|
Enkomputiligis Don HARLOW |
Claude Piron wrote the following letter to a student who raised the question of Justin P. Rye's anti-Esperanto web site.
I've had a look at Justin Rye's site.
Obviously, the author doesn't like Esperanto. I don't know the reason, but I respect it, and him. On the basis of his dislike, he finds a lot of arguments. But it is obvious that the arguments are much more a result than a cause of the dislike.
Allow me to select just one example which, in my opinion, is representative of his whole approach. He says:
Esperanto goes way over the top in marking what part of speech each word is, via its neat but somehow risible final vowel system.
First, leaving aside the strange idea that it "goes way over the top" when actually limiting itself to something extremely simple, it's interesting that Mr Rye finds this system risible, a judgment to which he is entitled, of course, but which has no value since it is purely subjective. [The same subjectivity weakens his positions on the "elegance" axis all through his site.] Personally, I don't see anything risible in this vowel ending system. It makes the language easier, clearer, more practical and often fun. I've been using that system for many decades with much pleasure and creativity. Indeed, it's a trait I particularly enjoy. It enables you to express your thoughts without inhibitions due to form, because of two features: (1) it is applicable to all concepts; (2) it is perfectly regular. In English, you can say he loves / his love, he falls / his fall but you cannot generalize the system and say he lives / his live; he sells / his sell; he suggests / his suggest; he buys / his buy (?). You have to learn separately life / sale / suggestion / purchase. Compare with Esperanto: li amas / lia amo; li falas / lia falo; li vivas / lia vivo; li vendas / lia vendo; li sugestas / lia sugesto; li aĉetas / lia aĉeto. Similarly, you have to learn separately such words as inimical, fraternal, avuncular, royal, which, in Esperanto, you derive immediately from the root, adding the relevant vowel. A Korean who knows tooth, teeth and sees dental for the first time has no means of understanding it. If he uses Esperanto, once he's assimilated dento he understands denta at once. This "risible" system diminishes to a large extent the amount of words you have to memorize, while increasing expressivity. Can you say in English he guitars, he violins, he musics or the lake blues? Maybe. In English, I am not sure (I seldom feel safe in English). In Esperanto I have no doubt. I know I can say li gitaras, li violonas, li muzikas, la lago bluas (which is something quite different than "the lake is blue", it's rather like "it radiates blueness", it is active, whereas the is phrase is not). This absence of doubt does much to give you confidence when you address people, especially in public. I've been risible when I had to improvise speeches in English, although I have devoted perhaps twenty times as much effort and energy in learning the latter, as compared to Esperanto, a language in which. I never feel the same risk.
Second, JBR misses the point completely. The vowel endings are not meant to mark parts of speech, as he says, but to enable you to use any concept in any function (verbal, adverbial, etc.) with full clarity. To express the idea "I came by car", I can say mi venis per aŭto (or en aŭto), but I have many more choices than in other languages since I can also say mi venis aŭte "I came car-ly", mi aŭtis "I carred", even mia veno estis aŭta "my coming was car-some (?)," . This possibility widens the spectrum of clear, spontaneous, feelingful or beautiful formulations to a tremendous extent. I think I could write a whole dissertation on its impact on the expressiveness of Esperanto poetry. Indeed, it has given birth to a unique poetic form -- impossible in other languages for lack of a similar system -- in which endings rhyme according to a pattern, and roots to another pattern (see: Pierre Ullman, "Schizoschematic Rhyme in Esperanto", Papers on Language and Literature, Southern Illinois University, 1980; 16, 430-438).
Third, this system, associated to the rules of word formation, enables an author to avoid many amibiguities, frequent in English, a language in which you have no means of knowing to what word what word relates. Compare International Language Association in English with its two renderings in Esperanto: Internacia Lingvoasocio, "an international association dealing with language(s)" and Internacilingva Asocio, "an association concerned with international languages". Note that the words are in the same order as in English, and the system is just as simple, but it eliminates doubt.
So much for this risible system.
Now to comment on the whole site, I'd say that many of JBR's arguments are valid, in the abstract (I'm not sure this phrase is correct in English, I mean; if you consider the problem from a purely theoretical perspective). But I think that Esperanto is something you have either to choose or to discard. And a real choice is always among real alternatives. What is the reality of international communication today? The available means are
(1) English: a language that 94% of the world population has to acquire painfully, studying for half a dozen years with four hours a week in order to reach a level quite inferior to the native speaker's, so that they are unable to enjoy communication on an equal footing;
(2) systems based on translation and interpretation : available to almost nobody, expensive, and not very practical in everyday life;
(3) the languages of the people you are in touch with : you have to learn them, a matter of a few thousand hours -- quite a number of years -- for each language in most cases. If you relate mainly with a given people, it may be OK, but what if your partners are widespread all through the world?;
(4) Esperanto: a language you can acquire in some 200 hundred hours at most, and which you can use in an impressive number of places. In rural Japan, in Uzbekistan, in Poland, in Brazil, Esperanto was more useful to me than English, although I've lived five years in New York and my level in your language is supposed to be higher than most Europeans'.
In my experience (I've travelled widely and I've worked on all five inhabited continents), Esperanto is, by far, the best available system. English has far too many disadvantages to be a proper international language. How many people can pronounce it so as to distinguish sacks from sex, sex from six, six from seeks? How many can master its huge vocabulary, with two words for most concepts: jail / prison; paternal / fatherly; inevitable / unavoidable; read / peruse, etc. If, because of its flaws, you reject Esperanto, what are you going to use? Esperanto is far from being perfect. But life has proven it to be the least imperfect of all the projects of international language that have been published so far. Moreover, it has become, through usage, a really living language. It's not a project any more. It has speakers in most cities in most countries. It has a literature. It is very much in use on the Net. It is spoken on the radio in a number of countries. It is the home language of a number of couples and of families. In other words, it is a part of today's reality, and its functioning can be observed very easily. Any objective observer will attest that it does work, and very well at that. In Eastern Asia, I've attended meetings among Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese and Koreans using English, others with simultaneous interpretation English/French/Japanese/Chinese, and others using only Esperanto. There is no doubt that the only ones in which communication was fluent, spontaneous and lively were the Esperanto ones. And -- an important point for all non-masochists -- they also happen to be the ones which required the lesser previous investment in time, money and mental energy from the participants!
Let's assume that because of the flaws JBR emphasizes we decide not to use Esperanto. What shall we use, since for the time being there is nothing better? Should we develop a new language? Who will be competent enough to do the job and be acknowledged as such by all interested parties, experts and peoples? What guarantee is there that if he, she or they focus on the points noted in that site, other points, just as important, that are taken into account in Esperanto (but which JBR did not notice, since he concentrated on the flaws), won't be overlooked? A language implies a very delicate balance between contradictory requirements and trends. The Ido experience has taught us that those who attempt to improve Esperanto on concentrating on a few apparent deficiencies eventually produce a language much less usable in practice. Besides, if we opt for a new, less imperfect language yet to be constructed, how many years will we wait till we can communicate over language barriers? Esperanto is the result of more than one century of usage (it is a gross mistake to reduce it to Zamenhof's project, as JBR does). It is the language with the most international substratum humankind has ever had. (If you've read my article "Evolution is proof of life", you'll have noticed that many peoples have contributed to today's Esperanto). I think we can apply to it the maxim "If it works, don't fix it".
What I found regrettable in Mr Rye's approach is that it is purely theoretical. He never bases his statements on the observation of an international Esperanto meeting, on the study of an actual Esperanto magazine, on a linguistic analysis of recorded samples of conversations, on research done on the language. It's all a priori. What would you think of somebody who criticizes a restaurant on the basis of a copy of the bill of fare, but who has never eaten in it? Of somebody who finds a lot of flaws in a given car he has never driven, he has never compared with others? Of course, I won't blame you if you believe and follow him, I'll think you're mistaken, but who can say I am not the mistaken one? Still, is he really credible? In my opinion, to be able to judge something reliably, you need to have gotten a feeling ot the thing, by familiarizing yourself with it up to a certain depth. And you need a reference. You cannot judge a distance if you don't compare it to a reference length, say a mile or a kilometer. Esperanto must be judged with reference to the other means of international communication. The Ideal World Language is not a reference, since nobody knows what it is like, and opinions on its features are certain to diverge a lot. Yet, it is the only measuring rod used by JBR.
I do not wish to influence you. I've just tried to tell you my reaction to what I read on that site. Confronting various responses is often the best way to form one's own independent opinion. I hope what I've said above will contribute to that result in your case, and if, in spite of my best intentions, I have been too forceful, too influential, I apologize. I am at your disposal if you want further comments on any point.