Talk:Interlingua/Archive 2

Criticisms of the article
After letting it "set" for a while, here's what faults I think the article has:
 * "Rationale" needs to be expanded. It sounds too...  I dunno, 'fannish'?  It also digresses into comparing Esperanto and Interlingua.
 * "Criticisms" needs a major overhaul; I put it in to quell claims of "favoritism," but it still reads like the crap I shoehorned in there. Some of it should move to Esperanto and Interlingua compared, so we can focus mostly on Interlingua's faults or merits as an IAL, not on its virtues in comparison to other languages.
 * Maybe this should be retitled "Controversies" and cover things like Stan Mulaik's reforms as well as external critiques. --Chris 18:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Phonology and spelling" is presenting that author's take on Interlingua pronunciation. The IALA only gave loose rules which I tried to summarize without directly copying (and violating the UMI's copyright); the IPA should be taken out, in favor of just a summary, I think.  We should also rename it "Phonology and orthography."
 * I'll revisit it and try to correct any violations of NPOV. However, just transcribing the 1951 rules would be misleading, since usage tended to favour some and deprecate others. How would it be if I had Ingvar Stenstrom look it over. He's been active in Ia since the 1950s and has written the most widely used primer, so he's a reliable authority, I'd say.
 * On second thought, I think we should stick with the 1951 rules. --Chris 18:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd keep the IPA; there's no real controversy about how they map to Interlingua pronunciation.
 * Don't worry about the copyrights on Interlingua Grammar and the Interlingua-English Dictionary. They were never held by UMI, and UMI has stated they believe both documents to be in the public domain. -- CJGB 25 Nov 2005.
 * I'm thinking this section should be exported to a separate article, with just a summary here.


 * Maybe we should put all the in depth grammatical details into a new article, Grammar of Interlingua or Interlingua grammar, with only a broad overview of the grammar's concepts remaining in this article.
 * good idea -- -- CJGB 25 Nov 2005


 * We should talk about the various Interlingua 'improvement' schemes in a new section, or a subsection of a current section. For example, Stanley Muliak, the head of the Societate American pro Interlingua, thinks that Interlingua is 'too germanic', and has gone so far as propose a new set of 114 'gramamtical words' that are based solely on the romantic languages, and suggesting words from the IED that are 'too German'.  We could also add notes on languages derived from Interlingua, either as personal languages, 'new' IAL proposals, or langauges that are part of both; for example, 'Romanique', which made it more 'romantic-sounding' by changing the grammar and orthography without changing the vocabulary, and that proposal that added Dutch grammatical words and vocabulary and Latin grammar (I can't remember its name).
 * Has Mulaik ever used the phrase "too German" or "too Germanic"? What he's done is try to fine-tune the selection algorithm to produce non-arbitrary forms for some particles. The original algorithm, for example, couldn't a common word for 'here'. Gode turned to Latin ('hic'), while modern users tend to favour the Romance-sounding 'ci'. But there's no question that these are arbitrary choices. Mulaik throws Catalan and Romanian into the algorithm and comes up with an allegedly non-arbitrary 'aqui'. In a sense he's made Ia more Romance, but it's a subtler idea than you've suggested.
 * What is this Dutch thing? I recalling seeing one hint in the document from 1945 that, at that time, Dutch was used as a reference language. There's no mention of it in the 1951 publications, and a lot happened between 1945 and 1951.
 * I'm not in favour of mentioning related languages. That's for a different article.

-- CJGB 25 Nov 2005
 * But, yes, I agree basically: see my comment on "Criticisms"

Additionally, the UMI newsblog has stated that an Interlingua translation of Harry Potter is in the works, being funded by the Academia Interlinguistic Bulgare. Where should we put this? Almafeta 19:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Harry Potter project is tentative; I wouldn't mention it yet. -- CJGB 25 Nov 2005


 * I don't think the pronoun order example supports the idea of a Germanic grammatical influence, since Italian (Lasciacela!) and Spanish (Da me lo!) share the IL word order. It just isn't French. kwami 19:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the paragraph. Since that was the only example supporting it, I'm putting it here.
 * In cases where two exclusive rules are present (for example, the placement of pronouns after a verb), the grammar favors the germanic forms. For example, the phrase "Give me it" would translate in Interlingua as Da me lo ("Give me it"), with the direct object pronoun following the indirect object pronoun.  This is as it is seen in English and Spanish, as opposed to grammars that put the indirect object last.  For example, the phrase above would translate into French as Donnez-le-moi ("Give it to-me"), with the indirect object pronoun following the direct object pronoun.  In practice, this has made the grammar similar to English or Dutch, the languages of those who finalized the language and promoted it heaviest after World War II.


 * I don't agree. The normal pronoun order is Subject + Object + Verb ('io lo vide'), which is as Romance as drinking a glass of pastis under the Mediterranean sun. --


 * I've just read the article, and it seems to me that it is a tad too pro-Interlingua, coming dangerously close to the sin of POV (especially in the "Criticism" section, where I had the impression the author(s) were attempting to provide answers rather than just present the controversies: cf. the use of e.g. "although one could argue that...", "criticism focuses on issues [Interlingua] was never meant to address", etc.). I also note that claims of Interlingua (or, for that matter, any IAL) as 'more international' should contain somewhere a discussion of what 'international' means. Inlcuding certain non-European languages (Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Swahili jump to mind) might completely change the scope of the argument. If 'international' has to mean 'European' or even 'Latin-based', then this should be more clearly stated, and the pros and cons of such a choice better discussed (including the issue of ethnocentrism -- perhaps a paper tiger, but one which still has to be explicitly revealed as such.) --Smeira 21:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rumanian and Brazillian
I was able to communicate to a Brazillian and person from Rumania with only Interlingua. (However the Rumanian knew Spanish, so I don't know if it was Rumanian or her Spanish that enabled Interlingua to be understood.) They responded in English but I can honestly say you can be be 99% confident that you will be understand by Spanish, Portuguese(Brazillian) and Italian speakers. I still need to see if French and Rumanians can fully understand the language. BTW, Mexican Telenovelas and some Brazillian programs are popular in Rumania and are subtitled but broadcasted in the original languages. Spanish seems to be a popular foreign language in Rumania.--Jondel 00:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That seems noteworthy, but did you understand them?Cameron Nedland 04:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

error
The statement: Interlingua has some enthusiastic supporters in North and South America, Europe (particularly Scandinavia), and Russia. should be changed to Interlingua has some enthusiastic supporters in North and South America, Europe (particularly Scandinavia), and Russia and one multo importante supporter in Japan:Me Jondel, le magnifico!. --Jondel 11:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Indubitabilissimo! -- cjgb

Proof of intelligibility
I am confident of intelligibllity into other Romance languages but it would be good have concrete proof, tests. Maybe I should contact Mr. Mulaik.I would like to add an entry at the Mutual inteligibillity article.--Jondel 01:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, English is my first language, and I am fluent in Spanish. To me, modern Interlingua looks like garbled Spanish sprinkled with oddly misspelled words that mostly seem to follow the Italian pattern--as if it were a phonetic transcription of Spanish spoken with a strong Italian accent.  In fact, from the limited samples shown on the page, it's closer to Spanish than Portuguese is (I can somewhat understand spoken European Portuguese but spoken Brazilian and spoken Angolan Portuguese are all but unintelligible to me).  I can read written Interlingua quite well, though my pronunciation would probably be somewhat off if I tried to speak it.  I am, of course, no linguist, but this is the immediate extremely strong impression it gives me.


 * I think the Europeans may have more practical experience with this. You might try Ingvar Stenström or Thomas Breinstrup. I'll post their emails here tomorrow. CJGB 4 Dec 2005


 * ingvar.stenstrm@TELIA.COM and Thomas.Breinstrup@BERLINGSKE.DK


 * Sent one request to Senior Breinstrup.--Jondel 07:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No reply from Breinstrup.--Jondel 02:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Lassa nos" vs "Que nos"
I'm dubious about "lassa nos", it strikes me as an anglicism. To me, "Veni, lassa nos edificar un citate" means "Come, permit us to build a city", as if you're saying to someone (God?), "Come over here, and bring the permission form". I would say "Veni, que nos edifica un citate", which appears to mean "Come, that we (will) build a city" as well as "Come, let us build a city", but I'm not sure those two sentences are semantically distinct. I've posted question about this on an Interlingua list.--Chris 15:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. I saw your post from the e-mail groups.. Anyway....'let' seems to ask permission (permit us) as well as invite (Come, you are invited to ..). There is also let of 'And God said let there be light'. 'Let ' seems to mean allow light to exist. Anyway, we'll follow what Stanley Mulaik says or the official interlingua authority... BTW the above is from omniglot (You know don't you?)--Jondel 02:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Omniglot article is very good. Maybe someone should send them a new Babel text. I imagine the old one comes from some online compilation of Babel texts; an inexpert translation got in somehow, I guess. --Chris 07:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Grammar sub-article
I've posted a sub-article on Interlingua grammar, basically a expanded, rewritten version of the Grammar section, and have written a new Grammar section for this article, just a summary.

Comments and edits on the new article are welcome. --Chris 04:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Romance vs Anglo-Romance
Hi McDutchie, Kwami! There's been quite a bit of debate about whether to describe Ia as Romance-based or not. Thinking about it, I'll just cut that language from the first sentence and let the later characterization ("In appearance...") do the work. In "traditional spelling and irregular morphology", "traditional" is almost a synonym for "irregular", but provides more information, so I favour "traditional spelling and morphology". "Irregular" has a pejorative connotation, so I'd reserve it for really clearcut cases like "era" and "son" (in the Interlingua grammar article).--Chris 13:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Official dictionary
I don't see tamben in the www.interlingua.com dictionary. I know the usage from Spanish. Is tamben official ? There is a lot of usage at the interlingua wikipedia and I am thinking of replacing this with etiam. There seems to be other unofficial interlingua words.--Jondel 00:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the strange things about Interlingua is how un-rule-bound it is in some ways, and how very rule bound it is in others. Some interlinguists were once bothered by the fact that lingua means both "language" and "tongue", so they said, why don't we use *lingue for "tongue"? Nope! You can't do that. There's no basis for it in Interlingua theory. But on the other hand, for these so-called grammatical words, there is no theory. The algorithm that "extracts" words from the control languages doesn't produce a word for "also" or "here" etc. Any choice you make is theoretically as good or bad as any other. Gode preferred Latinate particles like etiam, but stuffed the Dictionary full of alternative forms (taken from a range of largely obscure auxiliary languages) in case someone wanted to develop their own approach. As it turned out, a lot of Interlinguists did, probably because they came from Occidental, which uses Romance-ish particles. Anque is one of those Occ. forms. This bothered some of the more theoretically minded people, since a lot them are either straight Italian (troppo; ma; anque, a respelling of anchè) or made up (celle for "that"). In the early 1960s, Stan Mulaik figured out that if you added a couple of extra control languages (Catalan and Romanian) just for the particles, the algorithm would function again, spitting out words like aquelle for "that" and aqui for "here". Tamben is one of these words, though it's caught on more widely than the others.

There's no Interlingua academy to decide on the "right" word. Gode insisted that there not be an academy, and he was even doubtful about founding UMI. The facts of Interlingua are determined by the facts in the control languages, and each individual has the right to interpret those as he sees fit. Naturally it makes sense to follow the usage of the rest of the community and listen to the opinions of more experienced Interlinguists, but that's purely a matter of individual judgement. If it works for you, it works.--Chris 13:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Tamben literally means as well in interlingua, and as such also. 70.109.149.107 16:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "tan bien" and "tambien" are pronounced identically in Spanish. -iopq 02:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can it be nominated to be a Good Article now?
When I last read this article a couple months ago, it was in bad shape. However, in my opinion, it's very high quality now, maybe good enough to be a featured article in the near future. It's especially nice to have the availability of a sound sample, and its detailed history on development. A table of the sounds may be needed, like this table from the article on Catalan:  or the consonant table in the Esperanto article. On a more controversial note, a link to the Euroclone article might be added, although it's sort of POV. Is there a way we can cite it as a good article?--ikiroid | (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been drafting a new section on Phonology and Orthography (see my personal page), including a modified version of the Eo consonant chart. I'm also hoping do some work on the Rationale section, which still sounds too much like an Interlingua pamphlet, and the History section, which I think should eventually be spun off into a separate article. I've no problem with citing it as a Euroclone, though the Euroclone article is rather POV (from a conlanger perspective).--Chris 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Language
Couldn't another criticism be that the spelling is more difficult then say, Esperanto?Cameron Nedland 02:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd try to avoid comparisons with Eo (there's a separate article on that topic), but certaining Ia has be criticised for departing from a strictly phonemic orthography.--Chris 05:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
"Choc, chenille, chef, chimpanze, chocolate, cheque" are Interlingua, not English words, so they are indeed examples of ch = [sh]. Chandelier was not listed in the original Interlingua-English Dictionary, which used candeliero instead. It might be justified as an alternative form, though, based on its appearance in English, French, and German. --Chris, 17 April 2006 (hey how come the timestamp's not working?)

Chocolate
How is this a French word? Isn't is Nahuatl?Cameron Nedland 20:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose so (some pre-Columbian language, anyway), but it entered English (and presumably German and certain other control languages) via French.--Chris 23:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably through Spanish before french, though I'm not sure about that.-- The ikiroid  23:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. The Bloomsbury Dictionary of Word Origins gives Nahuatl xocolatl > Spanish chocolate > English chocolate. I thought French was in there somewhere because of German Schokolade.--Chris 23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So how is this a word of French origin?Cameron Nedland 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not, it's via Spanish. But Schokolade is presumably Nahuatl > Spanish > French > German.
 * So in Interlingua do they use the French pronunciation?Cameron Nedland 16:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The rules for defining (or "extracting") the vocabulary of Interlingua focus firstly on the written form. The pronunciation is normally* derived from the written form based on the general norms for the language. In this case, we know the form is chocolate. Alexander Gode & Co. worked out that ch could be either [k] or [ʃ], so the pronunciation is [ʃokoˈlate]. You might be able to argue for [tʃokoˈlate], but I think that would confuse things.


 * Just as a footnote, I'll note that in a few cases the pronunciation of a word departs from the basic norms, as in Chile [ˈtʃile] or cappuccino [kapuˈtʃino]. This occurs when a consensus of the control languages agrees on a non-standard pronunciation. If, say, English and Spanish pronounced cappuccino as, roughly, [kapukˈsino], Interlingua would have to follow suit with [kapukˈ(t)sino].


 * I am a latecomer to this discussion, but I was under the distinct impression that "chocolate" is indeed originally a French word, thus:

"xioc" = Mayan word for cocoa "xioc au lait" = French for "cocoa with milk," which a speaker of English or Spanish might easily try to write phonetically as "chocolate."

Then again, my source for this is a novel I read years ago, not a text on linguistics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Authority
The language is so natural it seems to write itself. However, a governing body really is needed. (It is sad that Interlingua is not too popular as eo). People are just creating their words. Over at the ia wiki, someone created the word Thequondo. I think the original word Taekwondo should be retained.

Le lingua es tan natural, il semble scriber ipse. Mais, il es necessitate, un corpore governante (Es un pietate interlingua non es popular como eo). Le gentes es justo creante lor parolas. Al ia wikipedia. alicuno create le parola e articulo Thequondo. Io crede le parola Taekwondo debe esser retenite.--Jondel 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I suppose that's in part the beauty of language, the fact that its direction is controlled by a group of everday people, expanding their communication based on the way they believe the world runs. A governing body builds a system of discrimination on what a language is. I always thought that linguistic governing bodies inhibited the possibilities of what a language can become, and postpone it from what it will become. Maybe these new words show that interlingua is becoming a living organism, not just a prebuilt one. The language that was created is the placenta of something that can come alive, become flawed, but in doing so, it becomes human. On the flip side, if a language becomes too divided, it ceases in functionality and dies, so some order is needed.-- The ikiroid  01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've become too Japanese(I'm a Tokyo resident) in my outlook relying on rules and a governing body, but it really is more natural to use the more popular word. I see your point though, rules can inhibit. Sort of let or allow nature to form or create the language is the best way to do things.--Jondel 01:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Gode's idea was that if you have strong rules for selecting vocabulary, you don't need an authority. If the rules produce multiple choices, so be it - you can use any of them. That doesn't prevent people from making mistakes, but mistakes can be corrected by other informed users. It's amazing how closely Gode, writing in the 1950s, anticipated philosophies of self-organizing behaviour that underlie Wikipedia, among other Internet-age projects. I wonder if he read Hayek.


 * In any case, Thequondo is wrong, there's no doubt about that. All the source languages have Taekwondo, and that is therefore the Interlingua form. Do any of you know how to do a redirect?--Chris 03:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good idea! It should be obvious what should be correct interlingua and not. Like the mentioned behaviour, it seems interlingua is self-writing or self-creating. I should read Hayek. I can redirect but it would be easier if I was a sysop there *hint* *hint* :D .--Jondel 05:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't look at me! I've had nothing to do with the Ia Wikipedia thus far.--Chris 05:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What's with the 'h' in Thequondo? Shouldn't it just be Taiquando or something?Cameron Nedland 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea. I've seen it in an alleged Latin version of Taekwondo. Anyway, it's definitely wrong for Interlingua. Taekwondo is correct.--Chris 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that while some people are creating their own interlingua words, some want to make it sophisticated since Interlingua is said to be 'artificial'. It should be obvious that that interlingua uses words that are as common, natural or well known as possible. I believe you can sort of get a feel of which words interlinguists will or should choose. --Jondel 00:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of people at the conference in Sweden
From where did you get the number 250? Although such a high attendance would have been great, there were really only about 50-70 participants. (I can say this with reasonable certainty as I was there my self.) :)LR

Alternate pronunciations
Just out of curiosity, why cant th and ch have their Greek sounds (θ and x respectively)?Cameron Nedland 14:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Cos = [t] in all the source languages except English, and Greek-derived  = [k] in all the source languages except German and Russian.--CJGB (Chris) 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, alrighty then. Makes sense now I guess.Cameron Nedland 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But by that logic, shouldn't h always be silent?Cameron Nedland 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Like spelling, pronunciation in Interlingua is governed by prototype considerations. [h] was present in Latin, so it's officially also there in Interlingua. However, the original authorities on Interlingua make it very clear that there is a considerable latitude when it comes to pronunciation and any 'h' not part of a digraph may thus remain unpronounced. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool.Cameron Nedland 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Folkspraak and Slovio
The reason that I removed the sentence mentioning these two constructed languages, is that Folkspraak is simply not finished yet and that the pan-Slavic claim for Slovio is too controversial for its relatively short existence. -- Dissident (Talk) 10:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enuf, I thot that it was a reasonabl claim, so I put it in.Cameron Nedland 13:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ŋ
This is a seperate phoneme in IA, I thot it was just an allophone...Cameron Nedland 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's definitely an allophone, or at least a free variant of /n/ before [g] or [k]. I really should tweak that chart.--CJGB (Chris) 01:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to say...Cameron Nedland 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether the grammar book means with "The sounds of g and k assimilate a preceding n as in English." that the g in "ng" is still pronounced (regressive assimilation) or not (reciprocal assimilation). -- Dissident (Talk) 12:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly the former. For example Interlingua is [inteɾˡliŋgwa] not [inteɾˡliŋwa].--CJGB (Chris) 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are there loanwords that use this like "Parking lot" or something like that?Cameron Nedland 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of English loanwords that contain "ng":
 * boomerang
 * clearing
 * clearinghouse
 * dumping
 * gangster
 * meeting
 * mustang
 * ping-pong
 * plumpudding
 * pudding
 * remington
 * shampooing
 * shilling
 * shocking
 * sleeping-car
 * smoking
 * -- Dissident (Talk) 02:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Cameron Nedland 18:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much information?
I wonder if the Samples section is getting a bit over-developed. I think the comparative texts in various Romance language are threatening to overwhelm the Interlingua texts. Besides, their inclusion tends inadvertently to push a POV - the idea that Interlingua is meant to be a pan-Romance IAL rather a pan-European one. This is an old and ongoing tension within Interlingua - Gode refers to it in his Manifesto de Interlingua - so the article shouldn't take sides.

The collateral spelling issue is more complicated. First of all, despite its canonical status, Gode and Blair's Interlingua Grammar does a terrible job of describing it. What they term "Collateral Spelling" actually combines a simplified spelling scheme with a slightly modified "dialect" of Interlingua. I mean, intelligente versus inteligente is a matter of spelling, but citate versus citat is something else entirely. Moreover, the only official text that uses this system combines it with a number of other variations. However, this system is essentially never used. The only collateral spellings that are in common use are ph>f, th>t, and in certain cases ch>c. A few users drop the double consonants, but not many.

My feeling is that we should eventually spin off an article on Interlingua Variants, which would cover the more radical spelling variants, the pre-1951 models (which take up too much space in the current version, IMO), as well as some personal variants like Josu Lavin's Romanica and Podmele's and Fritzsch's variants from the 1950s. It could also cover the whole Latin versus Romance particle issue in more detail than the main article.

Personally, I would pare back the examples to one or two Interlingua texts with English translations, plus the Lord's Prayer, which presumably doesn't require a translation (yes, it's culturally and religiously biased, but it is the most widely translated text in the world). But I like to hear some arguments for keeping the Romance translations.--CJGB (Chris) 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I also object against the presence of all these Romance texts not only because the article is already too big, but also because it is disturbing the flow of the text (I might acquiesce if they were to be put as columns next to each other). As for your main point, I've made the addressing of collateral spelling less text-consuming by simply noting where it deviates from the standard, so this shouldn't be much of an issue. On one hand, the idea of a Interlingua variants article is intriguing because in my opinion Interlingua derivatives like Romanica and Ekspreso are simply not notable enough to deserve their own articles (Wikipedia could really use a notability guideline regarding constructed languages) and transferring their contents to this article would be a nice way to get rid of the separate articles. On the other hand, I would take issue if Mulaik's particle reform proposal were to be lumped together with them, because I believe these changes fall within the limits of what can be considered to be "Interlingual", considering that the presence of Latin particles can already be seen as a failure of some sort of the general extraction technique. My plan originally was to create a Interlingua vocabulary article, which could describe in detail how, in what form and with which meanings words enter the vocabulary of Interlingua. It follows naturally then to also completely expound there the workings of supplementary extraction techniques in use and the problem and proposed solutions of the particles with all its gory details: Gode's fallback to Latin, Blair's liberal sprinkling of alternative words from other places in the IED as bracketed entries and Mulaik's proposal to look at the lesser Romance languages for backup. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, I'm not sure I like your solution to the collateral-spelling issue -- it makes the text hard to read. I'm all for documenting these interesting technical points (keeping in mind this is not a textbook for Interlingua), but let's remember the main purpose of the article is to provide an overview for people who may not be language junkies, in the way that I and perhaps you are. In the long term, I'd favour spinning off a lot of the details to sub-articles.


 * I agree that the main article should mention Mulaik's proposals, perhaps in the context of the prototyping procedure (which isn't very well described).


 * Your idea of a map is a good one. This version is maybe biased toward a pan-Romanic view of Interlingua. I see if I can draw up one that more closely reflects Gode's views about "Romania" (meaning the whole linguistic zone penetrated by Latin, including the International Scientific Vocabulary).--CJGB (Chris) 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For all I care, the collateral spelling can be expunged with extreme prejudice from this article given even the tentative way it was introduced by the grammar book with only one page, let alone the virtual nil support it has gathered in the next 50 years. I'm just not in the habit of deleting otherwise correct info others have added as it implies at least one person thinks it's noteworthy enough to be mentioned. As for the map, remember that it's meant to highlight the at-first-sight comprehensibility of Interlingua and that despite the large influx of Greek-Latin wordstock to other Indo-European languages, one can definitely NOT claim that knowledge of a non-Romance Indo-European language is enough to make Interlingua readable at first sight, only that it makes its learning process easier to a certain degree. --- Dissident (Talk) 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

15 days?
That seems like a huge exaggeration, unless they know all the source languages or have some other bizzare gift.Cameron Nedland 23:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I’ve seen that figure a few times and, although it is a very brief period, it’s been consistent with my own experience. I was able to write Interlingua after a couple evenings of reading it. The only source language I knew well was English, although I had taken a class in elementary French. For me, the key was to become proficient in passive use before moving on to active use. Matt 03:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, passively reading in 15 days, yeah I understand that. I know English fluently & Spanish with some proficiency. I can read Ia with few problems, and I am slowly teaching myself Ia.Cameron Nedland 14:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But, doesn't the preamble say, average person can learn to speak and write in 15 days? Average person?  Shouldn't it say, well educated speaker of one of the source languages?  Or read?  Or otherwise fudge the issue?  Or cite a source?  Or at least move this wonderful claim out of the preamble and into a more detailed discussion?
 * Jim.henderson 15:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would definitely move it out, considering it's also unsourced and that would definitely cause a FA nomination to fail. Passive recognition is pretty easy with natural languages as well but even for IALs (and I know a few) it takes longer than 15 days for it to actually sink in. Not because it's hard, but because people need enough time for a language to take its own 'place' in a person's mind. Mithridates 16:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It indeed seems doubtful, for (particularly, poorly educated) people knowing only one language, clearly distinct from the source languages (Arabic, Japanese, Chinese etc.) the learning period must indeed range in months for reasonable communication... 惑乱 分からん 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Towards an Interlingua portal on Wikipedia
It is necessary a lot of work for us to have an Interlingua portal in Wikipedia, much in the same way Esperanto has. I have found another wiki that contains some information about Interlingua that should be in Wikipedia! Take a look at Wikia. I hope people strive for collecting information like that and create new articles for the Interlingua category.

It is also necessary to have more information about notable persons in the Interlingua history, and add them both to the English and to the Interlingua Wikipedia. For instance, Ezra Clark Stillman has a stub article in English, but a quite good article in Esperanto and no article in the Interlingua wikipedia.

With some effort, we will be able to create a good Interlingua portal here in the English Wikipedia. Are you willing to join the collaborative effort? :) --Antonielly 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting article to FA status
I've noticed that a lot of people have been making edits to the article. Some are more helpful than others if we want to see it on the front. Here are some of my thoughts as I read over the article. Some of the changes I'll make myself in the next few days so this is a bit of a checklist, but since I don't know as much about Interlingua as others do it would be good if others could clarify some of the points. Mithridates 02:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Introduction: What is an IAL and what do they do? Article moves into talking about the language before it makes clear exactly why it was made.
 * the major Western languages - which ones? Western is too general
 * "Interlingua's simplicity and international vocabulary make it unusually easy to learn." - need a reference
 * Interlingua uses an objective procedure - what about systematic instead of objective?
 * People with a good knowledge of a Romance language, or a smattering of a Romance language plus a good knowledge of the international scientific vocabulary can frequently read and understand it at first sight. - maybe add something about the often heard "a prime vista" phrase
 * Educated speakers of English also enjoy this easy comprehension. - how educated?
 * Words in Interlingua retain their natural form; they are never distorted to fit a pre-existing grammar or set of rules. - are we sure it's never?
 * History - some references here would be good.
 * as its conference was attended – and its efforts legitimized – by eminent linguists. - Who, and how did this legitimize their efforts?
 * Later, Dr. Edward L. Thorndike published a paper about the relative learning speeds of "natural" and "modular" constructed languages. - is this paper available? He died in 1949 so perhaps it's public domain.
 * Model P, K, etc. - putting this in a pretty chart might be nice
 * Success, decline, resurgence - references are good but need to be rewritten so they appear on the bottom of the page too, looks like there are only three at present when there are actually more
 * Media coverage at the time, for example, was apparently heaviest in Northern and Eastern Europe. - apparently? This sentence really needs some backing.
 * Interlingua today - an expansion on this would be good. Most of the content in the article is about what the Interlingua movement did, with only a wee bit on what it's doing now. Maybe a photo of some of the gatherings in Sweden could be obtained for the article.
 * Community - do we need to mention that a university is prestigious?
 * Criticisms - the last paragraph is a bit vague and isn't really about Interlingua anyway.

New Sample
I'm replacing the poor, abused "Care of Mad Scientists" sample with a quotation from Alexander Gode, for a couple of reasons:


 * The Interlingua version is actually a modification of a sample text found in Gode & Blair's Interlingua Grammar. The original version isn't suitable because it's written in an experimental variant of standard Interlingua, but using a modified version seems - well, not dishonest, exactly - but somehow a bit fishy, as if we're trying to edit history.


 * The English version is a retranslation of the Interlingua, not de Camp's original text. Again, it's not exactly wrong to do this, but a bit weird.


 * The de Camp text, while moderately interesting, doesn't actually say anything about Interlingua, whereas the Gode text actually adds to the article's coverage of the topic.


 * I was the editor who introduced the de Camp text originally. While obviously I don't have any proprietary rights over the article, by removing the article I'm less likely to step on anyone's toes than if someone else had added it.

CJGB (Chris) 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Rant about POV
Frankly, the introductory paragraph currently reads like an advertisement flyer instead of being a neutral, factual overview of the language that is sufficiently informative as style reasonably allows in the introduction. Instead, it and the rest of the article is rife with fluff about how easy the language is supposed to be, which doesn't even make much sense without context. By what standards and under which conditions? For one thing, not everybody is a native Indo-European language speaker and knowing a Romance language is obviously a major advantage when being confronted with Interlingua text.

It's a shame my attempt to replace some of the fluff with factual info and to tone down the frankly evangelical aspects of the article has been reverted. Worse, however, is that the edit summaries for doing so are completely misplaced. The changes I've made in the first paragraph was reverted with the argument that "ease of learning isn't limited to speakers of the control languages", which as you can see here is not claimed. What IS claimed is that the degree of easiness in understanding and/or learning Interlingua depends on how much Interlingua words are attested to in the languages one knows. A reasonable statement I would think. This edit is even worse: It claims to be toning down the article, while doing the exact opposite. The grammar of Interlingua can only be categorized as simple in comparison with that of Indo-European languages and not with no qualification. Also, to attribute the ease of learning Interlingua to its free word-building is speculative at best and personally strikes me as odd. Finally, anyone who claims Interlingua is free from irregularities (regardless from how one exactly defines an irregularity) has obviously not taken a good look at the grammar.

This article is nowhere near Featured Article status as some have been suggesting and given its current state I will vote against making it thus, if it ever comes to that, and am willing to back it up with arguments. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - it's gotten worse since I wrote that list of things to do back in December two discussions up. I'm not sure people understand that the extra promotion being inserted into the article actually damages it both by making it seem like a flyer and also by bringing it even further away from FA status. Mithridates 04:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of work to do on this article, I agree. Defluffing is the most obvious issue, but another thing is that a lot the pro-Interlingua points put forward don't seem to come from the languages proponents. For example, no Ia-ist I know proposes Ia as the one universal international language a long the lines of finvenka Esperanto. Gode was quite sarcastic about the idea. So there's a lot of develop to do before the article works.CJGB (Chris) 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, but Gode himself specifically mentioned knowing such activists. Those were the ones he called "Esperantists". -- Dissident (Talk) 06:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the article really really really needs an image or two or three to spice it up a little. It's one of the longest articles I've seen to be completely lacking in images. Mithridates 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that as much of the subjectivity as possible is coalesced in one place (obviously attributed). Then the rest of the article can be filled with the (semi-)hard facts about the language. -- Dissident (Talk) 06:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For a justification of the dispute templates I've added, I refer to my earlier comments here as well as the earlier changes I've tried to make to the article. Don't remove them without discussing it here (unless the disputed parts are substantially modified). -- Dissident (Talk) 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Native speaker claim
Removed from the article:
 * While Panorama sometimes reports on native speakers of Interlingua, their numbers are currently unknown.

This needs some serious supporting evidence before it goes back in. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole "native speaker" is very antithetical to the traditional Interlingua ideology, a real case of what Gode called "Esperantism". That being said, I think I remember Panorama reporting on a couple who said they were going to teach their baby Interlingua. If that's as far as it goes, I don't think it's worth mentioning. CJGB (Chris) 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a constructed language?
I think claiming that Interlingua is not a constructed language is the sort of religious mumbo jumbo we can do without here. There's nothing wrong with stating that Interlingua is a constructed language made up of purely a-posteriori elements designed to capture what is common in several languages; however, to make the Platonic claim of Interlingua being an existing reality regardless of its "elaboration" is (POV-)pushing it. The language has enough subjectivities of its own to belie that. Gode himself complicated the matter by in fact defining Interlingua as the existing reality of the commonality between languages and considering the constructed language we know by this name as just one possible elaboration of it. -- Dissident (Talk) 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)