\brief{Rudolf Carnap an C. K. Ogden, 7. Februar 1934}{Februar 1934}

%7\textsuperscript{th} February, 1934.

%C.K. \textit{\uline{Ogden}} Esq.,

%\uline{\textit{London}}

\anrede{Dear Mr. Ogden,}

\haupttext{I was very happy to see in your kind letter that my first attempt in Basic was better than my opinion \replsp{about}{of} it. With
this letter I send you again a copy. If you have time enough, would you be so kind as to send it back with your notes?

I got the 4 further Miniature-books\II{\psycheminiatures} for which I gave \textsp{an} order to Kegan Paul\II{\keganpaulverlag}. But so far they \replsp{did}{have} not \replsp{send}{sent} me their
account.

I \replsp{made some}{did a} short \soutsp{front-}note\soutsp{s} (named ``The Vienna Circle makes no Philosophy'') \replsp{for}{to go at the front of} the book put into English by Mr.
Black\IN{\black}, and I sent \replsp{them}{it} to him. He put \replsp{them}{it} into English and, as I see from his letter of 26.\,Jan.\,1934, he sent all
together to the printer (or possibly to you?). So I am looking forward to its coming out.

I sent my book ``Logische Syntax der Sprache''\IC{\logischesyntax} \soutsp{to the publisher (Springer, Vienna)} in December \textsp{to Springer\II{\springerverlag}, (Vienna) who will be getting it out}, and \replsp{in January I had the thought
that it was in printing}{was hoping to see it in print on January 1}. But \replsp{than}{then} they sent it back to me, because \replsp{its print-size was seen to be greater than}{when it was put into print it was seen to be longer than had been} fixed
\soutsp{before} by our agreement. That was very \replsp{unpleasing}{sad}, but, being unable to \replsp{change the complete work}{give the book\IC{\logischesyntax} a completely new form} in a short time,
I had to take out some parts and to make some little changes in the rest. I got through this in one week and sent the
book back to the publisher\IN{\springerjulius} at 15.\,Jan. Now I am looking forward \replsp{for}{to} the first test prints. \replsp{Than}{Then} I will send a copy
of them to the Countess von \neueseite{} Zeppelin\IN{\zeppelin}. I had a letter from her, making the suggestion \replsp{to meet}{that I might see} her in Vienna, but I was
not able to do so. Now her last letter gives me the hope \replsp{to see}{of seeing} her in Prague \replsp{in}{on} her journey back from England to
Austria. From the test prints she and you will see, that in the book\IC{\logischesyntax} there are some parts full of ``technical'' \replsp{matter}{discussion}.
She says in her letter that she \replsp{was a learner of}{had} Whitehead\IN{\whitehead} \textsp{as her teacher}. So I have the opinion that she will not have much trouble
in putting it into English.

Will it be possible to give in the English form of the book those parts which I had to take out from the German book\IC{\logischesyntax} as
I said before? I would be very happy if so. The reason for \textsp{my desiring} this is not only my regret that \replsp{my working out of}{what has been worked out \unl} these parts
\replsp{would}{will} have no \replsp{effects}{value for a \unl} if they \replsp{were}{are} not printed. In my opinion the cutting out of these parts \replsp{is a very}{does great} damage \replsp{for}{to} the
book\IC{\logischesyntax}. If the English book\IC{\logischesyntaxenglisch} \replsp{will have these parts}{\unl\ complete}, it will be of special value even for \replsp{the owners of}{those who have} the German book\IC{\logischesyntax}.

To your question: I give you with pleasure my approval to put my name on the list of those who give their support to
Basic. But I would not say that I am ``unable to accept as satisfactory for the purpose any artificially constructed
system'' (as it is said in another list). Certainly Basic is much simpler than \replsp{ordinary}{normal} English; and I see no
other language than English (and probably there is no \replsp{such one}{other language}) from which it would be possible to take out a
part-language as simple and at the same time as full of power as Basic is. And \replsp{from}{of} the
different possible ways \replsp{to take}{of taking} out a simpler part-language from English your way is better than any other I see. And in
my opinion there is nobody who would have been able to make a better one. This is a fact, but it is another fact, that a
\replsp{constructed}{made-up} language like Espe\neueseite{}ranto is \replsp{still}{even} more simple than Basic. (Much more, in my opinion, than you seem to see;
what you say at some places f.\,e. about Esperanto is not quite right; but this question is not very important). Now the
present \replsp{situation}{position} is this: we see from the facts -- or at least it seems very probable -- that \replsp{the much greater number of
men}{most persons} are not ready to make use of a \replsp{not-natural}{made-up} language system; they have even a \textsp{feeling of} disgust against \soutsp{a} such \replsp{one}{a system}. For this
reason a \soutsp{part} language \textsp{which is part} of a natural language has much more chance \replsp{to be taken in use}{of being used} by a great number of men in the near
future, \textsp{(}on the condition that\textsp{) if} this language is simple enough (though not so simple as a \replsp{constructed}{made-up} one). Now, in my
opinion, your Basic system is \replsp{in this condition}{simple enough}. It is possible to make use of it even at present in the relations \replsp{to}{between} a
very great number of men. You are right that this gives to Basic the greatest chance of being the \replsp{help-}{\unsicher{second}} language in
future. I will say \textsp{to} you openly, that I have a feeling of regret about the fact that a \replsp{constructed}{made-up} language -- though much
better, if seen from the angle of \uline{theory} -- has no chance in \uline{fact}. But facts have more force than
feelings; and so we have to take Basic. (I myself am a man more of theory and system than of fact and doing. That I am
looking now at the question of Basic from the angle of fact is chiefly the effect of the words of my friend Neurath). It
\replsp{was ever}{has been} quite clear to me \textsp{from the start} that an international \replsp{help-}{\unsicher{second}} language is very necessary. In the past I saw -- like all but you
-- only two ways of making a such one: \soutsp{either} to \replsp{construct}{make} a new system or to take one of the natural languages. I took
the first way, because the second seemed -- and seems still \soutsp{now} -- to me a bad one. Now you have made a third way
\replsp{in the middle of}{between} the two, and by your discovery the \replsp{situation}{position} is completely changed. Because your system is more \neueseite{} simple
than any natural language and at the same time of very \textsp{much} greater use even at present than any \replsp{constructed}{made-up} system: it is the
best way. In addition to this I see the very good effect of writing in Basic: it gives a self-control \replsp{to}{which} make\textsp{s} one\textsp{'}s
\replsp{wordings}{language} -- and \replsp{thereby}{for this reason} ones thoughts -- more simple and more clear; that is of very high value specially in
``philosophy''. These are the chief reasons for which I will not only give my approval to Basic, but in addition to
this \soutsp{I} will make use of it and, if I am able, give help \replsp{to the working on it}{\unsicher{in taking it forward}}.

The notes which you gave so kindly to my last letter are of great value for me.}

\grussformel{Yours very truly\\
R.C.}

\ebericht{Brief, msl., 4 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/871537}{RC 081-13-05} ist ein offenbar an Ogden mitgeschickter und von diesem wieder an Carnap retournierter Durchschlag, der hier farbig markierte Korrekturen von Ogden enthält (Dsl. \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/871537}{RC 081-13-17} ohne Ogdens Korrekturen); Briefkopf: gestempelt \original{Prof. Dr. Rudolf Carnap \,/\, Prag XVII. \,/\, N. Motol, Pod Homolkou}, msl. \original{7\textsuperscript{th}\,February, 1934 \,/\, C. K. Ogden Esq. \,/\, London}.}
