Criticism
Peano formally defended the maxim that the best grammar is no grammar, bearing in mind the example of Chinese. But Peano’s Interlingua still shares a major flaw with many other auxiliary languages according to Lancelot Hogben, namely having either too much grammar of the wrong sort, or not enough of the right (p. 10). Hogben argues that at least nouns and verbs should be easily distinguished by characteristic endings, so that we can easily get an initial understanding of the sentence. Thus, in Peano’s Interlingua the verbs might be given some specific, standardized verbal form, such as the infinitive, which is sufficient at the Latin indirect speech. Instead, the raw imperative is proposed in De Latino Sine Flexione:
Lingua latino habet discurso directo, ut: “Amicitia inter malos esse non potest”, et discurso indirecto: “(Verum est ) amicitiam inter malos esse non posse”. Si nos utimur semper de discurso indirecto, in verbo evanescit desinentia de persona, de modo, et saepe de tempore. Sumimus ergo nomen inflexibile (…), sub forma magis simplice, qui es imperativo.
The Latin language has a direct discourse, like: “Friendness among the bad ones is not possible”, and indirect discourse: “(It is true that ) friendness among the bad ones is not possible”. If we always make use of indirect discourse, the desinences of person, mode, and (frequently) time, get vanished off the verb. So we take the name unflexed (…), under the simplest form, which is the imperative.
— Peano (1903, § 4)
According to Hogben, another handicap is the lack of a pure article, which might clearly indicate the nouns. Nevertheless, Peano occasionally suggested that illo (that) and uno (one) might be used as articles.
Once more according to Hogben, the syntax of Peano’s Interlingua remained conservative:
(...) has an aristocratic indifference to the necessity for simple rules of sentence-construction. The fact is that no pioneer of language-planning –least of all Peano– has undertaken the task of investigating what rules of word-order contribute most to intrinsic clarity of meaning and ease of recognition.
— Lancelot Hogben (1943, p. 11).
Reviewing the list of more widely known Latin titles, one might conclude that the sequence noun-adjective is the norm in Latin, yet the inverted sequence is also current. The ratio is over 2 to 1 in a list of Latin titles commented by Stroh. E.g. “Principia Mathematica”. As for a sequence nominative-genitive, it may be the norm in Latin in a similar ratio. E.g. “Systema Naturae”. Indeed, the sequence nominative-genitive must always be the norm in Peano’s Interlingua, since the preposition de must introduce the genitive. Thus, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica would turn into Principio Mathematico de Philosophia Naturale. Since the function of both the adjective and the genitive is often the same, one might infer that the sequence noun-adjective might always be the norm.
Adiectivo qui deriva ab sustantivo vale genitivo: "aureo", "de auro".
An adjective derived from a substantive is equivalent to a genitive: "golden", "of gold".
— Peano (1903, § 6).
Read more about this topic: Latino Sine Flexione
Famous quotes containing the word criticism:
“People try so hard to believe in leaders now, pitifully hard. But we no sooner get a popular reformer or politician or soldier or writer or philosopher—a Roosevelt, a Tolstoy, a Wood, a Shaw, a Nietzsche, than the cross-currents of criticism wash him away. My Lord, no man can stand prominence these days. It’s the surest path to obscurity. People get sick of hearing the same name over and over.”
—F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896–1940)
“I consider criticism merely a preliminary excitement, a statement of things a writer has to clear up in his own head sometime or other, probably antecedent to writing; of no value unless it come to fruit in the created work later.”
—Ezra Pound (1885–1972)
“A friend of mine spoke of books that are dedicated like this: “To my wife, by whose helpful criticism ...” and so on. He said the dedication should really read: “To my wife. If it had not been for her continual criticism and persistent nagging doubt as to my ability, this book would have appeared in Harper’s instead of The Hardware Age.””
—Brenda Ueland (1891–1985)