Esperanto: Hearings before the Committee on Education | Page 8

Esperanto language does not contain any words at all; I
think there are only 138 full-fledged words, prepositions, adverbs, and
conjunctions, but the rest of the vocabulary is formed of roots only. Let
us take the words "to sew," "to stitch." The root is "kudr." It is only a
root, and that alone stands in the vocabulary. Now, if you want to make
this root into a noun "o" is added to it, "kudro": if you want to make it
an adjective, you add "a" to it, "kudra"; if you want to make it an
adverb you add "e," kudre, which would mean by or through sewing,
"sewingly," if it could be so expressed in English; and if you want to
make it a verb it would be "kudri," because every infinitive ends in "i."
You see, with that root to begin with you can form four words, and you
can express a great deal more in Esperanto than anybody can possibly
imagine; in fact Esperanto is, on account of its perfect and absolutely

complete flexibility, more precise and more comprehensive than any
language under the sun. As I said before, you can form four words from
every root at the start if sense allows it, and sense allows you a great
deal more leeway in Esperanto than anybody can possibly know about,
because in no language are you allowed to proceed by sense. The
English language does not allow it, nor does any other, not oven
German or Greek, but it is allowed in this most logical of all languages,
Esperanto. (7)
Mr. TOWNER. Take the illustration you have just used. We say "The
sewing is beautiful." and "We find her sewing assiduously." Now, we
use the same word, but the formation of the sentence determines
whether or not it is a noun or a verb.
Prof. CHRISTEN. You mean the distinction between the participle and
the noun?
Mr. TOWNER. Yes.
Prof. CHRISTEN. With your permission I will not answer that
particularly, but will deal with the whole subject. I want to say that
from every root you form four words, the four principal parts of speech.
And the first thing to remember is this positive stroke of genius--that
every noun ends with "o," every adjective with "a," every derived
adverb with "e," and every infinitive with "i."
Mr. TOWNER. How would you carry that to proper names?
Prof. CHRISTEN. London would be Londono; Robert is Roberto, but
proper names you are at liberty to do with as you please; give them the
Esperanto ending or leave them in the original form.
Mr. TOWNER. What about Washington?
Prof. CHRISTEN. Washingtono.
Mr. TOWNER. I mean, you would really change it?

Prof. CHRISTEN. Yes; if you prefer it; that is, if it sounds better.
Mr. TOWNER. In the language?
Prof. CHRISTEN. Yes.
Mr. TOWNER. For instance, if you were speaking about the city of
Washington, you would not say Washington, but Washingtono?
Prof. CHRISTEN. You will find it frequently printed as Washingtono.
Mr. TOWNER. Why do you do that, because Washingtono is not the
name of the city?
Prof. CHRISTEN. Let me say that you say London in English, but that
is not French.
Mr. TOWNER. But we always spell Paris the French way, although we
do not pronounce it the same way; that is, "Paree."
Prof. CHRISTEN. But London is not London in French; it is "Londres"
in French.
Mr. TOWNER. Do you mean to say that if a letter were addressed to
London from Paris the Frenchman would not pronounce and write it
London but Londres?
Prof. CHRISTEN. Yes.
Mr. TOWNER. He does not say London?
Prof. CHRISTEN. No, he says Londres. And the same is true with
Dover; Dover is not French; The French would be Douvres. However, I
want to say this, that after the first three or four years after I took up
Esperanto geographical or proper names were left optional and they
were not given any particular spelling in the Esperanto language and
are not now. Many Esperantists now would say Washington and
London. But you can make the change if you want to.

Mr. TOWNER. Internationally, has not that come to be the custom, to
pronounce the geographical names and proper names in the way they
are pronounced in the country in which they originate?
Prof. CHRISTEN. I think so. As I said, there is no arbitrary rule about
personal names or geographical names. Now, let me proceed with this
marvelous scheme and repeat that every part of speech is distinctive in
itself; that is the reason a child, when it follows Esperanto, will not find
English so hard and will understand English better than in any other
way. Such a child will understand English far better than if it did not
understand Esperanto, and that is