Interlingua nunquam essera perfectemente unificate.

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, English)

Jusu Lavin ha ration quando ille dice que il ha pauchissime interlinguistas qui sape parlar e scriber le lingua vermente ben.

Omne iste interlinguistas ha apprendite le lingua usante diverse fontes de textos e exercitios preparate per interlinguistas qui ha disvellopate lor proprie idiolectos del (collection de) idiolectos de altere interlinguistas. Assi, il es ver que interlingua non es perfectemente unificate. Mesmo in su documentos de origine preparate per Alexande Gode, interlingua non esseva perfectemente unificate. Gode presentava formas alternative de alicun particulas, pro exemplo.

Stan Mulaik, naturalmente, ha le derecto de usar interlingua como ille vole, e su version del lingua, naturalmente, ha diverse mulaikismos. E le version del lingua que io usa, naturalmente, ha diverse kysonismos. Le differentia inter Stan e me es que sovente Stan ha insistite que omnes debe usar interlingua secundo su proprie practicas. Io, naturalmente, assere mi proprie derecto de usar interlingua secundo mi proprie preferentias, ma io nunquam insiste que mi version del lingua es le sol version valide del lingua, e io sovente dice que si alteres vole copiar mi textos pro uso in altere sitos in le Rete, illes es libere a rediger los secundo lor proprie preferentias in le uso del lingua.

In le caso de linguas ethnic, il ha grande gruppos de usatores cuje communication interactive presenta multe modellos valide de imitation. Ma mesmo in le caso de grande linguas mundial--como le anglese, le espaniol, e le portugese--il ha dialectos regional que differe inter se, e il es un exercitio completemente arbitrari seliger un de iste dialectos regional como le sol forma “correcte” o “echt” del lingua.

Le pronunciation de interlingua presenta problemas special. Pro Alexander Gode, considerationes de pronunciation habeva un importantia secondari proque ille credeva que le utilitate principal de interlingua esserea como un medio de communication scribite principalmente in textos scientific. Assi, il ha diverse possibilitates pro extraher un systema phonologic del interlingua scribite. Io, pro mi parte, prefererea pronunciar interlingua secundo le normas del latino ecclesiastic contemporanee. Ma nunc emerge un norma de plus in plus unificate pro le pronunciation de interlingua que imita le normas del latino medieval como illo esseva pronunciate in le paises septentrional de Europa.

(Recentemente, io videva in youtube un video del latinista principal del Vaticano, un americano qui pronunciava le latino con un forte accento que reflecte le influentia de su lingua native, le anglese american. Un romano del periodo classic nunquam haberea potite comprender le latino como ille lo pronunciava in iste video. Si ille parlava interlingua de iste maniera, naturalmente, multes le criticarea pro su pronunciation.)

Como le normas de construction de interlingua sempre ha essite flexibile de facto in su forma e scribite e parlate, io es convencite que quando interlinguistas individual presenta registrationes de lor version del lingua parlate, illes debe presentar simultaneemente transcriptiones scribite de lor textos pro facilitar le comprension de illes qui studia iste communicationes. E io es anque convencite que nos debe acciper con resignation que interlingua nunquam ha essite e probabilemente nunquam essera perfectemente unificate como ulle altere lingua vivente como le anglese, le espaniol, e le portugese, le quales ha multissime usatores native.

---

Josu Lavin is right when he says that there are very few Interlinguists who know how to speak and write the language really well.

All these interlinguists have learned the language by using various sources of texts and exercises prepared by Interlinguists who have developed their own idiolects from the (collection of) idiolects of other Interlinguists. It is therefore true that Interlingua is not perfectly unified. Even in its original documents prepared by Alexander Gode, Interlingua was not perfectly unified. Gode presented alternative forms of some particles, for example.

Stan Mulaik, naturally, has the right to use Interlingua as he wants, and his version of the language, naturally, has various Mulaikisms. And the version of the language that I use, of course, has various Kysonisms. The difference between Stan me is that often Stan has insisted that everyone should use Interlingua according to his own practices. I, of course, assert my own right to use Interlingua according to my own preferences, but I never insist that my version of the language is the only valid version of the language, and I often say that if others want to copy my texts for use in other sites on the Net, they are free to edit them according to their own preferences in the use of the language.

In the case of ethnic languages, there are large groups of users whose interactive communication presents many valid models for imitation. But even in the case of large worldwide languages--such as English, Spanish, and Portuguese--there are regional dialects that differ among themselves, and it is a completely arbitrary exercise to select one of these regional dialects as the only “correct” or “echt” form of the language.

The pronunciation of Interlingua presents special problems. For Alexander Gode, considerations of pronunciation were of secondary importance because he believed that the principal usefulness of Interlingua would be as a written medium of communication in scientific texts. Thus there are various possibilities for extracting a phonological system from written Interlingua. I myself would prefer to pronounce Interlingua according to the norms of contemporary ecclesiastical Latin. But there is now emerging a more and more unified pronunciation of Interlingua that imitates the norms of medieval Latin as it was pronounced in the northern countries of Europe.

(Recently, I saw on youtube a video of the Vatican’s principal Latinist, an American who pronounced Latin with a strong accent that reflects the influence of his native language, American English. A Roman from the classical period would never have been able to understand Latin the way he pronounced it in this video. If he spoke Interlingua in this way, naturally, many would criticize him for his pronunciation.)

Since the norms for constructing Interlingua have always been flexible de facto in both its written and spoken forms, I am convinced that when individual Interlinguists present recordings of their version of the spoken language, they should simultaneously present written transcriptions of their texts to make it easier for people studying these communications to understand them. And I am also convinced that we should resign ourselves into accepting the fact that Interlingua has never been and will probably never be perfectly unified just like any other language like English, Portuguese, and Spanish, which have many native speakers.