Perception of the sense of Gurdjieff's words
Although Gurdjieff is well-known for his invention of numerous neologisms, it may not be so obvious how his own peculiar use of language permeates his work. His spoken English and French have sometimes been commented upon by those who were with him, regarding his presumed lack of knowledge and of not following the usual rules [1]. For example, Nikolai de Stjernvall writes,
. . . his knowledge of English and French was restricted to a scant few words and expressions. His grammar, syntax and vocabulary were unique to him alone.
Ouspensky speaks similarly about Gurdjieff’s spoken Russian on their first meeting:
He spoke Russian incorrectly with a strong Caucasian accent . . . this accent, with which we are accustomed to associate anything apart from philosophical ideas . . . [2]
Gurdjieff himself says that (in 1924) he “decided to undertake a risky trip to America with many people among whom most, like myself, knew not one word of the local language [3].”
Yet, reports about the correctness and fluency of Gurdjieff’s English, French, German, Russian and so on, are very variable, and time and again we learn of his great interest in and knowledge of philology and of the roots of words. Louise March, who undertook the German translation of Beelzebub’s Tales, under Gurdjieff’s guidance, says,
New guests were surprised that he considered a single word or the flow of a sentence so very important, but we translators already knew Gurdjieff as “the teacher of exactness.” . . .
With Gurdjieff we came to use words precisely. He stated clearly that philology was a better route to Truth than philosophy.
We looked at roots of words. There were many philological disputes [4].
In addition, the diaries of Solita Solano and Kathryn Hulme are replete with discussions in English with Gurdjieff on etymology, and his frequent correcting of their English [5].