FLOYD HARDIN to PROFESORO D-RO IVO LAPENNA, Dec. 16,1962

Dearc Pro.fesoro D-.ro Lapenna: Acting as a member of the Commi ttee on Arrangements for the forthcoming Lapenna-Gode Debate, I am enclosing the original of a letter written to me by Dr. Gode with the requeat that · I forward it to you. While the letter is addressed to me, it is primarily designed fo~ your personal attention. I am by this same mail, sending

a ~opy of the Gode letter to Mr. Auld in Scotland, and take occasion to enclose herewith a copy of my communication to Mr. Auld. Since these ·items are self-explanatory, it is not necessary for me to. coniment on · them at this time. I would be glad to hear from you at your convenience .' about the matters with which this letter is concerned and in the meantime I am happy tosend you cordial greetings of the Holiday Season.(Floyd · Hardin) .

PROFESORO D-RO IVO LAPENNA to FLOYD HARDIN, Dec.23,1962

Tre estimata Sinjoro Hardin: Kun danko mi konfirmas la ricevon de v·i ·aj leteroj de la 10-a kaj 16-a de decembro. Mi tutkore dankas al vi pro afablaj vortoj rilate mian artikolon. Mi tre esperas, ke vi havos la gentilecon sendi al mi 2-3 ekzemplerojn de The International Language Review, en kiu gi aperos.

Rilate la sugestitan debaton inter D-ro Gode kaj mi, mi devas konfesi, ke mi neniel komprenis la afero tiel, ke D-ro Gode kaj mi deyus f -ine, rezulte de la debato, interkonsenti, ke la sferoj de apliko de Inter­lingua kaj Esperanto estas malsamaj kaj sekve ne "konkurencaj". Sincere parolante, mi ne vidas ian ajn utilon de tiel limigita debato. Lau mia koncepto de la rolo. de neutrala komuna internacia lingvo, gi devas servi por ciuj internaciaj rilatoj kaj ne limigi al tiu au alia kampo. Espe­ranto, ne nur el teoria vidpunkto, sed ankau lau siaj praktikaj aplikoj dum- pli .ol 75 jaroj, montrigis kiel perfekta instrumento de pensado kaj kumunikado sur ciuj niveloj kaj en ciuj aspektoj de internacia komuni­kado. Ec se la tez·o de D-ro Gode estus korekta - nome, ke la sf ero de Interlingua neniel klIDpusigas kun tiu de Esperanto - tiu tezo estus per si mem kontraua al la ideo mem, por kiu ni ciuj pledas, nome solvi la l~ngvan problemon per unu komuna lingvo. Se ni devas anstatauigi la nun aplikatajn multnombrajn naciajn lingvojn per ne u~u, sed pluraj inter­naciaj lingvoj, ciu por iu aparta sfero, tiam la tuta afero perdas ciun sencon. Tiu mia pozicio estas tiel ferma, ke neniu debato povas gin sangi .. En tiaj kondicoj, kiel dirite, mi bedaurinde ne vidas sencon de la proponita diskuto-. Mi estas preta kontribui · al la solvo de la lingva problemo per diskuto CU kun D-ro Gode CU kun kiu ajn alia pri ciuj as­pektoj de la problemo - kaj tion mi volonte akceptis - sed mi ne estas preta perdi mian tempon por sterila· diskuto, en kiu mi klarigos, ke Esperanto taugas por ciuj aspektoj de la internaciaj rilatqj, dum .D-ro Gode plue asertos, ke la sf ero, ·kiun celas Interlingua, neniel genas la kvazaue limigitan sferon de Esperanto~ : Do, mi ripetas: se D-ro Gode estas preta diskuti kun mi la tutan problemon en ciuj ·giaj aspektoj, mi v9lonte akceptas lian elvokon. Se ne, mi bedaUrinde ne povos partopreni en tiu plano.

Dankante al vi pro la bondeziroj kaj tutkor~ , reciprokante ilin, mi restas kun estimo. (Prof esoro D-ro Ivo Lapenn.a) (NOTE: An English trans­lation of this letter appears at the end of this. secti.On:.) . ' „.

DR. ALEXANDER GODE to FLOYD HARDIN, .Jah.17, i96!,.

Dear . Mr. Hardin: If you need a clarifying statenient as to ,what I wish to achieve through my challenge to Di'. Lapenna, ,here goes: My suggestion that a public debate with· Dr. · Lapenna· ·and myseli' as participants- be·

. [ i .

arrang~d, 'wÄ~~!_ ;G1ear1y formu1ated as a seque1 to the premise that both ... Es·p 'eran.to· and'-Interlingua are frequently the targets of nonsensical at­tacks riio~i.väted . less by ill will than by prejudice based on ignorance. Attacks _:.öri lnterlirigua very frequently reflect complete -unawareness of the fa9t. ·tnat ' thi.s language cannot be judged in accordance wi th Esper­antistic . ,"cri t'eria since both i ts objecti ves and i ts underlying philoso­phy dif°fe'r rad,tc.ally from those tradi tionally :formulated for Esperanto. The ,i(j.e.a .. that . 3,. public debate could be used for the purposes of an eval'u­ativi;; ··.com:Paris6n of the two languages is concei vable only as having arise.ri .·ön .tne Qasi"s of the very ki:hd of misunderstanding I wish to see elim:Lriated. · . ·

If Dr. Lapenna wants to use the occasion of a debate with me to extol EsperantO --·and . denigrate Interlingua ,I shall not reciprocate, for I hold that Esperanto "is the sort of thing that pe.ople like that like that sort of thing~' and the fact that I am not among them is not a sufficient reason for -me to conclude that no one else should be. If there is a · fre~ quently voiced Esperantistic argument that I feel free to reject,then it is the claim that the existence of Interlingua interferes with the work .' that is being done on behalf of Esperanto and that the existence of .. Espe­ranto implies the undesirability of the existence of Interlingua. (Dr. Alexander Gode. ) ·

FLOYD HARDIN to WILLIAM AULD, Dec.7, 1962 Dear Mr. Auld: I wri t·e you these f ew lines wi th pleasureable . antici­

patton at the prospect of knowing you and working with you to · advance . . the cause of · the _international language movement at this critical period in human history. ·

I have no doubt .but that you will approve of" the silggestion mad~ . that you and I proceed to make arrangements f or the Laperlna-Gode debate on th the subject: "Is Esperanto the Answer to the World Language Problem?" · According to my understanding, it is the expressed wish of . D-ro Lapenna. and Dr. Gode that we act jointly in this capacity. Please be so kind as ­to write me upon receipt of this and .advise whether or not you are dis­posed to join with me in this- important task.

I am not unaware of the distinguished -work you have done in the. pro­motion of Esperanto and in .its use as a literary vehicle. Y.ou:r talents in this area command my admiration · and my profound respect.(Floyd Hardin)

FLOYD HARDIN to WILLIAM ;AULD, Dec.16,1962 Dear Mr. Auld: While I am awai ting your reply to my letter of Dec. 7·,-

I am prompted to write you again and suggest a method of procedure in : the matter of the Gode-Lapenna deb~te .. . I ani wri ting on the assumption that you will consent to act on tp..e ,Committee ·for Arrangements with me, which, as you know, is the wish of Pröfesoro D-ro Ivo Lapenna and also of Dr. Alexander Gode. My suggestion is that both you and I, acting .in­dependently, appoint one person to serve on the Committee with us, making a Committee of four. · If this procedure is agreeable to you, I will appoint Mr~ Hugh E. Blair, of New York City·; . who was · formerly an active member of the International Auxiliary-- Language · Association ( IALA), and is now Editor of the new periodical, "Interlingua at Work". Since Mr. Blair is in close contact wi th Dr. Alexander Gode, •' he would presum­ably act on the _,Commi ttee of A:rrangements in keeping wi th Dr. Gode' s wishes. For your- -. part, you couJ,d ~ appoint an active Esper•antist for · the fourth member :· of the Commi ttee, --Wld·-if .your appointee happened to live in London, he could act in close and frequent · consultation with D-ro Lapenna.

A Commi ttee . of· four hp..v~:ng been chosen, the Commi ttee i tself could appoint a · fifth .member who might prove useful in the event of a deadlock in someJ matter upon .which the C9mmittee was acting.

I am en<~los'ing .copy of a letter wri tten to me by Dr. Gode, who re­quested ·that I forw'ard it to Dr. Lapenna. Likewise I am enclosing" a copy of this letter t ·o - you in my letter to Dr. Lapenna. (Floyd Hardin)

. , r·

WILLIAM AULD to FLOYD HARDIN, Dec. 27,1962

S-ro Floyd Hardin: Very many thanks indeed for the various things you have sent in - the past three weeks, the most important being, of course, your letters„ of 7th and 16th December, and ior your extremely friendly overtures· t9 me which I have the greatest .pleasure in heartily and sin­cerely reciprocating. It is these last which make it all the more diffi­cult forme to do what I feel I must, i.e., regretfully refuse to under­take any work in connection with the projected debate between Prof. La­penna and Dr. Gode . . This decision will come as something of a surprise to Prof. Lapenna, and I am sending him a copy of this letter in order to apprise him of the fact. It would be easy enough to say that, as from the end of this year, I am no long~r Editor of "Esperanto", and therefore not th.e proper person to act in the suggested capacity, (and, indeed, the new Editor, Dr. Sadler, will no doubt be willing to fill the bill), but I suppose Dr. Gode would have rio oojection to my carrying on in collabora-tion .wi th you if I felt _able to. ·

The truth is, however, that I have, personally, very little interest in Interlinguistics, and .no faith at all in the value of such a debate as has been suggested, and hence I cannot do justice to the work of. the proposed committee. It is true that on more than one occasion I have en7 tered the interlinguistic lists on behalf of Esperanto; but this has always been in order to refute false or unscientific statements made about Esperanto rather than to discuss the language's merits in compari­son with any projects for an international language. I shall, with your permission (and in the hope that I do not bore you) exemplify this in a moment. · My interest ., as I say, is not in Interlinguistics. as such, but, in Esperanto as my language, . · the language in which I have done the great­er part of my hating, loving, cursing and creating. With most of my in­timate friends Esperanto is our sole means of communication; during my · University years I composed all my essays and theses in Esperanto before translating them into English; it is in Esperanto that I have written my books. You can therefore imagine how little patience I have with people whose objections to my language are based on inaccuracies, prejudices and forgi ve me for being so blunt - downright lies. A p_erusal of The International Language Review (which you were kind enough to send me) leaves me once again with the firm conviction, not only that no advocate of any project such as Interlingua has ever used his project as a lan­guage, or, more important, had a single emotional experience within the context of his project, but that all such advocates regard such an ex­perience as both irrelevant and undesirable, and are dedicated to th.e . proposition that an interlanguage is ipso facto secondary and inferior · to the ethnic languages, which to my way of thinking is utterly false to the nature of language as such, and is certainly contrary to my experi­ence. It is because of .this false premise, among others, that no project is ever likely to succeed as Esperanto has succeeded, rather than be- · cause of any defects in the given project as such.

As I said above, I should like to exemplify the kind o.f unscientific and false argument which I have sometimes felt it desirable to refute in public. To take, almest at random, one ·proposi ~io.n. not touched on by

) ..l. ..r . • - „

Prof. Lapenna in his article, I turn to the contribut ion of Adolf M. Fritzsche. (A similar argument is to be found in Dr. Ottmar Loew's arti­cle, where the · comparison is with maclllnery). I quote "If a joker would send a motor car of 1900 vintage or older to Indianapolis to run for the Great Prize, he would get howls of laughter, but Esperantists believe they can sell the public an interlanguage project of 1887 ... 11 You are fortunately .familiar with the context from which I have taken this quo­tation, so I need not labour the point that the author's intention is to show that Esperanto is both old-f ashiOned and invalid. Most people would not examine it, but accept it at face value, i.e. in the way the author intended it. But if we are to argue by analogy, let us look into it. The 1900 automobile and the 1962 automobile are the same thing: there is no difference between them, except that the automobile has evolved in the 62 years between the models. Hence ,· if Esperanto has evol ved adequately dur.ing the same period it follows (from the analogy) that the Esperanto of · today is as adequate to the needs of today as the Esperanto of 1887 was to the needs of 1887. And this, though Rritzsche denies it, is pre­cisely the case. The ·Esperanto of today is ·certainly not the Esperanto of 1887. I shall not discuss the point, b~cause, as I said, this type of argument is unscientific and non-factual. Bowever, it is worth adding that the pejorative use of "Old-fashioned" "(even by implication) is equally invalid. 'I'o say that Esperanto is unsuitable because it is "old­fashioned" is equivalent to saying that .&lglish is unsuitable for the modern world because it was born (in the form in which we know it) in 1066; · or to s 'aying · that a philosophical or religious concept is not valid today because it was formulated two thousand or what have you years ago. The point at issue here is simply: is Esperanto suitable for the world of 1962? This is a question which can be scientifically answered on the basis of observable facts, and any other approach is false. To say, as Frttzsche does, that Esperanto has not evolved since 1887 is observably untrue, and hence, I repeat, unscientific .

. I do hope I have made it clear to you why I do not feel competent to a"ccept a place on the proposed committee. I assure you most warmly that I have the highest regard for your personal integrity and objectivity, and that you are probably correct in believing that the work of the International Language Review is of value in the world today. I can only ·say how sorry I am that my own interest in your subj ect (Interlinguist:­ics as such) is, for all practical purposes, non-existent. (W. Auld)

FLOYD HARDIN to PROFESORO D-RO IVO LAPENNA, . Jan.24,1963

The developments in the projected debate between yourself and Dr. Gode have been somewhat disappointing to me and comprise:(l) the decis­ion of .Mr . William Auld not to act as a member of the Committee on Ar­rangements, and (2) a certain understandable confusion'. on your part as to what Esperanto and Interlingua have in common that might afford a sufficient premise from which· the debate could proceed. This confusion, which I myself shared, to a degree, was brought about by Dr. Gode's statement that Interlingua is not ·· an international language and has no ambitions to function as an interlanguage in future. Since such ·a defi­nition of Interlingua made impossible any discussion of the comparative merits of the two languages, structurally or grammatically, it was dif­ficult to s~e in what the projected debate would consist.

However, recent let'ters from Dr. Gode, one addressed to Mr. Auld, and another written to me, have, in my opinion, resolved this impasse; and made possible a constructive public discussion of Interlingua and Esp­eranto which would undoubtedly have tremendous advertising value for both of these constructed :idioms. In the ·hope that you may come to the

same conclusion, I enclose copy of Dr. Gode's letter to Mr. Auld, dated Jan. 11, together with certain p.aragraphs ta.ken from Dr. Gode' s letter to me, under ·date of Jan. 17. In my own mind the present attitudes of yourself and- Dr. Gode raise a number of questions which are of great im­portance, andwhich are bound to engage the interest of the press and the reading public~ I will proceed to outline a few of the issues involved, and while they do not necessarily define my own attitude, you may find it advantageous to enlarge upon them in public discussion.

(l) ' Since . Interlingua, by definition, denies (according to its . author), ' that it is an international language, Esperanto may wish to claim that it has no real competitors and stands alone in its field as a language now in use f or world communication.

(2) If Interlingua restricts its use to the scientific and techno­logical field, can it properly be called a 11 language 11

, in the full sense of that word, or does it, by this limitation of its use, declare itself to be a "code 11 ?

(3) If Interlingua is shown to be a "code", with the specific limita- ­tions which a "code" implies, can it function successfully in the scien­tific field, or does it take a "language" to do this?

. It now appears to me that preliminary discussions about the projected . Lapenna-Godedebate have by elimination, narröwed down the area of pos­sible debate to a ~ingle, restricted, specific, yet all-important ques­tion which may be expressed in the following words:

(4) Which is best suited to serve the needs of the scientific world, . Inter~ingua or Esperanto?

Accordingly I suggest that both you and Dr. Gode consider, whether or not, · you can accept this question as aff ording sufficient grounds for · debate and advise me of your respective decisions. If your decision is in the affirmative, the Committee on Arrangements can then complete its pers~nnel and proceed with the necessary preparations. However, whether or not the debate between you and Dr. Gode materializes as originally contemplated, I strongly feel that it would be to the distinct advantage of the international language movement and to the adherents of both Esp­eranto and Interlingua, if your letters, together with the letters of Dr. Gode and Mr . . Auld might be published either wholly or in part. This correspondence throws new and valuable light on the whole problem of an international . language and I would very much like to make it available to our readers in the pages of the International Language Review. _ (Floyd Hardin.)

DR. ALEXANDER GODE to WILLIAM AULD, Jan.11,1963

Dear Mr. Auld: Our mutual friend, Mr. Floyd Harctin, has kindly allow­ed me to read the letter you addressed to _ him under date of Dec.17,1962. I take the liberty of writing to you directly in this matter, for it gives me great pleasure to note that there are several points of basie import~nce in regard to which you and I see eye to eye.

. . . .

Your impatience with the interlinguistic hobbyists cannot be greater than mine, and I also believe, as y6u do, that most attacks on Esperanto are quite nonsensical. This leads me to emphasize once again that no- -thing · is further from my mind than that 1 . would want to challenge Dr. Lapenna to a debate in which the comparati ve meri ts of Esperanto' and Interlingua would represent the issue. What I expect the debate toma.ke clear is not at all that Interlingua is superior to Esperanto, but . rather tnat Interlingua has nothing whatsoever in common with the ideo­logical moti vation of Zamenhof and his followers.

''

, To you · E.sp·e;ranto is a li ving language wi th all the- characteristics · implied . in tnat designation. I assume you would agree to the statement· that . E$pe.rahto still has·, a long way t o go bef ore i t · can be · claim.ed that it' ~ represents a more or · less adequate realization of Zamenliof's .early vision. Your goal must be to have millions, not thousands, think of Esp-· erahto .. and handle i t as you do. This makes of you in a sense a missionary, f or you realize that a great deal of work remains to be done bef ore youT language can perform the functions for which it was set up. As for myself, I can of course respect your fai th in the future of Esperanto but I can·-· not share i t. · To me, as to millions and millions of others, an auxiliar_y language in the sens·e in which you conceive of it, is a nightmare rather than an ideal, This is a view which I have no right and no reason to im­pose qn others, though it does, paradoxically, make me fairly intolerant of the attitude of the typical Esperantist, to whom proselytizing is · a necessary and natural activity, with the implication that he must . try '.'and try again to convert me and my equals and/or our descendents 'to his fai tb. · in the ultimate glory and grandeur of a single common secondary language for all mankind. ·

I know, of course, ·that there are not a few advocates of Interlinr;üa who think of it as a competitor of Esperanto in the latter's pretended or .pröjected role of a universal language for intArnational communication. I ca'll · these advocates of· Interlingua 11Esperantists 11 for the true quin:­tessence' of · the Esperantistic at·ti tude is not that the accusative . sll.ould · end in -n or that the plural must have a -j, but rather the belief that . planning and propaganda and education can bring about the golden age when "no' two human beings are without a shared medium of communica.t'ion. I consider the promotion of Interlingua in these terms to be a grave dis~ se.rviö'e :·to our cause, which,. in fact, is nothing more than the endeavor. to giv·e concretely tangible form to the shared linguistic tradi tion of the We _stern world, because this tradi tion happens to have bec.ome. the reservoir· ·from which all languages all ·over the world deri ve, directly or indirectly, their technical and scientific terminologies. If medieval Latin had lived on into modern times there would be no room for Interlin- · gua~

I have never argued against Esperanto in strictly linguistic terms, and I do not propose to do so in future. My objective then in chall eng~

ing : Dr~ Lapenna to a debate was to make clear once and for all ·- to Esp:.... erant„ists, . Interlingua···ists, and the püblic at large, that Interlingua · is .n .Ot; a ri val of Esperruito, and that i t is unfair and silly to j'udge In'.t'erlingua by· Esperantistic cri,teria or, vice versa, to cri ticize Esp­eranto as though it hc:i.d the same objectives as Interlingua.

I have recently had occasion to state the foregoing in the form of a nu_mber of co:µ.c,rete . thes.es ~ Though these. will be published in a forth:­coming issue of the International Language Review, I take· the liberty of sehdillg. yo'u he.rewi th a separate copy. [ This was published in Issue No. ·29--30 of, .tP.e .Eev'i .ew. ] · · . : :· ,. . .

There is one observation in your letter to · Mr .. Hardin · on which I wi_sl}; . to .cominept specificall;y. I ref er to the passage in which you express your conyiptio:P, that no advocate of any .project such as Interlingua has .eve'r used i t . as a lahguage, or, more important, has had a single emotional · :· · · experience within the context of his project. This i ·s a 'most interest.ing·. observation, .Jor i .t does. state succinctly the basic difference between­your l ,anguage and ours. Still, I must . tell you that you are wrong i .n . this, but I hasten to add that emotional eJqieriences in Interlingua wil1 -never. b.e l:Lsted amongs4 the ·raisons d' etre· of · 'this language. I ha:ve ofteri stated that Interlingua is .to the langliages of th.e. Western world what a· · ··

li,te~~r~;' ~-~ti9nai 18.nguage; '. ·iet us s ·~·Y.· , German·, is to its dialects. To stiG~:-::~o ; '.:f:;J.:i.e , example of German, · there i's something abstract and in a sense unemotional ab out li terary Hochdeutsch. ·· E:motional experiences are 11 being b.ad 11 if. I may say so, despi te the obvious exaggeration - in local dialects'' or ' regional variants of the li terary language. But this line of reasoning leads on to a strangely significant reversal of its premises. While Warmly human and inti.mately emotional experienCeS are "being had II ..

in "local dialect·s, as mothers use them to speak to the children at their kne'.es~ , there are experiences that exceed the holding power of the homely dia'lect and that require the abstract coolness of the detached universal­fl:;y öf the li ter.ary norm. There is an interesting essay to be. wri tten on the ' coinparative emotional ltscope" of dialect and literary standard in poetry. I' am obviously not concerned here with a comparison of Interlin­gua and ;Esperanto - I am never concerned with such comparis,ons :- but I do wish to rßpo:r:t that it has happened that in an attempt. tO cope verbal­ly with an ·experience I failed in my native German, failed als·o in my · acquired Engli>:sh, and came clo_sest to succeeding in Interlingua.

·I regret that you c ·annot join Mr. Hardin as a member of the arrange- .. meÄts commi ttee · for my debate wi'th Dr. Lapenna, for I have a notion that you would agree with me on what I think the debate should achieve. ·I read betwee:n the lines of your letter that you and I also agree . on what must· :: be avoided to prevent the debate from becoming a useless double mono....: ... : · . logue:. (Alexander Gode.) ·

.... \ .- . :! FLOYD H.ARDIN to D-RO VICTOR SADLER, . Jan~-· '25, 1963 . '1 •

Dear D-ro Sadler: I am wri ting to acquaint you wi th what - has~ been '. done iri the matter · of-· making arrangements for a projected ·debate be- .. · tween Prof. D-ro Ivo Lapenna and Dr. Alexander Gode, author of Inter~ lingua. If you will ' be so kind as to carefully read the enclosed COI'.re­spond·erice you will see what steps have been taken. Mr. Auld, formerly Editor of Esperanto, has written me that it is impossible for him to serve on .- the committee and I am therefore asking you to act in his place. If you ·.wilL.consent to serve, I suggest that you · appoint .a fourth member, perhaps an Esperantist, .,wi th whom you could conveniently consul t. In · ·· making these suggesti9ns I .do not want it to appear that I am taking matters into my .own hands. I am only trying to get the machinery going. I take occasion to express my esteem and my hope and expectation that as a new editor of Esperanto, you will have much success. (Floyd Hardin)

D-RO VICTOR SADLER to FLOYD HARDIN, ·!,:5, 1963 Dear Mr. Hardin: Thank you for your letter of 5th January, inviting

me to ·act on the arrangements committee for the proposed Gode-Lapenna debate, and for th.e lengthy documentation enclosed.

Th'e· value öf su6h a debate, I understand, lies in i ts "tremendous ad­vertising value · f or -both · of these constructed idioms," (your letter of . · 24.1.63 to Dr. Lapenna)• The only useful question involved seems tobe that which you have formulated in the same letter:"Which is best suited, to serve the needs of the scientific world, Interlingua or Esperanto?"

In his: letter to you of 17 .1. 63, Dr. Gode rej ec ts 'rthe claim that the existen.ce of Interlingua in terf eres wi th the work that .is being done on behalf_ -of Esperanto". However, since both Interlingua and Esperanto ·are intended for application in science and technology, whether wholly or in part, I fail to see on what Dr. Gode bases his rejection. If we accept the premise that i t would be pointless to have two ·interlanguages for scientific use, then surely it follows that the use .öf One must iuter-· · · fere wi t'h the use of the other? The rejectibil only mak·es · sense ön the ·

... ~· ,; : · · .. :

basis· ofi the v-iew .. that . the aims of Esperanto-·::and Interlingua do not over­lap .. The !:Vi'ewpoint of .:.Dr. Lapenna -and of myself:, on .the other hand, is t .hat- ·the:. aims .of Esp.eranto include. those of · Interling:ua but do not coin­cide .w:ith ... :them.„ „

.~ .It -i :s 'iny opinion· that: the existeiice of Ihte.rlingüa: :i,:µterferes wi th wo.rik on behalf of ·Esperanto, for the following reasons: (a) TP.e use of ... :Esperanto as· the interlanguage of science . would be a powerful .argument ;' in · {avo.ur· of the gener_al in_trodu,qtion of ·Esperanto i:n,.to scP,ools • . (b) The·

-a.rguinents in f a.vour . of Esperan.to' ·for scientific use, conversely, depend :_ primarily on_ i ts sui tability for ac ti ve ,„ as opposed to passive u~e, and on the eccmomy o.f Üsing the s'ci:ni.e" :·1·anguage f or science as for other inter-:­ri'ational relations-;' 'Hence to Timit„'d.ebate to the scieritific sphere of ap.:... ·.Plication· would be · :to pre·judge·"··"to, s'Qme"extent the issues at hand ·.

. . . ; " . . '· . .

More importantly, it i ·s .my opinion that to draw public attention to Interlingua, even though together with Esperanto, · is not in the interests of our work. We are far more likely to persuade scientists to learn Esp­eranto if they have never heard of · Interlingua, than if they are informed :tllat they. should learn ei ttier: Esperanto or Interlingua, . . (In this context ·I WOl.J.~l.d Iike to relate that a certain lecturer at Cambridge, England, was a su.b'seriher ' tO:; 1'Scienc·e News Letter", when I asked ·her views on the col­umn in · Inte

1

rlingua, . she replied that she had always assuni.ed i t was Esp-eranto.) ·

My reply to· yo:ur invitatj.on, then, · must .· „be the following: 1) a public debate wi th Dr. Gode on the subject "Esperanto or Int.erlingua for Science" ·; is in my opinion undesirable from the point öf y~ew of the pro­gress of ·E~pe:rantö. 2) ·rf such were the · theme of the debate ·, then I thin:k Dr. Lapenr1a would be the first to .agree that he · is inadequately qüalified to speak on matters relating to · the natural sciences and tecn­nology. · "3) The other questions -raised, e. g. , as to wh.eth~F or not Inter­lingua isa 11·1anguage 11

, are . either semanticor academic,- ·~·and to my mind can" bnly concern the adherents . of InterlingUa. .. . . ' . . ..

I must there.fore co:n,_clµQ.e, like Mr. Auld, that I am not a suitable · person to -prepare · a deb.ate for which I . have so little enthusiasm. I am so;pry-, Mr .. Hard.in, to present such. a negative front to a proposal whose mo,ti vatio.n I sincerely respect, but · l ; trust that I have expres:sed my · argumen.:ts : .. clearly enough for you to see that any other reply would be illogicäl .· (Dr. Victor Sadler.)

. . .

( EDITOR' S NOTE: Below is an English translation . of the Esper~to l .etters of,· Profesoro D-ro Ivo Lapenna, given above~FH)

.. . . . .. ' .

PROFESORO D-RO IVO LAPENNA 'tö FLOYD HARDIN, Nov.25,1962

·-· ~ accept in principle Dr. G6de's invitatiori to: discuss the m~tter with him in. public. I alsÖ accept his suggestiori thc;i..t you and Mr. ' Auld name . the commi ttee which will hand'le the techriica+.. , :s ~ide of the a;rrange.:.. merits, provided that Mr~ Auld conse.nts. Oyving tö : fuy · e;ngagements a·t the University here I cannot travel to the United States, ' but shall be ready to . discuss the question in London . . Further,. since ,the problem has · sev:eral aspect.s - . not merely linguistic, · but also so.ciological, psycho­logi.cal and . even poli ti.cal - c;i..nd, a.s .: r. . do .not consider" mys.elf compet·ent in : all these aspects, i-t -is my· view ' that Dr·. ·. Gode and · L should not be the -only particip.ants in ·the · discu.s ·sion, but : that .. several other special- •· ists_, . at least three on e9,ch side, should : take part. "· I ' stress that they sho\ilq_ . be competent experts.:Tecognized . in'' thei.I,' : fields. For„example, to · begin rwi th, I certainly am ;no·t .!. prepared 'to. discuss th'e .- pur.ely · linguistic ' side of the matter, for, though I speak seven languages and have a ·

passi 'te vkn:owledge ·· o.f ' seven others, I am not ·a prof··essi·onal lingui·st · a!td, in co~sequence, do not consider myself competent in that area. I sugg~st the ncp:ries of Professors Waringhien or Collinson or some other linguis~ for tqis area. When it appears likely that the matter is actually fully prepa.:r;ed, I sahll propose a f ew names for the psychological side, whil.e I mys~lf am prepared to consider all aspects of the language problem ~n gener~l in international relations and the suitability o;f the Internat;ion­al Language, Esperanto for all kinds of such relations. I am · sure that .. Dr. Go.de will agree that the problem is too . comple:x to be .de13.Q,iJ -. Jv;L th by only two persons ·and that my proposal will riot only s ~.rve t .q ,"rais.e ._.,the level üf the discussion but will also give to the entire mafter the pr;es-tige w:hich i t requires. ·.·

I am sending a copy of this letter t6 Mr. Auld wi th. whorri· yoü can de:al direct·ly concerning ·the details on the basis .of my proposal.(Prof esord. ;D-ro Ivo Lapenna)

· ~. PROFESORO D-RO IVO LAPENNA to FLOYD HARDIN, Dec.23,1962 ..

Dear Mr. Hardin: I hereby confirm with thanks the receipt of your l:et­ters dated December lOth. and 16th 1962. I am most grateful f .or your kind words :wi th regard to my article. Please be so kind as to se'nd me two ·or three ·copies of the issue o_.f · the International Language Review in which it will <:3.PPear .

.. With regard to the suggested debate between Dr. Gode and myself, I .

must c.onf ess that I never understood the matter as one according to which Dr. Gode and I would, as a consequence ·of the debate, agree that the areas of application of Interlingua and Esperanto are dissimilar and, consequently, not in competi tion. Speakip.g qui-te sincere.ly I see no utility in so limited a debate. According to my idea of the role of a · neutral commori international language ·, i t must serve as an instrument for all int;ernational relations and · not be limited to one area or anoth­er. Esperanto, not only in theory but in its practical applications over a period of more than 75 years, has shown . itself · to : be a p-erfect instru­ment for thought and communication on every leY:el ,and in every aspect ·of international. coinlnuni·cation. Even were Dr·. · ·Gode 1 :.S thesis correct - name­ly that Int~;rlingua's field of action in no: way conflicts with Esperari- ~ to's - that very thesis itself is contrary to the idea which we all sup­port, i.e., the solution of the language problem by means of one common language. If we must replace the .. numerous ethnic languages now in use not by· one but by several international languages, each in a special area, then the entire proposition loses„ all significance. This viewpoint of mine i.s so firmly held that ;no debate_ can change i .t .. . Under such cir;;_ cumstances, as I haye indi~·ated ~ . I . must. _regretfully ". ~t'Iir~ 'tllat I can see no sense·· .i.n. the proposed discussio:q. · I am quit~ ·:' reac:({ to contribut.e to the solution of the language problem··· through dis~\1ß ~iori - ei ther with Dr. Gode or with anyone else - of all_ aspects of the: p~r6blem .. This I most willingly accepted. But I am not prep·ared to wast'e · my1;t'.ime · in sterile :· discussions in which I , shall point .out tl:la,t Esperanto ,,;is sui table for all aspects of international · re1ations·\ . whiJe„ Dr. God~ ass·erts that the field of action in which Interlingua seek$ toope'rate ,tn. no way interferes with the apparently limi ted fiela bf Esp'eranto. Consequently, I repeat: If :nr. Gode i .s willing to discuss wi th me the„ erit1re problem in all i ts aspec.ts, I glad·ly acc ept his chall~nge. If not „. -I , müs t regretfully make clear that L cannot participate. in · the pr.o.ject:·.

Wi th many thank~"~ f o./';your kind wishes, ·· which I · recip'r:oc~tei most cor~ dially. ~ I ~emain, , . Y .~.'I:!„ .sin?er_~~?„ ;Y.? .urs, (PToferoso D-ro Iy_o La-pe?Il„a .. ) .. ·'