The International Terminological Key - universala esperanto

close to Latin: Occidental. He leaned in that direction also because he never
succeeded in overcoming the innate prejudice of his colleagues against
Esperanto, which was much too autonomous for their liking.
Near the end of his career as a terminologist, he even came to believe in the
possibility of having two types of planned languages co-exist in the world of
the future: a so-called schematic project (Esperanto) for ordinary
communication and a naturalistic project (Occidental) for communication
among scientists. Which would boil down to a utopian modus vivendi
between “artificial” languages !
By contrast with his Russian counterpart, he did not remain at the purely
theoretical stage, but energetically began to gather elements to that end,
leaving at his death 20 maps of language material: his Radicarium and
Affixarium. One of the chief projects still under way at INFOTERM is the
preparation of such a highly promising “Key” based on that material. But, as
the initiator himself later realized, and as the present workers also
appreciate, this task proved much more difficult than expected. Otherwise
our world would already since decades have received from the hands of
WÜSTER or even of DREZEN, an acceptable language tool specific to sciences
and technology – perhaps not yet entirely complete and refined, but at least
rudimentally in operation. 17
It is quite remarkable that the two foremost pioneers of terminology sought a
solution to the problems of this discipline in the framework only of a planned
language, in casu Esperanto, as if the realization within some natural
language deserved no consideration ! One may argue that their esperantist
background pushed them automatically in that direction. This may be true
to some extent, but is not sufficient an explanation, for both were also tried
and true scientists, objectively seeking progress in the field, regardless of
Esperanto. In other words: they worked primarily for terminology's sake, and
only co-incidentally in the cause of Esperanto. Besides, if they were
esperantists, INFOTERM surely is not, and this institution – despite all its
resources and know-how and after half a century of endeavour – has not
been able to reach the objective of an ITK either. So, there must be more to
the question than is apparent on the surface.
2.7 Why the Stalemate?
17. Treating only WÜSTER and DREZEN in this short overview, does not imply that there have not been
some other worthwile standardization trials and studies by other researchers into this particular
language field, nor that there have not been many more who did not so radically search for a solution
through the introduction of a new form of language. Personally, we feel much indebted to the erudite
analyses of F.Cl. WERNER, especially in his Die Benennung der Organismen und Organe – VEB, Max
Niemeyer Verlag, Halle (Saale), in the former DDR, 1970. This thoroughgoing work (at times even
prophetic), on namegiving in the realm of biology, should enjoy a much wider acclaim than it has – no
doubt because it never went outside German-speaking academic circles.
25