International Language | Page 9

natural language.
[1]i.e. they do not assist in attaining its object as a language. One
universal way of forming the plural, past tense, or comparative
expresses plurality, past time, or comparison just as well as fifteen
ways, and with a deal less trouble.
A little reflection will make this truth so absurdly obvious, that the only
wonder is, not that it is now beginning to be recognized, but that any
one could have ever derided it.
That the "unnecessary" difficulties of a natural language are more than
one-half of the whole is certainly an under-estimate; for some

languages the proportion would be more like 3:4 or 5:6. Compared with
these, the artificial language would be three times to five times as easy.
Take an illustration. Compare the work to be done by the learner of (a)
Latin, (b) Esperanto, in expressing past, present, and future action.
(a) Latin:
Present tense active is expressed by--
6 endings in the 1st regular conjugation. 6 " 2nd " 6 " 3rd " 6 " 4th "
Total regular endings: 24.
To these must be added a vast number of quite different and varying
forms for irregular verbs.
(b) Esperanto:
Present tense active is expressed by--
1 ending for every verb in the language.
Total regular and irregular endings: 1.
It is exactly the same for the past and future.
Total endings for the 3 tenses active:
(a) Latin: 72 regular forms, plus a very large number of irregular and
defective verbs.
(b) Esperanto: 3 forms.
Turning to the passive voice, we get--
(a) Latin: A complete set of different endings, some of them puzzling
in form and liable to confusion with other parts of the verb.

(b) Esperanto: No new endings at all. Merely the three-form regular
active conjugation of the verb esti = to be, with a passive participle. No
confusion possible.
It is just the same with compound tenses, subjunctives, participles, etc.
Making all due allowances, it is quite safe to say that the Latin verb is
fifty times as hard as the Esperanto verb.
The proportion would be about the same in the case of substantives,
Latin having innumerable types.
Comparing modern languages with Esperanto, the proportion in favour
of the latter would not be so high as fifty to one in the inflection of
verbs and nouns, though even here it would be very great, allowing for
subjunctives, auxiliaries, irregularities, etc. But taking the whole
languages, it might well rise to ten to one.
For what are the chief difficulties in language-learning?
They are mainly either difficulties of phonetics, or of structure and
vocabulary.
Difficulties of phonetics are:
(1) Multiplicity of sounds to be produced, including many sounds and
combinations that do not occur in the language of the learner.
(2) Variation of accent, and of sounds expressed by the same letter.
These difficulties are both eliminated in Esperanto.
(1) Relatively few sounds are adopted into the language, and only such
as are common to nearly all languages. For instance, there are only five
full vowels and three[1] diphthongs, which can be explained to every
speaker in terms of his own language. All the modified vowels, closed
"u's" and "e's," half tones, longs and shorts, open and closed vowels,
etc., which form the chief bugbear in correct pronunciation, and often
render the foreigner unintelligible--all these disappear.

[1]Omitting the rare eux. ej and uj are merely simple vowels plus
consonantal j (= English y).
(2) There is no variation of accent or of sound expressed by the same
letter. The principle "one letter, one sound"[1] is adhered to absolutely.
Thus, having learned one simple rule for accent (always on the last
syllable but one), and the uniform sound corresponding to each letter,
no mistake is possible.
[1]The converse--"one sound, one letter"--is also true, except that the
same sound is expressed by c and ts. (See Appendix C.)
Contrast this with English. Miss Soames gives twenty-one ways of
writing the same sound. Here they are:
[Transcriber's Note: Letters originally printed in italics are here
CAPITALIZED for clarity.]
AtE grEAt fEIGn bAss EH! wEIGH pAIn gAOl AYE pAY gAUgE
obEYEd dAHlia champAGnE wEIGHEd vEIn campAIGn trAIT thEY
strAIGHt hALFpenny[1]
[1]Prof. Skeat adds a twenty-second: Lord Reay!
(Compare eye, lie, high, etc.)
In Esperanto this sound is expressed only and always by "e." In fact,
the language is absolutely and entirely phonetic, as all real language
was once.
As regards difficulties of vocabulary, the same may be said as in the
case of the sounds. Esperanto only adopts the minimum of roots
essential, and these are simple, non-ambiguous, and as international as
possible. Owing to the device of word-building by means of a few
suffixes and prefixes with fixed meaning, the number of roots
necessary is very greatly less than in any natural language.[1]
[1]Most of