In the Land of Invented Languages

[calimac]

I've finally read this 2009 book by Arika Okrent, two years after everybody else did, but I don't recall what most struck me about it as having been pointed out elsewhere.

In her concluding section about her adventures in the Klingon Language Institute, Okrent recounts telling an Esperantist about it and receiving his baffled comment, "But what are they doing?" Her answer is that "They are enjoying themselves. They are doing language for language's sake, art for art's sake." (p. 280-1) The same thing would, of course, apply to Tolkien, whom she discusses next. (Briefly and inadequately, saying nothing about the extent of the Elven-tongues and what he used them for, let alone alluding to the existence of Tolkien language institutes.) (p. 282-4)

What intrigues me is that the Esperantist didn't grasp this motive. The Esperanto movement has as its purpose the quest to build a better human society through a universal language. By that criterion, "art for art's sake" languages, created for beauty or enjoyment, have no purpose. Thus the Esperantist's puzzlement. But don't Esperantists also enjoy their language, as well as having a social goal to pursue by using it? I would think that they do, given that Okrent reports that Esperanto grammar has spontaneously evolved over the century-plus of its usage, just as natural languages do: altogether appropriately as, for a small but real group of people, Esperanto is a natural language.

I would think that putting your energy and effort into some social project solely for its uplifting goals, and not also because you enjoyed it, would be a rather cold-blooded and soulless way to pursue life, though some of the utopians I meet - of a variety of ideologies - do seem to have that attitude. If that were the case, the Esperantists would be forced to acknowledge that their project hasn't worked very well beyond building a small community of like thinkers. Only enjoyment of what they're doing can paint their movement as anything other than an exercise in futility.

In that context, "language for language's sake" is a more robust argument than a social goal would be, since enjoyment is actually being achieved. For those of us pursuing projects purely for art's sake, I hope that is a comfort.

Comments

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Speaking for myself, what brief time I spent studying Esperanto (for a book never yet written, alas - a post-Iron Curtain mittelEurop comedic thriller called Desperanto - how could they resist?), I enjoyed it utterly. I think - I hope! - you should not take that single Esparantist as typical.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I've wondered about the comparative statistics for a while: How do the numbers of Esperantists compare with those of, say, speakers of Klingon? It would be ironic if a language invented purely for play outcompeted one invented for utility.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Klingon is far more popular than many other long-standing utility-languages besides Esperanto, most of which have struggled for ages. But not compared to Esperanto. I don't think Okrent says how many Esperantists there are, though she does point out that use is wide-spread and that it does have native speakers, that is, a sustained body of people who were raised in Esperanto-speaking households. Wikipedia says "Estimates of Esperanto speakers range from 10,000 to two million active or fluent speakers."

Okrent does discuss the number of Klingon speakers - a language, she points out, that is deliberately difficult to learn; that indeed, the challenge of learning it is what appeals to many of its users. "The Klingon Dictionary has sold more than 300,000 copies. But a dictionnary buyer does not a speaker make. There are probably more than 2,000 people who have leanred to use Klingon in some way: a word or two, [or] composed in Klingon without regard to the grammar. They haven't done the work. They count only as dabblers. At least a few hundred, however, have done the work and are pretty good at written Klingon. But what about speakers in the sense of people who can carry on a spontaneous live conversation in Klingon? I would say, oh, twenty or so. Maybe thirty." (p. 272-3, abridged)

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

My grandfather certainly believed in the beauty of Esperanto as a language, and was keen that there should be a native literature as well as plentiful translations from natural languages. But the two goals (utilitarian and fun/aesthetic) aren't really separate: he was well aware that there had to be a kind of literary critical mass behind a language, and a substantial body of past usage, for human beings to want to take it up seriously - and that for the same reason it had ideally to be not just simple to learn but also pleasurable to use.