Contrast the uncompromising attitude of the inventor of Volapük, Bishop

Schleyer. It will be remembered how he let Volapük run upon the rocks

rather than relinquish the helm. He has been nicknamed "the Volapükist

Pope"—and indeed he made the great and fatal bull of believing in his

own infallibility. Zamenhof has never pretended to this. When he first

published his language, he made no claim to finality on its behalf. He

called for criticisms, and contemplated completing and modifying his

scheme in accordance with them. He even offered to make over this task

to a duly constituted academy, if people would come forward and throw

themselves into the work. Again, some years later, in a pamphlet, _Choix

d'une langue Internationale_, he proposed a scheme for obtaining a

competent impartial verdict, and declared his willingness to submit to

it. At one time he thought of something in the nature of a plebiscite.

Later, his renunciation of the last vestige of control, in giving

up the _aprobo_, or official sanction of books; his attitude at the

international congresses; his refusal to accept the presidency; his

reluctance to name or influence the selection of the members of the

body charged with the control of the language; his declaration that

his own works have no legislative power, but are merely those of an

Esperantist; finally, his sane conception of the scope and method of

future development of the language to meet new needs, and of the limits

within which it is possible—all this bespeaks the man who has a clear

idea of what he is aiming at, and a shrewd grasp of the conditions

necessary to ensure success.

The word Esperanto is the present participle of the verb _esperi_—"to

hope," used substantially. It was under the pseudonym of Dr. Esperanto

that Zamenhof published his scheme in 1887 at Warsaw, and the name

has stuck to the language. Before publication it had been cast and

recast many times in the mind of its author, and it is curious to

note that in the course of its evolution he had himself been through

the principal stages exhibited in the history of artificial language

projects for the last three hundred years. That is to say, he began with

the idea of an _a priori_ language with made-up words and arbitrary

grammar, and gradually advanced to the conception of an _a posteriori_

language, borrowing its vocabulary from the roots common to several

existing languages and presenting in its grammar a simplification of

Indo-European grammar.

He began to learn English at a comparatively advanced stage of his

education, and the simplicity of its grammar and syntax was a revelation

to him. It had a powerful influence in helping him to frame his grammar,

which underwent a new transformation. Specimens of the language as

Zamenhof used to speak it with his school and student friends show

a wide divergence from its present form. He seems to have had cruel

disappointments, and was disillusioned by the falling away of youthful

comrades who had promised to fight the battles of the language they

practised with enthusiasm at school. During long years of depression

work at the language seems to have been almost his one resource. Its

absolute simplicity is deceptive as to the immense labour it must have

cost a single man to work it out. This is only fully to be appreciated

by one who has some knowledge of former attempts. Zamenhof himself

admits that, if he had known earlier of the existence of Volapük, he

would never have had the courage to continue his task, though he was

conscious of the superiority of his own solution. When, after long

hesitation, he made up his mind to try his luck and give his language to

the world, Volapük was strong, but already involved in internal strife.

Zamenhof's book appeared first in Russian, and the same year (1887)

French and German editions appeared at Warsaw. The first instruction

book in English appeared in the following year. The only name on the

title-page is "St. J.," and it passed quite unnoticed.

Progress was at first very slow. The first Esperanto society was founded

in St. Petersburg, 1892, under the name of _La Espero_. As early as

1889 the pioneer Esperanto newspaper, _La Esperantisto_[1] conducted

chiefly by Russians and circulated mainly in Russia, began to appear

in Nuremberg, where there was already a distinguished Volapük club,

afterwards converted to Esperanto. Since then Nuremberg has continued

to be a centre of light in the movement for an international language.

The other pioneer newspapers were _L'Espirantiste_, founded in 1898 at

Epernay by the Marquis de Beaufront, and _La Lumo_ of Montreal.

[1]Afterwards prohibited in Russia, owing to the collaboration of

Count Tolstoi, and transferred to Upsala under the name _Lingvo

Internacia_. Since 1902 it has been published in Paris.

In Germany in the early days of Esperanto the great apostles were

Einstein and Trompeter, and it was owing to the liberality of the latter

that the Nuremberg venture was rendered possible.

Somewhat later began in France the activity of the greatest and most

fervent of all the apostles of Esperanto, the Marquis de Beaufront.

By an extraordinary coincidence he had ready for the press a grammar

and complete dictionary of a language of his own, named _Adjuvanto_.

When he became acquainted with Esperanto, he recognized that it was

in certain points superior to his own language, though the two were

remarkably similar. He suppressed his own scheme altogether, and threw

himself heart and soul into the work of spreading Esperanto. In a series

of grammars, commentaries, and dictionaries he expounded the language

and made it accessible to numbers who, without his energy and zeal,

would never have been interested in it. Among other well-known French

leaders are General Sebert, of the French Institute, M. Boirac, Rector

of the Dijon University, and M. Gaston Moch, editor of the _Indépendance

Belge_.

In England the pioneer was Mr. Joseph Rhodes, who, with Mr. Ellis,

founded the first English group at Keighley in November 1902.[1]

Just a year later appeared the first English Esperanto journal, _The

Esperantist_, edited by Mr. H. Bolingbroke Mudie, London. Since 1905 it

has been incorporated with _The British Esperantist_, the official organ

of the British Esperanto Association. The association was founded in

October 1904.

[1]The foundation of the London Esperanto Club took place at

practically the same time, and the club became the headquarters of

the movement in Great Britain.

The first international congress was held at Boulogne in August 1905. It

was organized almost entirely by the president of the local group, M.

Michaux, a leading barrister and brilliant lecturer and propagandist. It

was an immense success, and inaugurated a series of annual congresses,

which are doing great work in disseminating the idea of international

language. The second was held in Geneva, August 1906; and the third will

be held at Cambridge, August 10-17, 1907. It is unnecessary to describe

the congresses here, as an account has been given in an early chapter

(see pp. 9-12 and 14-15 [Part I, Chapter III]).

Within the last three or four years Esperanto has spread all over

the world, and fresh societies and newspapers are springing up on

every side. Since the convincing demonstration afforded by the Geneva

Congress, Switzerland is beginning to take the movement seriously. Many

classes and lectures have been held, and the university is also now

lending its aid. In the present year (1907) an International Esperantist

Scientific Office has been founded in Geneva, with M. René de Saussure

as director, and amongst the members of the auxiliary committee are

seventeen professors and eight privat-docents (lecturers) of the Geneva

University.

Its object is to secure the recognition of Esperanto for scientific

purposes, and to practically facilitate its use. To this end the office

carries on the work of collecting technical vocabularies of Esperanto,

with the aid of all scientists whose assistance it may receive. This is

perhaps the most practical step yet taken towards the standardization of

technical terms, which is so badly needed in all branches of science.

A universal language offers the best solution of the vexed question,

because it starts with a clean sheet. Once a term has been admitted, by

the competent committee for a particular branch of science, into the

technical Esperanto vocabulary of that science, it becomes universal,

because it has no pre-existent rivals; and its universal recognition

in the auxiliary language will react upon writers' usage in their own

language.

The Geneva office will also aid in editing scientific Esperantist

reviews; and the chief existing one, the _Internacia Scienca Revuo_,

will henceforth be published in Geneva instead of in Paris, as hitherto.

The two principal objects of the Esperantist Scientific Association are:

1. Scientists should always use Esperanto during their international

congresses.

2. Scientific periodicals should accept articles written in Esperanto

(as they now do in the case of English, French, German, and Italian),

and should publish in Esperanto a brief summary of every article written

in a national language.

A few weeks after the Geneva Congress there was a controversy on the

subject of Esperanto between two of the best known and most widely

read Swiss and French newspapers—the Paris _Figaro_ and the _Journal

de Geneve_. The respective champions were the Comte d'Haussonville,

of the Académie Française, and M. de Saussure, a member of a highly

distinguished Swiss scientific family; and the matter caused a good deal

of interest on the Continent. France was, in this case, reactionary and

_ancien régime_: the smaller Republic backed Esperanto and progress.

M. de Saussure brought forward facts, and the count served up the old

arguments about Esperanto being unpatriotic and the prejudice it would

inflict upon literature. The whole thing was a good illustration of a

fact that is already becoming prominent in the history of the auxiliary

language movement—the scientists are much more favourable than the

literary men. As regards educational reform, the conservative attitude

of the classicists is well known, though there are many exceptions,

especially among real teachers. But it is somewhat remarkable that, when

the proposed reform deals with language, those whose business it is to

know about languages should not take the trouble to examine the scheme

properly, before giving an opinion one way or the other.

As this question of the attitude of literary men has, and will have,

a vital bearing upon the prospects of international language, and

consequently upon its history, this is perhaps the place to remove a

misunderstanding. A distinguished literary man objected to the foregoing

passage as a stricture upon men of letters. His point was: "_Of course_

literary men care less for Esperanto than scientific men do: it _must_

be so, because they _need_ it less." Now this is quite true: there

is little doubt that to-day science is, perhaps inevitably, more

cosmopolitan than letters, whatever people may say about "the world-wide

republic of letters." But it does not meet the point. Esperantists do

not _complain_ because men of letters are not interested in Esperanto.

They have their own interests and occupations, and nobody would be so

absurd as to make it a grievance that they will not submit to have

thrust upon them a language for which they have no taste or use. What

Esperantists do very strongly object to is that some literary men lend

the weight of their name and position to irresponsible criticism. Let

them take or leave Esperanto as seems good to them. Their _responsible_

opinions, _based upon due study of the question_, are always eagerly

welcomed. But do not let them misrepresent Esperanto to the public,

thereby unfairly prejudicing its judgment. Such action is unworthy of

serious men. When a man puts forward criticisms of Esperanto based

upon elementary errors of fact, or complains that Esperantists will

not listen to reason because they ignore proposals for change, which

have long ago been threshed out and found wanting, or are obviously

unpractical, he is merely showing that he has not studied the question.

A fair analogy would be the case of a chemist or engineer who had

recently begun to dabble in Greek in his spare moments, and who should

undertake to emend the text of Sophocles. His suggestions would show

that he knew no Greek, that he had never heard of Sir Richard Jebb, and

that he was ignorant of all the results of scientific textual criticism.

But here comes in the difference. Such a critic would be laughed out of

court, and told to mind his own business, or else learn Greek before he

undertook to emend it. But as international language is a novelty to

most people, it is thought that any one can make, mend, or criticise

it. It is not, like Greek, yet recognized as a serious subject, and

therefore irresponsible criticism is too apt to be taken at its face

value, merely on the _ipse dixit_ of the critic, especially if he

happens to be an influential man in some other line. Nobody bothers

about his qualifications in international language; nobody either knows

or cares whether he has any claim to be heard on the subject at all.

The fact is that international language now has a considerable history

behind it. A large amount of experience has been amassed, and is now

available for any one who is willing and competent to go into the

question. But, in order to do fruitful work in this field, it is just

as necessary as in any other to be properly equipped, and to know where

others have left off, before you begin.

At the first international congress at Boulogne the history of Esperanto

was well summed up in a thoughtful speech by Dr. Bein, of Poland,

himself a considerable Esperantist author, using the _nom de guerre_

"Kabe." He pointed out that we are still in the first or propaganda

stage of international language, in which it is necessary to hold

congresses, and the language is treated as an end in itself. There

is good hope that the second stage may soon be reached, in which the

language may be sufficiently recognized to take its proper place as a

means.

Meantime, the first stage of Esperanto has been marked by three phases

or periods—the Russian period, the French period, and the international

period. Each has left its mark upon the language.

The Russian period is associated with the names of Kofman, Grabowski,

Silesnjov, Gernet, Zinovjev, and many other writers of considerable

literary power. Being the pioneers, they had to prove the capabilities

of the language to the world, and in doing so they took off some of the

rough of the world's indifference and scepticism. The language benefited

by the fact that the first authors were Slavs. The simplicity of the

Slav syntax, the logical arrangement of the sentences, the perfectly

free and natural order of the words, passed unconsciously from their

native language to the new one in the hands of these writers, and have

been imitated by their successors.

The French period is associated chiefly with the name of M. de

Beaufront. In Russia, side by side with the good points named above,

certain less desirable Slavisms were creeping in; also there were

hitherto no scientific dictionaries or explanation of syntax. As Dr.

Bein says, de Beaufront may be called "the codifier of Esperanto." A

goodly band of French writers now took the language in hand, and by

their natural power of expression and exposition, which seems inborn in

a Frenchman, and by their national passion for lucidity, they have no

doubt strengthened the impulse of Esperanto towards clear-cut, vigorous

style.

Possibly theorizing has been overdone in France; for, after all, the

strong point of Esperanto syntax is that there is none to speak of,

common sense being the guide. It is a pity to set up rules where none

are necessary, or to do anything that can produce an impression in

the minds of the uninitiated that learning Esperanto means anything

approaching the memory drudgery necessary in grasping the rules and

constructions of national languages.

The third period began soon after the turn of the century, and is still

in full force. Take up any chance number of any Esperanto gazette out

of the numbers that are published all over the world; you will hardly

be able to draw any conclusion as to the nationality of the writer of

the article you light upon, save perhaps for an occasional turn of an

unpractised hand. Esperanto now has its style; it is—lucidity based

upon common sense and the rudiments of a minimized grammar.

This chapter would not be complete without some account of the

_constitution_ of Esperanto, and the means which have been adopted to

safeguard the purity of the language. It will be well to quote in full

the Declaration adopted at Boulogne, in which its aim is set forth, and

which forms, as it were, its written constitution. For the convenience

of readers the Esperanto text and English translation are printed in

parallel columns.

* * * * *

DEKLARACIO DECLARATION

Ĉar pri la esenco de Esperantismo Because many have a very false

multaj havas tre malveran idea of the nature of Esperanto,

ideon, tial ni subskribintoj, therefore we, the undersigned,

reprezentantoj de la Esperantismo representing the cause of

en diversaj landoj de la mondo, Esperanto in different countries

kunvenintaj al la Internacia of the world, having met together

Kongreso Esperantista en at the International Esperanto

Boulogne-sur-Mer, trovis necesa, Congress in Boulogne-sur-Mer,

laŭ la propono de la aŭtoro have thought it necessary, at the

de la lingvo Esperanto, doni la suggestion of the author of the

sekvantan klarigon: Esperanto language, to give the

following explanation:

1. La Esperantismo estas penado 1. Esperanto in its essence

disvastigi en la tuta mondo is an attempt to diffuse over

la uzadon de lingvo neŭtrale the whole world a language

homa, kiu, "ne entrudante sin belonging to mankind without

en la internan vivon de la distinction, which, "not intruding

popoloj kaj neniom celante upon the internal life of the

elpuŝi la ekzistantajn lingvojn peoples and in nowise aiming to

naciajn," donus al la homoj drive out the existing national

de malsamaj nacioj la eblon languages," should give to

kompreniĝadi inter si, kiu men of different nations the

povus servi kiel paciga lingvo possibility of becoming mutually

de publikaj institucioj en tiuj comprehensible, which might serve

landoj kie diversaj nacioj batalas as a peace-making language for

inter si pri la lingvo, kaj en public institutions in those

kiu povus esti publikigataj tiuj lands where different nations are

verkoj kiuj havas egalan intereson involved in strife about their

por ĉiuj popoloj. language, and in which might

be published those works which

possess an equal interest for all

peoples.

Ĉiu alia ideo aŭ espero kiun tiu Any other idea or hope which this

aŭ alia Esperantisto ligas kun la or that Esperantist associates

Esperantismo estos lia afero pure with Esperanto will be his purely

privata, por kiu la Esperantismo personal business, for which

ne respondas. Esperanto is not responsible.

2. Ĉar en la nuna tempo neniu 2. Because at the present time no

esploranto en la tuta mondo one who looks out over the whole

jam dubas pri tio, ke lingvo world any longer doubts that

internacia povas esti nur lingvo an international language can

arta, kaj ĉar, el ĉiuj multegaj only be an artificial one, and

provoj faritaj en la daŭro de because, of all the very numerous

la lastaj du centjaroj, ĉiuj attempts made in the course of

prezentas nur teoriajn projektojn, the last two hundred years,

kaj lingvo efektive finita, all offer merely theoretical

ĉiuflanke elprovita, perfekte solutions, and only one single

vivipova, kaj en ĉiuj rilatoj language, Esperanto, has shown

pleje taŭga montriĝis nur unu itself to be in practice complete,

sola lingvo, Esperanto, tial fully tested on every side,

la amikoj de la ideo de lingvo perfectly capable of living use,

internacia, konsciante ke teoria and in every respect completely

disputado kondukos al nenio kaj adequate, therefore the friends

ke la celo povas esti atingita of the idea of international

nur per laborado praktika, jam de language, recognizing that

longe ĉiuj grupiĝis ĉirkaŭ theoretical discussion will lead

la sola lingvo, Esperanto, kaj to nothing and that the end can

laboras por ĝia disvastigado kaj only be attained by practical

riĉigado de ĝia literaturo. and continuous effort, have long

grouped themselves around one

single language, Esperanto, and

are labouring to disseminate it

and to enrich its literature.

3. Ĉar la aŭtoro de la lingvo 3. Because the author of the

Esperanto tuj en la komenco Esperanto language from the very

rifuzis, unu fojon por ĉiam, beginning refused, once for all,

ĉiujn personajn rajtojn kaj all personal rights and privileges

privilegiojn rilate tiun lingvon, connected with that language,

tial Esperanto estas "nenies therefore Esperanto is "the

propraĵo," nek en rilato property of no one," either from a

materiala, nek en rilato morala. material or moral point of view.

Materiala mastro de tiu ĉi lingvo Materially speaking, the whole

estas la tuta mondo, kaj ĉiu world is master of this language,

deziranto povas eldonadi en aŭ and any one who wishes can

pri tiu ĉi lingvo ĉiajn verkojn publish in or about this language

kiajn li deziras, kaj uzadi la works of any kind he wishes, and

lingvon por ĉiaj eblaj celoj go on using the language for

kiel spiritaj mastroj de tiu ĉi any possible object; from an

lingvo estos ĉiam rigardataj intellectual point of view those

tiuj personoj kiuj de la mondo persons will always be regarded as

Esperantista estos konfesataj kiel masters of this language who shall

la plej bonaj kaj la plej talentaj be recognized by the Esperantist

verkistoj de tiu ĉi lingvo. world as the best and most gifted

writers in this language.

4. Esperanto havas neniun personan 4. Esperanto has no personal

leĝdonanton kaj dependas de neniu law-giver and depends upon

aparta homo. Ĉiuj opinioj kaj no particular person. All

verkoj de la kreinto de Esperanto opinions and works of the creator

havas, simile al la opinioj kaj of Esperanto have, like the

verkoj de ĉiu alia Esperantisto, opinions and works of any other

karakteron absolute privatan kaj Esperantist, an absolutely private

por neniu devigan. La sola, unu character, and are binding upon

fojon por ĉiam deviga por ĉiuj nobody. The sole foundation of

Esperantistoj, fundamento de la the Esperanto language, which is

lingvo Esperanto estas la verketo once for all binding upon all

_Fundamento de Esperanto_, en Esperantists, is the little work

kiu neniu havas la rajton fari _Fundamento de Esperanto_, in

ŝanĝon. Se iu dekliniĝas de la which no one has the right to make

reguloj kaj modeloj donitaj en any change. If any one departs

la dirita verko, li neniam povas from the rules and models given

pravigi sin per la vortoj "tiel in the said work, he can never

deziras aŭ konsilas la aŭtoro justify himself with the words

de Esperanto." Ĉiun ideon, kiu "such is the wish or advice of

ne povas esti oportune esprimata the author of Esperanto." In the

per tiu materialo kiu troviĝas case of any idea which cannot be

en la _Fundamento de Esperanto_, conveniently expressed by means of

ĉiu havas la rajton esprimi en that material which is contained

tia maniero kiun li trovas la in the _Fundamento de Esperanto_,

plej ĝusta, tiel same kiel estas every Esperantist has the right to

farate en ĉiu alia lingvo. Sed express it in such manner as he

pro plena unueco de la lingvo, considers most fitting, just as is

al ĉiuj Esperantistoj estas done in the case of every other

rekomendate imitadi kiel eble plej language. But for the sake of

multe tiun stilon kiu troviĝas perfect unity in the language, it

en la verkoj de la kreinto de is recommended to all Esperantists

Esperanto, kiu la plej multe to constantly imitate as far as

laboris por kaj en Esperanto, kaj possible that style which is found

la plej bone konas ĝian spiriton. in the works of the creator of

Esperanto, who laboured the most

abundantly for and in Esperanto,

and who is best acquainted with

the spirit of it.

5. Esperantisto estas nomata 5. The name of Esperantist is

ĉiu persono kiu scias kaj uzas given to every person who knows

la lingvon Esperanto, tute egale and uses the Esperanto language,

por kiaj celoj li ĝin uzas. no matter for what ends he uses

Apartenado al ia aktiva societo it. Membership of some active

Esperantista por ĉiu Esperantisto Esperanto society is to be

estas rekomendinda, sed ne deviga. recommended for every Esperantist,

but this is not compulsory.

* * * * *

By the wise provision of Article 4, that the entire grammar and

framework of Esperanto, as contained within one small book of a few

pages, is absolutely unchangeable, the future of the language is

secured. The _Fundamento_ also contains enough root words to express all

ordinary ideas. Henceforth the worst thing that can happen to Esperanto

by way of adulteration is that some authors may use too many foreign

words. The only practical check upon this, of course, is the penalty of

becoming incomprehensible. But as men are on the whole reasonable, and

as the only object of writing in Esperanto presumably is to appeal to

an Esperantist international public, this check should be sufficient to

prevent the use of any word that usage is not tending to consecrate.

A certain latitude of expansion must be allowed to every language, to

enable it to move with the times; but beyond this, surely few would

have any interest in foisting into their discourse words which their

hearers or readers would not be likely to understand, and those few

would probably belong to the class who do the same thing in using their

mother-tongue. No special legislation is needed to meet their case.

For a few years (1901-1905) the publishing house of Hachette had the

monopoly of official Esperanto publications, and no work published

elsewhere could find place in the "Kolekto Esperanto aprobita de D-ro

Zamenhof." But at the first congress Zamenhof announced that he had

given up even this control, and Esperanto is now a free language.

The official authority, which deals with all matters relating to the

language itself, is the _Lingvo Komitato_ (Language Committee). It was

instituted at the first congress, and consists of persons appointed for

their special competence in linguistic matters. The original members

numbered ninety-nine, and represented the following twenty-eight

countries: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chili, Denmark,

Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Holland, Hungary,

Iceland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal,

Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.

This committee decides upon its own organization and procedure.

In practice it selects from among the points submitted to it by

Esperantists those worthy of consideration, and propounds them to its

members by means of circulars. It then appoints a competent person or

small committee to report upon the answers received. Decisions are made

upon the result of the voting in the members' replies to the circulars,

as analyzed and tabulated in the report. The functions of the committee

do not include the making of any alteration whatever in the Esperanto

part of the _Fundamento de Esperanto_, which is equally sacrosanct for

it and for all Esperantists. But there is much to be done in correcting

certain faulty translations of the fundamental Esperanto roots into

national languages, in defining their exact meaning and giving their

authorized equivalent in fresh languages, into which they were not

originally translated. Also the constantly growing output of grammars

and instruction books of all kinds in every country, to say nothing of

dictionaries, which are very important, has to be carefully watched, in

order that errors may be pointed out and corrected before they have time

to take root.

Thus the Lingva Komitato is in no sense an academy or legislative body,

having for object to change or improve the language; it is the duly

constituted and widely representative authority, which watches the

spread and development of the language, maintaining its purity, and

helping with judicious guidance.

From this sketch it ought to be clear that Esperanto is no wild-cat

scheme of enthusiasts or faddists, but a wisely organized attempt to

wipe out the world's linguistic arrears. Its aim is to bring progress in

oral and written communication into line with the progress of material

means of communication and of science.

VIII

PRESENT STATE OF ESPERANTO: (_a_) GENERAL; (_b_) IN ENGLAND

(_a_) _General_

The first question usually asked is, "How many Esperantists are there?"

The answer is, "Nobody knows." The most diverse estimates have been

made, but none are based on any reliable method of computation. In the

_Histoire de la langue universelle_, which appeared in 1903 and is

written throughout in an impartial and scientific spirit, 50,000 was

tentatively given as a fairly safe estimate. That was before the days

of the international congresses, and since then the cause has been

advancing by leaps and bounds. Not a month passes without its crop of

new clubs and classes, and the pace is becoming fast and furious.

A marked change has been noticeable of late in the press of the leading

countries. It is becoming a rare thing now to see Esperanto treated as

a form of madness, and the days of contemptuous silence are passing

away. Esperanto doings are now fairly, fully, and accurately reported.

The tone of criticism is sometimes favourable, sometimes patronizing,

sometimes hostile; but it is generally serious. It is coming to be

recognized that Esperanto is a force to be reckoned with; it cannot be

laughed off. One or two rivals, indeed, are getting a little noisy.

They are mostly one-man (not to say one-horse) shows, and they do not

like to see Esperanto going ahead like steam. High on the mountain-side

they sit in cold isolation, and gaze over the rich fertile plains of

Esperanto, rapidly becoming populous as the immigrants rush in and stake

out their claims in the fair "no-man's land."[1] And it makes them feel

bad, these others! "Jeshurun waxed fat," they cry; "pride goes before a

fall, remember Volapük!" The Esperantists remember Volapük, close their

ranks, and sweep on.

[1]_Nenies propraĵo._ Esp. Deklaracio, Art. 3 (see p. 117 [Part II,

Chapter VIII]).

Another good criterion besides the press is the sale of books. Large

editions are going off everywhere, especially, it would seem, in

America, where the folk have a habit, once they have struck a business

proposition, of running it for all it is worth. "Let her go! give

her hell!" is the word, and "the boys" are just now getting next to

Esperanto to beat the band.

The British Esperanto Association's accounts show a very steady increase

in the sale of literature. Considering that it sells books at trade

prices, that hardly any of them are priced at more than a few pence, and

none above a shilling or two, the sums realized from sale of books in

some months are astonishing, and represent a large and increasing spread

of interest among the public. Owing to the low prices, the profit on

books is of course not great; but, such as it is, it all goes to help

the cause. The association is now registered as a non-profit-making

society under the law of 1867, with no share capital and no dividends.

As regards official recognition, good progress is being made in England

(see below); but if the language is anywhere adopted universally in

government schools, it will certainly be first in France. (For an

account of the present state of this question, which is at present

before the French Permanent Educational Commission, see Part I.,

chap. vi., p. 30). Dr. Zamenhof has been decorated by the French

Government, and Esperanto is already taught in many French schools. For

purposes of education France is divided into districts, called _ressorts

d'Académie_, within each of which there is a complete educational ladder

from the primary schools to the university which is the culmination

of each. The official head of an important district is Rector Boirac,

head of the Dijon University. He is one of the most distinguished of

the Esperantists, and is the leading spirit at the congresses and on

the Lingva Komitato. He has done much for Esperanto in the schools of

his district, and under the guidance of men of his calibre Esperanto is

making serious progress in France. (For lists of university professors

favourable to an international language, see p. 32 [Part I, Chapter

VI]).

In Germany one of the foremost men of science of his time, Prof.

Ostwald, of Leipzig, is an ardent advocate of the international

language. He recently was lent for a time to Harvard University, U.S.A.,

and while there gave a great impetus to the study of Esperanto. He

also spoke in its favour at Aberdeen last year, on the occasion of the

opening of the new University buildings.

Apropos of the interchange between different countries of professors

and other teachers, which has to some extent been already tried between

America and Germany, it is curious to note the attitude of Prof. Hermann

Diels, Rector of the Berlin University. He is a great supporter of

the extension of this interchange, which also has the approbation of

the Kaiser, who attended formally the inaugural lecture of one of the

American professors, to mark his approbation. Prof. Diels commented on

the fact that diversity of language was a grave obstacle; but though

he seems before to have been a champion of popularized Latin, he now

declares himself strongly against any artificial language,[1] and

advocates the use of English, French, and German. This is a modified

form of the old Max Müller proposal, that all serious scientific work

should be published in one of six languages. It does not seem a very

convincing attitude to take up, because it ignores the facts: (1) that

the actual trend of the world is the other way—towards inclusion

of fresh national languages among the _Kultursprachen_, not towards

accentuation of the predominance of these three; (2) that the increase

of specialization and new studies at universities is leaving less and

less time for mastering several difficult languages merely as means to

other branches of study. Why should everybody have to learn English,

French, and German?

[1]Herr Diels quaintly finds that Esperanto has only one gender—the

feminine! Surely an ultra-Shavian obsession of femininity. It is

perhaps some distinction to out-Shaw Bernard Shaw in any line.

For the rest, Esperanto is now beginning to take hold in Germany.

The Germans have, as a general rule, open minds for this kind of

problem, and are trained to take objective views in linguistic matters

on the scientific merits of the case. The reason why they have been

somewhat backward hitherto in the Esperanto movement is no doubt their

disappointment at the failure of Volapük, which they had done much to

promote. But now that, in spite of this special drawback, the first

steps have been made, and clubs and papers are beginning to spring up

again, everything points to powerful co-operation from Germany in the

future.

In Switzerland progress has been enormous since the Geneva Congress

of 1906. Many clubs and classes are already formed or in process of

formation, and university men are supporting the movement. In one

respect the Swiss are now in the van of the Esperantist world: they have

just started a newspaper, _Esperanto_, the prospectus of which declares

that it will no longer treat the language as an end in itself, or make

propaganda; it will run on the lines of an ordinary weekly, merely using

Esperanto as a means, inasmuch as it is the language of the paper.

The well-known Swiss veteran philosopher Ernst Naville wrote to the

Geneva Congress that for thirty years he had regarded the introduction

of an international language as a necessity, owing to the advance of

civilization, and the day of realization of this object would be one of

the greatest dates of history.

It is impossible to go through all the countries of Europe in detail.

It is probable that the greatest numbers of Esperantists are still to

be found among the Slav peoples. The language first took root in their

midst, and was spread far and wide by a distinguished group of Slav

writers.

Outside Europe, Esperanto is making great strides in the British Empire,

Japan, and America. There are now Esperantist clubs in various parts of

India, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, in Malta, Singapore, etc. Dr.

Pollen, C.I.E., President of the British Esperanto Association, has

just been touring in India, in the interests of the language. Among

many satisfactory results is the guarantee of handsome sums towards

the guarantee fund of the coming Cambridge Congress by several native

rulers, among others the Mir of Khairpur, the Raja of Lunawada, the

Nawab of Radhanpur, and the Diwan of Palanpur.

In New Zealand, an enterprising pioneer country in many departments, the

Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, is favourable. Not long ago he made a

speech advocating the introduction of Esperanto into the public schools

of the colony.

In America big Esperantist societies and classes have sprung up with

amazing rapidity during the last year. Several universities now hold

Esperanto classes; the Boston Massachusetts Institute of Technology has

more than 100 students in its Esperanto class, and, among schools, the

famous Latin School of Roxbury has led the way with over fifty pupils

under Prof. Lowell. The press is devoting a large amount of attention

to Esperanto, and many journals of good standing are favourable. _The

North American Review_ has taken up the language. It printed articles in

December and January by Dr. Zamenhof and Prof. Macloskie of Princeton,

and followed them up by courses of lessons. It supplies Esperanto

literature to its readers at cost price, and reports that evidences of

interest "have been many and multiply daily."

Among university supporters are Profs. Huntington and Morse of Harvard,

Prof. Viles, Ohio State University, Prof. Borgerhoff, Western Reserve

University, Prof. Macloskie of Princeton, etc. On the other hand, Prof.

Hugo Munsterberg of Harvard is attacking Esperanto. His is a good

example of the literary man's uninformed criticism of the universal

language project, because it is based upon an old criticism by a German

professor (Prof. Hamel) of the defunct Volapük. Why Esperanto should be

condemned for the sins of Volapük is not obvious.

One other useful aspect of Esperanto remains to be mentioned—the

establishment of consulships to give linguistic and other assistance.

Many towns have already their Esperanto consuls, and in a few years

there ought to be a haven of refuge for Esperantists abroad nearly

everywhere.

The following list of principal Esperanto organs will give some idea

of the diffusion of the language. The list makes no pretence of being

complete.

Principal general reviews:

_Internacia Scienca Revuo_.

_La Revuo_ (which enjoys the constant collaboration of Dr. Zamenhof).

_Tra la Mondo_. (This review has recently held, by the collaboration of

its readers, an international inquiry into education in all countries.

The report is appearing in the February number and following. This is a

good example of the sort of international work which can be done for and

by readers in every corner of the globe.)

Other organs:

_The British Esperantist_.

_Lingvo Internacia_ (the _doyen_ of Esperanto journals).

_L' Espérantiste_ (France).

_Germana Esperantisto_.

_Eĥo_ (Germany).

_Svisa Espero_.

_Esperanto_ (Switzerland).

_Juna Esperantisto_ (Switzerland).

_Esperanto_ (Hungary).

_Helpa Lingvo_ (Denmark).

_La Suno Hispana_ (Spain).

_Idealo_ (Sicily).

_La Alĝera Stelo_ (Algiers: has recently ceased to appear).

_La Belga Sonorilo_ (Belgium).

_Ruslanda Esperantisto_ (Russia).

_Pola Esperantisto_ (Poland).

_Bulgara Esperantisto_ (Bulgaria).

_Lorena Esperantisto_.

_Esperantisten_ (Sweden).

_Časopis Českych Esperantista_ (Bohemia).

_L'Amerika Esperantisto_ (central American organ, supported by groups in

New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle, Los Angeles).

_La Lumo_ (Montreal).

_Antaŭen Esperantistoj_ (Peru).

_Brazila Revuo Esperantista_ (Brazil).

_La Japana Esperantisto_ (Japan).

_La Pioniro_ (India).

_Espero Katolika_.

_Foto Revuo_.

_Socia Revuo_.

_Unua Paŝo_.

_Espero Pacifista_.

_Eksport Ĵurnalo_.

_Esperanta Ligilo_ (for the blind—in Braille).

_The New International Review_ (Oxford) recently presented a four-page

Esperanto supplement to its subscribers for some months.

(_b_) _Present State of Esperanto in England_

The most practical way of spreading Esperanto is to get it taught in the

schools, so it will be best to state first what has been done so far in

this matter.

Esperanto has been officially accepted by the local educational

authorities in London, Liverpool, Manchester, and other provincial

towns; that is to say, it has been recognized as a subject to be taught

in evening classes, if there is sufficient demand. At present there

are classes under the London County Council at the following schools:

Queen's Road, Dalston (Commercial Centre); Blackheath Road (Commercial

Centre); Plough Road, Clapham Junction (Commercial Centre); Rutland

Street, Mile End (Commercial Centre); Myrdle Street, Commercial Road;

and Hugh Myddleton School, Clerkenwell. Other classes held in London are

at the Northern Polytechnic, Holloway Road; St. Bride's Institute, Bride

Lane; City of London College, White Street; Co-operative Institute,

Plumstead; Working Men's College, St. Pancras; Stepney Library, Mile End

Road; and a large class for teachers is held at the Cusack Institute,

Moorfields.

At Keighley, Yorks, the Board of Education has recognized the language

as a grant-earning subject. Various local authorities give facilities,

some paying the teacher, others supplying a room. Among these are

Kingston-on-Thames (Technical Institute), Rochdale, Ipswich (Technical

School), Grimsby, etc.

It does not appear that Esperanto is yet taught in any public elementary

school; educational officials, inspectors, etc., have yet to learn

about the language. Many private schools now teach it, and at least one

private girls' school of the best type teaches it as a regular subject,

alongside French and German. It has been impossible to get any return

or figures as to the extent to which it has penetrated into private

and proprietary schools. The Northern Institute of Languages, perhaps

the most important commercial school in the North of England, held an

Esperanto class with sixty-three students.

Two large examining bodies—the London Chamber of Commerce and the

Examination Board of the National Union of Teachers—have included

Esperanto in their subjects for commercial certificates. At the London

Chamber of Commerce examination in May 1906 the candidates were as

follows:

Entries. Passes.

Teacher's diploma . . . 6 1

Senior . . . . . 15 15

Junior . . . . . 109 67

——— ———

130 83

There is now a Teachers' Section of the British Esperanto Association

with an Education Committee, which is carrying on active work in

promoting Esperanto in the schools.

At an official reception of French teachers in London last year by

the Board of Education, Mr. Lough, speaking on behalf of the Board,

made a sympathetic reference to Esperanto. The incident is amusingly

told in Esperanto by M. Boirac, Rector of Dijon University and a noted

Esperantist, who was amongst the French professors. Not understanding

English, he was growing rather sleepy during a long speech, when the

word "Esperanto" gave him a sudden shock. He thought the English

official was poking fun at him, but was relieved to hear that the

allusion had been sympathetic.

At this year's meeting of the Modern Language Society at Durham, the

Warden of Durham University, Dean Kitchin, in welcoming the society to

the town and university, gave considerable prominence in his speech to

Esperanto, remarking that, to judge by its rapid growth and the sanity

of its reformed grammar, one might easily believe that it will win

general use.[1] Such references in high places illustrate the tendency

to admit that there may be something in this international language

scheme.

[1]He continued: "To me it seems that Esperanto in vocabulary and

grammar is a miracle of simplicity."

There are now (May 1907) seventy local Esperanto societies in Great

Britain on the list of societies affiliated to the British Esperanto

Association, and often several new ones are formed in a month. The

first were Keighley and London, founded 1902. Seven more were formed in

1903; and since the beginning of 1906 no less than thirty-six. Besides

the members of these there are a great many learners in classes and

individual Esperantists who belong to no affiliated group. Every month

one reads lists of lectures given in the most diverse places, very often

with the note that a local club or class resulted, or that a large sale

of Esperanto literature took place. Sometimes the immediate number of

converts is surprising: e.g. on April 22, 1907, after a lecture on

Esperanto at the Technical College, Darlington, seventy-eight students

entered their names for a week's course of lessons to be held in the

college three times a day.

There are now Esperanto consuls in the following towns: Bradford,

Chester, Edinburgh, Harrogate, Hull, Hunslet, Keighley, Leeds,

Liverpool, Nottingham, Oakworth, Plymouth, Rhos, Southampton, and St.

Helens. Birmingham has within the last few months taken up the cause

with its usual energy, and now has a large class.

In England the universities have been slow to show interest in

Esperanto; but now that Cambridge has been selected as the seat of the

Congress in 1907, the university is granting every facility, as also

is the town council, in use of rooms and the like, and some professors

and other members of the university are cordially co-operating. Last

October Prof. Skeat, one of the fathers of English philology, took the

chair at a preliminary meeting, and made a speech very favourable to

Esperanto. He said, "I think Esperanto is a very good movement, and I

hope it will succeed." The subject of Esperanto is being well put before

the teachers of Cambridgeshire, and the railway companies all over the

country and abroad are granting special fares for the congress.[1] It

is probable that the overwhelming demonstration of the possibilities of

this international language will open the eyes of many who have hitherto

been indifferent, and that the movement will enter on a new phase of

expansion in England, and through the example of England, which is

closely watched abroad, in the world at large.

[1]It is a striking fact that six weeks before the opening of the

congress 700 members have already secured their tickets.

IX

LESSONS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE FOREGOING HISTORY

The extent to which more or less artificial languages are already

used in various parts of the world for the transaction of interracial

business, and the persistent preoccupation of thinkers with the idea

for the last 200 years, culminating in the production of a great

number of schemes in our own times, show that there _is_ a demand for

an international language, more perfect than has yet been available

and universally valid. The list of languages proposed (see Part II.,

chap. ii.) by no means represents all that has been written and thought

upon the subject. Many more have proposed solutions of the question,

beginning with such men as Becher (1661), Kirchner (1665), Porele

(1667), Upperdorf (1679), Müller (1681), Lobkowitz (1687), Besuier

(1684), Solbrig (1725), Taboltzafo (1772), and continuing down to the

present day. The striking success of Volapük and Esperanto in gaining,

within a few years of publication, many thousands of ardent supporters

has also been a revelation. It has proved most conclusively that there

is a demand. If so many people in all lands have been willing to give

up time and money to learning and promoting a language from which they

could not expect to reap anything like full benefit for many years,

what must be its value when ripened to yield full profits, i.e. when

universally adopted?

There are two main obstacles to universal adoption. The first is common

to all projects of reform—the force of inertia. It is hard to win

practical support for a new thing, even when assent is freely given in

theory to its utility. The second is peculiar to Esperanto, and consists

in the discrediting of the cause of international language through the

failure of Volapük. Good examples of its operation are afforded by the

slowness of Germany to recognize Esperanto, and by the criticism of

Prof. Münsterberg (formerly of Freiburg, Germany) in America, based

as it is on an old German criticism of Volapük, and transferred at

second-hand to Esperanto.

Hence every effort should be made to induce critics of Esperanto to

examine the language before pronouncing judgment—to criticise the real

thing, instead of some bogy of their imagination.

One bogy which has caused much misdirected criticism is raised by

misunderstanding of the word "universal" in the phrase _universal

language_. It is necessary to insist upon the fact that "universal"

means universally adopted and everywhere current _as an auxiliary_ to

the mother-tongue for purposes of international communication. It does

not mean a universal language for home consumption as a substitute for

national language. In Baconian language, this bogy may be called an

"idol of the market-place," since it rests upon confusion of terms.

Pursuing the Baconian classification of error, we may call the literary

man's nightmare of the invasion of literature by the universal language

an "idol of the theatre." The lesson of experience is, that it is

well not to alienate the powerful literary interest justly concerned

in upholding the dignity and purity of national speech by making

extravagant claims on behalf of the auxiliary language. It is capable

of conveying _matter_ or _content_ in any department of human activity

with great nicety; but where it is a question of reproducing by

actual translation the _form_ or _manner_ of some masterpiece of national

literature, it will not, by nature of its very virtues, give a full idea

of the rich play of varied synonymic in the original.

The great practical lesson of Volapük is, that alteration brings

dissension, and dissension brings death. A universal language must

be in essentials, like Esperanto, inviolable. If ever the time comes

for modification in any essential point, it will be after official

international recognition in the schools. Gradual reforms could then,

if necessary, be introduced by authority, as in the case of the recent

French "Tolérations," or the German reforms in orthography.

So long as the world is divided among rival great powers, no national

language can be recognized as universal by them all. It is therefore

a choice between an artificial language or nothing. As regards the

structure of the artificial language itself, history shows clearly

that it must be _a posteriori_, not _a priori_. It must select its

constituent roots and its spoken sounds on the principle of maximum of

internationality, and its grammar must be a simplification of natural

existing grammar. On the other hand, a recent tendency to brand as

"arbitrary" and _a priori_ everything that makes for regularity, if it

is not directly borrowed, is to be resisted. It is possible to overdo

even the best of rules by slavish and unintelligent application. Thus it

is urged by extremists that some of the neatest labour-saving devices of

Esperanto are arbitrary, and therefore to be condemned.

Take the Esperanto suffix _-in-_, which denotes the feminine.

" " " prefix _mal-_ " " " opposite.

" " " suffix _-ig-_ " " causative action.

Given the roots _bov-_ (ox); _fort-_ (strong); _grand-_ (big): Esperanto

forms _bovino_ (cow); _malforta_ (weak); _grandigi_ (to augment);

_malgrandigi_ (to diminish).

These words are arbitrary, because not borrowed from national language.

Let the public decide for itself whether it prefers a language which

insists (in order not to be "arbitrary") upon borrowing fresh roots

to express these ideas. Let any one who has learnt Latin, French, and

German try how long it takes him to think of the masculine of _vacca_,

_vache_, _Kuh_; the opposite of _fortis_, _fort_, _stark_; the Latin,

French, and German ways of expressing "to make big" and "to make small."

The issue is hardly doubtful.

Again, the languages upon whose vocabulary and grammar the international

language is to be based must be Aryan (Indo-European). This is a

practical point. The non-European peoples will consent to learn

"simplified Aryan" just as they are adopting Aryan civilization; but the

converse is not true. The Europeans will go without an international

language rather than learn one based to some extent upon Japanese or

Mongolian. The only prescription for securing a large field is—greatest

ease for greatest number, with a handicap in favour of Europeans, to

induce them to enter.

PART III

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 analogy. 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

principal languages of Europe, except Hungarian, Basque, and Finnish.

The main tendency of this group of languages has been, technically

speaking, to become analytic instead of synthetic—that is, to abandon

complex systems of inflection by means of case and verbal endings,

and to substitute 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 analytical

languages, to express the same grammatical relations. For example:

Nom. mensă = 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. mensā = by, with, or mensis = by, with, or from

from a table. tables.

By the time you have learnt these various Latin case endings (_-ă_,

_-am_, _-ae_, _-ae_, _-ā_; _-ae_, _-as_, _-arum_, _-is_, _-is_), you

have only learnt one out of many types of declension. Passing 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 passed 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 pronouns 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 pronoun (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

pronominal atavism. Mark Twain says he paid double for a German dog,

because he bought it in the dative case; but no nation need be damned

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 τó) 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 cumbrous 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 illustrated 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

illustration, 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 pass 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 analysis, 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

illustration 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 classes 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 classes. 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 "télégraphier," and not "télégraphir," -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 document 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 pronunciation 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 pronunciation 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 assumed 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 pronouns 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.

Contrast Esp. _bon-o_ with French _bon_, Eng. _good_, Germ. _gut_. By

this means Esperanto is not only rendered slower, more harmonious, and

easier of comprehension; it is also able to denote the parts of speech

clearly to eye and ear by their form. Thus final _-o_ bespeaks a noun;

_-a_, an adjective; _-e_, an adverb; _-i_, an infinitive, etc.

Now, since all adjectives end in syllabic _-a_, it is much harder

to keep them uninflected than if they ended with a consonant like

the Eng. "good." To talk about _bona patroj_ would not only seem a

hideous barbarism to all Latin peoples, whose languages Esperanto most

resembles, but it would also offend the bulk of Northerners. After a

very little practice it is really easier to say _bonaj patroj_ than

_bona patroj_. The assimilation of termination tempts the ear and

tongue.

The grammar is also simplified. For if adjectives agreeing with nouns

and pronouns expressed were invariable, it would probably be necessary

to introduce special rules to meet the case of adjectives standing as

nouns, or where the qualified word was suppressed.

Again, is the price too high compared to the advantages?

II

ESPERANTO FROM AN EDUCATIONAL POINT OF VIEW—IT WILL AID THE

LEARNING OF OTHER LANGUAGES AND STIMULATE INTELLIGENCE

(1) Esperanto takes a natural place at the beginning of the sequence of

languages, upon which is founded the scheme of language-teaching in the

Reform Schools of Germany, and in some of the more progressive English

schools.

The principle involved in this scheme is that of orderly progression

from the easier to the more difficult. Only one foreign language is

begun at a time. The easiest language in the school curriculum is

begun first. Enough hours per week are devoted to this language to

allow of decent progress being made. When the pupils have a fair grip

of the elements of one language, another is begun. The bulk of the

school language-teaching hours are now devoted to the new language, and

sufficient weekly hours are given to the language already learnt to

avoid backsliding at least. Thus in a German school of the new type the

linguistic hours are devoted in the lowest classes to the mother-tongue.

When the pupils have some idea what language means, and have acquired

some notion of grammar, they are given a school year or two of French.

After this Latin is begun in the upper part of the school, and Greek at

a corresponding interval after Latin.

Now, it is one of the commonest complaints of teachers in our secondary

schools that they have to begin teaching Latin or French to boys who

have no knowledge whatever of grammar. Fancy the hopelessness of trying

to teach an English boy the construction of a Latin or French sentence

when he does not know what a relative or demonstrative pronoun means!

This is the fate of so many a master that quite a number of them resign

themselves to giving up a good part of their French or Latin hour to

endeavouring to imbue their flock with some notions of grammar in

general. They naturally try to appeal to their boys through the medium

of their own language. But those who have incautiously upset their class

from the frying-pan of _qui_, _quae_, _quod_, into the fire of English

demonstrative and relative pronouns get a foretaste of the fire that

dieth not. _Facilis descensus Averni._ Happy if they do not lose heart,

and step downward from the fire to ashes—reinforced with sackcloth.

"I contend that that 'that' that that gentleman said was right." This

is the "abstract and brief chronicle" of their woes—sometimes, indeed,

the epitaph of their pedagogical career, if they are too sickened of

the Sisiphean task of trying to teach grammar on insufficient basis.

And this use, or abuse, of the hardworked word "that" is only an

extreme case which illustrates the difficulty of teaching grammar to

babes, through the medium of a language honeycombed with synonyms,

homonyms, exceptions, and other pitfalls (can you be honeycombed with a

pitfall?)—a language which seems to take a perverse delight in breaking

all its own rules and generally scoring off the beginner. And for the

dull beginner, what language does not seem to conform to this type?

Answer: Esperanto.

In other words, it would seem that, for the grinding of grammar and the

advancement of sound learning in the initial stage, there is nothing

like an absolutely uniform and regular language,[1] a _type tongue_,

something that corresponds in the linguistic hierarchy to Euclid or

the first rules of arithmetic in the mathematical, something clear,

consistent, self-evident, and of universal application.

[1]Cf. Sir Oliver Lodge: "It would certainly appear that for this

purpose [i.e. educative language-learning for children] the fully

inflected ancient languages are best and most satisfactory; if

they were still more complete and regular, like Esperanto, they

would be better still to begin with" (_School Teaching and School

Reform_, p. 21: chapter on Curricula and Methods).

Take our sentence again: "I contend that that 'that' that that gentleman

said was right." If our beginner has imbibed his first notions of

grammar through the medium of a type language, in which a noun is

always a noun, and is stamped as such by its form (this, by the way,

is an enormous aid in making the thing clear to children); in which an

adjective is always an adjective, and is stamped as such by its form;

and so on through all the other parts of speech,—when the teacher

comes to analyse the sentence given, he will be able to explain it by

reference to the known forms of the regular key-language. He will point

out that of the "thats": the first is the Esperanto _ke_ (which is

final, because _ke_ never means anything else); the second is _tiu_ (at

once revealed by its form to be a demonstrative), the fourth _kiu_, and

so on. As for the third "that," which _is_ rather hard for a child to

grasp, he will be able to make it into a noun in form by merely adding

_-o_ to the Esperanto equivalent for any "that" required. He will not

be doing violence to the language; for Esperanto consists of roots,

which habitually do duty as noun, verb, adjective, etc., according

to the termination added. Those who know the value of the concrete

and tangible in dealing with children will grasp the significance of

the new possibilities that are thus for the first time opened up to

language-teachers.

To sum up: Natural languages are all hard, and the beginner can never

go far enough to get a rule fixed soundly in his mind without meeting

exceptions which puzzle and confuse him. Esperanto is as clear, logical,

and consistent as arithmetic, and, like arithmetic, depends more upon

intelligence than upon memory work. If Esperanto were adopted as the

first foreign language to be taught in schools, and all grammatical

teaching were postponed until Esperanto had been begun, and then given

entirely through the medium of Esperanto until a sound notion of

grammatical rules and categories had been instilled, it would probably

be found that the subsequent task of learning natural languages would

be facilitated and abridged. From the very start it would be possible

to prevent certain common errors and confusions, that tend to become

engrained in juvenile minds by the fluctuating or contradictory usage of

their own language, to their great let and hindrance in the subsequent

stages of language-learning. The skeleton outline of grammatical

theory with concrete examples afforded by Esperanto would shield

against vitiating initial mistakes, in much the same way as the use of

a scientific phonetic alphabet, when a foreign language is presented

for the first time to the English beginner in written form, shields

him against carrying over his native mixed vowel system to languages

which use the same letters as English, but give quite a different value

to them. In both cases[1] the essentials of the new instrument of

learning are the same—that it be of universal application, that it be

sufficiently different from the mother-tongue or alphabet to prevent

confusion by association of ideas, that each of the new forms or letters

convey only one idea or sound respectively, and that this idea or sound

be always and only conveyed by that form or letter.

[1]i.e. scientific regular type grammar and scientific regular

phonetic alphabet.

(2) From a psychological point of view Esperanto would be a rewarding

subject of study for children.

The above remarks on sequence of languages show that, by placing

Esperanto first in the language curriculum, justice is done to the

psychological maxim: from the easier to the harder, from the regular

to the exceptional. It may further be argued (_a_) that Esperanto is

educative in the real sense of the word, i.e. suitable for drawing

out and developing the reasoning powers; (_b_) that it would act as

a stimulus, and by its ease set a higher standard of attainment in

language-learning.

(_a_) Amidst all the discussion of "educationists" about methods,

curricula, sequence of studies, and the rest, one fundamental fact

continues to face the teacher when he gets down to business; and

that is, that he has got to make the taught think for themselves.

In proportion as his teaching makes them contribute their share of

effort will it be fruitful. This is, of course, the merest truism,

sometimes dignified in the current pedagogical slang by the name of

"self-activity," or the like. But whatever new bottles the theorists,

and their extreme left wing the faddists, may choose to serve up our

old wine in, the fact is there: children have got to be made to use

their own brains. The eternal question that faces the teacher is, how to

provide problems that children really can work out by using their own

brains. The trouble about history, geography, English literature, and

such subjects is that the subject-matter of the problems they offer for

solution lies beyond the experience of the young, and to a large extent

beyond their reasoning powers. In teaching all such subjects there is

accordingly the perpetual danger that the real work done may degenerate

into mere memory work, or parrot-like cramming of notes or dates.

The same difficulty is encountered in science teaching. Heuristic

methods have been devised to meet the difficulty. Though they are no

doubt psychologically sound, they tend to be very slow in results; hence

the common jibe that a boy may learn as much by them in five years as he

could learn out of a shilling text-book in a term.

The old argument that "mental gymnastics" are best supplied by Latin

is sound to the extent that Latin really does furnish a perpetual

series of small problems that have to be solved by the aid of grammar

and dictionary, but which do involve real mental effort, since mere

mechanical looking out of words does not suffice for their elucidation.

But for various reasons, such as the remoteness of the ancient world

in time, place, modes of thought, etc., Latin tends to be too hard and

not interesting enough for the average boy. He gets discouraged, and

develops a habit of only working enough to keep out of trouble with the

school authorities, and is apt to leave school with an unintelligent

attitude towards intellectual things in general. This is the result of

early drudging at a subject in which progress is very slow, and which

by its nature is uncongenial. The great desideratum is a linguistic

subject which shall at once inculcate a feeling for language (German

_Sprachgefühl_), and yet be easy enough to admit of rapid progress.

Nothing keeps alive the quickening zest that makes learning fruitful

like the consciousness of making rapid progress.

Hitherto arithmetic and Euclid have been the ideal subjects for

providing the kind of problem required—one that can be worked out

with certainty by the aid of rule and use of brain, without calling

for knowledge or experience that the child cannot have. The facts

are self-evident, and follow from principles, without involving any

extraneous acquaintance with life or literature, and no deadening

memory work is required. If only there were some analogous subject on

the literary side, to give a general grip of principles, uncomplicated

by any arbitrary element, what a boon it would be! and what a sound

preparation for real and more advanced linguistic study for those who

showed aptitude for this line! Arithmetic and Euclid both really depend

upon common sense; but partly owing to their abstract nature, and partly

because they are always classed as "mathematics," they seem to contain

something repellent to many literary or linguistic types of mind.

With the invention of a perfectly regular and logically constructed

language, a concrete embodiment of the chief principles of language

structure, we have offered us for the first time the hitherto missing

linguistic equivalent of arithmetic or Euclid. In a regular language,

just because everything goes by rule, problems can be set and worked

out analogous to sums in arithmetic and riders in Euclid. Given the

necessary roots and rules, the learner can manufacture the necessary

vocabulary and produce the answer with the same logical inevitability;

and he has to use his brains to apply his rules, instead of merely

copying words out of a dictionary, or depending upon his memory for

them.

In this way all that part of language-study which tends to be dead

weight in teaching the young is got rid of in one fell swoop, and

this though the language taught and learnt is a highly developed

instrument for reading, writing, speaking, and literary expression.

This dead weight includes most of the unintelligent memorizing, all

exceptions, all complicated systems of declension and conjugation,

all irregular comparison of adjectives and adverbs, all syntactical

subtleties (cf. the sequence of tenses, oratio obliqua, the syntax of

subordinate clauses, in Latin; and the famous conditional sentences,

with the no less notorious _ού_ and _μή_ in Greek), all conflicting and

illogical uses of auxiliaries (cf. _etre_ and _avoir_ in French, and

_sein_ and _haben_ in German), besides a host of other old enemies.

Some of these things of course are not wholly memory work, especially

the syntax, which involves a real feeling for language. But these

would be much better postponed until one easy foreign language has

been learnt thoroughly. Every multilinguist knows that each foreign

language is easier to learn than the last. With a perfectly regular

artificial language you can make so much progress in a short time that

you can use it freely for practical purposes. Yet it does not come of

itself, like the mother-tongue. _This free manipulation of a consciously

acquired language is the very best training for forming a feeling for

language_—far better than weary stumbling over the baby stages of a hard

language. When you can read, write, and speak one very easy artificial

language, which you have had to learn as a foreign one, then is the time

when you can profitably tackle the difficulties of natural language,

appreciating the niceties of syntax, and realizing, by comparison with

your normal key-language, in what points natural languages are merely

arbitrary and have to be learnt by heart. Those who have early conquered

the grammar and syntax of any foreign language, but have had to put in

years of hard (largely memory) work before they could write or speak,

e.g., Latin Latin, French French, or German German, will realize the

saving effected, when they are told that Esperanto has no idiom, no

arbitrary usage. The combination of words is not governed, as in natural

languages, by tradition (which tradition has to be assimilated in the

sweat of the brow), but is free, the only limits being common sense,

common grammar, and lucidity.

To those who do not know Esperanto it may seem a dark saying that

language riders can be worked out in the same way as geometrical

ones. To understand this some knowledge of the language is necessary

(for sample problems see Appendix A, p. 200). But for the sake of

making the argument intelligible it may here be stated that one of the

labour-saving, vocabulary-saving devices of Esperanto is the employment

of a number of suffixes with fixed meaning, that can be added to any

root. Thus:

The suffix _-ej-_ denotes place.

" " _-il-_ " instrument.

" " _-ig-_ " causation.

Final _-o_ denotes a noun.

Given this and the root _san-_ (cf. Lat. _sanus_), containing the

idea of health, form words for "to heal" (_san-ig-i_ = to cause to be

well); "medicine" (_san-ig-il-o_ = instrument of healing); "hospital"

(_san-ig-ej-o_ = place of healing), etc.

This is merely an example. The combinations and permutations are

infinite; they give a healthy knowledge of word-building, and can be

used in putting whole pages of carefully prepared idiomatic English into

Esperanto. Practical experience shows that, given the necessary crude

roots, the necessary suffixes, and a one-page grammar of the Esperanto

language, an intelligent person can produce in Esperanto a translation

of a page of idiomatic English, not Ollendorfian phrases, _without having

learnt Esperanto_.

(_b_) Experience also shows that the intelligent one thoroughly enjoys

himself while doing so; and having done so, experiences a thrill of

exhilaration almost amounting to awe at having made a better translation

into a language he has never learnt than he could make into a national

language that he has learnt for years, e.g. Latin, French, or German.

And what is exhilaration in the dry tree may be sustained working

keenness in the green. The stimulus to the young mind of progress swift

and sure is immense. A child who has learnt to read, write, and speak

Esperanto in six months, as is very possible within the natural limits

of power of expression imposed by his age, not only has a sound working

knowledge of grammatical categories and forms, which will stand him

in good stead in subsequent language-learning; he has also a quite

different attitude of mind—_une tout autre mentalité_, to use recent

jargon—towards foreign languages. His only experience of learning one

has been that he did so with the object and result of being able to

read, write, and speak it within a reasonable time. "By so much the

greater and more resounding the slump into actuality," you will say,

"when he comes to grapple with his next." Perhaps. But even so, the

habit of acquiring fresh words and forms for immediate use must surely

tell—not to mention that he will incidentally have acquired a very

useful Romance vocabulary, and a wholly admirable French lucidity of

construction.

(3) And this question of lucidity brings us to the third great

educational advantage of Esperanto. Its opponents—without having

ever learnt it to see—have urged that its preciseness will debauch

the literary sense. Surely the exact opposite is the fact. _Le style

c'est l'homme_, and the essence of true style is that a man should give

accurate expression to his thoughts. The French wit, satirizing vapid

fine writing, said that language was given to man to enable him to

conceal his thought. There is no more potent instrument for obscuring

or concealing thought than the ready-made phrase. Take up many a

piece of journalese or other slipshod writing, and note how often the

conventional phrase or word slips from under the pen, meaning nothing

in particular. The very conventionality disguises from writer and

reader the confusion or absolute lack of idea it serves to cloak. Both

are lulled by the familiar sound of the set phrase or word and glide

easily over them. On the other hand, in using a language in which you

construct a good deal of your vocabulary according to logical rule

_tout en marchant_, it is impossible to avoid thinking, at each moment,

exactly what you do mean. Where there is no idiom, no arbitrary usage,

no ready-made phrase, there is also far less danger of yielding to a

fatal facility.

Take an instance or two. In the Prayer Book occurs the phrase "Fulfil,

O Lord, our desires and petitions." At Sunday lunch a mixed party of

people, after attending morning service, were asked how they would

render into Esperanto the word "desires." They nearly all plumped for

_deziraĵo_. Now, the Esperanto root for "desire" is _dezir-_. By adding

_-o_ it becomes a noun = the act of desiring, a desire. By adding the

suffix _-aĵ_, and then _-o_, it becomes concrete = a desire- (i.e.

desired) thing, a desire. A reference to the dictionary showed that the

English word "desire" has both these meanings, but none of these people

had a sufficiently accurate idea of the use of language to realize this.

It was only when a gentleman passed his plate for a second helping of

beef, and was asked which he expected to be fulfilled—the beef, or his

aspiration for beef—that he, under the stimulus of hunger, adopted the

rendering _dezir-o_, thereby saving at once his bacon and his additional

beef.

It is not of course necessary for people to define pedantically to

themselves the meaning of every word they use, but surely it must

conduce to clear thinking to use a language in which you are perpetually

called upon, if you are writing seriously, to make just the mental

effort necessary to think what you do mean.

Again, consider the use of prepositions. This is, in nearly all national

languages, extremely fluctuating and arbitrary. Take a few English

phrases showing the use of the prepositions "at" and "with." "At seven

o'clock"; "at any price"; "at all times"; "at the worst"; "let it go

at that"; "I should say at a guess," etc. "Come with me"; "write with

a pen"; "he came with a rush"; "things are different with us"; "with a

twinkle in his eye"; "with God all things are possible," etc. Try to

turn these phrases into any language you think you know; the odds are

that you will find yourself "up against it pretty badly." The fact is,

that prepositions are very frequently used on no logical plan, not at

all according to any fixed or universal meaning; all that can be said

about them in a given phrase is that they are used there because they

are used. To remember their equivalents in other languages hard memory

work and much phrase-learning is necessary. In Esperanto all that is

necessary is: first, to become clear as to the exact meaning; secondly,

to pick the preposition that conveys it. There is no doubt, as the

Esperanto prepositions are fixed in sense, on the "one word one meaning"

plan. The point is, that there is no memory searching, often so utterly

vain, for there are few people indeed who can write a few pages of the

most familiar foreign languages without getting their prepositions all

wrong, and having "foreigner" stamped large all across their efforts.

In Esperanto, provided you have a clear mind and know your grammar,

_you are right_. No arbitrary usage defeats your efforts and makes

discouraging jargon of your literary attempts.

This training in clear thought, the first requisite for all good

writing, is surely sound practical pedagogics. By the time you can give

up conscious word-building in Esperanto, and use words and phrases by

rote, you have done enough bracing thinking to teach you caution in the

use of the ready-made phrase and horror of the vague word.

Fools make phrases, and wise men shun them. Here is a phrase-free

language: need we shun it?

III

COMPARATIVE TABLES ILLUSTRATING LABOUR SAVED IN LEARNING ESPERANTO AS

CONTRASTED WITH OTHER LANGUAGES

(_a_) WORD-BUILDING

The following tables are meant to give some idea of the number and

variety of different ideas that can be expressed by a single Esperanto

root, with the addition of affixes (prefixes and suffixes). By reading

the English, French, and German columns downwards, the reader will see

how many different roots and periphrases these languages employ in order

to express the same ideas.

As the affixes have fixed meanings, they only have to be learnt once

for all, and many of them (e.g. _-ist_, _-in_, _re-_) are already

familiar. When once acquired, they can be used in unending permutation

and combination with different roots and each other. The tables below

are by no means exhaustive of what can be done with the roots _san-_

and _lern-_. They are merely illustrative. By referring to the full

table of affixes in Part IV, Chapter IV, the reader can go on forming

new compounds _ad libitum_: e.g. san-o, san-a, san-e, san-i, saneco,

sanilo, sanulo, malsane, malsani, saneti, malsaneti, sanadi, eksani,

eksaniĝi, saninda, sanindi, sanindulo, sanaĵo, sanaĵero, sanilo,

sanigilo, sanigilejo, sanigilujo, sanigilisto, malsanemeco, remalsano,

remalsanigo, sanila, malsanulino, sanistinedzo, sanilingo, sanigestro,

sanigestrino, sanigema, sanega, sanigega, gesanantoj, saniĝontoj,

sanigistido, sanigejano... and so on (kaj tiel plu).

* * * * *

AFFIX ESPERANTO ENGLISH

san-a healthy

mal- (opposite) mal-san-a ill

ne (not) ne-san-a unwell

-ig (causative) san-ig-i to heal

san-ig-a salutary

re- (again) re-san-ig-a restorative

-iĝ (becoming) san-iĝ-i to be convalescent

re-san-iĝ-a getting well again

-ig mal-san-ig-a sickening (transitive)

-iĝ mal-san-iĝ-a sickening (intransitive)

-ist (agent) san-ig-ist-o doctor

-ej (place) san-ig-ej-o hospital

-ul (characteristic) mal-san-ul-o invalid

-ebl (possibility) (mal)-san-ig-ebl-a (in)curable

-ar (collective) mal-san-ul-ar-o hospital inmates

ge- (both sexes) ge-mal-san-ul-ar-o all the men and women patients

-in (feminine) san-ig-ist-in-o a lady doctor

-edz (married) san-ig-ist-edz-in-o a doctor's wife

AFFIX ESPERANTO FRENCH

san-a bien portant

mal- (opposite) mal-san-a malade

ne (not) ne-san-a (un peu) souffrant

-ig (causative) san-ig-i guérir

san-ig-a salutaire

re- (again) re-san-ig-a restaurant

-iĝ (becoming) san-iĝ-i etre convalescent

re-san-iĝ-a en train de se rétablir

-ig mal-san-ig-a écoeurant (qui rend malade)

-iĝ mal-san-iĝ-a languissant

-ist (agent) san-ig-ist-o médecin

-ej (place) san-ig-ej-o hôpital

-ul (characteristic) mal-san-ul-o un malade

-ebl (possibility) (mal)-san-ig-ebl-a (in)curable

-ar (collective) mal-san-ul-ar-o ensemble des malades

ge- (both sexes) ge-mal-san-ul-ar-o les malades hommes et femmes

-in (feminine) san-ig-ist-in-o un médecin femme

-edz (married) san-ig-ist-edz-in-o une femme de médecin

AFFIX ESPERANTO GERMAN

san-a gesund

mal- (opposite) mal-san-a krank

ne (not) ne-san-a unwohl

-ig (causative) san-ig-i heilen

san-ig-a heilsam

re- (again) re-san-ig-a wiederherstellend

-iĝ (becoming) san-iĝ-i sich erholen

re-san-iĝ-a genesend

-ig mal-san-ig-a ekelhaft (krank machend)

-iĝ mal-san-iĝ-a siechend

-ist (agent) san-ig-ist-o Arzt

-ej (place) san-ig-ej-o Krankenhaus

-ul (characteristic) mal-san-ul-o ein Kranker

-ebl (possibility) (mal)-san-ig-ebl-a (un)heilbar

-ar (collective) mal-san-ul-ar-o Gesamtheit der Kranken

ge- (both sexes) ge-mal-san-ul-ar-o die Kranken beider Geschlechter

-in (feminine) san-ig-ist-in-o Arztin

-edz (married) san-ig-ist-edz-in-o Frau des Arztes

* * * * *

AFFIX ESPERANTO ENGLISH

lern-i to learn

-ig (causative) lern-ig-i to teach

lern-ig-a educative

-ej (place) lernej-o school

-ant (pres. part.) lern-ant-o pupil

ge- (of both sexes) ge-lern-ant-oj pupils of both sexes

-ar (collective) lern-ant-ar-o class

-an (appertaining) lern-ej-an-o schoolboy

-in (feminine) lern-ej-an-in-o schoolgirl

-estr (chief) lern-ej-estr-o headmaster

-ist (agent) lern-ej-ist-o schoolmaster

lern-ej-ist-in-o schoolmistress

-aĵo (concrete) lern-aĵ-o (learnt-stuff) subject

lern-aĵ-ar-o curriculum

-em (inclination) lern-em-a studious

mal- (opposite) mal-lern-em-a idle

-ig (causative) lern-em-ig-i to stimulate

lern-ig-o instruction

(act)

lern-ig-aĵ-o instruction

(teaching given)

AFFIX ESPERANTO FRENCH

lern-i apprendre

-ig (causative) lern-ig-i enseigner

lern-ig-a éducateur

-ej (place) lernej-o école

-ant (pres. part.) lern-ant-o élève

ge- (of both sexes) ge-lern-ant-oj élèves des deux sexes

-ar (collective) lern-ant-ar-o classe

-an (appertaining) lern-ej-an-o écolier

-in (feminine) lern-ej-an-in-o ecolière

-estr (chief) lern-ej-estr-o proviseur

-ist (agent) lern-ej-ist-o instituteur (professeur)

lern-ej-ist-in-o institutrice

-aĵo (concrete) lern-aĵ-o (learnt-stuff) matière d'enseignement

lern-aĵ-ar-o ensemble des matièress

d'enseignement

-em (inclination) lern-em-a appliqué

mal- (opposite) mal-lern-em-a paresseux

-ig (causative) lern-em-ig-i mettre en train

lern-ig-o instruction

lern-ig-aĵ-o enseignement

AFFIX ESPERANTO GERMAN

lern-i lernen

-ig (causative) lern-ig-i lehren

lern-ig-a erzieherisch

-ej (place) lernej-o Schule

-ant (pres. part.) lern-ant-o Schüler

ge- (of both sexes) ge-lern-ant-oj Schüler and Schülerinnen

-ar (collective) lern-ant-ar-o Klasse

-an (appertaining) lern-ej-an-o Schulknabe

-in (feminine) lern-ej-an-in-o Schulmädchen

-estr (chief) lern-ej-estr-o Direktor

-ist (agent) lern-ej-ist-o Lehrer

lern-ej-ist-in-o Lehrerin

-aĵo (concrete) lern-aĵ-o (learnt-stuff) Lehrstoff

lern-aĵ-ar-o (Studien)- Laufbahn

Schulprogramm

-em (inclination) lern-em-a fleissig

mal- (opposite) mal-lern-em-a faul

-ig (causative) lern-em-ig-i anregen

lern-ig-o das Unterrichten

lern-ig-aĵ-o Unterricht

* * * * *

(_b_) PARTICIPLES AND AUXILIARIES

The following table illustrates the perfect simplicity and terseness of

the Esperanto verb.

Every tense, active and passive, is formed with never more than two

words. Every shade of meaning (continued, potential, etc., action) is

expressed by these two words, of which one is the single auxiliary

_esti_ (itself conjugated regularly). The double auxiliary—"to be" and

"to have"—which infests most modern languages, with all its train of

confusing and often illogical distinctions (cf. French _je suis allé_,

but _j'ai couru_), disappears. Contrast the simplicity of _amota_ with

the cumbersome periphrasis _about to be loved_; or the perfect ease and

clearness of _vi estus amita_ with the treble-barrelled German _Sie

würden geliebt worden sein_.

This simplicity of the Esperanto verb is entirely due to its full

participial system. There are six participles, present, past, and future

active and passive, each complete in one word. The only natural Aryan

language (of those commonly studied) that compares with Esperanto in

this respect is Greek; and it is precisely the fulness of the Greek

participial system that lends to the language a great part of that

flexibility which all ages have agreed in admiring in it pre-eminently.

Take a page of Plato or any other Greek author, and count the number

of participles and note their use. They will be found more numerous

and more delicately effective than in other languages. Esperanto can

do all this; and it can do it without any of the complexity of form

and irregularity that makes the learning of Greek verbs such a hard

task. Bearing in mind the three characteristic vowels of the three

tenses—present _-a_, past _-i_, future _-o_ (common to finite tenses

and participles)—the proverbial schoolboy, and the dullest at that,

could hardly make the learning of the Esperanto participles last him

half an hour.

It would be easy to go on filling page after page with the

simplifications effected by Esperanto, but these will not fail to strike

the learner after a very brief acquaintance with the language. But

attention ought to be drawn to one more particularly clever device—the

form of asking questions. An Esperanto statement is converted into a

question without any inversion of subject and verb or any change at

all, except the addition of the interrogative particle _ĉu_. In this

Esperanto agrees with Japanese. But whereas Japanese adds its particle

_ka_ at the end of the sentence, the Esperanto _ĉu_ stands first in its

clause. Thus when, speaking Esperanto, you wish to ask a question, you

begin by shouting out _ĉu_, an admirably distinctive monosyllable which

cannot be confused with any other word in the language. By this means

you get your interlocutor prepared and attending, and you can then frame

your question at leisure.

Contrast Esperanto and English in the ease with which they respectively

convert a statement into a question.

English: You went—did you go?

Esperanto: Vi iris—ĉu vi iris?

This particle may be considered the equivalent of the initial mark of

interrogation used in Spanish, and serves to remove all complications in

connexion with word order.

* * * * *

ESPERANTO ENGLISH

amanta loving

aminta having loved

amonta about to love

amata being loved

amita (having been) loved

amota about to be loved

mi estas aminta I have loved

vi estis aminta you had loved

li estas amanta he is loving

ŝi estis amata she was being loved

ni estos amintaj we shall have loved

vi estas amataj you are loved

ili estas amitaj they have been loved

mi estus aminta I should have loved

vi estus amita you would have been loved

li estas foririnta he has gone away

ili estus foririntaj they would have gone away

ESPERANTO FRENCH