{"id":393,"date":"2010-04-18T10:00:37","date_gmt":"2010-04-18T08:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/elanguage.net\/blogs\/booknotices\/?p=393"},"modified":"2010-02-11T13:20:16","modified_gmt":"2010-02-11T11:20:16","slug":"daughters-of-esperanto","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/?p=393","title":{"rendered":"Daughters of Esperanto"},"content":{"rendered":"
Daughters of Esperanto.<\/strong> By Alan Reed Libert<\/strong>. <\/strong>(Languages of the world 33.) Munich: LINCOM Europa. 2008. Pp. 166. ISBN 9783895867484<\/a>. $87.70.<\/div>\n

Reviewed by Peter Freeouf<\/strong><\/a>, Chiang Mai University<\/em><\/p>\n

This volume presents an overview of thirty constructed (i.e. artificial) languages that are based on or derived from Esperanto. The best known of these is Ido. Many of the other languages have not achieved much recognition or attention. Most, if not all, of these languages are seen by their authors as reformed or improved versions of Esperanto, which was originally proposed and developed as an international language. Here, Alan Libert surveys various proposals that have appeared over the past 100 years, the earliest of which date from the first decade of the twentieth century (e.g. Reformed Esperanto in 1902 and 1907, Perio in 1904, and Ido in 1907). Esperanto itself dates from Ludwig Zamenhoff\u2019s first publication in 1887, after which a movement to propagate it as the international\u2014or world auxiliary\u2014language rapidly developed, especially in Europe. However, from early on there was occasional dissension in the ranks of Esperantists, and out of this dissatisfaction with particular aspects of Esperanto new proposals for a successor began to appear. The past decade has witnessed a proliferation of such proposals thanks to the widespread access and availability of the Internet.<\/p>\n

L\u2019s study, which assumes the ability to read Esperanto (quotes in Esperanto are not translated into English) is divided into five parts. The introduction (1\u201319) introduces the thirty proposed languages and provides a short account of the sources for each one. Several of the names of these languages are interesting in themselves: Arlipo, Ekselsioro, Farlingo, Hom-Idyomo, Linguna, Olingo, Virgoranto, and my favorite, Snifferanto, which, as Libert points out, is a serious proposal despite its name.<\/p>\n

The following chapter, \u2018Phonetics and phonology\u2019 (21\u201339), deals primarily with the various orthographies and their proposed sound values. Ch. 3, \u2018Lexicon\u2019 (41\u201357), discusses the sources of the vocabulary of the proposed languages. The vocabulary of Esperanto is based almost exclusively on Romance and Germanic languages, with a smattering of Slavic and Greek. Some of the languages discussed here have expanded the Latinate portion of their vocabulary. Several tables provide comparative lists of words in a number of the languages to their counterparts in Esperanto.<\/p>\n

The longest chapter in this book is Ch. 4, \u2018Morphology\u2019 (59\u2013153). One morphological feature in Esperanto is that the direct object is obligatorily marked by the suffix –n <\/em>on nouns, pronouns, and nominal modifiers but not on the definite article or on cardinal numerals. Noun-modifier agreement is also marked by the plural suffix -j <\/em>on attributive and predicative modifiers. Similar to Esperanto, some of the proposed languages mark the accusative, others do not. In two or three of these languages this marking is apparently optional. One of the languages, Linguna, has expanded the system of case forms to seven distinctly marked cases. The issue of noun and modifier agreement (i.e. case and number) is resolved in differing ways in the languages discussed here.<\/p>\n

The final chapter, \u2018Semantics\u2019 (155\u201357), is the shortest and deals very briefly with homonyms, synonyms, and idioms. The book concludes with an extensive list of references (159\u201366), which will be of use to those who wish to search out the sources of the proposed languages. Many of these sources are websites that are immediately accessible.<\/p>\n

Constructed, artificial languages have often been neglected by linguists. L is an exception to this rule. As a linguist, he treats all of these proposals with respect and seriousness. However, it is not difficult to imagine the exasperation he must feel at the deficiencies in competent linguistic analyses and even logical coherence demonstrated by some of these languages. This comes across when he makes such comments as: \u2018Given this, I do not understand why [\u2026]\u2019 (37), \u2018It is not clear to me what it means\u2019 (43), \u2018It is not clear to me what the difference between \u201cindefinite\u201d and \u201ccompletely indefinite\u201d is\u2019 (91), \u2018One might be surprised at these examples [\u2026]\u2019 (108), \u2018Presumably this is an error [\u2026]\u2019 (140), and \u2018I am uncertain of the meaning of occase<\/em> here\u2019 (153). However, most of these expressions of puzzlement or incomprehension are discreetly put in footnotes. Even more telling are many of the numerous quotes from several of the proposals themselves.<\/p>\n

L is to be commended for dealing with these proposals in an objective manner. Constructed, artificial languages, including the well-established Esperanto and its unrelated predecessor, Volapuk, deserve serious scholarly treatment. They are, after all, examples of human language. And to quote Roman Jakobson\u2019s version of Terence\u2019s famous saying: \u2018linguista sum, linguistici nihil a me alienum puto.\u2019 (I am a linguist; I consider nothing linguistic foreign to me.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Daughters of Esperanto. By Alan Reed Libert. (Languages of the world 33.) Munich: LINCOM Europa. 2008. Pp. 166. ISBN 9783895867484. $87.70. Reviewed by Peter Freeouf, Chiang Mai University This volume presents an overview of thirty constructed (i.e. artificial) languages that are based on or derived from Esperanto. The best known of these is Ido. Many […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=393"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":394,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393\/revisions\/394"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}