At the risk of turning the fine wine of a good debate into the bitter vinegar of an overly contentious subject (Esperanto with 28 citations on the statistical information of The Iconoclast), allow me to make a final statement to those who still have an open mind.

Mary Jackson’s latest remark on the issue takes the form of a question which, as usual, she also provides an answer for - “Is there an Esperanto Thesaurus? Esperanto should not really need one should it?” This tag question, as most native English speakers are aware of, is simply a rhetorical question asking for confirmation of a statement or belief and not a real question. This rhetorical device however often causes confusion for foreign learners of the language. If she is asking a real question, it deserves an answer.

For those who are actually still seeking to learn more about Esperanto, let me address a few final remarks on the matter as a native American speaker of English who is multilingual and fluent in Spanish, Hebrew, Danish and Esperanto.

The latest edition of the most widely circulated and thorough Esperanto-Esperanto dictionary La Nova Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto (The New PIV), also dubbed PIV2 (published in 2002 and already sold out) includes about 1,300 pages, 17,000 words and 47,000 lexical units. Many synonyms are mentioned in the definition of words and countless examples are given of how various grammatical and lexical devices are utilized in the form of prefixes, suffixes and infixes to alter the basic meaning of the root part of a word. I gave examples of this in my current December article “Why Esperanto is Different” as follows…..

There is no need for a separate Thesaurus as the speaker is perfectly capable of independently forming words according to the above schematic system. Yes, Esperanto also has synonyms like English that are based on a single word such as “bald” (kalva in Esperanto) and another that makes use of a specific descriptive ending attached to an independent word like “hairless“ (senhara in Esperanto). The prefix “sen” in Esperanto fulfils the same function as the ending -less in English to signify the lack of something speechless, mindless, fearless, etc.). English makes use of many of the same principles of word formation as Esperanto, the difference is one of degree and regularity. Esperanto is not a Stepford Wife and those who love her do not do so out of love of any theory but because they have found her to be so useful as well as attractive AND challenging.

I have written three books and more than 250 published articles and book reviews in English and a few dozen short articles in Spanish and Hebrew. Although I am fluent in these languages, I still make mistakes including in my own native language and even after proof-reading by friends, colleagues and my wife, have sometimes discovered an error in spelling, grammar or lack of clarity. This occurred much less frequently with the two short Esperanto plays and short articles I have had published.

In the book “La Bona Lingvo” by Claude Piron, whose five minute video Mary Jackson suggests (as I do) readers watch, to get an impression of the character of Esperanto, the following example by the author serves to illustrate how rich Esperanto is in synonyms. Piron names approximately 50 words and expressions in Esperanto for the equivalent French word timide (timid in English and timema in Esperanto), each one with its own nuance and amplified significance. I will analyze just one of the 50 to give the reader an idea of Esperanto’s richness and flexibility. One of the fifty synonyms is alfrontevitema. The reader immediately recognizes the root part of the word is alfront- signifying confrontation. The subsequent part of the word -evit- is the Esperanto root defining avoidance; em- is part of the final ending denoting tendency, quality, susceptibility and the final letter -a denotes an adjective. Without “thinking”, the Esperanto reader, even if he had never seen this word before can appreciate that its meaning has to do with fear some people are prone to when confronting issues and problems.

In an earlier reply to the repeated assertions that somehow Esperanto is not a living language, I made the comparison with Modern Hebrew and the Nynorsk language (one of two official languages in Norway) to show that all three were subject to exactly the same critical remarks in their early formative period of development. All three began as desk projects and were not the native, habitual or primary language of anyone. All three encountered the same criticism as Esperanto that they were “artificial”. Speakers of Yiddish mocked and satirized Eliezer ben-Yehuda and the woefully inadequate vocabulary of early Hebrew speakers in Palestine right up until the moment the British mandatory authorities recognized it an official language in 1921. Yiddish speaking visitors remarked that even in the 1920s, many Zionists promoting Hebrew lacked the necessary words for many essential objects and relations and spoke in a garbled, uncertain and “unnatural” way.

The same occurred in Norway where Ivar Aasen and his supporters had to find a “neutral” form for what they reconstructed and believed was the original Norwegian language that prevailed in the country before the Black Plague. Centuries of Danish rule had imposed a literary speech (Danish as spoken by educated Norwegians) and referred to it erroneously as “Norwegian“ something that many nationalists could not accept as the proper vehicle of expression and culture for their country and its aspirations to become an independent state.

All three are thriving today and two are the official languages of modern states - Israel and Norway.

Readers who would like to learn more about these and other language contradictions, revivals and conflicts are referred to my book “Nations, Language and Citizenship” (McFarland & Company, Inc. Jefferson, North Carolina and London. 2004.  ISBN 0-7864-1710-2.)

Esperanto differs in that its speakers are not concentrated in a physical territory or defined by a common ethnicity. Many younger people today who are Esperanto speakers are NOT interested in the “Esperanto Movement” , propagandizing on its behalf or believe that the future of the language depends in any way on the long aspired goal of many idealists to achieve some form of international recognition. They are neither cranks nor idealists but continue to create an Esperanto culture that is shared around the world. They do so because they have found a vehicle of expression that they can shape that is largely free from the dominating influences of the major national languages.