TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Bold text is denoted by @at signs@.
Some unusual letters and symbols are accurately represented with
Unicode characters. (Some handheld devices may not support combining
diacriticals such as the circumflex.) These are:
consonants with a circumflex accent ĉ ĝ ĥ ĵ ŝ;
letter c with an acute accent ć;
the diphthong ou with macrons ōū (many platforms do not support
the combining double macron);
and the calculus integral symbol ∫.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE
AND SCIENCE
INTERNATIONAL
LANGUAGE AND SCIENCE
Considerations on the Introduction of an
International Language into Science
BY
L. COUTURAT
Formerly Professor at the
University of Caen.
O. JESPERSEN
Professor at the University
of Copenhagen.
R. LORENZ
Professor at the Federal
Polytechnicum of Zürich.
W. OSTWALD
Professor emeritus of the University
of Leipzig.
L. PFAUNDLER
Professor at the University
of Graz.
TRANSLATED BY
F. G. DONNAN
Professor at the University
of Liverpool.
LONDON
CONSTABLE & COMPANY LIMITED
10 ORANGE STREET LEICESTER SQUARE W.C.
1910
BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO. LD., PRINTERS,
LONDON AND TONBRIDGE
PREFACE
The question of a so-called world-language, or better expressed, an
international auxiliary language, was during the now past Volapük
period, and is still in the present Esperanto movement, so much
in the hands of Utopians, fanatics and enthusiasts, that it is
difficult to form an unbiassed opinion concerning it, although a
good idea lies at its basis. Both the Volapükists and Esperantists
confused the linguistic aspect of the question with so many side
issues that, not only was it difficult to see the former in its
true light, but also the leaders of the various movements were
unable to guide them in the right direction. For this reason
discussions concerning an international auxiliary language appeared
with good reason to many people to be unpractical, impossible, or
indeed even ridiculous. Matters have, however, changed since the
_Délégation pour l'adoption d'une langue auxiliaire internationale_
has taken the matter up. This International Commission, with its
headquarters in Paris, and consisting of literary and scientific
men of eminent reputation, was entrusted with the task of
investigating the general question of an international auxiliary
language. The Delegation has, in the course of an activity
extending over seven years, succeeded in showing that a sound idea
lies at the root of the various movements for a universal language.
Freed from all extraneous considerations, this idea involves the
purely linguistic question of the introduction of an international
auxiliary language. On the other hand, the Delegation has found
that neither Volapük nor Esperanto have succeeded in solving the
problem. As, however, Esperanto was found to contain a number of
good principles, the Commission finally resolved to work out on
purely scientific principles an international auxiliary language
on the basis of Esperanto. The whole question of the introduction
of an international auxiliary language has thus arrived at a stage
in which it appears worthy of serious discussion. Under these
circumstances, the writers of this brochure considered it their
first duty to draw the attention of scientific and literary men to
the matter, and so initiate discussion.
The object of this book will have been attained, should they have
succeeded in explaining the present state of the question, and in
showing that it is already possible to discuss the introduction
of an international auxiliary language into science, and indeed
even seriously to make the attempt to carry it out. It may be
remarked that the five authors of this book live in five different
countries, and belong to three different languages. The very
considerable correspondence required for the production of their
book was carried out with the greatest success in the _Linguo
Internaciona_, whenever any two of the correspondents possessed
different mother-tongues.
Paris, Copenhagen, Zürich, Gross-Bothen, Graz.
L. COUTURAT, O. JESPERSEN, R. LORENZ,
W. OSTWALD, L. PFAUNDLER.
_March, 1909._
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
The scientific attitude of mind is necessarily critical, but
never sceptical without proper investigation and knowledge. The
Translator hopes, therefore, that English-speaking men of science
will not judge the question of international language before they
have quietly and dispassionately examined the arguments so ably
set forth in the following pages. It is not a question of "another
language"; it is a question of the final solution by the methods of
science of one of the greatest of scientific problems.
Internationalisation of thought is the motto of the twentieth
century, the device on the banner of progress. Science, the
Super-Nation of the world, must lead the way in this as in all
other things. Amidst the clangour and the clamour of political and
commercial strife, the quiet empire of knowledge grows, noiseless
and unseen. Let all those who believe that this peaceful empire is
destined to become the controlling force of the world assist in the
attunement of its common language.
The Translator wishes to thank his friend and colleague, Professor
J. P. Postgate, for having very kindly revised the translation of
Chapters III. and IV.
F. G. DONNAN.
UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL,
_March, 1910_.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface v
CHAPTER
I. The need for a common scientific language, by L. Pfaundler 1
II. The _Délégation pour l'adoption d'une langue auxiliaire
internationale_, by R. Lorenz 11
III. Linguistic principles necessary for the construction of an
international auxiliary language, with an appendix on
the criticism of Esperanto, by O. Jespersen 27
IV. On the application of logic to the problem of an international
language, by L. Couturat 42
V. The relationship of the international language to science,
by R. Lorenz 53
VI. The question of nomenclature, by W. Ostwald 61
VII. Conclusion; Reading, Writing, and Speaking, by L.
Pfaundler 69
APPENDIX I. _Linguo Internaciona di la Delegitaro_; grammar,
word-formation, list of grammatical words 75
" II. Specimen pages from the International-English
Dictionary 82
" III. An experiment in double translation 84
" IV. _Uniono di l'amiki di la linguo internaciona_;
extracts from the provisional statutes, and
membership form 86
INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE AND SCIENCE
CHAPTER I
THE NEED FOR A COMMON SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE
All who are occupied with the reading or writing of scientific
literature have assuredly very often felt the want of a common
scientific language, and regretted the great loss of time and
trouble caused by the multiplicity of languages employed in
scientific literature.
The remarkable and regrettable feature of this state of affairs is
that we once possessed, and have now lost, such a common language,
namely, Latin. Even in the first third of the last century Gauss
wrote a portion of his mathematical and physical papers in Latin,
and up to the middle of the last century the dissertations of the
scientific candidates at the German universities were translated
into Latin by their philological colleagues, since the former were
no longer sufficiently conversant with that language. The fall
of Latin as the language of scholars and men of science could
not, however, be prevented, nor does there exist the faintest
chance of its ever recovering its lost position. The reasons for
this are known to all. The rise and development of science, for
the expression of whose ideas the language of Cicero no longer
sufficed, the fall of scholasticism, with its Church Latin, the
diffusion of knowledge amongst people not possessing a university
training, the foundation of technical high schools, and, finally,
the growing national sentiment and jealousy of nations who sought
to further the spread of their national languages by using them
in the works of their scientific men--all this has contributed
to displace Latin by the modern national languages. The result
is that, instead of one common language for scholars and men of
science, we now possess three.
It is required or supposed that every scholar or man of science
should know at least German, French, and English. For the majority
of German scholars and men of science this may hold good, but in
the case of the French it is less true, and in the case of the
English least of all. The knowledge of these three languages is,
however, no longer sufficient, and that for the following reasons.
In the first place, several other languages must be taken into
account, for many Italians write only Italian, many Dutchmen
only Dutch, whilst numerous Russians, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians,
Scandinavians, and Spaniards employ only their national languages.
In this way much escapes general knowledge and recognition, or is
only accessible in a belated or mutilated form.
In the second place, the difficulty of a quick mutual understanding
is great, even for those who can command these three chief
languages. If one is possessed of a little natural talent, one can
by dint of industry and much loss of time easily get so far as to
read or understand a paper or a letter in a foreign language, but
when it comes to writing (replying) the task is incomparably more
difficult. One can, however, not assume, when a German scholar or
man of science replies in German to a letter written in French or
English, that he will be always understood.
The matter is much worse in the case of oral intercourse,
especially at scientific congresses. At these the three chief
languages mentioned above are usually now declared to be official,
that is to say, permissible for the delivery of papers. As a
matter of fact, however, the language of the country in which
the congress is held usually dominates. The German speaks French
in Paris, but the Englishman mostly only English, and demands,
as occurred at the recent Refrigeration Congress in Paris, the
translation into English of the papers read at the sectional
meetings. Only very few can take part in the discussions, and
many must be well content if they are able to understand the
usually rapidly delivered papers. Many an important criticism is
not made because one does not possess the expertness necessary
for discussing a question in a foreign language, and does not
wish to expose oneself to the chance of a rebuff, caused not so
much by ignorance of the matter in hand as by want of facility in
expression.
Every member of a congress has noticed that whenever the language
employed in the papers changes, a considerable number of the
audience leave with more or less noise, in order to avoid being
compelled to listen to a paper which they do not understand.
Congresses would be certainly much better attended were it not that
these difficulties keep many away.
One cannot hope that an increasing diffusion of the knowledge
of the three chief languages will cause these difficulties to
diminish, still less to disappear. They will, rather, increase
still more, since the number of national languages desiring to
take part in the work of civilisation is constantly growing.
Already, at the present time, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, and the
Scandinavian and Slavonic languages must be taken into account,
besides the three chief languages. National sentiment forces the
scientific men of these countries to use the national languages,
even when they perceive that this procedure does not conduce
to mutual understanding. Even if the scientific men themselves
were completely free from national _amour propre_, they would be
obliged by their fellow-countrymen to employ their own languages,
not so much for the purpose of advancing scientific knowledge and
learning as in order to contribute by means of their literary
and scientific works to the diffusion of their languages and the
advancement of their nations. Whoever has observed this phenomenon
will be forced to the conclusion that amongst scientific men, at
least in Europe, this state of affairs is getting worse rather than
better.
The increase of the participating languages involves an increase
of the periodicals, just at a time when a concentration of the
periodical literature is most desirable. The cost of subscriptions,
translations, storing, and registration, and the labour and time
spent thereon, increase from year to year. Above all, there is a
want of translators; ordinary interpreters are not sufficient,
since a special knowledge of each subject is required. Where are
such persons to be found in sufficient numbers? And how few and far
between are those who, when they possess the requisite training,
are willing to content themselves with the poorly paid remuneration
of a translator!
Bad or erroneous translations and faulty abstracts are very
harmful; it would be better in such cases that no translation
should exist, as then the original would have to be consulted.
These difficulties, many more of which could be mentioned, are well
known to all scientific men, since each has suffered more or less
from them.
The question then is, What remedy can we apply? One proposal
is to introduce into secondary schools the teaching of modern
instead of classical languages, in order to render the students,
after matriculation at the universities, capable of taking part
in international scientific intercourse. This proposal has arisen
from the view that the learning of modern _added_ to that of the
classical languages would overburden the secondary schools, whilst
the learning of modern languages at the universities would cause
equal or greater difficulties.
Few young people possess, during their years at the university,
sufficient keenness and moral courage to subject themselves to the
ordeal of linguistic studies, from which they have joyfully escaped
on their entrance into the university. Few possess at that age a
full conception of the usefulness and necessity of a knowledge of
languages. And it is just those young people who wish to devote
themselves to the professions of literature or science who ought to
devote their whole time and full powers to their professional work,
and not be obliged to break up their time with linguistic studies.
The proposal to exclude the classical languages from the secondary
schools has encountered, however, from many quarters very weighty
objections, the force of which cannot be denied, even by the
opposite side. We shall, however, not enter into this much-debated
question, contenting ourselves with the remark that at the present
day insuperable obstacles stand in the way of a complete or partial
substitution of modern for classical languages. Experience shows
also that the teaching of modern languages in schools seldom leads
to a practical result, although it must be conceded that nowadays,
with newer methods, much better results are obtained than formerly,
when the grammar, but not the practical use, was taught. If,
therefore, the teaching of modern languages cannot well be carried
out either at the universities or in the schools, there remains
only the time before school studies. It is, in fact, possible (as
is done in many well-to-do families), by means of a French or
German governess, to teach a child, besides its mother tongue, one
of these languages, in so far as its mental development permits. It
is probably inadvisable to teach more than one new language in this
way, in order to avoid injury to the child's own mother tongue.
Such a knowledge, however, is quite insufficient for the needs of
the young scientific man, and so the acquaintance with a language
gained in this way requires constant extension and development.
But even assuming that the young man continues the study of the
language that he has learnt as a child, or even indeed learns
another during his school days, he will possess at best that
approximate knowledge of the three chief languages which we
have characterised above as being neither qualitatively nor
quantitatively sufficient, because it does not suffice for oral
intercourse, and because other languages must be taken into account.
The proposal has, therefore, been made to choose, by international
agreement, _one_ of the national languages as a universal
_intermediary_ language. If everybody learnt this language, then
the difficulty would be surmounted.
This proposal is, however, still-born. Every attempt to realise
it is bound to be shipwrecked on the rock of national jealousy,
as has been often shown before, for it is evident that the nation
whose language was chosen would receive a very great advantage.
The widely spoken English language possesses, it is true, a very
simple grammar, but it would be very unsuitable for this purpose on
account of its extremely difficult pronunciation.
Just as science has succeeded in giving to the world a uniform
system of weights and measures by choosing instead of a national
unit of length one common to all nations, namely, the length of an
earth quadrant, so only that language could find general acceptance
which was based on the common possession of those peoples for whom
it was intended. By that we mean the stock of words common to the
three great families of languages, the Germanic, Romance, and
Slavonic.
Against this the objection will be raised: "An artificial
language; in other words, a Utopia! How could one think of
artificially creating a language, which, after all, is a living
and spontaneously developing organism? One might as well think of
artificially creating a live horse!"
It is true that one cannot make a live horse, but one can make
an automobile, which under certain circumstances may replace the
horse, and even excel its performance. But no one would think on
that account of totally doing away with horses. In a similar manner
the partisans of an artificial language have no wish to displace
the natural languages. In poetry and imaginative literature,
wherein the soul of a nation finds its highest expression, the
mother-tongue will always be supreme.[1]
"But it is unthinkable," one will say, "that an artificial language
would ever be generally accepted."
Such statements must be received with caution, for they have turned
out more than once to be wrong. The introduction of a common system
of weights and measures was also declared to be impossible at one
time, nevertheless it has since been carried out in science. The
construction of a system of telegraph wires connecting the whole
civilised world and a telegraph alphabet common to all nations
was declared seventy years ago to be an impossibility. Now it is
ancient history.
The maritime nations have agreed upon a common code of signals.
When the English sailor arrives at the Japanese coast, he
translates the sentences he wishes to transmit into numbers, which
he signals by means of flags, and the Japanese port official
translates the signalled numbers by means of the code into Japanese
sentences. Why should it therefore be impossible to introduce
instead of this intermediary _numerical_ language an intermediary
_word_ language, which would give expression to thought in a better
and more direct manner?[2]
"Quite so, but such an intermediary language would be much more
difficult to create than a code of signals arranged for a limited
number of words and phrases."
How would it be if this difficulty had been already overcome,
and the intermediary language already created and proved to be
serviceable?
"But that would amount to adding a new language to be learnt to the
ones we already have to learn; there would be no advantage in that!"
If, however, this "new" language was really not "new," consisting
mostly of words known to every educated person; if its grammar was
so simple that its principles could be learned within an hour;
and if, therefore, any educated person who knew a single Romance
language could learn the whole language in an incredibly short
time, would it not be an advantage to acquire it?
To prove this is a simple problem of permutations and combinations,
and the proof possesses all the certainty of mathematical
reasoning. We shall demonstrate that by an example.
Suppose a large town contains ten districts, each possessing a
pneumatic post-office. In order to connect each district with all
the others, one could lay from each of the ten post-offices nine
tubes to the remaining nine post-offices. That would require (10
× 9)/2 = 45 tubes. The problem could, however, be solved much
more easily and cheaply by connecting each of the post-offices by
means of a single tube with a central post-office, which would
receive and distribute all the letters, as is actually the case in
practice. We should then require only ten tubes.
Substitute now for the districts imagined above the languages,
German, French, English, Italian, Russian, Spanish, etc., with the
condition that every person speaking one language should be able
to correspond with everybody speaking a different language. In the
case of ten languages we should require for every correspondent
nine dictionaries, or altogether ninety dictionaries.
Every correspondent would have to know nine languages besides his
own. If, however, we employed an intermediary language, each person
would only require to know this language besides his own. The
matter is so simple and the advantage so exceedingly obvious that
one can only wonder why it has not been recognised and carried out
long ago.
It is quite self-evident that, if one wishes to become acquainted
with the imaginative literature and the inner thoughts and feelings
of a foreign nation, one cannot content oneself with translations,
but must study a language in its own country. But how many people
learn French in order to become acquainted with its literature?
The existence of an intermediary language would interfere with
such linguistic studies just as little as the invention of the
automobile prevents anybody from using a riding or carriage horse.
There is no necessity, therefore, for philologists or professional
linguists to be hostile to the project, since their sphere of work
and influence will not be in any way diminished thereby. On the
contrary, the creation of an artificial language has led to so
many interesting questions relating to the structure, and to such
a deeper insight into the nature of language, and has attracted so
many to its study, that this beautiful department of knowledge will
only derive advantage therefrom.
It is also remarkable that the original work of Dr. Zamenhof,
which in its principles was characterised by genius, but in its
execution was imperfect and therefore insufficient, has only
through the reforming labours of distinguished philologists
attained to that perfection of form and principle required to make
it the international auxiliary language of the civilised world.
The difficulty of the undertaking no longer lies in the language
itself, but, rather, in the task of inspiring all concerned, and
especially the leading thinkers, with the conviction that it is
practically realisable. If this conviction can be sufficiently
spread, the introduction of the auxiliary language will only be a
matter of a few months. In order, however, to form an opinion on
the possibility of this realisation, it is, in the first place,
necessary to become acquainted with the main principles, structure,
and origin of the language which we recommend.
L. PFAUNDLER.