say, in one of the source languages.
It could be your Thorndike dictionary list supplemented by Eaton's.
Their task is to find for each word whether there is an international
form for the word, and if so, to standardize its form along the lines
of the prototype.  There would have to be a battery of dictionaries
with etymologies available.  The linguists would have to have had the
rudiments of philology - perhaps in a graduate course - of the language
which is their specialty. They go to their respective dictionaries and
look up the word.  If there are three similar variants with a common
precise meaning, then the prototype for the variants is sought by
examining the brief etymologies given with the entry in the dictionary
of the respective languge. The linguists have to share their results
(if each takes one or two of the source languges) and see if they can
resolve any differences in the prototype form. It's written down next to
the word in the language of the master word list.  There may already
have been decisions made as to how to standardize affixes based on
a study of affixes.  In most cases these have Latin origins. But
they are appended to the prototypes for the roots.  Usually a whole
derivational family is searched to find the prototype root - again
usually it's a Latin root.  But it could be a word from some other
language than Latin.  This is a scientific process for yielding a
common cause of the similarity between source language word-variants.
Gode isn't telling them how the story comes out.  He only tells them
what the framework is that they are working in.  So, calling himself
the mid-wife makes sense.  He helps the results come out, guides the
process.  But he doesn't dictate the forms of the individual prototypes.
That's dictated by the forms of the words and the etymologies and the
linguist's knowledge of philology to resolve the differences. He isn't
looking up the word in the Occidental dictionary and telling them,
"Make this word look like this".  They are not doing merely clerical
work.  That the result comes out much of the time like a word in an
Occidental dictionary is because the prototypes are usually
Latin or Greek, and Occidental also had the rule to accept all
Greek and Latin words with modern variants but make them conform to
de Wahl's affixes and rule of de Wahl.  If there are differences, that
raises the interesting question: how do differences in their methods
yield different results?  Interlingua is not always bound to the
Latin form and can settle on common prototypes in protoromance. Why
do Occidental and Interlingua still differ even though differences do
not seem great for the most part?

In a letter to me  (in Interlingua) dated 25 februario 1960 he wrote:
"Gratias pro vostre interessante littera.  Le documento de de Guesnet
me es cognoscite e io non lo ha relegite.  Martinet habeva certe
sympathias pro interlingue.  On lo sape, e proque  non?  A ille
tempore il non esseva possibile pro ille parlar de iste sympathias
francamente.  Ergo ille debeva proceder con un certe diplomatia.
Isto me pare natural.  Remane que io pote reprochar Martinet de non
haber comprendite mi puncto de vista.  Sed es isto un reproche? In
le fin del fin il ha solmente le conclusion que io pote esser grate
a mi bon angelo que ille ha disponite le cosas de maniera que mi 
puncto de vista prevaleva.  E mi gratitude va esser sentite etiam per
omne illes qui profita del servicios de interlingua ubicunque
interlingua pote esser de servicio."  The letter from de Guesnet
was the "secret" minutes of the meeting with Martinet in Paris.

If Martinet had stuck around, IALA would have produced a clone of
Occidental.  That Gode was left standing at the end means Gode's
philological views prevailed and we have an intellectually respectable
piece of work, which he was doing all along after joining the staff
at IALA under Stillman.  And we don't have another Esperanto.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inserted 12.03.02:
With respect to the accusation that the linguistic staff was just
boiler plate to cover up the real way Interlingua was developed
there is the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(BTW, after 1939 in New York Mrs. Morris was
paying the bills herself, so she wasn't hiring linguists as boiler-
plate to impress some granting agencies. They had to do useful work).
There may have been similarities in some of the clerical procedures
used by Gode and your friend.  But the linguists had to do work of
looking up etymologies and resolving differences or in some cases
creating a plausible common prototype that was more recent than the
Latin or vulgar Latin one reported in the dictionary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Inserted 12.03.02)
BTW, Martinet left IALA to Columbia University because he demanded
a salary at IALA commensurate with his salary at Columbia.  To show
that money was not given away easily by Mrs. Morris, we can cite Frank
Esterhill's History of the Interlingua Institute where he makes the
following footnote on the affair of Martinet's resignation:

"17. IALA was unwilling to meet Martinet's salary demands. CF.
September 25, 1948 memorandum to Martinet from Lawrence
Morris, Treasurer of IALA:
   We all feel that you are under a misaprehension in thinking
   that your basic International Auxiliary Language Association
   salary shouyld be identical with your Columbia University
   salary.  There is no precedent in this country for your conception
   that the rate of pay for work a man may choose to carry on
   in addition to his university duties sho9uld be the same as he is 
   paid by the university."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gode argued that the -a, -o, -e endings of nouns were part of the
prototypes and that's why they are there.  They have no grammatical
gender function.  (They may have sexual gender function to distinguish
males from females, but that is not the same as grammatical gender).

Gode also wrote me about Martinet's surveys, that their results would
have had no bearing on what he and his linguists did:

"Le famose quatro variantes ha habite nulle influentia super le
progresso del labores de IALA.  Si omne le questionatos se habeva
declarate in favor del systema schematic, io non haberea dirigite le
recercas de mi personal in un direction altere que illo que ha
producite le interlingua que vos cognosce." 2 May 1956 or 1957.
Letter to me.

There is, I believe, a subtle point here.  The linguistic research
was to yield prototypes of the international vocabulary.  The actual
language to be presented would have to modify that prototypic
vocabulary by whatever schematicism and grammatical system was to
be imposed on it. (See General Report 1945 for examples of how that
was done with 3 model languages).  Mrs. Morris' instructions to Martinet:
don't mess with the prototypes of Gode's group as you design your
language. You can only modify them in some systematic way in conformity
with your schematicism). In the end, Gode got to make the final
decision about what the language would be and picks a highly natural
variant that does very little to modify the prototypes. The dictionary
was intended to be merely a source for other auxiliary languages to
use. His grammar was a separate project.  Gode's group is describing a
linguistic reality. It's what it is. It's up to the language
inventors to take it and use it as they saw fit.

WRT: }"Take the
}Thorndike list and lay it beside the Gopsill {Concise English-Interlingua
Dictionary} and you will find an
}interesting correlation."

Even better lay the Gopsill and Sexton Concise English-Interlingua
Dictionary along side Mondadori's Pocket English-Italian dictionary
and you will find an even stronger correlation (with the English list),
at least through the D's.

So, what does that prove?  Sexton or Gopsill used that dictionary
to provide English words to prompt him for Interlingua words in his
respective section? Big deal!

So, rather than go back over and over this again. Let's see what is
left unresolved.  Someone claimed that the 1949 General Report showed
a page or two of the upcoming IED, and it was different from the
corresponding pages of the actual IED produced by Gode.  Can he
show us the list of Interlingua words so that we can determine how
they differ from the words in Gode's IED?  Could he also quote what
the report says was the way the pages were generated and by whom?

Stan Mulaik


--
Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html