The inadmissibility of change (even for the better) is purely a matter of policy and dictated by practical considerations. Esperantists make no claim to infallibility; they want to see their language universally adopted, and they want to see it as perfect as possible.

Actual and bitter experience shows that the international language which admits change is lost. Universal acceptance and present change are incompatible. Esperantists, therefore, bow to the inevitable and deliberately choose to concentrate for the present on acceptance.

General acceptance, indeed, while it imposes upon the present body of Esperantists self-restraint in abstaining from change, is in reality the essential condition of profitable future amendment. When an international language has attained the degree of dissemination already enjoyed by Esperanto, the only safe kind of change that can be made is _a posteriori_, not _a priori_. When Esperanto has been officially adopted and comes into wide use, actual experience and consensus of usage amongst its leading writers will indicate the modifications that are ripe for official adoption. The competent international official authority will then from time to time duly register such changes, and they will become officially part of the language.

Till then, any change can only cause confusion and alienate support.

No one is going to spend time learning a language which is one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow. When the time comes for change, the authority will only proceed cautiously one step at a time, and its decrees will only set the seal upon that which actual use has. .h.i.t off.

This, then, is the explanation of the famous adjective "netusebla,"

applied by Dr. Zamenhof to his language, and so much resented in certain quarters. Surely not only is this degree of dogmatism amply justified by practical considerations, but it would amount to positive imprudence on the part of Esperantists to act otherwise. If the inventor of the language can show sufficient self-restraint, after long years spent in touching and retouching his language, to hold his hand at a given point (and he has declared that self-restraint is necessary), surely others need not be hurt at their suggestions not being adopted, even though they may in some cases be real improvements.

The following extracts, translated from the Preface to _Fundamento de Esperanto_ (the written basic law of Esperanto), should set the question in the right light. It will be seen that Dr. Zamenhof expressly contemplates the "gradual perfection" (_perfektigado_) of his language, and by no means lays claim to finality or infallibility.

"Having the character of _fundament_, the three works reprinted in this volume must be above all inviolable (_netuseblaj_).... The fundament must remain inviolable _even with its errors...._ Having once lost its strict inviolability, the work would lose its exceptional and necessary character of dogmatic fundamentality; and the user, finding one translation in one edition, and another in another, would have no security that I should not make another change to-morrow, and his confidence and support would be lost.

"To any one who shows me an expression that is not good in the Fundamental book, I shall calmly reply: Yes, it is an error; but it must remain inviolable, for it belongs to the fundamental doc.u.ment, in which no one has the right to make any change.... I showed, _in principle_, how the strict inviolability of the _Fundamento_ will always preserve the unity of our language, without however preventing the language not only from becoming richer, but even from constantly becoming more perfect. But _in practice_ we (for causes already many times explained) must naturally be very cautious in the process of 'perfecting' the language: (_a_) we must not do this light-heartedly, but only in case of absolute necessity; (_b_) it can only be done (after mature judgment) by some central inst.i.tution, having indisputable authority for the whole Esperanto world, and not by any private persons....

"Until the time when a central authoritative inst.i.tution shall decide to _augment_ (never to _change_) the existing fundament by rendering official new words or rules, everything good, which is not to be found in the _Fundamento de Esperanto_, is to be regarded not as compulsory, but only as recommended."

XV

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS TO AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

An attempt has been made in the preceding chapters to deal with the more important and obvious arguments put forward by those who will hear nothing of an international language. The objections are, however, so numerous, cover such a wide field, and in some cases are so mutually destructive, that it may be instructive to present them in an orderly cla.s.sification.

For there we have them all "at one fell swoop,"

Instead of being scattered through the pages; They stand forth marshalled in a handsome troop, To meet the ingenuous youth of future ages.

BYRON.

Let us hope that they will die of exposure, like the famous appendix pilloried by Byron, and that the ingenuous one will be able to regard them as literary curiosities.

If the business of an argument is to be unanswerable, the place of honour certainly belongs to the religious argument. Any one who really believes that an international language is an impious attempt to reverse the judgment of Babel will continue firm in his faith, though one speak with the tongues of men and of angels.

Here, then, are the objections, cla.s.sified according to content.

OBJECTIONS TO AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

I. _Religious_.

It is doomed to confusion, because it reverses the judgment of Babel.

II. _Aesthetic and sentimental_.

(1) It is a cheap commercial scheme, unworthy of the attention of scholars.

(2) It vulgarizes the world and tends to dull uniformity.

(3) It weakens patriotism by diluting national spirit with cosmopolitanism.

(4) It has no history, no link with the past.

(5) It is artificial, which is a sin in itself.

III. _Political_.

(1) It is against English [Frenchmen read "French"] interests, as diverting prestige from the national tongue.

(2) It is socialistic and even anarchical in tendency, and will facilitate the operations of the international disturbers of society.

IV. _Literary and linguistic_.

(1) Lacking history and a.s.sociations, it is unpoetical and unsuited to render the finer shades of thought and feeling. It will, therefore, degrade and distort the monuments of national literatures which may be translated into it.

(2) It may even discourage authors, ambitious of a wide public, from writing in their own tongue. Original works in the artificial language can never have the fine savour of a master's use of his mother tongue.

(3) Its precisely formal and logical vocabulary and construction debauches the literary sense for the niceties of expression. Therefore, even if not used as a subst.i.tute for the mother tongue, its concurrent use, which will be thrust on everybody, will weaken the best work in native idioms.

(4) It will split up into dialects.

(5) p.r.o.nunciation will vary so as to be unintelligible.

(6) It is too dogmatic, and refuses to profit by criticism.

V. _Educational and cultural_.

(1) It will prejudice the study of modern languages.

(2) It will provide a "soft option" for examinees.

VI. _Personal and particular_.

It is prejudicial to the vested interests of modern language teachers, foreign correspondence clerks, interpreters, multilingual waiters and hotel porters.

VII. _Technical_.

This heading includes the criticisms in detail of various schemes-e.g.

it is urged against Esperanto that its accent is monotonous; that its accusative case is unnecessary; that its principle of word-formation from roots is not strictly logical; that its vocabulary is too Romance; that its vocabulary is not Romance enough; and so forth.

VIII. _Popular_.

(1) It is a wild idea put forth by a set of cranks, who would be better occupied in something else.

(2) It is impossible.

(3) It is too hard: life isn't long enough.

(4) It is not hard enough: lessons will be too quickly done, and will not sink into the mind.