how to build up pool of Interlingua teaching materials

[bangiolo20]

How did Gode betray the original commision of IALA ? / Cómo ha Gode trair la missión original de IALA ?
What would your "practical" approach look like ? / Cómo se viderea tuo infocamento práctico ?

[bartlett]

From everything I have read, the original commission of the International Auxiliary Language Association as established by the Vanderbilts was to study and choose among existing conIALs, NOT to construct a new one. To that extent Gode and colleagues' having done so was, in a sense, a betrayal of the original intent of the IALA.

As for a "practical" (constructed) auxiliary language, Esperanto, of course, is the best example. It has had far more success, relatively speaking, than all other conIALs put together. At the same time, it has remained faithful to Zamenhof's original design. There have been additions to the vocabulary to cover new experiences, but they have always been within the context of the fundamentals. Some people may use slightly different styles, but they are just that, styles, and not changes to the bases of the language. No proposals to the basic structures have ever succeeded (a proposed new columns to the correlatives table has not really caught on). No changes to elementary grammatical words. Throughout the generations Esperantists for the most part have realized that stability is crucial. I don't have the document ready to hand, but Zamenhof himself asserted that even if there might be disagreements over some basic elements, stability is crucial. That is why I am so opposed to theoretical purism which would change fundamental grammatical words needlessly.

[bangiolo20]

From everything I have read, the original commission of the International Auxiliary Language Association as established by the Vanderbilts was to study and choose among existing conIALs, NOT to construct a new one. To that extent Gode and colleagues' having done so was, in a sense, a betrayal of the original intent of the IALA.

So, in other words, the betrayal lies in that they didn't construct new language with new grammar and vocabulary, but they just explored the former proposals, say, Latina sine flexione, Novial etc. Is that correct ?

Esperanto, of course, is the best example. (...) it has remained faithful to Zamenhof's original design. There have been additions to the vocabulary to cover new experiences, but they have always been within the context of the fundamentals. Some people may use slightly different styles, but they are just that, styles, and not changes to the bases of the language. No changes to elementary grammatical words. (...) stability is crucial. (...) I am so opposed to theoretical purism

What do you mean by "theoretical purism" ?

[bartlett]

From everything I have read, the original commission of the International Auxiliary Language Association as established by the Vanderbilts was to study and choose among existing conIALs, NOT to construct a new one. To that extent Gode and colleagues' having done so was, in a sense, a betrayal of the original intent of the IALA.

So, in other words, the betrayal lies in that they didn't construct new language with new grammar and vocabulary, but they just explored the former proposals, say, Latina sine flexione, Novial etc. Is that correct ?

No, it is just the opposite. It is because Gode and colleagues did "construct a new language with new grammar and vocabulary" that they betrayed the original purpose of the IALA.

Esperanto, of course, is the best example. (...) it has remained faithful to Zamenhof's original design. There have been additions to the vocabulary to cover new experiences, but they have always been within the context of the fundamentals. Some people may use slightly different styles, but they are just that, styles, and not changes to the bases of the language. No changes to elementary grammatical words. (...) stability is crucial. (...) I am so opposed to theoretical purism

What do you mean by "theoretical purism" ?

IALA Interlingua was defined by the Interlingua English Dictionary and the Interlingua Grammar (second editrion 1955). There can be, as there have been, minor additions to the vocabulary for items such as nouns, occsasionally adjectives, and verbs, but the basic structure of the language should remain the same. That includes elementary grammatical particles. There seem to be those who want to change some of these elementary words on the basis that Gode and colleagues did "not get it right" (figuratively speaking) the first time. I assert that after more than a half century of usage, it is far, far preferable to stick to the original forms than to assert that after all these decades some other forms might be theoritically possible. That is what I mean by theoretical purism. The "better" is the enemy of the "good enough." The history of Esperanto and all of its offshoots, nearly all of which have failed, has shown that ever striving for some goal of theoretical "perfection" is deadly. Stick to the basics.

[esra]

From everything I have read, the original commission of the International Auxiliary Language Association as established by the Vanderbilts was to study and choose among existing conIALs, NOT to construct a new one. To that extent Gode and colleagues' having done so was, in a sense, a betrayal of the original intent of the IALA.

At any time who accused them to be betrayers (1)?

Development of a new language (Wikipedia): "... Originally, the association had not set out to create its own language. Its goal was to identify which auxiliary language already available was best suited for international communication, and how to promote it most effectively. However, after ten years of research, more and more members of IALA concluded that none of the existing interlanguages were up to the task. By 1937, the members had made the decision to create a new language, to the surprise (1) of the world's interlanguage community..."

[esra]

No proposals to the basic structures have ever succeeded (a proposed new columns to the correlatives table has not really caught on). No changes to elementary grammatical words. Throughout the generations Esperantists for the most part have realized that stability is crucial.

Esperanto PMEG illustrates interpretation range of Zamenhof's Fundamento "corset".

Author of PMEG is not "behind the desk offender" (German: Schreibtischtäter). He often visits youth events and others. His recommendations are extracted directly from usage of the (follow-up generation) users of E-o.

[bangiolo20]

Sometimes I've got an impression that interlingua is just a literally translated English with somewhat simplified Latin words.

[esra]

Sometimes I've got an impression that interlingua is just a literally translated English with somewhat simplified Latin words.

But grade/level of "grapheme-phoneme-correspondence"(1) seems to be different between English and Interlingua.

(1) page 73 "... Im Englischen sind die Korrespondenzen zwischen Graphem und Phonem bekanntlich - obwohl meist regelgeleitet - wesentlich komplexer als für die meisten anderen germanischen Sprachen ..." / "... In English, generaly known, correspondences between grapheme and phoneme - although ruled mostly - (correspondences) are much more extensive than in any other Germanic languages ..."

[bartlett]

Sometimes I've got an impression that interlingua is just a literally translated English with somewhat simplified Latin words.

It does not have to be that way. It may only be some English speakers who relexify (to use the technical term) English and call it Interlingua. Some times they even render English idioms with Interlingua words, which may be very confusing to non-English speakers. I have noticed that European Interlinguaists are less prone to this tendency (i.e., to relexify their native tongues). When I do compose a text in Interlingua, I deliberately try to be conscious of this and not carry over my native English idioms.

[esra]

Sometimes I've got an impression that interlingua is just a literally translated English with somewhat simplified Latin words.

Maybe Denisowski's vocabulary list could be interesting for you.

For me, being German native speaker, its quite interesting what commonalities Andre Schild found between Interlingua and German. Until now its not digitized but its included. For those who are interested see:

- RP pool;
- files inside folder "097_draft_(80_percent_finished)";
- afterwards of "20. Lektion"
- chapter "Interlingua im Spiegel der Fremdwörter im Deutschen"(1).

(1) I have some trouble to understand that phrase. Probably he did want to say: "Interlingua widergespiegelt von den absorbierten Fremdwörtern in der deutschen Sprache" (?)