Kjellt e Allan,
   Si vos lege le "Manifesto de Interlingua" per Alexander Gode a nostre
sito in le tela transterrestre, vos va vider que ille recognosce que
alicuno possibilemente va conciper de interlingua como panromance. Mais
ille indicava que su conception esseva (como Kjellt diceva) plus large que
isto, essente le paneuropee lingua, constante tote formas international a
in su vocabulario. In su opinion le germano e le russe e le anglese anque
contribue al forma de interlingua, e isto lo face non exactemente exclusive-
mente romance.  Mais qualcunque consequentia de isto essera minor e il non
es un puncto que vale le lucta inter interlinguanos pro resolver lo.  Si
vos vole scriber o parlar un dialecto pur romance, alora vos ha iste derecto.
Claro, le forma de un pur romance continerea accordo super le genere e le
numero inter substantivos e adjectivos, flexiones de persona super verbos.


Heri io habeva le placer de releger un lectura que Dr. Gode presentava al
Association de Linguas Moderne in Nove York in 1954 in que ille describeva
le maniera in que on trova solutiones pro parolas pro le qual il ha necun
forma commun inter le variantes del linguas as base.

Infortunatemente, io non ancora ha traducite iste texto a in interlingua.
Il anque ha plus que iste excerpto, que continue plure ideas interessante.

Dr. GODE:

        The next step in the Interlingua methodology had to be an
attempt to round off the assembled international vocabulary in terms
of practical requirements.  This obviously could not simply consist in
ascertaining that either the English or the French or the German
vocabulary was adequately covered by the available Interlingua forms.
The international vocabulary must be adequate to cover the
internationally current body of concepts, and a major implication of
the basic Interlingua tenets is after all precisely that the
internationally current body of concepts constitutes a complete
language.

Hence every concept -- regardless of whether it was conceived in
English or in one of the other source languages had to qualify as
international before its claim to  representation in the international
vocabulary could be acknowledged.  This led to the striking
observation that the international vocabulary already assembled on the
basis of internationality of form was adequate on the whole in regard
to abstract, scientific. and generally learned terms.  The gaps
appeared rather in the realm of everyday concepts of a totally
concrete nature.

The problem here was not envisaged as amounting to the requirement
of clarifying a given concept and of then providing for it a
satisfactory term.  It was rather construed as requiring the search
for a new view point which would permit the established methodology to
yield the forms wanted.  For numerous concepts whose internationality
could not be doubted this was achieved by simply taking into
consideration older levels of the source languages, sometimes going
straight back to Latin. More frequently it was done by examining and
in a way by choosing among the various forms representing a given
international concept in the source languages.  For instance the
concept represented in English by 'safety match' is clearly
international, but its forms in the several source languages are
totally divergent.  Since we are here concerned with the problem of
the elaboration of an.internationally valid vocabulary, we might test
the various source-language forms in their international
potentialities.  The Spanish cerillas might be imitated in English as
something like waxlet or in French as cirette, but neither of these
could carry the required meaning even in context.  Testing the other
possibilities in a similar way one is bound to emerge with the
conclusion that the italian fiammifero has a fair degree of
international expressive potency.  In English it would appear as
flame-bearer or simply as lucifer, which is quite excellent.  But the
more' important point is that this term can be built into the already,
established international vocabulary by means of available elements.
The Interlingua word for 'match' is flammifero.

The interest of this example is again that the Interlingua
methodology -- without assuming that it can "creatively" define a
concept and then proceed to devise a word form for it - results in a
clear correspondence of function and form which the contributing
languages harbor only potentially or historically.  The German
Feuerzeug (which corresponds fairly closely to flammifero) would not
be a bad representation of 'match'  and English 'lucifer' which is
almost completely the same as flammifero) got accidentally pushed into
the background because its etymology is not kept alive by related
popular terms.
* * *
I have attempted to show that the question of function and
structure in Interlingua cannot be posed autonomously.  It will always
present itself in terms of the same question posed in regard to the
source languages   And yet the function-structure relationship in
Interlingua is not the same as in French or in Spanish and Portuguese
or in Italian or in English

Potesser, Steve pote traducer isto pro nos como un exercitio....:-)

Stan Mulaik
[log in to unmask]