> I hope nobody (especially no beginning Latin student) is confused by the > recent postings in the artificial language Interlingua: it's not Latin, > not even modern Latin, and Esperanto's not Latin either. If the > anarcho-anachronist Ladonia wants to use our Latin list as its > international news service (which would be a hoot), I do hope it does so > in real Latin! I am dismayed that someone takes umbrage at my posting on this list things about interlingua. I think its existence is of interest to latinate language teachers and at the same time, if you understood how interlingua was developed--as a standardization of the anglo-romance languages (not an artificial language, like Esperanto), you would understand why we users of Interlingua are interested in Latin (mostly vocabulary, but also some points of grammar) and benefit from following discussions in this list. As for Ladonia, I'm not sure what this refers to. I am not an "anarcho- anachronist", I don't belong to a place or movement called Ladonia. I think the poster of this comment is jumping to conclusions on very little information. Maybe the other Interlinguan who has posted here, Jay Bowkes, who is a Latin and romance language teacher who uses Interlingua as an adjunct in some of his teaching, knows about it, but I don't. Interlingua was developed by professional linguists as an attempt to establish a standardized and usable form for the international vocabulary in the European languages, using the anglo-romance languages as a basis for the standardization. The reason Latin is of interest to Interlinguans is because the basis for the standardization is in the prototype forms from which the similar variants in the various languages of the base diverge in their characteristic ways. Latin, either classic, vulgar ("popular" if we follow Robert Hall on this), medieval or neolatin is the source for the preponderance of prototypes in the international vocabulary. One recurring theme in discussions among Interlinguans is the etymology of words in Interlingua because it is important to the determination of the correct prototypes and their understanding. Experts on Latin would be of considerable help to us in these matters. Clearly, interlingua is not classical Latin, but it is heavily Latin in vocabulary and even in its affix system. It does not have the grammar of classical Latin but rather is a simplified form of romance, which developed not from classical Latin but "popular" or vulgar Latin, which was spoken by the ordinary people and even the elites in their less than literary moments in Rome and the Roman Empire between about 200 b.c. and 500 a.d.. Thus it just may be that I have a different conception of "Latin" than the above poster, who has every right to his view. "Latin" can mean many things. My view of it concerns the Latin heritage in the modern European languages, and I hope he would be tolerant of those with somewhat different conceptions than he. And if I seem to be looking for those among you who might be interested in Interlingua, that is true. Just as you show anxiety about the loss to the world of the knowledge of Classical Latin grammar, I have anxiety about the loss to the world that might result from not realizing that in Interlingua one has an excellent vehicle for teaching ordinary folks the Latin etymology of the international vocabulary in the anglo-romance and other modern languages. Interlingua is also a useful bridge to the romance languages and can be used as an intermediate language on the internet, especially in the latinate world where English may not always be mutually understood. Sia tolerante, mi amicos! Stanley Mulaik