Page:International Language.djvu/157
outweigh the advantages (reckoned in terms of efficiency) it confers, and which would be lost if it was simplified out of existence? Let us then examine briefly the two points criticised, remembering that the main function of the argument from history of language is, not to deduce therefrom hard-and-fast rules for the construction of international language, but to remove the unreasoning prejudice of numerous objectors, who cannot pardon the international language for being "artificial," i.e. consciously simplified.
(1) The Accusative Case
This is formed in Esperanto by adding the letter -n. This one form is universal for nouns, adjectives, and pronouns singular and plural. Ex.:
| Nom. | bona patro (good father), | plural, | bonaj patroj. |
| Acc. | bonan patron | plural,„ | bonajn patrojn. |
Suppose one were to suppress this -n.
(a) Cost of retention of unsimplified form: Remembering to add this -n.
(b) Advantages of retention: The flexibility of the language is enormously increased; the words can be put in any order without obscuring or changing the sense. Ex.:
La patro amas sian filon = the father loves his son.
Sian filon amas la patro (in English "his son loves the father" has a different sense).
Amas la patro sian filon (= the father loves his son, but...).
La patro sian filon amas.
Sian filon la patro amas (= it is his son that the father loves).
In every case the Esperanto sentence is perfectly clear, the meaning is the same, but great scope is afforded for emphasis and shades of gradation. Further, every nation is enabled to arrange the words as suits it best, without becoming less intelligible to other nations. Readers of Greek and Latin know the enormous advantage of free word order. For purposes of