Pathway to Japanese Literature

Preface

This essay attempts to plainly explain the basic theory and organizational structure of Basic English, as well as its value in English education.
Basic is by no means limited to a mere list of 850 words.
It forms a dynamic and organic cohesive system in itself, and through its application, it is structured as a mechanism capable of handling daily needs.
Moreover, since Basic was devised entirely in accordance with English tradition and has fully utilized the peculiarities of English, its study—when considered from the holistic perspective of English scholarship—is by no means a futile endeavor.

In our country, there seemed to be relatively few people who properly understood the structure of Basic English.
If you, dear readers, through this essay came to understand what Basic English truly was—and further spared no effort in diligently studying related works, scrutinizing them to view Basic’s structure as a whole while adopting its strengths for application in English education—then I believed that the resulting benefit would extend beyond merely my personal satisfaction.

March 1941 (Showa 16)

Takada Chikara

Contents

Preface

I. Basic English

II. Origins and Development of the Design

III. Principles of Vocabulary Restriction

1. Elimination of Verbs

2. Elimination of Redundant Words

3. Expansion and Specialization of Meaning

4. Compound Words

5. -er, -ing, -ed Suffixes

6. Idiomatic Expressions

IV. Basic English Anthology

1. Simple Actions

2. Complex Actions

3. Other Considerations

V. Basic English and English Education

VI. Example Sentences

I. Basic English

To state concisely what Basic English is: it may be called a simplified subset of English forming an organic cohesive system in itself—obtained through rationally compressing and streamlining standard English by utilizing its inherent linguistic peculiarities (which originally held rich potential for simplification across numerous aspects), thereby enabling even complex ideas to be expressed solely through core vocabulary most essential to human daily life consciousness.
And given that English possessed the broadest global applicability at the time, it was devised by Mr. C.K. Ogden (1889– ), a linguistic psychologist at Cambridge University in England, through years of painstaking research—with the intention of creating an international auxiliary language that could be mastered within an exceptionally brief period.

The main body constituting the structure of Basic English is its 850 words, which may be classified as follows: 16 verbs termed “operators”; auxiliary verbs *may* (*might*) and *will* (*would*)—with *be*, *do*, and *have* from the operators also serving as auxiliaries; prepositions, conjunctions, articles, pronouns, adverbs, and similar function words totaling 100; 400 general nouns for common things; 200 nouns for picturable objects; and 150 adjectives expressing qualities (of these, 50 terms denote opposites such as *bad* versus *good* and *dirty* versus *clean*).
The grammar governing the use of these words follows standard English: plural nouns receive an *s*; 300 nouns and a small number of adjectives (those also used as verbs in regular English) have *-er* (*-or*), *-ing*, and *-ed* suffixes attached to form derivatives (e.g., *support* → *supporter* [a person who supports/nourishes; ally; proponent], *supporting* [supporting/nourishing; the act of supporting/nourishing], *supported* [supported/nourished]); adverbs are created by adding *-ly* to adjectives; and comparisons employ both *-er*/*-est* suffixes and *more*/*most*.
To indicate possession, use *-’s* or *of*, and prefix *un-* to certain adjectives to form their opposites.
For interrogative sentences, use word order inversion or *do*, while verb and pronoun conjugations follow standard conventions.
Additionally, 250 simple idiomatic expressions formed by appropriately combining the 850 words may also be used.
Weights and measures, numerals, currency, calendar terms, and internationally common words rely on English.
Furthermore, 100 general scientific terms and 50 specialized terms for various sciences, commerce, etc., have been prepared.

II. Origins and Development of the Design

Now, to briefly outline the historical development leading to Basic English’s organizational structure: it dates back to when Mr. Ogden was writing his seminal work *The Meaning of Meaning*＊ (“Imi no Imi”), co-authored with Dr. I.A. Richards (1893– ), from 1919 to 1922.

This work bears the subtitle *The Influence of Language on Thought and a Study of Symbolism*, positing that language constitutes a type of symbol and elaborating a theory that its meaning lies in language’s function as a symbol (sign) to designate things. The book’s first chapter famously discusses the relationship between language, thought, and things through what it terms the “triangle without a base.”

That is to say, while things and thought—and thought and language—each maintain a direct relationship, things and language possess only an indirect connection.

Consequently, this triangle comes to lack a base in many instances.

In other words, the line connecting language as symbols to things is frequently absent.

The reason many errors arise in our everyday language lies here.

For we not only persist in believing that a direct relationship exists between symbols and things but even consider such thinking convenient when using language.

Were we to reflect upon this triangle’s missing base, linguistic misunderstandings would not occur.

Furthermore, this concept has been researched by Mr. Kakiuchi Matsuzō through comparison with Motoori Norinaga’s triangular theory of “koto (events), kokoro (mind), and kotoba (words)” alongside Fujitani Mitsue’s theories.

＊ The complete translation of the third edition of this book by Mr. Ishibashi Kōtarō was published in 1936 (Showa 11).

Around that time, while Mr. Ogden—alongside Mr. Richards and others—was engaged in researching definitions for various words, they discovered that certain elemental words were consistently used within them (though this matter had already piqued the interest of figures like Leibniz and John Wilkins in the seventeenth century), and further came to realize that these crucial basic vocabulary items alone could clearly express the meanings of many other complex terms.
Proceeding further, they continued their research considering that it might be possible to construct a basic form of English using only these elemental vocabularies.
Thus, the devising of an international language based on English to facilitate the exchange of ordinary ideas was already one of Mr. Ogden’s primary concerns at the time.
However, at that time, it seemed that many obstacles lay ahead for Mr. Ogden’s endeavor.
For instance, even if someone were to spend over a decade devising such an international auxiliary language, wouldn’t they encounter far more difficulties than anticipated when actually putting it to use? And how could they create something capable of imparting a natural impression to the eyes and ears akin to ordinary English? Such were the concerns at that time.

However, before long, Mr. Ogden found the key to solving these problems.
Mr. Ogden had previously read Hans Vaihinger’s (1852–1933; German philosopher) *Die Philosophie des Als Ob*¹ (*The Philosophy of ‘As If’*) and published its English translation² in 1924; from around that time, he increasingly felt compelled to study Jeremy Bentham’s (1748–1832; British legal and ethical scholar) linguistic philosophy and began avidly reading Bentham.
At that time, Mr. Ogden was engaged in research on the nature of verbs, but greatly encouraged by the implications derived from Bentham’s linguistic views, he proceeded with further examination and was finally able to achieve his intended objective.
“In all stages of the work of devising Basic, Bentham’s ‘Theory of Fictions’ provided extremely valuable assistance.
Bentham’s endorsement of the notion that the so-called verb system could be dismantled for the purpose of an international language was what, at the very least, solidified my resolve to undertake this endeavor.
Therefore, Bentham is the true father of Basic English.
“1” said Mr. Ogden.
The concept of fictions (the act of presenting non-facts as facts, or fabrications)—a matter noted by many philosophers since antiquity, including Kant and Nietzsche—has, as Vaihinger also states, played an even more significant role across both practical and theoretical aspects of British jurisprudence and political philosophy than it has in other nations.
And it was through Mr. Ogden’s examination and development of Bentham’s theory of “linguistic fictions” and its practical application that Basic English ultimately emerged.
And Bentham was the first person to assert the possibility of organizing English through his linguistic theory into an international language, and the term ‘international’ was first employed by him.
The original motivations that led Bentham to develop an interest in “linguistic fictions” were twofold: firstly, stemming from his childhood reflections on the fear of ghosts (specters) that tormented him, and secondly, arising from his aversion to “Legal Fictions”²—a concept provoked by Sir William Blackstone’s (1723–80) lectures at Oxford.
That is, advancing from doubts about the entities lurking behind nebulous terms such as “spectres,” “imps,” and “bogeys” and questions regarding the moral significance underlying legal terminology, he proceeded to examine the very foundations of language itself.
3

1. The study of "fictions" discussed later.
Incidentally, I should mention that Mori Ōgai’s novel *Kano Yōni* originates from this book.

2. *The Philosophy of 'As if'* by H. Vaihinger (International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method).

1 C.K. Ogden: Jeremy Bentham 1832-2032 (Psyche Miniatures), p. 44.

2. Suematsu Iwao: *The Utility of Lies*
(Kaizōsha, Taishō 12).

3 C.K. Ogden: Jeremy Bentham 1832–2032, p. 39.

In short, Bentham’s “linguistic fictions” refer to how language contains terms indicating clearly definable concrete objects such as *table* and *dog*, while also encompassing abstract entities—existing only in words and lacking practical substance—such as *liberty*, *obligation*, and *civilization*.
These latter terms are what we call “linguistic fictions.”
Mr. Ogden states: “There exist many nouns—such as *harmony* and *quality*—that do not represent any concrete thing.”
“Yet in all languages, they are treated as if denoting concrete entities for practical convenience.”
“These are names of fabricated things.”
“While such words pose no particular grammatical issues, this distinction becomes crucial when seeking to understand what language truly conveys.”
“…The nature of linguistic fictions becomes more comprehensible if we consider them as a type of metaphor.”
“A metaphor, in its ordinary sense, involves applying words to similar things.”
“Thus we might broadly say that fictions entail applying a word’s function to analogous concepts.”
“Take ‘force of circumstance’—this metaphorical usage borrows from physicists’ terminology, yet ‘force’ itself refers to no corresponding physical object discoverable in the universe, even when employed by physicists.”*

*

* C.K. Ogden: Basic English, 6th ed. (1937; Psyche Miniatures), p. 45. For further details, see C.K. Ogden: Bentham’s Theory of Fictions (1932; International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method).

In our use of language, we often confused and employed words denoting entities with those denoting fictions without clearly recognizing their distinction, bound by traditional conventions in many cases.
As a result, even when speakers and listeners used identical words, discrepancies arose between their respective interpretations of those terms, thereby impeding smooth intellectual exchange and sowing confusion in our thoughts.
Yet we tended to prefer using these fictitious words for their literary quality.
This occurred because we had become ensnared by what Ogden termed linguistic fictions.
Mr. Ogden even asserted that so-called philosophy largely amounted to nothing more than reflections of our linguistic habits, its disputes born from linguistic phantoms.
Therefore, analyzing meanings behind fiction-denoting words and elucidating them through more concrete elemental terms became imperative; this analytical focus constituted an essential component of Mr. Ogden’s hermeneutics while simultaneously forming the principal foundation upon which Basic English had been devised.

III. Principles of Vocabulary Restriction

1. Elimination of Verbs

Among words, the most fictitious—possessing a contractive nature akin to shorthand symbols—were verbs.
Moreover, verbs proved the most difficult and troublesome elements to learn in all languages.
One of the most extreme examples was *decimate*, containing the meaning “to kill one person out of every ten.”
In Basic English, this was analyzed and rephrased as 'put to death oneman out of every ten'.
'Disembark' (“to go ashore”) was broken down into three parts as 'get offaship'.
Similarly, *ascend* (“to go up”) became *go up*, *descend* (“to go down”) *go down*, *traverse* (“to cross”) *go across*, *penetrate* (“to enter”) *go into*, *eradicate* (“to uproot”) *take up by the roots*, *precede* (“to go before”) *go in front of*, and *disappear* (“to vanish from sight”) *go from view*.
In this manner, verbs originally bundled together actions with objects or directions.
Therefore, Basic English selected sixteen fundamental verbs—give, get; take, put; come, go; keep, let; make, say, see, send, do, have, be, and seem—designating them as “operators,” then combined these with twenty essential “directives” (prepositions or adverbs): about, across, after, against, among, at, before, between, by, down, from, in, off, on, over, through, to, under, up, and with—enabling these combinations to perform other verbs’ functions.
Through this method, Mr. Ogden stated that experimentation had successfully eliminated over four thousand ordinary verbs.
These sixteen “operators” all represented simple tangible actions and were remarkably easy to grasp.
In ordinary English too, one might say the language could not function without employing these verbs.
They stood indispensable among English verbs.
Though vigorously used independently, these basic verbs also demonstrated extreme versatility—combining with other words to perform multitudinous functions.

It is said that this analytical method of expression is possible almost exclusively in English.
This constitutes why English proves most suitable for the purpose of simplification.
The organizational system dependent on inflectional endings severely obstructs linguistic simplification, with all modern Latin-derived languages still displaying too markedly the tendencies inherent in their root language, Latin.
This situation arises because English—as evidenced by its historical development—gradually advanced from synthetic to analytic structures until reaching Modern English, which achieved simplification through near-total loss of inflectional conjugations while adopting prepositions and auxiliary verbs as replacements.
Modern English might accordingly be considered analogous to Chinese in this particular aspect.
Basic English has strategically exploited this fundamental characteristic of English.
Within English there persistently exist dual methods for expressing identical meanings.
Specifically: those synthetic forms originating from Latin and French, contrasted with analytic constructions native to English itself.
This very circumstance explains why Basic—through its employment of the latter—qualifies as idiomatic English.

The following anecdote* written in Basic English effectively demonstrates the function of “directives” accompanying “operators.”

The dog went―
after the rat,
by the drain,
across the street,
over the wall,
with the fly,
through the door,
against the rules,
to the meat.

The fly got―
in the meat,
into the mouth,
down the throat,
among the muscles.

The poison got―
off the fly,

at digestion,

about system.

The noise came―

from instrument,

under window,

up steps,

through hospital;

and got

on nerves,

after operation,

before death.

* C.K. Ogden: “Basic English and Grammatical Reform” (Psyche, Vol. XVI, 1936), pp.55–6.

(The dog went after a rat; went by a drain; went across a street; went over a wall; went through a door with a fly—against rules—and went to where meat was.)
The fly got in the meat; got into the mouth; got down the throat; got among the muscles.
The poison got off the fly at digestion; got about the system.
The noise came from an instrument under a window; came up steps; came through a hospital; got on nerves after an operation before death.)

Among these words, there are some that would be more accurately described as terms indicating locations or positions in space rather than those expressing direction.

Now, if we were to rephrase the above sentences using so-called verbs,

The dog―
'pursued' the rat,
'passed' the drain,
'crossed' the street,
and 'climbed' the wall,
'bearing' the fly;
it 'entered' the door,
it 'broke' the rules,
and 'approached' the meat.

The fly―
'invaded' the meat,
'penetrated' the mouth,
'descended' the throat,
and 'infested' the muscles.

The poison―
'left' the fly,
'attacked' the digestion,
and 'permeated' the system.

However, there are times when "directives" are used alongside so-called verbs.

That is,

The noise―

‘emanated’ from an instrument,

‘located’ under the window,

‘proceeded’ up the steps,

and ‘diffused’ itself through the hospital,

where it ‘worked’ on the young man’s nerves,

‘following’ as it did, after his operation.

In the aforementioned standard English sentences, there were 21 verbs each incorporating both an “operator” and a “directive,” but in the Basic translation, it could be seen that all had been replaced by the three “operators” *come*, *go*, and *get*.
Thus, in English there existed 4,000 ordinary verbs that could be replaced by 16 “operators” in this manner.

As a further example of verb elimination, we shall next present the Basic translation of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Speech—a classic English oration—alongside the original text.

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Seven and eighty years have gone by from the day when our fathers gave to this land a new nation―a nation which came to birth in the thought that all men are free, a nation given up to the idea that all men are equal. Now we are fighting in a great war among ourselves, testing if that nation, or any nation of such a birth and with such a history, is able long to keep united. We are together on the field of a great event in that war. We have come to give a part of that field as a last resting-place for those who went to their death so that that nation might go on living. It is in every way right and natural for us to do this. But in a wider sense we have no power to make this place an offering in their name, to give any mark of our respect, any sign of our belief. Those men, living and dead, who had no fear in the fight, have given it a name far greater than our poor power to make additions or to take away. The future will take little note of what we say here; will not long keep it in mind. But what they did here will never go from memory. It is for us, the living, to give ourselves here to the work which is not ended, which they who were in the fight have taken forward to this point so well. It is for us to give ourselves here to the great work which is still before us, so that from these dead who are in our hearts we may take an increased love of the cause for which they gave the last full measure of their love; so that we may here come to the high decision that these dead will not have given themselves to no purpose; so that this nation, under the Father of All, may have a new birth in the hope to be free; and so that government of all, by all, and for all, may not come to an end on the earth.*

* C.K. Ogden: BasicEnglish and Grammatical Reform (1937), p.74

This Lincoln speech is generally considered one of the simplest prose pieces in English; nevertheless, Basic eliminated twenty-five verbs from it.
Namely: *bring*, *conceive*, *dedicate*, *create*, *engage*, *can*, *endure*, *meet*, *live*, *fit*, *shall*, *consecrate*, *hallow*, *struggle*, *add*, *detract*, *note*, *remember*, *forget*, *fight*, *advance*, *remain*, *resolve*, *die*, *perish*.
In addition to these, there were thirty words* for which Basic had to find substitute phrases.
Moreover, it can be seen that these words were used repeatedly several times.

＊ score, age, forth, continent, liberty, proposition, civil, whether, battle, portion, final, life, altogether, proper, large, ground, brave, above, world, nor, rather, unfinished, thus, nobly, task, honoured, devotion, vain, freedom, people.

Now, one principle of substitution involves combining “operators” with “directives” to replace verbs—constructions that have been developing in standard English since the fifteenth century and now form numerous idiomatic expressions without any awkwardness.
Within the domain of “operators,” these serve as substitutes for all significant verbs.
This reform was driven by Basic English’s aim to eliminate linguistic waste through developing such substitute forms in its verb system.
Verb forms have long posed major obstacles to all national language simplification efforts and have seen limited adoption as linguistic constructs.
For some learners, verb forms present insurmountable difficulties from the outset.
Conversely, even those accustomed to complex verb conjugations face excessive mnemonic burdens from foreign languages’ irregular forms.
A further criticism holds that verbs introduce superfluous lexical items during early learning stages.
Yet through maximal utilization of “operators,” nouns and adjectives can be made to perform double duty.
Finally—and most fundamentally—verbs inherently risk thought confusion at every stage of meaning expression, as seen across all simplified writing systems.

In Basic English, through combining sixteen “operators” with twenty “directives,” one can immediately create equivalents for numerous verbs—as seen in *put in* equating to insert (挿入する)—yet standard English vocabulary comprises multitudes of synonyms distinguished through minute differences in usage that escape notice ninety percent of the time.
This reality has elevated English’s stylistic value while rendering its acquisition particularly arduous for non-native learners.
Nevertheless,*put in* within respective specialized contexts functionally substitutes for myriad other verbs.
For instance: *put (a word) in* = interject (verbal interruption), *put (an account) in* = render (submit financial records), *put (the tea) in* = infuse (steep tea leaves), *put (the sheep) in* = fold (corral livestock), *put (a request) in* = file (officially submit), *put (a seed) in (the earth)* = plant (sow crops), *put (the baby) in (the bath)* = immerse (submerge infant), *put (things) in (a house)* = install (furnish domicile), et cetera.
Through such phrasal methodologies, Basic English attains analytically equivalent expressions that appear immediately transparent—precisely where standard English would demand additional specialized terminology.
Moreover, this system accomplishes its ends without incorporating any inherently idiomatic expressions proper (such as those 250 phrases cataloged in *The ABC of Basic English*) while imposing no additional phonetic challenges upon foreign learners whatsoever.

The term "operation" refers not only to fundamental physical actions but also to instances where one object acts upon another or humans interact with objects; even the simplest and most commonplace behaviors in daily life are termed operations.
However, in practice, the most universal action is *to move* (move), while *to push* (push) and *to pull* (pull) represent slightly more specialized actions.
In human activities too, the most common actions remain moving, pushing, and pulling; additionally there exist *put* (place) and *take* (take).
Slightly more specialized than these are *give* (to give) and *get* (to obtain).
Regarding animal locomotion, there are *come* (to come) and *go* (to go).
Then follow *make* (to create), *keep* (to maintain), *let* (to allow...to do), and *do* (to perform).
Fortunately, Basic English enables rephrasing of *to move*, *to push*, and *to pull* through noun incorporation.
That is:

Move = Give (a thing) a move,¹ or put (a thing) in motion.

Push = Give a push to (a thing).

Pull = Give a pull to (a thing).

1. Bentham preferred to use verbal nouns when people employed verbs and is said to have used *to give motion* in places where one would say *to move*. This was because the noun "motion" was conceptualized as if it were a substantive "thing," thereby making its meaning considerably clearer (C.K. Ogden: Bentham’s Theory of Fictions, Introduction, cvii).

Therefore, in practice, if one adds the usage of *be* (existence), *seem* (a modifier with meaning opposed to *be*), and *have* (to possess) as “operators” to these ten “operators,” it becomes possible to express all necessary matters through them.

Having addressed verb elimination in Basic English on multiple occasions previously, I shall now explain the methods Basic adopted when restricting other vocabulary.

2 C.K. Ogden: Basic English, pp.53–7.

2. Elimination of Redundant Words

Basic began organizing its vocabulary on the premise that if its restricted lexicon proved effective both as an international auxiliary language and as a tool for English education, it could suffice with fewer than 1,000 words; first selecting 7,500 of the most useful terms as a foundation—based on this selection—they were then able to eliminate 4,000 ordinary verbs.
Through initial restrictions applied to other vocabulary categories, 1,500 words were removed, leaving 2,000 remaining at this stage.
After further refinement through scrutiny, they ultimately arrived at the Basic 850-word lexicon.
It was maintained that reducing below this number would inevitably cause severe strain upon English grammatical conventions.
For this foundational vocabulary analysis, they devised and utilized the Panoptic Eliminator—the radial reference chart shown on the following page—which enabled precise verification of word behavior and usage value.

First, place the word to be examined into the circle at the center of the aforementioned radial chart.
Next, examine along each radial line the relationship between that word and others that could substitute it.
All these substitute words are then positioned at the radial lines' endpoints.
To take a simple example: when placing *dog* in the central circle, under Time (Age), *puppy* becomes its potential substitute.
However, *puppy* proves unnecessary.
Since possessing both *dog* and the age-indicating adjective *young* allows expressing *puppy* as *young dog*.
Similarly regarding Behavior (Sex), when Basic English's lexicon includes *female*, *bitch* becomes redundant through *female dog*.
Proceeding thus through each categorical detail while examining terms related to *dog*, *dog* itself emerges as the foundational term.
By this method, *gale* (strong wind), *physician* (medical man), and *crowd* (a great number) too are eliminated.
Each finds expression through Basic words: *strong wind*, *medical man*, and *a great number* respectively.
Through such means, nearly all terms can be expressed via descriptive methods and quantitative indicators.
The oppositional definition method further allows frequent expression of *ignorance* through *knowledge*, or *courage* through *fear*.
1. Abstract "fictional" terms like *liberty* become *condition of being free*, while *civilization* transforms into *stage of development in society*—combinations of simpler factual terms.
Emotionally charged adjectives like *picturesque* or *sublime*, separable from pure thought, become straightforward equivalents: *pleasing to the eye*, *like a picture*, or *(very) beautiful*.
From synonym groups, maximally applicable terms were selected—*form* over *shape*, *help* over *assistance*, and *hard* (encompassing rigid [*hard wood*], strenuous [*hard work*], challenging [*hard question*], and unyielding [*hard man*]) over narrowly specific alternatives.
This matter I shall next address.

1. For details, see C.K. Ogden: *Opposition*, 1932 (Psyche Min.).

3. Semantic Expansion and Specialization

“Semantic expansion” refers to the metaphorical application of a word’s original meaning to other resembling concepts.
This could accordingly be regarded as a development of Bentham’s “Theory of Fictions” in metaphorical treatment.
However, Basic English imposed limitations on this practice’s scope to prevent misuse—systematically organizing and classifying it for ease of learning while maintaining rationality and comprehensibility—thus preparing it for practical application.
For instance: from *He says that he has a bad pain in his head* (頭), expanding to *The new head* (校長) *of our school seems to have a clear brain*; then further from *Living in a clean* (清潔な) *house makes us healthy* to *Though he has no religion, he has a clean* (清廉な) *mind*.
Other examples included: *Card-playing is a waste* (浪費) *of time. To get such a thing would be only a waste of money.* → *Put all the waste* (廢物) *in the bucket.*; *That bit of land is nothing but a waste of sand* (荒れた砂地). *The arm is wasting slowly* (腕が次第に痩せて來る). *Rubber is an elastic* (彈力性の) *substance.* → *He has very elastic* (融通のきく) *views about the question.* (Also as a noun: *Put a bit of elastic* [ゴム紐] *round the rolled paper.*)

2 C.K. Ogden: *The Basic Words: A Detailed Account of Their Uses* (*Psyche Min.*). See.

Thus, in Basic English, general words adaptable to both concrete and abstract aspects have been selected. At the same time, words whose forms do not change according to part of speech are utilized as much as possible in their respective parts of speech. This represents an economy of vocabulary while also providing the benefit that beginners can avoid errors in its use. For example: *The army went forward* (adv.) *without loss of time. The forward* (adj.) *part of the ship was greatly damaged.* *He is quite a forward* (adj., precocious) *boy. We have equal* (adj.) *amounts of money. A fight between equals* (n., evenly matched contest) *is interesting to see.* Other adjectives used as nouns include acid, chief, chemical, cold, complex, cut, fat, female, first, flat, future, good(s), hollow, last, living, male, material, opposite, parallel, past, present, public, quiet, right, safe, same, second, secret, solid, sweet, waiting, wet, wrong, young*, and adjectives denoting colors.

“Semantic specialization” referred to when a word’s meaning became restricted to a specific usage within certain contexts.
For instance, *powder* (粉) acquired the sense of “medicine powder” as seen in *They gave the baby a powder at the hospital*, while *heat* (熱) took on the meaning of “intense heat” exemplified by *We do nothing in the heat but go to sleep*.
The same principle applied to using *cover* (覆い) for “lid” or *competition* (競争) for “match”.

* To illustrate other usages of *damage*: They are looking at the damage done by the strong wind yesterday. He has a damaged finger (injured one finger). He made a damaging statement about her book (made remarks that harmed her reputation). He got 1,000 yen damages (compensation for damages) from the company.

Regarding these semantic shifts, Mr. Ogden stated the following:
"There are two principal methods for expanding the semantic range of nouns and all other words in their usage.
Namely, 'expansion' and 'specialization.'
Semantic expansion refers to applying a word denoting one or several things to other related things.
This relationship could be that of part to whole.
For instance, *letter* expands from 'written character' to 'missive.'
It could also involve cause and effect.
For example, 'bite' denotes both the act of biting and the thing bitten.
It may express the relationship between an action and its performer.
For example, 'lift' as an action becomes 'elevator' as its performer.
Metaphor constitutes a special form of semantic expansion where words describing one set of relationships apply to another similar set.
By removing terms like tenacity (persistence) and scheme (planning) from Basic vocabulary, we may instead use expressions like 'the grip of a disease' and 'designs for the future.'"

＊ Basic English, pp. 45–6.

“Specialization” refers to taking a word with a broad meaning and assigning it a specific meaning in usage.
For example, if one says “send in an account,” it takes on the meaning of “send in a bill” (sending a statement of account).
Furthermore, when we read an article in the newspaper about “the death of a famous judge,” we do not hesitate over whether this *judge* (a person who judges) refers to a horse judge, a wine judge, or an art judge; we immediately recognize it denotes a legal *judge*—that is, a court magistrate.
“Specialization, in a sense, is an act of limitation; yet by removing from the entire vocabulary those words that have only extremely narrow usages through this process, it conversely expands the functional scope of the vocabulary.”

4. Compound Words

Appropriately combining nouns and other elements—for example, *camera-man* (camera operator), *coal-house* (coal storage shed), *house-coal* (household coal), *account-book* (ledger), *motion picture house* (cinema)—is also a characteristic of English; however, Basic English makes extensive use of this method. Instead of *dictionary*, *word-book* is used; instead of *perambulator* (baby carriage), *baby-carriage*. The creation of such compound words provides an extremely rich field for producing new terms.

Other examples: cupboard, cow-house, copyright, handwriting, downfall, income, inside, outside, good-looking, outcome, outlet, outline, outlook, sundown, overcome, undergo, undertake, upkeep, upright, without, and so on.1

1 C.K. Ogden: *The ABC of Basic English* (Psyche Min.), pp. 54–57; see.

5. -er, -ing, -ed Suffixes

In Basic English, one can create and use derivatives by attaching the suffixes ‘-er’ (or ‘-or’), ‘-ing’, and ‘-ed’ to its 300 nouns²—those that also function as verbs in standard English.
The ‘-er’ suffix denotes the performer of an action or its instrument, while the ‘-ing’ form serves as both adjective and noun, and the ‘-ed’ form functions adjectivally.
This expands lexical versatility while offering stylistic flexibility.
Though Basic’s framework officially recognizes no verbal functions beyond its 16 designated operators, it permits constructions like *I am printing a book.* for idiomatic flow.
On this matter, Mr. Ogden remarks:
“Given the active sense carried by -ing forms, their natural tendency is to be attended by the nouns they affect.”
(I am printing. What? A book.) This represents no capitulation to conventional verb usage within Basic.
Traditional grammatical labels like ‘the direct object in the accusative’ prove manifestly inadequate here.
Yet employing -ing forms thus remains merely a stylistic accommodation; novices could readily adopt alternative phrasings such as:
―

Acting a play = Getting a play acted. Doing a play. Putting a play on the stage.

Airing dresses = Giving dresses an airing. Getting dresses aired.

Answering letters = Giving answers to letters. Getting letters answered. Writing in answer to letters.

Attacking a town = Making an attack on a town.

² *Basic English*, p. 48; see.

“Furthermore, since the -ed suffix is entirely adjectival in nature (as in *a printed book* or *a book printed in London*), it must not be used as a past tense verb form.”
*

＊ Basic English, p. 49.

6. Idiomatic Expressions

The idiomatic expressions of Basic English comprise 250 simple English phrases formed by appropriately combining its 850 words to smoothly and concisely convey thoughts and emotions, systematically classified with example sentences in *The ABC of Basic English*.
These were provided to learners—after they had become thoroughly familiar with all basic meanings and usages of the 850 words—to complete the Basic system.
Furthermore, an additional 250 idiomatic expressions—also formed by combining the 850 words—that were familiar to native English speakers for reading purposes were marked with ** in *The Basic Words*.
Next, we presented 50 essential idiomatic expressions in Basic (from the initial 250).

at war (work, play, rest), bad (good, quick, working) at, by force, by himself, respect (love, feeling) for, responsible for, but for, different from, in motion, in use (operation), out of the room, control (grip) of, full of, off his head, farther on, (go, keep, get) on, worked out, go (turned) over, be able to, put up with, angry (pleased) with, come to a stop, get (a book) out, get out of doing, give up, go to sleep, (guns) go off, (lights) go out, have an effect on, let a house, make up a story, put off (meeting), as if, one another, there is, in addition to, in the belief, in bits, in memory of, take part in, take place, put a stop to, give way to, in (out of) the way, at right angles, dependent on, good morning (day, night), at present, tired of, dear Mr. A., 10 years old.

It was upon these principles, further refined through meticulous study of finer details, that the 850 words of Basic English were selected. In January 1929, they were first published in a single-page layout for immediate visibility within *Psyche*—the international organ journal of psychology issued by The Orthological Institute in Cambridge, England—and in the following year, 1930, *Basic English* was formally released. Subsequently, 50 international common terms were decided upon. As previously outlined, Basic English—positioned as an international auxiliary language—sought to minimize its vocabulary while encompassing words most essential to human life and consciousness, fulfill conditions of simple and regular grammar for ease of learning, and simultaneously align with standard English usage. Furthermore, it was adapted for practical application in general commercial, industrial, and scientific contexts. Consequently, these carefully curated 850 Basic words differed fundamentally from vocabulary lists compiled through mere frequency statistics. While all terms were undeniably common English words, their selection prioritized functional utility over lexical popularity. No particular weight was given to orthographic brevity or etymological origins in Anglo-Saxon versus Latin roots. Thus, Basic could be said to form a compact yet comprehensive microcosm of the English language.

IV. Basic Anthology

Methods for appropriately expressing the meanings of ordinary actions and things not included in Basic English—through the application of its 850 words—had been prepared as a result of prior research.
Therefore, learners could pay special attention to these from the very beginning.
And it was only natural given its structure that the most inconvenient aspect of Basic lay in cases requiring words to express actions.
This was because verb forms had to somehow be expressed.
Since the Basic system was fundamentally noun-centered, it made frequent use of noun-based constructions—a characteristic feature of English—such as: *Shelly was a lover of music and art*; *I haven’t the smallest idea what became of him*; *It is my belief that we will have snow*; *I say this for your amusement*; *Let me have a wash (a bath, a smoke, a drink, a swim)*; *She gave his hand a cold touch*; *He gave a little laugh*; *He took a long breath*; and others of this kind.
Therefore, if one mastered the usage of *have*, *give*, *make*, *take*, *get*, and others, their application became easy.
I thought this point resembled the *sa*-row irregular conjugation patterns in Japanese grammar.
Professor Doi Mitsutomo stated the following regarding the verbs in his devised Basic Japanese: “When we study Latin or Greek, what we find most difficult is the changes in verbal forms; however, in Japanese as well, the existence of many types of conjugational verbs—such as quadrigrade, upper bigrade, lower bigrade, upper monograde, and lower monograde conjugations—makes the language exceedingly difficult.”
“I adopted approximately two hundred verbs—such as *sumai-suru* (‘to reside’), *soshiki-suru* (‘to organize’), *kyōiku-suru* (‘to educate’), *benkyō-suru* (‘to study’), and *kiroku-suru* (‘to record’)—which undergo conjugation changes in their endings (*shi—suru—sure*), designating them as regularly conjugated verbs. By minimizing the number of other verbs as much as possible, I made Japanese easier.”
…Based on the aforementioned consideration, he incorporated approximately fifty non-sa-row conjugated verbs.
“However, by employing the following method, the number of action words can be reduced to approximately twenty extremely simple ones such as ‘do,’ ‘become,’ ‘have,’ ‘go,’ and ‘put.’”
To think—become a thought; to know—have knowledge; to write—do writing; to fly—go through the air; to swim—do swimming; to buy—do buying; to take out—put outside; to enter—go inside. While this method of using action words as noun words might be convenient for Westerners, Japanese people would have no need for it.
“Therefore, I made sure that the basic vocabulary did not stray too far from the standard language and retained over fifty irregularly conjugated verbs.”
* he stated.
From the perspective of foundational vocabulary, one could recognize the commonalities existing between the Japanese and English languages.

* “Kokugo Junka to Kiso Go” (Lectures on Japanese Language Science, Showa 8 [1933], May, Meiji Shoin, pp. 7, 9, 10.)

Next we shall demonstrate several phrases essential for daily life employed in Basic English.
Moreover, it goes without saying that diverse alternative expressions exist beyond those illustrated here.
Furthermore, these phrases should pose no particular difficulty for Basic learners.
For those already versed in English, moreover, they become remarkably straightforward with familiarity.

1. Simple Actions

(1) Phrases expressing the meanings of the ordinary English verbs ‘talk,’ ‘speak,’ ‘tell,’ ‘sing,’ ‘hear,’ ‘listen,’ ‘write,’ and ‘read’—

Say things, say something, be talking (to), have a talk (with), give a (public) talk, make a statement (on, about), have a (talking) knowledge of English, give a story (one’s opinion, one’s views), give an account (the story, news) of, give directions (for), give a song, (a sound) comes to one’s ears (to one), be conscious of (a sound), give (one’s) attention to, get (have) the news, put something into writing, put something down (on paper, in writing), do the writing of, be writing, send (get off) a letter, see (it in the newspaper), go through (writing) (with care), be reading, etc.

(2) Phrases expressing the meanings of ‘eat,’ ‘bite,’ ‘spit,’ etc.—

Take (food), have (a meal), make a meal of, (be unable to) get through, give (it) a bite (a number of bites), have a bite of (at), be biting, put it out (of one’s mouth) (with force), etc.

(3) Phrases expressing the meanings of ‘Touch,’ ‘bump,’ ‘hit,’ ‘scratch,’ ‘cut,’ ‘break’—

Put one’s hand (finger) on, give it a touch, be touching, go (violently) against, come up against it (with force), give it a blow (some blows, a number of blows), make a mark (cut) on, give it a rub, get one’s nails into, get it cut (broken, smashed) (to bits, in two), be cutting (smashing), give it a cut, etc.

(4) Phrases expressing the meanings of ‘Throw,’ ‘catch,’ ‘hold,’ etc.—

Send (the ball) (through the air, over the wall, across the field), get (have) (the ball) (in one’s hand), get (have, keep) a grip of (his arm), take (have, keep) (the book) (in one’s hand), etc.

(5) Phrases expressing the meanings of ‘Lie,’ ‘stand,’ ‘sit,’ ‘run,’ ‘slip,’ ‘fall,’ etc.—

Be resting (on), get up, be on one’s feet, take a seat, be seated, go quickly, take (have) a run, go (off) at a run, have a slip, be slipping, have a fall, go down (on one’s back), etc.

2. Complex Actions

(1) Phrases expressing the meanings of ‘Think,’ ‘know,’ ‘understand,’ ‘mean,’ ‘remember,’ ‘forget,’ etc.—

Take (be in) thought, give thought to, it seems to me that, my opinion (idea, thought, belief) is that, be of the opinion that, take the view that, have an idea that (no idea of), have knowledge (experience) of, be certain of (that), be conscious of, be clear about, it is clear (to me), have a grip of, have a good knowledge of, see (his point of view, what you have in mind), get (have) the sense of, have a memory of, have (keep) it in mind, put it (it goes) out of one’s mind, have no memory of etc.

(2) Phrases expressing the meanings of ‘Feel,’ ‘like,’ ‘approve,’ ‘want,’ etc.—

Have a feeling of (that), be feeling, be conscious of, put one’s hand on (over), be pleased with, have a taste for, take (a) pleasure in, be a lover of, it has a place in one’s heart, give one’s approval to, have a desire for, would be pleased to have, be in need of 等。

(3) Phrases expressing the meanings of ‘Learn,’ ‘teach,’ ‘show,’ ‘try,’ etc.—

Get it into one’s head, be learning, get an idea of how to, get knowledge of, do (English) (at school), get it by heart, be a teacher of, give teaching (training) in, be teaching, be training, make it clear to, let him see it, put it on view, take him round (over, through), give signs of, make an attempt (to, at), be attempting (to), see if one is able to etc.

(4) Phrases expressing the meanings of ‘Buy,’ ‘sell,’ ‘promise,’ ‘find,’ ‘destroy,’ ‘kill,’ ‘pain,’ ‘hurt,’ etc.—

Get it (at a store), give money for, keep (have) it (in one’s store), put it on the market, let it go (in exchange for money), get a (good) price for, be marketing, give one’s word (to), undertake, come across, see it (by chance), make the discovery of, be responsible for the destruction of, put an end to, put him to death, give him pain, be paining, do damage to, be damaging 等。

(5) Phrases expressing the meanings of ‘Grow,’ ‘sleep,’ ‘die,’ ‘begin,’ ‘finish,’ etc.—

Get taller (higher, fatter, greater), be in the process of growth (development, expansion), undergo development (expansion), come to full growth, go to (be in) sleep, have a sleep; his death took place; go to one’s death; come to one’s end; take one’s last breath; make a start with; get it started (going, open); be starting; be opening; come to the end of; get it done; get through; make it complete 等。

3. Other Notes—

(1) Phrases expressing the meanings of 'can,' 'ought,' 'must,' 'shall'—

Be able to..., it is possible for me to..., get (have, there is) a chance of...-ing; it is right (wise) for me to do..., it is my business to do..., have to..., it is necessary for me to..., be forced to....

In non-interrogative contexts, “shall” is expressed through “will.” However, “Shall I do it?” is expressed as “Am I going to do it or not?” or “Am I wise to do it?”

Will* is an auxiliary verb that simply indicates an action will be performed in the future, but when emphasis is added, it is used to express determination or intention.
*Would* is used not only as the past tense of *will* but also to express the subjunctive future.
For example, as in “All would now be well if you had come.”
Basic English does not distinguish between 'shall' and 'will'.
And since the majority of people who speak Standard English are indifferent to this point, in almost all cases, even if *will* is used in place of *shall*, it would go unnoticed.
However, in interrogative sentences where *shall*—as in “Shall I go?”—conveys meanings such as “Is it your desire that…”, “Am I wise to…”, or “Is it necessary…”, it is stylistically preferable to employ substitute forms as previously outlined.
Since no distinction is made between *shall* and *will*, consequently there is no need to consider the distinction between *should* and *would* as long as it aligns with that of *shall* and *will*.
However, *should* has three usages not found in *shall*, and substitute phrases must be found for these.

*Basic English*, pp. 58–9.

a. Valid: Instead of "You should do your best," use "It is right for you to do your best."

b. Scheduled: Instead of "The order was that I (or he) should go," use "The order was that I was to go," "...for me to go," or "My order was to go."

c. Subjunctive future: Instead of "If he should come, we should go," use "If he came, we would go."

(2) Phrases expressing the meanings of 'Each,' 'altogether,' 'whole,' 'few,' 'many,' 'too,' 'once'—

For 'each,' use *every one (separately)*; for 'altogether,' use *quite* or *completely*; *the 'whole' group* becomes *all the group*, and *the 'whole' story* becomes *the complete story*.
In many cases, "a few men" can be expressed as "two or three men."
However, when uncertain, it is safer to say *a small number (of)*.
For 'many,' use *a great number (of)* or *quite a number (of)*.
For "too many," use *more than enough*, and for "too tired," express it as *over-tired*.
For *He is "too" tired to go*, express it as *He is so tired that he is unable to go*; for *He is tired and ill "too,"* use *He is tired and ill in addition* or *He is not only tired but ill*.
"Once" (曾て) is expressed as *at one time* or *in the past*.

(3) Phrases expressing the meanings of 'Ago,' 'already,' 'yet,' 'since,' 'next,' 'always,' 'unless,' etc.—
For "a long time ago," one says *a long time back* or *in the old days*; "already" is expressed as *in the past* or *before*.
When expressing "so far," one may use *so far* or *up to now*.
Moreover, a person who has "already" come there is now there.
However, if he has not come there "yet," then he is still not there.
In other words, "He is not there 'yet'" becomes "He is still not there" or "So far he has not come."
"And yet"—
The phrase 'and yet' carries the meaning of 'at the same time.'
For friends one has not met "since" last year, one may say they have not seen them *for a long time*.
Events that have occurred "since" that time are equivalent to saying they occurred after then.
However, when saying "Let's go to bed since it's late," "since" conveys the meaning of "because."
"Next" (次に)—
What is meant by 'next' refers to what one intends to do after this.
However, "next"—
When one does ('next') something, it indicates doing it again (*again*).
Furthermore, this house referred to as "next" ('next') means the house nearest to it.
"Always" (何時も)—
The word 'always' is generally expressed as *at all times*.
Moreover, when particularly considering future intentions—as in the statement "I will always remain your friend"—it becomes more appropriate to use *for ever*.
*Without change* and *withoutend* serve as suitable phrases for expressing other similar meanings.

“If… not”
The expression (‘unless’) can be simply expressed using *if* and *not*.
For example, “It will not be done ‘unless’ I do it” becomes “It will not be done if I do not do it.”

(4) Phrases expressing the meanings of ‘busy,’ ‘deaf,’ ‘world,’ ‘life,’ ‘husband’—

"A 'busy' person can simply be expressed as *a man with much business*." However, it is generally more appropriate to say "He is working hard" or "He has much to do." A "deaf" person is someone whose hearing is poor. When discussing the "world" in reference to the entire Earth we inhabit, it is expressed as *the earth*. However, in cases where "the whole world" was surprised, one uses *everyone*. In a different sense, for instance, the changing "world" can be expressed as *things* or *conditions*. Something that possesses "life" has existence. However, when *life* refers to entities possessing vitality—that is, living beings—it is expressed as *living things* or *all living things*. The term "life" can also be expressed as *living* in certain cases; for example, as seen in the phrase *Living is interesting*. In general terms, "husband" corresponds to a *married man*. However, when it appears in a sentence, there may be more convenient alternative expressions—for instance, her first "husband" can be expressed as *the man she was first married to*. However, when asking "How is your 'husband' today?," in Basic English one would say "How is Mr. X today?" When using Basic in this manner, it is necessary first to consider what the main points of what one intends to convey are.

V. Basic and English Education

(1) In foreign language learning, relying solely on memorization and attempting to teach mechanically not only pointlessly increased the burden on memory and frequently instilled aversion in learners but also completely neglected the essential characteristic of foreign language instruction: the cultivation of critical thinking skills.
This proved highly detrimental to the mental faculties of young people.
However, given that Basic by its inherent nature required analytically considering meaning as one proceeded, it necessitated the utilization of thinking skills.
In this respect, Basic stood as highly dynamic.
In English-to-Japanese translation and similar tasks, there prevailed a tendency to merely apply so-called literal translations as if completing the task sufficed, without paying any attention to the original meaning or context.
The situation remained much the same with paraphrasing.
While having students learn new expressions through paraphrasing might have been one objective, the most crucial purpose lay in ensuring their comprehension of the original text.
Therefore, it could be said that if a paraphrase became more difficult than the original text, its value was effectively halved.
In Basic however—there being a limit to its word count and only elemental vocabulary available for use—the system did not permit methods relying solely on the mechanical technique of replacing terms with synonyms of equivalent complexity.
It became absolutely necessary to dig one level deeper into the interior, logically analyze the original text’s meaning, and thoroughly investigate it.
Thus they came to always keep the entire meaning of sentences in mind.
Accordingly, by having them convert ordinary English into Basic, one could test the students’ practical ability.
And since Basic possessed a simple linguistic structure, it proved convenient for practice across various aspects.
Mr. Richards—drawing on his experience teaching English at Cambridge and Harvard Universities—particularly emphasized this point by taking a passage from *The New Republic* as an example and appending a Basic translation to explain it.
The original text read:

In brief, the educational significance of modern socialdevelopment is to emphasize the need fora liberated intelligence. This in turn requires, first, a reorganization of educationalagencies so that theory may operate freely on thelevel of practice, and, secondly, a consideration of the question of whether and towhatextent weare willing to acceptthe principle ofa free intelligenceas a basis for our social outlook or philosophy of life.

Thus, the corresponding Basic translation is:

┌ i education on developments in society

To putit shortly, the effects of┤

└ii developments in societyon education

make clearer (greater) the need forminds which are free (which have been made free).

These we will not get without, first, a new organization of the ways (instruments, workers) in education, by which theory may be put into use (may become a guide to our acts) without trouble (being stopped, waste). And second, it is necessary to give an answer to the question: Are we ready, and how far are we ready, to take the free operation of thought as the general rule controlling our outlook on society (as men in society) or our theory of what is right (our beliefs, our ideas, and acts).

It reads as follows.
And Mr. Richards pointed out that the original text contained many ambiguous passages.
For instance, at the beginning of the second sentence, it appeared to assert either that *a need for a liberated intelligence* 'required' two things or that *a liberated intelligence* 'required' those things—but I had taken it in the latter sense.
I interpreted the meaning of 'requires' not as referring to the demands of intelligence when it had become free, but rather as indicating what was necessary when attempting to liberate intelligence.
The original text remained sufficiently confused to allow several other interpretations.
I chose this example partly to demonstrate the resolving power that Basic possessed in relation to such texts.
Basic did not so much reproduce a single meaning as rather provide us with choices among possible interpretations of meaning.
Therefore, knowing Basic became an effective aid even for British and Americans in thoroughly explaining the meaning of English texts, as stated in 1.

1 I.A. Richards: *Basic in Teaching: East and West* (1935; Psyche Min.), pp. 82–3.

Furthermore, Mr. Empson (William Empson, 1906–), a poet and critic who once studied mathematics, also stated: “When one becomes fluent in Basic’s vocabulary and its highly straightforward grammar, even if they occasionally develop odd mannerisms, people need not feel particular discomfort.
...portions of Basic’s structure that may prove more challenging than Ogden anticipated—such as replacing ‘forget’ with ‘it slips out of my mind or memory’—make for excellent mental discipline.
This stems not from some quirk of a foreign language, but because one must employ metaphors rationally.
Basic constitutes an eminently rational tool.
I sometimes convert particular sentences from English into Basic to determine whether they become nonsensical.”
as stated in 2.

2 William Empson: “Teaching Literature”
(*Bungei*
February 1934).

Furthermore, what came to mind in relation to this was the close correlation between mathematics and linguistics that Mr. Terada Torahiko had advocated.
That is: "In entrance examination results, there generally exists a correlation between mathematics scores and linguistics scores—though of course there are exceptions.
Could there not be some essential commonality in mental processes between these two disciplines?
Language serves as a tool for our speaking, but more fundamentally as an instrument for thinking.
In mathematics, one first establishes several axiomatic premises, then proceeds to analyze their contents through logic and systematically reconstruct them from these analyzed elements; yet the process of developing thought through our language bears notable similarities to this.
When considered practically, the methods of learning mathematics and linguistics appeared to share remarkably similar essential principles.
To acquire a language, one must first learn vocabulary and grammar.
However, mere superficial understanding and rote memorization would leave one unable to speak independently or compose texts.
Only through prolonged training and complete internalization could one finally make it a vehicle for conveying one's own thoughts.
Even in mathematics, simply comprehending all textbook material and lecture notes proved insufficient for practical application.
It went without saying that one needed thorough mastery of symbolic meanings, while also memorizing numerous formulas to make them truly one's own—otherwise actual calculation remained challenging.
It seemed difficult to determine whether human thought processes could be rendered as error-free as mathematical computation.
'However,' he continued, 'we might develop our language—or rather our modes of thinking—to at least approximate that ideal.'"
As noted in reference 1, this remained a crucial consideration for those of us engaged in language education.

1 Terada Torahiko: *Matter and Words* (1933, Tetsuto Shoten).

(2) Since Basic English’s vocabulary and its appropriately combined phrases maintain fixed quantities from inception—with learning objectives displayed visibly at a glance—this arrangement provides learners with motivation akin to knowing a land’s general geography before traveling there while rendering it markedly easier for instructors to teach systematically and methodically from an integrated perspective at all times.

That 600 of its 850 vocabulary items take noun form makes evident Basic English’s nature as a system where nouns perform crucial roles.

A key advantage of such noun-centric linguistic organization lies in its heavy utilization of pictorial instruction methods—enabling learning progression from concrete objects.2

Concurrently through exclusion of so-called verbs deemed non-essential and unnecessary—the system substantially reduces memorization burdens.

Though fundamentally simpler than many languages—English becomes considerably harder when initially introducing 100 strongly conjugated verbs.

This difficulty arises from requiring memorization of at least 200 irregular past and past participle forms accompanying those verbs.

Yet Basic English’s 850 words—encompassing all word categories found in standard English—prove exceptionally convenient for imparting minimal foundational linguistic knowledge.

2 Otto Neurath: *International Picture Language* (1936; Psyche Min.) and *Basic by Isotype* (1937; Psyche Min.). See references.
(Isotype is an international picture language designed for education through the eye.)

(3) In Basic, since the same words and phrases constantly recur within its reading materials, their usage becomes naturally imprinted in the mind, enabling learners to assimilate a fixed number of essential words and phrases as their own without wasted effort.
Thus they manage to quickly express thoughts and emotions.
In other words, before long, they cease being mere bystanders to English and acquire a portion they thoroughly command.
This constitutes the most vital first step in learning any language.

In English language learning, there has been much advocacy for the necessity of extensive reading-based materials; however, in addressing this objective, Basic English differs from other so-called simplified texts in that it was originally devised as an international auxiliary language and comes prepared with a certain number of specialized terms for use in various popular scientific, commercial, and other purposes—thus enabling it to provide many reading materials that are simple in vocabulary yet considerably advanced in content.
Many such publications1 have already been published.
Therefore, Basic English differs from vocabulary that is primarily useful for describing stories and similar works.
Regarding this, Mr. Ishiguro Ryohei has long expressed his aspiration: “Vocabulary.
Whether we speak of thousands or tens of thousands, unless we truly and rationally determine what unit is being counted, it remains an entirely empty debate.
In popular reading materials on general topics, those that mechanically tabulate word frequency based on printed forms ultimately amount to meaningless vocabulary lists.
Upon scrutinizing representative studies in the field such as Edward L. Thorndike’s *The Teacher’s Word Book*, one discovers that they truly only reach halfway in their considerations.
Therefore, many people ought to gather and, based on subjective judgments and certain objective conditions, select the vocabulary they deem necessary, organize it into semantic groups, and calculate their number.
‘The level [of vocabulary]—if it is established that middle school graduates can understand it without a dictionary and once this is publicly demonstrated—only then can we rest assured.’”
as stated in 2.

1 The Basic New Testament; Inez Holden: Death in High Society; J. Rantz: The Meno of Plato; Michael Faraday: The Chemical History of a Candle; J.B.S. Haldane: Science and Well-Being; H.S. Hatfield: Inventions and Their Uses in Science Today (Penguin); H.S. Hatfield: European Science; L.W. Lockhart: Basic for Economics; I.A. Richards: Basic Rules of Reason; P.M. Rossiter: Basic for Geology; S.L. Salzedo: Basic for Business; S.L. Salzedo: A Basic Astronomy; J.W.N. Sullivan: Living Things; E. Evans and T.H. Robinson: The Bible: What It Is and What Is in It; Raymond McGrath: Twentieth Century Houses; and so on.

2 Ishiguro Ryohei: *Foreign Language Instruction: A Study of Principles and Methods* (1930, Kaitakusha), p.49.

(4) As one of its major organizational features, Basic eliminates so-called verbs—those most difficult and troublesome to learn—and instead uses only fundamental verbs as “operators”: give, get; take, put; come, go; keep, let; make, say, see, send, do, have, be, and seem. While these are vigorously employed independently, their combination with prepositions and adverbs to perform the functions of thousands of verbs—as previously explained—renders Basic an extremely idiomatic form of English.

Regarding this matter, I once heard something directly from a distinguished senior colleague that struck me as profoundly insightful.

The anecdote involved a renowned economist who, during his stay in England, observed a Japanese gentleman fluent in English conversing with a British counterpart. Reflecting later, the economist marveled: “They were constantly using *get*, *put*, *have*, *do*, and prepositions like *on*, *in*, and *at*—yet their dialogue flowed with remarkable fluency.”

Thus, to develop genuine mastery of English conjugation, one must achieve thorough familiarity with the inflection patterns of these Anglo-Saxon-rooted basic verbs.

Without this foundation, learners may grasp complex concepts yet paradoxically fail to communicate mundane matters—a contradiction that frequently arises.

Would it not then prove ultimately effective—from the comprehensive standpoint of English pedagogy—to rigorously drill these fundamental verb usages from the earliest stages of instruction?

Lafcadio Hearn, whose exceptional pedagogical talents are widely acknowledged, notes in his essay “Kyushu Students” from *Out of the East* that pupils in Japanese higher schools remain unaccustomed to plain English styles.

There persists a general tendency to favor grandiose vocabulary over modest terms and to craft lengthy, intricate sentences rather than concise ones.

This likely stems from employing relatively challenging texts for translation exercises.

The idiomatic English expressions employing simple phrases appear particularly arduous for Japanese students.

This phenomenon ultimately originates in psychological divergences between Eastern and Western peoples.

To rectify this inclination, I began occasionally composing amusing tales using single-clause sentences with monosyllabic words to demonstrate simplicity; conversely, assigning composition topics inherently requiring brevity—such as “My First Day at School”—yielded considerable success.

I relate this observation to underscore its implications.

I believe these methods hold instructive value for teaching conversation and composition.

In the advanced stages of Basic English, 250 idioms are established, and at a further advanced stage, another 250 idioms for reading are prescribed; through this, as L.P. Smith has also pointed out, it becomes possible to economize on the use of many verbs. However, it seems that people who do not fully understand the Basic system harbor a concern: might not the acquisition of these idioms prove difficult for learners?
And these people argue that instead of memorizing the idiomatic expressions required by Basic English, learners would find it easier and more effective to memorize 200 or 300 new words.
However, when this issue is thoroughly examined from various perspectives, their claim cannot necessarily be said to be correct.
In other words, the usage of Basic English’s “Operators” and “Directives” is ultimately indispensable for all purposes of English acquisition; moreover, the slightly more advanced usages provided later are equally essential as new vocabulary for reading or speaking any form of English.
At the same time, it serves to help build a more solid foundation of knowledge regarding the basic usage of Operators and Directives.
However simple and easy new words may appear at first glance, for learners, they carry with them pronunciation, spelling, irregular inflections, usage, and other idiosyncrasies that teachers commonly overlook.
Moreover, this is particularly true in the case of words commonly used in everyday life.
(For example, such as the various usages of the verb ‘bear’.)
However, since Basic English forms a coherent system, needlessly teaching other words during its study would instead disrupt this organization and hinder the functionality of Basic vocabulary.
Even if one were to increase other words however much, until one has fully mastered the 850 words, practical effectiveness cannot be expected.

The idiomatic expressions of Basic English emphasized being natural developments from the thoroughly understood meanings of basic words like “operators” and “directives” for each term—a process equivalent to semantic expansion. They consequently excluded expressions that were overly idiomatic. The greater part of Basic’s organizational effort had been devoted to creating a detailed catalog of these idioms, with the results compiled in *The Basic Words*. Since every word comprising these expressions carried clear meaning, their combined idiomatic sense could be readily grasped. These concrete, vivid formulations even held an advantage over Latin-derived terms—which compressed multiple concepts into single words—by imprinting themselves more sensorily upon learners’ minds. We teachers often note how one aspect of English proves harder to learn than another, yet we must recognize that such difficulty largely stems from instructional methods and material handling. Forcing idioms and collocations before learners grasp their components’ meanings merely burdens memory to no purpose.

(5) Since Basic English is, in essence, *a limited English* rather than *a changed English*, when advancing from Basic to standard English, there naturally exist no points where one would encounter hindrances or need to relearn—needless to say—and the solid foundational knowledge acquired through Basic becomes an excellent natural stepping stone to standard English.

Regarding this, Mr. Ogden states as follows:
"For those who have completed mastering Basic—itself constituting a fully organized system—and who wish to gradually supplement their knowledge, the necessary chain of links has been prepared for advancing from Basic to standard English.
Namely, vocabularies expanded in stages—the 150 words following the initial 850 (making a total of 1,000 words), then subsequent 350 words following these, further increasing to 500 words, then expanding to 1,000 words, or (including key points of verb usage) to 2,000 words—along with certain specialized vocabularies, have all been selected based on the same principles governing the original 850-word selection.
Moreover, Basic itself in this context consistently functions as the learning foundation.
Here lies a crucial point requiring particular attention:
It becomes evident that most of the 850 words listed in the vocabulary table possess usages beyond those recognized by Basic as an international auxiliary language.
Furthermore, during certain phases of standard English acquisition, when these extra-regulatory usages expand Basic's framework, their natural incorporation becomes inevitable.
However, during initial stages, one must refrain from modifying Basic's core structure.
That is to say, until progressively expanded vocabularies provide the analogous word forms necessary for comprehending derived terms and inflections outside Basic's regulations, the Basic system should remain intact.
Otherwise, confusion becomes unavoidable.
Moreover, introducing fifty special verbs at an optimal juncture—specifically after complete mastery of all 1,500 words—proves indispensable for transitioning into standard English.
Therefore, primary supplementary vocabulary should first address 150 names of animals, plants and foods lacking international distribution.
Following pictorial word additions comes the first-stage supplementary vocabulary of 350* (nouns and adjectives), succeeded by second and third supplementary vocabularies.
Simultaneously, specialized vocabularies prepared for applying Basic to science, commerce, economics and The Basic Bible may be gradually incorporated upon reaching the supplementary vocabulary's final stage at 2,000 words."
1.

＊ absence, accident, address, adventure, advice, age, agent, ago, along, also, always, ambition, anchor, ankle, arrangement, ash, awkward, balcony, barrel, beard, beat, behind, belt, bet, blame, blanket, both, bottom, brave, breakfast, breast, bubble, bud, bunch, burial, busy, calculation, call, capital, carpet, case, ceremony, chair, character, child, chimney, china, choice, civilization, clay, clever, collection, column, communication, concert, concrete, convenient, cool, corner, cost, crop, cross, cunning, date, demand, department, dew, difficulty, dinner, disgrace, dislike, ditch, dive, divorce, doll, dreadful, dream, dull, duty, each, easy, economy, effort, either, employer, empty, enemy, envelope, envy, evening, exact, excitement, exercise, explanation, explosion, expression, eyebrow, eyelash, failure, fair, famous, fan, fastening fever figure financial flash flesh flood flour forecast forehead foreign forgiveness fresh frost frozen funny fur furniture gate generation germ god grand grateful grease grief grocery ground guard guess gum habit handkerchief handle heavy hedge hill holiday home honest honey human hunt hurry hurt husband imagination innocent institution intelligent invitation jam jaw jealous jerk joint jug juice jury justice kennel kidney kitchen knock lace lame lamp large lawyer lazy lecture legal lesson lever licence lid life lime liver load local loop luck lump lunch lung magic manner many marble marriage mast mattress mean meaning medicine member mess message mill mineral model modern modest mood moral moustache mud murder nasty nature navy neat neglect neighbour nest next nice nostril nurse obedient officer orchestra organ origin oval own pad pair pan paragraph party passage patience pedal people perfect plaster poetry pool practice praise prayer prick priest progress promise proof proud pupil pure race real reference remark remedy repair result revenge rich rise rival rude rust sale satisfaction saucer scratch screen search selfish sentence set shave sheet shell shoulder show sight since sleeve social soldier sorry spark spirit spit splash spot stable stair steady storm strain straw stream string study subject success sum supply surface surgeon suspicious swing sympathetic tailor tame tap tear tent thief thimble threat tie toe towel tower traffic tragedy trap travel treatment truck tube tune tunnel twin typist ugly understanding universe valley vegetable victim victory vote weak welcome whether widow wife wild world wreck wrist yawn.

1 Basic English, pp. 83-4.

(6) After solidly acquiring the practical use of Basic’s 850 words, one would always be able to systematically implement the Direct Method through the “English through Basic” approach when handling standard English teaching materials.
Moreover, one could compile readers annotated with necessary notes using only Basic.
For these purposes, two types of Dictionary 2 were also published.

2 C.K. Ogden: *The Basic Dictionary*. Being the 7,500 most useful words with their equivalents in Basic English. For the Use of Translators, Teachers and Students (who have a knowledge of normal English). Kegan Paul. 1932. And *The General Basic English Dictionary*. Giving more than 40,000 senses of over 20,000 words, in Basic (chiefly for the use of learners of English). Evans. 1940.

In language learning, it is extremely important to cultivate the habit of dynamically observing linguistic phenomena, organically investigating them, and thereby treating them as living entities.
The effectiveness of learning—particularly in vocabulary usage—must always be made clear to learners: it does not depend on the mere quantity of words memorized as individual units, but rather on the thorough understanding and application of a carefully selected set of basic words, even if their number is small.
In Jūkendō matches, we constantly observe that final victory is determined by the very small number of techniques one has most mastered.
Aimless vocabulary inflation in the early stages of learning is something that should be cautioned against.
Furthermore, in Basic English, restrictions are also imposed on phrasing methods, with simplicity and directness being the guiding principles.
For example, relative pronouns are limited to *who* and *which*, and instead of using *as* to mean “because” or “since,” *because* is exclusively employed.
Furthermore, it adopts the form *“It is better for you to go.”* rather than *“You had better go.”*
As model sentence patterns demonstrating word order, examples such as *'We will give simple rules to you now.'* and *'The camera-man whomade an attempt to takea moving picture of the societywomen, before they got theirhats off, did not get off theship till he was questioned by the police.'* have been provided.

(7) Using Basic English as the first stage of learning English is akin to bending low to spring upward, or to thoroughly practicing fundamental swimming techniques in a pool before venturing out into rivers and seas.
In Basic English, since methods of expressing certain meanings are restricted, those already proficient in English may initially find it constraining and perceive its expressions as monotonous; however, for beginners, its regular linguistic usage and clear foundations prevent their focus from scattering—through constant organization of thought-expression patterns, learning conversely gains effectiveness.
Moreover, even ordinary individuals who have studied English will find it remarkably convenient if they apply Basic English—with which they are familiar—to daily conversations, compositions, letters, and similar uses: they can select words without futile hesitation, avoid awkward errors, and promptly meet urgent needs—something I have consistently experienced.

According to Mr. Richards’ practical teaching experience in China, 500 words from Basic vocabulary were first taught in the initial academic year, enabling educators to impart accurate foundational English knowledge over approximately two years—thereby achieving significantly better results than through conventional methods.
*I believe it is now time for our country as well to verify Basic English’s value through implementation rather than debate.*

*I.A. Richards: “Basic English and its Applications.” (Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, June 1939.) p. 745.*

In the teaching of English at our nation’s secondary schools，striving for accuracy and completeness was undoubtedly of utmost importance．However，might an excessive fixation on the slogan of “Correct English” not conversely hinder practical progress？As Professor G.P．Krapp has stated，I think we should now allow for a certain degree of clarity in expression．It was all too common to forget the original purpose through excessive reverence for tools．There were those who said that Chinese culture failed to develop because its people overly cherished and cultivated Chinese characters．Progressive educators should not merely dwell on pointing out shortcomings of new teaching methods；instead，they should recognize strengths inherent in their structure and apply them in teaching．Innovation always begins with simplification grounded in principles．The students must be rescued from overwork．Where simplicity reigns，passion burns，power arises，and abundance overflows．