effort .

to the constructed lariguage, though this effort might be

grea.ter or smaller to the -' extent that the language leans more or less in
the direction of the learner's native tongue.
One niight say that the reaction of the adult generation of learners
is irrelevant, since the international language is meant primarily, al-
most exclusively, for the unborn generations of the future.
ly, the choice will have to be made by an existing adult generation, and
it is very hard to exclude from the consciousness of the adult speaker
thB purely: .. subjective factor of what is easy or difficult "for me".
The frequently Vc:iiced objection that constructed languages are not
natural, that th_ey do not issue from the spil, that they do not carry a
cultural content and tradition, leaves me altogether ._ cold. We are dealing
with a twentieth-century civilization, in wh.ich the artificial . is often
infinitely preferable to the natural. For purposes of present-day trans-
portatiori, I would much prefer to have an artificial automobile, t-ailored
t' my needs , . _rather than. a "natural
11
horse. Cul tural contents and tradi-
tions, history shows us', can very easily be created, acquired and bor-
rowed, particularly for that part _which is worth while having, and which
does not represent an exaggerated sense of nationalism or even imperial-
ism. There is no good reason why the truly cultural content of the world's
great cultures cannot be transferred to a constructed language, as it is
right now in the process of being transf &rred from 6ne natural language
to , ,
. All of the foregoing considerations would lead me, if I were a mem-
ber of a linguistic commission created to select a language for world use,
to cast my initial ballot in favor of a constructed rather than a natural
1anguage. The constructed language, in my opinion, would materially .re-
d:uce the very real difficul ties and probl.ems of the great innovation that
a world_ ,lpnguage wquld consti
This narrows down my choice to the constructed languages. Here again,
practical linguistics comes to the fore. It is as vain to seek perfection
in a constructed language as in a natural one, for the very simple reason
that in the field of language there is no such thing as perf ection. It
- may be perfectly. '. true that Ido or Novial may express a certain comcept
more cl.early and terse.ly .than Esperanto or VolapUk; but Esperanto or
Volapuk may have certain other areas of superiority. Also, there is no-
thing. to prevent a given constructed 1anguage, once it is adopted for
world use, from being modified or improved upon by the Language Academy
that will under all circumstances have to be created and function, far
more tha:n the French or Italian or Spanish Academies, to keep
the language from being -dialectalized; and to prescribe, in no uncertain
terms, i what is and what is not correct, standard usage.
In my examination of the numerous constructed languages that have
been offered since the days of Descartes, . I have come across ma.J;ly praise-
worthy features that could be incorporated into a fully
functioning world tongue, just as new elements of vocabulary will have
tobe. But if we under.take _to solve now, before the adoption of a world
l:anguage, the numerous problems of how to improve upon existing candi-
dates, we can easily go on doing this for another thousand years. The
thing to do is to adpt the language, put it _into operation, and modify
i t later,- as i t will_ have to : be under all ., circumstances.
There is one c0nst.ructed language that has more -:;:followers and is
more widely recognized than any other. This is a de facto si tuation, and
not necessarily pred.icated . upon inherent. meri ts." Whatever i ts meri ts or
demerits may be, that language has proved: 1. that it can draw to itself