rickharrison.com → Artificial Language Lab
In October (1992), an interesting discussion occurred in the computer-networked forum soc.culture.esperanto, on the issue of whether or not Esperanto's vocabulary is easy to learn.
Mr. Cleve Lendon wrote, "The main design goal of Esperanto was to be easy to learn, and it is. Roots were borrowed from national languages so that they would be easy to recognize and remember."
Mr. Barry Crown replied, "Esperanto undoubtedly is easy to learn if you are of above-average linguistic ability and already know a West European language. If you do not fall into this category, you will not find it very easy to learn Esperanto... One problem is... that Esperanto often abandons structural consistency in favour of using `international' root words, which are supposed to be easier to learn. Unfortunately these words are not in fact international at all, but rather Latin or West European in most cases. If you do not speak a European language - and most of the world does not - you have a lot of learning to do. My own experience of teaching Esperanto in Singapore has persuaded me that it is a terribly difficult language for Asians to learn. So far as China is concerned, in an article which appeared in Esperanto magazine this April, Professor Liu Xiaojun wrote that only those Chinese who have already learnt English or French are able to learn Esperanto easily...
"Even within the movement itself there is evidence to suggest that many find Esperanto difficult... The percentage of people who successfully complete an Esperanto course (other than short courses) is not particularly high. If Esperanto really were so easy to learn, one might expect a much higher success rate. Secondly, there is the evidence of the eternaj komencantoj (`eternal beginners'). Why do they find it so hard to learn the language, despite an obvious sympathy for its aims? Thirdly, it is clear that even experienced Esperantists find it difficult to use the language correctly. One only has to take a look at any issue of Monato and one will find many mistakes of syntax and use of vocabulary - and this from one of the more prestigious Esperanto magazines...
"The myth that Esperanto is an easy language has done a lot of harm to the movement because it has prevented us from taking steps to simplify the language. I'm not talking here about reform of the grammar or basic syntax... Reform of the vocabulary is vital.
"It is outrageous that one has to remember three different root words to express the idea of editing: redakt-, redaktor-, redakci-. Unfortunately, all three forms are commonly used. This is no isolated example. Esperanto has three different words to express the idea of "prison": malliberejo, karcero, prizono. All three words (or grammatical variants of them) appear in the latest issue of Monato. Incidentally, Monato is not a literary magazine. It is only a news magazine."
Cleve Lendon retorted, "Difficult compared to what? English? Chinese? Spanish?"
Barry Crown replied, "I think you have changed tack here. Previously you argued that Esperanto is an easy language. Now you are saying that it is easier than language X or language Y. These are two completely different propositions. I think the first proposition is fallacious. So far as the second is concerned, it all depends what other language you are comparing it with and who is the person learning the language."
Pierre Jelenc hissed, "The point is that Esperanto is easier to learn than any of the available alternatives, regardless of linguistic background."
Barry Crown responded, "If Esperanto is a difficult language to learn (as I think it is), then we can't expect people to take seriously our pretensions to become a world language. Simply saying that Esperanto is easier than English or French is not enough.
"Just the other day, I heard an item on the BBC World Service. The announcer was introducing someone who was going to speak about a new constructed language, called Glosa. In his introduction the announcer mentioned Esperanto and other attempts to create an international language, which he said had failed because they were too difficult."
Pierre Jelenc snapped, "Anyway, vocabulary is but a small part of the burden of learning a language, and especially so in Esperanto because of its structure."
Barry Crown answered, "I don't agree with this. It's true, however, that the grammar of Esperanto is an absolute nightmare for most Asians. Many Asian languages have a much simpler grammatical structure than Esperanto."
Michael Urban wrote, "The real question here is just what we are expected to do about it. Certainly there is a substantial body of Esperantists (those of us who like to quote heavily from Piron's La Bona Lingvo) who dislike the proliferation of unnecessary roots and who prefer the creative use of a more limited root stock. It seems to me that the Pironistoj... are doing as much as one can with a living language - they are using the language as they think it should best be used, and eschewing the unnecessary forms."
Barry Crown responded, "No, there is much more that needs to be done... Language reform projects are by no means uncommon in relation to living languages. However, most of these occur in the third world, which is perhaps why most Esperantists are unaware of them and assume that a living language can only change by evolution." Barry cited examples of deliberate, conscious changes being made (almost overnight) in the vocabulary of Modern Hebrew, and an effort currently underway in Singapore to change the pronunciation of the Malay-Indonesian language.
Ken Miner asserted, "Esperanto is difficult, especially for people who know nothing of European languages, because Esperanto displays European semantics and especially European pragmatics (the principles which govern the interpretation of utterances in context)."
Barry Crown wrote, "I agree that the grammar and syntax of Esperanto are an absolute nightmare for most non-Europeans. However, there is nothing to be done about it now for the simple reason that Esperantists will never accept changes which go against the Fundamento. Although Esperanto will never be an easy language for non-Europeans, it could become significantly easier for them than it is at the moment. As I pointed out in another reply, that seems to be the view of many Asian Esperantists, such as Hotta Hirohiko (again I apologise for any misspelling) and Professor Liu Xiaojun."
Cleve Lendon said, "If you want to argue about the difficulty of Esperanto in an absolute sense, I would say that all languages are difficult to learn, and that nothing can be done about it."
Barry Crown replied, "Perhaps the point is that Esperanto is difficult to learn (or learn well) for many reasons... One of the major reasons why Esperanto is difficult is because of its excessively large vocabulary of root words. It would be quite easy to reform this aspect of the language... Such a reform would make the language significantly easier to learn for most people... If you believe that vocabulary reform is a good idea, then try to think of some ways of achieving it. Don't just say, `Living languages can't be reformed. They just evolve naturally.' This is false and demonstrably so, as I have attempted to show in other postings."
Barry posted the text of a letter from William Auld, one of the greatest Esperanto poets: "Some people blame the poets for excessive neologisms. This is not really true... The main culprits are lexicographers, who are too inclined to invent words a priori (without a justifying context), and to find it necessary to create an equivalent for every nuance of their national language. Yet the greatest culprit of all is the Plena Ilustrita Vortaro, which, as practically the only dictionary to give its definitions in Esperanto, is regarded as somehow authoritative... An all-Esperanto dictionary is utterly essential, of course, but PIV does as much harm as good. Actually, Lawrence Mee and others are currently compiling such a dictionary, which limits itself to (I think) about 6000 roots in actual usage. This, if successful, should do much to improve matters."
Ted Schuerzinger wrote: "There is another language that has solved the problem of neologisms, from what I've read - Icelandic. Apparently scholars of Icelandic come up with ways of expressing all new concepts using originally Icelandic terms. This allows the language to grow, yet still allows Icelanders to read the Eddas that were written 1000 years ago in the form they were written."