Pueblo chieftain., 1922-01-12
(By Frederic J. Haskin.)


Washington. D. c.. Jan. l0.-Peoplc
and officials at the disarmament con-
ference are not handicapped by the
use of languages unfamiliar to them.
English and French are. the Official
languages of the conference. English
was decided upon first. and then
French was added out Of considcra.
ton for tho French delegation and
because French has 20 long been the
accepted language OF diplomay.
This means that the delegates have
to do their own translating or have
the speeches translated for them
whenever any tongue except their
own Is being used. II II often I'M
ton exact shades OF meaning. and
therefore tho question OF an inter-
national language II again raised.
Would not An artificial language.
Espento for instance. solve this
problem?
Considering the diplomatic attitude
toward language. 1t probably would
not. The diplomat knows that much
of his conversation can be interpreted
in half dozen ways. He intends Il
to be SO. To show his cards before
EauginE carefully tho other players
hands and being absolutely sure of
his own 10 generally fatal. As T.
isn't often in tho game that all of
tho cards are on the table. so II isn't
often that the diploma. speaks un-
reservedly.
This is where the manufactured
language Ia inadequate for diplomacy.
n professor Of philology points out
to US. He says that In a language
like Esperanto or Volapuk IL is prac-
tically impossible to hedge or to veil
a meaning. ]
In a manufactured language there
are equivalents for ordinary English
words. but tho vocabulary IL limit
cd. II Esperanto has a wealth of
synonyms. such as We have in En-
Elish. half the simplicity OF the arti-
ficial language would be lost. So.
only when diplomats talk straight
from the shoulder will artificial lam
Suage be Of any use to them. he
says.
Another objection 10 a universal
language made by the same language
scholar is that pronunciations differ
NO that the exact words spoken by an
Italian. a Swcde and an American
would not sound at all alike.
Difficulties OF Esperanto.
Even leaving out the question of
notable. A in Esperanto Is always
broad. as In ah. but an American used
to sounding his as rather fiat would
be apt to produce kampo, field. quite
differently from the way given in the
book. The foreigner, not allowing for
the influence of local pronunciations
might not understand the word at
all.
The endinss, for r. noun. a for
an adjective. and for an ndvcrb.
which mako reading of Esperanto
easy. are another source OF confusion
In conversation. az they tend to be
obscured in rapid talk. So that. from
T..
guaEes. this professor doubts wheth-
cr diplomats could understand ono
another as well in Esperanto as in
English or French. and the obscurities
which would arise might not come
where the diplomats intended.
Tho endings of words in Esperanto
have been quite bone OF contention.
They are designed to simplify the
grammar. But some language stu
dents hold that In practice, extremely
simple grammar IN weakness This
has been pointed out by Hugo Mum
sterberg. the psychologist He finds
that our complicated system of hav-
Ing plural noun and a special form
of tho verb to go with n IL wise.
If we. use run" for all forms of
the verb. for instance. and depended
on the noun to show plurals we would
have. the boy run, the boys run.
This sort of thing might make the
language easier TO learn. but Mum
sterberx shows that It would be false
economy.
I'VE should need an excessive
strain of attention, and reading and
listening would become an exhaustive
labor he says. Having several sign
posts In one sentencc to point out the
same meaning makes conversation far
less exacting.
Because of fhe controversies over
Esperanto and similar inventions they
have never achieved the widespread