With the arrival of 2000 and the new millennium, messages of "a world united" and "one race" are widespread. For all the cliched sentimentality it possesses, this idea has never been more relevant, nor the term "internationalism" more meaningful. Contrasting the fragmented globe of old, there is now far more contact between nations and continents. With this increasing, there is more and more need for a language common to all the world's people.
Technologies have converged to allow us to contact all parts of the globe. Travel takes a fraction of the time it used to, and thus more and more we meet travellers from distant places. Through television and film we view daily life in other countries. More dated, but still dependable for communication, are the mail service and the telephone. And moreover the recent innovation of the Internet completely encompasses the concept of an "international community" with this single web shared by the entire world. Despite all these advances, communication is often limited by an inability to speak directly to one and another in the same language.
These modern advancements make the need for an international tongue more obvious, but there has always been reason to develop a shared language. Technologies aside, language barriers have created problems in communications throughout history. Many gaffes have resulted from error by translators. As in English where "to date someone" and "to date something" are subtly but hugely different. Language differences can also be deliberately exploited. In the Treaty of Waitangi, translator Rev. Henry Williams used the word kawanatanga meaning "governorship" rather than the more accurate rangatiratanga to translate "sovereignty" into Maori. These problems could be avoided, as well as billions of dollars and thousands of hours spent on translation saved, by the introduction of an international language.
Another technology illustrative of the need for a common tongue is the computer, as many difficulties arise from the incompatibility of computers and languages. Often the inconsistent nature of language proves a hindrance to the logic of machines. A computer that can be directly dictated to would have to be complex enough to overcome the existence of homonyms and differences in spellings, and up-to-date enough to recognise new entries into a language. Computers also lack the ability to translate accurately. While French makes the distinction between cooked kidneys and anatomical kidneys, English does not. Again a computer would have to be immensely complex to pick up such discrepancies. Note also that not all tongues have the ability to be easily transferred to a keyboard. Around 50,000 characters mean that Chinese computer users must learn the English spelling of words to be able to use a Western 26-letter keyboard.
It is evident there is a need for an international language. However, the question arises, why Esperanto in preference to more widely spoken languages? Most have not heard of Esperanto, despite the fact it is the world's most prominent artificial tongue with two million speakers. And so why not English, which many have pegged as the international language?
Created by Polish language enthusiast Ludovic Lazarus Zamenhof in 1887, Esperanto finds its appeal largely in its simplicity, just as English's lack of appeal is in its complexity. Esperanto has a mere sixteen rules. Compare this to the vast number in other language, along with the often cursed exceptions to rules. English is a particular offender here. The plural in English is supposedly made by adding -s. Yet, an immense number of words prove this wrong (eg. children, cherubim, referenda, and thieves). Esperanto offers a dependable -j.
The differences in spelling and pronunciation often trip up even native speakers in many languages. French stands out as an example of this problem. Generally, a consonant falling at the end of a word is not spoken, rendering these letters somewhat superfluous. In English -ough can be pronounced six ways, illustrating the possible pronunciation variations in one spelling. Again Esperanto avoids this folly by employing phonetic spelling.
Due to these consistencies, Esperanto can be picked up in a fraction of the time it would take to pick up another language. It is claimed that with three hours of study a week it can be learnt in a year. Even those who speak English as a first language may never truly master the huge number of exceptions and grammatical intricacies. Also helping to make it easy to learn, is Esperanto's similarity to the other European language where it finds its roots.
Esperanto is more suited to becoming the international language because its very make-up better complies with the ideal. As an amalgamation of a number of languages, Esperanto shows the true nature of internationality. These varied origins also mean Zamenhof's language better avoids the cultural bias of speech. Developing in one region, a tongue reflects its speakers. The icy homeland of the Eskimos justifies their having fifty words for snow, whereas Pacific islanders may not even have one. Esperanto's artificiality works to its advantage here.
However, it is Esperanto's synthetic nature that has many scared, as they equate artificial with a lack of "character". Esperanto often uses a prefix to make the opposite of an adjective. Thus feliĉa (happy) becomes malfeliĉa (unhappy). It also lacks the abundance of synonyms English offers. Yet malfeliĉa, malgaja and trista all exist as sad. In English there are many more (morose, sorrowful), though this richness is essentially what makes it so difficult to master.
Others are scared not by Esperanto itself, but by the idea of an international tongue. Fears are that other languages would soon die out with a common speech. Esperanto is intended as a common tongue, limited to communication between cultures with separate locations retaining their unique tongues. The very thing that makes Esperanto appealing, its simplicity, would be lost were the tongue to expand beyond this role.
The danger of English becoming the international language is that its role would be undefined. This could possibly lead to the demise of other languages. Currently in Ireland, English has become so prevalent that very few speak Gaelic anymore. Even French's strong hold is theatened as the Academie Francaise tries to fend off the onslaught of English on their language.
In light of the international culture sweeping the globe, the steps toward a common tongue are perhaps not too far away. With many wearing the same clothes and listening to the same music, why not speaking the same language? For all the languages, only the artificial tongues were created specifically to fill this position. Esperanto is the obvious choice. It has survived one hundred and thirteen years, and two million speakers attest to its popularity. With 2000 having just started, maybe Esperanto will indeed be the international language for the new millennium.
Emma Cole, when she wrote this essay, was aged 17, in the 7th form/Year 13 at Wellington Girls' College taking English, French, Latin, Classics and History. She was hoping to go to university to study languages and maybe go into a career in that area.