|
Enkomputiligis Don HARLOW |
West Stockbridge, Mass.
As usual, this issue of ILR (No. 52, 2nd Quarter, 1969) was packed full of interesting and valuable material, on which I should like to comment in some detail --
(1) ESPERANTO: As an Esperantist, I was, of course, gratified at the amount of attention given Esp in this issue, especially in Prof. Pei's contributions. (Incidentally, in his address to the public meeting of the Congress at North Adams State College, Prof. Pei gave a resume of his article 'Keep the Faith!' He also gave credit to ILR.) I believe that his contributions to the IL movement merit the amount of space which you devoted to his views. I confess that I am a prejudiced judge: Prof. Pei was my first Spanish teacher in junior high school over forty years ago; and I have been on admirer and friend of his ever since! Nevertheless, I feel that he has done more to publicize the IL question for the general public in the English-speaking world than any other person. I believe that his contributions have been invaluable.
I agree with your comments as to the significance of some of the data which Prof. Pei uses in his article 'Keep the Foith!' Words are tricky things; the word 'want' implies three distinct ideas: i.e. desire, require and lack. Thus the sentence: Many people want an IL can mean:
|
1) They desire an IL 2) They need an IL 3) They lack an IL |
I personally believe that all three of these propositions are correct, but I realize that it is quite possible that any one of the three (or, none for that matter) can be true to the exclusion of one or two (or 3) of the others. My own estimate of what the answers to the poll signify is that many people think the introduction of an IL universally would be what an uncle of mine (an active politician) called a 'pious idea,' i.e. all legislators favor it in their speeches; that they would like to see their children -- or some other people -- learn it and that they might, if sufficiently urged, write a letter to their congressman about it if they ever got the time! Nevertheless, Prof. Pei's point is important as a counter to those people -- and they are many -- who assert that only Esperantists and similar 'nuts’ give any serious consideration to the IL. Such anti-IL ideas are prevalent; supporters of the IL need to prove that such a concept is not only prejudiced and unscientific but incorrect.
While I appreciate the amount of space granted to Esp, I still believe that it would be worthwhile in ILR to present a piece stressing the different nature of Esp and other constructed languages. (NB: I said different, not necessarily better!) As my Harlem students would put it Esp is a 'different breed of cat!' I believe that this difference -- particularly in the matter of Esp as a social phenomenon is very important and needs to be analyzed, since language is as much a social as a linguistic phenomenon. I believe that I am competent to write on the topic since not only have I been an active Esperantist for many years, but I have edited a newspaper in Ido, written and spoken Occidental (now known as Interlingue) - in the winter of 1944-5 when I was in Paris as a translator for the U.S. Army I was invited to speak to the Occidental Club; to express my appreciation for the courtesy, I addressed the meeting exclusively in Occidental and was later told by their president that they had never heard the language used more fluently and elegantly before! -- and I have carried on correspondence and conversations in Volapuk with the (to my knowledge) only surviving member of the Volapukaklub in Amsterdam!
(2) Is an IL really necessary?
I believe that Dr. Gode's query is based on a misconception of what is necessary and by whom necessity is recognized. Between a need's arising and the recognition of its being a need - not to mention implementing procedures to solve it -- an immense time lag may elapse. Can any reasonable person deny that the world needs (in all three meanings) solutions to such problems as some sort of world administration, the substitution of some method of solving international problems other than by war, over-population and the waste of natural resources, etc.? The fact that up to today no agreed-upon solutions have been found doesn't mean that they don't need to be found -- and if not to-morrow by week after next! To an interlinguists -- especially an Esperantist -- it is tragic that responsible people do not acknowledge that a solution does exist for one problem, and that the solution can be put to use immediately and can be improved as experience shows where improvements are necessary. As an Interlinguist I am well aware that an immense amount of work still remains to be done. It is because I believe that ILR can serve as a valuable instrument in this pursuit that I support it. That is why I consider all interlinguists to be my colleagues, and where I disagree with any proposals, my disagreements are always technical, linguistic or sociological, never personal or polemical.
This leads me to express my profound regret at certain statements which appeared on the last page of ILR. The paragraphs beginning 'Perhaps the younger generation of interlinguists is not aware ...' present what can only be described as a partial (in both senses of the word!) presentation of historical events. Many informed interlinguists (myself included) would question every statement in the paragraphs following that initial statement. I haven't the slightest desire to fan the flames of long dead (I had hoped!) controversies, but in the interest of fairness and accuracy I question whether such statements should be left unanswered. This is especially true since the real lesson of the entire Esp-Ido controversy of some sixty years ago is not even mentioned, i.e. that serious, intelligent and well-meaning people devoted to a common ideal can involve themselves in polemical struggles to such an extent -- and believe me, all the rights weren't on one side and all the wrongs on the other! Life rarely works that way - that the entire IL movement was set back immeasurably, and the tragic consequences are still extant today. I might add that as a supporter and advocate of ILR since its inception I have been subjected to severe criticism from many Esperantists as being 'disloyal' to Esp because I have contributed to and publicized ILR. To my way of thinking such charges are absurd. Because I am an Esperantist I see no need to be anti-Ido, anti-Interlingua or anti- any project or interlinguist who has devoted time and energy to what appears to me to be a common cause.
John L. Lewine
West Stockbridge, Mass.
Thank you very much for your kind letter of February lOth. ... I was very sorry to read of the passing of Dr. Alexander Gode-von Aesch whom I had the privilege of knowing for many years. In fact, I became acquainted with him at the time that he first began to work with the International Auxiliary Language Association. Altho I first joined their staff in 1937 I had been a frequent visitor at their office for a dozen years before that and later, in 1940, when wartime conditions made contact with the Universal Esperanto Association difficult, I served as liaison between I.A.L.A, and U.E.A. until I entered the American Army.
I was interested in the selection from Dr. Gode's writing with which you headed the October issue of I.L.R., as well as the additional comments from his work which you cited in your own lead article. Personally, I thought that Dr. Gode's views in his later years were too pessimistic. I have never been one of those enthusiasts who believed that the mere existence of an accepted international language would usher in the millenium -- or even assure international peace. Any American student knows that the U.S. fought two major wars with our English-speaking mother country, and a bitter civil war within a monolingual country. Moreover, the use of a common vocabulary doesn't guarantee agreement as to what the words used mean. All this is evident. Still, with all our divisiveness, I hold it a blessing that this country doesn't face the type of problems which are wracking (and, perhaps, wrecking) such states as Canada or Belgium. And it seems to me, a fortiori, that the existence of a neutral auxiliary tongue could not but reduce world tensions to some degree -- and wouldn't that be a goal worth working to achieve? As for whether the nations 'want' such a tongue, the question is confused by the separate meanings of the word 'want'. Certainly the world lacks such a tongue, needs -- in the sense of 'could use' such a tongue and to the extent that people give the matter thought, desire such a tongue provided that they believe it possible and don't have to take any trouble to bring it into existence or facilitate its use. In this sense, of course most people who ever give the matter thought 'want' an International Language, just as almost all people 'want' peace -- in all three senses of the word -- but translating that need into actuality is a different matter. One world requires an I.L. just as it requires peace. Of course, the two requirements aren't of equal importance, since the language barrier isn't as explosive as the atomic bomb. Nor is there any assurance that we shall get what we 'want' in time -- as the entire philosophy of the supporters of Ecology and Biophily recognizes. Moreover, just as the establishment of a generally accepted IL will be only a preliminary step in the development of inter-personal understanding - as the elimination of pollution is but a first step in reconciling men and the earth -- so the IL Movement is only a segment of a far broader effort, as Mr. Robert N. Yetter so cogently points out. Nevertheless, those who have devoted time and effort to that movement, people like Floyd Hardin, Dr. Fiumedoro, Dr. Gode, not to mention the great pioneers such as Bishop Schleyer, Dr. Zamenhoff [sic - DH], Julius Lott and Dr. De Wahl have made a great and lasting contribution to the human future. And those who are rank-and-filers also play an important part -- altho I personally would be happier if their joint efforts were less often interrupted by intra-mural in-fighting. In other words, perhaps Dr. Gode underestimated his own contribution; that's the only point on which I'd fault him.
John Lewine