Based on an insightful comment from Pascal Blondiau in regards to “krokodili” the other week, I find myself asking whether or not I want to see Esperanto evolve or not. Moreover, if the language needs to change, I wonder how we should go about changing it. Before you read any further, I highly recommend reading Pascal’s commentary. It is well argued, and I hadn’t considered many of his points before.
All set? Then let’s begin a new discussion!
We all want Esperanto be an international language, something that everyone can speak so that everyone may be heard and understood. Under the most ideal circumstances, people the world over would speak, use, and comprehend Esperanto. However, if the entire world spoke Esperanto, I can only assume that various native languages would creep into the vocabulary, producing words like “krokodili.” With this as the case, it isn’t a far stretch of the imagination to think that Esperanto would develop regional words that are spoken only in select places. After further divergence, one would end up with essentially different languages – thus defeating the purpose of a universal language!
The alternative would be to keep non-Esperanto words from entering the Esperanto vocabulary. This solution would ensure that Esperanto remains neutral (in theory) among the world’s native languages, and that new words wouldn’t be too cryptic for Esperantists. Unfortunately, I can see this approach having its own drawbacks. A rigid, purist method like this one risks stagnating the development of the language. Imagine how limited poetry would be, for example, if word usage was completely set in stone!
I can’t say there’s an easy solution to the problem of pluralism versus purism. Perhaps a balance between the two would be best, but I cannot say for sure. What do you all think? Where do you stand on the issue?
