8 Dec 2007
Norman Berdichevsky

I watched the video by Claude Piron generously put on the NER Iconoclast section  by Mary Jackson. Piron is a psychologist and one of the most knowledgable linguists and skilled translators in the world. I urge our readers to watch it too. I believe they will find it  a cogent and convincing reply to all those who continue to mock or trivialize Esperanto.

 

Norman Berdichevsky 

 

 

Norman Berdichevsky

8 Dec 2007
Tim Morley
Ms Jackson, I have already provided a perhaps slightly facetious answer to this question in my response to your previous article. In that response, I raise a number of other objections to your article, all of which you have ignored to date. Perhaps if I try to answer your question more fully below, you might be courteous enough to return the favour.

To take your question a little a time:

Nobody has answered my point about language change, and the way it threatens the much vaunted simplicity and regularity of Esperanto

As I said in my previous comment, complete regularity is a feature that Esperanto shares with Chinese and Vietnamese. If complete regularity is good enough for the Chinese, with thousands of years of written history behind them, I'm not sure why you think it's a terminal problem for Esperanto.

assuming [Esperanto] were to take off and become a proper living language

This again says more about your prejudice towards Esperanto than it does about reality. Your slightly childish belittling of the language doesn't change the fact that it has been around for 120 years and is currently spoken by somewhere between half a million and two million people, i.e. roughly the same number as speak some Eastern European languages. If you make a list of the world's languages (between 5000 and 6000 of them), and order the list by number of speakers, Esperanto finds itself in the top 5%, even with the most conservative estimate of the number of its speakers. Married couples across the world use it as their home language; their children often speak it as a first language; William Auld was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature for his work in Esperanto... and your desperately trying to find other criteria to maintain that it isn't really a language strikes me as mean-spirited to say the least, if not somewhat futile.

Anyway, your question continues:

Then there is the regularity of the made-up language, a regularity which, according to its founder and its proponents, will ensure that it is successful. This idea is Utopian. It presupposes, as did Communism and Socialism, that human beings will behave in a predictable and ideal way.

Well, no, it just builds on the natural tendency that we all have to generalise rules of grammar when we speak. When you hear a child say "I comed" or "I falled over", it's perfectly understandable why she makes that mistake -- it's because she knows the language well enough to make past tenses by adding "-ed" to verbs, but she hasn't yet memorised all the exceptions that she needs in order to speak correct English. (As an aside, French grammar is so complex that it's quite common to hear people making mistakes when they're speaking, and to have listeners correct them). All that happens in Esperanto is that the same general tendency is there... but without the exceptions.

Neither humans nor their languages have ever been regular.

Again, you seem quite comfortable making sweeping statements with no references to any sources and no evidence that you have any expertise in the subject at hand, although please do correct me if you have either. See above re. Chinese.

Even if a language has been created regular, to be successful it must cease to be artificial and come alive.

See above re. a million speakers, a century of use in poetry, novels, science, love affairs, cake recipes, computer software, etc.

If it does so, like all languages, indeed all living things, it will change.

Since it already has, you'll be pleased to know that you were right in your prediction. Well done. See this paper for a detailed description, in English, of a wide range of changes that have occurred organically in the vocabulary, structure, grammar and everyday use of Esperanto.

Languages always change. It will develop irregularities, dialects, slang, pidgins or Creoles. Some dialects - those of a commercially or politically dominant group - will come to prominence, and perhaps, in time, become languages in their own right; others will die out.

You've finished by making a valid point. Well done again. Nobody knows what will happen in the future, be it the future of Esperanto or of anything else. It may fracture into mutually incomprehensible dialects, one or more of which may eventually dominate over the others. (Note that various different groups of speakers already have their own slangs, which evolve and die out much as they do in any other language. So just as English speakers have long since abandoned the expression "he's a groovy cat", likewise nobody says "Salaton!" as a greeting any more in Esperanto, as I believe they did in the sixties.) There are different pressures within the language, stretching it in different directions; some speakers like to coin new words like there's no tomorrow, while others are very conservative in this regard; others try to modify the grammar or spelling rules. And some of the new words stick and spread, while many others are forgotten (just like in other languages); grammar and spelling changes are much less common, but not completely unknown. (See the paper referenced above for examples).

What we can say is that in a 120 years of use so far, the language has successfully held itself together, and whenever a large group of Esperantists get together, or when a European traveller arrives in Brazil or Japan or Kazakhstan or Cuba and meets up with some local Esperanto speakers, they find that conversation flows freely, ideas are exchanged, experiences shared, jokes and stories told, beer is drunk, and a mind-broadening time is had by all.

8 Dec 2007
Mary Jackson

whenever a large group of Esperantists get together, or when a European traveller arrives in Brazil or Japan or Kazakhstan or Cuba and meets up with some local Esperanto speakers, they find that conversation flows freely, ideas are exchanged, experiences shared, jokes and stories told, beer is drunk, and a mind-broadening time is had by all.

I don't doubt it. The same can be said of trainspotters.

Chinese is regular because it is an isolating language and doesn't have inflections. To that extent it doesn't make sense to call it regular. Esperanto is regular only because it is artificial - the inflections have no exceptions. For now that is. If (unlikely) it takes off and is used by ordinary, "non-Esperantists" then it will developer irregularities. Sound changes can result in irregularities. (Ablaut in Germanic languages is an example of a once regular pattern of variation, which, when no longer productive due to sound changes, left irregularities in our verbs.) And if Esperanto becomes irregular, bang goes the point of it. If it had one in the first place.

8 Dec 2007
Tim Morley

Chinese is regular because it is an isolating language and doesn't have inflections. To that extent it doesn't make sense to call it regular. Esperanto is regular only because it is artificial

Well, Esperanto is regular because it was designed that way, but I do wish you would get over the "artificial" label. French spelling is as difficult as it is not because it evolved organically to its present state, but because the Académie in their wisdom have added hundreds of silent letters to make the words look more Latin. Is that any more artificial than Esperanto's nouns all having an 'o' on the end?

the inflections have no exceptions. For now that is. If (unlikely) it takes off and is used by ordinary, "non-Esperantists" then it will developer irregularities.

So you keep telling me, and I keep pointing out that the Chinese have managed not to introduce any for centuries. I'm not sure that it's getting us anywhere.

Sound changes can result in irregularities. (Ablaut in Germanic languages is an example of a once regular pattern of variation, which, when no longer productive due to sound changes, left irregularities in our verbs.) And if Esperanto becomes irregular, bang goes the point of it.

So, if I've understood correctly, your point seems to be that in a couple of centuries, Esperanto will have changed from its present form and will no longer be fit for purpose. I'm sure people were writing similar things at the turn of the last century, but so far the predictions of the language's death have been wide of the mark.

We could wait around a couple of hundred years to find out whether your prediction is right or not... but I prefer making use of the language now. Quick, before all those inevitable irregularities develop!

In fact, the whole preceding discussion misses the point to a large extent, as it disregards the context in which Esperanto is used. Any criticism of Esperanto should also be tested against other solutions to the problem that Esperanto exists to ameliorate, i.e. the problem of how to talk to foreign people who don't have the same native language as us. Other ways to cross the communication gap include using interpreters, one person speaking the other's language, everyone speaking English or another language -- and Esperanto is just another possibility. However, in terms of equality between speakers, ease of learning, and ease of use, Esperanto comes out some way ahead of the other options. (See Prof. François Grin's report to the French Haut Conseil de l'Evaluation de l'Ecole relating to this.)

Sure, it's much less widely used than English in today's world, and that's unlikely to change this year or next, but that doesn't stop it being useful to those that choose to learn it now.

9 Dec 2007
Mary Jackson

Is that any more artificial than Esperanto's nouns all having an 'o' on the end?

To the extent that the language police have interfered in the development of French, then it is artificial. But otherwise it definitiely isn't. Esperanto is artificial full stop. To keep it regular it will have to be monitored. Chinese - hardly the easiest language to learn - is "regular" only because it is an isolating language not an inflected language, so it is not a sensible comparison.

Esperanto isn't "fit for purpose" now because not enough people speak it. There is no economic or political incentive for them to do so, otherwise they would, as they do with English. If, on the other hand it genuinely takes off, it will change and become irregular as all inflecting languates have.

Most people don't believe in Esperanto. So however good it is in theory - and that is debatable - it won't work. It is doomed to failure like every other Utopian idea.

9 Dec 2007
Tim Morley

Esperanto is artificial full stop.

So you keep on repeating, without acknowledging the points that I have raised in return. You're desperate to pin this label of "artificial" on the language, and simply ignore any attempts to get you to clarify what you mean. Yes, the language evolved from a starting point that drew from existing languages but was designed by hand -- but that doesn't distinguish it from modern Hebrew, or Nynorsk, to quote two examples. Today it's spoken by around a million people -- just like Estonian or Latvian; in fact it has more speakers than the vast majority of languages on the planet. It is used every day in all conceivable human activity... but for some reason you imagine that sticking a label "ARTIFICIAL" somehow makes all of that irrelevant. I don't see it, sorry.

To keep it regular it will have to be monitored. Chinese - hardly the easiest language to learn - is "regular" only because it is an isolating language not an inflected language, so it is not a sensible comparison.

It's quite easy to describe Esperanto as an isolating language too. What you see as inflections, coming from a Western background, are actual invariable blocks that are stuck together -- just like in Chinese -- with each block having specific semantic or syntactic content.

Esperanto isn't "fit for purpose" now because not enough people speak it. There is no economic or political incentive for them to do so, otherwise they would, as they do with English.

It's true that politics and economics are pretty low down on the list of reasons why people choose to learn Esperanto. Nonetheless, millions of people have done over the last century, and continue to do so, so there must be more to it. You say that "not enough people speak it", but that raises the question, "Enough for what?" True, you can't just turn up in a new town and expect to stumble on Esperanto speakers, let alone use it to do the everyday tourist necessities -- finding a hotel, ordering a beer, etc. Use English for that, or the local language, or some thing else that's widely spoken enough wherever you are. However, if the "purpose" in question is to be able to meet local people by arrangement in thousands of cities in over a hundred countries across the world, and be able to have engaging conversations with them in a language that is comfortable for all participants, then it's entirely fit for that purpose already. People are doing it already every day.

---

I think I've said about as much as I can, but I don't seem to be doing a very good job of convincing you of much; the debate isn't really moving very far. If ever you've any questions about Esperanto -- the language, its speakers, its literature, its role in education or whatever -- I'd be happy to provide answers; feel free to use the email address submitted to NER to contact me. And I look forward to your future articles... on other subjects!

9 Dec 2007
Mary Jackson

It's quite easy to describe Esperanto as an isolating language too. What you see as inflections, coming from a Western background, are actual invariable blocks that are stuck together -- just like in Chinese -- with each block having specific semantic or syntactic content.

In other words it inflects by means of suffixes, as English does in part, but these suffixes are applied regularly and systematically. For now. Until some sound change, such as happened in Germanic, with the fixing of the stress on the root syllable, blows the thing sky high. Many of our English irregular verbs were, if you go back far enough into Pre-Germanic, quite regular.

As with a currency, you have to believe in it. And while Esperanto works for Esperanto enthusiasts, it doesn't work for most people.

9 Dec 2007
Hoss Firooznia
Perhaps no one has satisfactorily answered your point about language change because no one is willing to uncritically accept the preconception that Esperanto isn't a "proper, living language." It might help if you'd clarify what makes a language "proper" and "living" by your standards. You might also want to check the recent academic literature; there have been a number of studies of language change among Esperanto speakers — especially among those for whom it's a native language. Esperanto has been used around the world on a daily basis for over a century now, in contexts as diverse as child rearing, religious worship, technical manuals and erotica. (Though hopefully not all at the same time.) The result shouldn't be surprising: like all living languages, Esperanto evolves organically through unplanned, largely unconscious processes. Regional idioms emerge, as do slang and other fads. Older texts often appear stilted or quaint. And yes, curmudgeons do indeed write letters to magazine editors complaining about how those irreverent young 'uns are misusing the language. Yet so far, Esperanto has not drifted into mutually incomprehensible dialects, probably for the same reason that English-speaking kids from Auckland are spouting slang from New York hip-hop artists: International communication acts as a homogeniser. Esperanto speakers tend to communicate not just locally, but internationally. People from far away won't understand regional slang, and so linguistic novelties tend to either fall away quickly or gain widespread acceptance.

10 Dec 2007
Mary Jackson

My point was not that it can't change, but that if it does it will have all the faults of normal languages - unless it is kept artificially regular and uniform by enthusiasts.

Esperanto hasn't been around long enough to show the effect of changes or the dominance of one dialect, but the main reason it doesn't is because its proponents have a vested interest in its uniformity.

10 Dec 2007
Hoss Firooznia

My point was not that it can't change, but that if it does it will have all the faults of normal languages - unless it is kept artificially regular and uniform by enthusiasts.

Well, so far the evidence hasn't really lent any support to that theory. Esperanto has indeed changed, and continues to do so. For the most part, this natural evolutionary process has made the language more regular, not less.

As to "enthusiasts" (whatever that means -- speakers?) there is an Akademio de Esperanto that attempts to guide the evolution the language, much like the Académie française. Like its French equivalent, however, the Akademio has only an advisory role, at best. No one can control the evolution of Esperanto, yet so far that really hasn't been a problem at all. Most of the irregularities that have crept in over the years have been redundant lexemes, though with international use this ballast has tended to fall into disuse.

Esperanto hasn't been around long enough to show the effect of changes or the dominance of one dialect, but the main reason it doesn't is because its proponents have a vested interest in its uniformity.

It would seem that you've answered your own question here. Speakers of Esperanto ("proponents"?) have an implicit interest in its uniformity because they use it to communicate on a global scale; thus unnecessary complications are typically (and often unconsciously) rejected.

Comparisons with medieval German simply don't apply. The medieval tribes of central Europe were isolated and had no need (or ability!) to communicate on a regular basis with other peoples around the globe.

Just as speakers of "international" English in the information age have been homogenising the language through real-world usage, speakers of Esperanto have been doing the very same thing for over a century.

The difference is that English is so convoluted and capricious that only a complete overhaul would make it suitable as an effective lingua franca.

11 Dec 2007
Todd Moody
Esperanto is an international L2 without a significant L1 speaker base.  It is, as others have pointed out, chosen because it is an international L2 without a significant--or normative--L1 speaker base.  This makes it rather different from all other known languages, and that means that generalizations about language change should be conservatively applied to Esperanto, if at all.

This is not to deny that Esperanto changes--clearly it does.  But many of the processes that explain language change in L1 languages simply don't apply to Esperanto.  Americans say "gotten"; Brits don't.  That's a good example of morphological drift that resulted from the relative isolation of the British and American L1 populations after colonial times.  "Gotten" disappeared in Britain but not in America.  The two L1 populations went their separate ways.  Why would one expect the same to happen in an L2 without an L1 speaker base?

The syllogism, "All languages change.  Esperanto is a language.  Therefore Esperanto will change" is valid, and its premises are true.  The syllogism "All languages change.  Esperanto is a language.  Therefore Esperanto will change in such a way as to become irregular and self-defeating" is not valid.  To make it valid, you must alter the first premise to be something like "All languages change to become more irregular."  Where is the argument for that?  If such an argument is offered, inductively based on the observation of semantic and morphological drift in L1 languages, then it's not especially relevant to the case of Esperanto.

Mary Jackson's argument is weak.

11 Dec 2007
Mary Jackson

I didn't say all languages change to become more regular, but if a language is created perfectly regular in the first place, it is likely that any change will be to make it less than perfect.

Esperanto may indeed behave diffferently from other languages, because its speakers will try to ensure that it does. Yet other Esperantists argue, conversely, that Esperanto is a "proper" language, like others. How can it be like other languages and yet not behave like other languages? One of these statements must be wrong.

Esperanto is dull. Oh, it's dull, dull, dull.

13 Dec 2007
russ
"It is doomed to failure like every other Utopian idea."

I can think of plenty of once-Utopian ideas that already became reality. I'm sure you could too, if you took off your cynical hat.

"As with a currency, you have to believe in it. And while Esperanto works for Esperanto enthusiasts, it doesn't work for most people."

Sure.  That's true of other languages too.  Even English.  Someone who has the same attitude toward English that you have toward Esperanto will not find English to be very useful or rewarding.

"Esperanto is dull. Oh, it's dull, dull, dull."

It has become sufficiently clear that you are not sincerely discussing the subject, but are simply trolling.  Troll, troll, troll.

13 Dec 2007
Todd Moody
"As with a currency, you have to believe in it. And while Esperanto works for Esperanto enthusiasts, it doesn't work for most people."

For a language to work, you don't have to be an enthusiast.  You just have to learn it.  It's true that Esperanto doesn't work for most people, for the same reason that French doesn't work for most people, i.e., most people don't learn it.  Do you have to "believe in" French for it to work?  Maybe you have to believe it's worth learning, or else you simply won't do it.

A better analogy with currency would be this: It only works if people use it.  Even there the analogy breaks down, since currency must be backed by state authority; language needn't be, and in the case of Esperanto, isn't.  Esperanto demonstrably works for the people who choose to learn and use it.  It has been working for 120 years.  To observe that it doesn't work for those who don't learn it is...well, true but not exactly illuminating.  It certainly conveys nothing about Esperanto.

In Esperanto we have a language created by a single individual over a century ago.  Since then it has managed to generate a worldwide diaspora of speakers, a body of original and translated literature, and music in various genres.  All this has happened despite efforts by people such as Stalin and Hitler to stamp it out, and the oft-repeated "arguments" of those who really don't know much about it but are certain that it can't possibly work.  Nothing quite like this has happened before in the history of language.  It must be...dull!