by Philip Yaffe Some time ago, a friend and I decided to try to establish guidelines for building a “perfect language” that ultimately could be adopted as the world’s common language. We did not intend to create such a language. We just wanted to lay down standards against which any candidates for this high office (living, dead or artificial) could be objectively judged. Our primary criterion was that it should be easy to learn. We started from what we called the Facility Principle: What you don’t have to do is always easier than what you do have to do. We wanted to find out what is really basic to language, i. e. what elements are fundamental, what felements are secondary, and what elements are entirely unnecessary. This we would use to judge how close existing languages came, or how to create an artificial language that virtually everyone could rapidly learn and use. Our method was to identify what elements could be removed without fundamentally damaging a language’s capacity to communicate. To ensure that we would not “over-intellectualize”, we decided to test our ideas by finding at least one language, living or dead, that did not possess the element we thought could be safely deleted. If we found such a language, we would know that this feature truly wasn’t absolutely essential. Between the two us, we were fluent in or had working knowledge of Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Swahili, so these were our reference points. We started with irregularities. Few people would argue that irregular verbs are fundamentally necessary in order to communicate, so our perfect language should have no irregular verbs. Does such a language exist? Yes, Swahili has no irregular verbs. If you can conjugate one verb in that language, you can conjugate them all, and in all tenses. We also looked at irregular spellings. Clearly, a phonetically spelled language would be easier to learn than a non-phonetic one. Just consider all the endless hours French-speaking school children spend with their “dictées” and English-speaking children spend with their “spelling bees”. Although they are disguised as games and competitions, their real purpose is to help children master the thoroughly chaotic misuse of the alphabet in their native tongues. Does a phonetic language in fact exist? German comes very close, and so do Italian and Spanish. Swahili, however, is fully phonetic. If you can say a word in that language, you can spell it, and if you can read it, you can say it. We also immediately dismissed noun genders; English lives without them very nicely. What about pronouns? They too are not fundamental; in Italian and Spanish they are hardly ever used. We even discovered languages that make no distinction between singular and plural. At first, we had difficulty accepting this because singulars and plurals just seemed to be so basic. However, eliminating them makes perfect sense. Why should a language constantly distinguish between one of a thing and two to infinity? To say “I see a dog” clearly means that I see only one of them. But to say “I see dogs” is undefined. It could be two, ten, twenty, a hundred, a thousand, a million, etc. Some languages define “singular” not as one, but one, two or three. “Plural” then means anything from four to infinity. By establishing this set of considerations, did we create an ideal blueprint for producing a clear, concise, easy-to-learn universal language? Actually no. We thought we did; however, it turns out that the Facility Principle has a fatal flaw. When we consulted a linguist during our investigations, he pointed out that it may be possible to eliminate a grammatical feature in a language only because it contains another feature that compensates. But this would not be true of all languages. Thus, eliminating something from Language A because it adds nothing to communication could be crucially important in Language B, where its absence would damage communication. We were not discouraged, but we decided to change direction. Despite the flaw of the Facility Principle, we still felt that irregular spellings had little to recommend them. However, since we could not necessarily eliminate them based solely on the Facility Principle, we looked around for another principle that would allow us to exclude them. This we called the “Comprehension Principle”. The Comprehension Principle states: What is not important for communication in the spoken language should be even less important in the written language. This is only common sense. When we are in a conversation, we must understand what the other person is saying instantaneously, and vice versa. We cannot stop every couple of seconds to have something repeated to be certain that we have correctly grasped its meaning. If we did, conversation would be impossible. When we read, if we have a problem understanding something, we can always look at it again and study it, which is not the case when we speak. It therefore seems logical that the written language should be simpler and more straightforward than the spoken language. In English, French and some other languages, it is just the opposite. The written language is very much more complex than the spoken language. According to the Comprehension Principle, all of the things in the written language that are not in the spoken language are not necessary for communication. Therefore, they can be considered merely decorative and expendable. This brings us back to phonetic spelling. If a word is not written the way it is pronounced, what purpose does it serve? Very little; in fact it is counterproductive. As argued by no less an authority than Voltaire (1771): “Writing is the portrait of the voice; the more they resemble each other, the better (L’ecriture est la peinture de la voix; plus elle est resemblante, mieux elle est. )”Nevertheless, it is amazing how ferociously some people will defend chaotic spellings. One of the principal arguments is that current spelling is a “conveyor belt of culture”. Thus, we spell “pharmacy” with “ph” to remind us that the word is derived from Greek, and we spell “farmer” with an “f” to remind us that this word isn’t. But why should the way we write a word reflect its origin? Language is for communication; it should avoid useless complications such as non-phonetic spelling. “Phonetic” itself should be spelled with an “f” as it is in Dutch, Italian and Spanish. Its Greek origin is of interest mainly to linguists but it shouldn’t be imposed on the rest of us. When the written language loses touch with the spoken language, it also loses touch with reality. Even the august Academie Française now permits elimination of the “accent circumflex” (the little hat) in many words where it serves only to remind us that in Old French there used to be an “s” in the word which is no longer there. It is also introducing numerous other reforms to make the language more consistent and less of a barrier to clear communication. One article I read opposing spelling reform in English concluded with the startling statement: “Spelling is beautiful. Believe it”. Spelling is not beautiful; it is a tool. As with any tool, loading it with useless complications can only reduce its effectiveness, not enhance it. In writing, the only thing that is beautiful is a well-structured, well-crafted text. Judging writing by how well the author masters chaotic spelling is like judging a painting by how well the artist works with defective brushes. If the language-proud French can reform their spelling, surely we English-speakers can do likewise. And the sooner, the better. Philip Yaffe is a former reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Journal and a marketing communication consultant. He currently teaches a course in good writing and good speaking in Brussels, Belgium. His recently published book In the “I” of the Storm: the Simple Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) like a Professional is available from Story Publishers in Ghent, Belgium (storypublishers. be) and Amazon (amazon. com). For further information, contact:Philip YaffeBrussels, BelgiumTel: +32 (0)2 660 0405Email: phil. yaffe@yahoo. com,phil. yaffe@gmail. com
Posts Tagged ‘Swahili’
The Road To A Perfect International Language
December 28th, 2009Should English be Declared the World’s Official Common Language?
December 9th, 2009by Philip Yaffe
Anyone who has travelled outside his own country is aware of the thrill—and frustration—of dealing with foreign languages.
The thrill comes from the fact that the languages are foreign. When you hear people speaking differently from you, and see newspapers, magazines, posters and other written materials that look different from what you are used to, you know you have actually gone somewhere.
The frustration also comes from the fact that the languages are foreign. If you really need to say something to someone who doesn’t understand you, or need to read something you don’t understand, frustration is inevitable.
The solution, of course, would be a common language that everyone would understand, everywhere in the world.
Implementing such an idea wouldn’t mean anyone losing his or her native tongue. A Frenchman would still speak French, a German would still speak German, a Chinese would still speak Chinese, etc. However, in addition to their native language, they would also speak “X”, the common language that would allow everyone to communicate with everyone else, no matter where on the planet they might be.
English to a large extent already fulfils this role; however, this has come about by historical accident, not by conscious design. If we really want a worldwide common language, some international body (the United Nations?) would first have to designate it, then diligently work so that everyone on the planet could learn it.
My native language is English; however, I also speak French, used to speak Swahili, and have a working knowledge of Dutch, German, and Spanish. The purpose here is not to promote English as the world’s official common language, but rather to establish some ground rules for selecting such a language.
What makes a language easy to learn?
I believe we can all agree that the official common language should be easy to learn. But what does this mean? If your native language is French, Chinese might seem to be unconquerable. Likewise, if your native language is Chinese, you might find French equally daunting. The fact is, whatever your native language is, certain aspects of any other language are likely to make it appear impossibly difficult.
So, is there an objective way of determining how easy a language would be to learn—for everyone?
This would have to be determined by the concerted efforts of linguists, psychologists, socialists, educationalists, etc. I have no such expertise, but I do have experience. So to get things started, I would like to propose a fundamental criterion for answering this question and see how well English stacks up.
Facility Principle
What you don’t have to do is always easier than what you do have to do.
In other words, the less you have to think about in speaking and writing a language, the more rapidly you will learn it and the fewer mistakes you will make.
English scores very well against this criterion, because its basic grammar lacks most of the complexities that characterise many other languages. Here are a few examples.
1. Gendered nouns
Many languages, and virtually all European languages, have different classes of nouns, often called “gendered nouns”. For example, in French a noun can be either “masculine” or “feminine”. In German a noun can be either “masculine”, “feminine”, or “neuter”. Swahili in fact has four classes of nouns (no, the fourth one isn’t homosexual!). To speak properly, you must learn the gender of each noun individually, which is not always obvious.
English doesn’t have this problem. English can be considered to have only one class of nouns—all neuter.
2. Gendered articles
Each gendered noun is associated with a gendered article. To speak properly, you must put the correct article with the correct noun. For example, in French “le livre” = the book (masculine), but “la lampe” = the lamp (feminine). It would be quite incorrect to say “la livre” or “le lampe”. In English, the definite article is always “’the”; it never changes.
Likewise, “un livre” = a book (masculine), but “une lampe” = a lamp (feminine). In English, the definite article is always “a”; it also never changes.
3. Gendered adjectives
Languages with gendered nouns usually have gendered adjectives. To speak properly, you must correctly associate the adjective with the correct noun. For example, “pain frais” = fresh bread, but “viande fraîche” = fresh meat. It would be quite incorrect to say “pain fraîche” or “viande frais”.
In English, adjectives (like nouns) are all neuter and never change, i. e. both “frais” and “fraîche” = fresh
4. Multiple plurals
Certain languages consider it insufficient to indicate a plural only once, so they have multiple plurals. For example, “le grand livre” = the big book, but “les grands livres” = the big books. It would be quite incorrect to say “le grand livres”, i. e. without making both the article and the adjective plural as well.
English has neither plural articles nor plural adjectives. “The” is always “the” and “big” is always “big”. They never change.
5. Verb classes
Many languages have different classes of verbs. Correctly using a verb depends on knowing its class. French, for example, has at least three verb classes, indicated by distinct endings on the infinitive (mang-er = to eat, prend-re = to take, cour-ir = to run). The ending of each individual verb must be learned; otherwise, mistakes are inevitable.
English has only one class of verbs. All infinitives are indicated by “to” (to run, to jump, to sleep, etc. ); mistakes are impossible.
6. Regular conjugations
Certain languages have many more conjugated verb forms than does English. For example, in the present tense you would say: I, we, you, they eat; he, she, it eats. Thus, there are only two conjugated forms (eat, eats). In French there are five conjugated forms and in Spanish there are six.
In the future tense you would say: I, he, she, it, we, they will eat. Thus, there is only one conjugated form (will eat). Spanish still has six conjugated forms, but now so does French. Similar disparities exist in the past tense, and virtually all other verb tenses.
7. Irregular conjugations
Irregular conjugations are common in many languages; however, there are exceptions. Swahili verbs are perfectly regular. If you know the conjugated forms of just one verb, you know the conjugated forms of all verbs.
English, of course, does not have this enviable facility; however, compared to many other languages, its irregularities are few and far between. For example, English is perfectly regular in both the present and future tenses.
The present tense is always formed by removing “to” from the infinitive and adding the appropriate pronoun: to come = I come, he/she/it comes, we come, you come, they come. The future tense is always formed by removing “to” from the infinitive and adding “will”: to come = I will come, he/she/it will come, we will come, you will come, they will come.
French and Spanish are highly irregular in both of these tense, as well as many others.
Does the relative simplicity of basic English grammar give it the inside track to becoming the world’s official common language? Absolutely not! Along with its undeniable attributes, it also has a number of significant drawbacks.
The most obvious one is English spelling, which is far from being phonetic. This means the same sound can have several different spellings (here, hear; there, their; break, brake; clean, keen; said, bed; height, kite; who, blue, new, etc. ). French, of course, is much worse than English in this respect; however, German, Italian and Spanish are much better. And Swahili is perfect. In this language, if you can say a word, you can spell it. End of story.
The second major drawback is pronunciation. Most people, and certainly those who have yet to master another language, are unaware of how seriously difficult correct pronunciation in their own native language could be for a foreigner.
English, like many other languages, is cursed with a tonic accent. “Tonic accent” simply means that certain syllables are given more stress than others. For example, “difficult” is pronounced “dif*-fi-cult”; the first syllable carries the tonic accent. It could just as easily be pronounced “dif-fi*-cult”, which is what Spanish prefers. Or even “dif-fi-cult*”, which might be the preference in some other language.
If your native language has a tonic accent, you have grown up with it, so you may not fully appreciate what a burden it really is is. However, when you try to learn another language, the difficulty becomes evident.
The tonic accent will not always go where you think it should (based on your language), so you will constantly be mispronouncing. Worse, if you put the tonic accent on the wrong syllable, your interlocutor might not understand what you are trying to say at all.
Are there any languages with no tonic accent? There may be many, but French is the only one I know.
Technically, French does have a tonic accent, but it is very hard to hear it. For example, in English we say “un-i-ver*-si-ty”. In French, this is “un-i-ver-si-té”, with each syllable being given essential the same stress. Likewise with “rest*-au-rant”, which in French is simply “rest-au-rant”. And so on. Thus, you never have to guess where the tonic accent should go, so you can never make a mistake.
As we have seen, based on the Facility Principle (what you don’t have to do is always easier than what you do have to do), English has a lot to recommend it. However, this is only one criterion. In searching for the best common language for the world, the experts will probably come up with many more. How well English would fare against these additional criteria can only be guessed at.
Editor’s Note
Philip Yaffe is a former reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Journal and a marketing communication consultant. He currently teaches a course in good writing and good speaking in Brussels, Belgium. In the “I” of the Storm: the Simple Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) like a Professional, his recently published book, is available from Story Publishers in Ghent, Belgium (storypublishers. be) and Amazon (amazon. com).
For further information, contact: