Latino sine flexione

History

In 1903 Peano published the article De Latino Sine Flexione to introduce his language, by quoting a series of suggestions by Leibniz about a simplified form of Latin. Peano’s article appeared to be a serious development of the idea, so he gained a reputation among the movement for the auxiliary language. In 1904 Peano undertook an essay about the way to obtain the minimal grammar of an eventual minimal Latin (Latino minimo), with a minimal vocabulary purely international.

Peano and some colleagues published articles in Latino sine flexione for several years at the Revue de Mathématiques. Because of his desire to prove that this was indeed an international language, Peano boldly published the final edition of his famous Formulario mathematico in Latino sine flexione. However, as Hubert Kennedy notes, most mathematicians were put off by the artificial appearance of the language, and made no attempt to read it.

In October 1907, Peano was at the Collège de France in Paris to take part in the Delegation for the Adoption of an International Auxiliary Language. Having declared for Latino sine flexione to be adopted, he eventually could not participate in the final voting, because of labour affairs at Turin.

On 26 December 1908, Peano was elected member and director of the Akademi internasional de lingu universal still using Idiom Neutral, which was refounded one year later under the name Academia pro Interlingua. Every academician might use their favourite form of Interlingua, the term being initially used in a general sense as a synonym for international language, yet it soon began to be specially used to denote a reformed Latino sine flexione based on the common rules the academicians were reaching by frequent votings. Thus, the name Interlingua soon began to denote the language evolving from the Academia Pro Interlingua, with the corresponding abbreviation IL.

However, every member was free to write in their own personal style, and indeed some members were proposing radical reforms which eventually might end up as independent languages (like Michaux's Romanal or De Wahl's Interlingue). For this reason, the name Peano’s Interlingua might be regarded as the most accurate for the particular standard by Peano. (As found in “Interglossa and its predecessors”.)

The discussions to reach a standard Interlingua may be seen on the pages of Discussiones, the official journal of the Academia pro Interlingua from 1909 to 1913. This and subsequent journals of the academy have been recently published in a CD-Rom by the mathematics department of the university of Turin, the place where Peano developed his teaching and research.

Since De Latino Sine Flexione had set the principle to take Latin nouns either in the ablative or nominative form (nomen was preferred to nomine), in 1909 Peano published a vocabulary in order to assist in selecting the proper form of every noun, yet an essential value of Peano’s Interlingua was that the lexicon might be found straightforward in any Latin dictionary (by getting the thematic vowel of the stem from the genitive ending, that is: -a -o -e -u -e from -ae -i -is -us -ei). Finally, a large vocabulary with 14 000 words was published in 1915.

A reformed Interlingua was presented in 1951 by Alexander Gode as the last director of the International Auxiliary Language Association. It was claimed to be independent from Peano’s Interlingua, because it had developed a new method to detect the most recent common prototypes. But that method usually leads to the Latin ablative, so most vocabulary of Peano’s Interlingua would be kept. Accordingly, the very name Interlingua was kept, yet a distinct abbreviation was adopted: IA instead of IL.

Parts of speech

Though Peano removed the inflections of Latin from nouns and adjectives, he did not entirely remove grammatical gender, permitting the option of a feminine ending for occupations. The gender of animals is immutable. All forms of nouns end with a vowel and are taken from the ablative case, but as this was not listed in most Latin dictionaries, he gave the rule for its derivation from the genitive case. The plural is not required when not necessary, such as when a number has been specified, the plural can be read from the context, and so on; however Peano gives the option of using the suffix -s to indicate it when needed. Verbs have few inflections of conjugation; tenses and moods are instead indicated by verb adjuncts. The result is a change to a positional language.

Particles

Particles that have no inflection in classical Latin are used in their natural form:

Nouns

The form of nouns depends on the Latin declensions.

Those proper nouns written with the Roman alphabet are kept as close to the original as possible. The following are examples: München, New York, Roma, Giovanni.

Verbs

Verbs are formed from the Latin by dropping the final -re of the infinitive. Tense, mood, etc., are indicated by particles, auxiliary verbs, or adverbs, but none is required if the sense is clear from the context. If needed, the past may be indicated by preceding the verb with e, and the future with i.

There are specific endings to create the infinitive and participles:

Adjectives and adverbs

Adjectives are formed as follows:

Adjectives can be used as adverbs if the context is clear, or cum mente or in modo can be used:

Articles

As with Latin, neither the definite nor the indefinite article exists in Latino sine flexione. When necessary they may be translated with pronouns or words such as illo (it, that) or uno (one):

According to Peano's guide to the language in 1931, "most Interlinguists are in favour of the old Latin pronunciation." This gives the pronunciation of vowels as follows:

Consonants are pronounced as in English with the following exceptions:

The following simplifications to pronunciation are also allowed:

The stress is based on the classical Latin rule:

A secondary accent may be placed when necessary as the speaker deems appropriate.

Language examples

Latino es lingua internationale in occidente de Europa ab tempore de imperio romano, per toto medio aevo, et in scientia usque ultimo seculo. Seculo vigesimo es primo que non habe lingua commune. Hodie quasi omne auctore scribe in proprio lingua nationale, id es in plure lingua neo-latino, in plure germanico, in plure slavo, in nipponico et alio. Tale multitudine de linguas in labores de interesse commune ad toto humanitate constitute magno obstaculo ad progressu.

Latin was the international language in the west of Europe from the time of the Roman Empire, throughout the Middle Ages, and in the sciences until the last century. The 20th century is the first that does not have a common language. Today almost all authors write in their own national languages, that is in Neo-Latin languages, in Germanic, in Slavic, in Japanese, and others. This multitude of languages in works of communal interest to the whole of humanity constitutes a large obstacle to progress.

The Lord's Prayer

This is a sample text, intended to give the reader a basic understanding of how the language sounds, and how closely it is related to Latin.

Criticism

Peano formally defended the maxim that the best grammar is no grammar, bearing in mind the example of Chinese. According to Lancelot Hogben Peano’s Interlingua still shares a major flaw with many other auxiliary languages, 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 one 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.
[Translation: ] 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.

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:

[Peano’s Interlingua] (...) 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.

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".
[Translation: ] An adjective derived from a substantive is equivalent to a genitive: "golden", "of gold".