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]