Esperanto: The Proposed Universal Language

EVERY one to-day has heard of Esperanto, the proposed universal language. But how many know more than the name ? A recent and very successful congress of Esperantists, at Boulogne, in France, has rendered the subject a very timely one.

Let me add that I am not an Esperantist, but a mere student who feels with Terence: “Nihil humani a me alienum puto.” Moreover, when one looks into it, the problem becomes truly fascinating.

The purpose of this article is to give information on two points, the success of Esperanto in Europe, and the language Esperanto itself.

I

The cause of Esperanto ought not to be confused with another one which was taken up by representatives of the scientific world after the congresses in Paris in 1900. It was found there that, owing to the increasing number of workers in the different fields all over the world, it had become practically impossible to keep well informed. No man can master all the languages required for the purpose, even if he were to devote considerable time to the task. A committee was formed of delegates of the different congresses, and they called themselves: “The Delegation for the Adoption of an International Language.” No doubt, several scholars have ultimately in view the adoption of Esperanto as an international language; but the Delegation as such has no preference. They only want to persuade colleagues from all over the world to agree on the question of the desirability of an easy means of communication which could be used on such occasions as international meetings, and by means of which also written contributions could be put within reach of coworkers who are not familiar with an author’s native tongue. The selection of this language is to be entrusted to the International Association of Academies.¹

Esperanto had been invented long before. The first pamphlet of its creator, Dr. Zamenhof, a Russian physician, was published in 1887,—An International Language, by Dr. Esperanto. About ten years later, the possibility of success began to be realized by its propagators. It was well received, first in Russia, then in Norway and Sweden. Then it was taken up in France, by M. de Beaufront. The latter had himself invented an artificial language, but gave it up as soon as he became acquainted with the admirable work of his Russian competitor. He is the man who forced the world at large to stop and seriously consider Esperanto as the solution of the great problem proposed by men like Roger Bacon, Descartes, Pascal, Leibnitz, Locke, Condillac, Voltaire, Diderot, and so many others. From France it went to Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, and finally to England, where thirty societies of Esperantists were created within a little over a year.

There were two chief difficulties to be overcome in order to launch the idea. The first was due to the fact that Esperantists had no money and had to rely entirely upon the intrinsic value of their cause. In 1900, the accounts of the central committee in Paris showed a surplus of exactly five cents; their budget was then something like four hundred dollars a year. But they have enthusiastic workers who are willing to devote their lives to the triumph of Esperanto. A young man, M. Jules Borel, has just undertaken in Germany a systematic campaign, about on the same plan as that of M. de Beaufront in France, and he is succeeding very well. In England, W. T. Stead gave them the support of the Review of Reviews.

The second obstacle, much more serious than the first, is the prejudice created against the idea of an artificial language by the failure of Volapuk. At present, however, this threatening ghost has almost completely vanished. The remarkably superficial judgment, that argued from one failure to the necessary failure of all similar attempts, has given way to a more sensible view of the question. In fact, every sensible man, whether he believes in Esperanto or not, must recognize that the case of Volapuk proves absolutely nothing, except that this special Volapuk did not fulfill the requirements.

What are the positions gained up to the present day by Esperanto ?

Several years ago, I remember having seen a statement to the effect that the number of adepts was over one hundred thousand. Let us not bother about figures, but rather mention a few names; the quality is more interesting than the quantity.

Esperanto has been heartily endorsed in Germany by such men as William Foerster, the well-known astronomer, and Ostwald, the famous physicist and philosopher of Leipzig (who is lecturing this winter at Harvard); and in Austria, one of the strongest supporters of Esperanto is the celebrated philologist Schuchardt, of the University of Prague. In England, we have to mention the name of a still greater linguist, Max Müller, who before his death praised the achievement of Dr. Zamenhof. More recently, Sir William Ramsay wrote a very enthusiastic article for the Daily Mail; the influence of such a name as this was felt at once in Esperantist circles, and a number of important adhesions were received. In France, illustrious men by the score have enrolled under the green flag of Dr. Esperanto. First of all, Berthelot, hailed in his country and abroad as the greatest French scientist now living; he has recently announced an article in Esperanto, which is to appear in the Internacia Scienca Revuo (Paris). Besides Berthelot, men like Brouardel, d’Arsonval, Appel, Becquerel, Picot, Poincaré, Richet, Prince Roland Bonaparte, and others, every one of them recognized all the world over as a leader in his special field of scientific researches.

Books for the study of Esperanto are now printed in twenty-two different languages. About twenty-five journals are published in the new idiom, one of them of a strictly scientific character. Several continental papers, occasionally or regularly, offer to their readers an article in Esperanto.

Esperantist clubs or societies are to be found almost everywhere; the one in Paris counts no less than three thousand members; while those in cities like Marseilles, Lyon, Bordeaux, Le Havre, and Lille, are also of considerable size.

Courses in Esperanto are offered not only in club rooms, but in public institutions as well. A few commercial schools have it on their programmes, as a free elective. In the University of Dijon they have organized an evening class, which is said to be well attended. Not long ago, Professor Carnot, of the national engineering school (École des Mines), in Paris, said publicly that he was thinking of introducing Esperanto in the regular courses of his students. In England they have adopted the method of tuition by correspondence.

Esperanto has already proved useful for providing reading for the blind. A system of stenography has been adapted to the new language. Many commercial firms use it for international telegraphic communications. Several employ advertisements in Esperanto and find that it pays. Not long ago typewriters with the Esperantist alphabet were put on the market.

In another domain, we hear that Mr. Moch, the well-known champion of universal peace, addressed the International Congress of Peace in Esperanto, last September, at Luzerne. Moreover, those in charge of the various international offices in Berne are seriously considering the adoption of Esperanto as their regular language for correspondence.

One instance at least is known to me of a scholar who set the example of adding to his Doctor’s thesis a summary in Esperanto for the benefit of foreign reviewers.

There would be no end if I were to tell all the information gathered on a recent tour in Europe. Let me end by recalling a great business success, namely this: that the leaders of the Esperantist movement succeeded, a few months ago, in persuading important publishing houses to make a specialty of books printed in the new language. For instance, a contract was passed with the first firm in France, Hachette and Company. The latter will take up any manuscript recommended by a committee of which Dr. Zamenhof is the president, but on the condition that they will give no work to print to other publishers.

A word ought to be said now of the Congress of Boulogne (August 5-13, 1905), as it brought the most convincing demonstration of the possibility of using Esperanto as a medium for oral intercourse. Before, a quantity of instances had been quoted of isolated cases when Esperantists of different countries meeting for the first time were at once able to talk fluently with one another. But never had the experiment been made on such a large scale. Twelve hundred delegates, from twenty-two different countries, had gathered, and while it was possible to tell the people of the various nationalities from their accent, there was no trouble in understanding every one present. As it was expressed by one of the witnesses of those interesting scenes: “For oratory, for poetry, for disputation, for music, for merriment, for flirtation, Esperanto was put to the proof, and found not to be wanting.” For a whole week, speeches were made by representatives of the twenty-two different nations; all their discussions were conducted in Esperanto. In the evenings, they had concerts. One evening they performed Molière’s Mariage forcé; the characters were enacted by persons of seven countries: of the three ladies, one was Italian, one was a Russian, and the third was a Swede; the men were English, Belgian, Norwegian, and French. On Sunday, the Catholic service was celebrated partly in Esperanto, among other things the Lord’s Prayer and the Ave Maris Stella being said and sung in words of the new tongue. The Catholics, by the way, have an Esperantist review of their own (Espero katolica).

What seems to me more interesting than anything else is that the French government took the opportunity of this congress on French soil to compliment the creator of Esperanto; and while so many rumors of war were abroad, this manifestation of one of the great world powers in honor of a man who did so well his share in order to bring about a better understanding among men is well worth mentioning, and praising. Dr. Zamenhof was received in private audience by the Minister of Public Instruction, M. Bienvenu-Martin, who heartily congratulated him upon his achievement. Then the city of Paris tendered him a reception in the Hôtel de Ville. Later, a banquet was given in his honor on the second story of the Eiffel Tower; a score of the greatest scholars in France attended; M. Berthelot sat on the right of the chief guest. When Dr. Zamenhof reached Boulogne, he had the pleasure of finding among the delegates General Sébert, of the Academy of Sciences, Dr. Jarval, of the Academy of Medicine, and M. Benoit, the distinguished Director of the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. Other nations may one day shower honors on Dr. Zamenhof, but the French wanted to be first.

II

Let us now try and give an accurate idea of Esperanto. This is still the best argument to convince skeptics. One may dislike or disapprove of an artificial language, or one may think that it is impossible to introduce it in the world, but to pronounce the existence of such a language an impossible thing, or even to dispute the fact that, in simplicity and efficiency, an artificial language is superior to a natural one, in a great many respects, is something that no man who understands the few following facts regarding Esperanto will dare to do any more.

The general principle on which Dr. Zamenhof has worked is this: to eliminate all that is accidental in our national languages, and to keep what is common to all. In consequence, and strictly speaking, he invents nothing; he builds entirely with material that has been in existence for a long time. Here then is the way in which he proceeds regarding the various elements that are necessary to the formation of a language.

The Sounds. Sounds that are peculiar to one language are eliminated. The English th and w are not found in French or German, therefore they are dropped. On the other hand, the French u, the German ü, and the French nasals do not exist in English; they too are dropped. The Spanish ñ and j, and the German ch, have the same fate. Thus, only sounds which are found every where are kept, and no one will have any difficulty about pronunciation, no matter to what country he belongs.

Spelling is of course phonetic: one and the same sound for one letter. There are no mute letters, as in French; neither are there double letters; x = ks (eksist), ph = f; as to ch, it becomes k for the guttural sound (karakter), and ĉ for the sibilant sound (ĉivalric for chivalric), c remaining for the ordinary sound in words like cigar. The g is reserved for the guttural (gril, garb), and ĝ is used for the sibilant (aĝ = age). So ĉ and ĝ are two new signs, but for sounds which are in no way new. A third simple sign is substituted for a double letter, namely ŝ for sh (ŝip = ship, ŝi = she).

The Accent is always on the penultimate syllable. Esperanto reminds one of Italian, when spoken, and has proved extremely melodious for singing.

The Vocabulary. The principle of internationalism is applied here in a most ingenious fashion. Dr. Zamenhof proceeded thus: he compared the dictionaries of the different languages, and picked out first those words which are common to them all. He spelled them according to the phonetic system, dropped the special endings in each idiom, and adopted them as root-words in his proposed language: for example, atom, aksiom, adres, form, fosfor, histori, poet, profet, teatr, telegraf, vagon, etc.

Then he picked out those which appear in most languages, although not in all; for example, bark (English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Spanish); eksplod (English, French, German, Italian, Latin, Polish, Russian); flor (English, French, Italian, Latin, Polish, Russian), etc.

For the remaining words, — and there are comparatively few left, — which are never the same in the different languages, Dr. Zamenhof selected them in such a manner as to make the task of acquiring Esperanto equally difficult or equally easy for all concerned. Tamen (however), sed (but), dum (while), brak (arm), proksim (near), are taken from Latin. Tago (day), monat (month), tapet (carpet), are German. Gladi (to iron), vidi (to see), vosto (tail), are Slavic, and so forth. One sees that even there it is easy for everybody to make use of some knowledge of his own. In vidi every Latin scholar recognizes videre; in gladi the Germans recognize glatt (and the verb in dialect, glätten); in tapet, the English recognize tapestry and the French tapisserie; in brak, the French bras; in proksim, the English proximity.

This is far from being all that is done by Dr. Zamenhof in order to render things easy to students of Esperanto.

He has an ingenious scheme of prefixes and suffixes.

Out of one root, one forms different parts of speech: —

o indicates always a noun.

a “ “ an adjective,

i “ “ a verb.

e “ “ an adverb.

Thus, the stem parol gives: parol’o, word (and as a second derivative parorol’ant’o, orator); parol’a, oral; parol’i, to speak; and parol’e, orally.

Founded on the same principle of saving of time and energy, we have the prefix of contrary notions. In other languages, you will find generally one word for “good” and another for “bad,” one for “weak” and another for “strong,” one for “esteem” and another for “despise,” and so forth. In Esperanto you only have one to memorize in each case, thanks to the prefix for contraries, mal. For example, good is bon’a, bad will be mal’bon’a; strong is fort’a, weak will be mal’fort’a; to esteem is estim’i, to despise will be mal’estim’i.

As already seen from the preceding example, the selection of prefixes and suffixes is not arbitrary. Dr. Zamenenhof remains true to his method. They are simply importations from the existing languages.

The suffix ar, for instance, marks collectivity, as in most national tongues: arb’o, tree, arb’ar’o, forest; vort’o, word, vort’ar’o, dictionary. And in English, vocabul’ar’y; in Italian, diction’ar’io; in Spanish, formul’ar’io; in Latin, vesti’ar’ium; in French, ossu’aire.

The suffix ebl is nothing but the English able or ible (also French, Italian, Latin, etc.) : kred’i, to believe, kred’ebl’a, credible; fleks’i, to bend, fleks’ebl’a, flexible; leg’i, to read, legl’ebl’a, readable.

Or again, the suffix ec (pronounced ess) which stands for abstraction: bon’a, good, bon’ec’o, kindness. In English also, goodn’ess, in French, fin’esse, in Spanish grand’ezza. Ig marks the idea of rendering: fort’a, strong, fort’ig’i, to strengthen; and mal’fort’a, weak, mal’fort’ig’i, to weaken. Il marks the instrument: komb’i, to comb, komb’il’o, the comb. Ist the profession: art’ist’o,bot’ist’o (bootmaker), komerc’ist’o (business man).

Some one may object that there is no simplification in Esperanto at all, since we have those suffixes ourselves. But to judge thus would be proof that one has missed the point entirely. The great superiority of Esperanto here is that it is more consistent than we have been so far. Advantage has been taken of a principle, which, we know, works very well, but which was used in a happy-go-lucky fashion; in fact, to apply it very often brought about mistakes; as things are now, we must cease to be consistent with a perfectly good principle in order to remain correct in our speech. In other words, with the same principle, you make mistakes constantly in English; you can never make one in Esperanto. An Englishman can make artist out of art, or druggist out of drug, just as the Esperantist can, — but let him try with typograph or with tapestry: can he make typographist or tapestrist ? No, he must know other words, like printer or upholsterer.

Other little arrangements might be quoted, — for example, ten being dek, the Esperanto word for twenty will be du dek (2 X 10), thirty will be tri dek (3 X 10), and so on; — what has been already explained will suffice to show the spirit of the language.

In this way, of course, the vocabulary is very small as compared with other languages. The Dictionnaire of the French Academy has in its last edition (1878) 32,000 words; English and German dictionaries, according to the different authors, claim anywhere between 45,000 and 100,000 words (compound words included, of course, which the French has not). The last edition of Webster has between 110,000 and 115,000. But about 2000 words, after dropping too specifically scientific and technical terms, are sufficient to give a good reading and speaking knowledge of Esperanto; of which 2000, only relatively few are entirely new to any person, as we know. This modest vocabulary, together with all the grammar rules, is printed in a booklet containing 24 pages (4X3 inches), which can easily be put in a waistcoat pocket; it weighs five grams, and costs exactly one cent. With the material contained in this remarkably small volume, Dr. Zamenhof claims that he can express practically all human thoughts, at least so far as they may be expressed in words. In order to prove it, he has translated Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and Shakespeare is considered as having the widest range of terms at his disposal of all the greatest writers of the world, — about 7000 words, if our memory does not betray us. To show the adaptability of his language, Dr. Zamenhof translated also one of Dickens’s novels. One of his disciples translated a treatise of Euclidian Geometry; and Hachette has just issued Richet’s little book on Spontaneous Generation.

Many persons will feel inclined to doubt a priori the possibility of doing these things satisfactorily. Until they decide to try, and put themselves in a position to judge by themselves, I may remind them of a fact, — and my authority for it is Renan himself, — namely, that all that the Old Testament has to say to us is expressed by means of 500 root-words and their derivatives. Now Esperanto has 2000 root-words. The 45,000 to 70,000 scriptural signs in Chinese can in the same way, we are told, be reduced to 450 primitive terms.

The Grammar. The most remarkable achievement of Dr. Zamenhof remains still to be told. Think of the heavy grammars, Latin, Greek, German, French, which are put in the hands of our children. The most elementary do not come down to less than a few hundred pages. The grammar in Esperanto occupies about four pages in the Manuel Complet, by M. de Beaufront. There are only sixteen rules, without exceptions. Moreover, those sixteen rules are really needed only if one wants to speak or write the language. For reading they are hardly necessary, as the principles applied are familiar beforehand to any person who has ever used at all our present languages; and the following table will probably prove sufficient.

In root-words

o final marks always the noun: patr’o, father.

a “ “ “ the adjective: patr’a, paternal.

e “ “ “ the adverb: patr’e, in a fatherly manner.

j “ “ “ the plural: bon’a’j patr’o’j, good fathers.

n “ “ “ the direct object, and the place where one goes: mi amas la patro’n, I love the father. Li vias Rom’o’n, he goes to Rome.

i “ “ “ the infinitive: am’i, to like.

as “ “ “ the present: mi am’as, I like ; li est’as, he is.

is “ “ “ the past: ni om’is, we liked.

os “ “ “ the future: vi am’os, you will like.

us “ “ “ the conditional : ill am’us, they would like.

ant “ “ “ the present participle active: am’ant’o, liking.

at “ “ “ the present participle, passive: am’at’a, who (or which) is liked.

it “ “ “ the passive participle, past; am’it’a, who (or which) has been liked.

There is only one article, la, for masculine, feminine, and neuter, as in English.

The personal pronouns are: mi, vi, li (he), gi (it), ŝi (she, pronounced she), ni, ili (they); oni (one, they); si (self). To form the possessive adjectives, add simply the ending of the adjective, a: mi’a, my.

The cardinal numbers are: unu, du, tri, kvar, kvin, ses, sep, ok, nau, dek — cent — mil. Add the ending of the adjective, and you have the ordinal numbers.

And this is all. Take a penny dictionary in your pocket, and you are provided to get along in Esperanto. Even without the dictionary, and only with the few words of Esperanto quoted here, plus what everybody knows of his own native tongue, you will almost be able to understand a text in the new language. Try:

La internacia linguo Esperanto estas facile lernebla, eĉ de la personoj nemulte instruitaj. Unu boro sufiĉas ĝenerale por lerni la tutan gramatikon, kelkaj tagoj por legi, kelkaj semajnoj por skribi. Esperanto estas efektive tre simpla, fleksebla, bonsona kaj vere internacia per siaj elementoj. Kun malgranda kvanto da radikoj oni povas fari tre grandan nombron da vortoj dank al la praktika sistemo de prefiksoj kaj sufiksoj. Tiu ĉi linguo ne havas la intencon malfortigi la linguon naturan de ia popolo. Gi devos servi por la rilatoj internaciaj kaj por tiuj verkoj kiuj interesas la tutan mondon. Esperanto helpos la sciencojn, la komercon, kaj la vojaĝojn.

Translation

The international language Esperanto is easily learnable, even by (of) people notmuch educated. One hour suffices generally to (for) learn the whole grammar, some (French quelques) days to read, some weeks to write. Esperanto is effectively very simple, flexible, well-sounding, and very international by its elements. With [a] small (not-large) quantity of radicals, one can make [a] very great number of words, thanks to the practical system of prefixes and suffixes. This language has not the intention to weaken the natural language of any people. It must serve for the international relations, and for all the works which interest the whole world. Esperanto helps the sciences, commerce, and journeys.

The writer is not an Esperantist; he does not speak the new idiom; he never tried to. But having heard of it, he decided to write to M. de Beaufront. Soon he received a little book, Langue internationale Esperanto, and one Sunday afternoon (for play, not for work), at about three o’clock, he began to study. At four o’clock he could read without too much trouble. In the evening, after his supper, he wrote M. de Beaufront a letter of thanks in Esperanto. He feels perfectly sure that anybody could do as well. Perhaps much better.²