THE QUESTION OF NOMENCLATURE
If we take up a book or a paper dealing with mathematics
(especially analysis) printed in a language, such as Japanese,
which is quite unintelligible to us, we shall, nevertheless, soon
succeed in finding out what it is about and often in understanding
its main contents. The reason of this is, of course, that the
mathematical formulæ consist of symbols which are intelligible
to us because they are used in the same manner by all civilised
nations. The same thing holds good in physics, and especially
in chemistry; chemical formulæ contain at the present day such
detailed information concerning the relationships of the substances
symbolised, that one might conceive the possibility of writing a
chemical paper with formulæ alone.
In the case of the descriptive natural sciences, the Latin names of
the genera and species, the Latin nomenclature of anatomy and other
similar groups, form a common international possession. Physiology,
biology, sociology, as well as history and ancient philology,
possess as yet, however, no system of internationally intelligible
terms. In modern philology (phonetics) practical endeavours have
already been made to construct an international system of sound
symbols. All these sciences possess naturally the designation of
numbers by means of numerals which have a perfectly international
character. Since in mathematics not only the quantities, but also
the operations, are denoted by universally understood symbols,
it is already possible, with comparatively few additions, to
express long trains of mathematical thought in a manner which is
internationally intelligible, that is, intelligible to those who
are acquainted with the science and its symbols. For a considerable
time Professor Peano, in Turin, has been publishing works written
in this manner. We perceive here the realisation of the ideal of a
purely ideographic language, which can be read by the specialist
without his requiring to translate it into the words of any
particular form of speech.
To quote a similar example from chemistry, J. H. van't Hoff, in
one of the publications of his youth, avoided assigning names to
the chemical substances with which he dealt, considering that
his meaning would be much better conveyed by the corresponding
structural formulæ. Such a text would be quite intelligible to a
trained chemist without the formulæ calling up in his mind any
particular words, indeed without any such words existing at all.
These well-known facts show _that the problem of an international
language has already been partly solved in science_. In so far as
definite and fairly stable concepts have been formed in science,
they may be designated by arbitrary symbols, which may if necessary
be universally accepted and understood. Hitherto such symbols have
been mainly employed for reading, that is to say intended for the
eye, and not for the voice and ear. For example, in different
languages quite different sounds are assigned to the numerals, so
that, whilst the written symbols are universally intelligible, the
spoken ones are not.
However, there are a considerable number of exceptions to this
statement. The word _integral_ is quite as international as the
symbol ∫ and the chemical symbol Tl is pronounced everywhere
_thallium_, or something very like it. On looking through the table
of the chemical elements one finds that more than two-thirds of the
names possess similar sounds in the chief languages. Differences
occur only in the case of the well-known elements, where the words
employed in daily life have found their way into science, whilst
the newly discovered elements all possess international names.
It follows from this that the further problem of assigning an
international system of sounds to scientific concepts has been in
certain departments of science already approximately solved. It is
true that the sound is still somewhat dependent on the speech basis
of the particular nation, so that, for example, not inconsiderable
deviations may occur in English. But, as the written and printed
word is always simultaneously known, the recognition of a name as
pronounced by a foreigner does not cause any very great difficulty.
There exists here a field of work for those who are interested in
the idea of an artificial language which is as fertile as it is
interesting. As is well known, we scientific men suffer a good deal
from the fact that the same words are frequently employed for the
vague ideas of daily life as well as for the perfectly definite
concepts of science. This is indeed one of the most important
reasons why new designations for scientific concepts should, as far
as possible, be taken from the dead languages, such designations
being thereby already international. It ought therefore to be a
comparatively easy task to devise by means of this international
material and the linguistic rules of the language of the Delegation
a system of international names for the clearly defined concepts of
the different sciences.
Such a system possesses a double purpose. In the first place, it
could, I think, be used in our present natural languages. Certain
English expressions occurring in electrotechnics, such as _shunt_,
_extra current_, are employed in German and French just as if they
were national words. The international names in their international
form might be employed in every case where a precise scientific
terminology was required, without doing much violence to our
natural languages. The inflow of foreign words through the channels
of technology and science as well as those of commerce and music
has already shown itself to be irresistible, so that a strict
carrying out of the principle of "purity" in our national languages
has been a practical impossibility. In literature properly so
called one will endeavour nevertheless to adhere to this principle,
but where the chief question is one of precision of concepts,
as in science, language must be regarded as a handmaiden, whose
first duty is to obey. For language stands only in a secondary
relationship to the independently developed and determined concepts
of science, which have been already fixed by the symbols assigned
to them, just in the same way that language has fixed the concepts
of daily life.
Independent of the above application, which one may or may not
consider practical, is the internationalisation of scientific
publications by means of a universally understood auxiliary
language, which is becoming every day more urgently necessary.
This problem, too, cannot be attacked until the concepts of all
the sciences in question have received their proper designations.
The existing dictionaries of international auxiliary languages
contain mostly the expressions of daily life, so that at present
these languages are mainly applicable only for such communications.
Some success can indeed be obtained in the expression of the higher
trains of thought of philosophical reasoning, but here already
considerable uncertainty exists. It is clear, for instance, that
a paper in organic chemistry can only be successfully written in
the international language after the translations of the different
names for substances occurring in different languages have been
mutually agreed upon.
Consequently the working out of the concepts of the different
sciences and the determination of their international designations
is the very first task which must be performed before the
further objects, international literature and international
oral intercourse in science, can be considered. It is the duty
therefore of the representatives of science who have joined the
_Uniono di l'Amiki di la Linguo Internaciona_ to apply themselves
in the first place to this problem, since the further success of
the whole question depends entirely on its at least provisional
solution.
The first principle which must guide this work is undoubtedly the
general principle of maximum internationality, which has been used
in the construction of the auxiliary language. Its application is
rendered easy by the fact that, owing to the use of Greek and Latin
roots for the designation of scientific concepts, there is already
present a far-reaching internationality, which must naturally be
retained.
In the second place, it will not always be possible to employ in
science the same expressions that are used in ordinary speech,
because the effect of the latter is to produce a blunting of the
precise connotation of concepts; whilst science, on the other hand,
requires clearly defined concepts, to which must correspond equally
distinct expressions.
In the third place, those words which occur frequently in
combinations must be chosen _as short as possible_. Here I would
not shrink from a very considerable mutilation of the most
international forms. Such long names as _wasserstoff_ or "hydrogen"
cannot be permitted, and must be reduced to monosyllabic forms.
Every chemical author must have been times without number annoyed
by the terms of three and four syllables for the commonest
elements, and this defect is common to all languages. The objection
against such an artificial abbreviation, which is valid for the
language of daily life, namely, that it increases the difficulty
of the language for those of little education, does not hold in
the case of science, since it is a matter of indifference to the
beginner whether he learns the new name _oxygen_ or _oxo_ (or any
other similar abbreviation), because in any case he must learn it
by heart. Such a procedure satisfies also the second condition,
as it facilitates most easily the giving of a special form to
scientific terms, which is different from that of ordinary life.
In the fourth place, it will be advisable in cases where
universally known symbols exist, which consist of letters or have
been derived from these (such as certain mathematical symbols),
to choose the name so _that it begins with the same letter_. For
example, the constant of gravitation is now universally denoted
by _g_, and the corresponding international word should therefore
begin with _G_. It appears to me doubtful, however, whether this
principle can be generally carried out. I have examined the names
of the chemical elements with this intent, and have arrived at
the conclusion that it would not work without doing considerable
violence to general usage. For example, it would be scarcely
possible to find an international name for _chlor_ (chlorine)
which, corresponding to the chemical symbol _Cl_, would begin with
_C_, for the latter letter is pronounced _ts_, whilst the word
_chlor_ (with corresponding terminations) is international, and,
according to its sound, must be written like _kloro_ or in some
similar way.
These are the formal suggestions which I should like to make
with reference to the problem in hand; they are only intended
to indicate how one might proceed, and are not to be regarded
as either exhaustive or infallible. There arises now the second
question as to how such work is to be organised.
As the same concepts occur in several related sciences, and must
receive the same designations, it would not be practicable to
entrust the construction of the vocabularies to special commissions
for each particular science. It would be more advisable to appoint
a certain number of persons to collect the material and to make
out lists of the concepts for which terms are required, and then
to appoint commissions representing a whole group of sciences to
discuss the necessary principles, after which the details could be
worked out and finally subjected to the examination and approval of
the whole body. To make matters at once more definite, I think the
exact sciences ought to be first taken into consideration, for in
their case the fixation of concepts is most highly developed. There
is no need for a replacement of the well-known Latin nomenclature
employed in the descriptive sciences, nor would any attempt in
this direction have any likelihood of success. We must look rather
to the distant future, when all other sciences will have already
adapted themselves to the international idiom for the translation
of the Latin names into the forms of the international language
(retaining the stems, however) in order to produce for æsthetic
reasons a uniform system throughout the whole of science.
On the other hand, I consider it absolutely necessary to subject
the concepts of _logic_ and the _theory of cognition_ to the same
process of scientific delimitation and fixation. In the first
place, these sciences belong, at least theoretically, to the exact
sciences; and, in the second place, work in these departments of
knowledge is rendered extraordinarily difficult by the fact that
their concepts are expressed in the terms used in daily life, whose
elastic nature constantly frustrates exact work.
Conversely, this great process of purification cannot fail to bring
to light much that is of value for the theory and systematisation
of scientific concepts. For one must be quite clear on a subject
oneself before one can make it clear to others. Indeed, even a
simple classified list of possibilities, in which one has earnestly
sought to omit nothing of importance, constitutes in itself a
scientific advance, which is rendered all the more desirable by
the fact that in general people have troubled very little about
questions of this sort. It may be already foreseen, and indeed with
pleasure, that such problems are not to be solved offhand, and
will probably require for their final settlement an international
congress, at which the final decisions will be made. For this
congress will probably be the first scientific gathering at which,
instead of three, four, or five languages, only one, and that the
international auxiliary language, will be spoken.
WILHELM OSTWALD.