THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE TO SCIENCE
Whilst the preceding chapters have sufficiently demonstrated that
the construction of an artificial international language is not
only possible, but already in all probability fixed as regards its
fundamental principles, it will be desirable here to give some
account of the inner relations between science and the auxiliary
language.
Without doubt one of the most important conditions to be satisfied
by an artificial international language is, that it should be
capable of being employed in science. Considering the leading part
which science plays to-day in the life of nations, the system
which this intellectual Great Power will adopt cannot be a matter
of indifference; indeed, its capability of serving the needs
of science might well be regarded as the test of an artificial
language. It is, for example, conceivable that a particular system,
although unsuitable for the purposes of science, might work quite
well so far as commercial relations are concerned.
Before we examine the relationship between science and auxiliary
language the question may be asked whether an international
language is at all necessary in science, and whether it is likely
to be introduced therein. We may consider that this question
has been settled by the discussions contained in the previous
chapters. The general question of the introduction of an artificial
auxiliary language having been answered in the affirmative, the
further question may be raised as to why, in spite of the existence
of different artificial auxiliary languages, such as Volapük,
Esperanto, Neutral Idiom, Novilatin, Universal, etc., science has
not long ago adopted and introduced one of them. Quite apart from
the actual circumstances which have prevented this, a perfectly
precise answer may be given to the above question. There have not
been wanting experiments in this direction. Already in the Volapük
period endeavours were made to translate scientific works into
Volapük in order to prove that this language could also be of
service to science. In particular the translations of Dr. Miess's
_Craniology_, Dr. Winkler's _Petrification of Fishes_, and the
_Eastern Travels_ of the Crown Prince Rudolph were boasted of by
the Volapükists. Esperanto has gone further, and is, as a matter of
fact, more capable of development in this direction. There appears
a periodical, _Scienca Revuo_, which in popular form conveys the
most important results of different sciences to Esperanto readers.
Fechner's little book on life after death and some others have
also been translated. All these attempts possess an extraordinary
interest for the great experiment in language on which mankind
has been engaged during the last twenty years, and the greatest
thanks are due to their authors. It is only, indeed, after many
attempts that an experiment can be successfully carried through.
But, without wishing to deny that very remarkable things have been
accomplished, all these experiments prove one fact beyond question,
namely, that the languages mentioned do not even approximately, and
cannot indeed possibly, satisfy the requirements which science must
demand of the artificial auxiliary language. Science could not,
therefore, have chosen any of these languages as the artificial
auxiliary language even had she wished, nor could she do so in the
future without experiencing failure. An examination of the reasons
for this state of affairs will enable us to arrive at the relation
between science and the international auxiliary language. It can
be shown what the nature of this relationship must be, and it
follows therefrom whether any particular system will or will not be
serviceable to science. There are two necessary criteria, namely,
internationality of vocabulary and logical precision of expression.
One might be inclined to emphasise the importance of the second
criterion without paying any attention whatever to the first,
and to regard a system constructed on a purely logical basis as
alone worthy of science. But this would be a retrograde step,
for indeed the question of artificial language originated with
the idea of a so-called philosophical language in the mind of
Leibnitz and afterwards. If one takes the point of view that
the scientific auxiliary language should be constructed on an
ideographic basis (that is to say, a system of correlation between
symbols and ideas, which, however, as it is a language, must be
capable of being spoken), one arrives at an _à priori_ system, as
it is called in the theory of universal language. Thanks to the
laborious and self-sacrificing work of the thousands who during
the last twenty years have devoted and still devote themselves to
the great experiments in language, we are able nowadays to refer
this question to the test of experience. The latter has shown with
absolute certainty that _à priori systems cannot be spoken_. The
learning of any natural language, with all its irregularities,
peculiarities, and anomalies, is child's play compared to the
learning of an _à priori_ system. All experiments in this direction
have failed and need no longer be seriously considered. But even
when an artificial language has not been constructed _à priori_
another error, producing much the same effect, may very greatly
injure its facility in practice. An otherwise so successful system
as Volapük came finally to grief through an error of this sort.
Although Volapük was constructed by a man of whom it is said that
he was master of, or at least acquainted with, fifty-five living
languages, and although, according to its whole nature, it appeared
to be modelled very closely on natural languages, nevertheless the
abbreviations which Schleyer introduced so often into the words
he took over (for example, _vol_ for _world_, _pük_ for _speak_,
_Melop_ for _America_) produced the same psychological effect as
if his word-formations had been _à priori_. Man is, in fact, a
psychological as well as a logical being. If there is to be any
practical outcome, we must, therefore, under all circumstances base
our work on the psychological principle of internationality. It
is only this which confers on the auxiliary language the quality
of being easily learnt and spoken, which is unconditionally
necessary for its practical use in science, as in other departments
of life. Such systems are called _à posteriori_, and experience
shows that the more _à posteriori_ elements are contained in
an international language the more it conforms to Jespersen's
fundamental principle of _the greatest ease for the greatest number
of people_. But, one may argue, does it not follow from this
that the best solution would be the introduction of a _national_
language into science? Certainly not, for this would not offer the
greatest facility to the greatest number of people, because the
formation of the so-called idioms, which, apart from grammatical
difficulties, hinder the learning and use of a language, would
in the case of many national languages interfere with the
internationality of the vocabulary. These idioms have a very
similar effect to the _à priori_ word formations, and diminish the
intelligibility, lucidity, and facility of logical expression. The
only international auxiliary language which will be of practical
use in science will be constructed according to the _à posteriori_
principle of maximum internationality, and will be almost or
entirely free from idioms. If we add to this that it must possess
that logical clearness of expression which we have described above
as the second criterion, we have the general conditions which must
be satisfied by an international language suitable for science.
Apart from the practical value of the principle of
internationality, there exists in science another very special
reason for regarding it as a necessary condition to be satisfied by
an international auxiliary language.
We may inquire, in fact, from a purely scientific standpoint, how
far the systems which have been devised up to the present have
adjusted themselves to the international language which already
exists in science. For all the thousands of words in scientific and
technical nomenclature which, apart from their nationality, the
scientific men of all countries have been inventing for centuries
according to very uniform principles, as well as the likewise
largely international expressions of "unofficial" nomenclature,
form a possession of modern scientific civilisation of such
magnitude, importance, and value, that it cannot on any account
be sacrificed. On the contrary, all these words, as well as many
similar ones derived from daily life, form the true, natural, and
practical basis of international language.
_This_ international auxiliary language, which forms one of the
foundation stones of our general, scientific, and technical
culture, is so closely bound up with the life and existence of
science and has become so much the second nature of all scientific
men, especially investigators, that they have long become
accustomed to write and think in this language apart from their
nationality. It is an easily ascertained fact, and one that is well
known to the scientific men of all countries, that the latter can
read foreign scientific literature much more easily than newspapers
or novels written in the same languages. The explanation of this is
that the foreign scientific works, on account of their technical
vocabulary, are written in a language which possesses a much more
international character than that of the novels or newspapers. It
cannot, therefore, be denied that there actually exist already,
particularly in science, the beginnings of an international (and
largely artificially created) auxiliary language which is written,
spoken, and read. We find here ready made the first provisional
lexicon of the scientific international language. It cannot,
therefore, be urged that science should "select" any one of the
proposed artificial languages, because the selection of words is
by no means an arbitrary process. The only procedure possible to
science must be the construction of an international language
on the basis of the already existing foundations. Science can
never accept as an international language, one which destroys the
actually existing internationality of scientific nomenclature.
As we see, these considerations, like the former, lead us to
the conclusion that the auxiliary language must be based on
the principle of maximum internationality; that is to say, its
vocabulary must be taken _à posteriori_ from the international
treasury, and must not be invented according to any _à priori_
system or special idiom. It follows from this that the auxiliary
language of the future must inevitably be chiefly Romance in its
character, for Latin is the international auxiliary language which
still lives and flourishes for, and by means of, science.
The objection might be made here that the simplest solution would
be the reintroduction of Latin into science as the auxiliary
language. But this contradicts one of our fundamental premises, for
Latin fails just as much as all other national languages to satisfy
our second criterion, namely, that of complete logical precision.
Besides, it is too difficult.
Esperanto does not even approximately satisfy the necessary
conditions; it infringes, in fact, all three. On the one hand,
its vocabulary is very far from being constructed according to
the principle of maximum internationality; on the other hand, the
Esperantists are supposed to make up for this defect by the famous
principle of _vortfarado_ (_i.e._, word manufacture!), with the
result that their language falls into the error of creating idioms.
For example, in Esperanto the beginning of the sentence "A rotary
transformer might be called a motor-generator, but the latter
name is usually applied to machines with independent armatures,"
is translated in the following way: _Turnighan alispecigilon oni
povas nomi motorproduktanto_, which literally translated reads,
"A self-turning otherwise-making instrument can be called a
motor-producer."
Apart from these fundamental errors of Esperanto, it lacks a
systematic method of word formation, the importance of which
has been demonstrated in a masterly and convincing fashion by
Couturat in the previous chapter. Hundreds of times the puzzled
reader of an Esperanto text is in doubt about the sense of an
adjective, even such common expressions as _stony_ and _made of
stone_ being rendered in Esperanto by the _same word_ (_shtona_).
A phrase such as "It is perhaps possible" cannot be accurately
translated into Esperanto, since, on account of its "simplicity,"
the words _perhaps_ and _possible_ are both rendered by the same
_à priori_ word, _eble_. With regard to choice of vocabulary,
other systems, in particular "Neutral Idiom," are exceedingly
superior to Esperanto. In this last product of the Volapük movement
the principle of internationality has been finally recognised. A
language academy was founded which constructed a lexicon according
to this principle. Unfortunately, as Jespersen has very fully shown
in Chapter III., this principle was not interpreted in the right
manner, so that the language lacks logical clearness in spite of
the international character of its vocabulary.
We need not, therefore, be surprised that science has hitherto been
unable to adopt any of the artificial systems as the international
auxiliary language. That would have been a false step, and would
only have produced confusion.
It is only at the present time that one has arrived at a clear
recognition of the principles on which such a language must
be based. The only artificial system which can claim that its
"inventors" have endeavoured in its "construction" to _combine_
and consistently carry out the principles of internationality and
logical precision (namely, systematic choice of stems and a regular
system of derivation) is, as will be sufficiently evident from the
preceding chapters of this book, the language of the Delegation.
Without doubt the _internaciona linguo di la Delegitaro_ will
have to undergo changes and improvements, for one cannot expect
that such a gigantic task as the introduction of an international
auxiliary language can be accomplished all at once. We hold,
however, that "Ido" represents the first artificial language
concerning whose introduction into science serious discussion is
possible. We may state with full confidence to-day that, so far as
human calculation is possible, the attempt to carry this out will
be crowned with success.
On the other hand, this introduction will not be without a useful
reaction on science, not only in respect to the development and
extension of its external life as an international Great Power, but
also with regard to the more perfect unification and extension of
its language and nomenclature on the lines of strict and complete
internationality. An expression of opinion on this point will be
given in the following chapter.
RICHARD LORENZ.