The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1922-01-12
Universal Language
BY FREDERICK J. HAsKIN

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12-People are
asking if some of the delegates and
officials at the disarmament confere-
nee are not handicapped by the use
of languages unfamiliar to them. En-
glish and French are the official Ian
guages of the conference. English
was decided upon at first, and then
French out of consideration of the
French delegation and because French
has so long been the accepted language
of diplomacy.
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. 1t is often i'm
possible to carry over into transla-
ton exact shades of meaning, and
therefore the question of an interna-
tional language again is raised. Would
not an artificial language. Esperanto,
for instnce, solve this problem?
Considering the diplomatic attitude
toward language, it probably would
not. The diplomat knows that much
of his conversation can be interpreted
in half a dozen ways. He intends 1t
to be so. To show his cards before
gauging carefully the other players
hands and being absolutely sure of
his own is generally fatal. AS it isn't
often in the game that all the cards
are on the table. so it isn't often that
the diplomat speaks unreservedly.
This is where the manufactured Ian
guage is inadequate for diplomacy, a
| professor of philology points out to us.
He says that in language like Espe-
ranto or Volapuk it is practically i'm
| possible to hedge or to veil meaning.
| In a manufactured language there
are equivalents for ordinary English
words, but the vocabulary is limited
| If Esperanto had a wealth of synonym
such as we have in English, half the
simplicity of the artificial language
will be lost So, only when diplomats
! talk straight from the shoulder will
artificial language be of any use to
them, he says.
| Another objection to a universal
| language made by the same language
scholar is that pronunciations differ
so that the exact words spoken by al
| Italian, Swede and an American
would not sound at all alike.
! Difficulties of Esperanto.
! Even leaving out the question Of
foreign accents this difference is not
able. A in Esperanto is always broad
as in ah, but an American used tc
sounding his as rather flat would be
apt to produce kampo, field, quite diff
| ferently from the way given in tho
book. The foreigner, not allowing foi
the influence of local pronunciations
tho word at all
The endings, for a noun, for ar
adjective, and for an adverb, which
make reading of Esperant easy, are an
other source of confusion in converse
ton, rs they tend to be obscured II
rapid talk. So that, from his expert
ments with artificial languages, this
professor doubts whether diplomats
could understand one another as vel
in Esperanto as in English or French
and the obscurities which would arise
might not come where the diplomat!
intended.
The endings of words in Esperanto
have been quite bone of contention
They are designed to simplify thu
grammar But some language stu
dents hold that in practice, eXtremel!
simple grammar is a weakness. Thl
has been pointed out by Hugo Nuns
terberg, the psychologist. He find
that our complicated system of hayin'
plural noun and special form OF tn
, verb to go with it is wise.
If we use run for all forms of tn
: verb. for instance, and depended OF
the noun to show plurals We woul'
have, "the boy run" "the boys run.
This sort of thing might make tn
Ilane11age easier to learn. but Munster