International Language

Word-building can be made quite an amusing game for children. For instance, give them the suffixes -ej (denoting place) and -il (denoting instrument), and set them to form words for "school," "church," "factory," "knife," "warming-pan," etc. (lernejo, preĝejo, fabrikejo, tranĉito, varmigilo).

But since the language is perfectly regular in form and construction, and the learner can therefore argue from case to case, it is a useful instrument for instilling clear ideas of grammatical categories. Thus give the roots—

viv‑i = to live	san‑a = healthy	hom‑o = man
long‑a = long	saĝ-a = wise	Di‑o = God
	don‑i = to give

"He lives long"; "A long life is a gift of God"; "It is wise to live healthily"; "God is divine, man is human"; "Human life is short," etc.

The same roots constantly recur with an -o, -a, or -e tacked on; and the practice in sorting out the endings, and attaching them like labels to nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs, soon marks off the corresponding ideas clearly in the learner's mind.

Analogous to simple sums and conducive to clear thinking are such sentences as the following, for rather more advanced pupils:

raz‑i = to shave	serv‑i = to serve	san‑a = healthy
akr‑a = sharp	mort‑i = to die	ven‑i = to come
uz‑i = to use	hak‑i = to hew	kun = with
	sent‑i = to feel

Translate—"Constant use had blunted his razor"; "He had his servant shaved"; "He killed his companion with an axe"; "Let us send for the doctor."

Translate—"O Death, where is thy sting?" "Community of service brings together men subject to death, and dulls the perception of their common mortality. Willing service dissipates the weariness of the server; the deadliness of disease is mitigated, and the place of sickness becomes a place of health."

By referring to the table of affixes, the use of which has of course been explained, the learner can work out the answers as follows:

Uz‑ad‑o estis mal‑akr‑ig‑int‑a lian raz‑il‑on. Li raz‑ig‑is sian serv‑ant-(or ist)on. Li mort‑ig‑is sian kun‑ul‑on per hak‑il‑o. Ni ven‑ig‑u la san‑ig‑ist‑on.

Ho Morto, kie estas via akr‑ec‑o? Kun‑servo (or kuneco de servo) kun‑ig‑as la mort‑em-(ul)-ojn, kaj mal‑akr‑ig‑as la sent‑on de ilia kun‑a mort‑em‑ec‑o. Serv‑em‑ec‑o dis‑ig‑as la el‑uz‑it‑ec‑on de la serv‑ant‑o; la mort‑ig‑ec‑o de la mal‑san‑ec‑o mal‑akr‑iĝ-as, kaj la mal‑san‑ej‑o iĝas san‑ej‑o.

No national language could be used in this way for building sentences according to rules, and such exercises should give a practical grip of clear use of language. The student is obliged to analyse the exact meaning of every word of the English sentence, and this necessity inculcates a nice discrimination in the use of words. At the same time the necessary word-building depends upon clear-headed and logical application of rule. There is no memory work, but the mind is kept on the stretch, and the exercise is wholesome as combating confusion of thought and slovenliness of expression.

En la mondon venis nova sento, Tra la mondo iras forta voko; Per flugiloj de facila vento Nun de loko flugu ĝi al loko.
	Ne al glavo sangon soifanta Ĝi la homan tiras familion: Al la mond' eterne militanta Ĝi promesas sanktan harmonion.
Sub la sankta signo de l'espero Kolektiĝas pacaj batalantoj, Kaj rapide kreskas la afero Per laboro de la esperantoj.
	Forte staras muroj de miljaroj Inter la popoloj dividitaj; Sed dissaltos la obstinaj baroj, Per la sankta amo disbatitaj.
Sub neŭtrala lingva fundamento, Komprenante unu la alian, La popoloj faros en konsento Unu grandan rondon familian.
	Nia diligenta kolegaro En laboro paca ne laciĝos, Ĝis la bela sonĝo de l'homaro Por eterna ben' efektiviĝos.

Into the world has come a new feeling, Through the world goes a mighty call; On light wind-wings Now may it fly from place to place.
	Not to the sword thirsting for blood Does it draw the human family: To the world eternally at war It promises holy harmony.
Beneath the holy banner of hope Throng the soldiers of peace, And swiftly spreads the Cause Through the labour of the hopeful.
	Strong stand the walls of a thousand years Between the sundered peoples; But the stubborn bars shall leap apart, Battered to pieces by holy love.
On the fair foundation of common speech, Understanding one another, The peoples in concord shall make up One great family circle.
	Our busy band of comrades Shall never weary in the work of peace, Till humanity's grand dream Shall become the truth of eternal blessing.

This has given rise to much criticism. The same sound is also expressed by the letters ts. Why depart from the Esperanto principle, "one sound, one letter," and have two symbols (c and ts) for the same sound?

A standing difficulty of an international language is: What equivalent shall be adopted for the c of national languages? The difficulty arises owing to the diversity of value and history of the c in diverse tongues. Philologists, who know the history of the Latin hard c and its various descendants in modern languages, will appreciate this.

(1) Shall c be adopted in the international language, or omitted? If it is omitted, many useful words, which it is desirable to adopt and which are ordinarily spelt with a c, will have to be arbitrarily deformed, and this deformation may amount to actual obscuring of their sense. E.g. cento = hundred; centro = centre; cerbo = brain; certa = certain; cirkonstanco = circumstance; civila = civil, etc. Such works would become almost unrecognizable for many in the forms kento, sento, tsento, etc.

(2) If, then, c is retained, what value is to be given to it? The hard and soft sounds of the English c (as in English "cat," "civil") are already represented by k and s. Neither of these letters can be dispensed with in the international language; and it is undesirable to confuse orthographically or phonetically c-roots with s- or k-roots. Therefore another value must be found for the symbol c. The choice is practically narrowed down to the Italian soft c = ch, as in English "church," and the German¹ c = ts in English "bits." Now ch is a useful and distinctive sound, and has been adopted in Esperanto with a symbol of its own: ĉ. Therefore ts remains.

(3) Why not then abolish c and write ts instead? For answer, see No. (1) above. It is a worse evil to introduce such monstrosities as tsento, tsivila, etc., than to allow two symbols for the same sound, ts and c. International language has to appeal to the eye as well as to the ear.

This matter of the c is only one more instance of the wisdom of Dr. Zamenhof in refusing to make a fetish of slavish adherence to rule. Practical common-sense is a safer guide than theory in attaining the desired goal—ease (of eye, ear, tongue, and pen) for greatest number. In practice no confusion arises between c and ts.