A Powerful Instrument Of Peace.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19270, 6 January 1931, Page 7

A Powerful Instrument Of Peace.

Learn Esperanto

N. M. BELL,

M.A., D.B.E.A.

By A

Sur NEUTRALA lingva f.mdamento KOMPRENANTE unu la rl/ian La popoloj faros en KONSENTO UNU grandan rondon FAMILIAN. Zamenhof.

‘‘lt is quite possible,” says Mr H. G. Wells in a recent speech, “that war will break out in the next ten years ” W hat can we individually do to make such an outbreak not quite so possible? Peace as Voluntary Co-operation. W ar at its worst is mere fratricide; at its best an attempt at compulsory co-operation. War-makers as well as peace-makers recognise the value of cooperation. But the former hope to achieve this co-operation by violence, the latter by non-violence. But why co-operate at all? Simply because experience proves that certain aims are more easily achieved by “co”-operation (“working together”) than by “dis”-operation (“working apart”) or by “contra”-operation (“working against” others). War—as well as peace—makers recognise the value of a common ideal. But the for-, mer seek to impose the ideal of the stronger on the weaker by violence; the latter, at rendering various ideals possible by common co-operation on a voluntary basis. Those people, then, who are convinced by individual and social experience of the fundamental futility of violence or who find the method of war abhorrent for ethical or religious reasons, must be anxiously searching at this season of the year especially, for “instruments of peace.” language and Peace. Of such instruments a universal language may well claim to be one of the most effective. Whether one is a capitalist or a socialist, an imperialist or a federationist, a theist or an atheist, one can still see the wisdom of having a common linguistic medium for the whole world. Everyone who thinks (it is true, alas! that such beings are rare; still they do exist here and there) can readily see how particular misunderstandings and general ignorance lead to violence. Anything which helps to decrease misunderstanding of men by men, or which helps to increase mutual understanding, ought surely to meet with a large measure of active encouragement. Everyone, therefore, that learns a universal tongue and helps to spread its use is working directly for world peace. And what greater problem faces the individual to-day than just this problem of peace—peace within the mind of the individual himself, and peace between classes and nations? Esperantos m. Now it was just this ideal of peace that Dr Zamenhof, the inventor of Esperanto, had continually before his mind. In his native Bielostck he had the spectacle of people belonging to one and the same town speaking four different tongues. He saw how difference of speech kept them all apart, accentuating all misunderstandings. In his poem entitled “Hope” (“Espero”) he writes the lines quoted at the head of this column : On a NEUTRAL base of common speech UNDERSTANDING one another’s mind Peoples by CONSENT will plainly teach “ONE’S the mighty FAMILY of mankind.” A common neutral speech helping mutual understanding and the latter leading to voluntary co-operation of all mankind as one family—that is “Esperdntism,” the faith of the Esperantist. Simplicity of Esperanto. Suppose \fe had to puzzle out the meaning of the following incident from a golf-course (not, of course, a miniature one!), what would we make of it? Golf-ist-O: C’u tiU estAS LA novA anO? Kad-ist-O: Jes, en-blasfemlS siN hierAU. What does the mere look of the thing hint to us? First of all, that “golfisto” has something to do with “golf.” What, then, does the “ist” mean? We think of the English “dentlST,” “pugillST,” “chemlST,” and come to the conclusion that “ist” probably means “someone who does something.” Thus “golfist” may mean “one who plays golf.” “That leaves us with the ending “o.” By looking through the remaining words we find there are two other words which also end in this same letter “o.” We make a guess that it is the regular Esperanto ending for a particular “part of speech,” in this case for “nouns,” so that “golfisto” will mean “golfer” and “kadisto” will mean/‘caddy.” This looks quite al right; so remembering that there are no exceptions in Esperanto, we deduce that the unknown word “ ano ” is also a noun. But what can it mean, this root “an”? Suddenly we call to mind that in English we have many words ending in “ an ” like “AmericAN,” “ LutherAN,” “ PublicAN,” which all have the general of “ member.” An “ American ” is a “ member of America ”; a Lutheran,” a “ member of Luther’s (Protestant) church”; a “publican” is a “ member ” of a certain class of “public” men. We guess then that “ ano ” is the Esperanto noun for “ member.” The word before “ ano,” viz., “nova,” looks as though it might have some connection with the English word “ novel,” mea ning “ new.” Of course “ nova ano ” is “ new member,” we cry out. Then we deduce that "a” is the ending of an Esperanto adjective. It then naturally follows that “la* is also an adjective. We guess it means “the” (French “ le, LA, les”). Haying found a scrap of our French of value our appetite is whetted to use more. The word “estAS” looks like the French “est,” i.e., “is.” If that is so, the ending “ as ” is naturally taken to be the mark of the “ present tense ” of an Esperanto verb; for the verb “ is ” applies to present time. This gives us a clue to the “is” at end ' f the word “ enblasfemlS.” If this “ is ” is also a tense ending, it will naturally denote either “past” or “ future ” time. Which is it? Immediately our minds go back to the old declension of “ amo ” “ I love.” This verb "amo” made its past tense in “i” and its future in ‘o” (amavl, amabO). So for us “ is ” denotes the past tense (and “os” the future—correct). Now we are on the word “ enblasfemis.” we had better finish it off. “ En ” is “ in ” ( French); “ blasfem ” is the phonetic spelling of “blaspheme,” i.e., “swear,” so that the whole word “ enblasfemis ” must mean “ swore in.” Whom did he swear in? Why “ siN,” of course, that i-- “himself ” (French and Latin “ se,” the “ n ” being naturally taken as a mark of the objective case, as in Greek). “HierAU” is obviously the french word “ hier ” “yesterday” with an ending “ au ’ (mark of adverb, because the word “ yesterday ” is an adverb? Correct). It is clear that although we do not profess to know anything about Esperanto, our own English and a few scraps of French and Latin, plus the abundant common sense to be found in all Englishmen, are enabling us to get along famously. Only three word'- now re-

soon, however, as we read the lines aloud we find that the Esperanto word “ jes ” is pronounced exactly like the English word “ yes ”; so we make no bones about translating it by that particular word. But “ c’u ” and “ tiu ” are too much for us. So we write down what we have got out already. Golfer; is the new member? Caddy: “Yes.” “ Of course,” we suddenh* cry Out, the golfer asks a question. It is natural for many languages to put a little word at the beginning of the sentence to show that the sentence is to be taken interrogatively. Anyhow we will guess that “ c’u ” is simply an ‘ interrogative particle \” What qriestion did the golfer put to the caddy? What more natural question than that (pointing to some player) he asks the caddy, “.Is THAT the now member?” “ Tiu ” then must mean “that person.” the “ti ” being connected possibly with the Engesh word “ That.” which begins with a “ t,” the “ u ” being possibly an Esperanto ending denoting a “ person.” (Correct.) We are now so impressed with our own ingenuity in reading Esperanto without ever having learnt it that we look round for more words. Alas! We must be content for the present with what we have got already: Golfer: "Is that person over there the new member?” Caddv; “ Yes. Swore himself in yesterday.”