Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Artificial Languages and Why They Fail - Wandio
Artificial Languages and Why They Fail - Wandio
Artificial Languages and Why They Fail - Wandio
Sam Wandio
English 281
December 2016
entertainment or to provide a universal second language. In the latter category, there are
numerous languages, but all have failed at their intended purpose. The most prominent example
is Esperanto, and Esperanto failed to gain widespread uptake because its design was made
primarily of Romantic languages, because the Esperantist societies attempt to control it, and
Entertainment or Uptake
Its important to realize the difference between an artificial language thats intended for
entertainment and an artificial language thats intended to one day have native speakers;
Dothraki (a guttural language constructed for the muscular Mongolian analogues in the Game of
Thrones television series) was not designed to have actual speakers. All Dothraki needed as a
language was to sound interesting and authentic, and while some fans have since learned some of
the language, that is not its intended purpose. This is different from an artificial second
language, which is intended to be spoken widely for the purposes of equality or trade; Esperanto
is one such language, and although it has close to two million speakers, it has only two thousand
native speakers.
Wandio 2
Why did Esperanto fail? On the surface, everything about the language seems ideal for
large-scale uptake. The language is apparently very easy to learn, there are numerous resources
available, from books to groups (both online and physical) to even mobile phone apps. And the
idea is sound; a worldwide second language would allow communication between everyone on
earth. With this in mind, what caused the language to fail? There are three primary reasons
Esperanto failed to gain the uptake it was designed for: firstly, the language is constructed using
Romantic roots to the exclusion of other language families. Secondly, the Esperantist societies
attempt to control the language (which is counterintuitive when your objective is to promote the
uptake of the language), and finally, the efforts to promote uptake are aimed at adults to learn the
Hopelessly Romantic
One of the main reasons behind the failure of Esperanto as a constructed language is that,
while it was designed to be intuitive, it was also designed with the Romantic languages as a base.
What this means is that there is a steeper learning curve for someone learning Esperanto as an
additional language if, for example, their native language is Mongolian or Russian.
Unfortunately, there is not likely a way around this problem provided one uses any actual
languages as the base of an artificial language, as speakers of languages in the same language
family will always have an advantage over speakers of languages in other language families
Another problem with Esperantos uptake is that the Esperantist societies attempt to
Wandio 3
control it. This is not conducive to either language uptake or language development; an
inescapable part of language is that it changes with the speaker, and it will never stop doing that
unless it becomes extinct; if everyone were to learn Esperanto, within two or three generations,
the language would be completely unrecognizable in comparison to its roots. The more speakers
a language has, the more quickly it changes, and this cannot be stopped or even really slowed
down.
Perhaps the single most significant problem with Esperantos uptake is that, again, while
it is intuitive and quite easy to learn, it is aimed at adults, and this is a fatal error. Adults are not
nearly as capable as children; which, despite their inability to control their bowels and tendency
to regularly fall down the stairs (although, to be fair, these traits are also present in the elderly),
are practically machines geared toward learning languages. If everyone were to decide to teach
their children Esperanto (or, indeed, any artificial language), one generation is all it would take
for the entire world to have a single artificial additional language, and so far, no artificial
language has attempted to do this, which is possibly the most grievous error in the construction
Esperanto was a good idea ultimately stifled by poor execution, and if a worldwide
additional language is to ever succeed, it must avoid falling into the same hurdles.