C. K. OGDEN : A Collective Memoir
    PART E :  C. K. OGDEN AS AUTHOR

        (3) Counter-Offensive . Written in 1935 as a critic of critics of his own work, in this case part of a rebuttal of criticism of Basic English. To this I have added a brief introduction and I. A. Richards comment which carries Elsie Graham's analysis of Basic English (above pp. 153-160) a step further.

    (3)  Counter-Offensive

    (A)   EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

        C. K. Ogden was witty as well as formidable in controversy and never more so than when defending Basic English against alternative methods of simplifying the language. In 1935 he published, through the Orthological Institute Counter-Offensive, an "Exposure of Certain Misrepresentations of Basic English". Originally written in May 1934 for private circulation, the "counter offensive" was made on West and colleagues' Critical Examination of Basic English.*
        This examination, to quote Ogden's preface to Counter Offensive.
    "was the outcome of more than two years labour with six collaborators, yet any one familiar with the literature which it professed to examine could detect at a glance the grossest errors and misrepresentations on every page; and the critical dogmas on which it is founded have long been abandoned by every linguist of repute. It seemed incredible that anyone would take it seriously, but the carnegie imprimatur seemed to vouch for its authenticity. A claque intervened behind the scenes to rescue it from the fate it deserved; a chorus supervened to render it nocuous:
          "Cf for a trenchant criticism of defects in Ogden's list Michael West, Bulletin 2," says Professor R. H. Fife in the Carnegie volume, Experiments and Studies in Modern Language Teaching (Chicago, 1934).
          "Those who wish to gain a more detailed knowledge of Basic English should read . . . A Critical Examination of Basic English," advises Dr P. B. Ballard, in his Thought and Language (London, 1934).

        "For a scientific and detailed criticism of the project, see A Critical Examination of Basic English," says the official refutation of Basic published by the British Esperanto Association.
        "The 850-word-list is still the same, but the criticism made by Professor Michael West and others, that the learning weight of the 850 is equal to over 3,000 words, is not answered," is the presumptuous and superficial echo of Mrs Aiken, in American Speech, October, 1934.
    Ogden's preface continues
    One knows how a misquotation or a misprint may be copied for generations from the works of one expert or another, without a verification of the reference, until the perversion becomes standard. The reader of the following pages will be in a position to judge for himself the extent to which the writers of the above had checked the material thus recommended or endorsed.

        Accordingly Ogden attacked the complete text of Bulletin No. 2 written by West, Swenson and others, and plastered its pages with accusing fingers superimposed on the text pointing at the more egregious errors. To appreciate fully the total effect it is worth reproducing here from Counter Offensive (published by the Orthological Institute) three consecutive pages of West's text (his pp. 29-3 1) covering his Tables XVIII, XIX and XX befingered by Ogden, followed by his "page-by-page" refutation of this text (pp. 139-148).
      -----
      * A criticism by Ogden of West's own list of words is contained in an article by "Adelyne More" How not to make a Dictionary (1935) which can readily be referred to in the 1935 Vol. (XV) of Psyche, published by Kegan Paul.

    (B)   TEXT OF MICHAEL WEST ET AL, A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF BASIC ENGLISH.*
    with fingers pointing to errors superimposed by Ogden

       Each finger is associated with a refutation. For example in Table XVIII below West et al want chalk rejected from Ogden's word list as only useful to children, but Ogden points his finger of scorn at this rejection of item (3), as well as items (4) and (17), because of a lack of consistency. (3) is rejected because it is used only by children (4) chemicals, is rejected because according to West it is of little use to children and (17) plane, because "no use to girls nor majority of boys".
        The Basic Vocabulary contains a number of words of low value or narrow meaning which might, West suggests, be replaced by other words of greater and wider utility, -- or omitted.
      -----
      * . Bulletin No. 2, University of Toronto Press, 1934. pp. 29-31.

    TABLE XVIII

    SOME WORDS OF VALUE IN THE BASIC VOCABULARY WHICH MIGHT BE REPLACED BY MORE USEFUL WORDS OR OMITTED
    BASIC WORD :REMARKS AND PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE :
    1 . Canvas. -used to replace Sail and Tent, but of very little use otherwise. Sail and To sail would be better for the one use, and Camp or Tent for the other.
    2 . Camera. People who can afford to buy a camera can afford to learn an extra word; outside Europe these are few. In the wealthier countries and in Europe "Kodak" is almost an "International word",-and this word is actually used in the Basic Dictionary.
    3 . Chalk. Useful in a school, but not to adults.
    4 . Chemical. Of little use to children since there is already a phrase for "medicine".
    5 . Complex. "Complicated" would be better. But the idea is sufficiently covered (for a 1000 word vocabulary) by "Hard to under-stand", "Has many parts".
    6 . Elastic. "To stretch" would be more widely useful.
    7 . Expert. "Skill-ed" would be more useful : -or "Experienced" (in list) and "Learned" (derived from Learning).
    8 . Fertile. -soil = "good"; -woman, "has children".
    9 . Glove. Useful only in colder climates.
    10. Grip. Probably Basic uses Grip so as to get the stretched meanings "understand" and "interest"; it is a far less useful word than Hold.
    11. Kettle. A rather unimportant item in non-tea-drinking countries- especially to boys.
    12. Linen. -as material is comparatively rare. Other senses are adequately covered by "Cloth", "Clothes", "Cotton".
    13. Monkey.Not common, nor important.
    14. Muscle. "Strong" is better. (Details of the body are not important words in a small speaking vocabulary, as one can point).
    15. Oven. To bake.
    16. Paste. To stick.
    17. Plane. No use to girls, -nor to the majority of boys.
        (wood--).
    18. Plough. Not needed by town children. Country children do not have occasion to discuss Ploughs in English, but use the native word.
    19. Prose. = "not verse" ("Verse" is in Basic).
    20. Rice. Unimportant in Europe.
    21. Sex. Not needed Basic has got Male and Female.
    22. Smash"An accident" would be wider in meaning and applicability
    -and "By accident" is a useful idiom.
    23. Sneeze.Very unimportant.
    24. Sponge. Little used in the tropics (because of scorpions).
    25. Umbrella.Important in Southern India, less so in Europe, still less so in dry areas.
    26 Tray.Unimportant, especially to boys.
    27. Whip."A stick", "Hit".
    28. Worm.Unimportant as a subject of conversation.

        6 . "It is claimed that, in respect of its Content words ( the names of the things which we talk about) the Basic vocabulary is equally applicable to every age of learner, every country and degree of culture." This is not a fact.

    TABLE XIX

    EXAMPLES OF CONTENT WORDS in BASIC ENGLISH WHICH ARE OF MINOR IMPORTANCE TO A CHILD LIVING IN TURKEY, PALESTINE, EGYPT, SUDAN, TROPICAL AMERICA, INDIA, BURMA, CEYLON, SL4iss, MALAYA, CHINA (total population about 900,000,000, or half the population of the world)
    1 .	Air-cushion
2 .	Automatic machine
3 .	Ballet
4 .	Bar (Drinking-)
5 .	Baseball
6 .	Beef
7 .	Beer
8 .	Blackberry
9 .	Blackbird
10.	Blow-pipe
11.	Buttonhook
12.	Bluebell
13.	Café

    14.	Camera
15.	Canvas
16.	Chauffeur
17.	Circus
18.	Cocktail
19.	Complex, A-
20.	Conditioned reaction
21.	Dynamite
22.	Egg-cup
23.	Embassy
24.	Encyclopaedia
25.	Gas cooker
26.	Glove

    27.	Harmony
28.	Insurance
29.	Jazz
30.	Kettle
31.	Linen
32.	Opera
33.	Passport
34.	Plane (for wood)
35.	Psychology
36.	Radium
37.	Referendum
38.	Sponge
39.	Torpedo

    TABLE XX

    ITEMS IN "THE BASIC WORDS" WHICH MIGHT BE OBJECTED TO IN THE ABOVE COUNTRIES 
    1.	Alcohol
2.	Ballet
3.	Backside
4.	Bar
5.	Beef
6.	"Desire for a woman"
7.	"He is her lover"
8.	Hiccup
9.	Interest (on money)
10.	Kiss*
11.	"Make eyes at - -
12.	Pig
13.	Sex-desire
14.	To have sex relations with
15.	Wine
16.	Worse for drink (and other references to drink)

        In the following respects Basic English is unsuitable for use in an American environment : - Carriage (used for Truck, Wagon), Tin (used for Can), Chemist (used for Drug Store), Electric Train (used for Street-car), Flat (used for Apartment), Lift (used for Elevator). Certain other essential words are omitted, e.g. Sure, Cream, To check.
      -----
      * Kissing is an indecent act in certain parts of Africa. The word is of course necessary (and less objectionable) in a reading vocabulary, but may not be included in a speech course.

    (C) TEXT OF OGDEN'S COUNTER-OFFENSIVE AGAINST HIS CRITICS' TABLES *

    Page 29, Table XVIII
    The critics "suggest" that 28 words of the 850 might be replaced by their own nominees.
        The procedure is remarkable. Full verbs are needed to cover one use of canvas (No. 1; incidentally it does not "replace Sail," which has always been in the Basic list), the adjective elastic (No. 6), and the nouns grip (No. 10), oven (No. 15), paste (No. 16), and whip (No. 27).
        The needs of the child are made paramount in rejecting chemical (No. 4), and plane (No. 17), but the needs of the schoolchild are dismissed to facilitate the rejection of chalk (No. 3). The little boy is to have the final voice as regards tray (No. 26) and even kettle (No. 11), but the little girl pipes up with him when town children express their contempt for the plough (No. 18). Boy Scouts and Girl Guides would be allowed their Camps (No. 1), but all they could boil in them, especially the boys, would apparently be the rejected tea (No. 11); the critics having overlooked the uses of a kettle for boiling -- water ! When, however, they grow up and learn something about the international diffusion of tea, they must eschew kettles because of their infantile disabilities.1 Moreover, Big Boy, why do we need man for such eclectic tots ?
        Monkey (No. 13, unlucky anthropoid). Not common, nor important. Way down in Tennessee, they know so too.2
        Complex (No. 5) is certainly "complicated". Perhaps that is the reason why two new words, "many" and the verb "to understand", would otherwise be necessary to cover it.
        Camera (No. 2). Here the criterion is ability to pay. But unfortunately Basic has to cover the whole technique both of International Moving Pictures and of photography in general. To talk only of "the Kodak-man" in such connections might be an amusing advertisement for an admittedly enterprising firm; but even were Mr Ford himself to come forward as the arch-patron of Basic, we might well hesitate to substitute "a Ford" for an automobile over the whole motor industry. Naturally, in The Basic Dictionary, it is legitimate to indicate the supplementary value of "Kodak" for the purposes to which it applies; but though "a Corona", or "a Havana", may also frequently fill a gap, even the most widely diffused trade-name is seldom a vocabulary-substitute for any and every object with which it happens to compete.
        Expert (No. 7) But how do the experts themselves develop "skilled" ? There being no verb "skill", there is no rule for forming it even in a verb-infested vocabulary; yet their hyphenated -ed shows that it is a derivative. The Basic rule, of course, says that in order to use an -ed derivative, not only must both the -er and -ing derivatives be possible, but the -ing form must be in common use. A "learned" man is seldom a radio expert, and the difference between "expert knowledge" and "experienced knowledge" is surely within the experience even of the expert.
        The rarity of linen (No. 12) and rice (No. 20); the unimportance of the muscles (No. 14); the prevalence of "scorpions" in rubber sponges (No. 24); the equivalence of a "whip" and a stick (No. 27); and the uselessness of umbrellas (No. 25) in Europe (!) and gloves (No. 9) in general, leave us as cold as the suggestion that nothing can be deliberately smashed (No. 22).
        Strangest of all is the argument that, if we can point, words are not necessary (No. 14). The implications of this criterion seem to have escaped the critic altogether. And the idea that literary criticism will be content with a dismissal of prose as "not verse" (No. 19) is also not without an element of humour. Finally, if a thing can be omitted because it does not frequently obtrude itself in conversation, a worm (No. 28) well might be outlawed as a despicable creature. But it is unwise to leave unnamed an animal which is so tiresomely ubiquitous -- especially in China; and when a worm does turn up, Basic is prepared for it. It also has the early bird which gets the worm. The critics would presumably object that it cannot "catch" it; but that is equally true of the human bird and the common cold -- though we may get one from the very unimportant sneeze (No. 23). Empires have been wrecked by a sneeze-which, as the masterly definition in The Basic Dictionary implies, is one of the most difficult words in the English language to circumvent, in addition to being one of the most noisome afflictions that flesh is heir to. Words should not fail us in such circumstances.
        We are left only with fertile (No. 8); and Table XVIII has certainly been fertile in ("good in ?" "having children in ?") futility. Basic is designed neither exclusively for the very young (with their alleged indifference to air-planes,3 kettles, and trays), nor exclusively for the town child (leaving the agriculturist to pipe his native field-notes wild), nor exclusively for the tropics (with their scorpions and their'gloveless extremities); nor can it admit the paramount importance of Fundamentalism (No. 13), Chance (No. 22), or Polite Conversation (Nos. 21 and 28). As an International Auxiliary Language, no less than as a universal teaching system, it must rise above these critical lowlands.
        In the past five years, we have been favoured by numerous suggestions, some of which have been both helpful and informative and will doubtless bear fruit in due season, but we have never before been presented with a list which so completely disregarded the issues both of internationalism and of true verbal economy. And so we are forced to dismiss Table XVIII, like its seventeen predecessors, if not with a sneeze ("very unimportant") at least as having been completely smashed-and not by accident ("a useful idiom").
      -----
      *   Original page numbers.
      1 . We are not surprised that sex is unnecessary (No. 21) on this criterion; but we would remind the critics that in the tropical countries puberty arrives with disconcerting rapidity. And, as Freud might ask : "Were you ever a child ?"
      2 . Reference to trial of schoolteacher for inculcating Darwinism (P.S.F.).
      3 . A plane is admittedly a "wood-plane" (No. 17), but its chief value is in helping us to cover the wide field of aeronautics.

    Page 30, Objection 6
    It is claimed that, in respect of its Content words ( = the names of the things we talk about) the Basic vocabulary is equally applicable to every age of learner, every country and degree of culture.
        "This is not a fact," the critics conclude; and as far as anything to be found in the Basic books is concerned, it certainly is not. It is a perversion of a sentence in Basic English which states (p. 75) that Basic is "an auxiliary language constructed to meet the needs of persons of all ages and communities at every stage of cultural development". There is no suggestion that every word in such a language is equally suitable for children or scientists, Turks or Africans. There may be only 850 words in the language, but they successfully cover the field which an auxiliary medium is called upon to cover, and the critics are not entitled to measure every linguistic system by the narrow gauge of their own endeavour.
        We have already pointed out in the Note to page 9, line 7 (where the misquoted sentence which is the source of the present objection is related to its context), the absurdity of a similar objection to French or Latin as a language suited for universal use. No language is inadequate for the purposes of any particular group merely because some of its words cover other fields than those with which a particular learner may be concerned. At the same time, since there are only 850 words to encounter, it is reasonable to expect any learner to be introduced to the vocabulary as a whole at the earliest moment when his mental capacity makes it possible for it to be understood. As a learner, he will concentrate only on that part of the vocabulary which he actually needs; and whatever he learns will be presented to him in his own language, and graded by an expert m that language who will be responsible for whatever selection may be necessary.
        It is clear that this elementary consideration alone suffices to dispose completely of Tables XIX and XX. But there arc points in each which may serve to indicate still more effectively the sort of mentality by which Basic is opposed.
    Page 30, Table XIX
        Thirty-nine words are listed as of minor importance to children living in twelve selected areas, one of them being Egypt and another the Sudan. The Sudanese child, we are told, does not need 16 of the words which Basic lists as available for international purposes. These are:
    Ballet, bar, beer, beef, cafe, chauffeur, circus, cocktail, dynamite, encyclopaedia, jazz, opera, passport, radium, referendum, torpedo.
        It does not need the international title Embassy, or the name of the international science Psychology; and it does not need three of the more insignificant compounds which may be formed from the Basic words (blackberry, blackbird, and bluebell). Of course not; and this covers 21 items, or more than 50% of the Table ! All of these are described as "found in Basic," with the implication that they are part of its so-called "content words".
        The "content words" of an auxiliary language are apparently those which it does not contain, whatever else may be meant by so inappropriate a term. Basic, as it has already been necessary to point out on several occasions, does not include its internationals in the 850, because it is merely concerned to record that they are internationally available; it does not make them so. And if a simple Standard English compound, such as blackbird, happens also to be available from two root words in the 850, and merely limits, without distorting, the sense of the constituents, it is the blackness of the bird which justifies the appearance of the compound in The Basic Words.
        What are we to make of the argument that because two words like automatic and machine may be used together by the mechanically minded to make "automatic machine", this "word" is found in the vocabulary; and that, in virtue of its minor importance to the infants of Ceylon and Malaya, it vitiates the vocabulary of Basic as a means of international communication ? No less than 6 of the 39 are "words" of this nature, the other 5 being air-cushion, blow-pipe, buttonhook, conditioned reaction, egg-cup, and gas-cooker. All appear in The Basic Words merely as examples of the ways in which the words in question may be used or put together !
        This leaves only ten words which can legitimately be "found" in the 850 list. Of these, complex is an adjective, with its noun-use (No. 19) available for psycho-analytic purposes; a plane (for wood), common though it is even in school-carpentry, might be questionable enough if it were introduced solely for the benefit of the joiner. But it derives more than half its value from its extension for a "plane (or planed) surface',"* with the compound, "air-plane", which, when we ourselves visited India so long ago as 1913, was well on the way to becoming an object of peculiar interest to boys (and girls) throughout the East, Near and Far, as well as in Egypt and the Sudan, where our friends report that whole schools now turn out regularly to watch the latest Cape to Cairo arrivals. The remaining eight are camera, canvas, glove, harmony, insurance, kettle, linen, and sponge -- all of which reappear from Tables XVI and XVIII and are here irrelevant for the same general reasons.
        Eight genuine candidates in a list of 39-all ploughed, despite the juvenile population of the Sudanese oases; leaving Table XIX also without a leg to stand on.
      -----
      * Basic recommends that the word should be taught in this way, in conformity with the principle that takes advantage of every concrete or picturable element in introducing the fundamental sense to learners of every description.

    Page 30, Table XX
    We blush for Table XX.
        Sex is ruled out as unnecessary in Table XVIII because "Basic has got Male and Female". Male and Female created he them, but he still wished us to be able to say "Sex is unnecessary," even in Basic, without resorting to "Male and female are unnecessary," which on West's principle of substitution would be our only alternative. And since when did India drape its lingams, or Diana of the Ephesians mutilate the Hermae of the Near East, or the 450 millions of China object to sex-desire (No. 13, again an unlucky number for Bulletin No. 2), or sex-relations ? It is entertaining to find that desire for a woman (No. 6) as well as a lover (No. 7) is nowadays objectionable in the land of the Arabian Nights Entertainments.
        As usual, a large percentage (in this case 35%) of the entries are words which Basic records as internationally available (alcohol, ballet, bar, beef), intelligible onomatopoeic sounds (hiccup), or compounds derived from the fundamental senses of the words (backside : West and Swenson favour the ruder "bottom"; others, we believe, prefer "fundament", "posterior", "buttocks", or "rump"). It would be unfortunate for the Siamese, Burmese, and Indo-Chinese if ballet were really taboo in the East, for of recent years we have been led to a juster appreciation of the art-forms of these countries by the triumphs of their highly-trained ladies in the capitals of Europe.
        It is true that there are countries where a kiss (No. 10) is regarded as an erotic gesture,1 but it is for the most part in these countries that interest (on money, No. 9) is at present reaching what in America are called "all-time highs". Moreover, throughout the ages, the interest of Shylock in his pound of flesh has been as intense as his abhorrence of bacon; and delightful porkers, whose attractive little pigs go to market in the arms of the youthful natives of many of the areas named by the critics, are a salient feature of the instructive films for which our collaborators have frequently been responsible.
        If the reader will turn to the sociological contributions to the 220-volume "The History of Civilisation", which it has been our privilege to edit during the past ten years, in relation to the general Basic background, he will find that more than forty of them contain data concerning the status and diffusion of the "items" here discussed. The schools and the public have suffered greatly at the hands of amateur anthropologists, but Table XX reaches new "all-time lows" even in this much-bowdlerised and little assimilated branch of knowledge. Does the fact that inebriation is objectionable either make it less prevalent or words in which to describe or proscribe it less necessary ? If wine (No. 15) were really excluded from the diet or the pleasure of more than half the world's population, that could only be because its consumption was specifically prohibited by name; and to object to the mere fact that in Basic anyone can be said to be the worse for drink (or any other indulgence or experience) is to ask for a special pedagogical niche in Mr Mencken's Americana -- where Table XX now rightly belongs.
        As a supplement to the Table itself, some items "unsuitable for use in an American environment" are selected with a view to strengthening the impression that the vocabulary of Basic is unsuitable for international use. But the extension of carriage to cover other sorts of carrying vehicles than road-carriages, like the extension of tin to cover "a tin", or the use of electric in "a street-electric"2 are intelligible everywhere. Trucks, cars, and trains may have a great variety of local alternatives but even in America the foreigner, like the Englishman, will in these cases find himself merely a little less specific than the native. Chemist is an international item recorded by Basic as available, and its relation to "ding stores" is sufficiently understood throughout America to make it useful in this connection. Flat may sometimes be less familiar than "apartment" for a self-contained suite of rooms, but again its use is perfectly intelligible. Only in the case of a lift (another minor extension) would any considerable number of Americans be in doubt, for in "lift" versus "elevator" we have what amounts to a temporary dialectal differentiation, of which Basic awaits the outcome -- without, however, denying its patrons the use of one of the alternatives.
        As for "sure", "cream", and "to check" as essential words, they sure are the cream of our check. For the semi-slang uses of "sure" (in which alone it differs from English wage) are quite unnecessary; "cream" may be a little more prevalent in America than in Europe, but "cream" and "milk", as words, are used exactly as in standard English, and Basic has milk; and "to check" (besides being inadmissible in Basic as a verb) is no more essential for a Basic vocabulary in New York than in London.
        The conclusion drawn from all this, that "it is impossible for any vocabulary to be equally suitable for all ages and all environments", is therefore another obvious non sequitur. For any international vocabulary, an occasional local taboo, or an occasional local divergence, may render this or that word less suitable for local use. That is something which Basic has never denied; all such divergences are recognised, admitted, and as far as possible allowed for. There is no claim such as the critics have concocted, and consequently no failure (line 15). In spite, therefore, of such minor opportunities for cavil, the requirements of an international language are not impossible to meet, nor does Basic fail to meet them.
      -----
      1 . Even so (unless Christianity itself is to be eliminated from the international preserve because it is objectionable to so many Confucians, Buddhists, and Mohammedans) it remains the standard salute of the Apostles (including Judas) and the most prevalent greeting of mothers, lovers, and married persons in all Christian countries. The critics have probably forgotten, too, that the hand or the toe may equally be the subject of osculation; but in any case their anthropological statistics are here farcical.
      2 . An "electric train", is, of course, not used in Basic for a street-car. It refers always to what it might be expected to cover, namely an electric train.

    COMMENTARY ON OGDEN's COUNTER-OFFENSIVE
    I. A. Richards

        Admirable minds are seldom if ever at their best in controversy; enough examples, from Milton down, spring to mind to suggest that the impulse to reply destructively to attacks is indeed a temptation : something to be resisted, a movement to be refrained from whenever possible. Ogden's response to the misrepresentations aimed by opponents of Basic English both at its overall purposes and at the minute particulars of the recommendations are, I think, no exception. Granted that their allegations were false, deliberate and prompted by business interest, as well as, at times, discreditably careless, inept and absurd, I still hold to the view that the inventor of Basic would have done better to ignore them. Even his mental resources could not afford what they cost him in time, trouble and irritation. But it was clear to him that this was at bottom commercial warfare : Basic threatened publishers' profits. He felt that what was for him and his associates a Cause -- something deeply concerned with reasonable hopes for human communications would be impeded if these accusations were not decisively refuted. Hence, for example, Counter-Offensive, one of the most sustained and relentless polemics to be found. Characteristically, its title is one of Ogden's multiple puns : beside the military sense of the compound term, the first member alludes to the fact that his opponents relied upon word-counts, were radically word-counters insensitive to other considerations. In addition offensive carried the other meaning the OED lists : "insulting, disgusting, ill-smelling, nauseous, repulsive... ." I fear, though, that this sort of thing-which recurs throughout-was a bit beyond most of the readers of The Interim Report on Vocabulary Selection to whom it was nominally addressed. Its real audience was Ogden and his collaborators. I was close enough at the time and had seen enough about the acute thought and scrupulous care that had gone into the shaping of Basic to understand how exasperating were charges from hacks who did not even bother to check which words were and were not on the Basic list-let alone note the well-stated why and wherefore. I wish, however, he had abstained from reply.
        Sometimes his refutations took effect. I recall how the leading traducer sped up to Cambridge to beg me to plead with Ogden to let him off the exposures he deserved. But Ogden knew too much and felt too strongly about textbook sales -- maneuverings to be so placated.
        What surprised me then and has puzzled me through four following decades is that no capable inquirer has yet made a detached, evidenced study of the issues between Ogden and those who then attacked Basic English. It would be wise to include some of those who, without checking, have repeated those aspersions. There is a case here awaiting thorough investigation. The very disparity in awareness, energy and scope between Ogden and his attackers here should invite attention from those able to discern it. The potential service of saner views than those that obtain at present is obvious. It may be worth while therefore to quote from an account of the design-problem of Basic English presenting, I believe, a fair sample of Ogden's thinking (Basic English and its Uses, 1942). It starts with the contrast between the first column of the Basic Word List on pp. 184-185 (100 operators) and the remaining 750. Without these structure words an elementary English could not work or would not be a normal English. They are the necessary manipulative words of the language, its formal machinery -- the others are the words it manipulates, the words that label and carry most of the content that the language has to handle. None the less the structure words are necessary in a way in which only a disputable portion of the others are. Even the most necessary of the other words are necessary in another manner.
        The structure words are necessary because without them certain required forms of English sentences would not be possible. Content words are necessary because without them we could not talk about certain matters or discus certain ideas. The first is a formal necessity; the last is a matter of practical convenience. Accordingly, the drawing up of a list of structure words, and a recognition of its sufficiency and economy, called for one sort of talent -- the drawing up of the rest of the list called for wider and different abilities. Whether you agree or not as to the list of structure words depends upon your grasp of essential English syntax and of the forms of thought that must be able to be expressed. Whether you agree or not as to the rest of the list depends partly upon your view of what the people using the language should be able to talk about, partly on your insight as to which words will best allow them to talk about as much of it as possible. It depends too, upon the extent of your experience in making as few words as possible go as far as possible and yet be normal English. It depends, in fact, upon the skill and pertinacity of your experimentation with this problem.
        A first answer supposes that the most necessary words will be the most frequent. Let us, therefore, count words and list those that appear most frequently. This plan does not work badly with the structure words. We should note, however, that the ten most frequent words (the, of, and, to, a, in, that, it, is, I) are most frequent because they are most indispensable, not the other way around. High frequency suggests that the word may be important for a limited vocabulary. It does not prove that the word is necessary. Too many authorities on word frequencies have been far from clear on such points, and have too often argued from a word's frequency to its importance, as though other factors were of less consequence. Such a view always shows that the real problems of the undertaking have not been understood.
        It is when we turn from the words of Column One to the nouns and adjectives that the necessity of distinguishing between the widest general-utility considerations and frequency considerations becomes evident. It is, of course, easiest -- a great saving of reflection -- to assume that nature and the habits of mankind have settled the matter and that the most used words must necessarily be the most useful ones. But, alas, in no department of human affairs is the most usual thing necessarily the thing of most use. And it is far from being so in language. The favourite adjective and the popular adverb, "fugacious as spring hats and parlour games", stern indispensable in their hour and tower up to giddy heights on the word-frequency counter's graph. Twenty-five years later they are as unfortunate for the foreigner who has acquired them as its date on an egg. The Bengal lawyer with his "Topping !" and "Ripping !" is only a shade more absurd than the Brazilian who has acquired his "absolutely" through a word-count recommendation.
        Absolutely, for example, has been ranked as the 1,101st most frequent word in a compilation, representing a total of 10 million word-occurrences. A student of verbal fashions could date the materials of the count from a few such facts. Absolutely, it will be noted, does no work that very, certainly, completely, at all, and quite will not, in one way or another, do better. In all but a few contexts absolutely is an absolutely (completely) meaningless intensifier, adding nothing but emphasis. There is absolutely (certainly) no need for it in any limited word list. We can be absolutely (very) sure that our learner will never miss it. Isn't this true ? Absolutely ! (quite ! certainly ! and completely !). We may note for contrast, however, that the adjective absolute has an important set of senses which are hard to represent with other words. The various oppositions of the absolute and the relative are the framework of all speculation from Parmenides to Einstein. It is interesting that one of the emptiest of adverbs should derive so from one of the fullest of adjectives. Go one step further, turn the word into a noun and the Absolute becomes the everything, or, if you prefer it so, nothing.
        But to return to the choice of the simplest set of nouns and adjectives that together will cover the widest range of need. Frequency has a minor, though important, role here. Other things being equal, if two equally desirable words cover much the same ground, the more frequent word is to be included. Obviously its higher frequency will make it more useful. And being heard and met with more often, it will be more easily learned. On the other hand, having chosen it, we omit the other word even though its frequency may be only slightly less, and very much higher than that of many other words. But we include these other words because without them great provinces of human concern would remain inexpressible.
        Clearly for the choice of the words in this list there was needed a truly catholic and encyclopaedic range of interests. Since all knowledge will be grist to this mill, since ideally our word list will be able to take anything that is said and rephrase it -- as to its notional analysis -- without damage to essentials, the quest for such a word list called for an extraordinary variety of general and particular awareness as well as for an extremely critical and discerning judgment in the use of English. And these gifts, in fact, come together for the task.
        It is not irrelevant that the inventor of Basic -- this seemingly academic polymath -- should (alas ! that I have to change the sense !) have been an active man of affairs with more varied dealings than anyone but himself ever knew as well as a connoisseur of wide range needing Hearst's resources to be an equally multifarious collector (but Ogden would know the least last thing about each of his acquisitions). Such a man's judgment on the utility of a word is not to be taken lightly. Nor is it irrelevant that he should be a psychologist who was also a wit -- justly celebrated for the extravagance, the absurdity and the mordancy of his flashes.
        Contents
        Notes on Contributors vii
        Illustrations viii
        PART A :INTRODUCTORY1
        PART B : OGDEN AS EDITOR AND POLYMATH12
        PART C : THE INVENTION OF BASIC ENGLISH133
        PART D : EXAMPLES OF BASIC ENGLISH177
        PART E : C. K. OGDEN AS AUTHOR187
        Fecundity vs. Civilization 189
        Encyclopeadia Britannia192
        Counter-Offensive213
        Commentary    top 226
        PART F : C. K. OGDEN : A PLEA FOR REASSESSMENT231
        Appendix -- List of books edited by Ogden245