International Language Part 18

THE CLAIMS OF ESPERANTO TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY: CONSIDERATIONS BASED ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE LANGUAGE ITSELF

I

ESPERANTO IS SCIENTIFICALLY CONSTRUCTED, AND FULFILS THE NATURAL TENDENCY IN EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE

All national languages are full of redundant and overlapping grammatical devices for expressing what could be equally well expressed by a single uniform device. They bristle with irregularities and exceptions. Their forms and phrases are largely the result of chance and partial survival, arbitrary usage, and false a.n.a.logy. It is obvious that a perfectly regular artificial language is far easier to learn. But the point to be insisted on here is, that artificial simplification of language is no fantastic craze, but merely a perfect realization of a natural tendency, which the history of language shows to exist.

At first sight this may seem to conflict with what was said in Part I., chap. x. But there is no real inconsistency. As pointed out there, there is no reason to think that Nature, left to herself, would ever produce a universal language, or that a simpler language would win, in a struggle with more complex ones, on account of its simplicity. But this does not prevent there being a real natural tendency to simplification-though in natural languages this tendency is constantly thwarted, and can never produce its full effect.

How, then, is this tendency to simplification shown in the history of Aryan (Indo-European) languages? For it must be emphasized that for the purposes of this discussion history of language means history of Aryan language.

The Aryan group of languages includes Sanskrit and its descendants in the East, Greek, Latin, all modern Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish, etc.), all Germanic languages (English, German, Scandinavian, etc.), all Slav languages (Russian, Polish, etc.)-in fact, all the princ.i.p.al languages of Europe, except Hungarian, Basque, and Finnish.

The main tendency of this group of languages has been, technically speaking, to become a.n.a.lytic instead of synthetic-that is, to abandon complex systems of inflection by means of case and verbal endings, and to subst.i.tute prepositions and auxiliaries. Thus, taking Latin as the type of old synthetic Aryan language, its declension of nouns and conjugation of verbs present an enormously greater complexity of forms than are employed by English, the most advanced of the modern a.n.a.lytical languages, to express the same grammatical relations. For example:

Nom. mensa = a table. mensae = tables.

Acc. mensam = a table. mensas = tables.

Gen. mensae = of a table mensarum = of tables.

Dat. mensae = to or for a mensis = to or for tables.

table.

Abl. mensa = by, with, or mensis = by, with, or from from a table. tables.

By the time you have learnt these various Latin case endings (_-a_, _-am_, _-ae_, _-ae_, _-a_; _-ae_, _-as_, _-arum_, _-is_, _-is_), you have only learnt one out of many types of declension. Pa.s.sing on to the second Latin type or declension, e.g. _dominus_ = master, you have to learn a whole fresh set of case endings (_-us_, _-um_, _-i_, _-o_, _-o_; _-i_, _-os_, _-orum_, _-is_, _-is_) to express the same grammatical relations; whereas in English you apply the same set of prepositions to the word "master" without change, except for a uniform _-s_ in the plural. As there are a great many types of Latin noun, the simplification in English, effected by using invariable prepositions without inflection, is very great. It is just the same with the verb.

Take the English regular verb "to love": the four forms _love_, _loves_, _loving_, _loved_, about exhaust the number of forms to be learned (omitting the second person singular, which is practically dead); the rest is done by auxiliaries, which are the same for each verb. Latin, on the other hand, possesses very numerous forms of the verb, and the whole set of numerous forms varies for each type of verb. In the aggregate the simplification in English is enormous. This process of simplification is common to all the modern Aryan languages, but they have not all made equal progress in carrying it out.

Now, it is a remarkable fact, and a very suggestive one for those who seek to trace the connexion between the course of a nation's language and its history, that the degree of progress made by the languages of Europe along their common line of evolution does on the whole, as a matter of historical fact, correspond with the respective degree of material, social, and economic advancement attained by the nations that use them. Take this question of case endings. Russia has retained a high degree of inflection in her language, having seven cases with distinct endings. These seven cases are common to the Slav languages in general; two of them (Sorbish and Slovenish) have, like Gothic and Greek, a dual number, a feature which has long pa.s.sed away from the languages of Western Europe. Again, the Slav tongues decline many more of the numerals than most Aryan languages. Germany, which, until the recent formation of the German Empire, was undoubtedly a century slow by West European time, still has four cases; or, in view of the moribund dative, should we rather say three and a half? France and England manage their affairs in a universal nominative[1] (if one can give any name to a universal case), as far as nouns, adjectives, and articles are concerned. Their p.r.o.nouns offer the sole survival of declension by case endings. Here France, the runner-up, is a trifle slow in the possession of a real, live dative case of the p.r.o.noun (acc. _le_, _la_, _les_; dat. _lui_, _leur_). England wins by a neck with one universal oblique case (_him_, _her_, _them_). This insidious suggestion is not meant to endanger the _entente cordiale_; even perfidious Albion would not convict the French nation of arrested development on the side-issue of p.r.o.nominal atavism. Mark Twain says he paid double for a German dog, because he bought it in the dative case; but no nation need be d.a.m.ned for a dative. We have no use for the _coup de Jarnac_.

[1]Though historically, of course, the Low Latin universal case, from which many French, and therefore English, words are derived, was the accusative.

But consider the article. Here, if anywhere, is a test of the power of a language to move with the times. For some reason or other (the real underlying causes of these changes in language needs are obscure) modern life has need of the article, though the highly civilized Romans did very well without it. So strong is this need that, in the middle ages, when Latin was used as an international language by the learned, a definite article (_hic_ or to) was foisted into the language. How is it with the modern world? The Slavs have remained in this matter at the point of view of the ancient world. They are articleless. Germany has a c.u.mbrous three-gender, four-case article; France rejoices in a two-gender, one-case article with a distinct form for the plural. The ripe product of tendency, the infant heir of the eloquent ages, to whose birth the law of Aryan evolution groaned and travailed until but now, the most useful, if not the "mightiest," monosyllable "ever moulded by the lips of man," the "the," one and indeclinable, was born in the Anglo-Saxon mouth, and sublimed to its unique simplicity by Anglo-Saxon progress.

The general law of progress in language could be ill.u.s.trated equally well from the history of genders as exhibited in various languages.

We are here only dealing with Aryan languages, but, merely by way of ill.u.s.tration, it may be mentioned that a primitive African language offers seven "genders," or grammatical categories requiring the same kind of concords as genders. In Europe we pa.s.s westward from the three genders of Germany, curving through feminine and masculine France (_place aux dames!_) to monogendric Britain. Only linguistic arbitrary gender is here referred to; this has nothing to do with suffragettes or "defeminization."

Again, take agreement of adjectives. In the ancient world, whether Greek, Latin, Gothic, or Anglo-Saxon, adjectives had to follow nouns through all the mazes of case and number inflection, and had also to agree in gender. In this matter German has gone ahead of French, in that its adjectives do not submit to change of form in order to indicate agreement, when they are used predicatively (e.g. "ein gut_er_ Mann"; "der gut_e_ Mann"; but "der Mann ist gut"). But English has distanced the field, and was alone in at the death of the old concords, which moistened our childhood's dry Latin _with_ tears.

Whatever test be applied, the common tendency towards simplification, from synthesis to a.n.a.lysis, is there; and in its every manifestation English has gone farthest among the great literary languages. It is necessary to add this qualification-"among the great literary languages"-because, in this process of simplification, English has a very curious rival, and possibly a superior, in the _Taal_ of South Africa. The curious thing is that a local dialect should have shown itself so progressive, seeing that the distinctive note of most dialects is conservatism, their chief characteristics being local survivals.[1]

It is probable that the advanced degree of simplification attained by the Taal is the result of deliberate and conscious adaptation of their language by the original settlers to the needs of the natives. Just as Englishmen speak Pidgin-English to coolies in the East, so the old trekkers must have removed irregularities and concords from their Dutch, so that the Kaffirs could understand it. If this is so, it is another ill.u.s.tration of the essential feature that an international language must possess. Even the Boer farmers, under the stress of practical necessity, grasped the need of simplification.

[1]Of course a difference must be expected between a dialect spoken by a miscellaneous set of settlers in a foreign land and one in use as an indigenous growth from father to son. But the _habitants_, as the French settlers in Quebec are called, who, like the Boers, are mainly a pastoral and primitive people, have retained an antiquated form of French, with no simplification.

The natural tendency towards elimination of exceptions is also strongly marked in the speech of the uneducated. Miss Loane, who has had life-long experience of nursing work among the poorest cla.s.ses in England, tabulates (_The Queen's Poor_, p. 112) the points in which at the present day the language of the poor differs from that of the middle and upper cla.s.ses. Under the heading of grammar she singles out specially superabundance of negatives, and then proceeds: "Other grammatical errors. These are nearly all on the lines of simplification.

It is correct to say 'myself, herself, yourself, ourselves.' Very well: let us complete the list with 'hisself' and 'theirselves.' Most verbs are regular: why not all? Let us say 'comed' and 'goed,' 'seed' and 'bringed' and 'teached.'" Miss Loane probably exaggerates with her "nearly all." For instance, as regards the uneducated form of the past tense of "to come," surely "come" is a commoner form than "comed."

Similarly the illiterate for "I did" is "I done," not "I doed," which would be the regular simplification. But the natural tendency is certainly there, and it is strong.

Precisely the same tendency is observable in the present development of literary languages. They have all inherited many irregular verbal conjugations from the past as part of their national property, and these, by the nature of the case, comprise most of the commonest words in the language, because the most used is the most subject to abbreviation and modification. But these irregular types of inflection have long been dead, in the sense that they are fossilized survivals, incapable of propagating their kind. When a new word is admitted into the language, it is conjugated regularly. Thus, though we still say "I go-I went; I run-I ran," because we cannot help ourselves, when we are free to choose we say, "I cycle-I cycled; I wire-I wired"; just as the French say "telegraphier," and not "telegraphir," -oir, or -re.

Considering the strength of this stream of natural tendency, it seems a most natural thing to start again, for international purposes, with a form of simplified Aryan language, and, being free from the dead hand of the past, to set up the simplest forms of conjugation, etc., and make every word in the language conform to them.

Indeed, this question of artificial simplification of language has of late years emerged from the scholar's study and become a matter of practical politics, even as regards the leading national languages.

Within the last few years there have been official edicts in France and Germany, embodying reforms either in spelling or grammar, with the sole object of simplifying. The latest attempt at linguistic jerrymandering has been the somewhat autocratic doc.u.ment of President Roosevelt. He has found that there are limits to what the American people will stand even from him, and it seems likely to remain a dead letter. But there is not the smallest doubt that the English language is heavily handicapped by its eccentric vowel p.r.o.nunciation and its spelling that has failed to keep pace with the development of the language. The same is true, though in a lesser degree, of the spelling and p.r.o.nunciation of French.

Since the whole theory of spelling-and, until a few hundred years ago, its practice too-consisted in nothing else but an attempt to represent simply and accurately the spoken word, most unprejudiced people would admit that simplification is in principle advisable. But the practical difficulties in the way of simplification of a national language are almost prohibitive. It is hard to see that there are any such obstacles in the way of the adoption of a simple and perfectly phonetic international artificial language. We dislike change because it is change, and new things because they are new. We go on suffering from a movable Easter, which most practically inconveniences great numbers of people and interests, and seems to benefit no one at all, simply because it is no one's business to change it. If once the public could be got to examine seriously the case for an artificial international language, they could hardly fail to recognize what an easy, simple, and _natural_ thing it is, and how soon it would pay off all capital sunk in its universal adoption, and be pure profit.

NOTE

This seems the best place to deal with a criticism of Esperanto which has an air of plausibility. It is urged that Esperanto does not carry the process of simplification far enough, and that in two important points it shows a retrograde tendency to revert to a more primitive stage of language, already left behind by the most advanced natural languages. These points are:

(1) The possession of an accusative case.

(2) The agreement of adjectives.

Now, it must be borne in mind that the business of a universal language is, not to adhere pedantically to any philological theory, not to make a fetish of principle, not to strive after any theoretical perfection in the observance of certain laws of construction, but-simply to be easy. The principle of simplification is an admirable one, because it furthers this end, and for this reason only. The moment it ceases to do so, it must give way before a higher canon, which demands that an international language shall offer the greatest ease, combined with efficiency, for the greatest number. The fact that a scientific study of language reveals a strong natural tendency towards simplification, and that this tendency has in certain languages a.s.sumed certain forms, is not in itself a proof that an artificial language is bound to follow the historical lines of evolution in every detail. It will follow them just so far as, and no farther than, they conduce to its paramount end-greatest ease for greatest number, plus maximum of efficiency.

In constructing an international language, the question then becomes, in each case that comes up for decision: How far does the proposed simplification conduce to ease without sacrificing efficiency? Does the cost of retention (reckoned in terms of sacrifice of ease) of the unsimplified form outweigh the advantages (reckoned in terms of efficiency) it confers, and which would be lost if it was simplified out of existence? Let us then examine briefly the two points criticised, remembering that the main function of the argument from history of language is, not to deduce therefrom hard-and-fast rules for the construction of international language, but to remove the unreasoning prejudice of numerous objectors, who cannot pardon the international language for being "artificial," i.e. consciously simplified.

(1) _The Accusative Case_

This is formed in Esperanto by adding the letter _-n_. This one form is universal for nouns, adjectives, and p.r.o.nouns singular and plural. Ex.:

Nom. _bona patro_ (good father), plural, _bonaj patroj_.

Acc. _bonan patron_ " _bonajn patrojn_.

Suppose one were to suppress this _-n_.

(_a_) Cost of retention of unsimplified form: Remembering to add this _-n_.

(_b_) Advantages of retention: The flexibility of the language is enormously increased; the words can be put in any order without obscuring or changing the sense. Ex.: _La patro amas sian filon_ = the father loves his son.

_Sian filon amas la patro_ (in English "his son loves the father"

has a different sense).

_Amas la patro sian filon_ (= the father _loves_ his son, but...).

_La patro sian filon amas_.

_Sian filon la patro amas_ (= it is his son that the father loves).

In every case the Esperanto sentence is perfectly clear, the meaning is the same, but great scope is afforded for emphasis and shades of gradation. Further, every nation is enabled to arrange the words as suits it best, without becoming less intelligible to other nations.

Readers of Greek and Latin know the enormous advantage of free word order. For purposes of rendering the spirit and swing of national works of literature in Esperanto, and for facilitating the writing of verse, the accusative is a priceless boon. Is the price too high?

N.B.-Those people who are most apt to omit the _-n_ of the accusative, having no accusative in their own language, generally make their meaning perfectly clear without it, because they are accustomed to indicate the objective case by the order in which they place their words. They make a mistake of Esperanto by omitting the _-n_, but they are understood, which is the essential.

(2) _The Agreement of Adjectives_

Adjectives in Esperanto agree with their substantives in number and case. Ex.: _bona patro_, _bonan patron_, _bonaj patroj_, _bonajn patrojn_.

Suppose one were to suppress agreement of adjectives.

(_a_) Cost of retention of agreement: Remembering to add _-j_ for the plural and _-n_ for the accusative.

(_b_) Advantages of retention: Greater clearness; conformity with the usage of the majority of languages; euphony.

Esperanto has wisely adopted full, vocalic, syllabic endings for words.