Another English langwidge?

Question

Has anyone ever heard of, or can point me inthe general direction of, a "simple English" vocabulary or dictionary?
I remember reading some years ago that Catapillar (the track-laying vehicle manufacturer) developed a simple English language for non-English speaking engineers. The vocabulary had just 786 words and could be learned in typically 30 hours. In this language every word had only one meaning. For example, the word right* was the opposite to *left* and was never used to mean *correct.
I also read that a similar language was developed by a university in Wales, for L M Ericsson (Stockholm). Unfortunately the same "L M Ericsson" does not exist (following decades of reorganisation) nor does any reference to the "simple English" language. Catapillar's version was heavily biased towards mechanical engineering, but I have had problems trying to trace sources.

If anyone could give me a clue as to where to turn I would be very grateful. Does anyone know of any web pages, or books on the subject?

Best regards fromHarry Lippitz
harryvpo (at) hotmail (dot) com

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I remember reading some years ago that Catapillar (the track-laying vehicle manufacturer) developed a simple English language for non-English speaking engineers.[/nq]
Here we see one of the problems with the dumbing-down movement. Caterpillar, Inc. would probably not wish to be associated with this "Catapillar" company.
[nq:1]The vocabulary had just 786 words and could be learned in typically 30 hours.[/nq]
The best known of these feeble attempts is so-called "Basic English." The core is some 850 words, with rules for morphology and word combination very unlike real English. It can be understood only by other users of this artificial language.
There are a number of "restricted English" languages. There are people who have promulgated supposed rules for Airspeak, Seaspeak, Policespeak, Emergencyspeak, and others.
[nq:1]In this language every word had only one meaning. For example, the word right* was the opposite to *left* and was never used to mean *correct.[/nq]
Which is why they need dictionaries of massive size to handle all the circumlocutions needed to replace single words.
[nq:1]I also read that a similar language was developed by a university in Wales, for L M Ericsson (Stockholm). Unfortunately ... "simple English" language. Catapillar's version was heavily biased towards mechanical engineering, but I have had problems trying to trace sources.[/nq]
Maybe your spelling "L M Ericsson" is a bad a guess as your "Catapillar." There are Catapillar shoes and stuffed animals, though.

Martin Ambuhl

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]"Martin Ambul" wrote loads of things ...[/nq]
which I interpreted as:
1. You spellled "caterpillar" wrong.
2. Simple English for non-english-speakers is a bad idea.
3. You still spellled "caterpillar" wrong.

Am I right? Was this the basic message hidden all that text?

Harry

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]"Martin Ambul" wrote loads of things ...[/nq]
[nq:1]which I interpreted as: 1. You spellled "caterpillar" wrong. 2. Simple English for non-english-speakers is a bad idea. 3. You still spellled "caterpillar" wrong. Am I right? Was this the basic message hidden all that text?[/nq]
Pretty much. A rather clear case of:
"Post a question in aue and sooner or later someone will either correct you, denounce the premise of the question, point out some real or imagined error you have made, react angrily to some inference that was never implied, or all of the above."
MC's Law © ® All Rights Reserved. Worldwide Patents Pending. Reg. Penna. Dept. Ag. "UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THIS TAG SHALL NOT BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY THE CONSUMER"
+++
As deficient as Caterpillar's attempt might have been (and probably was) I can see why a large international company might want to explore such a vocabulary. I presume they have dealings with hundreds, maybe thousands, of people around the world whose first language is not English, and who have problems communicating with each other.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]"Martin Ambul" wrote loads of things ...[/nq]
[nq:1]which I interpreted as: 1. You spellled "caterpillar" wrong. 2. Simple English for non-english-speakers is a bad idea. 3. You still spellled "caterpillar" wrong. Am I right? Was this the basic message hidden all that text?[/nq]
You did miss another idea, which is that there is a specific theory with the name of "Basic English." That's a term that yields search results:

in 1930, C.K. Ogden proposed a tiny version of
English: just 850 words that could be learned in a few months and used to say anything. He called it
Basic English (BE).
Etc, etc.
I think the last point was that you may have spelled "Ericsson" wrong. Ericson, Erickson, Erikson...

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Has anyone ever heard of, or can point me inthe general direction of, a "simple English" vocabulary or dictionary? I ... "simple English" language. Catapillar's version was heavily biased towards mechanical engineering, but I have had problems trying to trace sources.[/nq]
'Ericsson Telephones' was/is a Swedish company, I believe. They also made headphones.
Mike

M.J.Powell

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I remember reading some years ago that Catapillar (the track-laying vehicle manufacturer) developed a simple English language for non-English speaking engineers.[/nq]
[nq:1]Here we see one of the problems with the dumbing-down movement. Caterpillar, Inc. would probably not wish to be associated with this "Catapillar" company.[/nq]
Whoa! I just realized that "caterpillar" is another word that I would usually say non-rhotically (wrt the second syllable). /'k&t@pIlR/.

M-W seems to suggest that this is not at all uncommon among rhotic AmE speakers, however.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]which I interpreted as: 1. You spellled "caterpillar" wrong. 2. ... right? Was this the basic message hidden all that text?[/nq]
[nq:1]You did miss another idea, which is that there is a specific theory with the name of "Basic English." That's ... words that could be learned in a few months and used to say anything. He called it Basic English (BE).[/nq]
Notice, however, that the OP said "In this language every word had only one meaning." This is the exact opposite of Basic English. The way that Basic English keeps the word count low is to overload every word with multiple meanings. In particular, it makes very heavy use of phrasal verbs.
The result is a language that is easy to understand if you're a native speaker of English, but nearly impossible for a non-native speaker. Because of this, Basic English never had a chance of becoming an international language.
If the OP's assertion is correct, Caterpillar must have gone down a different track. If your only purpose is to talk about tractors, and you have no need to discuss philosophy, art, and so on, then a vocabulary of 850 words might well be sufficient. Most of it would be technical jargon, of course.

Peter Moylan (Email Removed) http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]You did miss another idea, which is that there is ... used to say anything. He called it Basic English (BE).[/nq]
[nq:1]Notice, however, that the OP said "In this language every word had only one meaning." This is the exact opposite ... nearly impossible for a non-native speaker. Because of this, Basic English never had a chance of becoming an international language.[/nq]
In his Web article "How to Build a Language," Donald J. Harlow, an Esperantist as am I has an interesting comment about Basic English:

From
http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/EBook/chap03.html#basic
(quote)
(M)any people saw Basic English as a Trojan Horse for Standard English. The event proved them right; in the postwar era, the British Council, an organization devoted to the promulgation of English around the world, purchased the rights to Basic English, and since that time it has been used primarily as an introduction to standard i.e., British English for foreigners.
(end quote)
[nq:1]If the OP's assertion is correct, Caterpillar must have gone down a different track. If your only purpose is to ... on, then a vocabulary of 850 words might well be sufficient. Most of it would be technical jargon, of course.[/nq]
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Whoa! I just realized that "caterpillar" is another word that I would usually say non-rhotically (wrt the second syllable). /'k&t@pIlR/. M-W seems to suggest that this is not at all uncommon among rhotic AmE speakers, however.[/nq]
Dissimilation at work.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Has anyone ever heard of, or can point me inthe general direction of, a "simple English" vocabulary or dictionary?[/nq]
Do a Google search for "Basic English"

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Another English langwidge?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions