INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

 PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE

 WITH SPECIMENS OF ESPERANTO AND GRAMMAR

 BY W. J. CLARK M. A. OXON. , PH. D. LEIPZIG LICENCIÉ-ÈS-LETTRES, BACHELIER-EN-DROIT PARIS

 LONDON J. M. DENT & COMPANY 1907

 PRINTED BY HAZELL, WATSON AND VINEY, LD. , LONDON AND AYLESBURY. 

 * * * * *

 PREFACE

 An artificial language may be more regular, more perfect, and easier to learn than a natural one. —MAX MÜLLER. 

The world is spinning fast down the grooves of change. The old disorderchangeth. Haply it is yielding place to new. The tongue is a littlemember. It should no longer be allowed to divide the nations. 

Two things stand out in the swift change. Science with all its works isspreading to all lands. The East, led by Japan, is coming into line withthe West. 

Standardization of life may fittingly be accompanied by standardizationof language. The effect may be twofold—Practical and Ideal. 

 _Practical. _ The World has a thousand tongues, Science but one: They'll climb up a thousand rungs When Babel's done. 

 _Ideal. _ Mankind has a thousand tongues, Friendship but one: _Banzai!_ then from heart and lungs For the Rising Sun. 

 W. J. C. 

NOTE. —The following pages have had the advantage of being read inMS. By Mr. H. Bolingbroke Mudie, and I am indebted to him for manycorrections and suggestions. 

 * * * * *

 AN INTERNATIONAL AUXILIARY LANGUAGE

NOTE. —To avoid repeating the cumbrous phrase "international auxiliarylanguage, " the word _auxiliary_ is usually omitted. It must be clearlyunderstood that when "international" or "universal" language is spokenof, _auxiliary_ is also implied. 

 PART I

 GENERAL

 CHAP. PAGE

 I. Introductory . . . . . . . . . 1 II. The Question of Principle—Economic Advantage of an International Language . . . . . . 4 III. The Question of Practice—An International Language is Possible . . . . . . . . . 8 IV. The Question of Practice (_continued_)—An International Language is Easy . . . . . . . . 16 V. The Question of Practice (_continued_)—The Introduction of an International Language would not cause Dislocation . . . . . . . . . 24 VI. International Action already taken for the Introduction of an Auxiliary Language . . . . . . 26 VII. Can the International Language be Latin? . . . . 33 VIII. Can the International Language be Greek? . . . . 35 IX. Can the International Language be a Modern Language? . . . . . . . . . 36 X. Can the Evolution of an International Language be left to the Process of Natural Selection by Free Competition? . . . . . . . . . 38 XI. Objections to an International Language on Aesthetic Grounds . . . . . . . . . . 40 XII. Will an International Language discourage the Study of Modern Languages, and thus be Detrimental to Culture?—Parallel with the Question of Compulsory Greek . . . . . . . . . . 46 XIII. Objection to an International Language on the Ground that it will soon split up into Dialects . . . 49 XIV. Objection that the Present International Language (Esperanto) is too Dogmatic, and refuses to profit by Criticism . . . . . . . 51 XV. Summary of Objections to an International Language . . 53 XVI. The Wider Cosmopolitanism—The Coming of Asia . . . 57 XVII. Importance of an International Language for the Blind . 61 XVIII. Ideal _v. _ Practical . . . . . . . . 63 XIX. Literary _v. _ Commercial . . . . . . . 65 XX. Is an International Language a Crank's Hobby? . . . 70 XXI. What an International Language is not . . . . 73 XXII. What an International Language is . . . . . 73

 PART II

 HISTORICAL

 CHAP. PAGE

 I. Some Existing International Languages already in Partial Use . . . . . . . . . 74 II. Outline of History of the Idea of a Universal Language—List of Schemes proposed . . . . . . . . 76 III. The Earliest British Attempt . . . . . . 87 IV. History of Volapük—a Warning . . . . . . 92 V. History of Idiom Neutral . . . . . . . 98 VI. The Newest Languages: a Neo-Latin Group—Gropings towards a "Pan-European" Amalgamated Scheme . . . . . . . . . . 103 VII. History of Esperanto . . . . . . . . 105 VIII. Present State of Esperanto: (_a_) General; (_b_) in England 121 IX. Lessons to be drawn from the Foregoing History . . . 131

 PART III

 THE CLAIMS OF ESPERANTO TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY: CONSIDERATIONS BASED ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE LANGUAGE ITSELF

 CHAP. PAGE

 I. Esperanto is scientifically constructed, and fulfils the Natural Tendency in Evolution of Language . . . 135 II. Esperanto from an Educational Point of View—It will aid the learning of other Languages and stimulate Intelligence . . . . . . . . . 145 III. Comparative Tables illustrating Labour saved in learning Esperanto as contrasted with other Languages: (_a_) Word-building; (_b_) Participles and Auxiliaries . 155 IV. How Esperanto can be used as a Code Language to communicate with Persons who have never learnt it . . 161

 PART IV

 SPECIMENS OF ESPERANTO, WITH GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY

 CHAP. PAGE

 Note . . . . . . . . . . . 165 I. Pronunciation . . . . . . . . . 166 II. Specimens of Esperanto: 1. Parolado . . . . . . . . . 167 2. La Marbordistoj . . . . . . . . 168 3. Nesaĝa Gento: Alegorio . . . . . . 168 III. Grammar . . . . . . . . . . 189 IV. List of Affixes . . . . . . . . . 191 V. Table of Correlative Words . . . . . . . 193 VI. Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . 194

 APPENDIX A

 Sample Problems (see Part III. , chap, ii. ) in Regular Language . 200

 APPENDIX B

 Esperanto Hymn by Dr. Zamenhof . . . . . . . 202

 APPENDIX C

 The Letter _c_ in Esperanto . . . . . . . . 204

 * * * * *

 PART I

 GENERAL

 I

 INTRODUCTORY

In dealing with the problem of the introduction of an internationallanguage, we are met on the threshold by two main questions:

 1. The question of principle. 

 2. The question of practice. 

By the question of principle is meant, Is it desirable to have auniversal language? do we wish for one? in short, is there a demand?

The question of practice includes the inquiries, Is such a languagepossible? is it easy? would its introduction be fraught with prohibitivedifficulties? and the like. 

It is clear that, however possible or easy it may be to do a thing, there is no case for doing it unless it is wanted; therefore thequestion of principle must be taken first. In the case before usthe question of principle involves many considerations—aesthetic, political, social, even religious. These will be glanced at in theirproper place; but for our present purpose they are all subordinateto the one great paramount consideration—the economic one. In theworld of affairs experience shows that, given a demand of any kindwhatever, as between an economical method of supplying that demand and anon-economical method, in the long run the economical method will surelyprevail. 

If, then, it can be shown that there is a growing need for means ofinternational communication, and that a unilingual solution is moreeconomical than a multilingual one, there is good ground for thinkingthat the unilingual method of transacting international affairs willsurely prevail. It then becomes a question of time and method: When willmen feel the pressure of the demand sufficiently strongly to set aboutsupplying it? and what means will they adopt?

The time and the method are by no means indifferent. Though a demand(for what is possible) is sure, in the long run, to get itself supplied, a long period of wasteful and needless groping may be avoided by aclear-sighted and timely realization of the demand, and by consequentorganized co-operation in supplying it. Intelligent anticipationsometimes helps events to occur. It is the object of this book tocall attention to the present state of affairs, and to emphasize thefact that the time is now ripe for dealing with the question, and thepresent moment propitious for solving the problem once for all in anorderly way. The merest glance at the list of projects for a universallanguage[1] and their dates will strengthen the conviction from anhistorical point of view that the fulness of time is accomplished, whilethe history of the rise and fall of _Volapük_ and of the extraordinaryrise of _Esperanto_, in spite of its precursor's failure, are exceedinglysignificant. 

 [1]See pp. 78-87. [Part II, Chapter II]

One language has been born, come to maturity, and died of dissension, and the world stood by indifferent. Another is now in the first fullflush of youth and strength. After twenty-nine years of daily developingcosmopolitanism—years that have witnessed the rising of a new star inthe East and an uninterrupted growth of interchange of ideas betweenthe nations of the earth, whether in politics, literature, or science, without a single check to the ever-rising tide of internationalism—arewe again to let the favourable moment pass unused, just for want ofmaking up our minds? At present one language holds the field. It iswell organized; it has abundant enthusiastic partisans accustomed tocommunicate and transact their common business in it, and only tooanxious to show the way to others. If it be not officially adopted andput under the regulation of a duly constituted international authority, it may wither away or split into factions as Volapük did. [1] Or it maycontinue to grow and flourish, but others of its numerous rivals maysecure adherents and dispute its claim. This would be even worse. It isfar harder to rally a multitude of conflicting rivals in the same camp, than it is to take over a well-organized, homogeneous, and efficientvolunteer force, legalize its position, and raise it to the status of aregular army. In any case, if no concerted action be taken, the questionwill remain in a state of chaos, and the lack of official organizationbrings a great risk of overlapping, dissension, and creation of rivalinterests, and generally produces a state of affairs calculated topostpone indefinitely the supply of the demand. Competition that neithertends to keep down the price nor to improve the quality of the thingproduced is mere dissipation of energy. 

 [1]Esperanto itself is admirably organized (see p. 119) [Part II, Chapter VII], and there are no factions or symptoms of dissension. But Esperantists need official support and recognition. 

In a word, the one thing needful at present is not a more highlyperfected language to adopt, but the adoption of the highly perfectedone we possess. By the admission of experts, no less than by thepractical experience of great numbers of persons in using it over anumber of years, it has been found adequate. Once found adequate, itsabsolute utility merely depends upon universal adoption. 

With utility in direct proportion to numbers of adherents, every recruitaugments its value—a thought which may well encourage waverers to makethe slight effort necessary to at any rate learn to read it. 

 II

 THE QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE—ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE OF AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

As stated above, the question of principle will be treated here froma purely economical point of view, since practical value, measuredby saving of time, money, and effort, must be the ultimate criterionby which the success or failure of so far-reaching a reform as theintroduction of an international, auxiliary language will be decided. The bearing of such a reform upon education, culture, race supremacy, etc. , is not without importance; but the discussion of these points mustbe postponed as subsidiary. 

Reduced to its simplest form, the economical argument is this:

(1) The volume of international intercourse is great and increasing. 

(2) This intercourse is at present carried on in many differentlanguages of varying degrees of difficulty, but all relatively hard ofacquisition for those who do not know them as a mother-tongue. This isuneconomical. 

(3) It is economically sounder to carry on international intercourse inone easy language than in a large number of hard ones. 

(4) Therefore in principle an easy international language is desirable. 

Let us glance at these four points a little more in detail. 

No. 1 surely needs no demonstration. Every year there is morecommunication between men of different race and language. And it is notbusiness, in the narrow sense of the term, that is exclusively or evenchiefly affected by diversity of language. Besides the enormous bulkof pleasure travel, international congresses are growing in number andimportance; municipal fraternization is the latest fashion, and manya worthy alderman, touring at the ratepayers' expense, must wish thathe had some German in Berlin, or a little Italian in Milan. Indeed, itis at these points of international contact that language is a realbar, actually preventing much intercourse that would otherwise havetaken place, rather than in business, which is organized in view of thedifficulty. Then there is the whole realm of scientific and learnedliterature—work of which the accessibility to all concerned is of thefirst importance, but is often hindered because a translation into onelanguage does not pay, or, if made, only reaches a limited public. Suchbars to freedom of interchange cannot be reckoned in money; but moderneconomics recognizes the personal and social factor, and any obstacle toresearch is certainly a public loss. 

But important as are these various spheres of action, an even widerinternational contact of thought and feeling is springing up in ourdays. Democracy, science, and universal education are producingeverywhere similarity of institutions, of industry, of the wholeorganization of life. Similarity of life will breed community ofinterests, and from this arises real converse—more give and take in thethings that matter, less purely superficial dealings of the guide-bookor conversation-manual type. 

(2) "Business, " meaning commerce, in so far as it is international, may at present be carried on mainly in half a dozen of the principallanguages of Western Europe. Even so, their multiplicity is vexatious. But outside the world of business other languages are entering thefield, and striving for equal rights. The tendency is all towardsself-assertion on the part of the nationalities that are beginning anew era of national life and importance. The language difficulty in theAustrian Empire reflects the growing self-consciousness of the Magyars. Everywhere where young peoples are pushing their rights to take equalrank among the nations of the world, the language question is put inthe forefront. The politicians of Ireland and Wales have realized theimportance of language in asserting nationality, but such engineeredlanguage-agitation offers but a feeble reflex of the vitality of thequestion in lands where the native language is as much in use forall purposes as is English in England. These lands will fight harderand harder against the claims to supremacy of a handful of Westernintruders. A famous foreign philologist, [1] in a report on the subjectpresented to the Academy of Vienna, notes the increasing tendency ofRussian to take rank among the recognized languages for purposes ofpolite learning. He is well placed to observe. With Russia knocking atthe door and Hungary waiting to storm the breach, what tongue may notour descendants of the next century have to learn, under pain of losingtouch with important currents of thought? It is high time somethingwere done to standardize means of transmission. Owing to politicalconditions, there are linguistically disintegrating forces at work, which are at variance with the integrating forces of natural tendency. 

 [1]Prof. Shuchardt

From an economical point of view, a considerable amount of time, effort, and money must be unreproductively invested in overcoming the "languagedifficulty. " In money alone the amount must run into thousands ofpounds yearly. Among the unreproductive investments are—the employmentof foreign correspondence clerks, the time and money spent upon theinstallation of educational plant for their production, the time andmoney spent upon translations and interpreters for the proceedingsof international conferences and negotiations, the time devoted byprofessors and other researchers (often nonlinguists in virtue of theircalling) to deciphering special treatises and learned periodicals inlanguages not their own. [1]

 [1]These are some of the actual visible losses owing to the _presence_ of the language difficulty. No one can estimate the value of the losses entailed by the _absence_ of free intercourse due to removable linguistic barriers. Potential (but at present non-realized) extension of goodwill, swifter progress, and wider knowledge represent one side of their value; while consequent non-realized increase in volume of actual business represents their value in money. The negative statement of absence of results from intercourse that never took place affords no measure of positive results obtainable under a better system. 

The tendency of those engaged in advancing material progress, whichconsists in the subjection of nature to man's ends, is to adapt more andmore quickly their methods to changing conditions. Has the world yetfaced in a business-like spirit the problem of wiping out wastage onwords?

Big industrial concerns scrap machinery while it is yet perfectlycapable of running and turning out good work, in order to replace it bynewer machinery, capable of turning out more work in the same time. Timeis money. Can the busy world afford a language difficulty?

(3) The proposition that it is economically sounder to carry oninternational intercourse in one easy language than in a large number ofhard ones rests upon the principle that it does not pay to do a thing ahard way, if the same results can be produced by an easy way. 

The whole industrial revolution brought about by the invention ofmachinery depended upon this principle. Since an artificial language, like machinery, is a means invented by man of furthering his ends, thereseems to be no abuse of analogy in comparing them. 

When it was found that machinery would turn out a hundred pieces ofcloth while the hand-loom turned out one, the hand-loom was doomed, except in so far as it may serve other ends, antiquarian, aesthetic, orartistic, which are not equally well served by machinery. Similarly, to take another revolution which is going on in our own day througha further application of machinery, when it is found that corn canbe reaped and threshed by machinery, that hay can be cut, made, carried, and stacked by machinery, that man can travel the high roadby machinery, sooner or later machinery is bound to get the bulk ofthe job, because it produces the same results at greater speed andless cost. So, in the field of international intercourse, if an easyartificial language can with equal efficiency and at less cost producethe same results as a multiplicity of natural ones, in many linesof human activity, and making all reserves in matters antiquarian, aesthetic, and artistic, sooner or later the multiplicity will have togo to the scrap-heap[1] as cumbrous and out of date. It may be a hundredyears; it may be fifty; it may be even twenty. Almost certainly theirresistible trend of economic pressure will work its will and insistthat what has to be done shall be done in the most economical way. 

 [1]But only, of course, in those lines in which an international auxiliary language can produce equally good results. This excludes home use, national literature, philology, scholarly study of national languages, etc. 

So much, then, for the question of principle. In treating it, certainlarge assumptions have been made; e. G. It is said above, "if an easyartificial language can with equal efficiency. .. Produce the sameresults, " etc. Here it is assumed that the artificial language is (1)easy, and (2) that it is possible for it to produce the same results. Again, however easy and possible, its introduction might cost more thanit saved. These are questions of fact, and are treated in the threefollowing chapters under the heading of "The Question of Practice. "

 III

 THE QUESTION OF PRACTICE—AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE IS POSSIBLE

The man who says a thing is impossible without troubling to find outwhether it has been done is merely "talking through his hat, " to usean Americanism, and we need not waste much time on him. Any one, whomaintains that it is impossible to transact the ordinary business oflife and write lucid treatises on scientific and other subjects in anartificial language, is simply in the position of the French engineer, who gave a full scientific demonstration of the fact that an enginecould not possibly travel by steam. 

The plain fact is that not only one artificial language, but several, already exist, which not only can express, but already have expressedall the ideas current in social intercourse, business, and seriousexposition. It is only necessary to state the facts briefly. 

First—_Volapük_. 

Three congresses were held in all for the promotion of this language. The third (Paris, 1889) was the most important. It was attended byVolapükists from many different nations, who carried on all theirbusiness in Volapük, and found no difficulty in understanding oneanother. Besides this, there were a great many newspapers published inVolapük, which treated of all kinds of subjects. 

Secondly—_Idiom Neutral_, the lineal descendant of Volapük. 

It is regulated by an international academy, which sends round circularsand does all its business in Idiom Neutral. 

Thirdly—_Esperanto_. 

Since the publication of the language in 1887 it has had a graduallyincreasing number of adherents, who have used it for all ordinarypurposes of communication. A great number of newspapers and reviews ofall kinds are now published regularly in Esperanto in a great varietyof countries. I take up a chance number of the _Internacia SciencaRevuo_, which happens to be on my table, and find the following subjectsamong the contents of the month: "_Rôle_ of living beings in the generalphysiology of the earth, " "The carnivorous animals of Sweden, " "The partplayed by heredity in the etiology of chronic nephritis, " "The migrationof the lemings, " "Notices of books, " "Notes and correspondence, " etc. In fact, the Review has all the appearance of an ordinary scientificperiodical, and the articles are as clearly expressed and as easy toread as those in any similar review in a national language. 

Even more convincing perhaps, for the uninitiated, is the evidenceafforded by the International Congresses of Esperantists. The first washeld at Boulogne in August 1905. It marked an epoch in the lives ofmany of the participants, whose doubts as to the practical nature of anartificial language there, for good and all, yielded to the logic offacts; and it may well be that it will some day be rather an outstandinglandmark in the history of civilization. A brief description will, therefore, not be out of place. 

In the little seaport town on the north coast of France had cometogether men and women of more than twenty different races. Some wereexperts, some were beginners; but all save a very few must have beenalike in this, that they had learnt their Esperanto at home, and, asfar as oral use went, had only been able to speak it (if at all) withmembers of their own national groups—that is, with compatriots who hadacquired the language under the same conditions as to pronunciation, etc. , as themselves. Experts and beginners, those who from practicalexperience knew the great possibilities of the new tongue as a writtenmedium, no less than the neophytes and tentative experimenters who hadcome to see whether the thing was worth taking seriously, they were nowto make the decisive trial—in the one case to test the faith that wasin them, in the other to set all doubt at rest in one sense or the otherfor good and all. 

The town theatre had been generously placed at the disposal of theCongress, and the author of the language, Dr. Zamenhof, had left hiseye-patients at Warsaw and come to preside at the coming out of his_kara lingvo_, now well on in her 'teens, and about to leave theacademic seclusion of scholastic use and emerge into the larger sphereof social and practical activity. 

On Saturday evening, August 5, at eight o'clock, the Boulogne Theatrewas packed with a cosmopolitan audience. The unique assembly waspervaded by an indefinable feeling of expectancy; as in the lull beforethe thunderstorm, there was the hush of excitement, the tense silencecharged with the premonition of some vast force about to be let looseon the world. After a few preliminaries, there was a really dramaticmoment when Dr. Zamenhof stood up for the first time to address hisworld-audience in the world-tongue. Would they understand him? Was theirhope about to be justified? or was it all a chimera, "such stuff asdreams are made on"?

_Gesinjoroj_ (= Ladies and gentlemen)—the great audiencecraned forward like one man, straining eyes and ears towards thespeaker, —_Kun granda plezuro mi akceptis la proponon. .. _ Thecrowd drank in the words with an almost pathetic agony of anxiety. Gradually, as the clear-cut sentences poured forth in a continuousstream of perfect lucidity, and the audience realized that they wereall listening to and all understanding a really international speechin a really international tongue—a tongue which secured to them, ashere in Boulogne so throughout the world, full comprehension and asense of comradeship and fellow-citizenship on equal terms with allusers of it—the anxiety gave way to a scene of wild enthusiasm. Menshook hands with perfect strangers, and all cheered and cheered again. Zamenhof finished with a solemn declamation of one of his hymns (givenas an appendix to this volume, with translation), embodying the loftyideal which has inspired him all through and sustained him through themany difficulties he has had to face. When he came to the end, the finepassage beginning with the words, _Ni inter popoloj la murojn detruos_("we shall throw down the walls between the peoples"), and ending _amokaj vero ekregos sur tero_ ("love and truth shall begin their reign onearth"), the whole concourse rose to their feet with prolonged cries of"Vivu Zamenhof!"

No doubt this enthusiasm may sound rather forced and unreal to thosewho have not attended a congress, and the cheers may ring hollow acrossintervening time and space. Neither would it be good for this or anymovement to rely upon facile enthusiasm, as easily damped as aroused. There is something far more than this in the international languagemovement. 

At the same time, it is impossible for any one who has not tried it torealize the thrill—not a weak, sentimental thrill, but a reasonablethrill, starting from objective fact and running down the marrow ofthings—given by the first real contact with an international languagein an international setting. There really is a feeling as of a new powerborn into the world. 

Those who were present at the Geneva Congress, 1906, will not soonforget the singing of the song "La Espero" at the solemn closing ofthe week's proceedings. The organ rolled out the melody, and when thegathered thousands that thronged the floor of the hall and packed thegalleries tier on tier to the ceiling took up the opening phrase—

 En la mondon venis nova sento, Tra la mondo iras forta voko, [1]

they meant every word of it. It was a fitting summary of the impressionsleft by the events of the week, and what the lips uttered must have beenin the hearts and minds of all. 

 [1]Into the world has come a new feeling, Through the world goes a mighty call. 

As an ounce of personal experience is worth a pound of second-handrecital, a brief statement may here be given of the way in which thepresent writer came to take up Esperanto, and of the experiences whichsoon led him to the conviction of its absolute practicability andutility. 

In October, 1905, having just returned from an absence of some years inCanada and the Far East, he had his attention turned to Esperanto forthe first time by reading an account of the Congress of Boulogne. He hadno previous knowledge of, or leanings towards, a universal language; andif he had thought about it at all, it was only to laugh at the idea as awild and visionary scheme. In short, his attitude was quite normal. 

But here was a definite statement, professing to be one of positiveaccomplished fact. One of two things: either the newspaper accountwas not true; or else, the facts being as represented, here was anew possibility to be reckoned with. The only course was to send forthe books and test the thing on its merits. Being somewhat used tolanguages, he did not take long to see that this one was good enough initself. A letter, written in Esperanto, after a few days' study of thegrammar at odd times, with a halfpenny Esperanto-English key enclosed, was fully understood by the addressee, though he was ignorant up tillthen of the very existence of Esperanto. This experience has often beensince repeated; indeed, the correspondent will often write back after afew days in Esperanto. Such letters have always been found intelligible, though in no case did the correspondent know Esperanto previously. Theexperiment is instructive and amusing, and can be tried by any one foran expenditure of twopence for keys and a few hours for studying thesixteen rules and their application. To many minds these are far simplerand more easy to grasp for practical use than the rules for scoring atbridge. 

After a month or two's playing with the language in spare time, the writer further tested it, by sending out a flight of postcardsto various selected Esperantists' addresses in different parts ofthe Russian Empire. The addressees ranged from St. Petersburg andHelsingfors through Poland to the Caucasus and to far Siberia. In nearlyevery case answers were received, and in some instances the initialinterchange of postcards led to an extremely interesting correspondence, throwing much light on the disturbed state of things in the nativetown or province of the correspondent. From a Tiflis doctor came agraphic account of the state of affairs in the Caucasus; while a schoolinspector from the depths of Eastern Siberia painted a vivid picture ofthe effect of political unrest on the schools—lockouts and "malodorouschemical obstructions" (_Anglice_—the schools were stunk out). Manywriters expressed themselves with great freedom, but feared theirletters would not pass the censor. Judging by the proportion of answersreceived, the censorship was not at that time efficient. In no case wasthere any difficulty in grasping the writer's meaning. All the answerswere in Esperanto. 

This was fairly convincing, but still having doubts on the question ofpronunciation, the writer resolved to attend the Esperanto Congressto be held at Geneva in August 1906. To this end he continued to readEsperanto at odd minutes and took in an Esperanto gazette. About threeweeks before the congress he got a member of his family to read aloud tohim every day as far as possible a page or two of Esperanto, in orderto attune his ear. He never had an opportunity of speaking the languagebefore the congress, except once for a few minutes, when he travelledsome distance to attend a meeting of the nearest English group. 

Thus equipped, he went through the Congress of Geneva, and found himselfable to follow most of the proceedings, and to converse freely, thoughslowly, with people of the most diverse nationality. At an early sittingof the congress he found himself next to a Russian from Kischineff, who had been through the first great _pogrom_, and a most interestingconversation ensued. Another day the neighbours were an Indian nawaband an abbé from Madrid. Another time it was a Bulgarian. At the firstofficial banquet he sat next to a Finn, who rejoiced in the name ofAttila, and, but for the civilizing influence of a universal language, might have been in the sunny south, like his namesake of the ancientworld, on a very different errand from his present peaceful one. Yethere he was, rubbing elbows with Italians, as if there had never beensuch things as Huns or a sack of Rome by northern barbarians. 

During the meal a Frenchman, finding himself near us English and someGermans, proposed a toast to the "entente cordiale taking in Germany, "which was honoured with great enthusiasm. This is merely an instance ofthe small ways in which such gatherings make for peace and good will. 

With all these people it was perfectly easy to converse in the commontongue, pronunciation and national idiom being no bar in practice. 

And this experience was general throughout the duration of the congress. Day by day sittings were held for the transaction of all kinds ofbusiness and the discussion of the most varied subjects. It wasimpressive to see people from half the countries of the world risefrom different corners of the hall and contribute their share to thediscussion in the most matter-of-fact way. Day by day the congressistsmet in social functions, debates, lectures, and sectional groups(chemical, medical, legal, etc. ) for the regulation of matters touchingtheir special interests. Everything was done in Esperanto, and neverwas there the slightest hitch or misunderstanding, or failure to giveadequate expression to opinions owing to defects of language. Thelanguage difficulty was annihilated. 

Perhaps one of the most striking demonstrations of this return topre-Babel conditions was the performance of a three-part comedy by aFrenchman, a Russian, and a Spaniard. Such a thing would inevitablyhave been grotesque in any national language; but here they met oncommon neutral ground. No one's accent was "foreign, " and none of thespectators possessed that mother-tongue acquaintance with Esperanto thatwould lead them to feel slight divergences shocking, or even noticeablewithout extreme attention to the point. Other theatrical performanceswere given at Geneva, as also at Boulogne, where a play of Molièrewas performed in Esperanto by actors of eight nationalities with onerehearsal, and with full success. 

In the face of these facts it is idle to oppose a universal artificiallanguage on the score of impossibility or inadequacy. The theoreticalpronunciation difficulty completely crumbled away before the test ofpractice. 

The "war-at-any-price party, " the whole-hoggers _à tous crins_ (thejuxtaposition of the two national idioms lends a certain realism, andheightens the effect of each), are therefore driven back on theirsecond line of attack, if the Hibernianism may be excused. "Yes, " theysay, "your language may be possible, but, after all, why not learn anexisting language, if you've got to learn one anyway?"

Now, quite apart from the obvious fact that the nations will never agreeto give the preference to the language of one of them to the prejudiceof the others, this argument involves the suggestion that an artificiallanguage is no easier to learn than a natural one. We thus come to thequestion of ease as a qualification. 

 IV

 THE QUESTION OF PRACTICE (_continued_)—AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE IS EASY[1]

 [1]Readers who do not care about the reasons for this, but desire concrete proofs, may skip the next few pages and turn in to p. 20, par. 6. 

People smile incredulously at the mention of an artificial language, implying that no easy royal road can be found to language-learning ofany kind. But the odds are all the other way, and they are heavy odds. 

The reason for this is quite simple, and may be briefly put as follows:

The object of language is to express thought and feeling. Every naturallanguage contains all kinds of complications and irregularities, which are of no use whatever in attaining this object, but merelyexist because they happen to have grown. Their sole _raison d'être_is historical. In fact, for a language without a history they are_unnecessary_[1]. Therefore a universal language, whose only object isto supply to every one the simplest possible means of expressing histhoughts and feelings in a medium intelligible to every one else, simply leaves them out. Now, it is precisely in these "unnecessary"complications that a large proportion—certainly more than half—ofthe difficulty of learning a foreign language consists. Therefore anartificial language, by merely leaving them out, becomes certainly morethan twice as easy to learn as any natural language. 

 [1]i. E. They do not assist in attaining its object as a language. One universal way of forming the plural, past tense, or comparative expresses plurality, past time, or comparison just as well as fifteen ways, and with a deal less trouble. 

A little reflection will make this truth so absurdly obvious, that theonly wonder is, not that it is now beginning to be recognized, but thatany one could have ever derided it. 

That the "unnecessary" difficulties of a natural language are more thanone-half of the whole is certainly an under-estimate; for some languagesthe proportion would be more like 3:4 or 5:6. Compared with these, theartificial language would be three times to five times as easy. 

Take an illustration. Compare the work to be done by the learner of(_a_) Latin, (_b_) Esperanto, in expressing past, present, and futureaction. 

(_a_) Latin:

Present tense active is expressed by—

 6 endings in the 1st regular conjugation. 6 " 2nd " 6 " 3rd " 6 " 4th "

Total regular endings: 24. 

To these must be added a vast number of quite different and varyingforms for irregular verbs. 

(_b_) Esperanto:

Present tense active is expressed by—

 1 ending for every verb in the language. 

Total regular and irregular endings: 1. 

It is exactly the same for the past and future. 

Total endings for the 3 tenses active:

(_a_) Latin: 72 regular forms, plus a very large number of irregular anddefective verbs. 

(_b_) Esperanto: 3 forms. 

Turning to the passive voice, we get—

(_a_) Latin: A complete set of different endings, some of them puzzlingin form and liable to confusion with other parts of the verb. 

(_b_) Esperanto: No new endings at all. Merely the three-form regularactive conjugation of the verb _esti_ = to be, with a passive participle. No confusion possible. 

It is just the same with compound tenses, subjunctives, participles, etc. Making all due allowances, it is quite safe to say that the Latinverb is fifty times as hard as the Esperanto verb. 

The proportion would be about the same in the case of substantives, Latin having innumerable types. 

Comparing modern languages with Esperanto, the proportion in favour ofthe latter would not be so high as fifty to one in the inflection ofverbs and nouns, though even here it would be very great, allowing forsubjunctives, auxiliaries, irregularities, etc. But taking the wholelanguages, it might well rise to ten to one. 

For what are the chief difficulties in language-learning?

They are mainly either difficulties of phonetics, or of structure andvocabulary. 

Difficulties of phonetics are:

(1) Multiplicity of sounds to be produced, including many sounds andcombinations that do not occur in the language of the learner. 

(2) Variation of accent, and of sounds expressed by the same letter. 

These difficulties are both eliminated in Esperanto. 

(1) Relatively few sounds are adopted into the language, and only suchas are common to nearly all languages. For instance, there are only fivefull vowels and three[1] diphthongs, which can be explained to everyspeaker in terms of his own language. All the modified vowels, closed"u's" and "e's, " half tones, longs and shorts, open and closed vowels, etc. , which form the chief bugbear in correct pronunciation, and oftenrender the foreigner unintelligible—all these disappear. 

 [1]Omitting the rare _eŭ_. _ej_ and _uj_ are merely simple vowels plus consonantal _j_ (= English _y_). 

(2) There is no variation of accent or of sound expressed by thesame letter. The principle "one letter, one sound"[1] is adhered toabsolutely. Thus, having learned one simple rule for accent (always onthe last syllable but one), and the uniform sound corresponding to eachletter, no mistake is possible. 

 [1]The converse—"one sound, one letter"—is also true, except that the same sound is expressed by _c_ and _ts_. (See Appendix C. )

Contrast this with English. Miss Soames gives twenty-one ways of writingthe same sound. Here they are:

[Transcriber's Note:Letters originally printed in _italics_ are here CAPITALIZED forclarity. ]

 AtE grEAt fEIGn bAss EH! wEIGH pAIn gAOl AYE pAY gAUgE obEYEd dAHlia champAGnE wEIGHEd vEIn campAIGn trAIT thEY strAIGHt hALFpenny[1]

 [1]Prof. Skeat adds a twenty-second: Lord Reay!

(Compare eye, lie, high, etc. )

In Esperanto this sound is expressed only and always by "e. " In fact, the language is absolutely and entirely phonetic, as all real languagewas once. 

As regards difficulties of vocabulary, the same may be said as inthe case of the sounds. Esperanto only adopts the minimum of rootsessential, and these are simple, non-ambiguous, and as internationalas possible. Owing to the device of word-building by means of a fewsuffixes and prefixes with fixed meaning, the number of roots necessaryis very greatly less than in any natural language. [1]

 [1]Most of these roots are already known to educated people. For the young the learning of a certain number of words presents practically no difficulty; it is in the practical application of words learnt that they break down, and this failure is almost entirely due to "unnecessary" difficulties. 

As for difficulties of structure, some of the chief ones are as follows:

_Multiplicity and complexity of inflections. _ This does not exist inEsperanto. 

_Irregularities and exceptions of all kinds. _ None in Esperanto. 

_Complications of orthography. _ None in Esperanto. 

_Different senses of same word, and different words used in same sense. _Esperanto—"one word, one meaning. "

_Arbitrary and fluctuating idioms. _ Esperanto—none. Common sense andcommon grammar the only limitation to combination of words. 

_Complexities of syntax. _ (Think of the use of the subjunctive andinfinitive in all languages: _ού_ and _μή_ in Greek; indirect speechin Latin; negatives, comparisons, etc. , etc. , in all languages. )Esperanto—none. Common sense the only guide, and no ambiguity inpractice. The perfect limpidity of Esperanto, with no syntactical rules, is a most instructive proof of the conventionality and arbitrariness ofthe niceties of syntax in national languages. After all, the subjunctivewas made for man and not man for the subjunctive. 

But readers will say: "It is all very well to show by a comparison offorms that Esperanto _ought_ to be much easier than a natural language. But we want facts. "

Here are some. 

In the last chapter it was mentioned that the present writer first tookup Esperanto in October 1905, worked at it at odd times, never spoke itor heard it spoken save once, and was able to follow the proceedingsof the Congress of Geneva in August 1906, and talk to all foreigners. From a long experience of smattering in many languages and learning afew thoroughly, he is absolutely convinced that this would have beenimpossible to him in any national language. 

A lady who began Esperanto three weeks before the congress, and studiedit in a grammar by herself one hour each day, was able to talk in itwith all peoples on very simple subjects, and to follow a considerableamount of the lectures, etc. 

Amongst the British folk who attended the congress were many clerksand commercial people, who had merely learnt Esperanto by attending aclass or a local group meeting once a week, often for not many months. They had never been out of England before, nor learnt any other foreignlanguage. They would have been utterly at sea if they had attempted todo what they did on a similar acquaintance with any foreign tongue. But during the two days spent _en route_ in Paris, where the Britishparty was fêted and shown round by the French Esperantists, on thejourney to Geneva, which English and French made together, on lakesteamboats, at picnics and dinners, etc. , etc. , here they were, rattlingaway with great ease and mutual entertainment. Many of these camefrom the North of England, and it was a real eye-opener, over whicheasy-going South-Englanders would do well to ponder, to see what resultscould be produced by a little energy and application, building on noprevious linguistic training. The Northern accent was evidently a helpin pronouncing the full-sounding vowels of Esperanto. 

One Englishman, who was talking away gaily with the French_samideanoj_, [1] was an Esperantist of one year's standing. He hadhappened to be at Boulogne in pursuit of a little combined French andseasiding at the time of the first congress held there, 1905. One dayhe got his tongue badly tied up in a cafe, and was helped out of hislinguistic difficulties with the waiter by certain compatriots, who woregreen stars in their buttonholes, [2] and sat at another table conversingin an unknown lingo with a crowd of foreigners. He made inquiries, andfound it was Esperanto they were talking. He was so much struck by theirfacility, and the practical way in which they had set his business torights in a minute (the waiter was an Esperantist trained _ad hoc_!), that he decided to give up French and go in for Esperanto. This manwas a real learner of French, who had spent a long time on it, andrealized with disgust his impotence to wield it practically. To judgeby his conversation next year at Geneva, he had no such difficulty withEsperanto. He was quite jubilant over the change. 

 [1]Terse Esperanto word. = partisans of the same idea (i. E. Esperanto). 

 [2]The Esperanto badge. 

Such examples could be multiplied _ad infinitum_. No one who attended acongress could fail to be convinced. 

Scientific comparison of the respective difficulty of Esperanto andother languages, based on properly collected and tabulated results, does not seem to be yet obtainable. It is difficult to get high-classschools, where language-teaching is a regular and important part ofthe curriculum, to give an artificial language a fair trial. Properlyorganized and carried-out tests are greatly to be desired. If and whenthey are made, it will probably be found that Esperanto is not only veryeasy of acquisition itself, but that it has a beneficial effect uponother language-learning. [1]

 [1]See pp. 145-55 [Part III, Chapter I]. 

Meantime, the present writer has carried out one small experiment in agood secondary school for girls, where French and German are regularlyspoken and taught for many hours in the week. The head-mistressintroduced Esperanto as a regular school subject at the beginning ofthe Easter term, January 1907. At the end of term a test paper wasset, consisting of English sentences to be rendered into French andEsperanto without any dictionary or other aid, and one short passageof English prose to be rendered into both languages with any aid frombooks that the pupils wished. The object was to determine how far a fewhours' teaching of Esperanto would produce results comparable with thoseobtained in a language learnt for years. 

The examinees ranged from fourteen to sixteen years. They had beenlearning French from two to seven years, and had a daily French lesson, besides speaking French on alternate days in the school. They had learntEsperanto for ten weeks, from one to one and a half hours per week. _Taking the papers all through, the Esperanto results were nearly asgood as the French. _

One last experiment may be mentioned. It was made under scientificconditions on September 23, 1905. The subject was an adult, who hadlearnt French and German for years at school, and had since taughtFrench to young boys, but was not a linguist by training or education, having read mathematics at the university. 

He had had no lessons in Esperanto, and had never studied the language, his sole knowledge of it being derived from general conversation withan enthusiast, who had just returned from the Geneva Congress. Hewas disposed to laugh at Esperanto, but was persuaded to test itspossibilities as a language that can be written intelligibly by aneducated person merely from dictionary by a few rules. 

He was given a page of carefully prepared English to translate intoEsperanto. The following written aids were given:

 1. Twenty-five crude roots (e. G. _lern-_ = to learn. )

 2. One suffix, with explanation of its use. 

 3. A one-page complete grammar of the Esperanto language. 

 4. An Esperanto-English and an English-Esperanto dictionary. 

He produced a good page of perfectly intelligible Esperanto, quitefree from serious grammatical mistake. He admitted that he could nottranslate the passage so well into French or German. 

Such experiments go a good way towards proving the case for anartificial language. More are urgently needed, especially of the lasttwo types. They serve to convince all those who come within range of theexperiment that an artificial language is a serious project, and mayconfer great benefits at small cost. Any one can make them with a littletrouble, if he can secure a victim. A particularly interesting one isto send a letter in Esperanto to some English or foreign correspondent, enclosing a penny key. The letter will certainly be understood, and verylikely the answer will be in Esperanto. 

Doubters as to the ease and efficacy of a universal language are notasked to believe without trial. They are merely asked not to condemn orbe unfavourable until they have a right to an opinion on the subject. And they are asked to _form_ an opinion by personally testing, or at anyrate by weighing actual facts. "A fair field and no favour. "

The very best way of testing the thing is to study the language for afew hours and attend a congress. The next congress is to be held inCambridge, England, in August 1907. 

Nothing is more unscientific or unintelligent than to scoff at a thing, while refusing to examine whether there is anything in it. 

 V

 THE QUESTION OF PRACTICE (_continued_)—THE INTRODUCTION OF AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE WOULD NOT CAUSE DISLOCATION

In Chapters II. , III. , and IV. It was sought to prove that a universallanguage is desirable in principle, that it already exists and isefficient, and that it is very easy. If these propositions are true, the only valid argument against introducing it at once would be ademonstration that its introduction is either impracticable or elseattended with such disadvantages as to outweigh the beneficial results. 

Now, it is quite true that certain schemes tending towards internationaluniformity of practice and, therefore, ultimately productive of savingof labour are nevertheless such that their realization would cause analmost prohibitive dislocation of present organization. A conspicuousexample is the proposed adoption of the decimal system in coinage andweights and measures. So great is the loss of time and trouble (andtherefore of money) entailed by using an antiquated and cumbrous-systeminstead of a simple and modern one that does the work as well, that thebig firm Kynochs some months ago introduced the decimal system, in spiteof the enormous difficulty of having to keep a double method going. But hitherto, at any rate, the great disturbance to business that thechange would cause has prevented it from being generally made. Boththis matter and the curiously out-of-date[1] system of spelling modernEnglish present a fairly close analogy to the multilingual system ofinternational intercourse, as regards unprofitable expenditure of timeand trouble. 

 [1]Out of date, because it has failed to keep pace with the change of pronunciation. Spelling, i. E. Use of writing, was merely a device for representing to the eye the spoken sounds, so that failure to do this means getting out of date. 

But where the analogy breaks down altogether is in the matter ofobstacles to reform. 

Supposing that all the ministries of education in the world issuedorders, that as from January 1, 1909, an auxiliary language should betaught in every government school; supposing that merchants took todoing foreign business wholesale in an auxiliary language, or that menof science took to issuing all their books and treatises in it; whosebusiness would be dislocated? What literature or books would becomeobsolete? Who, except foreign correspondence clerks and interpreters, would be a penny the worse? Surely a useful reform need not be delayedor refused in the interests of interpreters and correspondence clerks. Even these would only be eliminated gradually as the reform spread. There would be absolutely no general confusion analogous to thatfollowing on a sudden change to phonetic spelling or the metric system, because nothing would be displaced. 

Look at the precedents—the adoption of an international maritime code, and of an international system of cataloguing which puts bibliographyon an equal footing all over the world by means of a common systemof classification. Did any confusion or dislocation follow on thesereforms? Quite the contrary. It was enough for England and France toagree on the use of the maritime code, and the rest of the nations hadto come into line. It would be the same with the official recognitionby a group of powerful nations of an auxiliary language. As soon as theworld recognizes that it is a labour-saving device on a large scale, anda matter of public convenience on the same plane as codes, telegraphy, or shorthand, it will no doubt be introduced. But why wait until thereare rival schemes with large followings and vested interests—in short, until the same obstacles arise to the choice of an international, artificial, and neutral language, as now prevent the elevation of anynational language into a universal medium? The plea of impracticabilityon the score of dislocation might then be valid. At present it is not. To have an easy language that will carry you anywhere and enable you toread anything, it is sufficient to wish for it. Only, as we Britons arebeing taught to "think imperially, " so must the nations learn in thismatter to _wish internationally_. 

 VI

 INTERNATIONAL ACTION ALREADY TAKEN FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF AN AUXILIARY LANGUAGE

The main work of educating the public to "wish internationally, " thenecessary precedent to official action, has naturally in the past beendone by the adherents of the various language-schemes themselves. Anoutline of the most important of these movements is given in the secondpart of this book. 

But apart from these there is now an international organization that isworking for the adoption of an international auxiliary language, and abrief account of it may be given here. 

During the Paris Exhibition of 1900 a number of international congressesand learned societies, which were holding meetings there, appointeddelegates for the consideration of the international language question. These delegates met on January 17, 1901, and founded a "Delegation forthe Adoption of an International Auxiliary Language. " They drew up thefollowing declaration, which has been approved by all subsequentlyelected delegates:

 * * * * *

 DELEGATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERNATIONAL AUXILIARY LANGUAGE

 Declaration

The undersigned, deputed by various Congresses and Societies to studythe question of an international auxiliary language, have agreed on thefollowing points:

(1) There is a necessity to choose and to spread the use of aninternational language, designed not to replace national idioms in theindividual life of each people, but to serve in the written and oralrelations between persons whose mother-tongues are different. 

(2) In order to fulfil its purpose usefully, an international languagemust satisfy the following conditions:

 1st Condition: It must fulfil the needs of the ordinary intercourse of social life, of commercial communications, and of scientific and philosophic relations;

 2nd Condition: It must be easily acquired by every person of average elementary education, and especially by persons of European civilization;

 3rd Condition: It must not be one of the national languages. 

(3) It is desirable to organize a general DELEGATION representingall who realize the necessity, as well as the possibility, of aninternational auxiliary language, and who are interested in itsemployment. This Delegation will appoint a Committee of members who canmeet during a certain period of time. The purpose of this Committee isdefined in the following articles. 

(4) The choice of the auxiliary language belongs in the first instanceto the _International Association of Academies_, or, in case of failure, to the Committee mentioned in Art. 3. 

(5) Consequently the first duty of the Committee will be to present tothe _International Association of Academies_, in the required forms, thedesires expressed by the constituent Societies and Congresses, and toinvite it respectfully to realize the project of an auxiliary language. 

(6) It will be the duty of the Committee to create a Society forpropaganda, to spread the use of the auxiliary language which is chosen. 

(7) The undersigned, being delegated by various Congresses andSocieties, decide to approach all learned bodies, and all societies ofbusiness men and tourists, in order to obtain their adhesion to thepresent project. 

(8) Representatives of regularly constituted Societies which haveagreed to the present _Declaration_ will be admitted as members of theDELEGATION. 

 * * * * *

This declaration is the official programme of the Delegation. The mostimportant point of principle to note is Art. 2, 3rd Con. : "It must notbe one of the national languages. "

As regards the methods of action prescribed, no attempt is to be madeto bring direct pressure to bear upon any government. It was rightlyfelt that the adoption of a universal language is a matter for privateinitiative. No government can properly take up the question, no Ministryof Education can officially introduce an auxiliary language into theschools under its control, until the principle has met with a certainamount of general recognition. The result of a direct appeal to anygovernment or governments could only have been, in the most favourablecase, the appointment by the government appealed to of a commission toinvestigate and report on the question. Such a commission would examineexperts and witnesses from representative bodies, such as academies, institutes, philological and other learned societies. The best course ofaction, therefore, for the promoters of an international language is toapply direct to such bodies, to bring the question before them and tryto gain their support. This is what the Delegation has done. 

Now, there already exists an international organization whose objectis to represent and focus the opinion of learned societies in allcountries. This is the International Association of Academies, formed in1900 for the express purpose, according to its statutes, of promoting"scientific enterprises of international interest. " The delegates feelthat the adoption of an international language comes in the fullestsense within the letter and spirit of this statute. It is, therefore, to this Association that the choice of language is, in the first place, left. (Art. 4. )

The Association meets triennially. At its first meeting (Paris 1901)the question of international language was brought before it by GeneralSébert, of the French Institute, but too late to be included among theagenda of that meeting. The occasion was important as eliciting anexpression of opinion on the part of the signatories to General Sébert'saddress. These included twenty-five members of the French Institute, oneof the most distinguished scientific bodies in the world. 

At the second meeting of the Association (London 1904) the Delegationdid not officially present the question for discussion, but thefollowing paragraph appears in the report of the proceedings of theRoyal Society, which was the host (_London Royal Society_, 1904, C. Section of Letters, Thursday, May 26, 1904, p. 33):

"In the course of the sitting, the chairman (Lord Reay, President ofthe British Academy) submitted to the meeting whether the question ofthe 'International Auxiliary Language' should be considered, thoughnot included in the agenda. From many quarters applications had beenmade that the subject might be discussed in some form or other. Prof. Goldziher and M. Perrot spoke against the suggested discussion, the former maintaining that the matter was a general question ofinternational communication, and did not specifically affect scientificinterests; the latter announced that he had been commissioned by the_Académie des Inscriptions_ to oppose the consideration of this subject. The matter then dropped. "

The third meeting of the Association of Academies was held at Viennaat the end of May 1907, under the auspices of the Vienna Academy ofScience. The question was officially laid before it by the Delegation. The Association declared, for formal reasons, that the question did notfall within its competence. [1]

 [1]In the voting as to the inclusion of the question in the agenda, eight votes were cast in favour of international language, and twelve against. This considerable minority shows very encouraging progress in such a body, considering the newness of the scheme. 

Up till now only two national academies have shown themselves favourableto the scheme, those of Vienna and Copenhagen. 

The Vienna Academy commissioned one of its most eminent members, Prof. Schuchardt, to watch the movement on its behalf, and to keep itinformed on the subject. In 1904 he presented a report favourable toan international language. He and Prof. Jespersen are amongst the mostfamous philologists who support the movement. 

It is not therefore anticipated that the Association of Academies willtake up the question; and the Delegation, thinking it desirable not towait indefinitely till it is converted, has proceeded to the electionof a committee, as provided in Art. 4 of the Declaration. It consistsof twelve members, with powers to add to their number. It will meet inParis, October 5, 1907. It is anticipated that the language chosen willbe Esperanto. None of the members of this international committee areEnglish, all the English savants invited having declined. 

What may be the practical effect of the choice made by this Committeeremains to be seen. In France there is a permanent ParliamentaryCommission for the consideration of questions affecting publiceducation. This Commission has for some time had before it a proposalfor the introduction of Esperanto into the State schools of France, signed by twelve members of Parliament and referred by the House tothe Commission. This year the proposal has been presented again in adifferent form. The text of the scheme, which is much more practicalthan the former one, is as follows:

"The study of the international language Esperanto will be included inthe curricula of those government schools in which modern languages arealready taught. 

"This study will be optional, and candidates who offer for the variousexaminations English, German, Italian, Spanish, or Arabic, will beallowed to offer Esperanto as an additional subject. 

"They will be entitled to the advantages enjoyed by candidates who offeran additional language. "

At present it is a very usual thing to offer an additional language, andif this project passes, Esperanto will be on exactly the same footing asother languages for this purpose. The project of recognizing Esperantoas a principal language for examination was entirely impracticable. Itis far too easy, and would merely have become a "soft option" and arefuge for the destitute. 

It is said that a majority of the Commission are in favour ofintroducing an auxiliary language into the schools, when one has beenchosen by the Delegation or by the Association of Academies. It istherefore possible that in a year or two Esperanto may be officiallyrecognized in France; and if this is so, other nations will have toexamine the matter seriously. 

Considering that the French are notoriously bad linguists and, above allother peoples, devoted to the cult of their own language and literature, it is somewhat remarkable that the cause of an artificial languageshould have made more progress among them than elsewhere. It might havebeen anticipated that the obstructionist outcry, raised so freely in allcountries by those who imagine that an insidious attack is being made ontaste, culture, and national language and literature, would have beenparticularly loud in France. On the contrary, it is precisely in thatcountry that the movement has made most popular progress, and that itnumbers the most scientists, scholars, and distinguished men among itsadherents. Is it that history will one day have to record another caseof France leading Europe in the van of progress?

Encouraged by the number of distinguished signatures obtained in Franceto their petition in 1901, the Delegation drew up a formula of assentto their Declaration, which they circulate amongst (1) members ofacademies, (2) members of universities, in all countries. They alsokeep a list of societies of all kinds who have declared their adherenceto the scheme. The latest lists (February and March 1907) show 1, 060signatures of academicians and university members, and 273 societies. In both cases the most influential backing is in France. Thus among thesignatures figure in Paris alone:

 10 professors of the College de France; 8 " " " Faculty of Medicine; 13 " " " Faculty of Science; 11 " " " Faculty of Letters; 12 " " " École Normale; 37 members of the Academy of Science;

besides a host of other members of various learned bodies. Many of theseare members of that august body the Institut de France, and one is amember of the Académie française—M. Lavisse. 

It is the same in the other French Universities: Lyons University, 53professors; Dijon, 34; Caen, 18; Besançon, 15; Grenoble, 26; Marseilles, 56, and so on. 

Universities in other lands make a fair showing. America contributessupporters from John Hopkins University, 20 professors; Boston Academyof Arts and Sciences, 13 members; Harvard, 7 professors; ColumbiaUniversity, 23 professors; Washington Academy of Science, 19 members;Columbus University, Ohio, 21 professors, etc. Dublin and Edinburgh bothcontribute a few. England is represented by one entry: "Cambridge, 2professors. " Perhaps the Cambridge Congress will change this somewhat. It will be strange if any one can actually witness a congress withouthaving his imagination to some extent stirred by the possibilities. 

A noticeable feature of the action of the Delegation throughout has beenthe scientific spirit in which it has gone to work, and its absoluteimpartiality as to the language to be adopted. It has everywhere, inits propaganda and circulars, spoken of "an international auxiliarylanguage, " and has been careful not to prejudge in any way the questionas to which shall be adopted. 

It may be news to many that there are several rival languages in thefield. Even the enthusiastic partisans of Esperanto are often completelyignorant of the existence of competitors. It was partly with the objectof furnishing full information to the Delegates who are to make thechoice, that MM. Couturat and Leau composed their admirable _Histoirede la langue universelle_. It contains a brief but scientific accountof each language mentioned, the leading principles of its construction, and an excellent critique. The main principles are disengaged by theauthors with a masterly clearness and precision of analysis from themass of material before them. Though they are careful to express nopersonal preference, and let fall nothing which might unfairly prejudicethe delegates in favour of any scheme, it is not difficult to judge, bya comparison of the scientific critiques, which of the competing schemesanalysed most fully carries out the principles which experience nowshows to be essential to success for any artificial language. 

The impression left is, that whether judged by the test of conformity tonecessary principles, or by the old maxim "possession is nine points ofthe law, " Esperanto has no serious rival. 

 VII

 CAN THE INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE BE LATIN?

There are some who fully admit the desirability of an internationallanguage, but say that we have no need to invent one, as we have Latin. This tends to be the argument of literary persons. [1] They back it up bypointing out that Latin has already done duty in the Middle Ages asa common medium, and therefore, they say, what it has once done withsuccess it can do again. 

 [1]It has even cropped up again in the able articles in _The Times_ on the reformed pronunciation of Latin (April 1907). 

It is hard to argue with such persons, because they have not graspedthe fact that the nature of international communication has undergonea complete change, and that therefore there is no presumption thatthe same medium will suffice for carrying it on. In the Middle Agesthe cosmopolitan public was almost entirely a learned one. The onlypeople who wanted to communicate with foreigners (except for a certainamount of commerce) were scholars, and the only things they wanted tocommunicate about were learned subjects, mostly of a philosophicalor literary nature, which Latin was adapted to express. The educatedpublic was extremely small, and foreign travel altogether beyond thereach of all but the very few. The overwhelming mass of the people wereilliterate, and fast tied to their native spot by lack of pence, lack ofcommunications, and the general conditions of life. 

Now that everybody can read and write and get about, and all theconditions of life have changed, the cosmopolitan public, so far frombeing confined to a handful of scholars and merchants, extends downto and is largely made up of that terrible modern production, "theman in the street. " It is quite ridiculous to pretend that becausean Erasmus or a Casaubon could carry on literary controversies, withamazing fluency and hard-hitting, in Ciceronian Latin, therefore "thebald-headed man at the back of the omnibus" can give up the timenecessary to obtaining a control of Latin sufficient for the conduct ofhis affairs, or for hobnobbing with his kind abroad. 

It is waste of time to argue with those who do not realize that theabsolute essentials of any auxiliary language in these days are easeof acquirement and accessibility to all. There are actually somenewspapers published in Latin and dealing with modern topics. As anamusement for the learned they are all very well; but the portentousperiphrases to which they are reduced in describing tramway accidentsor motor-cars, the rank obscurity of the terms in which advertisementsof the most ordinary goods are veiled, ought to be enough to drivetheir illusions out of the heads of the modern champions of Latin forpractical purposes. Let these persons take in the Roman _Vox Urbis_ fora month or two, or get hold of a copy of the London _Alaudae_, and seehow they feel then. 

A dim perception of the requirements of the modern world has inspiredthe various schemes for a barbarized and simplified Latin. It is almostincredible that the authors of such schemes cannot see that debasedLatin suffers from all the defects alleged against an artificiallanguage, plus quite prohibitory ones of its own, without attainingthe corresponding advantages. It is just as artificial as an entirelynew language, without being nearly so easy (especially to speak) oradaptable to modern life. It sins against the cardinal principle thatan auxiliary language shall inflict no damage upon any natural one. Inshort, it disgusts both parties (scholars and tradesmen), and satisfiesthe requirements of neither. Those who want an easy language, withinthe reach of the intelligent person with only an elementary schoolgroundwork of education, don't get it; and the scholarly party, whotreat any artificial language as a cheap commercial scheme, have theirteeth set on edge by unparalleled barbarisms, which must militate mostseriously against the correct use of classical Latin. 

Such schemes are dead of their own dogginess. 

Latin, pure or mongrel, won't do. 

 VIII

 CAN THE INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE BE GREEK?

This chapter might be as short and dogmatic as Mark Twain's celebratedchapter upon snakes in Ireland. It would be enough to merely answer"No, " but that the indefatigable Mr. Henderson, after running throughthree artificial languages of his own, has come to the conclusion thatGreek is the thing. Certainly, as regards flexibility and power ofword-formation, Greek would be better than Latin on its own merits. Butit is too hard, and the scheme has nothing practical about it. 

 IX

 CAN THE INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE BE A MODERN LANGUAGE?

Jingoes are not wanting who say that it is unpatriotic of any Englishmanto be a party to the introduction of a neutral language, because Englishis manifestly destined to be the language of the world. 

Reader, did you ever indulge in the mild witticism of asking a foreignerwhere the English are mentioned in the Bible? The answer, of course, is, _The meek shall inherit the earth_. But if the foreigner is bigger thanyou, don't tell him until you have got to a safe distance. 

It is this attitude of self-assertion, coupled with the tacit assumptionthat the others don't count much, that makes the English so detestedon the Continent. It is well reflected in the claim to have their ownlanguage adopted as a common means of communication between all otherpeoples. 

This claim is not put forward in any spirit of deliberate insolence, or with the intention of ignoring other people's feelings; though thevery unconsciousness of any arrogance in such an attitude really rendersit more galling, on account of the tacit conclusion involved therein. It is merely the outcome of ignorance and of that want of tact whichconsists of inability to put oneself at the point of view of others. The interests of English-speaking peoples are enormous, far greaterthan those of any other group of nations united by a common bond ofspeech. But it is a form of narrow provincial ignorance to refuse onthat account to recognize that, compared to the whole bulk of civilizedpeople, the English speakers are in a small minority, and that themajority includes many high-spirited peoples with a strongly developedsense of nationality, and destined to play a very important part in thehistory of the world. Any sort of movement to have English or any othernational language adopted officially as a universal auxiliary languagewould at once entail a boycott of the favoured language on the partof a ring of other powerful nations, who could not afford to give arival the benefit of this augmented prestige. And it is precisely uponuniversality of adoption that the great use of an international languagewill depend. 

To sum up: the ignorance of contemporary history and fact displayed inthe suggestion of giving the preference to any national language is onlyequalled by its futility, for it _is_ futile, to put forward a scheme thathas no chance of even being discussed internationally as a matter ofpractical politics. 

A proof is that precisely the same objection to an auxiliary languageis raised in France—namely, that it is unpatriotic, because it woulddisplace French from that proud position. 

The above remarks will be wholly misunderstood if they are taken toimply any spirit of Little Englandism on the part of the writer. On the contrary, he is ardently convinced of the mighty _rôle_ thatwill be played among the nations by the British Empire, and has hadmuch good reason in going to and fro in the world to ponder on itsunique achievement in the past. When fully organized on some termsof partnership as demanded by the growth of the Colonies, it will goeven farther in the future. But all this has nothing to do with aninternational language. Howsoever mighty, the British Empire will notswallow up the earth—at any rate, not in our time. And till it does, itis not practical politics to expect other peoples to recognize Englishas the international language as between themselves. 

There are, in fact, two quite separate questions:

(1) Supposing it is possible for any national language to become theinternational one, which has the best claims?

(2) Is it possible for any national language to be adopted as theinternational one?

To question (1) the answer undoubtedly is "English. " It is already thelanguage of the sea, and to a large extent the medium for transactingbusiness between Europeans and Asiatic races, or between the Asiaticraces themselves. [1] Moreover, except for its pronunciation andspelling, it has intrinsically the best claim, as being the furthestadvanced along the common line of development of Aryan language. [2] Butthe discussion of this question has no more than an academic interest, because the answer to question (2) is, for political reasons, in thenegative. 

 [1]Another argument is that based on the comparative numbers of people who speak the principal European languages as their mother-tongue. No accurate statistics exist, but an interesting estimate is quoted by Couturat and Leau (_Hist. De la langue universelle_), which puts English first with about 120, 000, 000, followed at a distance of 30, 000, 000 or 40, 000, 000 by Russian. 

 [2]This is explained in Part III. , chap. I. , _q. V. _

 X

 CAN THE EVOLUTION OF AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE BE LEFT TO THE PROCESS OF NATURAL SELECTION BY FREE COMPETITION?

"You base your argument for an international language mainly on theoperation of economical laws. Be consistent, then; leave the matterto Nature. By unlimited competition the best language is bound to beevolved and come to the top in the struggle for life. Let the fittestsurvive, and don't bother about Esperanto. "

On a first hearing this sounds fairly plausible, yet it is honeycombedwith error. 

In the first place, it proves too much. The same argument could beadduced for the abandonment of effort of all kind whatever to improveupon Nature and her processes. "You can walk and run and swim. Don'tbother to invent boats and bicycles, trains and aeroplanes, that willbring you more into touch with other peoples. Let Nature evolve the bestform of international locomotion. "

Again, Nature does not tend towards uniformity. She produces an infinityof variety in the individual, and out of this variety she selects andevolves certain prevailing types. But these types differ widely withinthe limits of the world under varying conditions of environment. Whatwe are seeking to establish is world-wide uniformity, in spite ofdifference of environment. 

Again, the argument confuses a sub-characteristic with an organism. Alanguage is not an organism, but one of the characteristics of man. After the lapse of countless ages there are grey horses and black, bayand chestnut, presumably because greyness and blackness and the restare incidental characteristics of a horse. No one of them gives him agreater advantage than the others in his struggle for life, or helps himparticularly to perform the functions of horsiness. 

Just in the same way a man may be equally well equipped with all thequalities that make for success, whether he speaks English or French, Russian or Japanese. It cannot be shown that language materially helpsone people as against another, or even that the best race evolves thebest language. [1] Take the last mentioned. If there is one people on theface of the globe who rejoice in an impossible language, it is theJapanese. In the early days of foreign intercourse a good Jesuit fatherreported that the Japanese were courteous and polite to strangers, buttheir language was plainly the invention of the devil. To a modern mindthe language may have outlived its putative father, but its reputationhas not improved, so far as ease is concerned. Yet who will say that ithas impaired national efficiency?

 [1]Greece went down before Rome. Which was the better race, meaning by "better" the more capable of imposing its language and manners on the world? Yet who doubts that Greek was the better language?

The fact is, that for purposes of transaction of ordinary affairs bythose who speak it as a mother tongue, one language is about as good asanother. Whether it survives or spreads depends, not upon its intrinsicqualities as a language, but upon the success of the race that speaksit. [1] There is, therefore, no presumption that the best or the mostsuitable or the easiest language will spread over the world by its ownmerits, or even that any easy or regular language will be evolved. Printing and education have altogether arrested the natural process ofevolution of language on the lips of men. This is one justification forthe application of new artificial reforms to language and spelling, which tend no longer to move naturally with the times as heretofore. 

 [1]A curious phenomenon of our day suggests a possible partial exception. In Switzerland French is steadily encroaching and bearing back German. Is this owing to the intrinsic qualities of French language and civilization? Materially, the Germans have the greater expansive power. 

As regards free competition between rival artificial languages, thesame considerations hold good. The worse might prevail just as easilyas the better, because the determining factor is not the nature of thelanguage, but the influence and general capacity of the rival backers. Of course a very bad or hard artificial language would not prevailagainst an easy one. But beyond a certain point of ease a universallanguage cannot go (ease meaning the ease of all), and that limit hasprobably been about reached now. Between future schemes there will besuch a mere fractional difference in respect of ease, that competitionbecomes altogether beside the point. The thing is to take an easy oneand stick to it. 

 XI

 OBJECTIONS TO AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE ON AESTHETIC GROUNDS

One of the commonest arguments that advocates of a universal languagehave to face runs something like this:

"Yes, there really does seem to be something in what you say—yourlanguage may save time and money and grease the wheels of business;but, after all, we are not all business men, nor are we all out afterdollars. Just think what a dull, drab uniformity your scheme wouldlay over the lands like a pall. By the artificial removal of naturalbarriers you are aiding and abetting the vulgarization of the world. You are doing what in you lies to eliminate the racy, the local, thepicturesque. The tongues of men are as stately trees, set deep in theblack, mouldering soil of the past, and rich with its secular decay. Theleaves are the words of the people, old yet ever new, and the flowersare the nation's poems, drawing their life from the thousand tiny rootsthat twist and twine unseen about the lives and struggles of bygonemen. You are calling to us to come forth from the cool seclusion ofthese trees' shade, to leave their delights and toil in the glare of theworld at raising a mushroom growth on a dull, featureless plain thatreaches everywhither. Modern Macbeths, sophisticated by your modernityand adding perverted instinct to crime, you are murdering not sleep, but dreams—dreams that haunt about the mouldering lodges of the past, and soften the contact with reality by lending their own colouringatmosphere. You are hammering the last nail into the coffin of the oldleisurely past, the past that raised the cathedrals, to which taste andfeeling were of supreme moment, and when man put something of himselfinto his every work. "

The man must be indeed dull of soul who cannot join in a dirge for thebeauty of the vanishing past. Turn where we may now, we find the samerailways, the same trams, music-halls, coats and trousers. The mad rushof modernity with its levelling tendency really is killing off what isquaint, out of the way, and racy of the soil. But why visit the sinsof modernity upon an international language? The last sentence of theindictment itself suggests the line of defence. "You are hammering thelast nail into the coffin of the old, leisurely past. .. . "

Quite so, you _are_. 

The universal ability to use an auxiliary language on occasion roundsoff and completes the levelling process. But the old leisurely pastwill not be any the less dead, or any the less effectually buried, ifone nail is not driven home in the coffin. The slayer is modernity atlarge, made up of science, steam, democracy, universal education, andmany other things—but especially universal education. And the verdictcan be, at the most, justifiable, or at any rate inevitable, pasticide. You cannot eat your cake and have it; you cannot kill off all the badthings and keep all the good ones. With sterilization goes purification, pasticide may be accompanied by pasteurization. At any rate, "the oldorder changeth, " and you've got to let it change. 

The whole history of the "progress" of the world, meaning often materialprogress, is eloquent of the lesson that it is vain to set artificiallimits to advancing invention. The substitution of cheap mechanicalprocesses of manufacture for hand-work involved untold misery to many, and incidentally led to the partial disappearance of a type of characterwhich the world could ill afford to lose, and which we would give muchto be able to bring back. The old semi-artist-craftsman, with hand andeye really trained up to something like their highest level of capacity, with knowledge not wide, but deep, and all gained from experience, andnot from books or technical education—this type of character is a loss. Many, with the gravest reason, are dissatisfied with the type which hasalready largely replaced it, and which will replace it for good or evil, but ever more swiftly and surely. But no well-judging person proposeson that account to forgo the material advantages conferred upon mankindby the invention of machinery. If the world rejects, on sentimentalgrounds, the labour-saving invention of international language, it willbe flying in the face of economic history, and it will not appreciablyretard the disappearance of the picturesque. 

There is another type of argument which may also be classed asaesthetic, but which differs somewhat from the one just discussed. Itemanates chiefly from literary men and scholars, and may be presented asfollows:

"Language is precious, and worthy of study, inasmuch as it enshrinesthe imperishable monuments of the thought and genius of the race onwhose lips it was born. The study of the words and forms in which anation clothed its thoughts throws many a ray of light on phases of theevolution of the race itself, which would otherwise have remained dark. The history of a language and literature is in some measure an epitomeof the history of a people. We miss all these points of interest in yourartificial language, and we shall, therefore, refuse to study it, andhereby commit it to the devil. "

This is a particularly humiliating type of answer to receive, becauseit implies that one is an ass. In truth the man who should invent anartificial language and invite the world to study it for itself wouldbe a fool, and a very swell-headed fool at that. It seems in vain topoint this out to persons who use the above argument; or to explain tothem that they would be aided in their study of languages that do repaystudy by the introduction of an easy international language, becausemany commentaries, etc. , would become accessible to them, which are notso now, or only at the expense of deciphering some difficult language inwhich the commentary is written, the commentary itself being in no senseliterature, and its form a matter of complete indifference. 

Back comes the old answer in one form or another, every variationtainted with the heresy that the language is to be studied as a languagefor itself. 

Perhaps the least tedious way of giving an idea of this kind ofopposition, and the way in which it may be met, is to give some extractsfrom a scholar's letter, and the writer's answer. The letter is fairlytypical. 

 "MY DEAR ——, "Many thanks for your long letter on Esperanto. .. . According to the books, Esperanto can be learnt quickly by any one. This means that they will forget it quite as rapidly; for what is easily acquired is soon forgotten. .. . In my humble opinion, an Englishman who knows French and German would do much better to devote any extra time at his disposal to the study of his own language, which, I repeat, is one of the most delicate mediums of communication now in existence. It has taken centuries to construct, while Esperanto was apparently created in a few hours. One is God's handiwork, and the other a man's toy. Personally, any living language interests me more than Esperanto. I am sorry I am such a heretic, but I fear my love for the English language carries me away. .. . 

 "Yours ever, "——. "

The points that rankle are artificiality and lack of a history. 

 _Reply_

 "MY DEAR ——, "I really can't put it any more plainly, so I must just repeat it: we are not trying to introduce a language that has any interest for anybody in itself. An international language is a labour-saving device. The question is, Is it an efficient one? If so, it must surely be adopted. The world wants to be saved labour. It never pays permanently to do things a longer way, if the shorter one produces equally good results. No one has yet proved, or, in my opinion, advanced any decent argument tending to show, that the results produced by a universal language will not be just as good _for many purposes_[1] as those produced by national languages. That the results are more economically produced surely does not admit of doubt. 

 [1]And those very important ones, relatively to man's whole field of activity. 

 'Personally, any living language interests me more than Esperanto. ' Of course it does. So it does me, and most sensible people. But what the digamma does it matter to Esperanto whether we are interested in it or not? It is not there to interest us. The question is, Does it, or not, save us or others unprofitable labour on a large scale? Neither you nor most sane persons are probably particularly interested in shorthand or Morse codes or any signalling systems. Yet they bear up. 

 "Do try to see that we think there is a certain felt want, amongst countless numbers of persons, which is much more efficiently and economically met by a neutral, easy, international language, than by any national one. That is the position you have got to controvert, if you are seriously to weaken the argument in favour of an international language. If you say that it is not a want felt by many people, I can only say, at the risk of being dogmatic, that you are wrong. I happen to know that it is. [1] The question then is, Is there an easy way of meeting that want? And the equally certain and well-grounded answer is, There is. .. . 

 [1]I have before me a list of 119 societies, representing many different lines of work and play and many nations, who had already in 1903 given in their adhesion to a scheme for an international language. Technical terms alone (in all departments of study) want standardizing, and an international language affords the best means. The number of societies is now (1907) over 270. 

 "As to your argument that what is easy is more easily forgotten—it is true. But I think you must see that, neither in practice nor in principle, does it or should it make for choosing the harder way of arriving at a given result. Chance the forgetting, if necessary re-learning as required, and use the time and effort saved for some more remunerative purpose. 

 "'One is God's handiwork, the other a man's toy. ' I should have said the first was man's lip-work, but I see what you mean. It is God working through his creature's natural development. The same is equally true of all man's 'toys. ' Man moulded his language in pursuance of his ends under God. Under the same guidance he moulded the steam engine, the typewriter, shorthand, the semaphore, and all kinds of signals. What are the philosophical _differentia_ that make Esperanto a toy, and natural language God's handiwork? Apparently the fact that Esperanto is 'artificial, ' i. E. Consciously produced by art. If this is the criterion, beware lest you damn man's works wholesale. If this is not the criterion, what is?

 "'An Englishman who knows French and German would do much better to devote any extra time at his disposal to the study of his own language. ' Yes—if his object is to qualify as an artist in language. No—if his object is to save time and trouble in communicating with foreigners. You must compare like with like. It is unscientific and a confusion of thought to change the subject-matter of a man's employment of his time on grounds other than those fairly intercomparable. You have dictated as to how a man should employ his time by changing his object in employing his time. This makes the whole discussion irrelevant, in so far as it deals with the comparative advantage of studying one language or the other. 

 "Time's up! I have missed my after-lunch walk, and I expect only hardened your heart. 

 "Yours, "——. "

And I had!

 XII

 WILL AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE DISCOURAGE THE STUDY OF MODERN LANGUAGES, AND THUS BE DETRIMENTAL TO CULTURE?—PARALLEL WITH THE QUESTION OF COMPULSORY GREEK

There is a broad, twofold distinction in the aims with which the studyof foreign languages is organized and undertaken. 

It serves: first, purely utilitarian ends, and is a means; secondly, thepurposes of culture, and is an end in itself. 

An international auxiliary language aims at supplanting the first typeof study completely, and, as it claims, with profit to the students. Thesecond type it hopes to leave wholly intact, and disclaims any attemptto interfere with it in any way. How far is this possible?

The answer depends mainly upon the efficiency of the alternative offeredby the new-comer in each case as a possible substitute. 

Firstly, if it is true that a great portion of the human race, especially in the big polyglot empires and the smaller states of Europe, are groaning under the incubus of the language difficulty, and have tospend years on the study of mere words before they can fit themselvesfor an active career, then the abolition of this heavy handicap ondue preparation for each man's proper business in life will liberatemuch time for more profitable studies. It is certain that the majorityof mankind are non-linguistic by nature and inclination rather thanlinguistic—i. E. That the best chance of developing their naturalcapacities to the utmost and making them useful and agreeable members ofsociety does not lie in making all alike swallow an overdose of foreignlanguages during the acquisitive years of youth. By doing so, vast wasteis caused, taking the world round. As to the attainment of the objectof this first type of language study, not only is it as efficientlysecured by a single universal language, but far more so. _Ex hypothesi_the object is utilitarian; the language is a means. Well, a universallanguage is a better means than a national one—first, because, beinguniversal, it is a means to more; secondly, because, being easy andone, it is a means that more people can grasp and employ. In fact, itis in this field an efficient substitute; it saves much, without losinganything. 

For the second type of language-study, on the other hand, where theend is culture and the language is studied for itself and in no wiseas an indifferent means, a universal artificial language offers nosubstitute at all. This end is not on its programme. Why, then, shouldany language-study that is organized in view of culture be given up onits account?

It may, of course, be said that the time given to it by those who pursueculture in language will be taken from the time devoted to more worthylinguistic study, and will therefore prejudice the learning of otherlanguages. This is a point of technical pedagogics or psychology. Thereis very good reason, from the standpoint of these sciences, to believethat a study of a simple _type-tongue_ would, on the contrary, pay foritself in increased facility in learning other languages. But this ismore fully discussed in the chapter for teachers (see pp. 145-55) [PartIII, Chapter I]. 

The question, however, is not in reality quite so simple as this. There is no water-tight partition between utilitarian and culturallanguage-study. They act and react upon each other. There really is someground for anxiety, lest the provision of facilities for learning aneasy artificial language at your door may prevent people from going outof their way to learn national ones, which would have awakened scholarlyinstincts in them. The cause of culture would thus sustain some realhurt. 

The question is another phase—a wider and lower-grade phase—of thegreat compulsory Greek question at Oxford and Cambridge. It affects themasses, whereas the Greek controversy affects the few at the top; butotherwise the issue at stake is essentially the same. 

In both cases the bedrock of the problem is this, Can we afford to putthe many through a grind, which is on the whole unprofitable to them anddoes not attain its object of conferring culture, in order to upholdthe traditional system in the interests of the few? In neither case dothe reformers desire to suppress the study of the old culture-givinglanguage; rather it is hoped that the interests of scholarly and liberallearning will benefit by being freed from the dead weight of grammargrinders, whose mechanical performance and monkey antics are merely adodge to catch a copper from the examiners. 

When Greek is no longer bolstered up by the protection of compulsion, some of the present bounty-fed (i. E. Compulsion-fed) facilities for itsstudy will no doubt disappear from the schools which are at presentforced to provide them. With them will be lost some recruits who wouldhave been led by the facilities to study Greek, and would have studiedit to their profit. On the other hand, the university will be open tonumbers of students who are at present shut out by the Greek tariff. Another barrier against modernity will go down, and democracy makeanother step out of the proverbial gutter towards the university. 

Similarly, the possession of a universally understood medium ofcommunication will in some cases deter people from making the effort tostudy real language, with all the treasures of original literature towhich it is the key. 

 "Tis true, 'tis pity; and pity 'tis, 'tis true. 

But—and this is the great point—it will open the cosmopolitan outlookto countless thousands who could never hope to grapple successfully witheven one national language. This cannot be a small gain. 

It all comes back to this—you cannot eat your cake and have it too. _Il faut souffrir pour être belle. _ The international language has thedefects of its qualities. But then its qualities are great, and theworld is their sphere of utility. 

 XIII

 OBJECTION TO AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WILL SOON SPLIT UP INTO DIALECTS

This is a particularly unfortunate objection, because it displays aradical ignorance of the history of language, and of the conditionsunder which it develops. 

In the first place, the whole tendency of language in the modern worldis towards disappearance of local dialects, and their absorption intoa uniform literary language. The dialects of England are almost deadbefore the onset of universal education, and the great work of Dr. Wright was only just in time to rescue them from oblivion. Even onegeneration hence it will be impossible to collect much of the localspeech recorded in his dictionary. It is the same in Germany andeverywhere, though, of course, all countries are not equally advancedin this respect. A standard form of words and grammar is fixed by printfor the literary language, and when every one can read and write, it isall up with national evolution of language, such as has produced allnational languages. A gradual change of the phonetic value given to thewritten symbols there may be. This has been pre-eminently the case inEngland, though even this will now be arrested by universal education. But a change of forms or of grammar can only be indefinitely slightand gradual. When it takes place, it reflects a common advance of theliterary language, and not local or dialectical variation (though thecommon advance may have originally spread from one locality). 

In the second place, dialects are variations that spring up under thestress of local circumstance in the familiar every-day unconscious useof a common mother tongue among people of the same race and inhabitingthe same district. Now, these are the very circumstances in which anauxiliary international language never can, and never will, be used. Theonly exception is the case of people meeting together for the consciouspractice of the language or using it in jest. 

There are no occasions when an international language would be naturallyused when any variation from standard usage would not be a distinctdisadvantage as tending to unintelligibility. In short, a neutrallanguage consciously learned as a means of communication with strangersis not on an equal footing with, or exposed to the same influences as, amother tongue used by people every day under like conditions. 

A cardinal point of difference is well illustrated by Esperanto. Thewhole foundation of the language, vocabulary, grammar, and everythingelse, is contained in one small book of a few pages, called _Fundamentode Esperanto_. No change can be made in this except by a competentelected international authority. Of course, no text-books or grammarswill be authorized for the use of any nation that are not in accordancewith the _Fundamento_. People will make mistakes, of course, just asthey make mistakes in any foreign language, and they can help themselvesout with any words from other languages, just as they do now when theirFrench or German fails them. But the standard is always there, simpleand short, to correct any aberration, and there is no room for anyalterations in form or structure to creep in. 

 XIV

 OBJECTION THAT THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE (ESPERANTO) IS TOO DOGMATIC, AND REFUSES TO PROFIT BY CRITICISM

It is true that Esperantists refuse to make any change in their languageat present, and this is found irritating by some able critics, whowrongly imagine that this attitude amounts to a claim of perfection forEsperanto. The matter may be easily put right. 

The inadmissibility of change (even for the better) is purely a matterof policy and dictated by practical considerations. Esperantistsmake no claim to infallibility; they want to see their languageuniversally adopted, and they want to see it as perfect as possible. Actual and bitter experience shows that the international languagewhich admits change is lost. Universal acceptance and present changeare incompatible. Esperantists, therefore, bow to the inevitable anddeliberately choose to concentrate for the present on acceptance. General acceptance, indeed, while it imposes upon the present body ofEsperantists self-restraint in abstaining from change, is in realitythe essential condition of profitable future amendment. When aninternational language has attained the degree of dissemination alreadyenjoyed by Esperanto, the only safe kind of change that can be madeis _a posteriori_, not _a priori_. When Esperanto has been officiallyadopted and comes into wide use, actual experience and consensus ofusage amongst its leading writers will indicate the modifications thatare ripe for official adoption. The competent international officialauthority will then from time to time duly register such changes, andthey will become officially part of the language. 

Till then, any change can only cause confusion and alienate support. No one is going to spend time learning a language which is one thingto-day and another thing to-morrow. When the time comes for change, the authority will only proceed cautiously one step at a time, and itsdecrees will only set the seal upon that which actual use has hit off. 

This, then, is the explanation of the famous adjective "netuŝebla, "applied by Dr. Zamenhof to his language, and so much resented in certainquarters. Surely not only is this degree of dogmatism amply justifiedby practical considerations, but it would amount to positive imprudenceon the part of Esperantists to act otherwise. If the inventor of thelanguage can show sufficient self-restraint, after long years spent intouching and retouching his language, to hold his hand at a given point(and he has declared that self-restraint is necessary), surely othersneed not be hurt at their suggestions not being adopted, even thoughthey may in some cases be real improvements. 

The following extracts, translated from the Preface to _Fundamentode Esperanto_ (the written basic law of Esperanto), should set thequestion in the right light. It will be seen that Dr. Zamenhof expresslycontemplates the "gradual perfection" (_perfektigado_) of his language, and by no means lays claim to finality or infallibility. 

"Having the character of _fundament_, the three works reprinted in thisvolume must be above all inviolable (_netuŝeblaj_). .. . The fundamentmust remain inviolable _even with its errors. .. . _ Having once lostits strict inviolability, the work would lose its exceptional andnecessary character of dogmatic fundamentality; and the user, findingone translation in one edition, and another in another, would haveno security that I should not make another change to-morrow, and hisconfidence and support would be lost. 

"To any one who shows me an expression that is not good in theFundamental book, I shall calmly reply: Yes, it is an error; but it mustremain inviolable, for it belongs to the fundamental document, in whichno one has the right to make any change. .. . I showed, _in principle_, how the strict inviolability of the _Fundamento_ will always preservethe unity of our language, without however preventing the languagenot only from becoming richer, but even from constantly becoming moreperfect. But _in practice_ we (for causes already many times explained)must naturally be very cautious in the process of 'perfecting' thelanguage: (_a_) we must not do this light-heartedly, but only in case ofabsolute necessity; (_b_) it can only be done (after mature judgment) bysome central institution, having indisputable authority for the wholeEsperanto world, and not by any private persons. .. . 

"Until the time when a central authoritative institution shall decideto _augment_ (never to _change_) the existing fundament by renderingofficial new words or rules, everything good, which is not to be foundin the _Fundamento de Esperanto_, is to be regarded not as compulsory, but only as recommended. "

 XV

 SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS TO AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

An attempt has been made in the preceding chapters to deal with themore important and obvious arguments put forward by those who will hearnothing of an international language. The objections are, however, sonumerous, cover such a wide field, and in some cases are so mutuallydestructive, that it may be instructive to present them in an orderlyclassification. 

 For there we have them all "at one fell swoop, " Instead of being scattered through the pages; They stand forth marshalled in a handsome troop, To meet the ingenuous youth of future ages. 

 BYRON. 

Let us hope that they will die of exposure, like the famous appendixpilloried by Byron, and that the ingenuous one will be able to regardthem as literary curiosities. 

If the business of an argument is to be unanswerable, the place ofhonour certainly belongs to the religious argument. Any one who reallybelieves that an international language is an impious attempt to reversethe judgment of Babel will continue firm in his faith, though one speakwith the tongues of men and of angels. 

Here, then, are the objections, classified according to content. 

 OBJECTIONS TO AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

I. _Religious_. 

It is doomed to confusion, because it reverses the judgment of Babel. 

II. _Aesthetic and sentimental_. 

(1) It is a cheap commercial scheme, unworthy of the attention ofscholars. 

(2) It vulgarizes the world and tends to dull uniformity. 

(3) It weakens patriotism by diluting national spirit withcosmopolitanism. 

(4) It has no history, no link with the past. 

(5) It is artificial, which is a sin in itself. 

III. _Political_. 

(1) It is against English [Frenchmen read "French"] interests, asdiverting prestige from the national tongue. 

(2) It is socialistic and even anarchical in tendency, and willfacilitate the operations of the international disturbers of society. 

IV. _Literary and linguistic_. 

(1) Lacking history and associations, it is unpoetical and unsuited torender the finer shades of thought and feeling. It will, therefore, degrade and distort the monuments of national literatures which may betranslated into it. 

(2) It may even discourage authors, ambitious of a wide public, fromwriting in their own tongue. Original works in the artificial languagecan never have the fine savour of a master's use of his mother tongue. 

(3) Its precisely formal and logical vocabulary and constructiondebauches the literary sense for the niceties of expression. Therefore, even if not used as a substitute for the mother tongue, its concurrentuse, which will be thrust on everybody, will weaken the best work innative idioms. 

(4) It will split up into dialects. 

(5) Pronunciation will vary so as to be unintelligible. 

(6) It is too dogmatic, and refuses to profit by criticism. 

V. _Educational and cultural_. 

(1) It will prejudice the study of modern languages. 

(2) It will provide a "soft option" for examinees. 

VI. _Personal and particular_. 

It is prejudicial to the vested interests of modern language teachers, foreign correspondence clerks, interpreters, multilingual waiters andhotel porters. 

VII. _Technical_. 

This heading includes the criticisms in detail of various schemes—e. G. It is urged against Esperanto that its accent is monotonous; that itsaccusative case is unnecessary; that its principle of word-formationfrom roots is not strictly logical; that its vocabulary is too Romance;that its vocabulary is not Romance enough; and so forth. 

VIII. _Popular_. 

(1) It is a wild idea put forth by a set of cranks, who would be betteroccupied in something else. 

(2) It is impossible. 

(3) It is too hard: life isn't long enough. 

(4) It is not hard enough: lessons will be too quickly done, and willnot sink into the mind. 

(5) It will oust all other languages, and thus destroy each nation'sbirthright and heritage. 

(6) It will not come in in our time, so the question is of no interestexcept to our grandchildren. 

(7) It is doomed to failure—look at Volapük!

(8) There are quite enough languages already. 

(9) You have to learn three or four languages in order to understandEsperanto. 

(10) You cannot know it without learning it. 

(11) You have to wear a green star. 

Pains have been taken to make this list exhaustive. If any reader canthink of another objection, he is requested to communicate with theauthor. 

Most of the serious arguments have been already dealt with, so that notmany words need be said here. As regards No. VII. (Technical), this isnot the place to deal with actual criticisms of the language (Esperanto)that holds the field. The reader will not be in a position to judge ofthem till he has learnt it. Suffice it to say that they can all be met, and some of the points criticised as vices are, in reality, virtues inan artificial language. 

As for Nos. II. And IV. (Sentimental and Literary), most of theseobjections are due to the old heresy of the literary man, that anartificial language claims to compete with natural languages _as alanguage_. Once realize that it is primarily a labour-saving device, and therefore to be judged like any other modern invention such astelegraphy or shorthand, and most of these objections fall to theground. 

A good many of the objections cannot be taken seriously (though theyhave all been seriously made), or refute themselves or each other. No. VIII. (10) sounds like a fake, but this was the criticism of a scholarand linguist who had been persuaded to look at Esperanto. He complainedthat though he, knowing Latin, French, Italian, German, and English, could read it without ever having learnt it, ordinary Englishmen couldnot. It is usual to judge an invention by efficiency compared to cost, but if an appliance is to be condemned because it needs some trouble tomaster it, then not many inventions will survive. 

No. VIII. (9) is of course a mistake. It is like saying that you mustpractice looping the loop or circus-riding in order to keep your balanceon a bicycle. The greater, of course, includes the less; but it isbetter in both cases to begin with the less. It is much more reasonableto reverse the argument and say: If you begin by learning Esperanto, you will possess a valuable aid towards learning three or four nationallanguages. 

No. VIII. (5) is absurd. It is the hardest thing in the world toextirpate a national language; and all the forces of organizedrepression (e. G. In unhappy Poland) are finding the task too much forthem. What inducement have the common people, who form the bulk of thepopulation in every land, to substitute in their home intercourse fortheir own language one that they have to learn, if at all, artificiallyat school? Only those who have much international intercourse will everbecome really at home in international language—i. E. Sufficiently athome to make it possible to use it indifferently as a substitute fortheir mother-tongue; and people who engage in prolonged and continuousinternational intercourse, though numerous, will always be in aminority. 

 XVI

 THE WIDER COSMOPOLITANISM—THE COMING OF ASIA

In the civilized West, where pleasure, business, and science are dailyforging new ties of common interests between the nations, those engagedin such pursuits have clearly much to gain from the simplification oftheir pursuits by a common language. But let us look ahead a littlefurther still. It may well be that the outstanding feature of thetwentieth century in history will be the coming into line of the peoplesof Asia with their pioneer brethren of the West. Look where you will, everywhere the symptoms are plain for those who can read them. Japan hasled the way. China is following, and will not be far behind; eventually, as the Japanese themselves foresee, she will probably outstrip Japan, ifnot the world. There seems to be no ground, ethnological or otherwise, for thinking that the lagging behind of Asia in modern civilizationcorresponds to a real inferiority of powers, mental or physical, in theindividual Asiatic. Experience shows that under suitable conditions theAsiatic can efficiently handle all the white man's tools and weapons;the complete coming up to date is largely a matter of organization, education, and the possession of a few really able men at the head ofaffairs. Given these, progress may be astonishingly quick. Europeans donot yet seem to have grasped at all adequately the real significance ofthe last fifty years of Japanese history. Do they really think that theChinaman is inferior to the Japanese? If so, let them ask any residentsin the Far East. Can it be maintained that a generation ago the peasantof Eastern Europe was ahead of the country Chinaman? But the last fewyears have shown how swiftly modern civilization spreads, both in Europeand America, from the comparatively small group of nations which in themain have worked it out to the others, till lately considered backwardand semi-barbarous. And this is the case not merely with the materialproducts of civilization, the railway and the telegraph, but also asregards its divers manifestations in all that concerns the life of thepeople—constitutional government with growth of representative, electedauthorities and democracy; universal education with universal power ofreading and consequent birth of a cheap press; rise of industry andconsequent growth of towns; universal military service and discipline, now in force in most lands; rise of a moneyed and leisured class andconsequent growth of sport, and of all kinds of clubs and societies forpromoting various interests, social, sporting, political, religious, educational, philanthropic, and so forth. In fact, the more the materialside of life is "modernized, " the more closely do the citizens of alllands approximate to one another in their interests and activities, which ultimately rest upon and grow out of their material conditions. Meantime wealth and consequently foreign travel everywhere increase, fresh facilities of communication are constantly provided, men fromdifferent countries are more and more thrown together, and all thismakes for the further strengthening of mutual interests and the growthof fresh ones in common. 

Now if (1) under the stress of "modernization" life is already becomingso similar in the lands of the West, and if (2) the Asiatic is notfundamentally inferior in mental and physical endowments, then itfollows as a certainty that the Asiatic world will, under the samestress, enter the comity of nations, and approximate to the world-typeof interest and activity. It is only a question of time. In economichistory nothing is more certain than that science, organization, cheapness, and efficiency must ultimately prevail over sporadic, unorganized local effort based on tradition and not on scientificexploitation of natural advantages. Thus the East will adopt thematerial civilization of the West; and through the same organizationof industrial and commercial life and generally similar economicconditions, the same type of moneyed class will grow up, with the samerange of interests on the intellectual and social side, diverse indeed, but in their very diversity conforming more and more to the world-type. 

Concurrently with this new tendency to uniformity proceeds the weakeningof the two most powerful disintegrating influences of primitivehumanity—religion and tradition. In the earlier stages of societythese are the two most powerful agents for binding together into groupsmen already associated by the ties of locality and common ancestry, and fettering them in the cast-iron bonds of custom and ceremonialobservance. While the members of each group are thus held together bythe ideas which appeal most profoundly to unsophisticated mankind, thevarious groups are automatically and by the same process held apart bythe full force of those ideas. Thus are produced castes, with theirdeadening opposition to all progress; and thus arise crusades, wars ofreligion and persecutions. Religion and tradition are then at once themightiest integrants within each single community, and the mightiestdisintegrants as between different communities. 

But this narrow and dissevering spirit of caste dies back before thespread of knowledge. The tendency to regard a man as unclean or abarbarian, simply because he does not believe or behave as one's ownpeople, is merely a product of isolation and ignorance, and disappearswith education and the general opening up of a country. The inquisitorcan no longer boast of "strained relations"—strained physically on therack, owing to differences of religious opinion. The state of thingswhich made it possible for sepoys to revolt because rifle bullets weregreased with the fat of a sacred animal, or for yellow men to tearup railway tracks because the magic desecrated the tombs of theirancestors, is rapidly passing away, as Orientals realize the profits tobe made from scientific methods. 

Thus the levelling influence is at work, and the checks upon it arediminishing. The end can be but one. There will be a greater and greatersimilarity of life and occupation the world over, and more and moreactual and potential international intercourse. 

Now, the further we move in this direction, the greater will be theimpatience of vexatious restraints upon the freedom of intercourse;and of these restraints the difference of language is one of the mostvexatious, because it is one of the easiest to remove. If we devotemillions of pounds to annihilating the barriers of space, can we notdevote a few months to the comparatively modest effort necessary toannihilate the barriers of language?

A real cosmopolitanism, in the etymological sense of the word, _world_(and not merely European) citizenship, will shift the _onus probandi_from the supporters of an international language to its opponents. It will say to them, "It is admitted that you have much intercoursewith other peoples; it is admitted that diversity of language is anobstacle in this intercourse; this obstacle is increasing rather thandiminishing as fresh subjects raise their claims upon the few years ofeducation, and the old leisurely type of linguistic education failsmore and more to train the bulk of the people for life's business, and as the ranks of the civilized are swelled by fresh peoples forwhom it is harder and harder to learn even one Indo-Germanic tongue, let alone several; it is proved that this obstacle can be removedat the cost of a few months' study: this study is not only the mostdirectly remunerative study in the world, comparing results with cost, but it is an admirable mental discipline and a direct help towardsfurther real linguistic culture-giving studies for those who are fitto undertake them. Show cause, then, why you prefer to suffer underan unnecessary obstacle, rather than avail yourselves of this meansof removing it. " It is easier for the Indo-Germanic peoples to learneach other's languages—e. G. For an Englishman to learn Swedish orRussian—than it is for a speaker of one of any of the other families oflanguages to learn any Indo-Germanic tongue; so that some idea may beformed of the magnitude of the task imposed upon the newer converts toWestern civilization by the Indo-Germanic world, in making them learnone or more of its national languages. At the same time, it is but justthat the peoples who have paid the piper of progress should call thecommon lingual tune. Therefore, what more fitting than that they shouldprovide an essence of their allied languages, reduced to its simplestand clearest form? This they would offer to the rest of the world tobe taken over as part of the general progress in civilization which ithas to adopt; and this it is which is provided in the internationallanguage, Esperanto. 

 XVII

 IMPORTANCE OF AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE FOR THE BLIND

Now that higher education for the blind is being extended in everycountry, owing to the more humanitarian feeling of the present agethat these afflicted members of the community ought to be given a fairchance, the problem of supplying them with books is beginning to befelt. The process of producing books for the blind on the Braille systemis, of course, far more costly than ordinary printing, and at the sametime the editions must be necessarily more or less limited. Many aneducated blind person is therefore cruelly circumscribed in the rangeof literature open to him by the mere physical obstacle of the lack ofbooks. This difficulty is accentuated by the fact that three kinds ofBraille type are in use—French, English, and American. 

Now, suppose it is desired to make the works of some good authoraccessible to the blind—we will say the works of Milton. A separateedition has to be done into Braille for the English, another separatetranslation for the French, and so on for the blind of each country. In many cases where translations of a work do not already exist, as inthe case of a modern author, the mere cost of translation into someone language may not pay, much less then the preparation of a specialBraille edition for the limited blind public of that country. But if oneBraille edition is prepared for the blind of the world in the universalauxiliary language, a far greater range of literature is at once broughtwithin their grasp. 

Already there is abundant evidence of the keen appreciation of Esperantoon the part of the blind, and one striking proof is the fact that thedistinguished French scientist and doctor, Dr. Javal, who himself becameblind during the latter part of his life, was, until his death in March1907, one of the foremost partisans and benefactors of Esperanto. Byhis liberality much has been rendered possible that could not otherwisehave been accomplished. There are many other devoted workers in the samefield, among them Prof. Cart and Mme. Fauvart-Bastoul in France, and Mr. Rhodes, of Keighley, and Mr. Adams, of Hastings, in England. A specialfund is being raised to enable blind Esperantists from various countriesto attend the Congress at Cambridge in August 1907, and the cause is onewell worthy of assistance by all who are interested in the welfare ofthe blind. The day when a universal language is practically recognisedwill be one of the greatest in their annals. 

A perfectly phonetic language, as is Esperanto, is peculiarly suitedto the needs of the blind. Its long, full vowels, slow, harmoniousintonation, few and simple sounds, and regular construction make it veryeasy to learn through the ear, and to reproduce on any phonetic systemof notation; and as a matter of fact, blind people are found to enjoyit much. For a blind man to come to an international congress and beable to compare notes with his fellow-blind from all over the world mustbe a lifting of the veil between him and the outer world, coming nextto receiving his sight. To witness this spectacle alone might almostconvince a waverer as to the utility of the common language. 

 XVIII

 IDEAL _v. _ PRACTICAL

From the early days of the Esperanto movement there has flowed within ita sort of double current. There is the warm and genial Gulf Stream ofIdealism, that raises the temperature on every shore to which it sets, and calls forth a luxuriant growth of friendly sentiment. This tends tothe enriching of life. There is also the cooler current of practicality, with a steady drive towards material profit. At present the tide isflowing free, and, taken at the flood, may lead on to fortune; the twocurrents pursue their way harmoniously within it, without clashing, andsometimes mingling their waters to their mutual benefit. 

But as the movement is sometimes dismissed contemptuously as a pacifistfad or an unattainable ideal of universal brotherhood, it is as wellto set the matter in its true light. It is true that the inventor ofEsperanto, Dr. Zamenhof, of Warsaw, is an idealist in the best sense ofthe word, and that his language was directly inspired by his ardent wishto remove one cause of misunderstanding in his distracted country. Hehas persistently refused to make any profit out of it, and declined toaccept a sum which some enthusiasts collected as a testimonial to hisdisinterested work. 

It is equally true that Esperanto seems to possess a rather strangepower of evoking enthusiasm. Meetings of Esperantists are invariablycharacterized by great cordiality and good-fellowship, and at theinternational congresses so far these feelings have at times risento fever heat. It is easy to make fun of this by saying that theconjunction of Sirius, the fever-shedding constellation of the ancients, with the green star[1] in the dog days of August, when the congressesare held, induces hot fits. Those who have drunk enthusiastic toastsin common, and have rubbed shoulders and compared notes with variousforeigners, and gone home having made perhaps lifelong interestingfriendships which bring them in touch with other lands, will notundervalue the brotherhood aspect of the common language. 

 [1]Badge of the Esperantists. 

On the other hand, the united Esperantists at their first internationalmeeting expressly and formally dissociated their project from anyconnection with political, sentimental, or peace-making schemes. Theydid this by drawing up and promulgating a "Deklaracio, " adopted by theEsperantist world, wherein it is declared that Esperanto is a language, and a language only. [1] It is not a league or a society or agency forpromoting any object whatsoever other than its own dissemination as ameans of communication. Like other tongues, Esperanto may be used forany purpose whatsoever, and it is declared that a man is equally anEsperantist whether he uses the language to save life or to kill, tofurther his own selfish ends or to labour in any altruistic cause. [2]

 [1]For text of this Declaration, see Part II. , chap. Vii. , p. 115. 

 [2]The non-sectarian nature of Esperanto is shown by the fact that the first two services in the language were held on the same day in Geneva according to the Roman Catholic and Protestant rites. The latter was conducted by an English clergyman, whose striking sermon on unity, in spite of diversity, evidently impressed his international congregation. The Vatican has officially expressed its favour towards Esperanto, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has sanctioned an Esperanto form of the Anglican service, which will be used in London and Cambridge this summer. Cordial goodwill was expressed towards the Vatican, on receipt of its message at Geneva, by speakers who avowed themselves agnostics, but welcomed any advance towards abolition of barriers. 

The practical nature of the scheme which Esperantists are labouring toinduce the world to adopt is thus sufficiently clearly defined. Dr. Zamenhof himself, speaking at the Geneva Congress with all the vividpoignancy attaching to the words of a man fresh from the butcheriesat that moment rife in the Russian Empire, [1] declared that neitherhe nor other Esperantists were _naifs_ enough to believe that theadoption of their language would put an end to such scenes. But he had_seen_ men at each other's throats, beating each other's brains out withbludgeons—men who had no personal enmity and had never seen each otherbefore, but were let loose on each other by pure race prejudice. He _did_claim that mutual incomprehensibility amongst men who thus dwell side byside and should be taking part in a common civic life was one powerfulinfluence in keeping up cliques and divisions, and artificially holdingasunder those whom common interests should be joining together. It ishard to refuse credence to this power of language, thus moderatelystated. 

 [1]There were bad massacres about that time in Warsaw, where Dr. Zamenhof lives. During the Congress news came of the assassination of one of the chief civic officials of Warsaw. 

 XIX

 LITERARY _v. _ COMMERCIAL

Another vexed question is whether it is advisable to run aninternational language on a literary or a commercial ticket. On this rock Volapük split—

 A brave vessel, That had no doubt some noble creature in her, Dashed all to pieces;[1]

and there was no Prospero to conjure away the tempest and send everybodysafe home to port to speak Volapük happily ever afterwards. The moralis, that it is no good to make exaggerated claims for a universallanguage. To attempt to set it on a fully equal footing with nationallanguages as a literary medium is to court disaster. 

 [1]Shakespeare, _The Tempest_. 

The truth seems to be about this. As a potential means of internationalcommunication, Esperanto is unsurpassed, and a long way ahead of anynational language. As a literary language, it is far better than Chinookor Pidgin, far worse than English or Greek. 

A language, no more than a man, can serve two masters. By attempting tocombine within itself this double function an international languagewould cease to attain either object. The reason is simple. 

Its legitimate and proper sphere demands of it as the first essentialthat it should be easy and universally accessible. This means that thewords are to be few, and must have but one clearly marked sense each. There are to be no idioms or set phrases, no words that depend upontheir context or upon allusion for their full sense. 

On the other hand, among the essentials of a literary language are theexact opposites of all these characteristics. The vocabulary must befull and plenteous, and there should be a rich variety of synonyms;there should be delicate half-tones and _nuances_; the words should benot mere counters or symbols of fixed value, determinable in each caseby a rapid use of the dictionary alone, but must have an atmosphere, a something dependent upon history, usage, and allusion, by virtue ofwhich the whole phrase, in the finer styles of writing, amounts to morethan the sum of the individual meanings of the words which it contains, becoming a separate entity with an individual flavour of its own. Toattempt to create this atmosphere in an artificial language is notonly futile, but would introduce just the difficulties, redundancies, and complications which it is its chief object to avoid. Take a singleinstance, Macbeth's—

 Nay, this my hand would rather The multitudinous seas incarnadine, Making the green one red. 

Here the effect is produced by the contrast between the stately march ofthe long Latin words of thundrous sound, and the short, sharp English. Alabour-saving language has no business with such words as "incarnadine"or "multitudinous. " In translating such a passage it will reproduce thesense faithfully and clearly, if necessary by the combination of simpleroots; but the bouquet of the original will vanish in the process. Thisis inevitable, and it is even so far an advantage that it removes allground from the argument that a universal language will kill scholarlylanguage-learning. It will be just as necessary as ever to read works offine literature in the original, in order to enjoy their full savour;and the translation into the common tongue will not prejudice suchreading of originals more than, or indeed so much as, translations intovarious mother-tongues. 

Again, take the whole question of the imitative use of language. Innational literatures many a passage, poetry or prose, is heightenedin effect by assonance, alliteration, a certain movement or rhythm ofphrase. Subtle suggestion slides in sound through the ear and fallswith mellowing cadence into the heart. Soothed senses murmur their ownmusic to the mind; the lullaby lilt of the lay swells full the linkedsweetness of the song. 

The How plays fostering round the What. Down the liquid stream oflingual melody the dirge drifts dying—dying it echoes back into aghostly after-life, as the yet throbbing sense wakes the drowsed mindonce more. The Swan-song floats double—song and shadow; and in theblend—half sensuous, half of thought—man's nature tastes fruition. 

Now, this verbal artistry, whereby the words set themselves in tune tothe thoughts, postulates a varied vocabulary, a rich storehouse whereina man may linger and choose among the gems of sound and sense till hefind the fitting stone and fashion it to one of those—

 jewels five-words long, That on the stretched forefinger of all Time Sparkle for ever. 

But the word-store of an international tongue must not be a goldentreasury of art, a repository of "bigotry and virtue. " On its orderlyrows of shelves must be immediately accessible the right word for theright place: no superfluity, no disorder, no circumambient margin foreffect. Homocea-like, it "touches the spot, " and having deadened theache of incomprehensibility, has done its task. "No flowers. "

Naturally some peoples will feel themselves more cramped in a newartificial language than others. French, incomparably neat and clearwithin its limits, but possessing the narrowest "margin for effect, "is less alien in its genius from Esperanto than is English, with itstwofold harmony, its potentiality (too rarely exploited) of Romanceclarity, and its double portion of Germanic vigour and feeling. Yet alllanguages must probably witness the obliteration of some finer nativeshades in the international tongue. 

But we must not go to the opposite extreme, and deny to the universallanguage all power of rendering serious thought. Just how far itcan go, and where its inherent limitations begin, is a matter ofindividual taste and judgment. There are Esperanto translations—andgood ones—of _Hamlet_, _The Tempest_, _Julius Caesar_, the _Aeneid_ ofVirgil, parts of Molière and Homer, besides a goodly variety of otherliterature. These translations do succeed in giving a very fair idea ofthe originals, as any one can test for himself with a little trouble, but, as pointed out, they must come something short in beauty andvariety of expression. 

There is even a certain style in Esperanto itself in the hands of a goodwriter, of which the dominant notes are simplicity and directness—twoqualities not at all to be despised. Further, the unlimited power ofword-building and of forming terse compounds gives the language anindividuality of its own. It contains many expressive self-explanatorywords whose meaning can only be conveyed by a periphrasis in mostlanguages, [1] and this causes it to take on the manner and feel of a_living_ tongue, and makes it something far more than a mere copy orbarren extract of storied speech. 

 [1]e. G. _samideano_ = partisan of the same cause or idea. _vivipova lingvo_ = language capable of independent vigorous existence. 

Technically, the fulness of its participial system, rivalled by Greekalone, and the absence of all defective verbs, lend to it a very greatflexibility; and containing, as it does, a variety of specially neatdevices borrowed from various tongues, it is in a sense neater than anyof them. 

One great test of its capacity for literary expression remains to bemade. This is an adequate translation of the Bible. A religious society, famed for the variety of its translations of the Scriptures into everyconceivable language, when approached on the subject, replied thatEsperanto was not a language. But Esperantists will not "let it goat that. " Besides Dr. Zamenhof's own _Predikanto_ (Ecclesiastes), anexperiment has been made by two Germans, who published a translationof St. Matthew's Gospel. It is not a success, and further experimentshave just been made by Prof. Macloskie, of Princeton, U. S. A. , and by E. Metcalfe, M. A. (Oxon), I cannot say with what result, not having seencopies. [1]

 [1]Cf. Also now the "Ordo de Diservo" (special Anglican Church service), selected and translated from Prayer Book and Bible for use in England by the Rev. J. C. Rust (obtainable from the British Esperanto Association, 13, Arundel Street, Strand, price _7d. _). 

From one point of view, the directness and simplicity of the Bible wouldseem to lend themselves to an Esperanto dress; but there are certaingreat difficulties, such as technical expressions, archaic diction, andphrases hallowed by association. A meeting of those interested in thisgreat work will take place at Cambridge during the Congress (August1907). Experimenters in this field will there be brought together fromall countries, the subject will be thoroughly discussed, and substantialprogress may be hoped for. 

In the field of rendering scientific literature and current workadayprose, whose matter is of more moment than its form, Esperanto hasalready won its spurs. Its perfect lucidity makes it particularlysuitable for this form of writing. 

The conclusion then is, that Esperanto is neither wholly commercial noryet literary in the full sense in which a grown language is literary;but it does do what it professes to do, and it is all the better for notprofessing the impossible. 

 XX

 IS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE A CRANK'S HOBBY?

The apostle of a universal language is made to feel pretty plainly thathe is regarded as a crank. He may console himself with the usual defencethat a crank is that which makes revolutions; but for all that, it ischilling to be met with a certain smile. 

Let us analyse that smile. It varies in intensity, ranging from thescathing sneer damnatory to the gentle dimple deprecatory. But in anycase it belongs to the category of the smile that won't come off. I knowthat grin—it comes from Cheshire. 

What, then, do we mean when we smile at a crank? Firstly and generallythat we think his ideal impracticable. But it has been shown that aninternational language is not impracticable. This alone ought to go fartowards removing it from the list of cranks' hobbies. 

Secondly, we often mean that the ideal in question is opposed to commonsense—e. G. When we smile at a man who lives on protein biscuits orwalks about without a hat. We do not impugn the feasibility of his dietor apparel, but we think he is going out of his way to be peculiarwithout reaping adequate advantage by his departure from customaryusage. 

The test of "crankiness, " then, lies in the adequacy of the advantagereaped. A man who learns and uses Esperanto may at present depart aswidely from ordinary usage as a patron of Eustace Miles's restaurantor a member of the hatless brigade; but is it true that the advantagethereby accruing is equally disputable or matter of opinion? Is it not, on the contrary, fairly certain that the use of an auxiliary language, if universal, would open up for many regions from which exclusion is nowfelt as a hindrance?

Take the case of a doctor, scientist, scholar, researcher in any branchof knowledge, who desires to keep abreast of the advance of knowledge inhis particular line. He may have to wait for years before a translationof some work he wishes to read is published in a tongue he knows, and inany case all the periodical literature of every nation, except the oneor two whose languages he may learn, will be closed to him. The outputof learned work is increasing very fast in all civilized countries, andtherefore results are recorded in an increasing number of languages inmonographs, reports, transactions, and the specialist press. A moveis being made in the right direction by the proposal to print thepublications of the Brussels International Bibliographical Institute inEsperanto. 

Take a few examples of the hampering effect upon scholarly work of thelanguage difficulty as it already exists. The diffusion of learningwill, ironically enough, increase the difficulty. [1] The late Prof. Todhunter, of Cambridge, was driven to learning Russian for mathematicalpurposes. He managed to learn enough to enable him to read mathematicaltreatises; but how many mathematicians or scientists (or classicalscholars, for that matter) could do as much? And of how much profit wasthe learning of Russian, _quâ_ Russian, to Prof. Todhunter? It only tookup time which could have been better spent, as there cannot be anythingvery uplifting or cultivating in the language of mathematical Russian. 

 [1]By multiplying the languages used. 

Prof. Max Müller proposed that all serious scientific work should bepublished in one of the six languages following—English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Latin. But why should other nations haveto produce in these languages? and why should serious students have tobe prepared to read six languages?

All this was many years ago. The balance of culture has since then beengradually but steadily shifting in favour of other peoples. The presentwriter had occasion to make a special study of Byron's influence on theContinent. It turned out that one of the biggest and most importantworks upon the subject was written in Polish. It has therefore remainedinaccessible. This is only an illustration of a difficulty that facesmany workers. 

Thirdly, there is a good large portion of the British public thatregards as a crank anything not British or that does not benefitthemselves personally. It really _is_ hard for an Englishman, Frenchman, or German, brought up among a homogeneous people of old civilization, to realize the extent of the incubus under which the smaller nationsof Europe and the polyglot empires further east are groaning. Imagineyourself an educated Swiss, Dutchman, or a member of any of the thirtyor forty nationalities that make up the Austrian or Russian Empires. How would you like to have to learn three or four foreign languages forpractical purposes before you could hope to take much of a position inlife? Can any one assert that the kind of grind required, with its heavytaxation of the memory, is in most cases really educative or confersculture?

Think it out. What do you really mean when you jeer at an Esperantist?

 XXI

 WHAT AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE IS NOT

An international language is not an attempt to replace or damage in anyway any existing language or literature. 

 XXII

 WHAT AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE IS

An international language is an attempt to save the greatest amount oflabour and open the widest fields of thought and action to the greatestnumber. 

 PART II

 HISTORICAL

 I

 SOME EXISTING INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES ALREADY IN PARTIAL USE

Though the idea of an artificially constructed language to meet theneeds of speakers of various tongues seems for some reason to containsomething absurd or repellent to the mind of Western Europeans, therehave, as a matter of fact, been various attempts made at different timesand places to overcome the obvious difficulty in the obvious way; andall have met with a large measure of success. 

The usual method of procedure has been quite rough and ready. Wordsor forms have been taken from a variety of languages, and simplymixed up together, without any scientific attempt at co-ordination orsimplification. The resulting international languages have varied intheir degree of artificiality, and in the proportions in which they wereconsciously or semi-consciously compiled, or else adopted their elementsready-made, without conscious adaptation, from existing tongues. Buttheir production, widespread and continuous use, and great practicalutility, showed that they arose in response to a felt want. The wonderis that the world should have grown so old without supplying this wantin a more systematic way. 

Every one has heard of the _lingua franca_ of the Levant. In India themaster-language that carries a man through among a hundred differenttribes is Hindustanee, or Urdu. At the outset it represented a new needof an imperial race. It had its origin during the latter half of thesixteenth century under Akbar, and was born of the sudden extensionof conquest and affairs brought about by the great ruler. Round himgathered a cosmopolitan crowd of courtiers, soldiers, vassal princes, and followers of all kinds, and wider dealings than the ordinary localpetty affairs received a great stimulus. Urdu is a good example of amix-up language, with a pure Aryan framework developed out of a dialectof the old Hindi. In fact, it is to India very much what Esperanto mightbe to Europe, only it is more empirical, and not so consciously andscientifically worked out. 

Somewhat analogous to Urdu, in that it is a literary language usedby the educated classes for intercommunication throughout a polygotempire, is the Mandarin Chinese. If China is not "polygot" in the stricttechnical sense of the term, she is so in fact, since the dialects usedin different provinces are mutually incomprehensible for the speakers ofthem. Mandarin is the official master-language. 

Rather of the nature of _patois_ are Pidgin-English, Chinook, andBenguela, the language used throughout the tribes of the Congo. Yetbusiness of great importance and involving large sums of money is, orhas been, transacted in them, and they are used over a wide area. 

Pidgin consists of a medley of words, largely English, but with aconsiderable admixture from other tongues, combined in the frameworkof Chinese construction. It is current in ports all over the East, and is by no means confined to China. The principle is that roots, chiefly monosyllabic, are used in their crude form without inflectionor agglutination, the mere juxtaposition (without any change of form)showing whether they are verbs, adjectives, etc. This is the Chinesecontribution to the language. 

Chinook is the key-language to dealings with the huge number ofdifferent tribes of American Indians. It contains a large admixture ofFrench words, and was to a great extent artificially put together by theHudson Bay Company's officials, for the purposes of their business. 

Quite apart from these various more or less consciously constructedmixed languages, there is a much larger artificial element in manynational languages than is commonly realized. Take modern Hungarian, Greek, or even Italian. Literary Italian, as we know it, is largely anartificial construction for literary purposes, made by Dante and others, on the basis of a vigorous and naturally supple dialect. With modernGreek this is even more strikingly the case. As a national languageit is almost purely the work of a few scholars, who in modern timesarbitrarily and artificially revived and modified the ancient Greek. 

There seems, then, to be absolutely no foundation in experience foropposing a universal language on the score of artificiality. 

 II

 OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE

 List of Schemes proposed

The story of Babel in the Old Testament reflects the popular feelingthat confusion of tongues is a hindrance and a curse. Similarly in theNew Testament the Pentecostal gift of tongues is a direct gift of God. But apparently it was not till about 300 years ago that philosophersbegan to think seriously about a world-language. 

The earliest attempts were based upon the mediaeval idea that man mightattain to a perfect knowledge of the universe. The whole sum of thingsmight, it was thought, be brought by division and subdivision withinan orderly scheme of classification. To any conceivable idea or thingcapable of being represented by human speech might therefore be attacheda corresponding word, like a label, on a perfectly regular and logicalsystem. Words would thus be self-explanatory to any person who hadgrasped the system, and would serve as an index or key to the thingsthey represented. Language thus became a branch of philosophy as the menof the time conceived it, or at all events a useful handmaid. Thus arosethe idea of a "philosophical language. "

A very simple illustration will serve to show what is meant. Go intoa big library and look up any work in the catalogue. You will finda reference number—say, 04582. G. 35, c. If you learnt the system ofclassification of that library, the reference number would explain toyou where to find that particular book out of any number of millions. The fact of the number beginning with a "0" would at once place the bookin a certain main division, and so on with the other numbers, till "g"in that series gave you a fairly small subdivision. Within that, "35"gives you the number of the case, and "c" the shelf within the case. Thebook is soon run to earth. 

Just so a word in a philosophical language. Suppose the word is _brabo_. The final _o_ shows it to be a noun. The monosyllabic root shows it tobe concrete. The initial _b_ shows it to be in the animal category. Thesubsequent letters give subdivisions of the animal kingdom, till theword is narrowed down by its form to membership of one small class ofanimals. The other members of the class will be denoted by an orderedsequence of words in which only the letter denoting the individual ischanged. Thus, if _brabo_ means "dog, " _braco_ may be "cat, " and so on:_brado_, _brafo_, _brago_. .. Etc. , according to the classificationset up. 

Words, then, are reduced to mere formulae; and grammar, inflections, etc. , are similarly laid out on purely logical, systematic lines, without taking any account of existing languages and their structure. To languages of this type the historians of the universal language havegiven the name of _a priori_ languages. 

Directly opposed to these is the other group of artificial languages, called _a posteriori_. These are wholly based on the principle ofborrowing from existing language: their artificiality consists inchoice of words and in regularization and simplification of vocabularyand grammar. They avoid, as far as possible, any elements of arbitraryinvention, and confine themselves to adapting and making easier whatusage has already sanctioned. 

Between the two main types come the _mixed languages_, partaking of thenature of each. 

The following list is taken from the _Histoire de la langueuniverselle_, by MM. Couturat and Leau:

 I. A PRIORI LANGUAGES

1. The philosopher Descartes, in a letter of 1629, forecasts a system(realized in our days by Zamenhof) of a regular universal grammar: wordsto be formed with fixed roots and affixes, and to be in every caseimmediately decipherable from the dictionary alone. He rejects thisscheme as fit "for vulgar minds, " and proceeds to sketch the outlineof all subsequent "philosophic" languages. Thus the great thinkeranticipates both types of universal language. 

2. Sir Thomas Urquhart, 1653—_Logopandekteision_ (see next chapter). 

3. Dalgarno, 1661—_Ars Signorum_. Dalgarno was a Scotchman born atAberdeen in 1626. His language is founded on the classification ofideas. Of these there are seventeen main classes, represented byseventeen letters. Each letter is the initial of all the words in itsclass. 

4. Wilkins, 1668—_An Essay towards a Real Character and a PhilosophicalLanguage_. Wilkins was Bishop of Chester, and first secretary and oneof the founders of the Royal Society. Present members please note. Hissystem is a development of Dalgarno's. 

5. Leibnitz, 1646-1716. Leibnitz thought over this matter all his life, and there are various passages on it scattered through his works, though no one treatise is devoted to it. He held that the systems ofhis predecessors were not philosophical enough. He dreamed of a logicof thought applicable to all ideas. All complex ideas are compounds ofsimple ideas, as non-primary numbers are of primary numbers. Numberscan be compounded _ad infinitum. _ So if numbers are translated intopronouncible words, these words can be combined so as to represent everypossible idea. 

6. Delormel, 1795 (An III)—_Projet d'une langue universelle_. Delormelwas inspired by the humanitarian ideas of the French Revolution. Hewished to bring mankind together in fraternity. His system rests on alogical classification of ideas on a decimal basis. 

7. Jean François Sudre, 1817—_Langue musicale universelle_. Sudre was aschoolmaster, born in 1787. His language is founded on the seven notesof the scale, and he calls it Solresol. 

8. Grosselin, 1836—_Systeme de langue universelle_. A languagecomposed of 1500 words, called "roots, " with 100 suffixes, or modifyingterminations. 

9. Vidal, 1844—_Langue universelle et analytique_. A curiouscombination of letters and numbers. 

10. Letellier, 1852-1855—_Cours complet de langue universelle_, andmany subsequent publications. Letellier was a former schoolmaster andschool inspector. His system is founded on the "theory of language, "which is that the word ought to represent by its component letters ananalysis of the idea it conveys. 

11. Abbé Bonifacio Sotos Ochando, 1852, Madrid. The abbé had beena deputy to the Spanish Cortes, Spanish master to Louis Philippe'schildren, a university professor, and director of a polytechniccollege in Madrid, etc. His language is a logical one, intended forinternational scientific use, and chiefly for writing. He does not thinka spoken language for all purposes possible. 

12. _Societé Internationale de linguistique_. First report dated 1856. The object of the society was to carry out a radical reform of Frenchorthography, and to prepare the way for a universal language—"the needof which is beginning to be generally felt. " In the report the idea ofadopting one of the most widely spoken national languages is consideredand rejected. The previous projects are reviewed, and that of SotosOchando is recommended as the best. The _a posteriori_ principle isrejected and the _a priori_ deliberately adopted. This is excusable, owing to the fact that most projects hitherto had been _a priori_. Thephilosopher Charles Renouvier gave proof of remarkable prescience bycondemning the _a priori_ theory in an article in _La Revue_, 1855, inwhich he forecasts the _a posteriori_ plan. 

13. Dyer, 1875—_Lingwalumina; or, the Language of Light_. 

14. Reinaux, 1877. 

15. Maldent, 1877—_La langue naturelle_. The author was a civilengineer. 

16. Nicolas, 1900—_Spokil_. The author is a ship's doctor and formerpartisan of Volapük. 

17. Hilbe, 1901—_Die Zablensprache_, Based on numbers which aretranslated by vowels. 

18. Dietrich, 1902—_Völkerverkehrssprache_. 

19. Mannus Talundberg, 1904—_Perio, eine auf Logik und Gedachtnisskunstaufgebaute Weltsprache_. 

 II. MIXED LANGUAGES

These are chiefly Volapük and its derivates. 

1. August Theodor von Grimm, state councillor of the Russian Empire, worked out a "programme for the formation of a universal language, "which contains some _a priori_ elements, as well as nearly all theprinciples which subsequent authors of _a posteriori_ languages haverealized. This Grimm is not to be confused with the famous philologistJacob von Grimm, though he wrote about the same time. 

2. Schleyer, 1879—_Volapük_. (See below. )

3. Verheggen, 1886—_Nal Bino_. 

4. Menet, 1886—_Langue universelle_. An imitation of Volapük. 

5. Bauer, 1886—_Spelin_. A development of Volapük with more words takenfrom neutral languages. 

6. St. De Max, 1887—_Bopal_. An imitation of Volapük. 

7. Dormoy, 1887—_Balta_. A simplification of Volapük. 

8. Fieweger, 1893—_Dil_. An exaggeration of Volapük for good and ill. 

9. Guardiola, 1893—_Orba_. A fantastic language. 

10. W. Von Arnim, 1896—_Veltparl_. A derivative of Volapük. 

11. Marchand, 1898—_Dilpok_. Simplified Volapük. 

12. Bollack, 1899—_La langue bleue_. Aims merely at commercial andcommon use. Ingenious, but too difficult for the memory. 

 III. A POSTERIORI LANGUAGES

1. Faiguet, 1765—_Langue nouvelle_. Faiguet was treasurer of France. Hepublished his project, which is a scheme for simplifying grammar, in thefamous eighteenth-century encyclopaedia of Diderot and d'Alembert. 

2. Schipfer, 1839—_Communicationssprache_. This scheme has anhistorical interest for two reasons. First, the fact that it is foundedon French reflects the feeling of the time that French was, as hesays, "already to a certain extent a universal language. " The point ofinterest is to compare the date when the projects began to be founded onEnglish. In 1879 Volapük took English for the base. Secondly, Schipfer'sscheme reflects the new consciousness of wider possibilities that werecoming into the world with the development of means of communication byrail and steamboat. The author recommends the utility of his project byreferring to "the new way of travelling. "

3. De Rudelle, 1858—_Pantos-Dimon-Glossa. _ De Rudelle was amodern-language master in France and afterwards at the LondonPolytechnic. His language is based on ten natural languages, especiallyGreek, Latin, and the modern derivatives of Latin, with grammaticalhints from English, German, and Russian. It is remarkable for havingbeen the first to embody several principles of the first importance, which have since been more fully carried out in other schemes, and arenow seen to be indispensable. Among these are: (1) distinction of theparts of speech by a fixed form for each; (2) suppression of separateverbal forms for each person; (3) formation of derivatives by means ofsuffixes with fixed meanings. 

4. Pirro, 1868—_Universalsprache_. Based upon five languages—French, German, English, Italian, and Spanish—and containing a large proportionof words from the Latin. 

5. Ferrari, 1877—_Monoglottica_ (?). 

6. Volk and Fuchs, 1883—_Weltsprache_. Founded on Latin. 

7. Cesare Meriggi, 1884—_Blaia Zimondal_. 

8. Courtonne, 1885—_Langue Internationale néo-Latine_. Based on themodern Romance languages, and therefore not sufficiently international. A peculiarity is that all roots are monosyllabic. The history of thisattempt illustrates the weight of inertia against which any such projecthas to struggle. It was presented to the Scientific Society of Nice, which drew up a report and sent it to all the learned societies ofRomance-speaking countries. Answers were received from three towns—Pau, Sens, and Nimes. It was then proposed to convene an internationalneo-Latin congress; but it is not surprising to hear that nothing cameof it. 

9. Steiner, 1885—_Pasilingua_. A counterblast to Volapük. The authoraims at copying the methods of naturally formed international languageslike the "lingua franca" or Pidgin-English. Based on English, French, and German; but the English vocabulary forms the groundwork. 

10. Eichhorn, 1887—_Weltsprache_. Based on Latin. A leading principleis that each part of speech ought to be recognizable by its form. Thusnouns have two syllables; adjectives, three; pronouns, one; verbalroots, one syllable beginning and ending with a consonant; and so on. 

11. Zamenhof, 1887—_Esperanto_. (See below. )

12. Bernhard, 1888—_Lingua franca nuova_. A kind of bastard Italian. 

13. Lauda, 1888—_Kosmos_. Draws all its vocabulary from Latin. 

14. Henderson, 1888—_Lingua_. Latin vocabulary with modern grammar. 

15. Henderson, 1902—_Latinesce_. A simpler and more practicaladaptation of Latin by the same author—_e. G. _ the present infinitive formdoes duty for several finite tenses, and words are used in their modernsenses. 

16. Hoinix (pseudonym for the same indefatigable Mr. Henderson), 1889—_Anglo-franca_. A mixture of French and English. Both this and thebarbarized Latin schemes are fairly easy and certainly simpler than thereal languages, but they are shocking to the ear, and produce the effectof mutilation of language. 

17. Stempel, 1889—_Myrana_. Based on Latin with admixture of otherlanguages. 

18. Stempel, 1894—_Communia_. A simplification of No. 17, with a newname. 

19. Rosa, 1890—_Nov Latin_. A set of rules for using the Latindictionary in a certain way as a key to produce something that can besimilarly deciphered. 

20. Julius Lott, 1890—_Mundolingue_. Founded on Latin. Lott started aninternational society for a universal language, proposing to build uphis language by collaboration of savants thus brought together. 

21. Marini, 1891—_Méthode rapide, facile et certaine pour construire unidiome universel_. 

22. Liptay, 1892—_Langue catholique_. Based on the theory than aninternational language already exists (in the words common to manylanguages), and has only to be discovered. 

23. Mill, 1893—_Anti-Volapük_. A simple universal grammar to be appliedto the vocabulary of each national language. 

24. Braakman, 1894—_Der Wereldtaal "El Mundolinco, " Gramatico delMundolinco pro li de Hollando Factore_ (Noordwijk). 

25. Albert Hoessrich (date?)—_Talnovos, Monatsschrift für dieEinführung und Verbreitung der allgemeinen Verkehrssprache_ "_Tal_"(Sonneberg, Thuringen). 

26. Heintzeler, 1895—_Universala_. Heintzeler compares the twelve chiefartificial languages already proposed, and shows that they have much incommon. He suggests a commission to work out a system on an eclecticbasis. 

27. Beermann, 1895—_Novilatin_. Latin brought up to date by comparisonwith six chief modern languages. 

28. _Le Linguist_, 1896-7. A monthly review conducted by a band ofphilologists. It contains many discussions of the principles whichshould underly an international language, and suggestions, but nocomplete scheme. 

29. Puchner, 1897—_Nuove Roman_. Based largely on Spanish, which theauthor considers the best of the Romance tongues. 

30. Nilson—_La vest-europish central-dialekt_ (1890); _Lasonebr, untransitional lingvo_ (1897); _Il dialekt Centralia, un compromissentr il lingu universal de Akademi international e la vest-europishcentral-dialekt_ (1899). 

31. Kürschner, 1900—_Lingua Komun_. The author was an Esperantist, but found Esperanto not scientific enough. It is almost incrediblethat a man who knew Esperanto should invent a language with severalconjugations of the verb, but this is what Kürschner has done. 

32. International Academy of Universal Language, 1902—_Idiom Neutral_. (See below. )

33. Elias Molee, 1902—_Tutonish; or, Anglo-German Union Tongue_. _Tutonish; a Teutonic International Language_ (1904). 

34. Molenaar—_Panroman, skiz de un ling internazional_ (in _DieReligion der Menschheit_, March 1903); _Esperanto oder Panroman? DasWeltsprache-problem und seine einfachste Lösung_ (1906); _UniversalLing-Panroman_ (in _Menschheitsziele_, 1906); _Gramatik de Universal_(Leipzig, Puttmann, 1906). 

35. Peano—_De Latino sine flexione_ (in _Revue de Mathématique_, vol. Viii. , Turin, 1903); _Il Latino quale lingua ausiliare internazionale_(in _Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino_ 1904);_Vocabulario de Latino Internationale comparato cum Anglo, Franco, Germano, Hispano, Italo, Russo, Graeco, et Sanscrito_ (Turin, 1904). Seealso the _Formulario mathematico_, vol. V. (Turin, 1906). 

36. Hummler, 1904—_Mundelingua_ (Saulgau). 

37. Victor Hely, 1905—_Esquisse d'une grammaire de la langueInternationale, 1st part: Les mots et la syntaxe_ (Langres). 

38. Max Wald, 1906—_Pankel (Weltsprache), die leichteste und kürzesteSprache für den internationalen Verkehr. Grammatik und Wörterbuch mitAufgabe der Wortquelle_ (Gross-Beeren). 

39. Greenwood, 1906—_Ekselsiore, the New Universal Language for AllNations: a Simplified, Improved Esperanto_ (London, Miller & Gill);_Ulla, t ulo lingua ä otrs_ (The Ulla Society, Bridlington, 1906). 

40. Trischen, 1907—_Mondlingvo, provisorische Aufstellung einerinternationalen Verkehrssprache_ (Pierson, Dresden). 

 III

 THE EARLIEST BRITISH ATTEMPT

A perusal of the foregoing list shows that in the early days of thesearch for an international language the British were well to the fore. Of the British pioneers in this field the first two were Scots—a factwhich accords well with the traditional enterprise north of the Tweed, and readiness to look abroad, beyond their own noses, or, in this case, beyond their own tongues. It is likewise remarkable that the Britishhave almost dropped out of the running in recent times, as far asorigination is concerned. Is this fact also typical, a small symptomof Jeshurun's general fatness? Does it reflect a lesser degree ofnimbleness in moving with the spirit of the times?

Anyhow, in this case the Briton's content with what he has got at homeis well grounded. He certainly possesses a first-class language. As acurious example of the quaint use of it by a scholar and clever man inthe middle of the seventeenth century, the following account of SirThomas Urquhart's book may be of some interest. 

Sir Thomas is well known as the translator of Rabelais; and evidentlysomething of the curious erudition, polyglotism, and quaintness ofconceit of his author stuck to the translator. This book is the rarestof his tracts, all of which are uncommon, and has been hardly more thanmentioned by name by the previous writers on the subject. 

The title-page runs:

 * * * * *

 LOGOPANDEKTEISION

 OR, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE, DIGESTED INTO THESE SIX SEVERAL BOOKS

 Neaudethaumata Chryseomystes Chrestasebeia Neleodicastes Cleronomaporia Philoponauxesis

 By SIR THOMAS URQUHART, of Cromartie, Knight, Now lately contrived and published both for his own Utilitie, and that of all Pregnant and Ingenious Spirits. 

 LONDON

 Printed and are to be sold by GILES CALVERT at the Black Spread-Eagle at the West-end of Paul's, and by RICHARD TOMLINS at the Sun and Bible near Pye Corner. 1653. 

 * * * * *

In a note at the end of the book he apologizes for haste, saying thatthe copy was "given out to two several printers, one alone not beingfully able to hold his quill a-going. "

The book opens with:

 "The Epistle Dedicatory to Nobody. "

The first paragraph runs:

 "MOST HONOURABLE, "My non-supponent Lord, and Soveraign Master of contradictions in adjected terms, that unto you I have presumed to tender the dedicacie of this introduction, will not seem strange to those, that know how your concurrence did further me to the accomplishment of that new Language, into the frontispiece whereof it is permitted. "

After some preliminary remarks, he says:

 "Now to the end the Reader may be more enamoured of the Language, wherein I am to publish a grammar and lexicon, I will here set down some few qualities and advantages peculiar to itself, and which no Language else (although all other concurred with it) is able to reach unto. "

There follow sixty-six "qualities and advantages, " which contain theonly definite information about the language, for the promised grammarand lexicon never appeared. A few may be quoted as typical of theinducements held out to "pregnant and ingenious spirits, " to the endthey "may be more enamoured of the Language. " The good Sir Thomas wasplainly an optimist. 

 ". .. Sixthly, in the cases of all the declinable parts of speech, it surpasseth all other languages whatsoever: for whilst others have but five or six at most, it hath ten, besides the nominative. 

 ". .. Eighthly, every word capable of number is better provided therewith in this language, then [_sic_] by any other: for instead of two or three numbers which others have, this affordeth you four; to wit, the singular, dual, plural, and redual. 

 ". .. Tenthly, in this tongue there are eleven genders; wherein likewise it exceedeth all other languages. 

 ". .. Eleventhly, Verbs, Mongrels, Participles, and Hybrids have all of them ten tenses, besides the present: which number no language else is able to attain to. 

 ". .. Thirteenthly, in lieu of six moods, which other languages have at most, this one enjoyeth seven in its conjugable words. "

Sir Thomas evidently believed in giving his clients plenty for theirmoney. He is lavish of "Verbs, Mongrels, Participles, and Hybrids, "truly a tempting menagerie. He promises, however, a time-reduction onlearning a quantity:

 ". .. Seven and fiftiethly, the greatest wonder of all is that of all the languages in the world it is easiest to learn; a boy of ten years old being able to attain to the knowledge thereof in three months' space; because there are in it many facilitations for the memory, which no other language hath but itself. "

Seventeenth-century boys of tender years must have had a good stomachfor "Mongrels and Hybrids, " and such-like dainties of the grammatical_menu_; but even if they could swallow a mongrel, it is hard to believethat they would not have strained at ten cases in three months. It mightbe called "casual labour, " but it would certainly have been "threemonths' hard. "

After these examples of grammatical generosity, it is not surprising toread:

 ". .. Fifteenthly, in this language the Verbs and Participles have four voices, although it was never heard that ever any other language had above three. "

Note that the former colleagues of the "Verbs and Participles, " the"Mongrels and Hybrids, " are here dropped out of the category. Perhapsit is as well, seeing the number of voices attributed to each. Afour-voiced mongrel would have gone one better than the triple-headedhell-hound Cerberus, and created quite a special Hades of its own forschoolboys, to say nothing of light sleepers. 

Under "five and twentiethly" we learn that "there is no Hexameter, Elegiack, Saphick, Asclepiad, lambick, or any other kind of Latin orGreek verse, but I will afford you another in this language of the samesort"; which leads up to:

 ". .. Six and twentiethly, as it trotteth easily with metrical feet, so at the end of the career of each line, hath it dexterity, after the manner of our English and other vernaculary tongues, to stop with the closure of a rhyme; in the framing whereof, the well-versed in that language shall have so little labour, that for every word therein he shall be able to furnish at least five hundred several monosyllables of the same termination with it. "

A remarkable opportunity for every man to become his own poet!

 ". .. Four and thirtiethly, in this language also words expressive of herbs represent unto us with what degree of cold, moisture, heat, or dryness they are qualified, together with some other property distinguishing them from other herbs. "

In this crops out the idea that haunted the minds of mediaevalspeculators on the subject: that language could play a more importantpart than it had hitherto done; that a word, while conveying an idea, could at the same time in some way describe or symbolize the attributesof the thing named. Imagine the charge of thought that could be rammedinto a phrase in such a language. Imagine too, you who remember thecold shudder of your childhood, when you heard the elders discussing aprospective dose—intensified by all the horrors of imagination whenthe discussion was veiled in the "decent obscurity" of French—imaginethe grim realism of a language containing _words expressive ofherbs_, —and expressive to that extent!

There seems, indeed, to have been something rather cold-blooded aboutthis language:

 ". .. Eight and thirtiethly, in the contexture of nouns, pronouns, and preposital articles united together, it administreth many wonderful varieties of Laconick expressions, as in the Grammar thereof shall more at large be made known unto you. "

But, after all, it had a human side:

 ". .. Three and fourtiethly, as its interjections are more numerous, so are they more emphatical in their respective expression of passions, than that part of speech is in any other language whatsoever. 

 ". .. Eight and fourtiethly, of all languages this is the most compendious in complement, and consequently fittest for Courtiers and Ladies. "

Sir Thomas seems to have been a bit of a man of the world too. 

 ". .. Fiftiethly, no language in matter of Prayer and Ejaculations to Almighty God is able, for conciseness of expression to compare with it; and therefore, of all other, the most fit for the use of Churchmen and spirits inclined to devotion. "

This "therefore, " with its direct deduction from "conciseness ofexpression, " recalls the lady patroness who chose her incumbents forbeing fast over prayers. She said she could always pick out a parson whoread service daily by his time for the Sunday service. 

Sir Thomas is perhaps over-sanguine to a modern taste when he concludes:

 "Besides the sixty and six advantages above all other languages, I might have couched thrice as many more of no less consideration than the aforesaid, but that these same will suffice to sharpen the longing of the generous Reader after the intrinsecal and most researched secrets of the new Grammar and Lexicon which I am to evulge. "

 IV

 HISTORY OF VOLAPÜK—A WARNING

Volapük is the invention of a "white night. " Those who know their _Alicein Wonderland_ will perhaps involuntarily conjure up the picture of thekindly and fantastic White Knight, riding about on a horse covered withmousetraps and other strange caparisons, which he introduced to all andsundry with the unfailing remark, "It's my own invention. " Scofferswill not be slow to find in Volapük and the White Knight's inventions acommon characteristic—their fantasticness. Perhaps there really is someanalogy in the fact that both inventors had to mount their hobby-horsesand ride errant through sundry lands, thrusting their creations onan unwilling world. But the particular kind of white night of whichVolapük was born is the _nuit blanche_, literally = "white night, " butidiomatically = "night of insomnia. "

On the night of March 31, 1879, the good Roman Catholic Bishop Schleyer, curé of Litzelstetten, near Constance, could not get to sleep. Fromhis over-active brain, charged with a knowledge of more than fiftylanguages, sprang the world-speech, as Athene sprang fully armed fromthe brain of Zeus. At any rate, this is the legend of the origin ofVolapük. 

As for the name, an Englishman will hardly appreciate the fact thatthe word "Volapük" is derived from the two English words "world" and"speech. " This transformation of "world" into _vol_ and "speech" into_pük_ is a good illustration of the manner in which Volapük is based onEnglish, and suggests at once a criticism of that all-important point inan artificial language, the vocabulary. It is too arbitrary. 

Published in 1880, Volapük spread first in South Germany, and then inFrance, where its chief apostle was M. Kerckhoffs, modern-languagemaster in the principal school of commerce in Paris. He founded asociety for its propagation, which soon numbered among its membersseveral well-known men of science and letters. The great Magasins duPrintemps—a sort of French Whiteley's, and familiar to all who haveshopped in Paris—started a class, attended by over a hundred of itsemployees; and altogether fourteen different classes were opened inParis, and the pupils were of a good stamp. 

Progress was extraordinarily rapid in other European countries, andby 1889, only nine years after the publication of Volapük, there were283 Volapük societies, distributed throughout Europe, America, andthe British Colonies. Instruction books were published in twenty-fivelanguages, including Volapük itself; numerous newspapers, in and aboutVolapük, sprang up all over the world; the number of Volapükists wasestimated at a million. This extraordinarily rapid success is verystriking, and seems to afford proof that there is a widely felt want foran international language. Three Volapük congresses were held, of whichthe third, held in Paris in 1889, with proceedings entirely in Volapük, was the most important. 

The rapid decline of Volapük is even more instructive than itssensational rise. The congress of Paris marked its zenith: hopes ranhigh, and success seemed assured. Within two years it was practicallydead. No more congresses were held, the partisans dwindled away, thelocal clubs dissolved, the newspapers failed, and the whole movementcame to an end. There only remained a new academy founded by BishopSchleyer, and here and there a group of the faithful. [1]

 [1]A Volapük journal still appears in Graz, Stiria—_Volapükabled lezenodik_. The editor has just (March 1907) retired, and the veteran Bishop Schleyer, now seventy-five years old, is taking up the editorship again. 

The chief reason of this failure was internal dissension. First arosethe question of principle: Should Volapük aim at being a literarylanguage, capable of expressing all the finer shades of thought andfeeling? or should it confine itself to being a practical means ofbusiness communication?

Bishop Schleyer claimed for his invention an equal rank among theliterary languages of the world. The practical party, headed by M. Kerckhoffs, wished to keep it utilitarian and practical. With theobject of increasing its utility, they proposed certain changes in thelanguage; and thus there arose, in the second place, differences ofopinion as to fundamental points of structure, such as the nature andorigin of the roots to be adopted. Vital questions were thus reopened, and the whole language was thrown back into the melting-pot. 

The first congress was held at Friedrichshafen in August 1884, and wasattended almost exclusively by Germans. The second congress, Munich, August 1887, brought together over 200 Volapükists from differentcountries. A professor of geology from Halle University was electedpresident, and an International Academy of Volapük was founded. 

Then the trouble began. M. Kerckhoffs was unanimously elected directorof the academy, and Bishop Schleyer was made grand-master (_cifal_)for life. Questions arose as to the duties of the academy and therespective powers of the inventor of the language and the academicians. M. Kerckhoffs was all along the guiding spirit on the side of theacademy. He was in the main supported by the Volapük world, though thereseems to have been some tendency, at any rate at first, on the part ofthe Germans to back the bishop. It is impossible to go into details ofthe points at issue. Suffice it to say, that eventually the directorof the academy carried a resolution giving the inventor three votes toevery one of ordinary members in all academy divisions, but refusing himthe right of veto, which he claimed. The bishop replied by a threat todepose M. Kerckhoffs from the directorship, which of course he could notmake good. The constitution of the academy was only binding inasmuch asit had been drawn up and adopted by the constituent members, and it gaveno such powers to the inventor. 

So here was a very pretty quarrel as to the ownership of Volapük. The bishop said it belonged to him, as he had invented it: he wasits father. The academy said it belonged to the public, who had aright to amend it in the common interest. This child, which had newlyopened its eyes and smiled upon the world, and upon which the worldwas then smiling back—was it a son domiciled in its father's houseand fully _in patria potestate_? or a ward in the guardianship of itschief promoters? or an orphan foundling, to be boarded out on thescattered-home system at the public expense, and to be brought up to beuseful to the community at large? A vexed question of paternity; and theworst of it was, there was no international court competent to try thecase. 

Meantime the congress of 1889 at Paris came on. Volapük was boomingeverywhere. Left to itself, it flourished like a green bay-tree. Thismeeting was to set an official seal upon its success; and governments, convinced by this thing done openly in the _ville lumière_, would acceptthe _fait accompli_ and introduce it into their schools. 

Thirteen countries sent representatives, including Turkey and China. The great Kerckhoffs was elected president. The proceedings were inVolapük. The foundling's future was canvassed in terms of himself bya cosmopolitan board of guardians, who did not yet know what he was. Rather a Gilbertian situation. Trying a higher flight, we may say, inPlatonic phrase, that Volapük seemed to be about midway between beingand not-being. It is a far cry from Gilbert _viâ_ Plato to Mr. Kipling, but perhaps Volapük, at this juncture, may be most aptly described asa "sort of a giddy harumphrodite, " if not "a devil an' a ostrich an' aorphan-child in one. "

Business done: The congress discusses. 

The congress passed a resolution that there should be drawn up "a simplenormal grammar, from which all useless rules should be excluded, " andproceeded to adopt a final constitution for the Volapük Academy. 

Article 15 says: "The decisions of the academy must be at once submittedto the inventor. If the inventor has not within thirty days protestedagainst the decisions, they are valid. Decisions not approved by theinventor are referred back to the academy, and are valid if carried by atwo-thirds majority. "

The bishop held out for his right of absolute veto, as his episcopalfellows and their colleagues are doing "in another place" in England. The conflict presents some analogy with other graver constitutionalmatters, involving discussion of the respective merits of absolute andsuspensive veto, and may therefore have some interest at present, apartfrom its great importance in any scheme for an international language. 

The upshot was that dissensions broke out within the academy. Thedirector, unable to carry a complete scheme of reformed grammar, resigned (1891), and the academy, whose business it was to arrange thenext congress and keep the movement going, never convened a fourthcongress. Several academicians set to work on new artificial languagesof their own; and what was left of the Academy of Volapük, under a newdirector, M. Rosenberger, a St. Petersburg railway engineer, elected1893, subsequently turned its attention to working out a new language, to which was given the name Idiom Neutral (see next chapter). 

 * * * * *

It is interesting to note that, when Volapük was nearing its high-watermark, the American Philosophical Society appointed a committee (October1887) to inquire into its scientific value. 

This committee reported in November 1887. The report states that thecreation of an international language is in conformity with the generaltendency of modern civilization, and is not merely desirable, but_will certainly be realized. _ It goes on to reject Volapük as thesolution of the problem, as being on the whole retrogade in tendency. It is too arbitrary in construction, and not international enough invocabulary; nor does it correspond to the general trend of developmentof language, which is away from a synthetic grammar (inflection by meansof terminations, as in Latin and Greek) and towards an analytic one(inflection by termination replaced by prepositions and auxiliaries). 

But the committee was so fully convinced of the importance of aninternational language, that it proposed to the Philosophical Societythat it should invite all the learned societies of the world toco-operate in the production of a universal language. A resolutionembodying this recommendation was adopted by the society, and theinvitations were sent out. About twenty societies accepted—among themthe University of Edinburgh. The Scots again!

The London Philological Society commissioned Mr. Ellis to investigatethe subject, and upon his report declined to co-operate. Mr. Ellis wasa believer in Volapük, and furthermore did not agree with the AmericanPhilosophical Society's conclusion that an international language oughtto be founded on an Indo-Germanic (Aryan) basis. In this Mr. Ellis wasalmost certainly wrong, as subsequent experience is tending to show. TheJapanese, among others, are taking up Esperanto with enthusiasm, findit easy, and make no difficulty about its Aryan basis. But, apart fromlinguistic considerations, Mr. Ellis's practical reasoning was certainlysound. It was to this effect: The main thing is to adopt a languagethat is already in wide use and shown to be adequate. Alterations bringdissension; by sticking to what we have already got, imperfections andall, strife is avoided, and the thing is at once reduced to practice. 

This was a wise counsel, and applies to-day with double force to thepresent holder of the field, Esperanto, which is besides, in the opinionof experts, a better language than Volapük, and far easier to acquire. 

However, on the question of technical merits, the American PhilosophicalSociety was probably right, as against the London Philological Societyrepresented by Mr. Ellis. And the proof is that Volapük died—primarily, indeed, of dissensions among its partisans, but of dissensionssuperinduced on inherent defects of principle. That this is true maybe seen from the subsequent history of the Volapük movement. This isbriefly narrated in the next chapter, under the name of Idiom Neutral. 

 V

 HISTORY OF IDIOM NEUTRAL

We saw above that M. Kerckhoffs was succeeded in the directorship of theVolapük Academy, 1893, by M. Rosenberger, of St. Petersburg. During histerm of office the academy continued its work of amending and improvingthe language. The method of procedure was as follows: The directorelaborated proposals, which he embodied in circulars and sent round fromtime to time to his fellow-academicians. They voted "Yes" or "No, " sothat the language, when finished, was approved by them all, and was thejoint product of the academy; but it was, in its new form, to a greatextent, the work of the director. At the end of his term of office itwas practically complete. It had undergone a complete transformation, and was now called Idiom Neutral. 

In 1898 M. Rosenberger was succeeded by Rev. A. F. Holmes, of Macedon, New York State. The members of the academy vary from time to time, andinclude (or have included since 1898) natives of America, Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, and Russia. 

Dictionaries of Idiom Neutral have been published in English (inAmerica), German, and Dutch; but the language hardly seems to be inuse except among the members of the academy. These do not meet, butcarry on their business by means of circulars, drawn up, of course, inNeutral. There are at present only four groups of Neutralists—those ofSt. Petersburg, Nuremberg, Brussels, and San Antonio, Texas. The famouslinguistic club of Nuremberg is remarkable for having gone through theevolution from Volapük to Idiom Neutral _viâ_ Esperanto! Besides thesefour groups, there are isolated Neutralists in certain towns in GreatBritain. The academy seems still to have some points to settle, and thework of propaganda has hardly yet begun. 

A paper published in Brussels, under the name of _Idei International_, seems to represent the ideas of scattered Neutralists, and of somepartisans of other schemes based on Romance vocabulary. These languagesresemble each other greatly, and some sanguine spirits dream that theymay be fused together into the ultimate international language. Afew even hope for an amalgamation with Esperanto, through the mediumof a reformed type of Esperanto, which approximates more nearlyto these newer schemes, its vocabulary being, like theirs, almostentirely Romance. A series of modifications was published tentativelyby Dr. Zamenhof himself in 1894, but was suppressed from practicalconsiderations, having regard to the fate that overtook Volapük, whenonce it fell into the hands of reformers. The so-called reforms neverrepresented the real ideas of Zamenhof, and were rather in the natureof reluctant concessions to the weaker brethren. They were neverintroduced. 

The reader may be interested to compare for himself specimens ofVolapük, Idiom Neutral (its lineal descendant), and Esperanto. ThisEsperanto is the only one in use, most Esperantists having never evenheard of the reform project, which was at once dropped, before thelanguage had entered upon its present cosmopolitan extension. Thefollowing versions of the Lord's Prayer are taken from MM. Couturat andLeau's _History_, as are the facts in the above narratives, with theexception of the latest details:

 VOLAPÜK

O Fat obas, kel binol in süls, paisaludomöz nem ola! Kömomöd monargänola! Jenomöz vil olik, äs in sül, i su tal! Bodi obsik vädeliki givolösobes adelo! E pardolös obes debis obsik, äs id obs aipardobs debelesobas. E no obis nindukolös in tentadi; sod aidalivolös obis de bad. Jenosöd!

 IDIOM NEUTRAL[1]

Nostr patr kel es in sieli! Ke votr nom es sanktifiked; ke votr regniaveni; ke votr volu es fasied, kuale in siel, tale et su ter. Donasidiurne a noi nostr pan omnidiurnik; e pardona (a) noi nostr debiti, kuale et noi pardon a nostr debtatori; e no induka noi in tentasion, malibrifika noi da it mal. 

 [1]There are two forms of Idiom Neutral, —one called "pure, " authorized by the academy; the other used in the paper _Idei International_. 

 ESPERANTO

Patro nia, kiu estas en la ĉielo, sankta estu via nomo; venu regecovia; estu volo via, kiel en la ĉielo, tiel ankaŭ sur la tero. Panonnian ĉiutagan donu al ni hodiaŭ; kaj pardonu al ni ŝuldojn niajn, kiel ni ankaŭ pardonas al niaj ŝuldantoj; kaj ne konduku nin ententon, sed liberigu nin de la malbono. 

Comparing Volapük with Idiom Neutral, even this brief specimen isenough to show the main line of improvement. The framers of the latterhad realized the fact that the vocabulary is the first and paramountconsideration for an artificial language. It is hopeless to expectpeople to learn strings of words of arbitrary formation and likenothing they ever saw. Accordingly Idiom Neutral borrows its vocabularyfrom natural speech, and thereby abandons a regularity which may betheoretically more perfect, but which by arbitrary disfigurement offamiliar words overreaches itself, and does more harm than good. 

It is very instructive to note that a body of international languagespecialists were brought little by little to adopt an almost exclusivelyRomance vocabulary, and this in spite of the fact that they started fromVolapük, whose vocabulary is constructed on quite other lines. In otherpoints their language suffers from being too exclusively inspired byVolapükist principles, so that their recognition of the necessity of an_a posteriori_ vocabulary is the more convincing. 

Given, then, that vocabulary is to be borrowed and not created anew, it is obvious that the principle of borrowing must be _maximum ofinternationality of roots_—i. E. Those words will be adopted bypreference which are already common to the greatest number of chieflanguages. Now, by far the greater number of such international words(which are far more numerous than was thought before a special study wasmade of the subject) are Romance, being of Latin origin. This is thejustification of the prevalence of the Romance element in any modernartificial language. It has been frequently made a reproach againstEsperanto that it is a Romance language; but the unanimous verdict ofthe competent linguists who composed the academy for the emendation ofVolapük may be taken as final. They threshed the question out once forall, and their conclusion derives added force from the fact that it isthe result of conversion. 

But it may be doubted whether they have not gone rather far in thisdirection and overshot the mark. 

Comparing Idiom Neutral with Esperanto, it will be found that thelatter admits a larger proportion of non-Romance words. While fullyrecognizing and doing justice to the accepted principle of selection, maximum of internationality, Esperanto sometimes gives the preference toa non-Romance word in order to avoid ambiguity and secure a perfectlydistinct root from which to form derivatives incapable of confusionwith others. [1] There is always a good reason for the choice; but it iseasier to appreciate this after learning the language. 

 [1]It is obvious, too, that English, Germans, and Slavs will be more attracted to a language which borrows some of its features from their own tongues, than to an entirely Romance language. This relatively wider international appeal is another advantage of Esperanto. 

But a mere comparison of the brief texts given above will bring outanother point in favour of Esperanto—its full vocalic endings. On theother hand, many words in Idiom Neutral present a mutilated appearanceto the eye, and, what is a much greater sin in an internationallanguage, offer grave difficulties of pronunciation to speakers ofmany nations. Words ending with a double consonant are very frequent, e. G. _nostr patr_; and these will be unpronounceable for many nations, e. G. For an Italian or a Japanese. Euphony is one of the strongestof the many strong points of Esperanto. In it the principle ofmaximum of internationality has been applied to _sounds_ as well as_forms_, and there are very few sounds that will be a stumbling-blockto any considerable number of speakers. Some of its modern rivalsseem to forget that a language is to be spoken as well as written. When a language is unfamiliar to the listener, he is greatly aidedin understanding it if the vowel-sounds are long and full and thepronunciation slow, almost drawling. Esperanto fulfils these requisitesin a marked degree. It is far easier to dwell upon two-syllabled wordswith full vocalic endings like _patro nia_ than upon awkward words like_nostr patr_. 

Yet another advantage of Esperanto is illustrated in the same texts. Owing to its system of inflexion and the possession of an objectivecase, it is extremely flexible, and can put the words in almost anyorder, without obscuring the sense. Thus, in the translation of the_Pater Noster_, the Esperanto text follows the Latin _word for wordand in the same order_. It is obvious that this flexibility confersgreat advantages for purposes of faithful and spirited translation. 

 VI

 THE NEWEST LANGUAGES: A NEO-LATIN GROUP—GROPINGS TOWARDS A "PAN-EUROPEAN" AMALGAMATED SCHEME

A perusal of the list of schemes proposed (pp. 76-87 [Part II, ChapterII]) shows that the last few years have produced quite a crop ofartificial languages. Now that the main principles necessary to successare coming to be recognized, the points of difference between the rivalschemes are narrowing down, and, as mentioned in the last chapter, thereis a family likeness between many of the newer projects. The chief ofthese are: Idiom Neutral; Pan-Roman or Universal, by Dr. Molenaar;Latino sine flexione, by Prof. Peano; Mundolingue; Nuove-Roman; andLingua Komun. 

These have been grouped together by certain adversaries as "Neo-Roman";but their partisans seem to prefer the collective term "Neo-Latin. "There are more or less vague hopes that out of them may be evolved afinal form of international language, for which the names _Pan-European_and _Union-Ling_ have been suggested. Dr. Molenaar has declared hiswillingness to keep to his original title, Pan-Roman, for his ownlanguage, if the composite one should prefer to be called _Universal_. Prof. Peano says, in the course of an article (written in his ownlanguage, of course), "any fresh solution in the future can only differfrom Idiom Neutral, as two medical or mathematical treatises dealingwith the same subject. "

The only definite scheme for common action put forth up to nowseems to be that proposed by Dr. Molenaar. In January 1907 he sentround a circular written in French, in which he makes the followingpropositions:

All authors and notable partisans of Neo-Latin universal languages shallmeet in a special academy, which will elaborate a compromise-language. 

As regards the programme, the three fundamental principles shall be:

 1. Internationality and comprehensibility. 2. Simplicity and regularity. 3. Homogeneity and euphony. 

Of these principles, No. 1 is to take precedence of No. 2, and No. 2 ofNo. 3. 

The order of discussion is to be:

 I. GRAMMAR

 (_a_) Alphabet. (_b_) Articles (necessary or not?). (_c_) Declension. (_d_) Plural (_-s_ or _-i_?). (_e_) Adjective (invariable or not?). (_f_) Adverb, etc. 

 II. VOCABULARY

The number of collaborators is to be limited to about twenty, and thechairman is to be a non-partisan. 

 * * * * *

Such, in outline, is the proposal of Dr. Molenaar. An obvious criticismis that it falls back into the old mistake of putting grammar beforevocabulary. 

From a practical point of view such a composite scheme is not likelyto meet with acceptance. It will be very hard for authors of languagesto be impartial and sacrifice their favourite devices to the commonopinion. M. Bollack, author of the _Langue bleue_, has already refusedthe chairmanship. He does not see the use of founding a fresh academy, and thinks Dr. Molenaar would do better to join forces with theNeutralists. 

There exists indeed already an "Akademi International de LinguUniversal, " which has produced Idiom Neutral, and of which Mr. Holmesis still director, now in his second term (see preceding chapter). This academy is said to be too one-sided in its composition, and notscientific. But it is hard to see how it will abdicate in favour of anew one. 

Meantime, the victorious Esperantists, at present in possession of thefield, poke fun at these new-fangled schemes. A parody in Esperantoverse, entitled _Lingvo de Molenaar_, and sung to the tune of theAmerican song _Riding down from Bangor_, narrates the fickleness ofPan-Roman and how it changed into Universal. It is said that a group ofContinental Esperantists, at a convivial sitting, burnt the apostateIdiom Neutral in effigy by making a bonfire of Neutral literature. Onthe other side amenities are not wanting. It is now the fashion to slingmud at a rival language by calling it "arbitrary" and "fantastic"; andthese epithets are freely applied to Esperanto. Strong in their cause, the Esperantists are peacefully preparing the Congress of Cambridge. 

 VII

 HISTORY OF ESPERANTO

Happy is the nation that has no history, —still happier theinternational language; for a policy of "pacific penetration" offers fewpicturesque incidents to furnish forth a readable narrative. In the caseof Esperanto there have been no splits or factions; no narrow ring ofoligarchs has cornered the language for its own purposes, or insistedupon its aristocratic and non-popular side in the supposed interests ofculture or literary taste; consequently there has been no secession ofthe _plebs_. In the early days of Esperanto there was indeed an attemptto found an Esperanto league; but when it was seen that the league didlittle beyond suggest alterations, it was wisely dissolved in 1894. Since then Esperanto has been run purely on its merits as a language, and has expressly dissociated itself from any political, pacifist, orother propaganda. Its story is one of quiet progress—at first veryslow, but within the last five years wonderfully rapid, and stillaccelerating. The most sensational episode in this peaceful advancewas the prohibition of the principal Esperantist organ by the Russiancensorship, so that there is little to do, save record one or twoleading facts and dates. 

The inventor of Esperanto is a Polish doctor, Ludwig Lazarus Zamenhof, now living in Warsaw. He was born in 1859 at Bielostock, a town whichhas lately become notorious as the scene of one of the terribleRussian _pogroms_, or interracial butcheries. This tragedy was onlythe culmination of a chronic state of misunderstanding, which longago so impressed the young Zamenhof that, when still quite a boy, heresolved to labour for the removal of one cause of it by facilitatingmutual intercourse. He has practically devoted his life first to theelaboration of his language, and of later years to the vast amount ofbusiness that its extension involves. And it has been a labour of love. Zamenhof is an idealist. His action, in all that concerns Esperanto, has been characterized throughout by a generosity and self-effacementthat well correspond to the humanitarian nature of the inspiration thatproduced it. He has renounced all personal rights in and control of theEsperanto language, and kept studiously in the background till the firstInternational Congress two years ago forced him into the open, when heemerged from his retirement to take his rightful place before the eyesof the peoples whom his invention had brought together. 

But he is not merely an idealist: he is a practical idealist. This isshown by his self-restraint and practical wisdom in guiding events. One of the symptoms of "catching Esperanto" is a desire to introduceimprovements. This morbid propensity to jejune amateur tinkering, a kindof measles of the mind (_morbus linguificus_[1]) attacks the immature inyears or judgment. A riper acquaintance with the history and practicalaims of international language purges it from the system. We have allbeen through it. For the inventor of Esperanto, accustomed for so manyyears to retouch, modify, and revise, it must require no ordinarydegree of self-control to keep his hands off, and leave the fate ofhis offspring to others. It grew with his growth, developing with hisexperience, and he best knows where the shoe pinches and what might yetbe done. But he has the fate of Volapük before his eyes. He knows that, having wrought speech for the people, he must leave it to the people, ifhe wishes them to use and keep using it. 

 [1]An expressive (homoeopathic) name for this malady may be coined in Esperanto: _malsano lingvotrudema_ = officious or intrusive disease, consisting in an itch for coining language. 

Contrast the uncompromising attitude of the inventor of Volapük, BishopSchleyer. It will be remembered how he let Volapük run upon the rocksrather than relinquish the helm. He has been nicknamed "the VolapükistPope"—and indeed he made the great and fatal bull of believing in hisown infallibility. Zamenhof has never pretended to this. When he firstpublished his language, he made no claim to finality on its behalf. Hecalled for criticisms, and contemplated completing and modifying hisscheme in accordance with them. He even offered to make over this taskto a duly constituted academy, if people would come forward and throwthemselves into the work. Again, some years later, in a pamphlet, _Choixd'une langue Internationale_, he proposed a scheme for obtaining acompetent impartial verdict, and declared his willingness to submit toit. At one time he thought of something in the nature of a plebiscite. Later, his renunciation of the last vestige of control, in givingup the _aprobo_, or official sanction of books; his attitude at theinternational congresses; his refusal to accept the presidency; hisreluctance to name or influence the selection of the members of thebody charged with the control of the language; his declaration thathis own works have no legislative power, but are merely those of anEsperantist; finally, his sane conception of the scope and method offuture development of the language to meet new needs, and of the limitswithin which it is possible—all this bespeaks the man who has a clearidea of what he is aiming at, and a shrewd grasp of the conditionsnecessary to ensure success. 

The word Esperanto is the present participle of the verb _esperi_—"tohope, " used substantially. It was under the pseudonym of Dr. Esperantothat Zamenhof published his scheme in 1887 at Warsaw, and the namehas stuck to the language. Before publication it had been cast andrecast many times in the mind of its author, and it is curious tonote that in the course of its evolution he had himself been throughthe principal stages exhibited in the history of artificial languageprojects for the last three hundred years. That is to say, he began withthe idea of an _a priori_ language with made-up words and arbitrarygrammar, and gradually advanced to the conception of an _a posteriori_language, borrowing its vocabulary from the roots common to severalexisting languages and presenting in its grammar a simplification ofIndo-European grammar. 

He began to learn English at a comparatively advanced stage of hiseducation, and the simplicity of its grammar and syntax was a revelationto him. It had a powerful influence in helping him to frame his grammar, which underwent a new transformation. Specimens of the language asZamenhof used to speak it with his school and student friends showa wide divergence from its present form. He seems to have had crueldisappointments, and was disillusioned by the falling away of youthfulcomrades who had promised to fight the battles of the language theypractised with enthusiasm at school. During long years of depressionwork at the language seems to have been almost his one resource. Itsabsolute simplicity is deceptive as to the immense labour it must havecost a single man to work it out. This is only fully to be appreciatedby one who has some knowledge of former attempts. Zamenhof himselfadmits that, if he had known earlier of the existence of Volapük, hewould never have had the courage to continue his task, though he wasconscious of the superiority of his own solution. When, after longhesitation, he made up his mind to try his luck and give his language tothe 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 instructionbook in English appeared in the following year. The only name on thetitle-page is "St. J. , " and it passed quite unnoticed. 

Progress was at first very slow. The first Esperanto society was foundedin St. Petersburg, 1892, under the name of _La Espero_. As early as1889 the pioneer Esperanto newspaper, _La Esperantisto_[1] conductedchiefly by Russians and circulated mainly in Russia, began to appearin Nuremberg, where there was already a distinguished Volapük club, afterwards converted to Esperanto. Since then Nuremberg has continuedto be a centre of light in the movement for an international language. The other pioneer newspapers were _L'Espirantiste_, founded in 1898 atEpernay 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 wereEinstein and Trompeter, and it was owing to the liberality of the latterthat the Nuremberg venture was rendered possible. 

Somewhat later began in France the activity of the greatest and mostfervent of all the apostles of Esperanto, the Marquis de Beaufront. By an extraordinary coincidence he had ready for the press a grammarand complete dictionary of a language of his own, named _Adjuvanto_. When he became acquainted with Esperanto, he recognized that it wasin certain points superior to his own language, though the two wereremarkably similar. He suppressed his own scheme altogether, and threwhimself heart and soul into the work of spreading Esperanto. In a seriesof grammars, commentaries, and dictionaries he expounded the languageand made it accessible to numbers who, without his energy and zeal, would never have been interested in it. Among other well-known Frenchleaders are General Sebert, of the French Institute, M. Boirac, Rectorof the Dijon University, and M. Gaston Moch, editor of the _IndépendanceBelge_. 

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, _TheEsperantist_, edited by Mr. H. Bolingbroke Mudie, London. Since 1905 ithas been incorporated with _The British Esperantist_, the official organof the British Esperanto Association. The association was founded inOctober 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. Itwas organized almost entirely by the president of the local group, M. Michaux, a leading barrister and brilliant lecturer and propagandist. Itwas an immense success, and inaugurated a series of annual congresses, which are doing great work in disseminating the idea of internationallanguage. The second was held in Geneva, August 1906; and the third willbe held at Cambridge, August 10-17, 1907. It is unnecessary to describethe 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 overthe world, and fresh societies and newspapers are springing up onevery side. Since the convincing demonstration afforded by the GenevaCongress, Switzerland is beginning to take the movement seriously. Manyclasses and lectures have been held, and the university is also nowlending its aid. In the present year (1907) an International EsperantistScientific Office has been founded in Geneva, with M. René de Saussureas director, and amongst the members of the auxiliary committee areseventeen professors and eight privat-docents (lecturers) of the GenevaUniversity. 

Its object is to secure the recognition of Esperanto for scientificpurposes, and to practically facilitate its use. To this end the officecarries on the work of collecting technical vocabularies of Esperanto, with the aid of all scientists whose assistance it may receive. This isperhaps the most practical step yet taken towards the standardization oftechnical 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, bythe competent committee for a particular branch of science, into thetechnical Esperanto vocabulary of that science, it becomes universal, because it has no pre-existent rivals; and its universal recognitionin the auxiliary language will react upon writers' usage in their ownlanguage. 

The Geneva office will also aid in editing scientific Esperantistreviews; 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 internationalcongresses. 

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 writtenin a national language. 

A few weeks after the Geneva Congress there was a controversy on thesubject of Esperanto between two of the best known and most widelyread Swiss and French newspapers—the Paris _Figaro_ and the _Journalde Geneve_. The respective champions were the Comte d'Haussonville, of the Académie Française, and M. De Saussure, a member of a highlydistinguished Swiss scientific family; and the matter caused a good dealof 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 oldarguments about Esperanto being unpatriotic and the prejudice it wouldinflict upon literature. The whole thing was a good illustration of afact that is already becoming prominent in the history of the auxiliarylanguage movement—the scientists are much more favourable than theliterary men. As regards educational reform, the conservative attitudeof the classicists is well known, though there are many exceptions, especially among real teachers. But it is somewhat remarkable that, whenthe proposed reform deals with language, those whose business it is toknow about languages should not take the trouble to examine the schemeproperly, 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, andconsequently upon its history, this is perhaps the place to remove amisunderstanding. A distinguished literary man objected to the foregoingpassage 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: thereis little doubt that to-day science is, perhaps inevitably, morecosmopolitan than letters, whatever people may say about "the world-widerepublic of letters. " But it does not meet the point. Esperantists donot _complain_ because men of letters are not interested in Esperanto. They have their own interests and occupations, and nobody would be soabsurd as to make it a grievance that they will not submit to havethrust upon them a language for which they have no taste or use. WhatEsperantists do very strongly object to is that some literary men lendthe weight of their name and position to irresponsible criticism. Letthem take or leave Esperanto as seems good to them. Their _responsible_opinions, _based upon due study of the question_, are always eagerlywelcomed. But do not let them misrepresent Esperanto to the public, thereby unfairly prejudicing its judgment. Such action is unworthy ofserious men. When a man puts forward criticisms of Esperanto basedupon elementary errors of fact, or complains that Esperantists willnot listen to reason because they ignore proposals for change, whichhave long ago been threshed out and found wanting, or are obviouslyunpractical, he is merely showing that he has not studied the question. A fair analogy would be the case of a chemist or engineer who hadrecently begun to dabble in Greek in his spare moments, and who shouldundertake to emend the text of Sophocles. His suggestions would showthat he knew no Greek, that he had never heard of Sir Richard Jebb, andthat he was ignorant of all the results of scientific textual criticism. But here comes in the difference. Such a critic would be laughed out ofcourt, and told to mind his own business, or else learn Greek before heundertook to emend it. But as international language is a novelty tomost people, it is thought that any one can make, mend, or criticiseit. It is not, like Greek, yet recognized as a serious subject, andtherefore irresponsible criticism is too apt to be taken at its facevalue, merely on the _ipse dixit_ of the critic, especially if hehappens to be an influential man in some other line. Nobody bothersabout his qualifications in international language; nobody either knowsor cares whether he has any claim to be heard on the subject at all. 

The fact is that international language now has a considerable historybehind it. A large amount of experience has been amassed, and is nowavailable for any one who is willing and competent to go into thequestion. But, in order to do fruitful work in this field, it is justas necessary as in any other to be properly equipped, and to know whereothers have left off, before you begin. 

At the first international congress at Boulogne the history of Esperantowas 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 propagandastage of international language, in which it is necessary to holdcongresses, and the language is treated as an end in itself. Thereis good hope that the second stage may soon be reached, in which thelanguage may be sufficiently recognized to take its proper place as ameans. 

Meantime, the first stage of Esperanto has been marked by three phasesor periods—the Russian period, the French period, and the internationalperiod. 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 considerableliterary power. Being the pioneers, they had to prove the capabilitiesof the language to the world, and in doing so they took off some of therough of the world's indifference and scepticism. The language benefitedby the fact that the first authors were Slavs. The simplicity of theSlav syntax, the logical arrangement of the sentences, the perfectlyfree and natural order of the words, passed unconsciously from theirnative language to the new one in the hands of these writers, and havebeen imitated by their successors. 

The French period is associated chiefly with the name of M. DeBeaufront. In Russia, side by side with the good points named above, certain less desirable Slavisms were creeping in; also there werehitherto no scientific dictionaries or explanation of syntax. As Dr. Bein says, de Beaufront may be called "the codifier of Esperanto. " Agoodly band of French writers now took the language in hand, and bytheir natural power of expression and exposition, which seems inborn ina Frenchman, and by their national passion for lucidity, they have nodoubt strengthened the impulse of Esperanto towards clear-cut, vigorousstyle. 

Possibly theorizing has been overdone in France; for, after all, thestrong 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 noneare necessary, or to do anything that can produce an impression inthe minds of the uninitiated that learning Esperanto means anythingapproaching the memory drudgery necessary in grasping the rules andconstructions of national languages. 

The third period began soon after the turn of the century, and is stillin full force. Take up any chance number of any Esperanto gazette outof the numbers that are published all over the world; you will hardlybe able to draw any conclusion as to the nationality of the writer ofthe article you light upon, save perhaps for an occasional turn of anunpractised hand. Esperanto now has its style; it is—lucidity basedupon 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 tosafeguard the purity of the language. It will be well to quote in fullthe Declaration adopted at Boulogne, in which its aim is set forth, andwhich forms, as it were, its written constitution. For the convenienceof readers the Esperanto text and English translation are printed inparallel columns. 

 * * * * *

 DEKLARACIO DECLARATION

Ĉar pri la esenco de Esperantismo Because many have a very falsemultaj havas tre malveran idea of the nature of Esperanto, ideon, tial ni subskribintoj, therefore we, the undersigned, reprezentantoj de la Esperantismo representing the cause ofen diversaj landoj de la mondo, Esperanto in different countrieskunvenintaj al la Internacia of the world, having met togetherKongreso Esperantista en at the International EsperantoBoulogne-sur-Mer, trovis necesa, Congress in Boulogne-sur-Mer, laŭ la propono de la aŭtoro have thought it necessary, at thede la lingvo Esperanto, doni la suggestion of the author of thesekvantan klarigon: Esperanto language, to give the following explanation:

1. La Esperantismo estas penado 1. Esperanto in its essencedisvastigi en la tuta mondo is an attempt to diffuse overla uzadon de lingvo neŭtrale the whole world a languagehoma, kiu, "ne entrudante sin belonging to mankind withouten la internan vivon de la distinction, which, "not intrudingpopoloj kaj neniom celante upon the internal life of theelpuŝi la ekzistantajn lingvojn peoples and in nowise aiming tonaciajn, " donus al la homoj drive out the existing nationalde malsamaj nacioj la eblon languages, " should give tokompreniĝadi inter si, kiu men of different nations thepovus servi kiel paciga lingvo possibility of becoming mutuallyde publikaj institucioj en tiuj comprehensible, which might servelandoj kie diversaj nacioj batalas as a peace-making language forinter si pri la lingvo, kaj en public institutions in thosekiu povus esti publikigataj tiuj lands where different nations areverkoj kiuj havas egalan intereson involved in strife about theirpor 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 thisaŭ alia Esperantisto ligas kun la or that Esperantist associatesEsperantismo estos lia afero pure with Esperanto will be his purelyprivata, por kiu la Esperantismo personal business, for whichne respondas. Esperanto is not responsible. 

2. Ĉar en la nuna tempo neniu 2. Because at the present time noesploranto en la tuta mondo one who looks out over the wholejam dubas pri tio, ke lingvo world any longer doubts thatinternacia povas esti nur lingvo an international language canarta, kaj ĉar, el ĉiuj multegaj only be an artificial one, andprovoj faritaj en la daŭro de because, of all the very numerousla lastaj du centjaroj, ĉiuj attempts made in the course ofprezentas nur teoriajn projektojn, the last two hundred years, kaj lingvo efektive finita, all offer merely theoreticalĉiuflanke elprovita, perfekte solutions, and only one singlevivipova, kaj en ĉiuj rilatoj language, Esperanto, has shownpleje 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 completelydisputado kondukos al nenio kaj adequate, therefore the friendske la celo povas esti atingita of the idea of internationalnur per laborado praktika, jam de language, recognizing thatlonge ĉiuj grupiĝis ĉirkaŭ theoretical discussion will leadla sola lingvo, Esperanto, kaj to nothing and that the end canlaboras por ĝia disvastigado kaj only be attained by practicalriĉigado 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 theEsperanto tuj en la komenco Esperanto language from the veryrifuzis, unu fojon por ĉiam, beginning refused, once for all, ĉiujn personajn rajtojn kaj all personal rights and privilegesprivilegiojn rilate tiun lingvon, connected with that language, tial Esperanto estas "nenies therefore Esperanto is "thepropraĵo, " nek en rilato property of no one, " either from amateriala, nek en rilato morala. Material or moral point of view. 

Materiala mastro de tiu ĉi lingvo Materially speaking, the wholeestas la tuta mondo, kaj ĉiu world is master of this language, deziranto povas eldonadi en aŭ and any one who wishes canpri tiu ĉi lingvo ĉiajn verkojn publish in or about this languagekiajn li deziras, kaj uzadi la works of any kind he wishes, andlingvon por ĉiaj eblaj celoj go on using the language forkiel spiritaj mastroj de tiu ĉi any possible object; from anlingvo estos ĉiam rigardataj intellectual point of view thosetiuj personoj kiuj de la mondo persons will always be regarded asEsperantista estos konfesataj kiel masters of this language who shallla plej bonaj kaj la plej talentaj be recognized by the Esperantistverkistoj de tiu ĉi lingvo. World as the best and most gifted writers in this language. 

4. Esperanto havas neniun personan 4. Esperanto has no personalleĝdonanton kaj dependas de neniu law-giver and depends uponaparta homo. Ĉiuj opinioj kaj no particular person. Allverkoj de la kreinto de Esperanto opinions and works of the creatorhavas, simile al la opinioj kaj of Esperanto have, like theverkoj de ĉiu alia Esperantisto, opinions and works of any otherkarakteron absolute privatan kaj Esperantist, an absolutely privatepor neniu devigan. La sola, unu character, and are binding uponfojon por ĉiam deviga por ĉiuj nobody. The sole foundation ofEsperantistoj, fundamento de la the Esperanto language, which islingvo Esperanto estas la verketo once for all binding upon all_Fundamento de Esperanto_, en Esperantists, is the little workkiu neniu havas la rajton fari _Fundamento de Esperanto_, inŝanĝon. Se iu dekliniĝas de la which no one has the right to makereguloj kaj modeloj donitaj en any change. If any one departsla dirita verko, li neniam povas from the rules and models givenpravigi sin per la vortoj "tiel in the said work, he can neverdeziras aŭ konsilas la aŭtoro justify himself with the wordsde Esperanto. " Ĉiun ideon, kiu "such is the wish or advice ofne povas esti oportune esprimata the author of Esperanto. " In theper tiu materialo kiu troviĝas case of any idea which cannot been la _Fundamento de Esperanto_, conveniently expressed by means ofĉiu havas la rajton esprimi en that material which is containedtia maniero kiun li trovas la in the _Fundamento de Esperanto_, plej ĝusta, tiel same kiel estas every Esperantist has the right tofarate en ĉiu alia lingvo. Sed express it in such manner as hepro plena unueco de la lingvo, considers most fitting, just as isal ĉiuj Esperantistoj estas done in the case of every otherrekomendate imitadi kiel eble plej language. But for the sake ofmulte tiun stilon kiu troviĝas perfect unity in the language, iten la verkoj de la kreinto de is recommended to all EsperantistsEsperanto, kiu la plej multe to constantly imitate as far aslaboris por kaj en Esperanto, kaj possible that style which is foundla 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 isĉiu persono kiu scias kaj uzas given to every person who knowsla lingvon Esperanto, tute egale and uses the Esperanto language, por kiaj celoj li ĝin uzas. No matter for what ends he usesApartenado al ia aktiva societo it. Membership of some activeEsperantista por ĉiu Esperantisto Esperanto society is to beestas rekomendinda, sed ne deviga. Recommended for every Esperantist, but this is not compulsory. 

 * * * * *

By the wise provision of Article 4, that the entire grammar andframework of Esperanto, as contained within one small book of a fewpages, is absolutely unchangeable, the future of the language issecured. The _Fundamento_ also contains enough root words to express allordinary ideas. Henceforth the worst thing that can happen to Esperantoby way of adulteration is that some authors may use too many foreignwords. The only practical check upon this, of course, is the penalty ofbecoming incomprehensible. But as men are on the whole reasonable, andas the only object of writing in Esperanto presumably is to appeal toan Esperantist international public, this check should be sufficient toprevent the use of any word that usage is not tending to consecrate. A certain latitude of expansion must be allowed to every language, toenable it to move with the times; but beyond this, surely few wouldhave any interest in foisting into their discourse words which theirhearers or readers would not be likely to understand, and those fewwould probably belong to the class who do the same thing in using theirmother-tongue. No special legislation is needed to meet their case. 

For a few years (1901-1905) the publishing house of Hachette had themonopoly of official Esperanto publications, and no work publishedelsewhere could find place in the "Kolekto Esperanto aprobita de D-roZamenhof. " But at the first congress Zamenhof announced that he hadgiven up even this control, and Esperanto is now a free language. 

The official authority, which deals with all matters relating to thelanguage itself, is the _Lingvo Komitato_ (Language Committee). It wasinstituted at the first congress, and consists of persons appointed fortheir special competence in linguistic matters. The original membersnumbered ninety-nine, and represented the following twenty-eightcountries: 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 byEsperantists those worthy of consideration, and propounds them to itsmembers by means of circulars. It then appoints a competent person orsmall committee to report upon the answers received. Decisions are madeupon the result of the voting in the members' replies to the circulars, as analyzed and tabulated in the report. The functions of the committeedo not include the making of any alteration whatever in the Esperantopart of the _Fundamento de Esperanto_, which is equally sacrosanct forit and for all Esperantists. But there is much to be done in correctingcertain faulty translations of the fundamental Esperanto roots intonational languages, in defining their exact meaning and giving theirauthorized equivalent in fresh languages, into which they were notoriginally translated. Also the constantly growing output of grammarsand instruction books of all kinds in every country, to say nothing ofdictionaries, which are very important, has to be carefully watched, inorder that errors may be pointed out and corrected before they have timeto 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 dulyconstituted and widely representative authority, which watches thespread and development of the language, maintaining its purity, andhelping with judicious guidance. 

From this sketch it ought to be clear that Esperanto is no wild-catscheme of enthusiasts or faddists, but a wisely organized attempt towipe out the world's linguistic arrears. Its aim is to bring progress inoral and written communication into line with the progress of materialmeans 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 beenmade, but none are based on any reliable method of computation. In the_Histoire de la langue universelle_, which appeared in 1903 and iswritten throughout in an impartial and scientific spirit, 50, 000 wastentatively given as a fairly safe estimate. That was before the daysof the international congresses, and since then the cause has beenadvancing by leaps and bounds. Not a month passes without its crop ofnew clubs and classes, and the pace is becoming fast and furious. 

A marked change has been noticeable of late in the press of the leadingcountries. It is becoming a rare thing now to see Esperanto treated asa form of madness, and the days of contemptuous silence are passingaway. 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 berecognized that Esperanto is a force to be reckoned with; it cannot belaughed 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 notlike to see Esperanto going ahead like steam. High on the mountain-sidethey sit in cold isolation, and gaze over the rich fertile plains ofEsperanto, rapidly becoming populous as the immigrants rush in and stakeout their claims in the fair "no-man's land. "[1] And it makes them feelbad, these others! "Jeshurun waxed fat, " they cry; "pride goes before afall, remember Volapük!" The Esperantists remember Volapük, close theirranks, 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. Largeeditions are going off everywhere, especially, it would seem, inAmerica, where the folk have a habit, once they have struck a businessproposition, of running it for all it is worth. "Let her go! giveher hell!" is the word, and "the boys" are just now getting next toEsperanto to beat the band. 

The British Esperanto Association's accounts show a very steady increasein the sale of literature. Considering that it sells books at tradeprices, that hardly any of them are priced at more than a few pence, andnone above a shilling or two, the sums realized from sale of books insome months are astonishing, and represent a large and increasing spreadof interest among the public. Owing to the low prices, the profit onbooks is of course not great; but, such as it is, it all goes to helpthe cause. The association is now registered as a non-profit-makingsociety 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 ingovernment schools, it will certainly be first in France. (For anaccount of the present state of this question, which is at presentbefore the French Permanent Educational Commission, see Part I. , chap. Vi. , p. 30). Dr. Zamenhof has been decorated by the FrenchGovernment, and Esperanto is already taught in many French schools. Forpurposes of education France is divided into districts, called _ressortsd'Académie_, within each of which there is a complete educational ladderfrom the primary schools to the university which is the culminationof each. The official head of an important district is Rector Boirac, head of the Dijon University. He is one of the most distinguished ofthe Esperantists, and is the leading spirit at the congresses and onthe Lingva Komitato. He has done much for Esperanto in the schools ofhis district, and under the guidance of men of his calibre Esperanto ismaking serious progress in France. (For lists of university professorsfavourable to an international language, see p. 32 [Part I, ChapterVI]). 

In Germany one of the foremost men of science of his time, Prof. Ostwald, of Leipzig, is an ardent advocate of the internationallanguage. 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. Healso spoke in its favour at Aberdeen last year, on the occasion of theopening of the new University buildings. 

Apropos of the interchange between different countries of professorsand other teachers, which has to some extent been already tried betweenAmerica and Germany, it is curious to note the attitude of Prof. HermannDiels, Rector of the Berlin University. He is a great supporter ofthe extension of this interchange, which also has the approbation ofthe Kaiser, who attended formally the inaugural lecture of one of theAmerican professors, to mark his approbation. Prof. Diels commented onthe fact that diversity of language was a grave obstacle; but thoughhe seems before to have been a champion of popularized Latin, he nowdeclares himself strongly against any artificial language, [1] andadvocates the use of English, French, and German. This is a modifiedform of the old Max Müller proposal, that all serious scientific workshould be published in one of six languages. It does not seem a veryconvincing attitude to take up, because it ignores the facts: (1) thatthe actual trend of the world is the other way—towards inclusionof fresh national languages among the _Kultursprachen_, not towardsaccentuation of the predominance of these three; (2) that the increaseof specialization and new studies at universities is leaving less andless time for mastering several difficult languages merely as means toother 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 ofproblem, and are trained to take objective views in linguistic matterson the scientific merits of the case. The reason why they have beensomewhat backward hitherto in the Esperanto movement is no doubt theirdisappointment at the failure of Volapük, which they had done much topromote. But now that, in spite of this special drawback, the firststeps have been made, and clubs and papers are beginning to spring upagain, everything points to powerful co-operation from Germany in thefuture. 

In Switzerland progress has been enormous since the Geneva Congressof 1906. Many clubs and classes are already formed or in process offormation, and university men are supporting the movement. In onerespect the Swiss are now in the van of the Esperantist world: they havejust started a newspaper, _Esperanto_, the prospectus of which declaresthat it will no longer treat the language as an end in itself, or makepropaganda; it will run on the lines of an ordinary weekly, merely usingEsperanto as a means, inasmuch as it is the language of the paper. 

The well-known Swiss veteran philosopher Ernst Naville wrote to theGeneva Congress that for thirty years he had regarded the introductionof an international language as a necessity, owing to the advance ofcivilization, and the day of realization of this object would be one ofthe 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 tobe found among the Slav peoples. The language first took root in theirmidst, and was spread far and wide by a distinguished group of Slavwriters. 

Outside Europe, Esperanto is making great strides in the British Empire, Japan, and America. There are now Esperantist clubs in various parts ofIndia, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, in Malta, Singapore, etc. Dr. Pollen, C. I. E. , President of the British Esperanto Association, hasjust been touring in India, in the interests of the language. Amongmany satisfactory results is the guarantee of handsome sums towardsthe guarantee fund of the coming Cambridge Congress by several nativerulers, among others the Mir of Khairpur, the Raja of Lunawada, theNawab of Radhanpur, and the Diwan of Palanpur. 

In New Zealand, an enterprising pioneer country in many departments, thePrime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, is favourable. Not long ago he made aspeech advocating the introduction of Esperanto into the public schoolsof the colony. 

In America big Esperantist societies and classes have sprung up withamazing rapidity during the last year. Several universities now holdEsperanto classes; the Boston Massachusetts Institute of Technology hasmore than 100 students in its Esperanto class, and, among schools, thefamous Latin School of Roxbury has led the way with over fifty pupilsunder Prof. Lowell. The press is devoting a large amount of attentionto Esperanto, and many journals of good standing are favourable. _TheNorth American Review_ has taken up the language. It printed articles inDecember and January by Dr. Zamenhof and Prof. Macloskie of Princeton, and followed them up by courses of lessons. It supplies Esperantoliterature to its readers at cost price, and reports that evidences ofinterest "have been many and multiply daily. "

Among university supporters are Profs. Huntington and Morse of Harvard, Prof. Viles, Ohio State University, Prof. Borgerhoff, Western ReserveUniversity, Prof. Macloskie of Princeton, etc. On the other hand, Prof. Hugo Munsterberg of Harvard is attacking Esperanto. His is a goodexample of the literary man's uninformed criticism of the universallanguage project, because it is based upon an old criticism by a Germanprofessor (Prof. Hamel) of the defunct Volapük. Why Esperanto should becondemned for the sins of Volapük is not obvious. 

One other useful aspect of Esperanto remains to be mentioned—theestablishment of consulships to give linguistic and other assistance. Many towns have already their Esperanto consuls, and in a few yearsthere ought to be a haven of refuge for Esperantists abroad nearlyeverywhere. 

The following list of principal Esperanto organs will give some ideaof the diffusion of the language. The list makes no pretence of beingcomplete. 

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 ofits readers, an international inquiry into education in all countries. The report is appearing in the February number and following. This is agood example of the sort of international work which can be done for andby 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 inNew 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-pageEsperanto 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 theschools, so it will be best to state first what has been done so far inthis matter. 

Esperanto has been officially accepted by the local educationalauthorities in London, Liverpool, Manchester, and other provincialtowns; that is to say, it has been recognized as a subject to be taughtin evening classes, if there is sufficient demand. At present thereare classes under the London County Council at the following schools:Queen's Road, Dalston (Commercial Centre); Blackheath Road (CommercialCentre); Plough Road, Clapham Junction (Commercial Centre); RutlandStreet, Mile End (Commercial Centre); Myrdle Street, Commercial Road;and Hugh Myddleton School, Clerkenwell. Other classes held in London areat the Northern Polytechnic, Holloway Road; St. Bride's Institute, BrideLane; City of London College, White Street; Co-operative Institute, Plumstead; Working Men's College, St. Pancras; Stepney Library, Mile EndRoad; and a large class for teachers is held at the Cusack Institute, Moorfields. 

At Keighley, Yorks, the Board of Education has recognized the languageas a grant-earning subject. Various local authorities give facilities, some paying the teacher, others supplying a room. Among these areKingston-on-Thames (Technical Institute), Rochdale, Ipswich (TechnicalSchool), Grimsby, etc. 

It does not appear that Esperanto is yet taught in any public elementaryschool; educational officials, inspectors, etc. , have yet to learnabout the language. Many private schools now teach it, and at least oneprivate girls' school of the best type teaches it as a regular subject, alongside French and German. It has been impossible to get any returnor figures as to the extent to which it has penetrated into privateand proprietary schools. The Northern Institute of Languages, perhapsthe most important commercial school in the North of England, held anEsperanto class with sixty-three students. 

Two large examining bodies—the London Chamber of Commerce and theExamination Board of the National Union of Teachers—have includedEsperanto in their subjects for commercial certificates. At the LondonChamber of Commerce examination in May 1906 the candidates were asfollows:

 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 Associationwith an Education Committee, which is carrying on active work inpromoting Esperanto in the schools. 

At an official reception of French teachers in London last year bythe Board of Education, Mr. Lough, speaking on behalf of the Board, made a sympathetic reference to Esperanto. The incident is amusinglytold in Esperanto by M. Boirac, Rector of Dijon University and a notedEsperantist, who was amongst the French professors. Not understandingEnglish, he was growing rather sleepy during a long speech, when theword "Esperanto" gave him a sudden shock. He thought the Englishofficial was poking fun at him, but was relieved to hear that theallusion had been sympathetic. 

At this year's meeting of the Modern Language Society at Durham, theWarden of Durham University, Dean Kitchin, in welcoming the society tothe town and university, gave considerable prominence in his speech toEsperanto, remarking that, to judge by its rapid growth and the sanityof its reformed grammar, one might easily believe that it will wingeneral use. [1] Such references in high places illustrate the tendencyto admit that there may be something in this international languagescheme. 

 [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 GreatBritain on the list of societies affiliated to the British EsperantoAssociation, and often several new ones are formed in a month. Thefirst were Keighley and London, founded 1902. Seven more were formed in1903; and since the beginning of 1906 no less than thirty-six. Besidesthe members of these there are a great many learners in classes andindividual Esperantists who belong to no affiliated group. Every monthone reads lists of lectures given in the most diverse places, very oftenwith the note that a local club or class resulted, or that a large saleof Esperanto literature took place. Sometimes the immediate number ofconverts is surprising: e. G. On April 22, 1907, after a lecture onEsperanto at the Technical College, Darlington, seventy-eight studentsentered their names for a week's course of lessons to be held in thecollege 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 causewith its usual energy, and now has a large class. 

In England the universities have been slow to show interest inEsperanto; but now that Cambridge has been selected as the seat of theCongress in 1907, the university is granting every facility, as alsois the town council, in use of rooms and the like, and some professorsand other members of the university are cordially co-operating. LastOctober Prof. Skeat, one of the fathers of English philology, took thechair at a preliminary meeting, and made a speech very favourable toEsperanto. He said, "I think Esperanto is a very good movement, and Ihope it will succeed. " The subject of Esperanto is being well put beforethe teachers of Cambridgeshire, and the railway companies all over thecountry and abroad are granting special fares for the congress. [1] Itis probable that the overwhelming demonstration of the possibilities ofthis international language will open the eyes of many who have hithertobeen indifferent, and that the movement will enter on a new phase ofexpansion in England, and through the example of England, which isclosely 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 alreadyused in various parts of the world for the transaction of interracialbusiness, and the persistent preoccupation of thinkers with the ideafor the last 200 years, culminating in the production of a greatnumber of schemes in our own times, show that there _is_ a demand foran international language, more perfect than has yet been availableand universally valid. The list of languages proposed (see Part II. , chap. Ii. ) by no means represents all that has been written and thoughtupon 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 thepresent day. The striking success of Volapük and Esperanto in gaining, within a few years of publication, many thousands of ardent supportershas also been a revelation. It has proved most conclusively that thereis a demand. If so many people in all lands have been willing to giveup time and money to learning and promoting a language from which theycould not expect to reap anything like full benefit for many years, what must be its value when ripened to yield full profits, i. E. Whenuniversally adopted?

There are two main obstacles to universal adoption. The first is commonto all projects of reform—the force of inertia. It is hard to winpractical support for a new thing, even when assent is freely given intheory to its utility. The second is peculiar to Esperanto, and consistsin the discrediting of the cause of international language through thefailure of Volapük. Good examples of its operation are afforded by theslowness of Germany to recognize Esperanto, and by the criticism ofProf. Münsterberg (formerly of Freiburg, Germany) in America, basedas it is on an old German criticism of Volapük, and transferred atsecond-hand to Esperanto. 

Hence every effort should be made to induce critics of Esperanto toexamine the language before pronouncing judgment—to criticise the realthing, instead of some bogy of their imagination. 

One bogy which has caused much misdirected criticism is raised bymisunderstanding of the word "universal" in the phrase _universallanguage_. It is necessary to insist upon the fact that "universal"means universally adopted and everywhere current _as an auxiliary_ tothe mother-tongue for purposes of international communication. It doesnot mean a universal language for home consumption as a substitute fornational 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 literaryman's nightmare of the invasion of literature by the universal languagean "idol of the theatre. " The lesson of experience is, that it iswell not to alienate the powerful literary interest justly concernedin upholding the dignity and purity of national speech by makingextravagant claims on behalf of the auxiliary language. It is capableof conveying _matter_ or _content_ in any department of human activitywith great nicety; but where it is a question of reproducing byactual translation the _form_ or _manner_ of some masterpiece of nationalliterature, it will not, by nature of its very virtues, give a full ideaof the rich play of varied synonymic in the original. 

The great practical lesson of Volapük is, that alteration bringsdissension, and dissension brings death. A universal language mustbe in essentials, like Esperanto, inviolable. If ever the time comesfor modification in any essential point, it will be after officialinternational recognition in the schools. Gradual reforms could then, if necessary, be introduced by authority, as in the case of the recentFrench "Tolérations, " or the German reforms in orthography. 

So long as the world is divided among rival great powers, no nationallanguage can be recognized as universal by them all. It is thereforea choice between an artificial language or nothing. As regards thestructure of the artificial language itself, history shows clearlythat it must be _a posteriori_, not _a priori_. It must select itsconstituent roots and its spoken sounds on the principle of maximum ofinternationality, and its grammar must be a simplification of naturalexisting grammar. On the other hand, a recent tendency to brand as"arbitrary" and _a priori_ everything that makes for regularity, if itis not directly borrowed, is to be resisted. It is possible to overdoeven the best of rules by slavish and unintelligent application. Thus itis urged by extremists that some of the neatest labour-saving devices ofEsperanto 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): Esperantoforms _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 whichinsists (in order not to be "arbitrary") upon borrowing fresh rootsto express these ideas. Let any one who has learnt Latin, French, andGerman 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 internationallanguage is to be based must be Aryan (Indo-European). This is apractical point. The non-European peoples will consent to learn"simplified Aryan" just as they are adopting Aryan civilization; but theconverse is not true. The Europeans will go without an internationallanguage rather than learn one based to some extent upon Japanese orMongolian. The only prescription for securing a large field is—greatestease for greatest number, with a handicap in favour of Europeans, toinduce 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 grammaticaldevices for expressing what could be equally well expressed by a singleuniform device. They bristle with irregularities and exceptions. Theirforms and phrases are largely the result of chance and partial survival, arbitrary usage, and false analogy. It is obvious that a perfectlyregular artificial language is far easier to learn. But the point to beinsisted on here is, that artificial simplification of language is nofantastic 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, thereis no reason to think that Nature, left to herself, would ever produce auniversal language, or that a simpler language would win, in a strugglewith more complex ones, on account of its simplicity. But this does notprevent there being a real natural tendency to simplification—though innatural languages this tendency is constantly thwarted, and can neverproduce its full effect. 

How, then, is this tendency to simplification shown in the history ofAryan (Indo-European) languages? For it must be emphasized that for thepurposes of this discussion history of language means history of Aryanlanguage. 

The Aryan group of languages includes Sanskrit and its descendants inthe 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 theprincipal languages of Europe, except Hungarian, Basque, and Finnish. The main tendency of this group of languages has been, technicallyspeaking, to become analytic instead of synthetic—that is, to abandoncomplex systems of inflection by means of case and verbal endings, and to substitute prepositions and auxiliaries. Thus, taking Latin asthe type of old synthetic Aryan language, its declension of nouns andconjugation of verbs present an enormously greater complexity of formsthan are employed by English, the most advanced of the modern analyticallanguages, 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_), youhave only learnt one out of many types of declension. Passing on tothe second Latin type or declension, e. G. _dominus_ = master, youhave to learn a whole fresh set of case endings (_-us_, _-um_, _-i_, _-o_, _-o_; _-i_, _-os_, _-orum_, _-is_, _-is_) to express the samegrammatical relations; whereas in English you apply the same set ofprepositions to the word "master" without change, except for a uniform_-s_ in the plural. As there are a great many types of Latin noun, thesimplification in English, effected by using invariable prepositionswithout 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); therest is done by auxiliaries, which are the same for each verb. Latin, onthe other hand, possesses very numerous forms of the verb, and the wholeset of numerous forms varies for each type of verb. In the aggregate thesimplification in English is enormous. This process of simplificationis common to all the modern Aryan languages, but they have not all madeequal progress in carrying it out. 

Now, it is a remarkable fact, and a very suggestive one for those whoseek to trace the connexion between the course of a nation's languageand its history, that the degree of progress made by the languages ofEurope along their common line of evolution does on the whole, as amatter of historical fact, correspond with the respective degree ofmaterial, social, and economic advancement attained by the nationsthat use them. Take this question of case endings. Russia has retaineda high degree of inflection in her language, having seven cases withdistinct endings. These seven cases are common to the Slav languagesin general; two of them (Sorbish and Slovenish) have, like Gothic andGreek, a dual number, a feature which has long passed away from thelanguages of Western Europe. Again, the Slav tongues decline many moreof the numerals than most Aryan languages. Germany, which, until therecent formation of the German Empire, was undoubtedly a century slow byWest European time, still has four cases; or, in view of the moribunddative, should we rather say three and a half? France and England managetheir affairs in a universal nominative[1] (if one can give any nameto a universal case), as far as nouns, adjectives, and articles areconcerned. Their pronouns offer the sole survival of declension by caseendings. Here France, the runner-up, is a trifle slow in the possessionof a real, live dative case of the pronoun (acc. _le_, _la_, _les_;dat. _lui_, _leur_). England wins by a neck with one universal obliquecase (_him_, _her_, _them_). This insidious suggestion is not meantto endanger the _entente cordiale_; even perfidious Albion would notconvict the French nation of arrested development on the side-issue ofpronominal atavism. Mark Twain says he paid double for a German dog, because he bought it in the dative case; but no nation need be damnedfor 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 powerof a language to move with the times. For some reason or other (thereal underlying causes of these changes in language needs are obscure)modern life has need of the article, though the highly civilized Romansdid very well without it. So strong is this need that, in the middleages, when Latin was used as an international language by the learned, a definite article (_hic_ or τó) was foisted into the language. Howis it with the modern world? The Slavs have remained in this matter atthe point of view of the ancient world. They are articleless. Germanyhas a cumbrous three-gender, four-case article; France rejoices in atwo-gender, one-case article with a distinct form for the plural. Theripe product of tendency, the infant heir of the eloquent ages, to whosebirth the law of Aryan evolution groaned and travailed until but now, the most useful, if not the "mightiest, " monosyllable "ever mouldedby the lips of man, " the "the, " one and indeclinable, was born in theAnglo-Saxon mouth, and sublimed to its unique simplicity by Anglo-Saxonprogress. 

The general law of progress in language could be illustrated equallywell from the history of genders as exhibited in various languages. We are here only dealing with Aryan languages, but, merely by way ofillustration, it may be mentioned that a primitive African languageoffers seven "genders, " or grammatical categories requiring the samekind of concords as genders. In Europe we pass westward from the threegenders of Germany, curving through feminine and masculine France(_place aux dames!_) to monogendric Britain. Only linguistic arbitrarygender is here referred to; this has nothing to do with suffragettes or"defeminization. "

Again, take agreement of adjectives. In the ancient world, whetherGreek, Latin, Gothic, or Anglo-Saxon, adjectives had to follow nounsthrough all the mazes of case and number inflection, and had also toagree in gender. In this matter German has gone ahead of French, in thatits adjectives do not submit to change of form in order to indicateagreement, when they are used predicatively (e. G. "ein gut_er_ Mann";"der gut_e_ Mann"; but "der Mann ist gut"). But English has distancedthe field, and was alone in at the death of the old concords, whichmoistened 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 manifestationEnglish has gone farthest among the great literary languages. Itis necessary to add this qualification—"among the great literarylanguages"—because, in this process of simplification, English has avery curious rival, and possibly a superior, in the _Taal_ of SouthAfrica. The curious thing is that a local dialect should have shownitself so progressive, seeing that the distinctive note of most dialectsis conservatism, their chief characteristics being local survivals. [1]It is probable that the advanced degree of simplification attained bythe Taal is the result of deliberate and conscious adaptation of theirlanguage by the original settlers to the needs of the natives. Justas Englishmen speak Pidgin-English to coolies in the East, so the oldtrekkers must have removed irregularities and concords from their Dutch, so that the Kaffirs could understand it. If this is so, it is anotherillustration of the essential feature that an international languagemust possess. Even the Boer farmers, under the stress of practicalnecessity, 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 stronglymarked in the speech of the uneducated. Miss Loane, who has hadlife-long experience of nursing work among the poorest classes inEngland, tabulates (_The Queen's Poor_, p. 112) the points in whichat the present day the language of the poor differs from that of themiddle and upper classes. Under the heading of grammar she singlesout specially superabundance of negatives, and then proceeds: "Othergrammatical 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 verbsare 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 pasttense of "to come, " surely "come" is a commoner form than "comed. "Similarly the illiterate for "I did" is "I done, " not "I doed, " whichwould be the regular simplification. But the natural tendency iscertainly there, and it is strong. 

Precisely the same tendency is observable in the present developmentof literary languages. They have all inherited many irregular verbalconjugations from the past as part of their national property, andthese, by the nature of the case, comprise most of the commonestwords in the language, because the most used is the most subject toabbreviation and modification. But these irregular types of inflectionhave long been dead, in the sense that they are fossilized survivals, incapable of propagating their kind. When a new word is admitted intothe language, it is conjugated regularly. Thus, though we still say "Igo—I went; I run—I ran, " because we cannot help ourselves, when we arefree to choose we say, "I cycle—I cycled; I wire—I wired"; just as theFrench say "télégraphier, " and not "télégraphir, " -oir, or -re. 

Considering the strength of this stream of natural tendency, it seems amost natural thing to start again, for international purposes, with aform of simplified Aryan language, and, being free from the dead hand ofthe past, to set up the simplest forms of conjugation, etc. , and makeevery word in the language conform to them. 

Indeed, this question of artificial simplification of language has oflate years emerged from the scholar's study and become a matter ofpractical politics, even as regards the leading national languages. Within the last few years there have been official edicts in France andGermany, embodying reforms either in spelling or grammar, with the soleobject of simplifying. The latest attempt at linguistic jerrymanderinghas been the somewhat autocratic document of President Roosevelt. Hehas found that there are limits to what the American people will standeven from him, and it seems likely to remain a dead letter. But there isnot the smallest doubt that the English language is heavily handicappedby its eccentric vowel pronunciation and its spelling that has failedto 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 yearsago, its practice too—consisted in nothing else but an attempt torepresent simply and accurately the spoken word, most unprejudicedpeople would admit that simplification is in principle advisable. Butthe practical difficulties in the way of simplification of a nationallanguage are almost prohibitive. It is hard to see that there are anysuch obstacles in the way of the adoption of a simple and perfectlyphonetic international artificial language. We dislike change because itis change, and new things because they are new. We go on suffering froma movable Easter, which most practically inconveniences great numbers ofpeople and interests, and seems to benefit no one at all, simply becauseit is no one's business to change it. If once the public could be gotto 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 itsuniversal adoption, and be pure profit. 

 NOTE

This seems the best place to deal with a criticism of Esperanto whichhas an air of plausibility. It is urged that Esperanto does not carrythe process of simplification far enough, and that in two importantpoints it shows a retrograde tendency to revert to a more primitivestage of language, already left behind by the most advanced naturallanguages. 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 languageis, not to adhere pedantically to any philological theory, not to makea fetish of principle, not to strive after any theoretical perfectionin the observance of certain laws of construction, but—simply to beeasy. The principle of simplification is an admirable one, because itfurthers this end, and for this reason only. The moment it ceases todo so, it must give way before a higher canon, which demands that aninternational language shall offer the greatest ease, combined withefficiency, for the greatest number. The fact that a scientific studyof 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 followthe historical lines of evolution in every detail. It will follow themjust so far as, and no farther than, they conduce to its paramountend—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 proposedsimplification conduce to ease without sacrificing efficiency? Doesthe cost of retention (reckoned in terms of sacrifice of ease) ofthe unsimplified form outweigh the advantages (reckoned in terms ofefficiency) it confers, and which would be lost if it was simplified outof existence? Let us then examine briefly the two points criticised, remembering that the main function of the argument from history oflanguage is, not to deduce therefrom hard-and-fast rules for theconstruction of international language, but to remove the unreasoningprejudice of numerous objectors, who cannot pardon the internationallanguage for being "artificial, " i. E. Consciously simplified. 

 (1) _The Accusative Case_

This is formed in Esperanto by adding the letter _-n_. This one form isuniversal 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 isenormously increased; the words can be put in any order withoutobscuring 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 meaningis the same, but great scope is afforded for emphasis and shades ofgradation. Further, every nation is enabled to arrange the words assuits it best, without becoming less intelligible to other nations. Readers of Greek and Latin know the enormous advantage of free wordorder. For purposes of rendering the spirit and swing of national worksof 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 meaningperfectly clear without it, because they are accustomed to indicate theobjective case by the order in which they place their words. They makea 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 andcase. Ex. : _bona patro_, _bonan patron_, _bonaj patroj_, _bonajnpatrojn_. 

Suppose one were to suppress agreement of adjectives. 

(_a_) Cost of retention of agreement: Remembering to add _-j_ for theplural and _-n_ for the accusative. 

(_b_) Advantages of retention: Greater clearness; conformity with theusage 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_. Bythis means Esperanto is not only rendered slower, more harmonious, andeasier of comprehension; it is also able to denote the parts of speechclearly 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 harderto keep them uninflected than if they ended with a consonant likethe Eng. "good. " To talk about _bona patroj_ would not only seem ahideous barbarism to all Latin peoples, whose languages Esperanto mostresembles, but it would also offend the bulk of Northerners. After avery little practice it is really easier to say _bonaj patroj_ than_bona patroj_. The assimilation of termination tempts the ear andtongue. 

The grammar is also simplified. For if adjectives agreeing with nounsand pronouns expressed were invariable, it would probably be necessaryto introduce special rules to meet the case of adjectives standing asnouns, 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 oflanguages, upon which is founded the scheme of language-teaching in theReform Schools of Germany, and in some of the more progressive Englishschools. 

The principle involved in this scheme is that of orderly progressionfrom the easier to the more difficult. Only one foreign language isbegun at a time. The easiest language in the school curriculum isbegun first. Enough hours per week are devoted to this language toallow of decent progress being made. When the pupils have a fair gripof the elements of one language, another is begun. The bulk of theschool language-teaching hours are now devoted to the new language, andsufficient weekly hours are given to the language already learnt toavoid backsliding at least. Thus in a German school of the new type thelinguistic hours are devoted in the lowest classes to the mother-tongue. When the pupils have some idea what language means, and have acquiredsome 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 ata corresponding interval after Latin. 

Now, it is one of the commonest complaints of teachers in our secondaryschools that they have to begin teaching Latin or French to boys whohave no knowledge whatever of grammar. Fancy the hopelessness of tryingto teach an English boy the construction of a Latin or French sentencewhen 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 resignthemselves to giving up a good part of their French or Latin hour toendeavouring to imbue their flock with some notions of grammar ingeneral. They naturally try to appeal to their boys through the mediumof their own language. But those who have incautiously upset their classfrom the frying-pan of _qui_, _quae_, _quod_, into the fire of Englishdemonstrative and relative pronouns get a foretaste of the fire thatdieth 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. " Thisis the "abstract and brief chronicle" of their woes—sometimes, indeed, the epitaph of their pedagogical career, if they are too sickened ofthe Sisiphean task of trying to teach grammar on insufficient basis. And this use, or abuse, of the hardworked word "that" is only anextreme case which illustrates the difficulty of teaching grammar tobabes, through the medium of a language honeycombed with synonyms, homonyms, exceptions, and other pitfalls (can you be honeycombed with apitfall?)—a language which seems to take a perverse delight in breakingall its own rules and generally scoring off the beginner. And for thedull 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 theadvancement of sound learning in the initial stage, there is nothinglike an absolutely uniform and regular language, [1] a _type tongue_, something that corresponds in the linguistic hierarchy to Euclid orthe 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 gentlemansaid was right. " If our beginner has imbibed his first notions ofgrammar through the medium of a type language, in which a noun isalways 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 anadjective is always an adjective, and is stamped as such by its form;and so on through all the other parts of speech, —when the teachercomes to analyse the sentence given, he will be able to explain it byreference to the known forms of the regular key-language. He will pointout that of the "thats": the first is the Esperanto _ke_ (which isfinal, because _ke_ never means anything else); the second is _tiu_ (atonce revealed by its form to be a demonstrative), the fourth _kiu_, andso on. As for the third "that, " which _is_ rather hard for a child tograsp, 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 notbe doing violence to the language; for Esperanto consists of roots, which habitually do duty as noun, verb, adjective, etc. , accordingto the termination added. Those who know the value of the concreteand tangible in dealing with children will grasp the significance ofthe new possibilities that are thus for the first time opened up tolanguage-teachers. 

To sum up: Natural languages are all hard, and the beginner can nevergo far enough to get a rule fixed soundly in his mind without meetingexceptions which puzzle and confuse him. Esperanto is as clear, logical, and consistent as arithmetic, and, like arithmetic, depends more uponintelligence than upon memory work. If Esperanto were adopted as thefirst foreign language to be taught in schools, and all grammaticalteaching were postponed until Esperanto had been begun, and then givenentirely through the medium of Esperanto until a sound notion ofgrammatical rules and categories had been instilled, it would probablybe found that the subsequent task of learning natural languages wouldbe facilitated and abridged. From the very start it would be possibleto prevent certain common errors and confusions, that tend to becomeengrained in juvenile minds by the fluctuating or contradictory usage oftheir own language, to their great let and hindrance in the subsequentstages of language-learning. The skeleton outline of grammaticaltheory with concrete examples afforded by Esperanto would shieldagainst vitiating initial mistakes, in much the same way as the use ofa scientific phonetic alphabet, when a foreign language is presentedfor the first time to the English beginner in written form, shieldshim against carrying over his native mixed vowel system to languageswhich use the same letters as English, but give quite a different valueto them. In both cases[1] the essentials of the new instrument oflearning are the same—that it be of universal application, that it besufficiently different from the mother-tongue or alphabet to preventconfusion by association of ideas, that each of the new forms or lettersconvey only one idea or sound respectively, and that this idea or soundbe 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 rewardingsubject of study for children. 

The above remarks on sequence of languages show that, by placingEsperanto first in the language curriculum, justice is done to thepsychological maxim: from the easier to the harder, from the regularto the exceptional. It may further be argued (_a_) that Esperanto iseducative in the real sense of the word, i. E. Suitable for drawingout and developing the reasoning powers; (_b_) that it would act asa stimulus, and by its ease set a higher standard of attainment inlanguage-learning. 

(_a_) Amidst all the discussion of "educationists" about methods, curricula, sequence of studies, and the rest, one fundamental factcontinues to face the teacher when he gets down to business; andthat is, that he has got to make the taught think for themselves. In proportion as his teaching makes them contribute their share ofeffort 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 ourold wine in, the fact is there: children have got to be made to usetheir own brains. The eternal question that faces the teacher is, how toprovide problems that children really can work out by using their ownbrains. The trouble about history, geography, English literature, andsuch subjects is that the subject-matter of the problems they offer forsolution lies beyond the experience of the young, and to a large extentbeyond their reasoning powers. In teaching all such subjects there isaccordingly the perpetual danger that the real work done may degenerateinto mere memory work, or parrot-like cramming of notes or dates. 

The same difficulty is encountered in science teaching. Heuristicmethods have been devised to meet the difficulty. Though they are nodoubt psychologically sound, they tend to be very slow in results; hencethe common jibe that a boy may learn as much by them in five years as hecould learn out of a shilling text-book in a term. 

The old argument that "mental gymnastics" are best supplied by Latinis sound to the extent that Latin really does furnish a perpetualseries of small problems that have to be solved by the aid of grammarand dictionary, but which do involve real mental effort, since meremechanical looking out of words does not suffice for their elucidation. But for various reasons, such as the remoteness of the ancient worldin time, place, modes of thought, etc. , Latin tends to be too hard andnot interesting enough for the average boy. He gets discouraged, anddevelops a habit of only working enough to keep out of trouble with theschool authorities, and is apt to leave school with an unintelligentattitude towards intellectual things in general. This is the result ofearly drudging at a subject in which progress is very slow, and whichby its nature is uncongenial. The great desideratum is a linguisticsubject 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 fruitfullike the consciousness of making rapid progress. 

Hitherto arithmetic and Euclid have been the ideal subjects forproviding the kind of problem required—one that can be worked outwith certainty by the aid of rule and use of brain, without callingfor knowledge or experience that the child cannot have. The factsare self-evident, and follow from principles, without involving anyextraneous acquaintance with life or literature, and no deadeningmemory work is required. If only there were some analogous subject onthe literary side, to give a general grip of principles, uncomplicatedby any arbitrary element, what a boon it would be! and what a soundpreparation for real and more advanced linguistic study for those whoshowed aptitude for this line! Arithmetic and Euclid both really dependupon common sense; but partly owing to their abstract nature, and partlybecause they are always classed as "mathematics, " they seem to containsomething repellent to many literary or linguistic types of mind. 

With the invention of a perfectly regular and logically constructedlanguage, a concrete embodiment of the chief principles of languagestructure, we have offered us for the first time the hitherto missinglinguistic equivalent of arithmetic or Euclid. In a regular language, just because everything goes by rule, problems can be set and workedout analogous to sums in arithmetic and riders in Euclid. Given thenecessary roots and rules, the learner can manufacture the necessaryvocabulary and produce the answer with the same logical inevitability;and he has to use his brains to apply his rules, instead of merelycopying words out of a dictionary, or depending upon his memory forthem. 

In this way all that part of language-study which tends to be deadweight in teaching the young is got rid of in one fell swoop, andthis though the language taught and learnt is a highly developedinstrument for reading, writing, speaking, and literary expression. This dead weight includes most of the unintelligent memorizing, allexceptions, all complicated systems of declension and conjugation, all irregular comparison of adjectives and adverbs, all syntacticalsubtleties (cf. The sequence of tenses, oratio obliqua, the syntax ofsubordinate clauses, in Latin; and the famous conditional sentences, with the no less notorious _ού_ and _μή_ in Greek), all conflicting andillogical 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, especiallythe syntax, which involves a real feeling for language. But thesewould be much better postponed until one easy foreign language hasbeen learnt thoroughly. Every multilinguist knows that each foreignlanguage is easier to learn than the last. With a perfectly regularartificial language you can make so much progress in a short time thatyou can use it freely for practical purposes. Yet it does not come ofitself, like the mother-tongue. _This free manipulation of a consciouslyacquired language is the very best training for forming a feeling forlanguage_—far better than weary stumbling over the baby stages of a hardlanguage. When you can read, write, and speak one very easy artificiallanguage, which you have had to learn as a foreign one, then is the timewhen you can profitably tackle the difficulties of natural language, appreciating the niceties of syntax, and realizing, by comparison withyour normal key-language, in what points natural languages are merelyarbitrary and have to be learnt by heart. Those who have early conqueredthe grammar and syntax of any foreign language, but have had to put inyears of hard (largely memory) work before they could write or speak, e. G. , Latin Latin, French French, or German German, will realize thesaving effected, when they are told that Esperanto has no idiom, noarbitrary usage. The combination of words is not governed, as in naturallanguages, by tradition (which tradition has to be assimilated in thesweat 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 thatlanguage riders can be worked out in the same way as geometricalones. To understand this some knowledge of the language is necessary(for sample problems see Appendix A, p. 200). But for the sake ofmaking the argument intelligible it may here be stated that one of thelabour-saving, vocabulary-saving devices of Esperanto is the employmentof a number of suffixes with fixed meaning, that can be added to anyroot. 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 theidea of health, form words for "to heal" (_san-ig-i_ = to cause to bewell); "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 areinfinite; they give a healthy knowledge of word-building, and can beused in putting whole pages of carefully prepared idiomatic English intoEsperanto. Practical experience shows that, given the necessary cruderoots, the necessary suffixes, and a one-page grammar of the Esperantolanguage, an intelligent person can produce in Esperanto a translationof a page of idiomatic English, not Ollendorfian phrases, _without havinglearnt Esperanto_. 

(_b_) Experience also shows that the intelligent one thoroughly enjoyshimself while doing so; and having done so, experiences a thrill ofexhilaration almost amounting to awe at having made a better translationinto a language he has never learnt than he could make into a nationallanguage that he has learnt for years, e. G. Latin, French, or German. 

And what is exhilaration in the dry tree may be sustained workingkeenness in the green. The stimulus to the young mind of progress swiftand sure is immense. A child who has learnt to read, write, and speakEsperanto in six months, as is very possible within the natural limitsof power of expression imposed by his age, not only has a sound workingknowledge of grammatical categories and forms, which will stand himin good stead in subsequent language-learning; he has also a quitedifferent attitude of mind—_une tout autre mentalité_, to use recentjargon—towards foreign languages. His only experience of learning onehas been that he did so with the object and result of being able toread, write, and speak it within a reasonable time. "By so much thegreater and more resounding the slump into actuality, " you will say, "when he comes to grapple with his next. " Perhaps. But even so, thehabit of acquiring fresh words and forms for immediate use must surelytell—not to mention that he will incidentally have acquired a veryuseful Romance vocabulary, and a wholly admirable French lucidity ofconstruction. 

(3) And this question of lucidity brings us to the third greateducational advantage of Esperanto. Its opponents—without havingever learnt it to see—have urged that its preciseness will debauchthe literary sense. Surely the exact opposite is the fact. _Le stylec'est l'homme_, and the essence of true style is that a man should giveaccurate expression to his thoughts. The French wit, satirizing vapidfine writing, said that language was given to man to enable him toconceal his thought. There is no more potent instrument for obscuringor concealing thought than the ready-made phrase. Take up many apiece of journalese or other slipshod writing, and note how often theconventional phrase or word slips from under the pen, meaning nothingin particular. The very conventionality disguises from writer andreader the confusion or absolute lack of idea it serves to cloak. Bothare lulled by the familiar sound of the set phrase or word and glideeasily over them. On the other hand, in using a language in which youconstruct 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 afatal 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 ofpeople, after attending morning service, were asked how they wouldrender 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 thesuffix _-aĵ_, and then _-o_, it becomes concrete = a desire- (i. E. Desired) thing, a desire. A reference to the dictionary showed that theEnglish word "desire" has both these meanings, but none of these peoplehad 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 ofbeef, and was asked which he expected to be fulfilled—the beef, or hisaspiration for beef—that he, under the stimulus of hunger, adopted therendering _dezir-o_, thereby saving at once his bacon and his additionalbeef. 

It is not of course necessary for people to define pedantically tothemselves the meaning of every word they use, but surely it mustconduce to clear thinking to use a language in which you are perpetuallycalled upon, if you are writing seriously, to make just the mentaleffort necessary to think what you do mean. 

Again, consider the use of prepositions. This is, in nearly all nationallanguages, extremely fluctuating and arbitrary. Take a few Englishphrases showing the use of the prepositions "at" and "with. " "At seveno'clock"; "at any price"; "at all times"; "at the worst"; "let it goat that"; "I should say at a guess, " etc. "Come with me"; "write witha pen"; "he came with a rush"; "things are different with us"; "with atwinkle in his eye"; "with God all things are possible, " etc. Try toturn these phrases into any language you think you know; the odds arethat you will find yourself "up against it pretty badly. " The fact is, that prepositions are very frequently used on no logical plan, not atall according to any fixed or universal meaning; all that can be saidabout them in a given phrase is that they are used there because theyare used. To remember their equivalents in other languages hard memorywork and much phrase-learning is necessary. In Esperanto all that isnecessary is: first, to become clear as to the exact meaning; secondly, to pick the preposition that conveys it. There is no doubt, as theEsperanto prepositions are fixed in sense, on the "one word one meaning"plan. The point is, that there is no memory searching, often so utterlyvain, for there are few people indeed who can write a few pages of themost familiar foreign languages without getting their prepositions allwrong, 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 makesdiscouraging jargon of your literary attempts. 

This training in clear thought, the first requisite for all goodwriting, is surely sound practical pedagogics. By the time you can giveup conscious word-building in Esperanto, and use words and phrases byrote, you have done enough bracing thinking to teach you caution in theuse of the ready-made phrase and horror of the vague word. 

Fools make phrases, and wise men shun them. Here is a phrase-freelanguage: 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 andvariety of different ideas that can be expressed by a single Esperantoroot, with the addition of affixes (prefixes and suffixes). By readingthe English, French, and German columns downwards, the reader will seehow many different roots and periphrases these languages employ in orderto express the same ideas. 

As the affixes have fixed meanings, they only have to be learnt oncefor all, and many of them (e. G. _-ist_, _-in_, _re-_) are alreadyfamiliar. When once acquired, they can be used in unending permutationand combination with different roots and each other. The tables beloware by no means exhaustive of what can be done with the roots _san-_and _lern-_. They are merely illustrative. By referring to the fulltable of affixes in Part IV, Chapter IV, the reader can go on formingnew 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 healthymal- (opposite) mal-san-a illne (not) ne-san-a unwell-ig (causative) san-ig-i to heal san-ig-a salutaryre- (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 inmatesge- (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 portantmal- (opposite) mal-san-a maladene (not) ne-san-a (un peu) souffrant-ig (causative) san-ig-i guérir san-ig-a salutairere- (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 maladesge- (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 gesundmal- (opposite) mal-san-a krankne (not) ne-san-a unwohl-ig (causative) san-ig-i heilen san-ig-a heilsamre- (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 Krankenge- (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 pupilge- (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 studiousmal- (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 élèvege- (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 appliquémal- (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 Schülerge- (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 fleissigmal- (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 ofthe Esperanto verb. 

Every tense, active and passive, is formed with never more than twowords. Every shade of meaning (continued, potential, etc. , action) isexpressed 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 ofconfusing and often illogical distinctions (cf. French _je suis allé_, but _j'ai couru_), disappears. Contrast the simplicity of _amota_ withthe cumbersome periphrasis _about to be loved_; or the perfect ease andclearness of _vi estus amita_ with the treble-barrelled German _Siewürden geliebt worden sein_. 

This simplicity of the Esperanto verb is entirely due to its fullparticipial system. There are six participles, present, past, and futureactive and passive, each complete in one word. The only natural Aryanlanguage (of those commonly studied) that compares with Esperanto inthis respect is Greek; and it is precisely the fulness of the Greekparticipial system that lends to the language a great part of thatflexibility which all ages have agreed in admiring in it pre-eminently. Take a page of Plato or any other Greek author, and count the numberof participles and note their use. They will be found more numerousand more delicately effective than in other languages. Esperanto cando all this; and it can do it without any of the complexity of formand irregularity that makes the learning of Greek verbs such a hardtask. Bearing in mind the three characteristic vowels of the threetenses—present _-a_, past _-i_, future _-o_ (common to finite tensesand participles)—the proverbial schoolboy, and the dullest at that, could hardly make the learning of the Esperanto participles last himhalf an hour. 

It would be easy to go on filling page after page with thesimplifications effected by Esperanto, but these will not fail to strikethe learner after a very brief acquaintance with the language. Butattention ought to be drawn to one more particularly clever device—theform of asking questions. An Esperanto statement is converted into aquestion without any inversion of subject and verb or any change atall, except the addition of the interrogative particle _ĉu_. In thisEsperanto agrees with Japanese. But whereas Japanese adds its particle_ka_ at the end of the sentence, the Esperanto _ĉu_ stands first in itsclause. Thus when, speaking Esperanto, you wish to ask a question, youbegin by shouting out _ĉu_, an admirably distinctive monosyllable whichcannot be confused with any other word in the language. By this meansyou get your interlocutor prepared and attending, and you can then frameyour question at leisure. 

Contrast Esperanto and English in the ease with which they respectivelyconvert 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 ofinterrogation used in Spanish, and serves to remove all complications inconnexion with word order. 

 * * * * *

ESPERANTO ENGLISH

amanta lovingaminta having lovedamonta about to loveamata being lovedamita (having been) lovedamota about to be lovedmi estas aminta I have lovedvi estis aminta you had lovedli estas amanta he is lovingŝi estis amata she was being lovedni estos amintaj we shall have lovedvi estas amataj you are lovedili estas amitaj they have been lovedmi estus aminta I should have lovedvi estus amita you would have been lovedli estas foririnta he has gone awayili estus foririntaj they would have gone away

ESPERANTO FRENCH

amanta aimantaminta ayant aiméamonta devant aimeramata étant aiméamita (ayant été) aiméamota devant être aimémi estas aminta j'ai aimévi estis aminta vous aviez aiméli estas amanta il est aimantŝi estis amata elle était en train d'être aiméeni estos amintaj nous aurons aimévi estas amataj vous êtes aimésili estas amitaj ils ont été aimésmi estus aminta j'aurais aimévi estus amita vous auriez été aiméli estas foririnta il s'en est alléili estus foririntaj il s'en seraient allés

ESPERANTO GERMAN

amanta liebendaminta der geliebt hatamonta der lieben wirdamata der geliebt wirdamita der geliebt worden istamota der geliebt werden sollmi estas aminta ich habe geliebtvi estis aminta Sie hatten geliebtli estas amanta er ist liebendŝi estis amata sie war im Zuge geliebt zu werdenni estos amintaj wir werden geliebt habenvi estas amataj Sie werden geliebtili estas amitaj sie sind geliebt wordenmi estus aminta ich würde geliebt habenvi estus amita Sie würden geliebt worden seinli estas foririnta er ist fortgegangenili estus foririntaj sie würden fortgegangen sein

 * * * * *

This chapter on labour-saving may fitly conclude with an estimateof the amount of mere memorizing work to be done in Esperanto. Since this is almost _nil_ for grammar, syntax, and idiom, andsince there are no irregularities or exceptions, the memory workis, broadly speaking, reduced to learning the affixes, the tableof correlatives, and a certain number of new roots. This number isastonishingly small. Here is an estimate made by Prof. Macloskie, of Princeton, U. S. A. :

 Number of roots new to an English boy without Latin, about 600* " " " " " with " " 300 " " " a college teacher " 100

 *i. E. About one-third of the whole number in the _Fundamento_. 

 IV

 HOW ESPERANTO CAN BE USED AS A CODE LANGUAGE TO COMMUNICATE WITH PERSONS WHO HAVE NEVER LEARNT IT

Technically speaking, Esperanto combines the characteristics of aninflected language with those of an agglutinative one. This means thatthe syllables used as inflexions (_-o_, _-a_, _-e_, _-as_, _-is_, _-os_, _-ant-_, _-int-_, _-ont-_, etc. ), being invariable and of universalapplication, can also be regarded as separate words. And as separatewords they all figure in the dictionary, under their initial letters. Thus anything written in Esperanto can be deciphered by the simpleprocess of looking out words and parts of words in the dictionary. Forexamples, see pieces 1 and 2 in the specimens of Esperanto, pp. 167-8[Part IV, Chapter II], and read the Note at the beginning of Part IV. Asthe Esperanto dictionary only consists of a few pages, it can be easilycarried in the pocket-book or waistcoat pocket. 

Thus, while to the educated person of Aryan speech Esperanto presentsthe natural appearance of an ordinary inflected language, one whobelongs by speech to another lingual family, or any one who has neverheard of Esperanto, can regard every inflected word as a compound ofinvariable elements. By turning over very few pages he can determinethe meaning and use of each element, and therefore, by putting themtogether, he can arrive at the sense of the compound word, e. G. _lav'ist'in'o_. Look out _lav-_, and you find "wash"; look out _-ist_, and you find it expresses the person who does an action; look out _-in_, and you find it expresses the feminine; look out _-o_, and you find itdenotes a noun. Put the whole together, and you get "female who doeswashing, laundress. "

Suppose you are going on an ocean voyage, and you expect to be shut upfor weeks in a ship with persons of many nationalities. You take withyou keys to Esperanto, price one halfpenny each, in various languages. You wish to tackle a Russian. Write your Esperanto sentence clearlyand put the paper in his hand. At the same time hand him a Russian keyto Esperanto, pointing to the following paragraph (in Russian) on theoutside:

"Everything written in the international language can be translated bythe help of this vocabulary. If several words together express but asingle idea, they are written in one word, but separated by apostrophes;e. G. _frat'in'o_, though a single idea, is yet composed of three words, which must be looked for separately in the vocabulary. "

After he has got over his shock of surprise, your Russian, if a man ofordinary education, will make out your sentence in a very short time byusing the key. 

As an example Dr. Zamenhof gives the following sentence: "Mi nesci'as kie mi las'is la baston'o'n: Ĉu vi ĝi'n ne vid'is?" With thevocabulary this sentence will work out as follows:

 Mi mi = I I ne ne = not not sci'as sci = know as = sign of present tense do know kie kie = where where mi mi = I I las'is las = leave is = sign of past tense have left la la = the the baston'o'n baston = stick o = sign of a noun n = sign of objective case stick ĉu ĉu = whether, sign of question whether vi vi = you you ĝi'n ĝi = it n = sign of objective case it ne ne = not not vid'is vid = leave is = sign of past tense have seen

It is obvious that no natural language can be used in the same way as acode to be deciphered with a small key. 

 German French

 Ich I je I weiss white ne not nicht not sais ? wo where pas step ich I où where den ? j'ai ? Stock stick laissé ? gelassen dispassionate la the habe: property: canne: reed: haben to have ne not Sie she, they, you, l'avez ? ihn ? vous you nicht not pas step gesehen ? vu ? ?

If your Russian wishes to reply, hand him a Russian-Esperantovocabulary, pointing to the following paragraph on the outside:

"To express anything by means of this vocabulary, in the internationallanguage, look for the words required in the vocabulary itself; and forthe terminations necessary to distinguish the grammatical forms, look inthe grammatical appendix, under the respective headings of the parts ofspeech which you desire to express. "

The whole of the grammatical structure is explained in a few lines inthis appendix, so the grammar can be looked out as easily as the rootwords. 

 PART IV

 SPECIMENS OF ESPERANTO, WITH GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY

 NOTE

The best way of learning Esperanto is to begin at once to read thelanguage. Do not trouble to learn the grammar and list of suffixes bythemselves first. All this can be picked up easily in the course ofreading. 

In the following specimens the first two pieces are marked forbeginners. Each part of a word marked off by hyphens is to be looked outseparately in the vocabulary. By the time the beginner has read thesetwo pieces carefully in this way he will know the grammar, and have afair idea of the structure of the language and the use of affixes. 

In order to save time in looking out words, and so quicken the processof learning, the English translation of the third piece is givenin parallel columns. Therefore in this piece only the principalwords, which might be unfamiliar to English readers, are given in thevocabulary. Word-formation and some points of grammar are explained inthe notes. 

To get a practical grasp of Esperanto, cover the left-hand (Esperanto)column with a piece of paper after reading it, and re-translate theEnglish into Esperanto, using the notes. After half an hour per day ofsuch exercise for two or three weeks, an ordinary educated person willknow Esperanto pretty well. 

N. B. —It is very important to acquire a correct pronunciation at thestart. Study the pronunciation rules, and practise reading aloud beforebeginning to translate. _Read slowly. _

 I

 PRONUNCIATION

_Vowels_

There are no long and short, open and closed, vowels: just five simple, full-sounding vowels, always pronounced the same. English people must beparticularly careful to make them sufficiently full. 

 _a_ as _a_ in Engl. "father. " _e_ " _ey_ " " "they. " _i_ " _ee_ " " "eel. " _o_ " _o_ " " "hole, " inclining to _o_ in Engl. "more. " (English speakers find it hard to pronounce a true _o_. ) _u_ " _oo_ " " "moon. "

In short, the vowels are as in Italian. 

_Diphthongs_

 _aj_ as _eye_ in Engl. "eye. " _oj_ " _oy_ " " "boy. " _aŭ_ " _ow_ " " "cow. " (_eŭ_ " _e. .. W_ " " "g_e_t _w_et": this sound does not often occur. )

_Consonants_

These are pronounced as in English, except the following:

 _c_ as _ts_ in Engl. "bits. " _ĉ_ " _ch_ " " "church. " _g_ " _g_ " " "give. " _ĝ_ " _g_ " " "gentle. " _ĥ_ " _ch_ " Scotch "loch, " or German "ich. " _j_ " _y_ " Engl. "yes. " _ĵ_ " _s_ " " "pleasure. " _ŝ_ " _sh_ " " "shilling. " _ŭ_ " _w_ " " "cow" (only occurs in the diphthongs _aŭ_ and _eŭ_). 

_Accent_

Always upon the last syllable but one. 

_Example_

The first few lines of piece I in the following specimens may be thusfigured for English readers:

Gayseenyóroy—mee noon déeros ahl vee káylkine vórtoyn Ayspayráhntay. Mee kraydahs kay vee ówdos, kay Ayspayráhnto áystahs tray fahtséelah kibaylsónah léengvo. 

N. B. —The precise sound of _e_ is between _a_ in "b_a_le" and _e_ in"b_e_ll. "

 II

 SPECIMENS OF ESPERANTO

 1. PAROL-AD-O

Ge-sinjor-o-j—mi nun dir-os al vi kelk-a-j-n vort-o-j-n Esperant-e. Mikred-as ke vi aŭd-os, ke Esperant-o est-as tre facil-a kaj bel-son-alingv-o. Ver-e, ĝi est-as tiel facil-a, sonor-a kaj simpl-a, ke onitut-e ne hav-as mal-facil-ec-o-n por lern-i ĝi-n. La lern-ant-o-jpov-as ordinar-e kompren-i, leg-i, skrib-i kaj parol-i ĝin en tremal-long-a temp-o. La fakt-o ke Esperant-o en-hav-as tre mal-mult-a-j-n, vokal-a-j-n son-o-j-n, kaj ke la vokal-o-j est-as ĉiu-j long-a-j kajplen-son-a-j, est-ig-as ĝin mult-e pli facil-a ol la ali-a-j lingv-o-j, ĉiu por aŭ-d-i, ĉiu por el-parol-i. 

Mi kred-as ke mal-long-a lern-ad-o est-os sufiĉ-a por vi-nkompren-ig-i, ke la hom-o-j de ĉiu-j naci-o-j pov-as inter-parol-iEsperant-e sen mal-facil-ec-o. 

Mi ne de-ten-os vi-n pli long-e. Fin-ant-e, mi las-os kun vi dufraz-et-o-j-n: unu-e, por la ideal-ist-o-j, kiu-j cel-as unu frat-ec-o-ninter la popol-o-j de ĉiu land-o, la Esperant-a-n deviz-o-n—"Dum nispir-as ni esper-as": du-e, por la hom-o-j praktik-a-j la praktik-a-nkonsil-o-n—"Lern-u Esperant-o-n. "

 2. LA MAR-BORD-IST-O-J: ALEGORI-ET-O

Ĉirkaŭ grand-a mez-ter-a mar-o viv-is mult-a-j popol-o-j. Ili hav-ismult-a-n inter-a-n komerc-o-n. Ĉar la mar-o est-is oft-e mal-trankvil-akaj ili hav-is nur mal-grand-a-j-n ŝip-o-j-n, ili vetur-is laŭ-long-ela mar-bord-o, neniam perd-ant-e la ter-o-n el la vid-o. 

Cert-a hom-o el-pens-is ŝip-o-n, kiu ir-is per vapor-o. Li dir-is al lamar-bord-ist-o-j: "Jen, ni met-u ni-a-n mon-o-n kun-e, kaj ni konstru-ugrand-a-j-n vapor-ŝip-o-j-n. Tiel ni vetur-os rekt-e trans la mar-o unual ali-a-n; kaj ni far-os pli da komerc-o en mal-pli da temp-o. " Sed lamar-bord-ist-o-j pli am-is ĉirkaŭ-ir-i en mal-grand-a-j ŝip-o-j, kielili kutim-is. La el-pens-int-o ne hav-is sufiĉ-e da mon-o por konstru-igrand-a-n vapor-ŝip-o-n, kiu tre mult-e en-hav-os kaj tre rapid-evojaĝ-os; tial li dev-is vetur-ad-i en si-a mez-grand-a vapor-ŝip-o, kiu tamen almenaŭ rekt-e ir-is ĉie-n. Sed la mar-bord-ist-o-jdaŭr-ig-is rem-i kaj vel-i ĉirkaŭ-e. 

 3. NESAĜA GENTO: AN UNWISE[1] RACE: ALEGORIO AN ALLEGORY

Malproksime, en nekonata lando, Far[2] away, in an unknown[3]vivis sovaĝa gento. Ili loĝis en land, there lived a savage race, la mezo de vasta ebenaĵo, izolata They dwelt in the midst of ade la ekstera mondo. Unuflanken vast plain, [4] cut off from thehomo dek tagojn vojaĝante venus outer[5] world. Towards oneal montegaro: aliflanke staris side[6] a man journeying[7] tengranda lago kaj senlimaj marĉoj. Days[8] would come to a bigTiel oni vivadis trankvile laŭ mountain-range[9]; on the otherpatra kutimo, tute senzorga pri side stood a great lake andla ago kaj faro de aliaj homgentoj boundless[10] swamps. Thus[11]transmontanaj. En somero estis they lived[12] quietly aftervarmege, kaj ĉiu vintro ŝajnis the manner of their fathers, pli malvarma ol la antaŭa; sed caring nothing[13] for the wayla tero estis fruktodona, ĝi of life[14] of other men beyonddonis al ili sufiĉe da greno the hills. In summer it waspor manĝi, kaj la riveroj kaj very hot, [15] and every winterriveretoj plene provizis puran seemed colder than the last;trinkaĵon. But the earth was fertile, it gave them enough corn[16] to eat, and the streams and rivers furnished abundance of pure water to drink. [17]

 [1]Unwise. Wise = _saĝa_; _ne_ = not. [2]Far. Near = _proksim-e_ (_e_ = adverbial ending). To be near = _proksimi_. _Mal-_ is a prefix denoting the opposite. [3]Unknown. To know = _koni_. Pres. Part. Pass. _-at-_ Negative = _ne_. (_bona_ = good; _malbona_ = bad; _nebona_ = not good. ) [4]Plain. Flat = _eben-a_. _aĵ_ is a suffix denoting something made from or possessing the quality of. [5]Outer. Outside (preposition) = _ekster_. _a_ denotes an adjective. [6]Towards one side. Side = _flank-o_. _e_ denotes an adverb; _flanke_ = "sidely, " i. E. At the side, _n_ denotes motion towards. [7]Journeying. This participial phrase qualifies the verb, _venus_, like an adverb. In Esperanto the participle therefore takes an _e_ which denotes an adverb. [8]Ten days, i. E. For the duration of ten days. Duration of time is put in the accusative case. [9]Big mountain-range. Mountain = _mont-o_. _eg_ is a suffix denoting bigness; _ar_ is a suffix denoting a collection. [10]Boundless. Limit = _lim-o_. Without = _sen_. [11]Thus. See p. 193 [Part IV, Chapter V] for correlatives. [12]They lived. To live = _viv-i_. _ad_ is a suffix denoting continued action. [13]Caring nothing. Care = _zorg-o_. _Sen_ = without. _a_ denotes an adjective. [14]Way of life. Lit. The acting and doing. [15]It was very hot. In such impersonal uses of the adjective, the adverbial form is used. [16]Enough corn, _da_ is used after words of quantity. _Sufiĉan grenon_ would also be right. [17]Water to drink. Lit. Drink-stuff, or drink-thing. 

Tiel ili vivadis ne malfeliĉe, Thus they lived not unhappily, kaj ilia vivo estis la vivo and their life was the life ofde la prapatroj, ĉar ili ne their forefathers, for they knewsciis kiel ĝin plibonigi. Not how to better[1] it. ButSed mankis en ilia lando unu in their land one thing[2] wasaĵo, kaj pro tiu ĉi manko lacking; and for[3] lack of thisili multe suferis: en la tuta they suffered greatly: therelando ĉeestis nenia ŝirmilo, was[4] no shelter[5] in all theĉu kontraŭ la suno en somero, land, whether against the sun inĉu por forteni la vintrajn summer, or to keep off[6] theventojn. Ĉiuflanke la tero estis winter winds. On every side theplata; kaj kvankam la greno ground was flat; and although cornkaj ĉiuspecaj legomoj kreskis and all kinds of[7] vegetablesbone, arboj estis nekonataj. Eĉ grew well, trees were unknown. La malproksima montaro staris Even the distant mountains stoodtutnuda; kaj kiam la ventoj all bare; and when the winds blewblovis forte el ĝiaj neĝoj, la strong from amidst their[8] snows, mizeruloj tremetis pro malvarmeco, the poor folk shivered for cold, kaj ne povis eĉ en siaj dometoj and could not get comfortable[9]komfortiĝi, ĉar la penetranta even in their cottages, for theenfluo de malvarma aero stele penetrating draught of the coldeniris ĝis la familian kamenon. Air crept[10] right in to the family fireside. 

 [1]Better. Good = _bon-a_; better = _pli bona_; suf. _-ig_ is causative. [2]One thing. The concrete suffix _-aĵ_ by itself may be used to express "thing. " Of course it takes the substantival ending _o_. [3]For lack. Esperanto is absolutely precise in the use of prepositions according to sense. No idiom. In this it differs from all other languages. Here "for" means "by reason of. " [4]There was. _Est-i_ = to be; _ĉe_ = at; _ĉeesti_ = to be present. [5]Shelter. To shelter = _ŝirm-i_; _il_ is a suffix expressing instrument. [6]Keep off. To hold = _ten-i_; away = _for_. [7]All kinds of. Kind = _spec-o_; all = _ĉiu_. _a_ is adjectival ending. [8]Their snows. Whose snows? The mountains'. Therefore _ĝiaj_, referring to _montaro_. If "their" referred to "winds, " it would be _siaj_. [9]Get comfortable. Comfort(able) = _komfort-o_; suf. _iĝ_ denotes becoming. [10]Crept in. To steal = _ŝtel-i_; _-e_ makes it an adverb. 

Nu okazis ke certa knabo, pensema Now, it happened that a certainpreter siaj jaroj, komencis boy, thoughtful[1] beyond hispripensi tiun ĉi mizeran staton. Years, began to think over thisLi vivis kun sia vidvina patrino, wretched state of things. Hekiu havis du infanetojn krom lived with his[2] widowed mother, Namezo (tiel nomiĝis la knabo). Who had two little childrenIli estis tre malriĉaj, kaj devis besides Namezo (this was the lad'ssenĉese labori por nutri sin name[3]). They were very poor, mem kaj la infanojn. La vidvino and were obliged to work hardne havis pli ol kvardek jarojn, without stopping to get food forsed Namezo rimarkis ke vespere, themselves and the children. Thepost la taga laboro, ŝi ŝajnis widow was not more than forty, buttute lacega, kaj kelkajn jarojn Namezo noticed that of an evening, post la morto de sia edzo ŝi after the day's work, she seemedekmaljuniĝis. Ofte la knabo diris quite tired out, [4] and a fewal ŝi, ke ŝi devus pli ripozi, years[5] after her husband's deathsed ĉiumatene post la nokto ŝi she grew old all at once. [6] Oftenhavis mienon tiel same lacegan the boy told her she ought to takekiel vespere; kaj ŝi plendis ke more rest, but every morning[7]la trablovaj ventoj suferigis sin she had the same worn-out look asnokte per reŭmatismaj doloroj, in the evening; and she complainedkaj somere ŝi ne povis dormi pro that the winds blowing through ofvarmeco. Tiam la knabo turnis a night plagued[8] her with[9]la okulojn ekster sia hejmo kaj rheumatic pains, and in summerrigardis ĉirkaŭen. Li vidis ke she could not sleep because ofĉiuflanke estis tiel same: la the heat. Then the boy turned hisgeviroj frue maljuniĝis kaj multe eyes outwards from his home andsuferis. Li pensis, "Baldaŭ estos looked around him. He saw that onal mi ankaŭ simile; la juneco every side it was the same[10]:estas mallonga kaj labora, kaj la men and women[11] grew old earlyvivo estas longa kaj ĉagrena. " and suffered much. He thought, Fine li malgajadis. "Soon it will be the same with me; youth[12] is short and full of work, and life is long and full of trouble. " At last he became gloomy altogether. [13]

 [1]Thoughtful. To think = _pens-i_; suf. _-em_ denotes propensity. [2]With his widowed mother, i. E. His own = _sia_. [3]This was his name. To name = _nom-i_; with suf. _-iĝ_ = to get named, to be called. [4]Tired out. Tired = _lac-a_; suf. _-eg_ denotes intensity. [5]A few years. Accusative of time. [6]She grew old all at once. Young = _jun-a_; old = _maljuna_; suf. _-iĝ_ denotes becoming; prefix _ek-_ denotes beginning, or sudden action. [7]Every morning = _ĉiumatene_. "The whole morning" would be _la tutan matenon_. [8]Plagued. To suffer = _sufer-i_; suf. _-ig_ is causative; _suferigi_ = to cause to suffer. [9]With. .. Pains. Think of the sense. "With" = by means of. [10]It was the same. Impersonal: use the adverbial form in _-e. _ [11]Men and women. Pref. _ge-_ denotes both sexes. [12]Youth. Young = _juna_; suf. _-ec_ denotes abstract. [13]Became gloomy altogether. Gay = _gaj-a_; gloomy = _malgaja_; suf. _-ad_ denotes continuance. 

Vintro forpasis, somero alvenis. Winter passed away, summer cameUnu nokton la knabo estis kuŝanta on. One night the boy was lyingen sia lito: li estis laboreginta in his bed: he had been workingen la kampoj, kaj estis tre laca, hard[1] in the fields, and wassed ju pli li penis ekdormi, very tired, but the more hedes pli li obstine vekiĝadis. Tried to go to sleep[2] theLa tutan fajran tagon la suno wider awake he grew. All throughestis malsupren brilinta sur la the long fiery day the sun hadtegmenton de la dometo, tiel ke la been beating down[3] on the roofkuŝejo nun similis fornon. Namezo of the cottage, so that thepensis kaj turniĝis, returniĝis sleeping-place[4] was now like ankaj repensis; la samaj pensoj, oven. Namezo thought and tossed, ĉiam ronde revenantaj, iĝis tossed and thought again; the sameturmento. Fine li ekdormetis, sed thoughts, always coming round inla konfuzigaj pensoj, ĉiam la a circle, became[5] a torture. Pensoj, ruladis eĉ en lia dormo At length he fell into a lightsenkompate tra lia cerbo. Sleep, [6] but the distracting[7] thoughts, always the thoughts, kept rolling[8] through his brain pitilessly, even in his sleep. 

Subite ekfalis sur lin granda All at once a great peace fellpaco. Li ŝajnis stari sur monta upon him. He seemed to be standingpinto. Laceco kaj zorgo ne estis on a mountain-peak. Weariness[9]plu. Ĉirkaŭe vasta soleco. Li and care were no more. Aroundkaj la monto—krom tio ekzistis vast solitude. He and thenenio, kaj li estis kontenta. Mountain—there was nought else, and he was glad. 

Al li, tiel lukse enspiranta la While he thus breathed in thefreŝan aeron, alvenis fluge fresh air with delight, a whiteblanka birdo. Ĝi aperis, li ne bird came flying. [10] It appeared, sciis kiel, el la ĉirkaŭanta he knew not how, out of thesoleco, kaj metiĝis apud li sur surrounding solitude, [11] and camela montan pinton. Ĝi komencis and perched[12] beside him on theparoli, kaj en lia sonĝo tio ĉi mountain-top. It began to speak, neniel lin surprizis. And in his dream this[13] in no way[14] astonished him. 

 [1]He had been working hard. Pluperfect, lit. He was having worked. Suf. _-eg_ denotes intensity. [2]To go to sleep. To sleep = _dorm-i_; pref. _ek-_ denotes beginning. [3]Down. Above = _supr-e_; below = _malsupre_; _n_ denotes motion. [4]Sleeping-place. To lie = _kuŝi_; suf. _-ej_ denotes place. [5]Became. Suf. _-iĝ_ denotes becoming; here used as a separate verb. [6]Fell into a light sleep. To sleep = _dorm-i_; suf. _-et_ denotes light sleep; pref. _ek-_ denotes beginning. [7]Distracting. Confused = _konfuz-a_; suf. _-ig_ denotes causation, confusion-causing. [8]Kept rolling. To roll = _rul-i_; suf. _-ad_ denotes continuance. [9]Weariness. Tired = _lac-a_; suf. _-ec_ denotes abstract. [10]Came flying. To fly = _flug-i_; root _flug-_ with adverbial ending _-e_ = flyingly. [11]Solitude. Alone = _sol-a_; suf. _-ec_ denotes abstract. [12]Came and perched. The idea of motion is conveyed by the accusative (_-n_) _pinton_. [13]This. Use neuter form in _-o_, because it stands alone. "This dream" = _tiu ĉi sonĝo_. [14]In no way. See table of correlatives, p. 193 [Part IV, Chapter V]. 

"Homa knabo, " diris la birdo, "Mortal[1] boy, " said the bird, faligante en lian manon semon dropping[2] a seed into his handel sia beko, "prenu tiun ĉi from its beak, "take this seed:semon: metu ĝin en la teron: put it in the ground: care forprizorgu ĝin, flegu ĝin, kaj it, tend it, and keep tending it. Flegadu ĝin. Post tempo plenigota In the fulness of time there willleviĝos el tiu ĉi semo kreskaĵo rise[3] from this seed such[5] atia, kian la viaj ĝis nun ne growth[4] as[5] your people[6]vidis. La aliaj homoj nomas ĝin never yet saw. Other peoples call_arbon_. Ĝi estos granda; kaj en it a _tree_. It will be big; andla venontaj jaroj, se oni deve in future[7] years, if it is dulyĝin flegos, naskiĝos el ĝi tended, there will spring from itarbaroj, kiuj estos ŝirmilo por groves, [8] which will give shelterla homaro, kaj por multaj aliaj to men and women, and will beceloj utilos. Sed flegi ĝin oni useful for many other ends. Butdevos, ĉar sen homa penado nenio tended it must be, for withoutal homoj prosperas. " man's striving nothing turns out well for men. "

Namezo volis respondi, sed dum Namezo was about to reply, butli levis la manon por rigardi la as he raised his hand to look atsemon, estis al li kvazaŭ li the seed, he seemed to turn[9]turniĝis, la kapo malsupren: la head downwards: the mountainmonto malaperis, kaj li disappeared, [10] and hefalis. .. Falis. .. Falis. .. . Fell. .. Fell. .. Fell. .. . 

 [1]Mortal. Man = _hom-o_; ending _-a_ makes it an adj. [2]Dropping. To fall = _fal-i_; suf. _-ig_ denotes causing to fall. [3]Rise. To raise = _lev-i_; suf. _-iĝ_ makes it intransitive. [4]A growth. To grow = _kreski_; "grow-thing" — _kresk-aĵ-o_. [5]Such. .. As. _Tia. .. Kia_ (= Latin _talis. .. Qualis). _ See table of correlatives, p. 193 [Part IV, Chapter V]. [6]Your people. You = _vi_; _-a_ makes it an adj. [7]Future. Future participle active of _ven-i_ = about to come. [8]Groves. Tree = _arb-o_; suf. _-ar_ denotes a collection of trees. [9]To turn. _Turn-i_ is transitive; suf. _-iĝ_ makes it intransitive. [10]Disappeared. To appear = _aper-i_; pref. _mal-_ denotes opposite. 

Tiam li estis denove veka en la Then he was awake again in theforna dometo, sed li ne povis sin oven-like[1] hut, but he couldmalhelpi, rigardi sian manon, por not refrain[2] from[3] looking atvidi ĉu la semo enestis. Semo his hand, to see if the seed wasneestis: kaj la pensoj rekomencis in it. There was no seed; and theruladi tra lia cerbo—tamen ne plu thoughts began to roll throughla antaŭaj turmentigaj pensoj, his brain again—yet no longersed novaj esperplenaj pensoj, ĉar the old[4] worrying thoughts, li kredis, pasie kredis, ke estas but new thoughts full of hope, ja ia veraĵo en lia sonĝo. For he believed, passionately believed, that there was indeed some truth[5] in his dream. 

Kaj nun la morgaŭa tago And now the new day began to dawn. Eklumiĝis. Li leviĝis kaj iris He got up and went about his work, al sia laboro, kaj tiun ĉi tagon and this day and many succeedingkaj multajn sekvantajn tagojn li days he went on working as usual, laboradis kiel kutime, parolante speaking to no one about his dreamal neniu pri la sema sonĝo. Of the seed. 

Sed kiam la tempo de rikolto But when harvest-time was over, forpasis, li aĉetis dudektagan he bought food[6] enough fornutraĵon kaj donis al la patrino twenty days and gave his mothersian restan ŝparaĵon el la the rest[7] of his harvest-tiderikolta tempo (ĉar vi scias, savings[8] (for you know thatke en la sezono de rikolto bona in the harvest season a goodlaboristo gajnas pli ol alitempe), workman[9] earns more than atdirante ke li devos vojaĝi, kaj other times), saying that heforestos dudek tagojn. La patrino must[10] go on a journey, andmiregis, ĉar neniam antaŭe li would[10] be away for twenty days. Estis lasinta ŝin eĉ unu tagon; His mother wondered greatly, forsed li estis bona filo, kaj ŝi he had never left[11] her beforekontraŭstaris lin en nenio. Even for a single day; but he was a good son to her, and she did not thwart him in anything. 

 [1]Oven-like. Oven = _forn-o_; ending _-a_ makes it an adjective. [2]Refrain. To help = _help-i_; to hinder = _malhelpi_; to hinder himself = _malhelpi sin. _ [3]Refrain from looking. In Esperanto use the simplest construction possible, _as long as it is clear_. The simple infinitive _rigardi_ is clear after _malhelpi sin. _ [4]The old thoughts. Before = _antaŭ_; ending _-a_ makes it an adjective. [5]Truth. Think of the sense. Here truth = "true-thing, " so use suf. _-aĵ_. "Truth" = abstract virtue = _vereco_. [6]Food. To feed = _nutr-i_; suf. _-aĵ_ denotes stuff. [7]The rest of. The rest = _rest-o_; ending _-a_ makes it an adjective = remaining. [8]Savings. To save up = _ŝpar-i_; _ŝpar-aĵ-o_ = save-thing (i. E. Sav_ed_ thing). [9]Workman. To work = _labor-i_; suf. _-ist_ denotes the agent. [10]He _must_ go. .. And _would_ be away. Esperanto syntax is perfectly simple. Just use the tense which the speaker would use, here the future; or any tense, so long as the meaning is clear. [11]He had left. Pluperfect = "he was having left, " _esti_ with past part. _active_. _Li estis lasita_ would mean "he had been left. "

Li forvojaĝis do, kaj post kvin So he journeyed forth, and in fivetagoj li ekvidis malproksime sur days he began to see far off onla horizonto blankan nubon, kiu the horizon a white cloud, whichdum la morgaŭa tago montriĝis turned out[1] in the course of thekiel monta pinto. Namezo salutis next day to be a mountain-peak. ĝin, kaj de tiu momento, sen ia Namezo saluted it, and from thatdubo, direktis sian iron tra la moment, without any doubt, bentebenaĵo ĉiam al ĝi. His course[2] across the plain constantly towards it. 

Kiam li alvenis piedon de When he came to the foot[3] ofla montoj, la deka tago jam the mountains, the tenth[4] dayfiniĝis. Efektive li estis grave was already drawing to an end. Trompiĝinta pri la distanco. Indeed, Namezo had been greatlyNeniam antaŭe li vidis monton, mistaken[5] in the distance. Hekaj tial, kiam li ekvidis la had never seen a mountain before, pinton meze de la vojaĝo, li and so, when he caught sight ofkredis ke li ĵus alvenas, kaj the peak half-way, he thoughtmarŝis pli malrapide. Tri tagojn he was just getting there, andli pensis ĉiumatene, "Mi estos walked slower. For three days hehodiaŭ vespere ĉe la montpiedo; thought every morning, "I shallmorgaŭ mi suprenrampos ĝis la be at the foot of the mountainspinton. " Sed nun li sciis, ke li this evening; to-morrow I'llestas malfrua. Li formanĝis jam climb[6] to the top. " But nowla duonon de sia provizaĵo, kaj he knew that he was late. [7] Hedum la lastaj mejloj li ekvidis had already eaten up half[8] ofke lia pinto estas parto de vasta his provisions, [9] and for thesenlima montegaro, ke ĝi ankoraŭ last few miles he was beginningmalproksimas kaj li tute ne tiel to see that his peak was partfacile supreniros. Li kalkulis ke of a boundless mountain-range, almenaŭ oktaga nutraĵo estos that it was still far off andnecesa por reiri hejmen de la he would by no means get up sopiedo de la montaro, kaj tiom easily. He calculated that atli tie enterigis por la returna least eight days' food would bevojaĝo. Sekve restis nur dutaga needed to get home from the footmanĝaĵo por la suprena kaj of the mountain-range, and hemalsuprena montiro. Buried[10] that amount[11] there for the return journey. Thus only two days' provision was left for the ascent and descent of the mountain. 

 [1]Turned out to be. To show = _montr-i_; with suf. _-iĝ, montriĝ-i_ = to show itself, to become shown. [2]His course. To go = _ir-i_; ending _-o_ makes it a substantive = a going. [3]To the foot. Motion; use the _-n_ case. [4]Tenth. Ten = _dek_; to form the ordinal numbers add _-a_ to the cardinal. [5]Mistaken. To deceive = _tromp-i_; suf. _-iĝ_ makes it intransitive. [6]Climb. _Supr-a, -e, -en_ = upper, above, upwards. [7]Late. Early = _fru-a_; pref. _mal_- denotes opposite. [8]Half. Two = _du_; suf. _-on_ denotes fractions. Cf. _kvarono_ = quarter. [9]Provisions. Provide-stuff (i. E. Provid_ed_ stuff). [10]Buried. Earth = _ter-o_; in = _en_; suf. _-ig_ denotes causing to be. [11]That amount. _Tiom_. See the table of correlatives, p. 193 [Part IV, Chapter V]. 

Tre frue do li ekiris la dekunuan Very early, then, on thetagon, kaj penadis ĉiutage eleventh[1] day he set out, andsupren. Vespere li vidis ke li toiled the whole day upwards. Ankoraŭ havas plenan tagvojaĝon In the evening he saw that heĝis la pinton, kaj tiel li devos still had a full day's journeytre ŝpareme uzi sian restan to the top, and so he must beprovizaĵon. La dekdua tago estis very sparing[2] in the use of histre doloriga. La monto fariĝis remaining stores. The twelfth daykruta; li devis rapidi; kaj li was very painful. [3] The mountainterure malsatis pro ekmankanta grew[4] steep; he had to press on;manĝaĵo. Malgraŭ ĉio li and he was terribly hungry, [5]alvenis montpinton je la noktiĝo. As the food was beginning toLa subita ekscito, kune kun la give out. In spite of all, helaceco kaj malsato, estis tro: en reached the top at nightfall. [6]la momenta de sukceso li falis en The sudden excitement, with hissveno sur la teron. Weariness and hunger, was too much: in the moment of success he fell to the ground in a swoon. 

Jen, dum li kuŝis senkonscie, And lo! as he lay unconscious, aperis la duan fojon la sama there appeared to him for thevidaĵo. Birdo blanka alflugis, second time the same vision. [7]metis en lian manon semon, kaj A white bird flew up, put a seeddiris la samajn vortojn. Denove into his hand, and said the sameli levis la manon, kaj denove li words. Again he raised his hand, ŝajnis renversiĝi, kaj falis. .. And again he seemed to turn over, falis. .. Falis. .. . And fell. .. Fell. .. Fell. .. . 

Rekonsciiĝinte, li trovis sin When he came to himself, [8] hekuŝanta trankvile apud la loko was lying quietly in the verymem, kie li enterigis sian place where he had buried hisreturnan provizaĵon antaŭ la food for the home journey beforesupreniro. Li kuŝis sur dolĉa the ascent. He was lying on softherbo, kaj sentis sin korpe tute grass, and his body felt free frommallacigata, kaj granda paco its tiredness, [9] and in his soulregis en lia animo. Tuj kiam li reigned a great peace. As soon asmalfermis la okulojn, li rigardis he opened[10] his eyes, he lookeden sian manon, kaj tiun ĉi fojon in his hand, and this time thela semo enestis. Seed was there. 

 [1]Eleven = _dek-unu_; add _-a_ to make the ordinal. 20 = _dudek_. [2]Sparing. To save = _ŝpar-i_; suf. _-em_ denotes propensity. [3]Painful. Pain = _dolor-o_; suf. _-ig_ denotes causation; ending _-a_ makes it an adjective. [4]Grew. To make = _far-i_; suf. _-iĝ_ denotes becoming made, growing. [5]Hungry. Satisfied = _sat-a_; pref. _mal-_ denotes the opposite. To be hungry = _mal-sat-i_. [6]Nightfall. Night = _nokt-o_; suf. _-iĝ_ denotes becoming. [7]Vision. See(n)-thing; _vid-i_ = to see; with suffix _-aĵ_. [8]When he came to himself. Conscious = _konsci-a_; prefix _re-_ denotes back again; suffix _-iĝ_ denotes becoming. [9]Free from tiredness. Tired = _lac-a_; _mal-_ denotes opposite; _-ig_ denotes causing to be. [10]Opened. To shut = _ferm-i_; to open = _malfermi_. 

Longa, labora kaj preskaŭ A long, laborious descent fromsennutra malsupreniro de la the mountain-top almost withoutmontpinto jam ne necesis, kaj la food was now no longer needful, hejmvojaĝo trans la ebenaĵo and on the home journey acrossprosperis, tiel ke Namezo staris the plain all went well, so thatbaldaŭ ree en la patrina dometo. Namezo soon stood again in hisLa vilaĝanoj kunvenis amase kaj mother's[1] cottage. The villagersmulte demandis pri lia vojaĝo, flocked in crowds[2] and askedĉar neniu el ili estis iam tiel many questions about his journey, malproksimen foririnta de la for none of them had ever beenhejmo. Namezo ĉion rakontis, so far from home. Namezo toldkaj montris la semon kiun li them everything, and showed thedevos planti. La najbaroj komence seed which he was to plant. Atkredis, ke li volas mirigi ilin, first the neighbours thought hekiel la vojaĝistoj amas fari, kaj was trying to astonish[3] them, ili ridis pri liaj rakontaĵoj. As travellers are wont to do, Sed, kiam ili vidis ke li estis and they laughed at his tales. Serioza, ili ekkoleriĝis kaj But when they saw that he was involis forpreni lian semon kaj earnest, they got in a rage, [4]detrui ĝin. "'_Arbo_' estas and wanted to take away his seedsensencaĵo, " ili diris; "ne and destroy it. "A '_tree_' ispovas ekzisti alia kreskaĵo, foolishness, "[5] they said; "nokrom la rikoltoj kaj la legomoj other plant can exist, except thekiujn ni kaj niaj patroj jam crops and vegetables that we andĉiam kreskigis. Estas neeble our fathers have always grown. Ke io alia kresku kaj iĝu pli It is impossible for anythinggranda. " Kaj unuj diris ke li else to grow and become[6] biggerestas vana sonĝisto, kaj aliaj than they. " And some said that heke li frenezas. Sed lia patrino was an idle dreamer, and otherskuraĝigis lin. That he was mad. But his mother encouraged him. 

 [1]Mother's. Father = _patr-o_; suf. _-in_ denotes feminine; ending _-a_ makes it an adjective. [2]In crowds. Crowd = _amas-o_; ending _-e_ makes it an adverb. [3]Astonish. To wonder = _mir-i_; suf. _-ig_ makes it transitive. [4]Got in a rage. Anger = _koler-o_; pref. _ek-_ denotes beginning; suf. _-iĝ_ denotes becoming. [5]Foolishness. Sense = _senc-o_; without = _sen_; suf. _-aĵ_ = without-sense-stuff. [6]Become. Suf. _-iĝ_ is here used alone as a verb = to become. 

Kaj Namezo timis por sia semo, kaj And Namezo feared for his seed, pripensis kiel li povos savi ĝin and thought how he could save itde la najbaroj kiam ĝi ekkreskos. From the neighbours when it beganKaj li eliris el la vilaĝo nokte, to grow up. And he went out of thekaj plantis ĝin malproksime de village by night, and planted itĉiuj domoj, apud rivereto en far away from all the houses, bymalleviĝo de la tero, kie oni a little stream in a hollow[1] ofĝin ne vidos ĝis ĝi estos tre the ground, where it would not begranda. Kaj komence li iris tien seen till it grew very big. And atnur nokte; sed, ĉar li ne parolis first he went there only by night;plu pri sia semo, la vilaĝanoj but, as he said no more about hisforgesis la aferon, tiel ke li seed, the villagers forgot thepovis eliri el la vilaĝo vespere matter, so that he could go out ofpost sia taglaboro kiam li volis, the village in the evenings afterkaj neniu zorgis pri tio, kien his day's work whenever he liked, li iras. Sed li ne kuraĝis ĝin and nobody troubled about wheretransplanti apud sian dometon, he was going. [2] But he did nottimante ke oni difektu ĝin aŭ dare to transplant it to his ownŝerce aŭ malice, kaj sekve cottage, fearing that they wouldrestis por li la granda laborado damage it in jest or malice, andiri, kiam li estis jam laca, so the hard work remained for himmalproksimen por flegi ĝin. Of going a long way to look after it, when he was already tired. 

 [1]A hollow. To raise = _lev-i_; suf _-iĝ_ makes it intransitive; pref. _mal-_ denotes the opposite; ending _-o_ makes it a noun. [2]Where he was going. "Where" here = "whither, " therefore add _-n_, which denotes motion. 

Jaroj forpasadis: Namezo Years passed away: Namezo grewgrandiĝis, sed lia kreskaĵo up, [1] but his plant would notne volis grandiĝi. Multfoje grow up too. Many a time heli malesperis, vidante ke ĝi despaired, [2] seeing that itkvazaŭ ne kreskadis plu, aŭ seemed as though it had given upke ĝi en somero havis velkan growing, or that it had a fadedmienon. Multajn vintrojn ĝi look in summer. Many winters itpreskaŭ mortis per frosto. Sed nearly died of the frosts. But heli persistis, kaj ĉiuokaze li persevered, and in every case[3]provis ian novan flegon, ĉar he tried some new treatment, neniam antaŭe en la tuta lando for never before in the wholeoni kreskigis tielan plantaĵon. Land had any one grown[4] such aIatempe li metis sterkon: tiam li plant. At one time he would putsubdrenis la teron, ĉirkaŭhakis on manure; then he tried drainingla branĉetojn, aŭ ŝirmis la the ground, pruning the shoots, burĝonojn kontraŭ la ventoj. Or protecting the buds againstRee, vidante ke malgraŭ ĉio la the winds. Again, seeing thatarbeto ne prosperis, li pretigis in spite of all the little treenovan teraĵon kaj transplantis did not flourish, he prepared[5]ĝin, antaŭe enpluginte alispecan a new soil-bed and transplantedteron. Li eksperimentis per seka, it, having first ploughed inposte per malseka, subtero: a different kind of earth. Heunuvorte, li senĉese penadis, experimented with dry, and thendiversigante konstante la with damp, sub-soil: in short, hekondiĉojn ĝis li ĝuste trafos. Toiled ceaselessly, constantlyFine, kiam li jam de longe estis varying[6] the conditions till heplenaĝa, lia deziro plenumiĝis: should hit off the right thing. Tie, apud la rivereto staris At last, when he had long come togranda belkreska _arbo_. Be a grown man, [7] his desire was fulfilled:[8] there beside the stream stood a fine big _tree_. 

 [1]Grew up. Big = _grand-a_; suf. _-iĝ_ denotes becoming. [2]Despaired. To hope = _esper-i_; pref. _mal-_ denotes opposite. [3]In every case. To happen = _okaz-i_; any or all = _ĉiu_; ending _-e_ makes it adverbial = "any-happening-ly, " i. E. Whatever happened. [4]Grown. To grow (intrans. ) = _kresk-i_; suf. _-ig_ makes it transitive. [5]Prepared. Ready = _pret-a_; suf. _-ig_ = to make ready. [6]Varying. Diverse = _divers-a_; suf. _-ig_ = to render diverse. [7]A grown man. Age = _aĝ-o_; full = _plen-a_; ending _-a_ denotes adj. [8]Was fulfilled. To fulfil = _plenum-i_; _-iĝ_ denotes becoming. 

En somero, kiam la folioj estis In summer, when it was in fullplenaj, li kondukis tien kelkajn leaf, he took his friends there, amikojn, kaj ili ĝojis sidantaj and they rejoiced sitting in thevespere sub la freŝa ombro. En cool shade at evening. In autumnaŭtuno ili kolektis la semujojn, they collected the pods, [1] tookportis ilin en la vilaĝon, kaj them to the village, and tried topenis decidigi la vilaĝanojn get the villagers to plant theplanti la semaron apud siaj seed by their homes, to give themdometoj, por havi ŝirmilon. Sed shelter. But the villagers wouldla vilaĝanoj ne volis. Not have them. 

Unu diris, "Arbo estas neebla. "* One said, "A tree is impossible. "[2]

Kaj Namezo respondis, "Arbo And Namezo answered, "A treeekzistas. Venu kun mi, kaj mi exists. Come with me, and I willvidigos vin. " show[3] you. "

Sed li diris, "Arbo estas neebla. " But he said, "A tree is impossible. "

 *For this and the following objections of the villagers, compare Part I. , chap. Xv. , pp. 54-6. 

 [1]Pods. Seed = _sem-o_; suf. _-uj_ denotes that which contains. [2]Impossible. Suf. _-ebl_ denotes possibility, and can, like all suffixes, be used by itself. _Ne-ebl-a_ = not possible. [3]Show. To see = _vid-i_; with suf. _-ig_ = to cause to see. 

Ree Namezo diris, "Se vi nur tiom Again Namezo said, "If you willda peno faros, kiom necesas por only take as much trouble[1] aseliri el la vilaĝo, mi montros is necessary to go out of theal vi arbon, sub kiu miaj amikoj village, I will show you a tree, kaj mi ŝirmiĝas ĉiuvespere. Under which my friends and I takeVenu nur kaj provu se ĝi plaĉos shelter every evening. Only justankaŭ al vi. " come and try whether it pleases you also. "

Sed li diris, "Mi ne volas eliri. But he said, "I will not go out. AArbo estas neebla. " tree is impossible. "

Alia diris, "Mi vidis vian arbon, Another said, "I have seen yourkaj mi trovas ĝin tute senutila. " tree, and I consider it perfectly useless. "

Kaj Namezo respondis, "Kial?" And Namezo answered, "Why?"

Kaj li diris, "Niaj patroj ne And he said, "Our fathers had nohavis arbon. " trees. "

Namezo diris, "Niaj patroj suferis Namezo said, "Our fathers sufferedpro manko de ŝirmado. " from want of shelter. "

Kaj li diris, "Tial mi ankaŭ And he said, "Therefore I too willsuferos. " suffer. "

Alia diris, "Ni havas ja sufiĉe Another said, "We have enoughda kreskaĵoj. Niaj rikoltoj kaj plants. Our crops and vegetableslegomoj provizas nutraĵon, kaj la provide food, and our gay flowersbelaj floroj ĉarmas la okulon. Charm the eye. Another growingAlia kreskaĵo estus superflua. " thing would be superfluous. "

 [1]Trouble. To try = _pen-i_; ending _-o_ makes it a substantive = trying, effort. 

Kaj Namezo respondis, "Bone. Niaj And Namezo answered, "Good. Theĝisnunaj kreskaĵoj plenumas la plants we have already[1] fulfilĉefajn bezonojn de la homaro. The chief needs of mankind. Manĝo kaj certa ornamo estas Food and some ornament arenecesaĵoj por la homa naturo, necessities[2] for human nature, kaj por tiuj ĉi uzoj ni havas and for these uses we have therikoltojn kaj florojn. Sed la vivo crops and flowers. But life wouldestus pli plezura se ni estus pli be pleasanter if we were betterbone ŝirmataj. Tiun ĉi apartan sheltered. This special service[3]servon prezentas la arboj, kaj ni is done by the trees, and we canpovos ĝui ĝin sen fordoni la enjoy it without foregoing theprofiton de floro kaj rikolto. Ne, advantage of flower and crop. Plue, niaj rikoltoj, ŝirmataj Nay, more, our crops, shelteredde la montaj ventoj, pli facile from the winds that blow from thematuriĝos: tiel ni havos pli da mountains, will ripen[4] moretempo por la plezurigaj laboroj, easily: thus we shall have morekaj la floroj estos ankoraŭ pli time for the work that bringsbelaj. " pleasure, [5] and the flowers will be even more lovely. "

Kaj li diris, "Tagmeze, kiam la And he said, "At noon, [6] when thesuno brilas, mi kuŝas inter sun shines warm, I lie amidst thela altstaranta greno. Tiu ĉi deep standing corn. This shelterŝirmilo sufiĉas. Ni havas is enough. We have plants enough. Sufiĉe da kreskaĵoj. Arbo A tree is not a plant; it is ane estas kreskaĵo; ĝi estas monster. Go to the devil!"monstro. Iru diablon!"

Kaj Namezo iris al la diablo, And Namezo went to the devil, ĉar li estis preta iri kien ajn, for he was ready to go anywhere, plivole ol daŭrigi paroli kun la rather than continue to talk tovilaĝanoj. The villagers. 

Li diris, "Via diabla Moŝto, la He said, "Your devilish Majesty, vilaĝanoj naŭzadas min, kaj mi the villagers make me sick, [7] andestas laca je mia vivo. Faru el mi I am tired of[8] my life. Do withkion vi volas. " me as you will. "

 [1]The plants we have already. Lit. Our till-now plants. [2]necessities. Necessary = _neces-a_: with suf. _-aĵ_ = necessary things. [3]Service. To serve = _serv-i_; ending _-o_ makes it a substantive. [4]Ripen. Ripe = _matur-a_; suf. _-iĝ_ denotes becoming. [5]Work that brings pleasure. Pleasure = _plezur-o_; suf. _-ig_ denotes causing to be. [6]Noon. Day = _tag-o_; middle = _mez-o_; ending _-e_ is adverbial. [7]Make me sick. To make sick = _naŭz-i_; _-ad_ denotes continuation. [8]Tired of. The preposition _je_ is used when no other preposition exactly fits. 

Respondis la diablo, "Mi ne The devil made answer, "Ipovas ion fari por vi, mizerulo! can do nothing for you, poorLa vilaĝanoj estas venkintaj wretch![1] The villagers havemin; kaj mi retiras min de la beaten me; and I am retiring fromaferoj. Neniam, eĉ en miaj plej business. Never, even in my mosteltrovemaj tagoj, mi elpensis ingenious[2] days, did I inventtiel mortigan turmenton por such a deadly[3] torment for aprogresema homo, kiel sukcesi en progressive man, as to succeed inla produkto de profitiga uzilo, producing a beneficial[4] device, kaj tiam devi penadi, por igi and then have to keep striving tosiajn kunulojn alpreni ĝin. Get his fellows[5] to adopt it. Reiru al la vilaĝanoj kaj donu Go back again to the villagers, al ili miajn respektplenajn and give them my respectfulkomplimentojn. " compliments. "

Pezakore, Namezo reiris hejmen, Heavy at heart, Namezo went homekaj envoje li renkontis again, and on the way he fellvilaĝanaron portantan hakilojn. In with a band of villagers[6]Li demandis kial ili portas carrying axes. [7] He asked whyhakilojn. They were carrying axes. 

"Por dehaki la arbon, " respondis "To cut down the tree, " repliedla grupestro; "ni timas ke ĝi the leader of the band[8]; "we areetendiĝos sur la tutan landon. Afraid that it will spread andSe oni prenos la fruktetojn kaj fill the whole land. If the peopleplantos ilin apud sia loĝejo, la take the fruits and plant them atarboj entrudos sin en la kampojn their own homes, [9] trees willkaj en la florbedojn, kaj elpuŝos encroach upon the fields and uponla aliajn kreskaĵojn. " the flower-beds, and will drive out the other plants. "

 [1]Wretch. Misery = _miser-o_; suf. _-ul_ denotes having the quality of. [2]Ingenious. To find = _trov-i_; out = _el_; suf. _-em_ denotes propensity or aptitude. [3]Deadly. To die = _mort-i_; suf. _-ig_ denotes to cause to die. [4]Beneficial. Profit-causing; suf. _-ig_. [5]Fellows. With = _kun_; suf. _-ul_ denotes state or quality. [6]A band of villagers. Suf. _-ar_ denotes a collection. [7]Axes. To hew = _hak-i_; suf. _-il_ denotes instrument. [8]Leader of the band. Band = _grup-o_; suf. _-estr_ enotes chief of. [9]Homes. To dwell = _loĝ-i_; suf. _-ej_ denotes place. 

"Sed vi tute ne devos planti "But you must not plant the treesla arbojn en la kampoj kaj in the fields and flower-beds, "florbedoj, " diris Namezo. La arboj said Namezo. "Trees have ahavas utilon diferencan de la different use from other plants, aliaj kreskaĵoj kaj oni plantos and they will be planted in quiteilin en aparta loko. Se okaze arbo separate places. If by chance aaltrudos sin inter la rikoltojn, tree pushes itself in amongst theoni elradikos ĝin tuj, antaŭ ol crops, it will be rooted out atĝi grandiĝos. " once, before it gets big. "

"Ne, arbo estas danĝera, " kriis "No, trees are dangerous, " criedla hakilistoj; kaj Namezo devis the men with the axes;[1] andalvoki siajn amikojn por defendi Namezo had to call up his friendsla arbon. To defend the tree. 

Poste Namezo iris hejmen kaj After this Namezo went home andenfermis sin en sia dometo. Lia shut himself up in his cottage. Patrino estis jam de longe morta, His mother was by this timekaj la gefratoj jam edziĝis, kaj long dead, and his brother andli vivadis sole. Sed li nun ne sister[2] were now married, [3]povis eĉ resti sola. Venis la and he lived all alone. But nowsaĝuloj de la vilaĝo, kaj ili he could not even remain alone. Kriadis tra la fenestro, "Arbo The wise men of the village cameestas bona ideo, sed vi kreskigis along, and they kept shoutingvian arbon malprave. Lasu nin do through the window, "Trees are aflegi ĝin laŭ nia bontrovo, good idea, but you have grown yourkaj ni baldaŭ plibonigos ĝin, tree the wrong way. So let us looktiel ke ĝi estos vere alpreninda after it as we see fit, and we'llarbo. " soon improve[4] it, so that it shall be a tree really fit for us to take to. "[5]

 [1]The men with the axes. To hew = _hak-i_; _-il_ denotes instrument; _-ist_ denotes agent. [2]Brother and sister. Prefix _ge-_ denotes both sexes. [3]Were married. Husband (wife) = _edz_ (_in_) _-o_; suffix _-iĝ_ denotes becoming. [4]Improve. Good = _bon-a_; more = _pli_; _-ig_ denotes causation. [5]Fit to take to. To take = _pren-i_; to = _al_; _-ind_ denotes worthy. 

Kaj al ili Namezo respondis And to these Namezo answerednenion. Li sciis ke li estis nothing. He knew that he had givendoninta grandan parton de sia a great part of his life to makingvivo por eksperimenti kaj estis experiment and had produced aproduktinta belkreskan arbon, dum well-grown tree, while the cleverla lertuloj nun estis vidantaj men were now seeing a tree forarbon je la unua fojo, kaj tute the first time, and were whollymalsciis la malfacilecojn kiujn ignorant of the difficulties thatoni devas venki, kaj eĉ ne had to be overcome, and did notkomprenis la demandon kiun ili even understand the question theyentreprenis solvi. Sed li sciis were undertaking to solve. Butankaŭ ke tiela konsidero estas he also knew that to clever menpor lertuloj malpli ol nenio. Such a consideration is less thanEstis malutile argumenti kun nothing. It was no good to argueili, ĉar ili ne sciis ke ili ne with them, for they did not knowscias, kaj tio ĉi estas plej that they did not know, and thismalfacila lerni. Tial li lasis is the hardest thing to learn. Soilin paroladi, kaj flegis sian he let them keep on talking, andarbon kiel antaŭe. "Ĉar, " tended his tree as before. "For, "li diris al si mem, "kiam la said he to himself, "when the treearbo estos disvastiĝinta kaj has spread and multiplied aftermultobliĝinta laŭspece tra its kind throughout the land, fromla lando, per la grada sperto many men's gradual experiencede multaj homoj fariĝos arba there will arise a science ofscienco, kaj tial ni fine ellernos trees, and thus we shall in thela plej bonan flegmanieron. " end find out the best way ofAnkaŭ li pensis, "la diablo estis tending them. " Also he thought, prava: la diablo estas lertulo. " "The devil was right: the devil is a clever man. "

Iom poste alvenis en la vilaĝon Now, some time after there arrivedhomoj el aliaj lokoj, kunportantaj in the village men from otherdiversajn semojn. Ĉiu el ili places, bringing with them variouslaŭdis sian propran semon, seeds. Each of them praised hisdirante ke li estas kreskiginta own seed, telling how he had grownbelan arbon el tia semo, kaj a fine tree from such seed, andpostulante ke la vilaĝanoj plantu urging the villagers to plant hisnur liajn semojn. Tiam iuj diris, seeds only. Then certain of them"Ni metu ĉiujn la diversajn said, "Let us put all the diverssemojn kunen, kaj ni kreskigu el seeds together, and let us growili unu bonan arbon. " Kaj tiuj from them one good tree. " Andĉi petis Namezon ke li neniigu these begged Namezo to destroy[1]sian arbon kaj pistu ĝiajn semojn his own tree and pound its seedskaj almiksu ilin en la kunmetatan and stir them into the compoundsemaĵon, por ke unu bona arbo seedstuff, that one good treeelkresku. Might grow out of it. 

Tiel ili babiladis kaj bataladis Thus they babbled and keptinter si; kaj ili ĉirkaŭ iradis quarrelling among themselves;en la vilaĝo, montrante modelojn and they went round about in thede siaj arboj kaj pruvante, ĉiu village showing models of theirke la sia estas la plej bona. Kaj trees and proving each that hisfine la vilaĝanoj enuiĝis kaj own was the best. And at lastdenove volis dehaki ĉiun kaj the villagers grew weary of it, ĉies arbon. And wanted again to hew down every tree, no matter to whom it belonged. [2]

 [1]Destroy. Nothing = _neni-o_; suf. _-ig_ denotes causation. [2]No matter to whom it belonged. Lit. Every one's. 

Sed Namezo kaj liaj amikoj havis But Namezo and his friends hadjam du aŭ tri grandajn arbojn, by this time two or three bigkaj ĝis nun prosperis al ili trees, and up to this day theydefendi ilin kontraŭ la atakoj de have succeeded in defending themla vilaĝanoj. Kaj ĉiam, kiam la against the villagers' attacks. Vetero estas varmega, ili sidas And always, when the weather issub la arboj vespere kaj ĝuas very hot, they sit under theirla freŝecon. Tamen ili havas trees in the evening and enjoy thenur duonan profiton el ili, ĉar coolness. Yet have they only halfla vilaĝanoj malpermesas planti profit by them, for the villagersian arbon en la vilaĝo, kaj tial forbid them to plant any treela arbanoj devas ĉiufoje marŝi in the village, and so the treemalproksimen kaj aparte viziti people have to walk a long waysiajn arbojn, anstataŭ havi ilin each time and have to make specialapud siaj pordoj. Visits to their trees, instead of having them at their doors. 

Kaj la plej granda parto de la And the greater part of thevilaĝanoj, malgraŭ ke oni povas villagers, though the trees arefacile piediri al la arboj, diras within a walk, still say, "Treesankoraŭ, "Arbo estas neebla. " are impossible. "

Kaj la diablo ridas. And the devil laughs. 

 III

 GRAMMAR

1. There is one definite article, _la_, invariable. There is noindefinite article. 

2. Nouns always end in _-o_. Ex. _patro_ = father. 

3. Adjectives always end in _-a_. Ex. _patra_ = paternal. 

4. The plural of nouns, adjectives, participles, and pronouns (exceptonly the personal pronouns) ends in _j_. Ex. _patroj_ = fathers; _bonajpatroj_ = good fathers. 

5. The accusative (objective) case always ends in _-n_. Ex. _Mi amasmian bonan patron_ = I love my good father. _Ni amas niajn bonajnpatrojn_ = we love our good fathers. 

6. Adverbs always end in _-e_. Ex. _bone_ = well; _patre_ = paternally. (There are a few non-derived adverbs without the ending _-e_, as _jam, ankaŭ, tiel, kiel_). 

7. The personal pronouns are:

 mi = I ŝi = she ni = we vi = you ĝi = it vi = you li = he oni = one ili = they

Also a reflexive pronoun, _si_, which always refers to the subject ofits own clause. 

All these pronouns form the accusative case by adding _-n_. 

8. The verb has no separate ending for person or number. 

The present ends in _-as_. Ex. _mi amas_ = I love. 

The past ends in _-is_. Ex. _vi amis_ = you loved. 

The future ends in _-os_. Ex. _li amos_ = he will love. 

The conditional ends in _-us_. Ex. _ni amus_ = we should love. 

The imperative ends in _-u_. Ex. _amu_ = love! _ni amu_ = let us love. This form also serves for subjunctive. Ex. _Dio ordonas ke ni amu unula alian_ = God commands us to love one another. 

The infinitive ends in _-i_. Ex. _ami_ = to love. 

There are three active participles. 

The present participle active is formed by _-ant_. Ex. _amanta_ =loving; _amanto_ = a lover. 

The past participle active is formed by _-int_. Ex. _aminta_ = havingloved; _la skribinto_ = the author (lit. The man who has written). 

The future participle active is formed by _-ont_. Ex. _amonta_ = beingabout to love. 

There are three passive participles. 

The present participle passive is formed by _-at_. Ex. _amata_ = beingloved. 

The past participle passive is formed by _-it_. Ex. _amita_ = havingbeen loved. 

The future participle passive is formed by _-ot_. Ex. _amota_ = beingabout to be loved. 

All compound tenses, as well as the passive voice, are formed by theverb _esti_ (to be) with a participle. Compound tenses are employed onlywhen the simple forms are inadequate. Ex. _mi estas aminta_ = I haveloved (lit. I am having loved); _vi estis aminta_ = you had loved (lit. You were having loved); _ili estas amataj_ = they are loved; _ŝi estasamita_ = she has been loved; _ni estis amitaj_ = we had been loved; _iliestos amintaj_ = they will have loved; _ŝi estus aminta_ = she wouldhave loved; _mi estus amita_ = I should have been loved. 

 IV

 LIST OF AFFIXES

 I. _Prefixes_

_bo-_ denotes relation by marriage: _bopatro_ = father-in-law. 

_dis-_ denotes dissemination, division: _dismeti_ = to put apart, about, in pieces. 

_ek-_ denotes sudden action or beginning: _ekdormi_ = to fall asleep;_ekiri_ = to start. 

_ge-_ denotes both sexes: _gepatroj_ = parents; _geviroj_ = men andwomen. 

_mal-_ denotes the opposite: _bona_ = good; _malbona_ = bad. 

_re-_ denotes back, again: _repagi_ = to repay; _rekomenci_ = to beginagain. 

 II. _Suffixes_

_-ad_ denotes continuation: _penadi_ = to keep striving, to makecontinued effort. 

_-aĵ_ denotes something concrete, made of the material, or possessingthe qualities of the root to which it is attached: _bovo_ = ox;_bovaĵo_ = beef; _okazi_ = to happen; _okazaĵoj_ = happenings, events. (For English speakers a good rule is to add "thing" or "stuff" to theEnglish word; _propra_ = one's own, _propraĵo_ = own-thing, property;_vidindaĵoj_ = see-worthy-things, notable sights. N. B. : _-aĵ_ addedto transitive verbal stems generally has a passive sense: _tondi_ =to clip, _tondaĵo_ = clipped-thing, clippings; whereas _tondilo_ =clipping-thing, shears. ) See Zamenhof's explanation of -aĵ, _La Revuo_, Vol. I. , No. 8 (April), pp. 374-5. 

_-an_ denotes an inhabitant, member, or partisan: _urbano_ = atown-dweller; _Kristano_ = a Christian. 

_-ar_ denotes a collection: _vortaro_ = a dictionary; _arbaro_ = aforest; _homaro_ = mankind. 

_-ĉj_ denotes masculine affectionate diminutives: _paĉjo_ = daddy;_Arĉjo_ = Archie. 

_-ebl_ denotes possibility: _kredebla_ = credible. 

_-ec_ denotes abstract quality: _boneco_ = goodness. 

_-eg_ denotes great size or intensity: _grandega_ = enormous;_varmega_ = intensely hot. 

_-ej_ denotes place: _lernejo_ = a learn-place, a school. 

_-em_ denotes propensity to: _lernema_ = studious; _kredema_ =credulous. 

_-er_ denotes one out of many, or a unit of a mass: _sablero_ = a grainof sand; _fajrero_ = a spark. 

_-estr_ denotes a chief or leader: _lernejestro_ = a head master. 

_-et_ denotes diminution: _infaneto_ = a little child; _varmeta_ =warmish. 

_-id_ denotes the young of, descendant of: _bovido_ = a calf. 

_-ig_ denotes causation: _bonigi_, _plibonigi_ = to make good, toimprove; _mortigi_ = to kill; _venigi_ = to cause to come, to send for. 

_-iĝ_ denotes becoming, and has a passive signification: _saniĝi_, _resaniĝi_ = to get well (again); _paliĝi_ = to grow pale;_troviĝi_ = to be found, occur. 

_-il_ denotes an instrument: _razilo_ = a razor. 

_-in_ denotes feminine: _patrino_ = mother; _bovino_ = cow. 

_-ind_ denotes worthiness: _laŭdinda_ = laudable, praiseworthy. 

_-ing_ denotes a holder: _kandelingo_ = a candlestick; _glavingo_ =scabbard. 

_-ist_ denotes profession or occupation; _maristo_ = a sailor;_bonfaristo_ = a benefactor. 

_-nj_ denotes feminine affectionate diminutives: _Manjo_ = Polly;_patrinjo_ (or _panjo_) = mamma. 

_-uj_ denotes containing or producing: _inkujo_ = inkpot; _Anglujo_ =England. 

_-ul_ denotes characteristic: _timulo_ = a coward: _avarulo_ = a miser. 

[The suffix _-aĉ_ (not in the _Fundamento_) is coming into use as apejorative (= Italian _-accio_): _ridi_ = to laugh; _ridaĉi_ = to grin, sneer. ]

 V

 TABLE OF CORRELATIVE WORDS

 DEMONSTRA- RELATIVE NEGATIVE. UNIVERSAL. INDEFINITE. TIVE. AND INTER- ROGATIVE. 

PERSON* tiu kiu neniu ĉiu iu that who, no one every, all, some, which every one some one

THING* tio kio nenio ĉio io that what, nothing everything something (thing) which

QUALITY tia kia nenia ĉia ia that kind what kind no, each, every any, some of a of a no kind of kind of kind of

TIME tiam kiam neniam ĉiam iam then when never always ever, at some time

PLACE tie kie nenie ĉie ie there where nowhere everywhere somewhere

MANNER tiel kiel neniel ĉiel iel thus, so how in no way in every way in some way, somehow

MOTIVE tial kial nenial ĉial ial therefore why for no for all for some reason reasons reasons

QUANTITY tiom kiom neniom ĉiom iom so/as much how much none the whole somewhat, so/as many how many amount a certain amount

POSSESSION ties kies nenies ĉies ies of that whose, nobody's everybody's somebody's of which

In the demonstrative column, to express "this" instead of "that, "add _ĉi_. 

*N. B. —_Tiu_, _kiu_, etc. , are used in agreement with a noun expressed, even when it does not represent a person. 

Ex. _Tiu libro, kiun mi legis_ = that book which I read. _Tiuj ĉifloroj_ = these flowers. 

_Tio_, _kio_, etc. , are used when there is no noun, so that they standalone. 

Ex. _Tio estas vera_ = that is true; _kion vi diris?_ = what did yousay? _Tio ĉi estas pli granda ol tio_ = this is bigger than that. 

N. B. —In memorizing the above, it is well to remember that _t_ =demonstrative, _k_ = relative-interrogative, _ĉ_ = distributive, _i_ =indefinite, _nen_ = negative. 

 VI

 VOCABULARY

 = A =

-a = termination of adjectives. Aĉet-i = to buy. -ad = suffix denoting continued action. Aer-o = air. Ag-i = to act. -aĵ = suffix denoting concrete substance. Ajn = (what)ever; _kiu ajn_, whoever. Al = to. Ali-a = other. Almenaŭ = at least. Alt-a = high. Am-i = to love. Amas-o = crowd, mass. Ankaŭ = also. Ankoraŭ = still. Anstataŭ = instead of. -ant = present participle active. Antaŭ = before (time and place). Apart-a = special. Apud = at. -ar = suffix denoting a collection. Arb-o = tree. -as = ending of present tense. Aŭd-i = to hear. 

 = B =

baldaŭ = soon. Bed-o = flower bed. Bel-a = fine, beautiful. Bezon-o = need. Blank-a = white. Bon-a = good. Bord-o = edge, shore. Bril-i = to shine. Burĝon-o = bud. 

 = C =

cel-o = object, aim. Cerb-o = brain. Cert-a = certain. 

 = Ĉ =

ĉagren-o = trouble. ĉar = for, because. ĉe = at. ĉes-i = to cease. ĉi = added to demonstrative _tiu_, expresses nearer connexion: _tiu_ = that; _tiu ĉi_ = this. ĉiam = always. ĉie = everywhere. ĉirkaŭ = around. ĉiu = all, each, every. ĉu = interrogative particle. 

 = D =

da = used after words of quantity: Ex. _multe da vino_, much wine. Daŭr-i = to last, continue. De = of, from, by (with passive). Des = comparative particle; _ju. .. Des_, the. .. The: Ex. _ju pli des pli bone_, the more the better. Dev-i = to owe, to be obliged to. Deviz-o = device, motto. Difekt-i = to spoil. Dir-i = to say. Dom-o = house. Don-i = to give. Du = two. Dub-i = to doubt. Dum = whilst. 

 = E =

-e = ending of adverbs. Eben-a = flat, level. -ebl = suffix denoting possibility. -ec = suffix denoting abstract quality: _bon-ec-o_, goodness. Eĉ = even. Edz-(in)-o = husband (wife). -eg = suffix denoting great size. -ej = suffix denoting place. Ek- = prefix denoting beginning. Ekster = outside. El = out of. -em = suffix denoting propensity. En = in. Entrepren-i = to undertake. Enu-i = to weary, bore. Esper-i = to hope. Esperant-o = Esperanto. Est-i = to be. -et = suffix denoting little. Etend-i = to stretch. 

 = F =

facil-a = easy. Fajr-o = fire. Fakt-o = fact. Far-i = to do. Fenestr-o = window. Ferm-i = to shut. Fil-o = son. Fin-o = end. Flank-o = side. Fleg-i = tend. Flu-i = flow. Flug-i = to fly. Foj-o = time; _du fojoj_, twice. Foli-o = leaf. For = away. Forn-o = oven. Frat-o = brother. Fraz-o = sentence. Frenez-o = madness. Fru-a = early. Frukt-o = fruit. 

 = G =

ge- = prefix denoting both sexes. Gent-o = race, tribe. Grand-a = big, great. 

 = Ĝ =

ĝi = it. ĝis = until. ĝoj-o = joy. ĝu-i = to enjoy. 

 = H =

hav-i = to have. Hejm-o = home. Hodiaŭ = to-day. Hom-o = man (mortal; no distinction of sex). 

 = I =

-i = ending of infinitive. Ideal-o = ideal. -ig = suffix denoting causation. -iĝ = suffix denoting becoming. -il = suffix denoting instrument. Ili = they. -int = past participle active. Inter = between, among. Ir-i = to go. -is = ending of past tense. -ist = suffix denoting agent. Iu = some one. 

 = J =

-j = ending of plural. Jam = already. Jar-o = year. Jen = here is, here are (French _voici_). Ju = comparative particle. See _des_. Jun-a = young. 

 = Ĵ =

ĵus = just now. 

 = K =

kaj = and. Kamen-o = fireplace. Kamp-o = field. Kap-o = head. Ke = that (conjunction). Kelk-a = some. Kiam = when. Kiel = how, as. Kiu = who, which. Knab-o = boy. Komerc-o = commerce. Kompat-o = sympathy, pity. Kompren-i = to understand. Kon-i = to know. Konsil-i = to counsel. Konstru-i = to build. Kontraŭ = against. Kred-i = to believe. Kresk-i = to grow. Krom = besides. Krut-a = steep. Kun = with. Kuŝ-i = to lie. Kutim-i = to be accustomed. Kvankam = although. Kvar = four. Kvazaŭ = as if. Kvin = five. 

 = L =

la = the. Lac-a = tired. Lag-o = lake. Land-o = land. Lang-o = tongue. Las-i = to let, leave. Laŭ = according to. Leg-i = to read. Legom-o = vegetable. Lern-i = to learn. Lert-a = clever. Lev-i = to raise. Li = he. Lim-o = limit. Lingv-o = language. Lit-o = bed. Long-a = long. Lum-o = light. 

 = M =

mal- = prefix denoting the opposite. Malgraŭ = in spite of. Manĝ-i = to eat. Mank-i = to be wanting. Mar-o = sea. Marĉ-o = swamp. Maten-o = morning. Mem = self. Met-i = to put. Mez-o = middle. Mi = I. Mien-o = look, air, gait. Mir-i = to wonder. Mon-o = money. Mond-o = world. Montr-i = to show. Morgaŭ = to-morrow. Moŝt-o = term of respect: your Highness, Worship, Honour. Mult-a = much, many. 

 = N =

-n = ending of accusative: also denotes motion towards and duration of time. Naci-o = nation. Nask-i = to beget. Ne = no, not. Neĝ-o = snow. Neniam = never. Neniu = no one. Ni = we. Nom-o = name. Nov-a = new. Nub-o = cloud. Nun = now. Nur = only. Nutr-i = to feed. 

 = O =

-o = ending of nouns. Oft-e = often. Ok = eight. Okaz-i = to happen. Okul-o = eye. Ol = than. -on = suffix denoting fraction. Oni = one, people (indef pron. ). -ont = future participle active. Orel-o = ear. -os = ending of future. 

 = P =

pac-o = peace. Parol-i = to speak. Pen-i = to try. Pens-i = to think. Per = by means of. Perd-i = to lose. Pez-a = heavy. Pied-o = foot. Pint-o = point, peak. Pist-i = to pound. Plaĉ-i = to please. Plat-a = flat. Plej = most. Plen-a = full. Plend-i = to complain. Plenum-i = to fulfill. Pli = more. Plu = more, further, farther. Plug-i = to plough. Popol-o = people, race. Por = for. Pord-o = door. Post = after, behind (time and place). Pov-i = to be able. Pra = original, great-(grandfather). Prav-a = right. Pren-i = to take. Preskaŭ = almost. Pret-a = ready. Preter = beyond, by. Pri = about, concerning. Pro = on account of. 

 = R =

rakont-i = to narrate. Ramp-i = to crawl, climb. Rapid-a = quick. Rekt-a = straight. Rem-i = to row. Renkont-i = to meet. Renvers-i = to upset, overthrow. Rikolt-o = crop. 

 = S =

sat-a = satisfied, full, replete. Sci-i = to know. Sed = but. Sek-a = dry. Sekv-i = to follow. Sem-o = seed. Sen = without. Sent-i = to feel. Si = self, relexive pronoun. Sid-i = to sit. Sinjor-o = sir, Mr. , gentleman. Skrib-i = to write. Sol-a = alone, only. Son-o = sound. Sonĝ-o = dream. Sonor-a = sonorous. Spec-o = kind, sort. Spert-o = experience. Spir-i = to breathe. Star-i = to stand. Sterk-o = manure. Subit-a = sudden. Sufiĉ-a = sufficient. Supr-a = upper, superior. Sven-i = to swoon. 

 = Ŝ =

ŝajn-i = to seem. ŝerc-i = to joke. ŝip-o = ship. ŝirm-i = to shelter. ŝpar-i = to save up, economize. ŝtel-i = to steal. 

 = T =

tag-o = day. Tamen = yet, nevertheless. Tegment-o = roof. Temp-o = time. Ten-i = to hold, keep. Ter-o = earth. Tial = therefore. Tiel = thus, so. Tiom = so much, so many. Tiu = that. Tra = through. Traf-i = to hit the mark. Trans = across. Tre = very. Trem-i = to tremble. Tro = too much. Tromp-i = to deceive. Trov-i = to find. Trud-i = to shove, thrust. Tuj = immediately. Tut-a = all. 

 = U =

-u = ending of imperative subjunctive. -uj = suffix denoting "holder". -ul = suffix denoting characteristic. Unu = one. 

 = V =

vapor-o = steam. Vek-i = to wake (trans. ). Vel-o = sail. Velk-a = faded. Ven-i = to come. Venk-i = to conquer. Vent-o = wind. Ver-a = true. Vesper-o = evening. Vetur-i = to travel by vehicle (train, carriage, boat, etc. ). Vi = you. Vid-i = to see. Vidv-(in)-o = widow(er). Vir-(in)-o = man (woman). Viv-i = to live. Voj-o = way. Vojaĝ-o = voyage, journey. Vokal-o = vowel. Vol-i = to wish. Vom-i = to vomit, be sick. Vort-o = word. 

 = Z =

zorg-o = care. 

 APPENDIX A

 SAMPLE PROBLEMS IN REGULAR LANGUAGE

Word-building can be made quite an amusing game for children. Forinstance, give them the suffixes _-ej_ (denoting place) and _-il_(denoting instrument), and set them to form words for "school, ""church, " "factory, " "knife, " "warming-pan, " etc. (_lernejo_, _preĝejo_, _fabrikejo_, _tranĉito_, _varmigilo_). 

But since the language is perfectly regular in form and construction, and the learner can therefore argue from case to case, it is a usefulinstrument for instilling clear ideas of grammatical categories. Thusgive the roots—

 viv-i = to live san-a = healthy hom-o = man long-a = long saĝ-a = wise Di-o = God don-i = to give

and set such sentences as the following to be worked out—

"He lives long"; "A long life is a gift of God"; "It is wise to livehealthily"; "God is divine, man is human"; "Human life is short, " etc. 

The same roots constantly recur with an _-o_, _-a_, or _-e_ tacked on;and the practice in sorting out the endings, and attaching them likelabels to nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs, soon marks off thecorresponding ideas clearly in the learner's mind. 

Analogous to simple sums and conducive to clear thinking are suchsentences as the following, for rather more advanced pupils:

Given—

 raz-i = to shave serv-i = to serve san-a = healthy akr-a = sharp mort-i = to die ven-i = to come uz-i = to use hak-i = to hew kun = with sent-i = to feel

and the table of affixes (pp. 191-2 [Part IV, Chapter IV]). 

Translate—"Constant use had blunted his razor"; "He had his servantshaved"; "He killed his companion with an axe"; "Let us send for thedoctor. "

More advanced exercise (on the same roots):

Translate—"O Death, where is thy sting?" "Community of service bringstogether men subject to death, and dulls the perception of their commonmortality. Willing service dissipates the weariness of the server; thedeadliness of disease is mitigated, and the place of sickness becomes aplace of health. "

By referring to the table of affixes, the use of which has of coursebeen explained, the learner can work out the answers as follows:

Uz-ad-o estis mal-akr-ig-int-a lian raz-il-on. Li raz-ig-is sianserv-ant-(_or_ ist)on. Li mort-ig-is sian kun-ul-on per hak-il-o. Ni ven-ig-u la san-ig-ist-on. 

More advanced:

Ho Morto, kie estas via akr-ec-o? Kun-servo (_or_ kuneco de servo)kun-ig-as la mort-em-(ul)-ojn, kaj mal-akr-ig-as la sent-on de iliakun-a mort-em-ec-o. Serv-em-ec-o dis-ig-as la el-uz-it-ec-on de laserv-ant-o; la mort-ig-ec-o de la mal-san-ec-o mal-akr-iĝ-as, kaj lamal-san-ej-o iĝas san-ej-o. 

No national language could be used in this way for building sentencesaccording to rules, and such exercises should give a practical gripof clear use of language. The student is obliged to analyse the exactmeaning of every word of the English sentence, and this necessityinculcates a nice discrimination in the use of words. At the same timethe necessary word-building depends upon clear-headed and logicalapplication of rule. There is no memory work, but the mind is kept onthe stretch, and the exercise is wholesome as combating confusion ofthought and slovenliness of expression. 

 APPENDIX B

 ESPERANTO HYMN BY DR. ZAMENHOF

 LA ESPERO

 En la mondon venis nova sento, Tra la mondo iras forta voko; Per flugiloj de facila vento Nun de loko flugu ĝi al loko. Ne al glavo sangon soifanta Ĝi la homan tiras familion: Al la mond' eterne militanta Ĝi promesas sanktan harmonion. Sub la sankta signo de l'espero Kolektiĝas pacaj batalantoj, Kaj rapide kreskas la afero Per laboro de la esperantoj. Forte staras muroj de miljaroj Inter la popoloj dividitaj; Sed dissaltos la obstinaj baroj, Per la sankta amo disbatitaj. Sub neŭtrala lingva fundamento, Komprenante unu la alian, La popoloj faros en konsento Unu grandan rondon familian. Nia diligenta kolegaro En laboro paca ne laciĝos, Ĝis la bela sonĝo de l'homaro Por eterna ben' efektiviĝos. 

 LITERAL TRANSLATION

 HOPE

 Into the world has come a new feeling, Through the world goes a mighty call; On light wind-wings Now may it fly from place to place. Not to the sword thirsting for blood Does it draw the human family: To the world eternally at war It promises holy harmony. Beneath the holy banner of hope Throng the soldiers of peace, And swiftly spreads the Cause Through the labour of the hopeful. Strong stand the walls of a thousand years Between the sundered peoples; But the stubborn bars shall leap apart, Battered to pieces by holy love. On the fair foundation of common speech, Understanding one another, The peoples in concord shall make up One great family circle. Our busy band of comrades Shall never weary in the work of peace, Till humanity's grand dream Shall become the truth of eternal blessing. 

 APPENDIX C

 THE LETTER _C_ IN ESPERANTO

_c_ = _ts_ in English "bits. "

This has given rise to much criticism. The same sound is also expressedby the letters _ts_. Why depart from the Esperanto principle, "onesound, one letter, " and have two symbols (_c_ and _ts_) for the samesound?

A standing difficulty of an international language is: What equivalentshall be adopted for the _c_ of national languages? The difficultyarises owing to the diversity of value and history of the _c_ in diversetongues. Philologists, who know the history of the Latin hard _c_ andits various descendants in modern languages, will appreciate this. 

(1) Shall _c_ be adopted in the international language, or omitted?If it is omitted, many useful words, which it is desirable to adoptand which are ordinarily spelt with a _c_, will have to be arbitrarilydeformed, and this deformation may amount to actual obscuring of theirsense. E. G. _cento_ = hundred; _centro_ = centre; _cerbo_ = brain;_certa_ = certain; _cirkonstanco_ = circumstance; _civila_ = civil, etc. Such works would become almost unrecognizable for many in the formskento, sento, tsento, etc. 

(2) If, then, _c"_is retained, what value is to be given to it? Thehard and soft sounds of the English _c_ (as in English "cat, " "civil")are already represented by _k_ and _s_. Neither of these letters canbe dispensed with in the international language; and it is undesirableto confuse orthographically or phonetically _c_-roots with _s_- or_k_-roots. Therefore another value must be found for the symbol _c_. The choice is practically narrowed down to the Italian soft _c_ = _ch_, as in English "church, " and the German[1] _c_ = _ts_ in English "bits. "Now _ch_ is a useful and distinctive sound, and has been adopted inEsperanto with a symbol of its own: ĉ. Therefore _ts_ remains. 

 [1]Also late Latin and early Norman French. 

(3) Why not then abolish _c_ and write _ts_ instead? For answer, seeNo. (1) above. It is a worse evil to introduce such monstrosities as_tsento_, _tsivila_, etc. , than to allow two symbols for the same sound, _ts_ and _c_. International language has to appeal to the eye as well asto the ear. 

This matter of the _c_ is only one more instance of the wisdom of Dr. Zamenhof in refusing to make a fetish of slavish adherence to rule. Practical common-sense is a safer guide than theory in attaining thedesired goal—ease (of eye, ear, tongue, and pen) for greatest number. In practice no confusion arises between _c_ and _ts_.