Today, December 15, as some of us are aware, is International Zamenhof Day. For those who are unaware of the significance of today or even of who Ludwik Łazarz Zamenhof even is, I will provide a brief description.In 1887 L.L. Zamenhof published a book called Unua Libro, which outlined his ideas for the constructed international auxiliary language Esperanto (flag pictured). Esperanto is a combination of European “Romance Languages,” and it uses mostly Slavic grammar. The main purpose of Esperanto is to function as an international language to facilitate communication between different peoples and cultures, and as a tool in the study of linguistics. Despite some criticisms of the language, Esperanto is somewhat well known, and there are around 2 million speakers of Esperanto around the world.
This got me thinking: what, if any, are the benefits of having an international language, and is Esperanto the right language for the job? (After all, there are many other constructed languages, or conlangs, that might work even better.)
Zamenhof’s original reason for creating Esperanto has to do with communication between cultures. As he puts it in a letter in 1985:
“The place where I was born and spent my childhood gave direction to all my future struggles. In Bialystok the inhabitants were divided into four distinct elements: Russians, Poles, Germans and Jews; each of these spoke their own language and looked on all the others as enemies. In such a town a sensitive nature feels more acutely than elsewhere the misery caused by language division and sees at every step that the diversity of languages is the first, or at least the most influential, basis for the separation of the human family into groups of enemies.”
Here Zamenhof is most certainly correct: animosity between groups is often caused by language barriers. However, there are really two degrees to which a conlang can solve this problem: a) by providing a means of communication between two peoples with a language barrier, and b) by providing a language that will eventually be everyone’s natural language. Though “a” is much more realistic than “b,” the benefits of either one of these is enormous. As Zamenhof says, the peoples in the area he lived in could have gotten along much better if they did not have a language barrier restricting cultural exchange. The benefits of “b” are even greater: not only is the language barrier eliminated entirely, but the cultural baggage that comes with many languages is also eliminated, which creates a more universal culture.
Also, it could be argued that “b” would bring cultures much closer together than previously thought. The Saphir-Whorf hypothesis, created by a group of western linguists, states that a person’s natural language and idioms influences the way they view the world, almost to the point of determinism. Though this concept has not been completely proven, it has generally been accepted in Western culture and science. If a common natural language existed, everyone would have the same kind of linguistic influences on their way of thinking, bringing people even closer together.
Additionally, Esperanto has some use as a tool to study linguistics and to learn other languages. Since is it based on the “Romance Languages,” learning Esperanto is very easy for someone who already knows a Western language, and learning it makes learning another Western language much easier as well. However, in today’s world this is only somewhat useful, since Asian languages are on the rise and European ones are on the decline (in terms of populations).
But why Esperanto and not some other language? This is quite a valid point; after all, there have been many conlangs that have improved upon Esperanto, simplifying the grammar and style of the language. I am particularly biased toward Lojban (flag pictured), an artificial “logical language.” Lojban is descended from James Cooke Brown’s Loglan, which was created to allow verbal communication between humans and computers (because of the way its grammar is arranged) and to test the Saphir-Whorf hypothesis. Its grammar and structure are arranged in such a way that confusion is almost impossible, and it allows for even more ways to express statements or emotions than other languages. Like Esperanto, it is a linguistic tool and a means to better understand other languages. Since it is based on a variety of languages from all around the world, it is more valuable in this respect. However, it is somewhat difficult to learn, and it is hardly well known.
Despite these problems, Esperanto seems to be our best bet as far as a future universal language goes. So happy Zamenhof Day, and bonan nokton!
9 comments:
I've always thought about this, and I don't think there's any doubt that this would make the world a better place in the long run. That being said, can you imagine the transitional phase? Dreadful! That's the problem: people only have one life to live (as far as we know), and they don't want THEIRS to be one tainted and potentially ruined by having to learn a whole new language. It's almost as if you're asking, "does one generation just want to take one for the team?"
Admittedly the transition phase could be problematic. However, it could be phased in in such a way that requires as little "sacrifice" as possible. For example, foreign language courses in schools would be replaced with a required Esperanto (or Lojban or whatever) course. Eventually this would become more and more intensive, until it becomes a worldwide second language. Then, our old languages would be obsolete and eventually disappear. Though it might take a while, it won't be as painful as you say.
A universal language could indeed help break barriers between peoples of different cultures. No longer would people have to worry about having to deal with different languages when they deal with people from different parts of the world.
However, this idea is a "globalist" idea and won't sit well with cultural conservatives. While I believe that everyone should treasure their culture to some extent, I think in terms of a language, we should definitely become more homogeneous.
As great as many different languages can be, it often creates too many problems. One is obviously a language barrier between different people and the idea of "expression" in languages. Some words or phrases in languages just don't have equivalents. In these cases, when translated, their meaning is often lost.
I agree with you and Zamenhof; a universal language is the way to go. But I don't think that conservatives can stop this revolution once it starts--if the world really sets its mind to it, a universal language is inevitable.
Again, if there can be a way in which the transition is smooth and relatively painless, I'm all for a universal language.
We can only hope there is a way. But I must ask: what do you think of Lojban?
I can't claim to have heard of it until you mentioned it in this post, but from the brief description you have provided, it sounds fine to me. Whatever works.
Yes, we could get the world all speaking one universal language. And then we could watch as it devolves into hundreds of dialects.
It might not, since telecommunications would preserve the language in its original form by bombarding people with the standard dialect, much like American television is not broadcast in Southern US dialect.
Post a Comment