WI: Esperanto becomes the official language of the League of Nations

[Gnowos]

From what I understand in 1920 Esperanto was seriously considered to be the official language of the League of Nations, possibly with member nations even agreeing to teach the language in school curriculums but suffered opposition from French officials who feared that it would damage the diplomatic value and prestige of the French language. Although I admit I don't think the event itself would have much effect on history immediately I feel that even ignoring the more subtle butterflies it would still eventually result in certain world events playing out differently or having different outcomes as a direct consequence of this. However I can't quite think of anything on the top of my head that would qualify as this.

So what do you guys think would be the direct effects of what is essentially an Esperanto-wank of sorts? I find the language very interesting considering how relatively big it remains as a conlang even after WW2 and decades of apathy from most government authorites concerning the language (with a few exceptions). So it would be interesting to see how a boost like this would effect world politics.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

It would probably establish Esperanto as THE interlingua. OTL there was so much squabbling and schisms. Esperanto, Ido, Volapuk, etc., that Esperanto, while clearly in front, didn't have overwhelming dominance.
Getting it as the LoN official language would do that. Getting it taught in schools in major nations would improve its status immensely.
I could easily see the Soviets, say, and the Chinese insisting on using it for international negotiations, instead of the Imperial, Feudal and Capitalist languages of English, French and German.

But even that's a bit of a long shot.

In any case, avoiding WWII, and keeping a more multipolar world would likely be required if Esperanto ever hoped to be more than a niche language.

It really is a trivially easy language to learn. And SHOULD by all rights have done much better than it did. Sigh.
BTW Gutenberg has a number of Esperanto texts if you want to get something to read...

 

[Catsmate]

I like it. In fact I like it so much that I used this in my EDCverse. Of course that alt-Whoniverse had Germany basically win the Great War so France doesn't get to veto the choice.
The possibilities for post- and anti- colonial governments are very interesting.
Say Zamenhof doesn’t die in 1917 and it's adoped by the LoN as fourth language (along with German, French and English) and then becomes popular amongst socialist groups (maybe backed by the Comintern, though this would tend to marginalise it) who organise classes. Assuming it isn't persecuted by Stalin then Hitler probably imprisons speakers (as Zionists, socialists or otherwise) as happened OTl

Now think about the possibilities of the Esperanto Institute. Is it, as many conspiracy nuts ITTL believe, a sinister group plotting global hegemony in the guise of promoting the language and international cooperation? (In the EDCverse it's portrayed as this by the fascist British Republic in media; a recurring plotline in series like Nighshade!).

Nightshade! was the nemesis of Doctor X, the heroic scientists who defended Britain and the Republic against all manner of alien and foreign threats. But that was just a TV series back in the sixties, wasn't it?
But now, forty years later, there are plans for a revival of the old 'Doctor X' show, updated for these post-Revolution days. Fans of the cult show are dubious, and there are some weird things happening in the English countryside at the old air-base where recording has commenced. What is the secret held by a now elderly actor? How is the woman who no longer calls herself Jo Grant involved? And who is the new "Technical Advisor" on the production?​

 

[Johnrankins]

It really is a trivially easy language to learn. And SHOULD by all rights have done much better than it did. Sigh.

Why? There is little reason for people to learn an artificial language when there are huge numbers of people using more "natural" languages already. Even if used for diplomacy I am not sure it would spread too much. Why learn Esperanto which would have maybe a few thousand speakers even in TTL when millions speak English, French, German, Spanish and Italian?

If I know those languages there are millions of people who I can speak to for business and personal reasons. Even if it is relatively easy to learn language why would the average person bother? No one lives forever and most people would rather spend their time learning an already useful language if they bother learning a new language at all.

It is the advantage Microsoft has in software. Why learn an obscure OS when virtually every computer out there is either Windows or Mac based? You have a relative few that know Linux or even more obscure OS but they are very rare in comparison. A new OS would be fighting a massive uphill battle. I have probably a few thousand dollars worth of software that would be utterly useless if I went with another OS.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Why? There is little reason for people to learn an artificial language when there are huge numbers of people using more "natural" languages already. Even if used for diplomacy I am not sure it would spread too much. Why learn Esperanto which would have maybe a few thousand speakers even in TTL when millions speak English, French, German, Spanish and Italian?

Why?
Because it's much, MUCH easier to learn than any natural language.
Because English, French, and German are the languages of 'capitalists', 'colonial oppressors', etc.
Because the French purely hate English, historically, and if they can't use the glorious tongue of Talleyrand and Moliere, then at least they can avoid sullying their tongues with, bah ptui, English.
Because in a multipolar world (note my post involved avoiding WWII), there isn't ONE language to learn. If you want to do business with Germans, French and Brits, today you just learn English. In a multipolar world you have to learn all three - UNLESS there's an interlingua like Esperanto.
Because English spelling is insane, and pronunciation is almost as bad.

I've taken two university classes in German, a close relative to my native English, and got decent at reading the language. Many, many classes in French, and got almost fluent, 4 years of high school Latin and never got to the stage of being able to read (as opposed to translate) anything but selected super simple texts. Two years of Greek, and couldn't READ anything.

Picked up a pamphlet on Esperanto, and COULD read the language.
My litmus test is how much of the Bible I've read in a language. The whole thing (plural times) in English, and (once) in French.
The New Testament in German and Esperanto.
Never managed to get through a single book in Greek, Latin or Russian (one year).
But Esperanto? One pamphlet and im off and running.

Believe you me, learning other natural languages is tough. Esperanto is trivial.

 

[marathag]

Why? There is little reason for people to learn an artificial language when there are huge numbers of people using more "natural" languages already. Even if used for diplomacy I am not sure it would spread too much. Why learn Esperanto which would have maybe a few thousand speakers even in TTL when millions speak English, French, German, Spanish and Italian?
.

Isn't Klingonese more popular than Esperanto now?

 

[Johnrankins]

Isn't Klingonese more popular than Esperanto now?

I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Johnrankins]

Why?
Because it's much, MUCH easier to learn than any natural language.
Because English, French, and German are the languages of 'capitalists', 'colonial oppressors', etc.
Because the French purely hate English, historically, and if they can't use the glorious tongue of Talleyrand and Moliere, then at least they can avoid sullying their tongues with, bah ptui, English.
Because in a multipolar world (note my post involved avoiding WWII), there isn't ONE language to learn. If you want to do business with Germans, French and Brits, today you just learn English. In a multipolar world you have to learn all three - UNLESS there's an interlingua like Esperanto.
Because English spelling is insane, and pronunciation is almost as bad.

I've taken two university classes in German, a close relative to my native English, and got decent at reading the language. Many, many classes in French, and got almost fluent, 4 years of high school Latin and never got to the stage of being able to read (as opposed to translate) anything but selected super simple texts. Two years of Greek, and couldn't READ anything.

Picked up a pamphlet on Esperanto, and COULD read the language.
My litmus test is how much of the Bible I've read in a language. The whole thing (plural times) in English, and (once) in French.
The New Testament in German and Esperanto.
Never managed to get through a single book in Greek, Latin or Russian (one year).
But Esperanto? One pamphlet and im off and running.

Believe you me, learning other natural languages is tough. Esperanto is trivial.

It doesn't matter. Someone can probably write an easier to understand OS than Windows that does the same thing and possibly have. The problem is millions and millions of people already have Windows and there is a ton of software already out there they can use that uses it. A new OS would have to have a truly massive advantage for them to succeed over Windows.

The same with languages no matter how easy it is to use it doesn't matter. Practically no one outside a handful of diplomats would use it. Even if you think it is trivially easy to learn it would take at least some effort. You may well be gifted as far as languages go. Why spend that time learning a language practically no one speaks? It would take many, many years for there to be an even remotely close to the same number of speakers as there are for English, French and German.

Also English has many millions of words out of the box, so to speak. Other languages have less (English, by far, has more words than any other language) but far more than any artificial language could. The big languages have been developing for thousands of years with billions of speakers (over the centuries). It would take centuries for Esperanto to have even a tithe of the words English has.

 

[MusuMankata]

Because English, French, and German are the languages of 'capitalists', 'colonial oppressors', etc.

Part of the reason Esperanto was rejected was exactly because the grammar and vocabulary were wholly from European languages, though. No signs of Asian languages, or Africano ones, let alone Native American ones.

Learning Esperanto would've been just kicking out the three languages you mentioned by the door, and then let them back by the window combined in a single entity.

 

[Catsmate]

It doesn't matter. Someone can probably write an easier to understand OS than Windows that does the same thing and possibly have. The problem is millions and millions of people already have Windows and there is a ton of software already out there they can use that uses it. A new OS would have to have a truly massive advantage for them to succeed over Windows.

This is an absolutely terrible analogy. There are, today, more than a dozen languages with over one hundred million speakers (and over thirty with half that many) and Esperanto is easier to learn than any of them. Hence the comparison to computer operating systems is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Johnrankins]

This is an absolutely terrible analogy. There are, today, more than a dozen languages with over one hundred million speakers (and over thirty with half that many) and Esperanto is easier to learn than any of them. Hence the comparison to computer operating systems is utterly irrelevant.

There are more than a dozen languages with over a hundred million speakers because until relatively recently travel more than 20 miles was pretty uncommon and traveling more than a couple of hundred miles outright rare. These languages were developed with people isolated from one another. Chinese is considerably different from German because China is thousands of miles away from Germany.

Not many Germans spoke Chinese and vice versa because distances meant they very, very rarely met with each other. Traders very rarely went the entire distance between them. Usually, they traded with someone closer to them and there were a number of trades before it went that huge distance. Because of this very few Germans bothered to learn Chinese and vice versa.

A lot more Germans spoke Italian and French because they bordered on each other. The vast majority of the people who did though were with 20 miles or so of the border though. In other words, there were real practical reasons why there are a dozen languages that developed so many speakers.

 

[Johnrankins]

Part of the reason Esperanto was rejected was exactly because the grammar and vocabulary were wholly from European languages, though. No signs of Asian languages, or Africano ones, let alone Native American ones.

Learning Esperanto would've been just kicking out the three languages you mentioned by the door, and then let them back by the window combined in a single entity.

Do you mean the same people who adopted European languages as their official language? Almost all of South America speaks Spanish or Portuguese. Most African countries have a European language as at least one of their official language if not their only official language. Most of the exceptions are Arabic, only two have only their native language as their exclusive official language, Botswana and Ethiopia https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/african_languages.htm .

Asia is an exception as it is rich enough to be less effected. However many have European languages as one of their official languages including such important countries as India, Singapore, and the Philippines. https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/asian_languages.htm

The reasons are 1) They were the language of the colonial rulers 2) For most of the last 100-150 years, the most profitable international trade was Europe or the US. 3) With a lot of these countries, it was something of a "neutral" language. If a colony that just got independence had 3 regions that had their own native language they often would agree to a European official language simply so no one would have a big advantage . If the language from ethnic group 1 was the official language 2 and 3 gets upset and the same goes for the other two ethnic groups. If they adopt English or French it is more acceptable because no local would have an advantage over the others.

The reason it wasn't adopted (mostly) was because it wasn't practical. Maybe some African intellectuals might care it was based solely on European languages but the peasant in the fields or the miner underground or other common occupations would neither know or care. The problem was/is practically no one speaks it.

 

[Allochronian]

Estas bona demando. Mi pensas ke la mondaj militoj haltis la eblon por tia okazi. Se ni supozas ke la Ligo da Nacioj akceptis Esperanton kiel la internacian lingvon, ni komprenus unu la alian multe pli facile.

Ne estus mona paco, sed politiko dum la Malvarma Milito povus esti malpi intenzo.

 

[Johnrankins]

Despite what he says I doubt the vast majority of poor people even heard of Esperanto let alone were in favor of it. Outside the US and Europe, public education was not really a thing yet. Most poor, on a worldwide level, were either illiterate or nearly illiterate. Radio was the province of the middle and upper classes even in Europe and the US. It was just filtering down to the poor in the US and the richer parts of Europe. So how are they going to even hear about it? I am not sure that even today most people have heard about it.

 

[Nivek]

That one die with the League, just a minor trivia thing

 

[Born in the USSA]

That one die with the League, just a minor trivia thing

Even if the League is stilled scrapped as in OTL there's no indication Esperanto wouldn't carry over to the UN analogue, especially to help further the idea of continuity. If a noble project falls short it's better to reform it than to scrap it out of pique.

 

[Nivek]

Even if the League is stilled scrapped as in OTL there's no indication Esperanto wouldn't carry over to the UN analogue, especially to help further the idea of continuity. If a noble project falls short it's better to reform it than to scrap it out of pique.

Seriously this place have the more weird love for the weirdess idea, no one give a damn that language...except dany phantom writers(they used it in a chapter)

 

[Born in the USSA]

Seriously this place have the more weird love for the weirdess idea, no one give a damn that language...except dany phantom writers(they used it in a chapter)

If you're not into resurrecting weird quirks of history you're on the wrong forum

 

[Johnrankins]

Even if the League is stilled scrapped as in OTL there's no indication Esperanto wouldn't carry over to the UN analogue, especially to help further the idea of continuity. If a noble project falls short it's better to reform it than to scrap it out of pique.

If enough people cared, which they didn't. The problem is almost no one really wants a new artificial language. It would take decades, if not centuries, to be as useful as English, French or German. People live decades and they don't want to waste that time learning a language no one uses.

 

[LostInNewDelhi]