_THE "DÉLÉGATION POUR L'ADOPTION D'UNE LANGUE AUXILIAIRE
INTERNATIONALE"_
One of the most important problems of present day civilisation is
the introduction of an international auxiliary language.
We boast of our international intercourse. The civilised world
has extended to new nations and has embraced whole regions of the
earth, and yet, in spite of the magnificent means of material
communication, nothing of a similar nature has been done for the
purpose of uniting minds together in an equally practical manner.
Recently, however, an event has occurred at Paris which brings us
a step further in this direction. The _Délégation pour l'Adoption
d'une Langue Auxiliaire Internationale_, which was formed in 1900
as a result of the Paris Exhibition, has, after an activity of
seven years, arrived at a definite decision.
The very fact that modern international relations have brought
about such a delegation and entrusted it with work should be
sufficient to emphasise the importance of the problem. It is
not true that the need for an international auxiliary language
disappears with the knowledge of several national languages,
as has been asserted by many who, on account of their personal
knowledge, have not experienced it. This is especially true of some
philologists who overlook the fact that languages form the object
of their special studies, and draw conclusions from themselves
concerning the needs of others. Expertness in the use of languages
does not come so readily to the scientific investigator and the
technologist, whose work lies in other directions, and so it is
in these quarters that the movement for the introduction of an
international auxiliary language receives the greatest support. To
this must be added the fact that, as Ostwald has aptly remarked,
the scientific investigator regards language only as a means of
making himself understood. Language is _not_ for him something
"which thinks and poetises," but rather an instrument for conveying
his knowledge and wishes to other people, much after the fashion
whereby the musician is enabled to convey his feelings by means
of musical notation and the instruments of the orchestra. The
question of the suitability of a language is important in this
connection; and so it does not appear so very strange that it is
just the scientific investigators, technologists, and philosophers
who have never been quite satisfied with living or dead languages.
How otherwise can we explain the fact that it is just they who are
constantly solving philological problems and constantly occupied
with the invention not only of new signs and symbols (mathematical,
chemical, crystallographic), but also new words? The fact is that
science, philosophy, and technology are constantly waging a fierce
battle with existing languages. What they want is a language as
simple and clear as the fundamental laws of nature, as logical as
the precision of experiment, and as many-sided as the complexity
of the facts which it has to describe. And so they are constantly
working at the creation of this language, all the words invented
by science finding their way unceasingly through the channels of
technology into the general vocabulary. These words possess the
special property of being international, that is to say, understood
by all civilised nations, including the Japanese. We do not wish,
however, to stop at this stage of development; we wish to be able
to internationalise not only single ideas, but also the whole train
of thought. For this purpose it is impracticable to make use of
any of the national languages, since they are all so unsuitable,
illogical, capricious, and complicated that the student must learn
to steer clear of thousands of difficulties before he is able to
express himself fairly correctly. _It is possible to construct an
artificial language with such a regular structure that it can be
employed at once without making mistakes._
In accordance with these ideas, the programme of the Delegation was
as follows:--
"(1) It is desirable that an international auxiliary language
should be introduced which, though not intended to replace
the natural languages in the internal life of nations, should
be adapted to written and oral intercourse between persons of
different mother-tongues.
"(2) Such an international language must, in order to fulfil its
object, satisfy the following conditions:--
"(a) It must be capable of serving the needs of science as well
as those of daily life, commerce, and general intercourse.
"(b) It must be capable of being easily learnt by all persons of
average elementary education, especially those belonging to the
civilised nations of Europe.
"(c) It must not be any one of the living national languages.
"(3) The decision as to the choice of a language is to be referred
in the first place to the International Association of Academies,
but if the latter should refuse to consider the matter or come to
no decision, to the committee of the Delegation.
"(4) Circulars are to be sent to learned, commercial, and legal
societies requesting them to signify their approval of the above
programme."
The success of this appeal was extraordinary. It was now evident
for the first time how many thousands of people of all nations were
enthusiastically in favour of the introduction of an international
auxiliary language. The _État de la Délégation_, which the latter
published yearly, included on October 1st, 1907, in the list of
corporate bodies alone, the names of 310 clubs, societies, and
congresses, not a few of which possessed a membership exceeding
1,000. It is interesting to rapidly pass in review the extremely
varied character of the societies included therein. We find, for
example, commercial schools, chambers of commerce, merchants'
clubs, stenographers, the printing trade, correspondence bureaus,
photographic clubs, associations of municipal and other officials,
societies of shipping employés, legal clubs, pedagogic and
religious societies, officers' clubs, institutes for the deaf
and dumb and for the blind, sociological, medical, and health
societies, peace clubs, political and graphological societies,
touring, bicycle, and automobile clubs, sport clubs, bibliographic
societies and library staffs, and finally all sorts of special
scientific societies and congresses. Arranged according to
nationality, we find representatives of France, England, Germany,
Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, Greece, Italy, Belgium, Norway,
Sweden, Holland, Russia (including Poland), Roumania, Austria
(including Bohemia and Hungary), Mexico, Peru, the Argentine,
Algeria, Tunis, the United States, Chile, etc. There is also
the "academic list," which contains the names of no less than
1,250 professors, belonging to 189 universities, technical high
schools, and academies of science, and coming from 110 parts of
the globe, extending as far as India and Japan. It may be stated
without exaggeration that the programme of the Delegation found an
enthusiastic response in all parts of the world and from people
of nearly every occupation and profession, many persons and
societies expressing themselves in favour of the introduction of an
international auxiliary language on the condition that it should
not be one of the living languages.
During the seven years of its existence the Delegation has
carried out the duties entrusted to it in an exemplary manner,
and has performed a gigantic amount of work. In May, 1907, the
Delegation considered the time had come to lay the matter before
the International Association of Academies. At that time the report
was very wide-spread that the Association had altogether refused to
consider the matter. In reality the Vienna Academy, as President of
that year, decided to bring the question before the Association,
but the latter declined to take the matter up (twelve votes to
eight, one member not voting). At this point the Delegation had
the right and the duty to speak out. It obtained an expression of
opinion from the representatives of all the associated societies
and clubs. The result of this was the formation of a working
committee, consisting of sixteen members, almost entirely scholars
and men of science of reputation and members of the different
scientific academies. With the representatives of natural science
and mathematics were associated philologists and linguists. The
committee began to sit on October 15th, 1907, and, after eighteen
sittings held in the Collège de France, arrived at a decision.
Before we enter into this matter more fully it will be desirable
to give a brief sketch of the historical development of artificial
language.
Anyone desiring to go more deeply into the history of this question
(already three hundred years old) and the practical attempts at its
realisation may be referred to the masterly work of L. Couturat and
L. Leau, _Histoire de la Langue Universelle_ (Paris, 1903). In what
follows only a few of the most important points will be mentioned.
The oldest extant reference to the problem of an international
language appears to be contained in the letter written by
Descartes on November 20th, 1629, to his friend Mersenne. The
great philosopher here explains the principles which convinced him
that it would be possible to construct an artificial language
which could be used as an international auxiliary language. As
for Leibnitz, who was attracted throughout his whole life by this
problem, his language projects have been recently investigated
by L. Couturat by means of documents, many of which have never
before been published (_La Logique de Leibnitz_ and _Opuscules et
Fragments Inédits de Leibnitz_). There may further be mentioned the
_Ars signorum Vulgo Charakter Universalis et Lingua Philosophica_
(London, 1661) of George Dalgarno, and the recently discovered
memoir of an unknown author entitled _Carpophorophili Novum
inveniendæ Scripturæ Œcumenicæ Consilium_ (Leipzig, 1734). The
last-mentioned system in particular strikes one as highly modern in
principle.
It was only, however, at the end of the last century that the
era of practical things began with the Volapük of Schleyer. The
success of this language was very considerable. It possessed about
thirty journals, published in the most different countries, even
in Japan, and its literature has been estimated at from 300 to
400 works. The official lists published in 1889 contained the
names of 255 local groups belonging to the "Universal Language
Society," some of which possessed a very considerable membership.
The teaching of the language was highly organised, there being
900 teachers, 200 head teachers, and 50 "professors." This great
linguistic experiment was very instructive, and its significance
cannot be underrated. Important conclusions concerning the theory
and practice of artificial language can be drawn from it, and
especially from a consideration of the circumstances which finally
led to the downfall of Volapük. It turned out that this was due
to the errors which Volapük itself contained, showing us that in
these matters, as in others, practical experience is the best
teacher. The fate of Volapük was sealed when its supporters, in the
year 1889, made the experiment of organising a congress at which
Volapük should be spoken. Although a few Volapükists succeeded in
speaking the language, it was only too painfully evident that such
a goal could not be reached with this system. Almost simultaneously
with Volapük another artificial language had been invented. The
Russian medical man Dr. Zamenhof published his system in 1887 under
the pseudonym of "Doktoro Esperanto." But as Esperanto arrived
while Volapük was at its zenith, it failed at first to attract
general attention. It found, however, in France, an enthusiastic
supporter in the Marquis de Beaufront, who had himself worked out
an international language called "Adjuvanto." He gave this up as
soon as he came to know about Esperanto, and founded the _Société
Française pour la Propagation de l'Esperanto_ and the journal
_L'Esperantiste_ (now in its tenth year). France soon became the
centre of the new movement, and indeed almost the whole existence
and magnitude of the Esperanto movement was due to the influence of
this man. Since then Esperanto has extended to all countries. The
Esperanto journals appear mostly in a bilingual form, the number of
them being, as in the Volapük movement, about forty-five, whilst
there exist a few journals and periodicals published exclusively
in Esperanto. A special significance attaches to the international
congresses organised by the Esperantists, at which only Esperanto
is spoken. In 1905, at Boulogne-sur-Mer, there assembled 600
members, belonging to about fifteen different nationalities.
The differences of pronunciation which, on account of certain
peculiarities of construction in Esperanto, must necessarily appear
amongst the Romance nationalities and the English, were not, we
are told, sufficiently marked to prevent mutual comprehension.
The second congress took place at Geneva in 1906. At the third
congress, in Cambridge, in 1907, there were present about 1,400
members, whilst at the fourth congress, in Dresden, in 1908, there
assembled also 1,400 members. Whatever opinion one may hold about
these congresses, at which much confusion and misunderstanding, and
indeed even much that was ridiculous, took place, they represent,
without doubt, a great and remarkable philological experiment,
and one which demonstrates the possibility of synthetically
constructing a language that can be spoken. On the other hand,
however, the Esperanto congresses showed, according to the
concordant testimony of all persons of unbiassed opinion, that the
Esperanto language in no wise represents the final solution of the
problem. All farsighted leaders of the Esperanto movement have been
for a long time the more fully conscious of this state of affairs
the more profound their knowledge of the Esperanto language. Chief
amongst them may be mentioned M. de Beaufront himself, who has come
forward as one of the leaders of reform, a reform which in many
important respects was recognised as necessary by Dr. Zamenhof
himself in a series of interesting memoirs. The recommendations
of Dr. Zamenhof were, however, rejected in 1894 by the so-called
"Fundamentists" (157 votes to 107), who were supported by a few
great publishing firms interested in the preservation of Esperanto.
By reason of the fact that the Esperanto alphabet contains no
fewer than six special letters to be found in no ordinary printing
fount, the firms referred to possess the monopoly of the very
considerable trade in this literature. The Fundamentists hold the
view that, in spite of a few errors in the auxiliary language, its
success can only be assured by absolute conservatism. They have,
therefore, declared the grammar, together with the reading book and
vocabulary, published by Zamenhof under the title of _Fundamento de
Esperanto_, to be sacrosanct, and go so far in this matter as to
revere as "correct" and "classical" Esperanto the infringements of
his own rules, the grammatical errors, and even the misprints to be
found in the _Fundamento_.
The idea of a powerful organisation has undoubtedly at first
sight something very attractive about it. One must, however, not
forget, even in the case of an international language, that no
organisation in the world can arrest the progress of a necessary
development. Every human contrivance and invention is subject to
change, errors and deficiencies being corrected. Especially is
a rational development inevitable in the case of things, such
as an international language, which are subject to the control
of our intelligence. Conversely it is not difficult to reply to
the question, How is it then possible, when a system has once
been chosen, to carry it out and preserve it? For there are two
fundamental qualities which, happily for us, are apparent in
the history of inventions, and each of which confers stability
quite apart from any conventions, namely, a high degree of
rational development based on the most profound knowledge and an
extraordinary empirical perfection. As examples of the latter may
be mentioned the notation of music, which since Guido d'Arezzo
(born in 990), or at any rate since Johann Sebastian Bach, has not
appreciably changed; the division of time into twenty-four hours
and of the hour into sixty minutes, which is at least three hundred
years old; the face, mechanism, and hands of a watch, which date,
with unimportant changes, from the Renaissance; and, finally, the
violin, which retains up to the present day the characteristic form
which the ancient Italians gave it. Is it not wonderful that this
strangely carved piece of wood must possess just that particular
form in order to yield its harmonious tones?
As examples of the former may be quoted almost all modern
achievements. The metric and decimal systems have come to stay. The
bicycle, the motor car, and the typewriting machine have undergone
successive improvements till finally they have attained to their
more or less definite form. We see from this that when inventions
have once reached a certain degree of suitability they are not
afterwards easily replaced by others. There is, therefore, only one
adequate criterion of the stability of an international language,
namely, that of suitability or adaptation to its purpose, and
we maintain that it is only by means of continuous reforms and
improvements that it will succeed in satisfying this criterion
and so finally attain to stability. In the work of Couturat and
Leau, referred to above, there are described about ten artificial
languages which have sprung up during and after the period of
Volapük and Esperanto, and in which the experience of their
predecessors has been more or less made use of. A study of these
attempts leads to the surprising result that they often differ
amongst themselves less than, for example, the Romance languages.
If, then, one were to choose any one of these languages and to
direct its systematic development according to the principles
which experience and knowledge have shown to be requisite for the
construction of an international language, one would in each case
arrive finally at approximately the same result.
At the present day the rapid development in every department of
life has made us only too ready to regard everything around us
as transient. We forget, however, that the rapidly accumulating
inventions and discoveries which startle and surprise us always
refer to new things. One must bear in mind that there also exist
things which in their essential features can _only be invented
once_, and that the international language in its final form is one
of these.
An excellent means of convincing the incredulous is to demonstrate
the absence of arbitrariness in the character of an invention or
improvement, and the degree of general consent which a given system
has already obtained. Whenever one has recognised the natural and
logical basis of a discovery one perceives relationships which
restrict the ideas of chance and haphazard originally associated
with it in one's mind. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary in the
case of an international language to be afraid of "the arbitrary
action of private persons who possess neither the right nor the
authority to introduce reforms into Esperanto," as Dr. Zamenhof has
recently stated. One ought rather to feel sure that the best means
of defending an international language against arbitrary changes is
the degree of its concordance with sound theoretical principles.
Wilhelm Ostwald has given us an account of the work of the
Delegation. The commission consisted of representatives of the
English, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and Slavonic languages.
Famous philologists such as Otto Jespersen, of Copenhagen,
and Baudouin de Courtenay, of St. Petersburg, as well as the
philosopher L. Couturat, of Paris, rendered priceless services.
The proceedings, which were held in the Collège de France, began
with the interviewing of a number of the inventors of artificial
languages or their representatives, all such people having been
invited to the conference. Where this procedure was not possible
the corresponding writings and documents were examined and
discussed. Concerning this work Ostwald writes, "Although these
labours were very fatiguing, they proved all the more effective for
the progressive elucidation of the problem in hand. From the very
multiplicity of the attempts at a solution and their discussion
there arose in the minds of the workers, in a manner never to be
forgotten, a clear conception of the main conditions required for
a successful solution of the problem, and a recognition of the
errors which a disregard of one or other of these conditions had
produced in the existing systems." Whilst an account of the nature
of these principles and of their application to the construction
of an international auxiliary language will be given by competent
authorities in the following chapters, we may here mention that the
Delegation decided that none of the existing systems satisfied
the conditions necessary for an international auxiliary language,
but that the widely known Esperanto could serve as a basis for
the working out of such a language, although it would require to
undergo a certain number of changes.
A standing committee was elected, including Ostwald, Couturat, De
Beaufront, and Jespersen, which was entrusted with the task of
determining the new forms of the international auxiliary language
on the basis of the principles laid down in the sittings mentioned
above.
The changes carried out by the committee of the Delegation
are embodied in the form of new grammars and dictionaries.
The Delegation succeeded not only in recognising, but also in
correcting in a competent manner, the errors of Esperanto, with
the result that we are to-day in possession of a language which in
respect of facility, lucidity, variety, and elegance of expression,
represents the high-water mark of international speech.
The success which this reform achieved amongst the public and
also in Esperantist circles immediately after the publication
by the Delegation of the first specimen of the new language was
astonishing. That which the Esperantists had scarcely succeeded
in doing during six years of their existence took place with
astonishing rapidity before our eyes, and in scarcely as many
months there were formed in sixty towns of Europe and America local
groups of enthusiastic people affiliated to the Delegation.
Unfortunately the Fundamentists persist in their obstinacy and
continue to manifest their discontent. Although the new language
has sprung from Esperanto and is based upon it, the Esperantists
have forbidden that the name Esperanto should be used. The
conventional name _Ido_ (_i.e._, a descendant) has therefore
been given to it. There exist already some periodicals in the
_linguo internaciona_. The chief organ of the new movement is the
periodical _Progreso_ (pronounced _Progresso_), "_oficiala organo
di la Delegitaro por adopto di linguo helpanta internaciona_." It
is edited by Professor L. Couturat in Paris, and owes its name,
programme, and policy to the advice and initiative of Ostwald.
The superiority of Ido over Esperanto is so striking and is so
incontestably borne out by practical experience that one can
now really speak, after the Volapük and Esperanto periods, of
a third world-language movement which has started off with a
reaction-velocity hitherto unknown in this department of knowledge.
It is characteristic of the new language that it has been taken up
by the English and Americans, whilst an introduction of primitive
Esperanto amongst the Anglo-Saxons encountered insuperable
obstacles, for, as was pointed out with good reason, the English
language, especially in regard to its grammar, was superior to
Esperanto on account of a number of clumsy constructions and errors
which the latter contained. But, apart from the regularity of
pronunciation, Ido excels the English language both in regard to
grammar and, what is of great importance, brevity, a printed Ido
text being even briefer than the corresponding English one.
For the benefit of those who are unacquainted with the nature of
international language and who still regard an artificial language
as an impossible monstrosity, we may remark that the new vocabulary
contains in round numbers 5,400 stems, and that, in spite of the
Romance character which the international language necessarily
possesses, 40 per cent. of these are common to the following six
languages: German, English, French, Italian, Russian, Spanish
(and to many others). Moreover, there are naturally innumerable
other stems which occur simultaneously in five or four of the
great languages. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, no
one can contest the possibility of an international language, for
the above numbers tell their tale with unmistakable clearness.
They _prove the existence of the international language apart from
every theory_. It is only necessary to select judiciously the words
common to the living languages, that is to say, by an artificial
process, in order to construct the international language.
Besides the purely linguistic standpoint, the Delegation considered
the whole question of an international auxiliary language from
another and an essential point of view. It is natural, and
sufficiently well known, that in both the Volapük and Esperanto
movements the linguistic issue was mixed up with a large amount
of disorder, error, misunderstanding, and illusion. This was
due to the fact that these movements were largely directed by
scientifically untrained persons, and partly also fell into the
hands of fanatics and Utopians. Added to this was the desire to
soar to the summits of literature instead of confining themselves
to practical matters, and the truly childish confidence which led
them to spoil the classics of different nations by translating
them into a language intended for other purposes. This latter
trait was even more markedly pronounced in the Esperanto than in
the Volapük movement. The Delegation, as a commission of serious
men of science, has steadily laboured to free the question from
all extraneous considerations, of which we have mentioned only the
best known, and the standpoint which is taken in the periodical
_Progreso_ is in all respects a serious and scientific one. In this
way it has been possible to attain finally to a stage at which
the whole question can be discussed on its merits. The action of
the Delegation marks, therefore, without doubt the beginning of
a rational period in the history of the movement for a universal
language. Henceforth he who comes to mock will have nothing to
say, and the sceptic will have to search for serious and competent
reasons if he wishes to maintain his case.
The point of view which the Delegation has taken is that the
solution of the problem of an international auxiliary language is
a purely scientific and technical question. Scientific in a double
sense of the word: in the first place, because the living germ of
an international language is already to be found in science and as
an expression of the civilisation of Europe and America, requiring
only an artificial development to bring it to maturity and to give
us the international auxiliary language in its final form; in the
second place, because the method of artificial development of
the international language forms itself the object of a science,
and that indeed a new one, namely, the philology of auxiliary
language. The question is also a technical one because the result
obtained by theory is destined for a practical purpose, namely,
the daily use of mankind. Our modern civilisation is signalised
by the application of science to practice. We are no longer pure
empiricists. Science penetrates into every department of daily
life, and all enlightened people are aware that the age of pure
empiricism is over.
The movement for a universal language possesses its epochs, like
other things, but we may rest assured that the era of the attempts
to solve the problem of auxiliary language in a purely empirical,
or even indeed romantic, manner has passed away with the Volapük
and Esperanto periods.
The work of the Delegation has also been in a high degree an
organising one. The beginning of the year 1909 gave birth to a
_Uniono di l'Amiki di la Linguo Internaciona_, extending over all
parts of the world. From this union are derived by election two
directing bodies: firstly, the _Komitato_, a commission which
looks after matters of organisation and business; and secondly,
an _Academy_, entrusted with the scientific investigation of
the international auxiliary language, which sees to its steady
progress, corrects the errors and deficiencies which are sure to
make their appearance, decides in doubtful cases, and regulates
the introduction of new words and constructions.
The carrying out of this scientific and technical programme has now
become the duty of all who feel the necessity for an international
means of communicating thought.
RICHARD LORENZ.