IALA
International Auxiliary Language Association
General Report 1945
I N T E R L I N G U A - UN NEUTRAL LINGUA COMMUN PRO LE
PROSPERITATE DE NATIONES!In 1946 le IALA invitava ex Sorbonne a New York un linguista famose, André Martinet [*] e confideva a ille le direction de su recerca interlinguistic. Le producto del IALA era pro le prime vice appellate Interlingua. Professores Martinet e J.P. Vinay preparava un questionario satis grande de 127 questiones in anglese e francese que illes distribueva a expertos in varie paises pro saper lor commentos super le variantes proponite in iste General Report de 1945. In 1947 André Martinet se jungeva al Universitate de Columbia e dr. Alexander Gode-von Aesch reprendeva su position como director de recerca del IALA. Interlingua era complite in 1951 post extensive labor international durante 27 annos. IALA era dissolvite in 1953 e reimplaciate per le Division de Interlingua del Science Service, dr. Watson Davis como director. 1955 era arrangiate Le 1e Conferentia International de Interlingua in Tours, Francia, ubi Le Union Mundial pro Interlingua (UMI) era fundate le 28 de julio 1955. Como le prime presidente del UMI era electe Alexander Gode-von Aesch (1906-1970, dr. Gode moriva in le mesme anno quando prof. Martinet era promovite doctor h.c. al Universitate de Turku, Finlandia).
[*] Prof. André Martinet moriva in 1999 in etate de 90 annos como membro distinguite del UMI, su vidua Sra. Jeanne Martinet es desde 2001 un active interlinguista e la presidente del UIF (Union Interlinguiste Francese)Contents
Directors, Committees, Staff, 1945 [1]
Former Associates [4]
Preface [5]
The Language Problem [7]
- Need of a Common Language for Post-War World [7]
- A Neutral International Language [8]
The International Auxiliary Language Movement [9]
- An Anthropologist's View [9]
- A Psychologist's View [10]
- Origin of the Movement [11]
- Constructed Languages [12]
- Evolution of an Auxiliary Language [13]
- Two Types [14]
- A New Impetus [14]
- International Auxiliary Language Association [14]
- IALA's Program [15]
IALA's Linguistic Research [15]
- Exploratory Studies [15]
- Meeting of Linguistic Research [16]
- Approval of Linguists [16]
- Bibliography [17]
- Semantic Frequency List [17]
- Science of Interlinguistics [18]
- Committee for Agreement [19]
- Specifications for an Auxiliary Language [19]
- Work in Liverpool [20]
- Work in New York [20]
IALA's System — Underlying Facts and Reasoning [21]
- Languages of the World [21]
- International Words [22]
- Range of Internationality [23]
- Clearing House for International Words Needed [24]
- Sources of International Words [25]
- The Anglo-Romanic Group of Languages [27]
- Standardization of International Words [28]
- Many Mother Tongues Represented [29]
- Naturalistic and Schematic Types [29]
- IALA's Contribution [31]
IALA's System — Basic Procedures — Vocabulary of the Naturalistic Type [31]
- Setting Up of Control Languages [32]
- Rules for Obtaining Standardized International Words [32]
- Supplementary Devices for Complementing the International Vocabulary [33]
- IALA's Fundamental Naturalistic Vocabulary [34]
IALA's System — Possible Additional Procedures — Vocabulary of the Schematic Type [35]
- Further Regularization Possible [35]
- Regularization of Word-Formation [36]
- Regularization of Spelling and Pronunciation [38]
- IALA's Schematic Vocabulary [38]
Grammar [39]
Experimental Translations of a Sample Text [42]
- Sample Text [43]
- Keys to Pronunciation [43–47]
- Translations according to Naturalistic and Schematic Models [44–47]
Status of Linguistic Research [48]
Experimentation in Language Learning [49]
- Comparative Ease of Learning [49]
- General Language Course [50]
- Contribution to New Methods of Language Study [50]
Language Practices of International Conferences [51]
- International Conference Movement [52]
- Data on Language Practices [52]
- Attitude Toward an Auxiliary Language [53]
- Language Problem of League of Nations [53]
- New Machinery for International Cooperation [54]
Promotional Activities [54]
- Contacts with Governments [55]
- Contacts with International Organizations [55]
- Cooperation Sought [55]
- Translation Service [56]
- Membership [56]
- IALA's Headquarters [56]
Appendix A [57]
Illustrations of IALA's Procedures for Standardizing the Vocabulary
- Basic Procedures — For Standardizing International Words (Naturalistic Model) [57]
- Supplementary Devices — For Obtaining Standardized Complementary Words (Naturalistic Model) [58]
- Illustrations of Additional Procedures — For Regularizing Word-Formation (Schematic Models) [59]
Appendix B [63]
- Participants of IALA's Meeting of Linguistic Research, Geneva, 1930 [63]
- Members of Second International Congress of Linguists, Geneva, 1931, who signed a Testimonial
expressing their general sympathy with "International Auxiliary Language Association" (IALA)'s program of
linguistic research [64]
- Members of Third International Congress of Linguists, Rome, 1933, who added their names to the
Testimonial [64]
IALA'S LINGUISTIC RESEARCH
Exploratory Studies
IALA first undertook various kinds of exploratory linguistic studies. A series entitled Foundations of Language, edited by Alice V. Morris, was participated in by Edward Sapir, William E. Collinson, Alice V. Morris, Morris Swadesh and Mary Haas Swadesh. Three of the studies were published as monographs of the Linguistic Society of America. Other work comprised comparative studies of specific linguistic features in seven ethnic languages (Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, English, German, Russian), and six constructed languages, Esperanto, Esperanto II, Ido, Novial, Occidental, Latino Sine Flexione. Each study covered from five to eleven of these languages. The subjects of the more important studies were word-building, phonetics, a nuclear vocabulary, inflections and suffixes. Among those who took part in these studies were William E. Collinson, Helen S. Eaton, Henri F. Muller, and George L. Trager.
Meeting of Linguistic Research
In 1930 IALA called at Geneva, Switzerland, a Meeting of Linguistic Research. It was presided by Otto Jespersen, University of Copenhagen. Here for the first time in the history of auxiliary language movement eminent linguists spent uninterrupted days in conference with the leading advocates of different constructed language systems. The constructed languages represented were the six at the time best known to the public. The eighteen participants comprised eight different nationalities. The meeting lasted about a fortnight during which the majority were presented for the entire conference, others for varying lengths of time. There was general agreement upon IALA's method of investigation and proposed researches. (See Appendix, page 63.)
Approval of Linguists
The following year, 1931, a report on IALA's work was made to the Second International Congress of Linguists at Geneva by Professor Jespersen, and the subject of an auxiliary language was given an important place on the agenda. Members of the Congress subscribed to a testimonial expressing their general sympathy with IALA's program.
At the Third International Congress of Linguists held at Rome, 1933, other linguists added their names. (See Appendix, page 64.)
Bibliography
A bibliography and commentary on linguistic works published in European languages was compiled by Erich Hofmann under the direction of Edouard Hermann, University of Göttingen, and Albert Debrunner, University of Jena.
This bibliography was planned for at IALA's Meeting of Linguistic Research. It was completed in 1933. The manuscript is available in IALA's office.
Semantic Frequency List
A pioneer piece of research on international concepts was begun by Miss Eaton of IALA's staff in 1934. The last year's work on this study was carried on by Miss Eaton as research assistant in the Division of Psychology, Institute of Educational Research of Teachers College, Columbia University. The completed study was issued by the Committee on Modern Languages of the American Council on Education and published by the University of Chicago Press in 1940 under the title Semantic Frequency Lists for English, French, German, and Spanish. The Semantic Frequency List correlates from the point of view of their meanings the words in the following single-language frequency lists: Thorndike's Teachers Word Book of 20,000 Words, Vander Beke's French Word Book, Kaeding's Häufigkeitswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, and Buchanan's Graded Spanish Word Book. It shows the relative frequency of approximately 6,000 international concepts expressed in four modern languages.
In the foreword to the book Robert H. Fife, Chairman of the Committee on Modern Languages, wrote:
Only those who have examined the history of linguistic theory can appreciate the full significance of an experiment which employs a technique recently developed to establish in relative frequency of use the common conceptions of mankind as they find expression in four languages of the present day. . . . This [method of approach to the problem] is based on the assumption that the words and locutions which appear most often are those which are most necessary for the concerns of life. . . . A word has two factors of equal importance: form and meaning. These are inseparable in the mind of the user; but, while the word-form is a relatively stable phenomenon in the written languages of civilized peoples, word-meaning includes a number of possibilities. . . . Even words with a wide range of semantic values, often determinable only by the context in which they are used, have a certain semantic focus about which the meanings cluster. Evidence of such a basic idea appears plainly when we find words of complex meaning with a similar semantic focus in several language. The correlation of the word frequencies in a group of languages may then show an interlingual relationship among the concepts measurable by a scale of frequency of use.Science of Interlinguistics
Our exploratory studies of natural, or ethnic, languages, and of the many constructed languages already devised, led to the conclusion that there was a practical contribution which IALA could make to the science of interlinguistics. This science as defined by Professor Jespersen, is
that branch of the science of language which deals with the structure and basic ideas of all languages with a view to the establishing of a norm for interlanguages, i. e., auxiliary languages destined for oral and written use between people who cannot make themselves understood by means of their mother tongues.The practical contribution would be the development of a system by which the impersonal methods of science might be applied more thoroughly than ever before in determining what material in the many languages of the world is sufficiently common to be the basis of standardization for the vocabulary of an international language. In 1933 the Directors of IALA voted that a standardization project should be undertaken.
Committee for Agreement
In that year also Mr. and Mrs. Morris, founders and officers of IALA, went to reside in Brussels when Mr. Morris was appointed United States Ambassador to Belgium. During their four years in Brussels, Mr. and Mrs. Morris consulted authorities from many countries, eminent both in the field of linguistics and in the various branches of the auxiliary language movement. As a result an international committee, known as the Committee for Agreement, was formed with the following members: Albert Debrunner, Professor of Classical Philology and Indo-European Linguistics, University of Berne and University of Basle, Chairman; Willem de Cock Buning, former Trade Commissioner for The Netherlands East Indies; William E. Collinson, Professor of German and Honorary Lecturer in Comparative Philology, University of Liverpool; Joseph Vendryes, Dean of the Faculty of Letters, University of Paris; Nicolaas Van Wijk†, Professor of Baltic and Slavonic Languages, University of Leiden; and Mrs. Dave H. Morris, ex-officio.
† Died March 26, 1941.
Specifications for an Auxiliary Language
In a series of conferences held by the Committee for Agreement specifications for an auxiliary language were drawn up. The Committee conceived of the auxiliary language not as altogether a new language, but rather as a synthesis based upon existing ethnic and constructed languages. It specified that the projected language should be adequate for every kind of international communication and should be easier to learn than any ethnic language. It also specified that in order to insure comparative ease of learning, (1) the vocabulary of the language should be composed of elements and features familiar to the largest possible number of people with different mother tongues, and (2) the structure of the language should be characterized by a high degree of simplicity and regularity. It stipulated that to the fullest extent possible the language be developed according to a system of procedures so objective that anyone with adequate linguistic knowledge and capacity could be trained to apply them.
The Committee recognized the fact that there have been two schools of thought in the auxiliary movement: one, the naturalistic, which emphasizes that an auxiliary language should embody the traditional patterns of ethnic languages; the other, the schematic, which emphasizes that an auxiliary language should be more logical and regular than any ethnic language (see page 14). Since both naturalness and regularity are desirable, the Committee recommended that experimentation be carried on with both types of languages, with the end in view of gathering data on which to base a judgment as to whether an auxiliary language of the more naturalistic type or one of the more schematic type would serve more satisfactorily as a medium of international communication.
Work in Liverpool
An international staff composed of persons trained in comparative philology was assembled with William E. Collinson of the University of Liverpool as Director and E. Clark Stillman as Assistant Director.
A grant for initial work on the standardization project was given by Rockefeller Foundation to the University of Liverpool, where IALA's research staff was housed.
Research Corporation has generously given IALA an annual grant
for research to assist in bringing about a neutral, non-political auxiliary language.Work went forward in Liverpool in the assembling and organization of linguistic data until the fall of 1939. When England entered the war, the Liverpool staff of many nationals had to be dispersed. Just before Liverpool was bombed the linguistic data and library accumulated up to that time were transferred to New York.
Work in New York
In New York a new staff of trained workers of different nationalities was organized by Mr. Stillman, who directed the work until he entered Government service in March 1943. Dr. Alexander Gode the assumed direction of the project.
The was has cut off communication with the European members of the Committee for Agreement, expect Professor Collinson in England. However, the plan of work was so carefully charted by the Committee that it has gone forward in spite of the many adjustments necessitated by war conditions, primarily those arising from members of the staff going from IALA to Government work where their knowledge of languages is needed.
Fundamental work on the standardization project has been completed. The system of standardization has been evolved and its methods applied to the production of a standardized vocabulary for an international auxiliary language.
It is not possible to present within the compass of this general report details of IALA's linguistic research. We only attempt to give here in highly simplified form the facts and the line of reasoning which led to our system, the outline of the system itself, and its results.
IALA'S SYSTEM. UNDERLYING FACTS AND REASONING
Let us now summarize for the general reader the linguistic facts and the reasoning based on these facts which have led to the development of IALA's system of standardization.
The underlying idea of IALA's system is that international words already in circulation in languages actually spoken in the world today are sujected to standardizing processes to fit them for service in the vocabulary of a neutral auxiliary language.
Languages of the World
All the languages of the world may be roughly estimated as numbering between 2,500 and 3,500. Students of linguistics find it difficult to make a scientifically exact count due to the problem of dialects. All these hundreds of languages belong to so-called language families, each family sharing a common ancestor language. Within these language families there are groups of languages very closely related in both vocabulary and structure because they share a more immediate common ancestor. For example, the Indo-European language family in usually regarded as including ten different language groups, the largest groups among them being the Romance languages, the Germanic languages, and the Slavic languages.
International Words
Each of these language groups possesses many words traceable to common ancestral words. Since these words appear in two, three, four, five, or more languages of a family, they are international words. They may vary in spelling but they are usually recognizable as the same words and they have common essential meanings. We may call them the variants of an international word.
An example of an international word which can be traced back to a common ancestor in primitive Germanic is our familiar word house, which appears in German as Haus, in Dutch as huis, in Danish as hus, and in Swedish as hus. All of these forms are variants expressing a common concept. An international word in the Romance languages is that meaning earth which in its ancestral form in Latin is terra. In the modern languages which are de descendants of Latin we have the variants terre (French), terra (Italian), terra (Portuguese), tierra (Spanish).
In addition to such international words which are native to each language within a given group, there is another kind of international word which has migrated into many languages. This class includes all those words which have been carried from country to country by such diverse activities as commerce, colonization, travel, war, literature, advertising, science and technology, transportation, radio, international conferences, and education, to mention only a few. The great majority of these traveling words become naturalized citizens of each language into they migrate and therefore appear in variant forms typical of the language which has welcomed them.
The following are examples of international words originating in different languages, all of which appear in English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and in many other languages, so that they are, in fact, international words of more or less global range:
- from American Indian languages, chocolate, hammock, tomato
- from Arabic, admiral, alcohol, caramel, cemetery, cotton, syrup, zero
- from Chinese, serge, tea, sampan
- from Hebrew, amen, Eden, sabbath
- from Hungarian, coach
- from Persian, bazaar, caravan, shawl
The native and the naturalized words in the large majority of cases appear as variants in the languages of a given group related through a common ancestor language. Together these two classes of international words give us a vast fund of ethnic language material already in international circulation.
On the basis of these facts our problem was to evolve a system of standardization by means of which we could extract international words from this wealth of material and adapt them to give practical service in the vocabulary of a neutral auxiliary language.
Range of Internationality
The range of internationality of a word can be regarded from two points of view: the number of languages in which the word is found, and the geographical range of that international word. Since we are conceiving of an auxiliary language for a global age, it would be desirable to take from our fund of international words only those which qualify from both aspects of internationality — namely, those in the largest number of languages, and those most widely known through geographical distribution. This conception is not practicable, however, in the present stage of the contacts of languages because there are not yet enough international words shared by Oriental and European languages to provide a large enough vocabulary for an auxiliary language.
If we cannot get a complete vocabulary of international words of global range, how near can we come to such a comprehensive vocabulary? When is the geographical range of an international word wide enough to make it eligible for the auxiliary language vocabulary for our contemporary world?
From the linguistic point of view, the vocabulary of an auxiliary language should not be a hodgepodge of miscellaneous words which happen to be international. For practical purposes it should have an aspect of familiarity to the speakers of as many different national languages as can be represented in it.
Is there any method by which we can compile and standardize international words of both classes so that the auxiliary language vocabulary will be comprehensible to the largest number of people of different mother tongues?
Clearing House for International Words Needed
If we find that international words of wide geographical range, whatever their language of origin, are to be found in nearly every case in one group of related languages, we can explore the possibility of using this group as a clearing house for international words. What languages of our contemporary world promise the richest sources of international words?
The argument that European languages rather than Oriental languages can furnish the vocabulary of an auxiliary language is supported by nearly all who have preceded or paralleled IALA in work in the field of interlinguistics. Notably among them was Professor Jespersen, who, after IALA's Meeting of Linguistic Research, wrote:
"It would be vain to aim at the real 'world-language' in the sense of one that should be perfectly impartial to human beings of whatever nationality and language, for that could be done only . . . by making the contemplated artificial language as difficult as possible for everybody. The task of constructing and even of learning such a language woild be beyond human power. But the matter assumes a different aspect as soon as it is recognized that we should utilize as much as possible any community in linguistic form already existing, for it turns out that there is nowhere in the world anything that can be compared with the community existing among West-European nations and their offshoots in the other parts of the world."*
* International Communication, Herbert N. Shenton, Edward Sapir, Otto Jespersen; Kegan Paul, London, 1931, page 114.
In addition to the fact that at this time in the history of the world the languages of Europe, from the linguistic point of view, offer the greatest supply of international words, there is another practical reason for considering them rather than the Oriental languages as the main sources for an auxiliary language vocabulary. The auxiliary language movement originated in Europe. The forty odd languages of Western Europe which complicate the free exchange of ideas among different national groups present as great a problem today as they did when the movement came to popular attention more than half a century ago. The growing interest in the auxiliary language idea heightened by the war, the possibilities of practical promotion of an auxiliary language in Europe immediately after the war, make the concentration upon European languages a logical one.
Sources of International Words
Let us examine the European languages which are best suited to serve as the clearing house of international words.
The European languages most widely spoken geographically throughout the world today are English and the Romance languages — French, Spanish, and, to a lesser degree, Portuguese, and Italian.
It is claimed that English is the most widely spoken of all languages. This does not mean that the largest number of people speak it as a mother tongue. Statistics show that a greater number of people speak Chinese in its various forms. But English is more international in a geographical sense that Chinese or any language group of the Orient for the reason that it has penetrated into every corner of the world. In a linguistic sense English is also more international. It has absorbed words from all languages with which it has come in contact, and has contributed words to practically all languages. After the Norman Conquest so many French words came into English that, although it is a Germanic language by origin, it is in a large part a Romance language in vocabulary.
Now the major Romance languages — French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish — are all widely spoken, in varying degrees, in both hemispheres. Since these languages are all direct descendants of Latin they possess in their respective vocabularies a vast body of international words which are native and common to this group of languages. These native international words have, of course, been carried to all countries wherever the Romance languages are spoken as mother tongues or as acquired languages of culture.
An enormous number of naturalized international words is also to be found in the Romance languages for these far-flung languages have assimilated large numbers of words from other languages, and have given them Romance forms. The Romance languages are not, however, so highly receptive to migratory words as is English, which is a melting pot of internationally current word material. If, then, English and the Romance languages are grouped as sources of international words, we are certain to have, both from the linguistic and the geographical points of view, centers of radiation of international words and also centers of absorption of international words. One of the reasons for this fact is that modern science and technology, which have made the world one community, draw upon Latin and Greek for their terminologies, and these two classical languages have contributed vast numbers of words to English and the Romance languages. Latin and Greek are used today in creating words to cover new ideas and new inventions of which those who spoke Latin or Greek as their mother tongues never dreamed. Just one example: the word automobile is half Greek and half Latin. In fact, probably the bulk of the international vocabulary in world-wide circulation is the vocabulary of the international realm of science. This is an important reason for using English and the Romance languages in a system of standardization for an auxiliary language vocabulary.
Now let us compare other languages of Europe with English and the Romance languages as centers of international words. None of the other Germanic languages — German, Dutch, and the Scandinavian languages — when compared to English has in any degree sent so many words into international circulation, or has absorbed so many words from languages throughout the world.
The Slavic languages, spoken in Russia, Poland, and the Balkan countries, and the Baltic languages have so far given comparatively few words to the contemporary fund of internationally current words; but the Germanic and Slavic tongues have assimilated many words from the Romance languages. For example, such important concepts as politics and cooperation are expressed in German, Russian, and Polish in words of Romance origin.
The Anglo-Romanic Group of Languages
In view of these facts, we concluded that English and the Romance languages together could serve as a clearing house for international words of both kinds, the native and the naturalized. They qualify for this service both from the geographic and from the linguistic points of view of internationality. As a group of related languages we may call them the Anglo-Romanic group.
The limitation of the sphere of selection of international words to the Anglo-Romanic group of languages makes possible the setting up of a standard of internationality for determining the eligibility of words for the auxiliary language vocabulary. It also makes possible setting up standards for the form and for the meaning of all eligible international words. In these processes of standardization we can use as controls the Anglo-Romanic group of languages. In taking this group of languages as our control group, we may limit our field still further by concentrating on the major Romance languages. The major Romance languages, due to their wide geographical distribution, have contributed many more international words and absorbed many more of them than the minor Romance languages — Catalan, Provençal, Romansh, Roumanian. Therefore the minor Romance languages would not be likely to provide any international words not already to be found in the major languages of that group. Our system is therefore simplified by using only the major Romance languages as controls.
Standardization of International Words
The variants of all international words represented in English and the major Romance languages show so close a family resemblance that it is possible to evolve a neutral or standard form typical of Romance words. This common denominator, or prototype, may usually be found by going back to the nearest common ancestor word from which the variants have developed. But if the international word has come into existence only in modern times and therefore no historical prototype exists for it, a prototype form can nevertheless be determined by applying scientific imagination to linguistic knowledge and constructing a form of the same type as the historical prototypes.
As a word moves from language to language it sometimes takes on a secondary or extended meaning peculiar to the language of a given country. The science of semantics, which has recently attracted much popular attention, is the branch of linguistics concerned with the meanings of words. In our modern world where words are "weapons of war" and can be made the tools of peace, the meaning of an international word can be a vital matter. Hence the meanings of international words and the exact definitions of the standardized international words are a most important aspect of IALA's linguistic research.
Many Mother Tongues Represented
In taking the Anglo-Romanic group of languages as the basis for a system of standardization, we are using five ethnic languages but actually we are using many national languages, since these five modern languages are the mother tongues of many nations in the old world and the new. The auxiliary language vocabulary therefore achieves the highly practical aspect of familiarity to many national groups in both hemispheres. In fact, it will be comprehensible to the largest group of people in the world whose mother tongues have a common bond.
In European countries it will be familiar to native speakers of any one of the Romance languages. The part that English plays as a control language will make it comprehensible to all the English speaking people of the British Commonwealth of Nations. To speakers of the Germanic and Slavic languages, especially those who have studied English or one of the Romance languages, it will not be difficult to understand.
In the new world the Spanish speaking nations of South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Portuguese speaking people of Brazil will find this auxiliary language vocabulary recognizable at sight.
In the United States and Canada, the English speaking people and also those who speak other languages will find in this representative vocabulary much that is immediately familiar.
Colonial populations as, for example, the French in Africa, will find it easy to understand.
For people of Oriental countries it can be the key to the languages of Western Europe as well as their direct means of communication with Europeans.
Naturalistic and Schematic Types
IALA's research and experimentation were planned to cover both lines of development of the auxiliary language movement, namely the naturalistic and the schematic types of an auxiliary language. We always bore in mind that the final outcome of our research should be one language and that this one language to the fullest extent possible should embody the qualities of both the naturalistic and schematic types.
We have already mentioned the general nature of the two types (page 20). A brief explanation of the distinguishing characteristics of their respective vocabularies is now pertinent as an introduction to the presentation of our system of standardization and of our work in developing experimental models of both types.
The distinguishing characteristic of any auxiliary language of the naturalistic type is that it follows closely words as they actually exist in the ethnic languages. Words are given forms which embody to the fullest extent practicable what is common to the corresponding variants in the ethnic languages used as sources. The method used in producing this type of vocabulary centers on the extraction of these corresponding variants. The aim is to achieve immediate recognizability of the meaning of naturalistic words in context by persons familiar with one or more of the ethnic languages from which the vocabulary is extracted. Therefore, in the production of a vocabulary of the naturalistic type the desirability of familiarity of word material is given a primary importance. The desirability of regularity of word-formation, spelling, and pronunciation, though not disregarded, is considered to be of secondary importance.
The distinguishing characteristics of an auxiliary language vocabulary of the schematic type is that regularity of word-formation, spelling, and pronunciation is given primary importance.
The method used in producing a vocabulary of the schematic type centers on the deliberate establishment of a system of regular word-formation. Such a system includes a set of standardized affixes, that is, suffixes and prefixes, and rules for using them. The vocabulary is organized into groups of words of closely related meaning, each group headed by a base word, that is, a word which does not itself contain any of the standardized affixes, and which can be used as the base from which derivatives can be formed to cover the meanings of the other words of the group. Such groups may be referred to as "schematic groups." As a result of the organization of the vocabulary into schematic groups of words, it can be fairly said that, if one knows the standardized affixes and the rules of word-formation, whenever one learns a base word, one also learns all of its derivatives in their general meanings. Users of the pioneer constructed languages of the schematic type, such as Esperanto and Ido, have often commented on how greatly the feature of regular word-formation economizes the effort of learning a language of that type and also contributes to freedom and facility in the active use of the language.
IALA's Contribution
In accordance with the facts and reasoning presented in the preceding pages, IALA has developed its system of standardization of national language materials. This system IALA offers as one of its contributions to the science of interlinguistics and therefore to the constantly growing movement for a common language for our international age.
IALA's system as a whole includes: (1) certain basic procedures which are fundamental to the development of any vocabulary by means of the system, whether such vocabulary be of the naturalistic of schematic type, and (2) procedures which can be used for modifying the naturalistic vocabulary produced by the basic procedures.
IALA'S SYSTEM - BASIC PROCEDURES - VOCABULARY OF THE NATURALISTIC TYPE
The essentials of the basic procedures of IALA's system of standardization are now briefly summarized. Basic procedures include: (1) the setting up of control languages; (2) three main rules for the extracting of international words from the control languages and giving them standardized forms and meanings for the auxiliary language vocabulary; and (3) supplementary devices which make certain that the auxiliary language vocabulary includes all words needed for practical service.
Setting Up of Control Languages
Five interrelated modern languages — English, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish — are set up as controls in the process of extracting a complete auxiliary language vocabulary that will have a maximum degree of comprehensibility for the largest possible number of people of different mother tongues. These five modern languages are used as four control units, Spanish and Portuguese, for the purpose of our procedures, being regarded as one unit.
Rules for Obtaining Standardized International Words
For standardizing international words, there are three general rules. The rules determine (1) in how many of the control units an international words must be found in order to be eligible for representation in the auxiliary language; (2) in what form an eligible international word is to be standardized; and (3) what meaning or meanings it is to convey. The rules follow:
(1) Eligibility
If an international word is represented by variants with at least one common meaning in at least three out of the four control units — English, French, Italian, Spanish-Portuguese — it is eligible for representation in the auxiliary language.
(2) Form
The standardized form in which an eligible international word is represented is a common-denominator form of all its variants and may be called their prototype. The prototype is arrived at by a thorough study of the etymology of the word-family in which the international word is found.
(3) Meaning
The meaning or meanings of a standardized international word are the meaning or meanings which the variants contributing to its eligibility have in common.
Supplementary Devices for Complementing the International Vocabulary
By the above three main rules for eligibility, form, and meaning we are able to obtain standardized international words to express the great majority of concepts sufficiently international from the linguistic and geographical points of view to call for expression in the vocabulary of an auxiliary language. However, certain words are still lacking to cover important concepts, usually of universal character.
This fact is due to the limitations imposed by our main rule of eligibility which requires that variants of a single word have a range of internationality covering three out of the four control units. Now some of the most familiar international concepts are not expressed by variants of a single word but by quite different words in the control languages. It is therefore necessary to complement the vocabulary by providing standardized words to represent these concepts, relatively few in number, but essential for an auxiliary language.
We have therefore filled these gaps in the vocabulary by using certain supplementary devices in harmony with the spirit of our three main rules. The standardized words obtained by these devices round out the vocabulary to a complete active vocabulary. For purposes of differentiation we refer to such words as complementary words.
In comparison with our main rules the supplementary devices are different in quality. They are not objectively applicable in the same way. They are less fixed, for they may become somewhat modified in the course of our work, and some new ones may be needed. For our experimental naturalistic and schematic models considerable freedom in working out different devices for standardizing complementary words could be exercised without affecting the general character of the particular model in which such devices were applied.
The underlying principle for determining which concepts should be represented by the complementary words is as follows: Every concept which is represented by words in all languages of the Anglo-Romanic control group, but for which there are no variants of a single word that has the required range of internationality within that group, is entitled to be represented in the auxiliary language by a standardized complementary word.
For determining the form in which a complementary word is standardized there are specific supplementary devices for different kinds of cases.
IALA's Fundamental Naturalistic Vocabulary
As explained above, the application of the basic procedures of IALA's system of standardization produces a vocabulary of the naturalistic type. This vocabulary we call our fundamental naturalistic vocabulary.
IALA's naturalistic vocabulary closely resembles what is common to the Romance languages and English, from which it is extracted. Hence it has the asset of familiarity to the millions of people who speak those languages.
It is in no sense a minimum or limited vocabulary but a full one. Eventually it will cover all the concepts which are international within the five modern languages used as controls. Hence its adequacy to express whatever needs to be expressed in an auxiliary language for the contemporary world.
New words are continually being added to the international vocabulary already existing within ethnic languages. That is due to scientific and technological progress and to the increasingly closer inter-communication of all parts of the world. Our system provides the means for giving such words a standardized form for use in the auxiliary language.
All the five languages from which our naturalistic vocabulary is extracted have the creative capacity of forming derivatives by the addition of prefixes and suffixes to root words. Consequently the naturalistic vocabulary also possesses this creative capacity. In our process of standardization many of the irregularities in the meanings of prefixes and suffixes characteristic of the individual control languages disappear; other, however, survive because of the close conformity of the naturalistic vocabulary to the ethnic languages used as controls.
The fundamental naturalistic vocabulary is used in a translation of a sample text on pages 44–45.
Illustrations of our procedures for standardizing international words and for obtaining standardized complementary words are given on pages 57–59.
IALA'S SYSTEM - POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES - VOCABULARY OF THE SCHEMATIC TYPE
IALA's System - Possible Additional Procedures - Vocabulary of the Schematic Type
Further Regularization Possible
Our schematic vocabulary is developed by applying certain additional procedures to the basic procedures which have produced the fundamental naturalistic vocabulary. That vocabulary is taken as the starting point and subjected to further regularization of word-formation, spelling, and pronunciation. In producing our experimental models of the schematic type we set the aim to develop them in such a way that the vocabulary of these models would have approximately the same degree of recognizability as that of the naturalistic model.
Various degrees of regularization of our naturalistic vocabulary are possible. We have worked out two models of the schematic type, representing different degrees of regularization. For laboratory purposes we have labeled those models "schematic E" and "schematic K." In the schematic E model the degree of regularization of our naturalistic model is the minimum which, we believe, can be carried out and yet produce the essential characteristics of the schematic type. In the schematic K model regularization is carried out to about the highest degree which we believe to be possible without unduly sacrificing recognizability of the general meaning of a text to those familiar with English or one or more of the Romance languages. The schematic K model may be said to represent a medium degree of regularization, since further stages of regularization would be possible.
Regularization of Word-Formation
The preliminary work in establishing a set of standardized affixes to be used in regularizing our naturalistic vocabulary into a vocabulary of the schematic type was carried out with the aid of comparative studies of word-formation and of the frequency of affixes in the major ethnic languages of Europe, in the best known constructed languages, and in our fundamental naturalistic vocabulary itself.
The affixes were selected as far as possible according to three specifications: (1) that they are "living" affixes in the five languages used as controls: that is, that these five languages use them for the formation of new words; (2) that they occur frequently in our naturalistic vocabulary; (3) that they are needed in forming words essential to an everyday vocabulary. The affixes have all been taken from the Romance languages and given experimental standardized forms. At present we have standardized 45 suffixes and 15 prefixes but our experimentation indicates that the final number of our standardized affixes will probably be less. It was not found practicable in all cases to limit each standardized affix to a single meaning, although that would be desirable, but we have limited their meanings in accordance with the same specifications used in selecting them.
This process of systematization of affixes can be illustrated by a few examples taken from English. In English we have the suffix -ness, which is most frequently used to form nouns of state of quality from adjectives, as idleness from idle, or greenness from green. But in English we have other suffixes with the same function. We have severity from severe + -ity, promptitude from prompt + -itude. If we chose to use the formations with -ness, severeness and promptness, both of which are good English words, instead of severity and promptitude, we would still be understood.
In our three models of an auxiliary language, the adjectives severe and prompt are standardized, as severe and prompte. For the nouns severity and promptitude, our fundamental naturalistic vocabulary has severitate and promptitudine. Schematic E has severita'* and promptita', and schematic K has severeso** and prompteso.
* The apostrophe after -ita' is used to indicate the stressing of the final vowel. -ita' is a shortened form of suffix -itate, used in the naturalistic model.
** The schematic K suffix -eso is derived from the Latin suffix -itia, which is the source of the French -esse, the Italian -ezza, and the Spanish and Portuguese -eza.
The general rules of word-formation which are used in regularizing our naturalistic vocabulary into a vocabulary of the schematic type are as follows:
- Our naturalistic words are examined in the framework of the etymological families in which they belong. Each etymological family is divided into what we have termed schematic groups, each group headed by a base word. (See pages 30–31.)
- A naturalistic word whose meaning can be expressed by a base word plus one of more of the standardized affixes is given a form made up of the base word, minus its final vowel, and the appropriate standardized affix or affixes.
- A naturalistic word is not subjected to this schematic treatment when it has a meaning which cannot be expressed by the formation of a schematic word from a base word plus one or more of the standardized affixes, but is taken over bodily into our schematic vocabulary, with adaptations of spelling, and can be used as a base word.
There are a few exceptions to the above rules of which the following exception to the second rule is the most important: The form of a word as used in our naturalistic vocabulary is retained in technical vocabularies.
The system of word-formation outlined above has two functions, a regularizing function and a creative function. The regularizing function deals with words in our naturalistic vocabulary. It is exercised by those who build our schematic vocabulary. Regularization as a rule is the final step in determining the schematic form of derivatives. Emphasis on regularization of the form of derivatives is the outstanding feature which differentiates developing the vocabulary of our schematic models from developing our fundamental naturalistic vocabulary. The creative function of schematic word-formation is the spontaneous creation of new words. It is to be exercised by the users of the auxiliary language. It is the capacity to form new words as the need arises by combining known words of roots with standardized affixes. It is not different in nature from the creative capacity in ethnic language vocabularies or in our naturalistic vocabulary but it is a good deal less limited in scope and can be used more freely.
Regularization of Spelling and Pronunciation
In developing the schematic models the aim has been to establish a relationship between spelling and pronunciation even closer that prevails in Italian, Spanish, and German. Consequently the spelling has to be changed in many words in which English and French retain the spelling of the prototype. Pronunciation in our schematic models has been regularized. If the rules are learned the spelling of a word becomes merely a mechanical process of transcribing the sounds.
IALA's Schematic Vocabulary
By applying the above outlined regularizing procedures to our fundamental naturalistic vocabulary, we have produced a vocabulary of the schematic type. The principal feature, as has been pointed out, which differentiates a vocabulary of this type from a more naturalistic vocabulary is regularity of word-formation.
Actually the amount of change from our naturalistic vocabulary resulting from our regularization of word-formation is not as sweeping as might be imagined. In the total vocabulary compiled to date the proportion of naturalistic words requiring a different affix in the schematic versions is relatively small. It might be roughly estimated as about ten per cent.
In our schematic models, from most base words one can regularly form anywhere from two to fifteen derivatives, and all such derivatives, whether or not represented in the control languages, are considered legitimately part of the schematic vocabulary and may be freely used.
Like our naturalistic vocabulary, our schematic vocabulary is in no sense a minimum or limited vocabulary but a full one.
The nature of the experimentation of the schematic models leaves some of the linguistic details still open to discussion. However, if IALA recommends a language of the schematic type, it cannot be very different from one or the other model presented in this report.
The same sample text according to the naturalistic model given on page 44 is shown according to the schematic models on pages 46 and 47. The reader will note the fundamental similarity of the three versions of the auxiliary language vocabulary.
Illustrations of our procedures of regularization of word-formation will be found on pages 59–62.
c before e and i, like ts, s, or ch in church c in other positions, like k g before e and i, like j, z in azure, or g in go g in other positions, like g in go j like y in yes, j in joke, or z in azure qu before e and i, like qu in queen, or like k qu in other positions, like qu in queen t in the combinations tia, tie, tio, like ts, s in sum, or t in top (but always as t in the word questione) t in other positions, like t in table other consonants and combinations, approximately as in English
c before e and i, like ch in church c in other positions, like k g like go, in all positions j like j in joke qu like queen, in all positions t like t in top, in all positions other consonants, approximately as in English
c like ts, in all positions g like g in go, in all positions j like j in joke qu like qu in queen, in all positions t like t in top, in all positions other consonants, approximately as in English
STATUS OF LINGUISTIC RESEARCH
IALA's original linguistic program, as planned by the Committee for Agreement before the war, projected the critical review by specialists in many countries of all the linguistic research and the experimental use by different nationals of the resulting auxiliary language of both the naturalistic and schematic types. War conditions have greatly delayed the work and limited the field of such experimentation. Nevertheless we are nearing the completion of our linguistic program with such adjustments as are necessitated by war conditions.
More than twenty thousand international words have been standardized according to our basic procedures. Since the process of standardization treats words in etymological families and hence includes words expressing all kinds of concepts, we have in our present compilation many words for a general vocabulary and also many words from the sciences, arts, and other fields. Work on the selection of items for a dictionary in English and the auxiliary language is well under way. The dictionary will be for general purposes, and will have about 10,000 entries. In selecting these entries the studies correlating the existing frequency lists in four languages, the Semantic Frequency List, described on page 17, has been used for the first five to six thousand.
Technical reports on the procedures used in developing the naturalistic and schematic models have been prepared or are in course of preparation. It should be emphasized that the nature of the experimentation leaves certain details still open to discussion. We are submitting our technical reports to persons experienced not only in linguistics but in science, education, commerce, international relations, government, communications, and other fields of contemporary life. Guided by their judgment IALA will decide which type of language, the naturalistic or the schematic, it will recommend. If the naturalistic type is to be recommended, IALA's system will consist of the basic procedures only, and the auxiliary language will be fully developed accordingly. If the schematic type of language is to be recommended, IALA's system will include both basic procedures and the additional procedures of regularization, and an auxiliary language will be developed similar to one of the schematic models. It is hoped that this decision can be reached in 1945 or soon thereafter.
When, as the result of its research, experimentation, and consultation, IALA decides which type of language it will recommend, it will proceed to develop a single model of that type which will not be fundamentally different from the models of that type in this report.
- Founder, $1000 or more - Life Member, one payment, 500 or more - Sustaining Member, annually, 25 or more - Subscribing Member, annually, 10 to 20 - Associate Member, annually, 3 to 5 Contributions, including membership dues, by a special ruling of the Treasury Department, are deductible for income tax purposes.
Appendix A
Illustrations of IALA's Procedures for Standardizing the Vocabulary 1 — Basic Procedures - For Standardizing International Words (Naturalistic Model)
We consider international words not in isolation but in the context of their etymological families. For example, we take the international word which has as variants French ouïr, Italian udire, Portuguese ouvir, and Spanish oír, all of them meaning 'to hear', and all descended from Latin audire 'to hear.' Having assembled in one word-family all the words derived from audire which occur in the control languages, we carefully examine those which are entitled to be represented in the auxiliary language in conformity with our rule or eligibility.* We proceed to provide standardized forms for all eligible words, according to our rule for a prototype form, and at the same time we delimit the meaning or meanings according to our rule for meaning.
* See Rules for Obtaining Standardized International Words, pages 32–33.
The following table, containing the international word meaning 'to hear' and a few of its derivatives, gives the ethnic language variants of each word, and then its standardized forms. The figure (1) and (2) indicate different meanings of the same word. The meanings of all the words are given after the table.
The international meaning of a standardized word is determined by comparing the meanings of its variants in the control languages and finding which meanings or meanings are common to at least three control units. We find that all the variants of audire mean 'to perceive by the sense of hearing.' We also find such international usage as "the judge hears the argument of the attorney," but this may be considered merely as a special application of the basic meaning of the word, and it need not to be listed as a separate meaning. The standardized word audire therefore means 'to perceive by the sense of hearing.' Two meanings of audientia are common to the variant forms of that word in at least three control units, (1) 'perception by the sense of hearing,' found in English,* Italian, and Portuguese, and (2) 'formal hearing or interview' as by a king or in a court of law, found in all the control languages. The other meanings of its ethnic language variants do not attain the required range of internationality and are therefore excluded. Among these meanings are 'assembly of listeners' (English, Italian) and 'reception room' (Italian).
* As in the phrase 'to give audience' meaning 'to give ear.'
2 — Supplementary Devices — For Obtaining Standardized Complementary Words (Naturalistic Model)One of several supplementary rules for standardizing complementary words** to fill up the relatively small number of gaps in the international vocabulary may be illustrated by the treatment of the concept 'cellar,' 'underground storeroom.' This concept is represented by words in all our control languages but is not expressed by variants of the same word in three control units. In such a case we may take into consideration the international range outside the control languages of the different Romanic words within the control languages, and admit for standardization a word with variants in at least three different languages in all, of which at least one is a control language.
** See Supplementary Devices, pages 33–34.
3 — Illustrations of Additional Procedures — For Regularizing Word-Formation (Schematic Models) To illustrate our procedures for regularizing the formation of words in the schematic models E and K, we give the following table of some words in the family audire, including those previously given in the table on page 57.
IALA's Naturalistic and Schematic Forms of Some Words in Family AUDIRE
In the above table, the schematic base words are broken up into roots and endings, and the derivatives into roots and affixes.
We give below a table of the standardized suffixes used in the schematic words of the above table. The base words and derivatives are broken up in the same way as in the previous table.
A few of the standardized suffixes have long and short forms. The short form (with the single exception of schematic E -ita', -ia) is merely an abbreviation of the fuller form, and is used in certain cases in order that the derivative may either have a more natural appearance, or be less long. Only 6 of the 45 suffixes which we have standardized have short forms. Four of the suffixes with short forms occur in the table of Standardized Suffixes, given below.
All verbs stems in the schematic models, as in the naturalistic model, end in a vowel, either -a, -e, or -i. This stem vowel is dropped in certain cases ahead of certain suffixes.
Schematic K suffixes in almost all cases are simply more regularized forms of the same suffixes used in schematic E. In some the spelling is adapted to the spelling system of schematic K; in others the final vowel of noun-forming suffixes is changed to -o, in accordance with the general rule for nouns in schematic K.
Standardized Suffixes in Schematic E and K Used in Previous Table (on page 59) Standardized Suffixes -ario (E & K) Forms noun from noun. 1) 'Place for a collection of —s'. gran|ario (from gran|o 'grain')
'place for a collection of grain, granary'. libr|ario (from libr|o 'book') 'place for a collection
of books, library'. 2) 'collection of —s'. statu|ario (from statu|o 'statue') 'collection of
statues, statuary', libr|ario 'collection of books, library'.-ble (E & K) Forms adjective from verb. 1) 'That can be —ed'. separa|ble (from separa|r [separa|re]
'to separate') 'that can be separated, separable'. 2) 'That is worthy to be —ed'. ama|ble
(from ama|r [ama|re] 'to love') 'that is worthy to be loved, lovable'.-ente, -nte
(E & K)Active participial ending. The short form is used after verb stem in -a or -e. ama|nte 'loving',
depende|nte 'depending, dependent'. The full form is used after verb stem in -i. obedi|ente
'obeying, obedient'.-ita'*, -ia (E)
-eso, -so (K)Forms noun of quality or state from adjective. The short form is used only with adjective which
ends in nte. Schematic E, eminent|ia (from eminent|e 'eminent') 'quality of being eminent,
eminence'. dependent|ia (from dependent|e 'dependent'), state of being dependent,
dependence'. Schematic K, eminent|so, dependent|so. The full form is used in all other cases,
valid|ita' (from valid|e 'valid') 'quality of being valid, validity'. Schematic K, valid|eso.* The apostrophe after -ita' (valid|ita') is used to indicate the stressing of the final vowel.-r (E)
-re (K)Infinitive ending. Schematic E, ama|r,
depende|r, obedi|r. Schematic K, ama|re, depende|re, obedi|re.-torio, -orio
(E & K)Forms noun from verb. 'Place where —ing is done'. The rule for use of short and
long forms is the same as given below with -tor, -or [-toro, -oro]. deposit|orio
(from deposite|r [deposite|re] 'place where depositing is done, depository', audi|torio
(from audi|r [audi|re] 'to hear') 'place where hearing is done, auditorium'.-tor, -or (E)
-toro, -oro (K)Forms noun from verb. 'Person or thing that —s'. The short form is used only with verb stem
in -se, -te, or -xe, and the final -e of the stem is omitted. The full form is used in all other cases.
Some examples are given below.
Infinitive Schematic E Schematic K 'to possess' posese|r posese|re 'to reflect' reflecte|r reflekte|re 'to bend' flexe|r flexe|re 'to educate' educa|r eduka|re 'to ascend' ascende|r ascende|re 'to hear' audi|r audi|re Derived Noun Schematic E Schematic K 'possessor' poses|or poses|oro 'reflector' reflect|or reflekt|oro 'flexor' flex|or flex|oro 'educator' educa|tor educa|toro 'elevator, lift' ascende|tor ascende|toro 'hearer, auditor' audi|tor audi|toro
Let us now summarize the process by which the schematic words in the table on page 59 result from the application of the general rules given on page 37:
We examine the seven naturalistic words in the framework of their etymological family, namely, audire. We find that the standardized word audire should be taken as a base word, since its meaning is basic to the meanings of the other words. We find that the meanings of five of the other words can be expressed by using this base word plus standardized affixes. The other word, audito 'sense of hearing', is an example of a word whose meaning cannot be expressed by a regular derivative of the base word audire, since there is no schematic suffix meaning 'sense, faculty.' Therefore audito is kept in its naturalistic form as a base word.The examples in the table are typical. They show that in most cases the schematic forms of derivatives are almost or quite identical with the naturalistic forms. In a relatively small proportion of cases has the meaning of the naturalistic derivative had to be rendered by a formation with a different affix. This fact, coupled with the fact that nearly all our schematic base words are drawn from our naturalistic vocabulary, accounts for the result that in the schematic models structural regularity of words has been attained with comparatively little sacrifice of recognizability.
Appendix B Participants of IALA's Meeting of Linguistic Research, Geneva, 1930*
- Earle B. Babcock, President of IALA
- Mrs. Dave H. Morris, Honorary Secretary of IALA
- Miss Helen S. Eaton, Linguistic Research Associate of IALA
- Siegfried Auerbach, Germany, member of the Ido Academy
- William E. Collinson, England, member of the Esperanto Academy
- Otto Jespersen, Denmark, author of Novial, Convener of the Meeting and Chairman of the plenary sessions
- William Perrenoud, Switzerland, expert in Esperanto
- René de Saussure, Switzerland, author of Esperanto II
- Pierre Stojan, Rumania, expert in Esperanto
- Edgar de Wahl, Esthonia, author of Occidental
- Reinhold Zeidler, Germany, expert in Novial
- Charle Bally, Professor of General Linguistics, University of Geneva
- Albert Debrunner, Professor of Comparative Philology and Sanskrit, University of Jena
- Otto Funke, Professor of English, University of Berne
- Eduard Hermann, Professor of Comparative Philology, University of Göttingen
- Serge Karcevski, Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Geneva
- A. Sechehaye, Professor of French Grammar, University of Geneva
- Pitman B. Potter, Institut Universitaire de Hautes Études Internationales, Geneva
* Giuseppe Peano, Professor of Mathematics, University of Turin, Italy, author of Latino sine Flexione, had expected to attend but was not permitted by Mussolini to leave Italy. He was kept in touch with the conference by correspondence.
Members of Second International Congress of Linguists, Geneva, 1931, who Signed a Testimonial Expressing Their General Sympathy with IALA's Program of Linguistic Research*
- C. Bally, University of Geneva
- M. Bartoli, University of Turin
- D. A. Blondheim, Johns Hopkins University
- G. M. Bolling, Ohio State University
- E. G. W. Braunholtz, Cambridge University
- C. D. Buck, University of Chicago
- M. Cohen, University of Paris
- A. Debrunner, University of Jena
- F. Edgerton, Yale University
- G. van Ginneken, University of Nijmegen
- S. Ichikawa, Imperial University, Tokio
- K. Jaberg, University of Berne
- L. Jordan, University of Munich
- S. Karcevski, University of Geneva
- V. Mathesius, Charles IV University, Prague
- A. Meillet, University of Paris
- M. Migliorini, University of Rome
- Sir R. Paget, London
- K. Sandfield, University of Copenhagen
- Mgr. Schrijnen, University of Nijmegen
- A. Sechehaye, University of Geneva
- A. Sommerfelt, University of Oslo
- Prince N. Trubetskoy, University of Vienna
- C. C. Uhlenbeck, University of Leiden
- J. Vendryes, University of Paris
- J. Wackernagel, University of Basle
- N. van Wijk, University of Leiden
* IALA was represented by a delegation composed of its President, Professor Earle B. Babcock, Professor William E. Collinson, Professor Otto Funke, and Professor Otto Jespersen. (See previous page 63.) These linguists did not sign the Testimonial as their presence as representatives of IALA already indicated their support of IALA's program of research.
Members of Third International Congress of Linguists, Rome, 1933, who Added Their Names to the Testimonial
- B. Collinder, University of Uppsala
- A. H. Gardiner, University of London
- M. Guidi, University of Rome
- R. Hittmair, University of Tübingen
- H. Lindroth, University of Gottenborg
- B. Otto, German University, Prague
- V. Pisani, University of Rome
- J. Pokorny, University of Berlin
Union Mundial pro Interlingua http://www.interlingua.com
Actualisate le 2009-01-08
Administrator de iste sito:
--------------------------
Allan Kiviaho
SILY - Suomen Interlinguayhdistys ry.
FILF - Föreningen för Interlingua i Finland
AFIL - Association Finlandese pro Interlingua
