RE AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

PAST PROPOSALS

As most of us know, there have been many prior proposals for an international idiom.  As long ago as the seventeenth century, the troubles that have beset man on account of the fact that most of us can't understand each other's verbal utterings have been recognized and addressed.  It is estimated that, since that time, at least six hundred proposals aimed at achieving a solution have been advanced.  Among the earliest suggestions were those of the French philosopher Rene' Descartes, who saw the need for a constructed language, having a regular and consistent form of grammar, and having no exceptions.  Said language would use a vocabulary whose elements would be systematic as well as logically connected.  In 1765, a Frenchman named Faiguet devised a language which he called
"Langue Nouvelle".  It was based on various elements borrowed from various existing tongues.  And in 1795, another attempt to devise an international idiom was undertaken in France, by a man named Delormel.  It was named "Projet d'une Langue Universelle." 

The nineteenth century witnessed the furnishing of at least fifty new proposals, including "Volapuk" and "Esperanto," two "constructed" languages (i.e., devised by the authors, as opposed to borrowing from existing tongues) which were deemed worthy of particular merit.  In 1894, Hugo Schuchardt, who was at the time one of Europe's leading philologists, while speaking of Volapuk, referred to the possibility of such an international tongue being introduced as a compulsory subject in the public schools of the world. 

During the twentieth century, linguists have suggested at least twenty more constructed languages, from something called "Mundelingua" in 1904, to "Mondial," originated by a linguist named Heimer in 1957.  At the first assembly of the League of Nations, held in 1921, a motion favoring Esperanto was in fact made and carried.  And in 1955, at a UNESCO meeting held at Montevideo, Esperanto was once more endorsed as a universal language.

Additionally, during the twentieth century, suggestions began to be put forth concerning international languages consisting of modified national tongues.  Some linguists have suggested an international language that would give representation to most of the world's present languages.  Others have taken the position that only languages having "long and noble traditions of civilization" should be resorted to in the construction of a tongue from existing idioms.  In addition, six existing languages have been frequently suggested for utilization as the tongue that should become the worldwide language:  Chinese, English, French, Greek, Latin, and Russian.

Of course, we all know that at this time, English happens to be spoken and understood in a great many parts of our world.  On the other hand, it is worthwhile to realize that Chinese is a language spoken by at least one fifth of the world's people. 

Constructors of languages often state that they are primarily guided by the motivation that their language should provide "the greatest ease to the greatest number."  Present-day proposals have consisted of:
a.  choosing and utilizing a currently spoken national or regional language as the universal tongue; whereby schools worldwide would teach it, on a par with the then-current national idiom of their respective lands, to all students;
b.  modifying such a chosen national or regional language, so as to make it more easily and readily assimilated by the rest of the world's students and speakers;
c.  creating a professionally constructed, simple and clear, logical and efficient, language; designed to be readily learned by school children, as well as adults, the world over; devoid of sla ng terms, strange spellings and pronunciations, and other inconsistencies and peculiarities; and capable of serving the needs of all activities, disciplines, and professions that are engaged in by people the world over.

                                                                * * * * *



PROBLEMS

Further complicating a situation wheerein the people of so many nation-states speak their own separate and distinct languages--which their neighbors on the other sides of their border oftehn cannot speak or understand--is the fact that there presently exist many nation-states within which several, and even numerous, languages are the norm.

A prime, but far from solitary, example is India, where one commentator reports the existence of 1,652 "mother tongues."  Such a diversity of idioms and dialects has been blamed for "fragmenting" Indian society, and thus contributing to India's several problems.  Other countries with similar difficulties include China, where we are told there have existed sixty or seventy local dialects, resulting in many Chinese being unable to understand the words of many of their countrymen.  Indonesia is also said to be home to sixty or seventy local tongues; and the former Soviet Union is reputed to have consisted of some one hundred and fifty different languages.  Even Switzerland is a place where citizens speak three different languages in addition to the original Swiss:  i.e., French, German, and Italian.

In Africa, this problem does not go away--in fact it gets even worse.  For example, the Sudan is populated by speakers of seventy languages, containing more than two hundred dialects.  African nations have frequently been torn by internal strife and civil wars, resulting from one faction within that nation hating and wishing to destroy another such faction.  Of course, the fact that one faction speaks differently than, and therefore cannot understand or communicate with, the other, certainly exacerbates the situation and feeds the mistrust, loathing, and consequent violence.

Linguistic differences can even translate into ideological misunderstandings.  A word, term, or expression used by a speaker of one language can have an entirely different meaning to, or produce an entirely different effect upon, a listener having a different primary tongue.

A related difficulty which frequently takes place--and has, at times, resulted in tragic consequences--is the scenario wherein diplomats and other officials from nation "A" are in receipt of a communique', or response, from nation "B," which appears to be hostile or contemptuous.  An exasmple of this took place during World War II, when the Allies issued an ultimatum to the Japanese prior to resorting to the first atomic bombs.  It was hoped that the Japanese response would be conciliatory, or at least courteous.  In fact, the Japanese Prime Minister's reply was courteous: though framed, in a Japanese way, to be non-commital for the time being.  Unfortunately, this response, in Japanese, was translated into English words bearing a contemptuous posture.  Hence, in the days that followed, the world's first nuclear attacks were unleashed upon two Japanese cities without further hesitation.  Had there been at the time a single worldwide language, in which the American military and the Japanese leadership were proficient, it is perhaps possible that many thousands would not have died, and that the age of atomic warfare may have never thus commenced.

And of course, in a business or social setting, failure of communication due to linguistic differences can be amusing, troublesome, and even disastrous.  I have personally witnessed an oriental gentleman, of apparent means and probable substantial learning, experiencing great difficulty with a waitress in a restaurant in the Pan Am Building in New York City one morning, in communicating his desire for a piece of toast.  Years later, I still recall how this painful, and eventually somewhat hostile, exchange emphasized to me the simple need for all of us to be able to speak to and understand one another.  I have come to thus realize that, theoretically, one could assemble in a room several dozen persons of education and ability--who would each nevertheless be unable to know what any of the others in the room were talking about.

                                                      * * * * *