The relations between the two rival languages have been far from amiable. History repeats itself - first an attempted conspiracy of silence, then ridicule, distortion of facts and calumny. Prior to the findings of the Delegation, the Esp. press boasted of the importance of the Delegation Committee. When its findings were made public, there was either entire silence on the part of the Esp. press or the misleading statement was given out that the Committee had decided in favor of Esp. The Delegation Committee desiring no break, made efforts to retain the good will of the Espists and, at the same time, introduce betterments. Even as late as January 26, 1908, the Delegation addressed a letter to the members of the Lingva Komitato, which said, "We therefore address to you, as friends of the idea of an I. L. for which we have fought for seven years and constantly are fighting, a request that you consider tranquilly and impartially the present situation (i.e. of (1) the conservative party which would tie the language down to a "sacred book", and (2) those who wished improvement by the counsel of scientific experts)". With the headstrong leaders of the Espists it was "Esp. or nothing" and no conciliation was possible. No Esp. journal, so far as I know, permitted fair discussion of the suggested reforms. Every reference which might be considered favorable to reform has been systematically minimized. On the hand, Professor Couturat, stung by the systematic suppression or distortion of the findings of the scientific body of which be had been secretary and the calumnious references to himself and de Beaufront, continued a stream of sarcastic ridicule of Esp. and its followers in the pages of PROGRESO. This, though intellectually justified and very natural under the circumstances, did not tend to allay the antagonism. The method of attack by ridiculing the views of opponents is a common one in French intellectual life and is often very effective. Many reforms have been won by it, some lost. However, it seemed to me and to many others, that a somewhat more reticent manner of opposing the distortions and slander of the Esp. press would have been better for the promotion of the movement. Since the war, however, there has appeared in the Esp. world a dawning recognition of the fact that Esp. cannot be stuffed down the throats of the authorities without an examination of the whole problem which would likely result in the adoption of the changes in Esp. made in Ido. As stated before, I am quite willing to admit, that at the time of the general recommendations made by the Komitato there was a justified fear that continued changes extending over several years might do harm to the practical progress of the Esp. movement. Now, however, that the period of change in Ido has practically come to an end, there no longer seems practical reasons for refusing to adopt the reforms. The inert, uninterested public cares little for either project and it would seem the part of wisdom to adopt the most efficient form of I. L. and concentrate the attack on the mass of the people. As said Couturat: "Those who believe the ruin of Esp. means the ruin of the idea, have a too favorable opinion of Esp. and too little respect for the idea."
In January, 1906, in order to head off, if possible, more radical proposals
by the Delegation, Dr. Zamenhof communicated to a number of Espists a number
of changes to be introduced into the language as neologisms. Among these
were:
(1) Replacement in some words of the diphthong au by e.
(2) Suppression of the plural termination -j and indicating the plural
simply by accenting the last syllable instead of the next to the last which
remains (plus the terminal letter) to denote the singular: boná
patró: bonaj patroj. (Doubtless this reform would tend to do
away with some of the forest of -js, but as a practical sign of the plural
has little or nothing to commend it.)
(3) Modification of a number of roots, such as: alumo (vice
alumeto), amusi (amuzi), lo (anstatau), ad (apud), arhhitekto (arhhitekturisto),
avra (avara), abenturo (aventuro), fensi (defendi), dajmono (demono), djamanto
(diamento), komti (kalkuli), kamarado (kolego), pisi (urini). (So many
of these changes are lacking in internationality, that they do not commend
themselves to any but Espists accustomed to the use of mutilated roots.)
(4) Replacement of a number of roots by others, as: stete (vice
anstatau), stati (farti), breva (mallonga), fidrompi (perfidi), mem
(malpli).
(5) A number of changes in the alphabet, or rather use of the alphabet,
as: the hh letter, i.e. the letter h with supersign, being
replaced by kh except in the transcription of proper names and in
the words hholero and hhoro which would become holero,
koruso. The letters c, g, j, s, with supersign to be written as ch,
gh, jh, sh, even in the printing establishments where there was a supply
of supersigned letters.
(6) In order to reduce the number of finals, as -j, the adjective need
not be made to agree with the noun unless it stands alone.
(7) The verb esti to be reduced to the form of its monosyllabic
endings: as, is, os, us.
It is to be noted that these changes were to come about simply in the
way of additional or optional forms to the original forms which might still
be used. It is difficult to understand how Zamenhof expected to reconcile
some of these changes, such as the suppression of the agreement of the
adjective with the noun, with his claim to a strict adherence to the Fundamento.
These proposals were made to the Lingva Komitato to be accepted or rejected
as a whole. Though many of the Espists were not averse to reforms in
general, some of the proposed changes were repugnant to them (such as the
monosyllabic forms of the verb esti), furthermore others were in favor
of still other changes not proposed. The leading conservatives opposed
any changes. As result of the cold reception given to these proposals Zamenhof
did not put them to vote.
Even after the close of the Delegation's sittings, Dr. Zamenhof wrote
out a modified form of the above proposals and, although not recommending
their adoption offered to submit them to the Lingva Komitato. They
never came to vote, however, as certain powerful leaders were firm against
any change.
The above outline of reform within the ranks of Esperanto is chiefly
useful as an example of endeavor to avoid any fundamental reforms and an
attempt to placate a large number who desired some sort of reform. In letter
to Couturat, dated January 21, 1907, in reply to the assertion that he
was listening only to the voices of the conservatives, Zamenhof said: "It
is exactly because I have listened too much to the critics that I have
been convinced (particularly in the last three or four months) how difficult
it is to content the reformists and what a great danger it would be (to
the movement) to start to concede anything."
The Delegation Committee was not only fully cognizant of the important
work that the Espists had done in popularizing the idea of the I. L. and
the desirability of keeping intact, if possible, the large body of adherents
but, at the same time they recognized the real substantial excellencies
of the language. In a very real sense, Ido incorporates certain fundamental
features of Esp. and may therefore be regarded as an evolved, scientific
form of Esp. What are these excellencies and how far have they been retained
in Ido? The most important are (1) Simple grammatical forms, -o, -a, etc.
indicating the grammatical role of the word. (2) Simple conjugation without
exceptions. (3) The practical system of word derivation which enables all
related ideas to be regularly formed from the root. (Ido has simply carried
out the earlier system of word derivation to a greater degree of logical
precision). (4) Power of word combination, similar to the German. (5) A
large proportion of its vocabulary which, in spite of its empirical selection,
conforms to internationality. (6) Coordination of orthography and pronunciation,
and the suppression of double letters.
Dr. Zamenhof was not the only one, or the first author to recognize
the necessity of simple, regular grammatical forms or to use international
roots. His system is far from perfect but it marks a decided step in advance
over its predecessor, Volapuk.
It is not necessary to be a learned philologist or accomplished linguist to understand the common sense necessity for the general reforms of Esperanto proposed by the Delegation Committee and carried out in Ido. In judging the relative excellence of Ido and Esp., it is essential to keep the mind upon the main points of the differences hereafter discussed. Esp. writers are apt to endeavor to confuse the mind of the inquirer by the discussion of subsidiary questions.
Esp. has six supersigned letters: c', s', g', j', h', u'. Owing to the
lack of special type for these characters, I have endeavored to distinguish
these special letters by placing an accent point thereafter, as here shown.
It is argued that the use of the special letters permits the carrying
out with scientific exactitude of the phonetic principle of "one letter,
one sound." The digraphs: sh, ch, as found in the words: ship(o), chambr(o),
being reduced to s'ip(o), c'ambr(o). No member of the Delegation
Committee attempted to defend the retention of the supersigned letters.
Out of all the projects considered, Esperanto alone had the temerity to
offer an alphabet which demanded special type. However, the celebrated
philologist, Prof. Baudouin de Courtenay, with Prof. Ostwald concurring,
did put in a plea for the absolute phoneticism of "one letter, one sound."
His argument was that one should be guided by a strict logic rather than
by traditional use, however international. He proposed that the sound of
the Esp. letter c be represented by ts: tsent (for cent), tserta
(for certa), etc.; that the Esp. sound of c' be represented by tc: tcambro
(instead of as Ido: chambro); and that the Esp. letter s'
(Ido: sh) be represented by c: cipo (for ship). Jespersen, Couturat
and Moch opposed these proposals, basing their arguments on the practical
ground of international usage; showing that whatever theoretical benefits
might arise by their adoption would be more than offset by the loss of
facility of recognition because of the distortion of the spelling. The
outcome of the discussion was that, "the Committee accepted in the I. L.
the digraphs ch and sh with the sounds found in the ordinary
English words." The voting was four against two -- the only decision reached
in the whole conference which was not unanimous. Prof. Jespersen states
on this point: "(In Ido) the strict phonetic canon "one symbol, one sound"
is followed in so far as the same sound is never arbitrarily written one
way in one word and another way in another word, and the same letter is
never pronounced differently in some words compared with the majority...
The canon must be subordinated to the fundamental principle of greatest
facility."
It is argued that the retention of these supersigned letters, especially
the g' (pronounced like the E. j) tends to preserve the international aspect
of certain words, as: g'entila, g'ermo, g'ardeno, g'irafo, sofag'a,
voyag'o. This must be granted as respects such words as the above.
However, it may be said that the Esp. g' likewise distorts some words from
the English standpoint: g'oj (E. joy), g'ardeno (pronounced in E. with
"g" hard as distinguished from the French sound). In Ido, it has
been the rule to follow the spelling where that has the greatest internationality,
and the pronunciation where that kind of internationality predominates
over the orthography.
The above words are written in Ido: jentila, jermo, jirafo, sovaja,
voyajo; gardeno (with the hard g as in E.); other such words are: anjelo,
vejetanto, mariajar. The French word 'boudoir' is transcribed
phonetically in Ido as buduaro. However, as has been stated
before, because the orthography of the common roots is so much more often
international than the pronunciation, there must often result in any form
of I. L., formed on an a posteriori basis, a certain amount of "distortion"
of the pronunciation, though, in most cases, the "distortion" is not sufficiently
great to prevent easy recognition of the original words as found in the
natural languages.
It is argued that the retention of these special letters enables an
easy phonetical transcription of certain difficult Russian and German proper
names. It is enough to answer to this that the transcription of proper
names is of comparatively little importance in any I. L.. All existing
alphabets are imperfect symbols from the viewpoint of the philologist.
Permit the philologist 80 characters, instead of 30, and, from a phonetic
standpoint, his alphabet would be far superior to any existing, but it
would result in the loss of facility for immediate recognition of words
now afforded by the common international orthography, imperfect as it admittedly
is. Schleyer, in his Volapuk, for instance, replaced the r in words by
1, because r was difficult to pronounce by the Chinese and in consequence
of this and similar changes, his vocabulary, though largely based on English
words, was so disfigured as to become almost unrecognizable even by Englishmen.
Another argument offered by the Espists in support of the supersigned
letters is the somewhat curious one that the lack of availability of these
letters prevents half-taught Espists from rushing into print at the nearest
printers. Because there exists but few centers where Esp. copy can be set
up, there exists in these centers competent Espists who will see to it
that only copy composed in good style is put into print. I shall only say
that this affords a somewhat startling commentary on the boasted facility
of Esp. One would presume that it was the essential aim of any form of
I. L. to be printed in numberless centers, rather than a few.
The last argument offered in support recognizes the difficulties in
the way of obtaining a stock of official letters and states that where
the special letters cannot be obtained, the supersigns be done away with
and the digraphs ch, gh, jh, sh, hh be used instead and the supersign over
the u simply suppressed. Thus those printers who possess only the Roman
letters can print any Esp. article. Of course, this is no fundamental reform
of the alphabet and is put forward only as a makeshift, a temporary expedient
to be used by those who for the time do not possess the proper letters.
So far as I know, no Esp. journal employs this palliative remedy.
The Esp. editors recognize the fact that if the language is to be printed,
the proper alphabet should be used and not digraphs which deform the original
and make unsightly the appearance of the words.
The practice of the Espists themselves is a sufficient argument against
this makeshift. No one uses it and no one will use it because it alters
the whole aspect of the language. There exists no sufficient reason
for retaining a special alphabet if it is not fit for use. The digraphs
ch, sh (as found in chambro, shipo) are acceptable enough and were adopted
by the Delegation Committee because of their wide internationality, but
the digraphs: gh, jh, hh, so distort the international spelling as to cause
a great loss of facility of recognition. Such forms as: agho (age), ghentila,
ghermo, voyagho, ghoyo, ghardeno; jhaluza, jhargono, jhuro; hhaoso, hhameleono,
hhemio, hhino, hhirurgo, hholero, hhoro, monahho (monk), monarhh (monarch),
have not only lost their international aspect as, to the spelling but are
displeasing to the eye and a shock to our common sense. There is no real
alternative to either retaining the special letters and always using them,
or to making a thoroughgoing reform of the alphabet, as was done in Ido.
The criticism of Dr. Zamenhof himself in 1894 (quoted on p. 71) as to the
practical detriment of these letters to the diffusion of the languages
stands as good to-day as when it was written. Of course, the Esp. propagandists
claim that Esp. has not obtained such wide use and recognition that it
is unwise and impolitic to make changes. This argument is but a sample
of what would be adduced to hinder any change in the language, should any
official congress be considering the adoption of Esperanto. All the forces
of conservatism, of vested interests, of prejudice would put in the plea
of long use against all proposals of improvement, just as the advocates
of spelling reform fail to get a fair hearing and support. The longer
errors exist, the harder it is to eradicate them.
The one all-sufficient, all-compelling argument against the special
letters is their lack of internationality. It has been stated that
the Esp. alphabet has a considerable resemblance to the Polish, Lithuanian
and especially the Czech alphabet. Doubtless the Esp. alphabet seemed
natural enough to Dr. Zamenhof with his limited linguistic training and
his Polish-Russian outlook, but what a basis for an alphabet suitable for
international use! A scientific I. L. must take as the basis of its vocabulary
those roots which are most international, that are easiest for the greatest
number of men. Why then, in the name of common sense, should this
principle be rejected in the selection of the alphabet? Is not internationality
and consequent facility of use as much needed in that most fundamental
of all things, the alphabet, as well as in the vocabulary? The facts of
the case are simple: The great majority of the nations of Europe and the
Americas, peoples vastly superior in numbers and culture to the rest, do
not use these special characters -- they use the Roman alphabet.
Even the Germans, Russians, Czechs, print many books and papers in the
Roman type and all printers of importance have some stock of the characters
and can readily and cheaply procure additional ones if needed without going
to the expense and delay of having special type cast. As a practical
example of the widespread use of the Roman type. I will state that within
the last few months several bids for printing the new Ido-English dictionary
were submitted by small printing establishments in Germany and Czecho-Slovakia.
They could not do this except they had in stock the Roman type. The
Czecho-Slovakian alphabet is practically unprocurable outside of the national
borders, yet this alphabet most nearly resembles the Esp. alphabet! With
the Roman alphabet we have hundreds of thousands of printing establishments,
linotypes, typewriters in a position to print Ido at will. For Esp. none,
unless specially equipped. It is well to remember that the equipment of
special type just cover all sizes and kinds, both for small and capital
letters. These types must be specially cast or procured from possibly
half a dozen printing establishments throughout the world. An American
author of a small Esp. grammar printed some years ago was compelled to
pay over one hundred dollars for the type necessary for the special letters
to set up his booklet. In order to avoid errors in setting up the type,
double the attention and labor is demanded. In writing, it is constantly
necessary to stop and insert supersigns, thus slowing down the rapidity
of the writing and interrupting the attention to the subject.
One who is not a learned philologist must, of course, speak with difference
on the selection of the letters which should compose the best alphabet
for the I. L. The Ido alphabet is the outcome of the advice of competent
philologists from the different linguistic groups. Prof. Otto Jespersen
played a leading part and it is fully recognized that no philologist stands
higher in learning and special competency than this eminent scholar.(12)
To the Poles, to the Russians, possibly to the Germanic races, the presence
of the various supersigned letters, the continued "ch" and "sh" sounds,
the frequent diphthongs, the forests of "j's" in the plurals, and the constant
accusative ending in "n", seem not to disfigure the text but even to beautify
it. To the majority of Europeans and all Americans, their presence,
to say nothing of the difficulties of pronunciation, has a strange and
disagreeable aspect. De gustibus non est disputandum. The fact,
however, that the English and Romance group compose a vast majority and
have a cultural predominance makes it necessary in any scientific form
of I. L. that their usages and prejudices be taken into consideration.
Take the diphthongs: aj, ej, oj, uj, au, eu, which are disagreeable both
to eye and ear because of their frequency and which present more or less
difficulties of pronunciation to all Romance peoples. One of the
recommendations of the Committee on the I. L. of the American Philosophical
Society was that no future I. L. should contain diphthongs -- Esp. bristles
with them.
Take the c', s', of the supersigned letters (replaced in Ido by the
digraphs: ch, sh), which all Esp. textbooks in English inform the student
are to be pronounced as in the Ido digraphs: Kotzin (Historio kaj teorio
de Ido, p.23) informs us that these digraphs are really not the equivalents
of the supersigned letters, that chambro and posho do not
correctly represent the sounds of c' and s' in c'ambro, pos'o -- what the
proper sounds are he does not state.
Take the diphthongs: aj, oj, uj: According to Dr. Zamenhof (Esperantisto,
Jan., 1893) the letter "j" is always a consonant, either before or after
a vowel. Therefore these so-called "diphthongs" represent a vowel combined
with a consonant: aj- "a", vowel, plus the "j" (consonant). In English,
these combinations are true diphthongs, pronounced as if composed of two
vowels: aj- ai sound, like "y" in my; oj- oy sound as in boy. Yet if the
"j" is to be considered a consonant, the English usage is not correct for
Esp.
The combination "uj" as found in such ordinary words as unuj, tiuj
is especially difficult -- for the English speaker -- the exact pronunciation
I cannot attempt to state. It was noted that out of 22 successive
numbers of the British Esperantisto, six contained articles on the pronunciation
of the aj, oj, uj. This would not have happened if the pronunciation were
as easy for the English as claimed.
To inform the English speaker that h' is to be pronounced as "ch" in
the Scottish word "loch", does not give us much of a guide when this supersigned
letter is used as an initial consonant.
Take "au", "eu": Zamenhof claims, I believe, that in these two "diphthongal"
combinations each letter is to be pronounced separately. Yet how
that can be done, especially with the "au" is not clear.
However, it is not necessary to stress the difficulties too much. Esp.
seems in practice to be orally intelligible to all European peoples, though
the language does present some difficulties of pronunciation, especially
to the English. These difficulties arise in part from the unusual letter
sounds or combination of letter sounds which are not found, or rarely found
in the English. These sounds so difficult to the English seem easy and
simple to the Russians and Poles, just as certain sounds (the "th" for
example) seem easy and simple to us but very difficult to many foreigners.
Take, for instance, the three j's: g' or gh with the value of the ordinary
English j sound or soft g; j like the y in yes; j' or "jh" like the s in
leisure. The Esp. sounds for these letters are unfamiliar to English ears
and tend to mislead the student or user from the correct pronunciation.
Another criticizable point is the constant succession of "ch" sounds
which, to Western European ears seem disagreeable, as found in chio
tio chi, chiuj tiuj chi, char ech che tiuj. Chu shia fiancho serchis
shin. (In Ido: Kad lua fianco serchis el?) Char shi ne scias,
chu shia chapelo estas tie-chi au che shia chambro, serchu ghin chie.
(In Ido - Pro ke el ne savas, kad lua chapelo esas hike od en lua chambro,
serchez ol omnube.) The Slavic languages are, I understand, very rich
in such sounds consequently they seem easy and euphonious to Slavic races,
but, such is certainly not the case to the majority of Europeans.
Still other questionable phonetics are the difficulties of pronunciation
of such letter combinations as: sc in absceso, sceptro, scii;
kc in akcepti, akcio, funkcio; the kv sounds which
replace the qu in many words of Latin derivation, as: akvo, kvar;
the gv where the takes the place of "u", as: lingvo, gvidi.
According to the democratic and scientific principle of "the greatest
good to the greatest number", Slav phonetics should not be given a preference
over the phonetics of the majority languages.
____________________________________
Notes:
12 - One of the most difficult phonetic problems which confronted the
Delegation was the proper sound to be given the letter "c" -- the acceptance
or rejection of "k". In the original Latin alphabet, the "k" sound was
represented by the letter "k", the letter "c" having the sound of "g".
Unfortunately for future phonetic regularity, "k" became practically obsolete
and "c" usurped its place. As a consequence modern Italian (also Spanish
and Portuguese lack the letter "k", replacing it by "c" or "ch" before
vowels, and admitting it only in words taken from other languages. The
English "c" consequently sometimes represents the hard "k" sound, and sometimes
has the value of " s" to say nothing of the variations in sound represented
by the digraph "ch". We have catholic and catholicism, publicity
and publication.
The different authors of the I. L. projects have variously solved,
or attempted to solve these difficulties. Some Italians and Latinists,
as Peano in Interlingua, reject the letter "k" altogether and give to "c
(and "ch") the "k" sound. In Ido (as in Esp.), the letter "k" is retained
and "c" given the sound of "ts" as the "ts" in bits and the "cz" in czar.
The use of "c" for the "ts" sound enables us to retain the ordinary spelling
for such words as cento, civila, instead of being compelled to write
tsento, tsivila, etc. thus losing facility of recognition. There
is an excellent discussion of the problem in the August, 1910, number of
Discussiones, Prof. Meysmans, who is a advocate of some sort of a
Latin-based I. L. comes to the following conclusions: (1) If we retain
in the I. L. the Latin roots and differing conjugations with their vowel
endings in a, e, i, o, u, it is possible to use "c" for the "k" sound;
(2) that if we do not retain the Latin final vowels and have only one conjugation,
the retention of "c" (with the "k" sound) is difficult, if not impossible.
In this latter event, the "k" must be used and "c" given the sound of "ts"
(as Ido). As Prof. Meysmans stated elsewhere (see p. 51) that he
found a perfect wall of prejudice against the Latin finals, it is evident
that he would vote for the retention of "k". The dropping of "k" from the
Latin alphabet is one of the phonetic catastrophes of history from the
I. L. standpoint.