Page:International Language.djvu/22
artistic, sooner or later the multiplicity will have to go to the scrap-heap[1] as cumbrous and out of date. It may be a hundred years; it may be fifty; it may be even twenty. Almost certainly the irresistible trend of economic pressure will work its will and insist that what has to be done shall be done in the most economical way.
So much, then, for the question of principle. In treating it, certain large assumptions have been made; e.g. it is said above, “if an easy artificial language can with equal efficiency . . . produce the same results,” etc. Here it is assumed that the artificial language is (1) easy, and (2) that it is possible for it to produce the same results. Again, however easy and possible, its introduction might cost more than it saved. These are questions of fact, and are treated in the three following chapters under the heading of “The Question of Practice.”
III
THE QUESTION OF PRACTICE—AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE IS POSSIBLE
The man who says a thing is impossible without troubling to find out whether it has been done is merely “talking through his hat,” to use an Americanism, and we need not waste much time on him. Any one, who maintains that it is impossible to transact the ordinary business of life and write lucid treatises on scientific and other subjects in an artificial language, is simply in the position of the French engineer, who gave a full scientific demonstration of the fact that an engine could not possibly travel by steam.
The plain fact is that not only one artificial language, but
- ↑ But only, of course, in those lines in which an international auxiliary language can produce equally good results. This excludes home use, national literature, philology, scholarly study of national languages, etc.