Rudolf Carnap an C. K. Ogden, 7. Februar 1934 Februar 1934

I was very happy to see in your kind letter that my first attempt in Basic was better than my opinion aboutof 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-booksIPsyche Miniatures for which I gave an order to Kegan PaulIKegan Paul, Verlag. But so far they didhave not sendsent me their account.

I made somedid a short front-notes (named “The Vienna Circle makes no Philosophy”) forto go at the front of the book put into English by Mr. BlackPBlack, Max, 1909–1988, brit.-am. Philosoph, and I sent themit to him. He put themit 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”B1934@Logische Syntax der Sprache, Wien, 1934to the publisher (Springer, Vienna) in December to SpringerISpringer Verlag, (Vienna) who will be getting it out, and in January I had the thought that it was in printingwas hoping to see it in print on January 1. But thanthen they sent it back to me, because its print-size was seen to be greater thanwhen it was put into print it was seen to be longer than had been fixed before by our agreement. That was very unpleasingsad, but, being unable to change the complete workgive the bookB1934@Logische Syntax der Sprache, Wien, 1934 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 publisherPSpringer, Julius der Jüngere, 1880–1968, dt. Verleger at 15. Jan. Now I am looking forward forto the first test prints. ThanThen I will send a copy of them to the Countess von 🕮 ZeppelinPZeppelin, Amethe von, *1896, brit. Übersetzerin, verh. mit Leo von Zeppelin. I had a letter from her, making the suggestion to meetthat I might see her in Vienna, but I was not able to do so. Now her last letter gives me the hope to seeof seeing her in Prague inon her journey back from England to Austria. From the test prints she and you will see, that in the bookB1934@Logische Syntax der Sprache, Wien, 1934 there are some parts full of “technical” matterdiscussion. She says in her letter that she was a learner ofhad WhiteheadPWhitehead, Alfred North, 1861–1947, brit.-am. Philosophas 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 bookB1934@Logische Syntax der Sprache, Wien, 1934 as I said before? I would be very happy if so. The reason for my desiring this is not only my regret that my working out ofwhat has been worked out these parts wouldwill have no effectsvalue for a if they wereare not printed. In my opinion the cutting out of these parts is a verydoes great damage forto the bookB1934@Logische Syntax der Sprache, Wien, 1934. If the English bookB1937@The Logical Syntax of Language, London, 1937will have these partscomplete, it will be of special value even for the owners ofthose who have the German bookB1934@Logische Syntax der Sprache, Wien, 1934.

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 ordinarynormal English; and I see no other language than English (and probably there is no such oneother 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 fromof the different possible ways to takeof 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 constructedmade-up language like Espe🕮ranto is stilleven 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 situationposition is this: we see from the facts – or at least it seems very probable – that the much greater number of menmost persons are not ready to make use of a not-naturalmade-up language system; they have even a feeling of disgust against a such onea system. For this reason a part language which is part of a natural language has much more chance to be taken in useof being used by a great number of men in the near future, (on the condition that) if this language is simple enough (though not so simple as a constructedmade-up one). Now, in my opinion, your Basic system is in this conditionsimple enough. It is possible to make use of it even at present in the relations tobetween a very great number of men. You are right that this gives to Basic the greatest chance of being the help-second language in future. I will say to you openly, that I have a feeling of regret about the fact that a constructedmade-up language – though much better, if seen from the angle of theory– has no chance in 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 was everhas been quite clear to me from the start that an international help-second language is very necessary. In the past I saw – like all but you – only two ways of making a such one: either to constructmake a new system or to take one of the natural languages. I took the first way, because the second seemed – and seems still now– to me a bad one. Now you have made a third way in the middle ofbetween the two, and by your discovery the situationposition is completely changed. Because your system is more 🕮 simple than any natural language and at the same time of very much greater use even at present than any constructedmade-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 towhich makes one’s wordingslanguage– and therebyfor 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 I will make use of it and, if I am able, give help to the working on itin taking it forward.

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