Moore begins by stating that "Esperanto was invented by a Polish Jew in 1887, and consists of French, English and German elements grafted on to Latin roots."
We are off to a bad start! If you have read my previous articles, you know that, although Dr Zamenhof was a Jew and lived for most of his adult life in Warsaw, to call him Polish begs a serious question. I don't think that he regarded himself as being Polish. That may only be a minor point but when Moore goes on to say that Esperanto was "invented" in 1887, well, we all know that's just not true. Zamenhof spent over ten years refining his language before the actual publication of the first book in 1887: Moore makes it sounds like it was the product of a sudden brainwave. As for Moore's claim that Esperanto "consists of French, English and German elements grafted on to Latin roots," it is just plain nonsense. He clearly has no idea about the structure and morphology of the language.
Moore then goes on to say: "But then I cannot see any point or purpose whatever in an artifical language." As I hope we all realise by now, Esperanto is no more an artificial language than any other language which functions perfectly well as a medium of communication for a specific community. And Moore completely misses the main point, which is that linguistic diversity certainly is a very real and expensive problem for many people who are engaged, in one way or another, in international commerce or politics.
Zamenhof's objective was to create an easy-to-learn international language, not an "artifical" language.
Moore goes from bad to worse and continues: "It must surely be a great bore and a most unrewarding labour to learn a language that possesses neither a literature nor any historical associations." The warning light is glowing red with the first words of this sentence. Whenever you come across a phrase such as, "It must surely be..." you are getting a very clear message that the writer has not taken the trouble to verify the truth of the expression of personal prejudice which is going to complete the sentence. In this case we are talking about really culpable laziness which is also a disguised insult to the writer's reading public.
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to David Poulson's Esperanto topic, please visit the Discussions page.