From: LAWCROWN@NUSVM.bitnet (Barry Crown)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto
Subject: Esperanto and fluency
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:13:40 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
X-Unparsable-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 18:38:53 SST

In a most interesting article Bruce Sherwood explains why he feels that it
is easier to acquire a high degree of mastery of Esperanto than of, say,
Italian or Spanish.  I agree with almost everything Bruce wrote, but there
is one paragraph in his article, which troubles me.

Bruce writes:
>The unusual mechanisms of word formation in Esperanto (so wildly
>different from the mechanisms of European languages, especially the
>Romance languages) empower me, because with a relatively small
>vocabulary one can be very expressive.  This is not so in European
>languages, which often derive expressiveness and nuance from a very
>large vocabulary.  This is notoriously the case of English, which has a
>huge Germanic vocabulary PLUS a huge Romance vocabulary.  Pity the poor
>learner who is supposed to know the difference between "freedom" and
>"liberty," and not use one where the other belongs.  I revel in the
>ability in Esperanto to say things like "senigi" and "ebligus" and
>"malhava" and "diserigxi."

Zamenhof realised that an international language had to be easy to learn
and therefore had to have a simple grammatical structure as well as a
method of word formation which would not overtax the memory of the learner.
So far as grammar is concerned, he was only partially successful.  It would
not be unfair to describe Esperanto as having essentially a simplified and
regularised form of Latin grammar.  As such, it is not too difficult for
speakers of European languages to master.  For speakers of Asian languages,
however, the grammar of Esperanto is a major stumbling block, as is
perhaps evidenced from time to time by some of the postings on this user
group.  In fact, several Asian languages have a much simpler grammatical
structure than Esperanto.

So far as word formation is concerned, Zamenhof was more successful.  One
can, obviously, argue with some of his word choices, but on the whole he
succeeded in demonstrating through his writings and translations that
his language could be extraordinarily expressive even with a limited
vocabulary - or, more accurately, with a limited stock of root words.
Unfortunately, however, as Bruce points out, the system of affixes is
quite alien to native speakers of European languages, who have always
formed the majority of the Esperanto community.  Moreover, in the early
days of the language, one of the main accusations levelled against it by
its detractors was that it was "unnatural".  Today we can see that
"unnatural" was code for "un-European".  This was not so obvious at the
time.

Esperantists reacted to the charge in different ways.  For some it
led to Ido and other attempts to reform the grammar and syntax, so as to
make it look more "natural".  For others, such as Waringhien and Kalocsay,
the basic grammar of Esperanto could not be touched (although it could be
stated in terms which would appeal to any Latin teacher), but the language
could develop by the addition of new root words in exactly the same
manner as any natural European language.  The result is that modern
Esperanto presents many examples of pairs or groups of synonyms just
like "freedom" and "liberty".  The following list is a purely arbitrary one,
consisting of words, which happened to come to mind after I read Bruce's
article.  Some of the pairs of words are Zamenhofian.  In most cases the
the word on the left entered the language at a later date.

starti/komencig^i
nekrologo/mortanonco
ekspliki/klarigi
au^todidakta/memlerninta
monotona/unutona
grupo/teamo/skipo
au^tovojo/s^oseo
Julo/Kristnasko
korifeo/c^efrolulo
elo/biero
sekundara/duagrada
tendenco/emo
magazino/revuo

I should point out that I have encountered all the above words in magazine
articles (mainly in "Esperanto" or "Monato") and not in poetry or any other
literary context.  One could easily add to the above list.  Perhaps one
should add all the "mal-" substitutes, such as, "olda", "povra", "leg^era",
"poka", "liva", all of which I have encountered in non-literary contexts.

Modern Esperanto has an extremely large stock of root words.  There is no
doubt that as a result it has become a richer and more expressive language, but
it has also become much harder to master.  Certainly for non-Europeans the
burden of learning the language has increased enormously, but even for
Europeans the new roots are not necessarily easy to remember.  After all, how
many speakers of English would instantly recognise "nekrologo" or "korifeo"?
I even wonder how many native English speakers would immediately grasp the
meaning of "au^todidakta", even though this form exists in fact in English.
Nevertheless, the additional vocabulary has made modern Esperanto a more
powerful tool for self-expression.  To use Bruce's own words, modern
Esperanto derives "expressiveness and nuance from a very large vocabulary."

In an article published in "Esperanto" in April, Fernando de Diego argues
that Esperanto *is* a European language and should continue to develop as
such.  I think one could raise a number of theoretical arguments against this
approach.  For me, however, what is most important is the practical
objection.  If you want an international language which is rich and expressive
and difficult to learn, you don't have to look far.  It already exists and
it's called English!


Barry Crown
National University of Singapore