LECTURE - ILAC CENTRE LIBRARY

LECTURE - ILAC CENTRE LIBRARY - WED. 28^th. APRIL, 12 NOON.
Re: Communication in an Enlarged Europe

The European Union is facing a severe crisis situation of which its leaders appear to be hardly aware.

The Union at present consists of 18 countries. Twelve of the languages spoken in these countries are officially recognised as working languages within its various bodies. Two of the member states, namely Ireland and Luxembourg have decided not to insist upon the inclusion of their first official national languages. From time to time, however, some EU documents are issued in other languages such as Catalan, Irish, etc. This requires the employment of a huge number of interpreting and translating teams (far more, in fact, than the total number of languages because of the need for cross-translation).

Thirteen more countries have applied to become EU members, ten of which hope to become members in 2004. If all 13 are admitted and insist on recognition of their languages, this will add a further 11 languages (12 if Malta insists on the inclusion of Maltese). This means that at least 23 languages will be official so that the amount spent by the Union on translation (already a major expense) will be immense and unpredictable.

There appear to be four possible ways in which this problem might be handled, namely:

1. Allow the recognition of no more working languages.
2. Bite the bullet and accept the entire lot.
3. Choose one of these as the sole official language. In this case, it would almost certainly be English.
4. Choose none of these and seek elsewhere for a solution.

Almost all of these options would be unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. This would be grossly discriminatory and would put the new member

countries at a grave disadvantage. No such discrimination would be acceptable in other cases, e.g. that of the blind, the handicapped, ethnic minorities, etc.

2. In this case the EU would probably be financially crippled and its translation services would become totally unwieldy.
3. The adoption of one national language would mean that the country whose language that is would enjoy an economic, political, cultural and social advantage over all the others. If the language chosen were English, the United States, though not a member of the EU, would almost certainly become the chief economic and political beneficiary of the whole system. Culturally this would be a disaster, as many languages and cultures would eventually disappear. Weaker economies would suffer. A drab monoculture would be the result and the poorer nations of the world would grow still poorer.
4. A solution must be sought elsewhere.

In the Middle Ages such a situation could not have arisen. All educated Europeans spoke Latin and could therefore communicate without difficulty. A few Latinists have suggested reviving Latin as a lingua franca for Europe, but this is obviously a non-starter. Not only is Latin difficult but it is not suitable for the modern world. There is, however, an eminently suitable language which has a worldwide community of speakers found almost every country in the world. It is scientific, logical and can be learnt in a fraction of the time taken to acquire other languages. It has the capacity to form an almost infinite range of vocabulary from existing roots; it combines all the best features of other European languages and draws on the rich fountain of European and world culture. Once the essentials of the language have been learnt you can dispense with a dictionary (except perhaps for some technical terms) because most words are instantly recognisable by their roots. The language has a considerable and ever-growing literature by authors from a huge number of countries. Above all it's neutral and egalitarian, because it isn't the national language of any country. That isn't to say there are no "native" speakers because some families have brought their children up to speak it as their first language, usually because the parents don't share the same mother-tongue. The speakers of this language see as an auxiliary means of communication used along with their ethnic and national languages (Irish, Gaelic, Welsh, Catalan, Frisian, etc.) which they wish to protect, not to supplant.

The language in question is Esperanto. A knowledge of Esperanto greatly helps in the acquisition of other languages, not only West European ones. It has proved its effectiveness over a periodof more than a century. If you can speak Esperanto you are well on the way to being able to learn not only European languages, but even ones that are not European yet share some features with Esperanto.

Critics of Esperanto often allege that no group speaks it and that it has no culture. This is quite untrue. As I've already mentioned, it's spoken by a community covering most of the countries in the world, most of whom share Zamenhof's desire to use it as a means of promoting, peace, friendship and easy communication. Its culture is like a vast pool fed by many streams comprising the individual cultures of every country in Europe and, increasingly, those from outside Europe.

There was recently a meeting in Mataró, near Barcelona when the Popular United Party of Catalonia adopted a programme by which it intends to guarantee the presence of Esperanto in education and public libraries and use it as a bridge language in international relations outside the area of their own languages.

A NEW CURRENCY BUT NO COMMON LANGUAGE

From January 2002 the European Community has had a new common currency, the EURO.

What it does not have is a COMMON LANGUAGE. Yet surely a common language is every bit as desirable - in fact, more so - than a common currency. A family that can't communicate on a basis of equality is not a family. Of course every country and ethnic group values its own language and rightly claims recognition for it. If any one nation’s language were to become dominant, that nation would enjoy an unfair economic, social and cultural advantage over all the rest. (As an analogy we could compare what has been the result of Microsoft and English-language programmes virtually gaining the monopoly of the computer software field.) What is needed, therefore, is a neutral, auxiliary language which would not usurp any other language but would be used alongside it. The ethnic or national language would be used in one’s own country and circle, and the auxiliary language in the wider community. Such an auxiliary language would have the following features:

It would be easier and quicker to learn and understand than any of the national languages.

It would have none of the irregularities, exceptions, illogicalities and complexities of any of the national languages.

It would be easy to pronounce, clear to enunciate, and pleasant in sound.

It would have a wide but not unwieldy vocabulary covering all fields.

It would have an extensive original and translated literature, the latter including works of the world’s great writers and poets.

It would already have speakers in most of the countries in the world.

It would have been in existence for some time, say, a century.

It would be capable of saying anything that any other language can.

It would have a rational phonetic spelling.

Over a period of hundreds of years many attempts have been made to create such an auxiliary language. Only one has been successful and meets all the above requirements, i.e. Esperanto, a planned language incorporating the best features of most (mainly European) languages but based on totally unique principles. It was launched in 1887 by Dr. Zamenhof* of Warsaw and has since been adopted and developed by an ever growing community of speakers in almost every country in the world. It can be acquired in a fraction of the time that it takes to learn any other language.

* L. L. Zamenhof, the creator of Esperanto, was a doctor of medicine (later an optician and eye specialist) who practised most of his life in Warsaw. As a child he lived with his family in a Eastern European town called Bialystok (now part of Poland) with a population consisting of 4 different peoples speaking 4 different languages, using 4 different alphabets and practising 4 different religions.

When, in 1906, the distinguished scholar and Esperantist, René de Saussure (brother of Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics), proposed the introduction of an international currency, Dr. Zamenhof far-sightedly wrote to him: "Do not give up your idea, because sooner or later it will inevitably be victorious." Around the same time, Zamenhof advocated European unity when he stated: It would be better if instead of large and small European countries, we had a United States of Europe. (Not everybody would agree with this latter statement.) .

SOPHISTICATED COMMUNICATIONS? THEY DID BETTER IN THE MIDDLE AGES!

During much of European history, people were able to communicate using one common relatively logical language, Latin. Without any language barrier, all educated members of society could exchange knowledge; students were able to study in any university in Europe; medicine (and later, science) were truly international. With the growth of the nation-state and nationalism, this precious language tool was abandoned. Even the Church gave it up (very unwisely in my opinion.) Nothing adequate replaced it prior to the creation of Esperanto. Of course, Latin is no longer generally suitable, but neither is any national language. The universal adoption of any one national language gives an unfair economic, cultural and social advantage to the nation or nations whose language it is. Also, while every language should be cherished by those who have it as their mother tongue, national languages present grave disadvantages in an international context. Usually among these are: complex grammar with numerous irregularities, exceptions, illogicalities and obscure idioms; division into dialects, and pronunciation variants and peculiarities. It is said that there are 38 dialects in English alone. These complexities hinder, rather than help logical thought and they make the acquiring of linguistic skills difficult, protracted and often expensive. The spelling of languages like English and French is hardly phonetic, and in the case of English it is inconsistent and irrational. Much of a student’s time is wasted learning these totally useless features which have no place in a scientific age. Many years of foreign language teaching have failed to produce any significant linguistic competence among the bulk of the population of English-speaking countries. Knowledge of languages in Ireland and Britain is nothing short of pathetic.

WHAT IS ESPERANTO?

Esperanto is the international language which was launched in 1887 on the initiative of Dr. L.L. Zamenhof of Bia³ystok and Warsaw. It has since developed considerably and Esperanto speakers are now found in almost every country in the world. It has a rich and ever-increasing literature (original and translated) on almost every subject. It is one of the most logical and straightforward of languages. At the same time it’s not so mathematically logical that it doesn’t allow for humour, puns, wordplay, poetry and so on. It certainly does. While the learning of any language requires an effort, a reasonably intelligent person can learn Esperanto in perhaps a tenth of the time it takes to learn other languages. While it is as expressive as any other language, it has a grammar which is basically simple but permits great subtleties and nuances. Esperanto has no irregularities and has none of the kind of illogical idioms found in French or English. In sound and vocabulary it most closely resembles one of the modern Latin languages, but is based on totally different principles. It incorporates the best features of a wide number of languages. Its wide-scale adoption could lead to great savings in translation and interpreting costs which at present are enormous. Esperanto enables people to communicate on a basis of equality and neutrality, which is not the case with a state language such as English or French which economically and culturally gives the countries speaking these languages at an unfair advantage over others. It is the only language in which any person of reasonable intelligence who has acquired it in adulthood can achieve almost perfect mastery and can aspire to writing literature of a high standard. I'm not an especially brilliant person but I've been writing and publishing in it for seventeen years. I continually use it on the Internet.

The basic purpose of Esperanto is to spread friendship and peaceful relations among the peoples of all countries and to facilitate ease of communication. EAI and UEA are neutral in respect of politics and religion and have no hidden agenda whatever.

Every day, somewhere in the world, there is some Esperanto meeting or event, and every year Esperanto speakers from all over the world gather at the Universal Esperanto Congress. In the year 2000 the Congress was held in Tel Aviv, Israel. In 2001 it took place in Zagreb, Croatia. In 2002, Fortaleza, Brazil hosted the Universal Congress; in 2003, Götenborg, Sweden; in 2004, Beijing. In 2005 it will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania.
In addition, national and local congresses are held in almost every country where there are Esperantists.

ESPERANTO ON THE WORLDWIDE WEB

There are now thousands of pages in and about Esperanto on the web. If you don't believe us try a search with, say, Google. Type the word "Esperanto" and see how many hits you get. One Esperanto page alone published in Sweden is reported to have received over a million hits up this year.