Part 2 (1/2)

[1]i.e. they do not a.s.sist 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 ill.u.s.tration. 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 pa.s.sive 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 pa.s.sive 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.