Esperanto and Interlingua compared
Encyclopedia : E : ES : ESP : Esperanto and Interlingua compared
| Esperanto topics |
|---|
| Esperanto | Grammar | | Phonology | Orthography | Vocabulary |
| History | Zamenhof | Proto-Esperanto | "Unua Libro" | Declaration of Boulogne | "Fundamento" | Prague Manifesto |
| and |
| Culture | Esperantist | Esperantujo | Film | Internacia Televido | La Espero | Libraries | Literature | Music | Native speakers | Pop culture references | | Symbols | Zamenhof Day |
| and services |
| Amikeca Reto | Esperanto Academy | Kurso de Esperanto | Encyclopedia | Pasporta Servo | Plouézec Meetings | TEJO | UEA | SAT | World Congress | Youth Congress |
| National Associations |
| Australia | Britain | British Youth | Canada | Taiwan | USA | Labour |
| Criticism |
| Esperantido | Propedeutic value | Reformed | Riism | Vs. Ido | Vs. Interlingua | Vs. Novial |
| Related topics |
| Auxiliary language | Constructed language | Ido | Interlingua | Novial | Volapük | Signuno | Anationalism |
| Wikimedia |
| | [Vikipedio] | [eo] | [eo] | [Vikifonto] | [b] | [Vikikomunejo] | [Vikispecoj] |
Although they are both classed as IALs, the intellectual bases of Esperanto and Interlingua are quite different. It has been argued that each language is a successful implementation of a particular IAL model. However, in both language communities there is a polemical tradition of using external criteria to critique the perceived opponent language (that is, judging Interlingua by Esperantic criteria and vice versa). In practical use, moreover, language usage in the two communities has sometimes shown convergences despite divergent theory.
Intellectual background
One cannot ascribe a single outlook to all Esperantists or all Interlinguists; however, the contrasting views of L. L. Zamenhof and Alexander Gode remain influential among Esperantists and Interlinguists, respectively. Zamenhof, the inventor of Esperanto, was motivated by several strands of nineteenth-century idealism, ranging from Comtean positivism to utopian internationalism. Esperanto, in his view, was a theoretically neutral instrument for communication, which could serve as a vehicle for idealistic values, initially Zamenhof's quasi-religion of homaranismo, later the interna ideo (internal ideal) of achieving "fraternity and justice among all people" (Zamenhof) through the adoption of Esperanto. Among modern Esperantists, this ideology has tended to reinforce a set of propositions about the language:
- Esperanto's European character is purely accidental; proponents tend to stress its allegedly non-Western features for ideological reasons
- Esperanto is, ideally, the universal second language, replacing all other languages in inter-ethnic communication; pro-Esperanto arguments tend to assume a future situation of widespread Esperanto use
- The fina venko (final victory) of Esperanto, though a remote goal, remains a key ideological reference point
- Esperanto is a vehicle for a specific internationalist and humanitarian ideology
- Cultivation of an internal Esperanto culture is an important value for Esperantists.
On the other hand, Gode saw another sort of international language -- non-universal and non-culturally neutral -- as being entirely possible.
Learnability versus comprehensibility
Some speakers of Interlingua argue that, although Esperantists can communicate with other Esperantists, Interlingua is suitable to communicate with many more people than only speakers of Interlingua itself. Nevertheless, this design aim of comprensibilitate a prime vista (comprehensibility at first sight) is not without drawbacks. While Interlingua is easy to read for people familiar with Romance languages, it is less easy to learn to write or speak it, especially for those without such familiarity.Interlingua's grammar is less regular than that of Esperanto – some verbs retain Latin double stems, and abbreviated forms exist for three of the most commonly used verbs. The basic amount of necessary root words for everyday conversation is much larger, because Interlingua mostly doesn't use regular affixes, but depends on the roots of the Romance languages:
| Esperanto | Interlingua | English |
| sana | san | healthy |
| sano | sanitate | health |
| malsana | malade | sick, unhealthy |
| malsano | maladia | illness, disease |
| malsanulejo | hospital | hospital |
| saniĝi | recovrar | to become healthy, recover |
| sanigi | curar | to make healthy, cure |
| malsaniĝi | cader malade | to become sick, fall ill |
To the reader who speaks English or a Romance language, only the middle column is recognizable. The middle column is also more international: For example, a word like hospital exists in a great many languages (even in Esperanto), but malsanulejo is unique to Esperanto.
But to a speaker of any other language, who is not familiar with English or Romance, the left column is much easier to learn. This is because it uses a single root, san-, with the same derivations that are applied to other Esperanto roots. Not only do the related concepts of health and illness use the same root, but they are derived in the same way from the adjectives 'sick' and 'well': sana → malsana, sana → sano, malsana → malsano. Assuming these derivations are known from other words, only the root san- needs to be learned. However, the Interlingua terms for health and illness are not related, and are derived idiosyncratically from 'sick' and 'well': san × malade, san → sanitate, malade → maladia (and not *maladitate). The result is that all four words must be memorized. That is, Interlingua words are recognizable from their widespread occurrence in European languages, whereas Esperanto words are recognizable from their regular derivation from a small number of roots.
Neutrality of vocabulary
The vocabulary of Esperanto, mostly taken from Romance, Germanic, and Slavic languages, can be considered more neutral than that of Interlingua, which as a general rule only takes words of Latin origin (there are some words taken from elsewhere if a pan-Romance word is unavailable, but even these must be re-Latinized, for example English blockade, German Blockade, Russian 'блокада' -> Interlingua 'blocada'). Nevertheless, more than half of the vocabulary of Esperanto is also of Latin origin.Alexander Gode (the creator of Interlingua) aimed to preserve the international scientific vocabulary, which was almost entirely of Greco-Latin origin. Also, the comprensibilitate a prime vista design objective precluded using a mixture of roots, as the end result would not be understandable by native speakers of any language grouping. [link]
Neutrality of grammar
Both languages are generally considered to use Indo-European derived grammars, but Esperantists would claim greater neutrality due to its method of word formation (see below).Neutrality of word formation
Interlingua forms its vocabulary based on a "consensus" between English, French, Italian and Spanish/Portuguese words for the same concept. While Esperanto draws on the same roots, and also includes many Germanic and Slavic roots, new words are often formed by agglutination, in the same manner as, for example, German, Hungarian, and many Asian languages. As an example, take the Esperanto word for hospital: in Esperanto, mal·san·ul·ej·o which breaks down into smaller root words, mal (opposite), san (health), ul (person), ej (place), o (noun): thus, a place for a person with the opposite of health. This method of word construction (which would be familiar to speakers of many Asian and East European languages) allows for a larger vocabulary, using fewer root words.Orthography
The orthography of Esperanto is inspired by that of the Roman-alphabet Slavic languages, and is completely phonemic (one sound, one letter). Interlingua, by contrast uses an orthography inspired by the Romance languages, sacrificing phonemicity in order to obtain spellings more familiar to speakers of western European languages.For example, the Esperanto kontakto and the Interlingua contacto mean the same thing and are pronounced the same, but when written appears differently, because the orthography of Esperanto is simpler — one sound, one letter —while that of Interlingua is more difficult. The letter "c" of Interlingua, for example, can have the sound of /k/ or /ts/ (alternatively /s/) depending on the following letter. Such details make Interlingua more difficult to learn and speak for non-Romance native speakers, but at the same time more easy to read: the letters show the history of the Romance influence.
Expressiveness
Supporters of Interlingua note that their language not only conserves the natural aspect of the Romance languages, but also their rich, subtle treasury of meanings. Interlingua flows regularly from the Romance languages, and thus it possesses their expressiveness.Esperanto, by its liberal use of affixes and its flexible word-order, is equally as expressive as Interlingua (or indeed any natural language), but is more internationally neutral. Certainly Esperanto is a product of rational construction, not historical evolution, but after the prolonged usage of more than 100 years, it has become a living human language.
Number of speakers
As a spoken language, Esperanto is and remains the only constructed language, during the last century, to have more than some thousands of speakers. Only one other constructed language possibly passed this mark: Volapük, which allegedly had 200,000 speakers in 1890. Although no census has been undertaken, estimates put Esperanto at somewhere between 100,000 to 3 million speakers, and Interlingua at about 1,000 to 1,500, however the number of people able to understand written Interlingua at a useful level may be numbered in the millions.Sample texts
See also
External links
- [Official site of Universala Esperanto-Asocio (UEA)]
- [Official site of Union Mundial pro Interlingua]
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.