La pago estas kreita aŭtomate por testi kaj kompari la maŝinan tradukadon kompare al originalaj profesiaj homaj tradukoj. Ĝi helpu analizi la proceso de tradukado. Originalaj tekstoj devenas de pago pri artikolaro de Claude Piron. Mi kelkfoje adaptis ete la fontan tekston kaj ankaŭ homan tradukon, por kunordigi dispartigon je paragrafoj, kaj forigi evidentajn skriberarojn.
Fonto Maŝina Traduko Profesia Homa Traduko
CLAUDIO PIRON  {CLAUDIO} PIRON CLAUDIO PIRON
Eŭropano trilingva: ĉu realisma espero? Trilingual European: if a realistic hope? The Trilingual European: a realistic expectation?
En tuta Eŭropo multaj voĉoj aŭdiĝas favore al ĝenerala trilingveco. Oni insistas, ke instrusistemoj celu fari ĉiun junan eŭropanon trilingva civitano. Sed kion signifas “trilingva”? Ĉu temas pri ĝisfunda regado de du lingvoj krom la gepatra? Lingvisto Claude Hagège difinas tiun nivelon jene:"Por mi, perfekte regi lingvon estas kapabli kapti vortludojn elparolatajn tre rapide de denaskaj parolantoj, kaj ĝin paroli sen esti identigebla kiel fremdlingvano" (1) kaj li konkludas dirante: "La nombro de veraj dulingvuloj (...) estas tre malvasta." Fakte ne eblas fariĝi tianivele dulingva sen specialaj cirkonstancoj, kiel malsamlingvaj gepatroj aŭ lernejo en alia lingvo ol la familia. Simplaj lingvaj restadoj ne sufiĉas. Persone mi vivis kvin jarojn en Usono, mi multe verkas angle, mi eĉ instruis en San Francisco State University, sed mi neniam estos rigardata kiel anglalingvano, kaj kiam mi iras spekti usonan muzikkomedion, multaj subtilaĵoj preterflugas mian komprenon. In whole Europe many voices are heard well to general {trilingveco}. One insists, that instruction systems should aim doing every young European a trilingual citizen. But means what “trilingual”? Does it handle about thoroughgoing a rule of two languages besides the parental? Linguist Claude Hagège defines that level thus: "For me, be to catch pronounced puns very quickly from native speakers able to is to rule perfectly a language, and it speak without be possible for a identification like {fremdlingvano}" (1) and he concludes saying: "The number of true {dulingvuloj} (...) is very close." It is not indeed possible to become {tianivele} without particular circumstances, how {malsamlingvaj} parents or a school in an another language than the domestic bilingual. Simple linguistic stays do not suffice. I lived personally five years in United States of America, I write a lot in English, I taught State University even in San {Francisco}, but I will never be looked like {anglalingvano}, and I go when watching a American music comedy, many fine distinctions {preterflugas} my sense. The idea of a generalized trilingualism has been finding support all over Europe. Language teaching, we are told, must turn every young European into a trilingual citizen. But what does trilingual mean? Proficient, and fully so, in two languages other than one's mother tongue? The linguist Claude Hagège defines that level of command in the following terms: “For me, to know a language perfectly is to be able to follow word play performed at normal speed with native interlocutors in mind, and to speak the language without being identifiable as a foreigner” (1) and he concludes that “the number of true bilinguals (...) is quite low.” Indeed, that level of bilingualism reflects exceptional circumstances, such as parents speaking different languages or schooling in a non-family language. Straightforward language tourism is not enough. Personally, I have spent five years in the U.S., I work in English quite often, I have even taught at San Francisco State University, but I would never pass off as an Anglophone, and when I watch an American musical, I never get all the details.
Kompleksa interplektaĵo de programoj Complex {interplektaĵo} of programs A complex network of programmes
Lingvo estas, laŭ la komputila senco de la vorto, kompleksa interplektaĵo de programoj, kies funkciadon daŭre inhibas miloj da duanivelaj aŭ trianivelaj programoj, kiuj ĝenas la glatan disvolviĝon de la unuanivelaj. Ni ne konscias tion, ĉar la akiro de nia gepatra lingvo fariĝis nekonscie en aĝo, kiam nenio ebligis al ni kompreni, kiom da laboro plenumas niaj neŭronoj. Por sin esprimi perfekte, oni konstante devas bloki la naturajn neŭropsikologiajn vojojn. Ekzemple, se, en la franca, vi volas adjektive vortigi la ideon “kiun solvi ne eblas”, spontana cerba funkciado kondukas al irrésolvable. Sed tiu vorto ne estas ĝusta ; necesas do bari tiun vojon kaj instali kromvojon kondukantan al insoluble “nesolvebla”. Alia ekzemplo: ĉi-matene vi aŭdis sinjorinon Cristina del Moral plurfoje citi la nombron de parleurs ("parolantoj") de tiu aŭ alia lingvo. Ŝia franca lingvo estas rimarkinda, sed pri tiu preciza punkto la natura neŭra funkciado superfortis ŝian scion de nia lingvo: ŝi diris parleur, formo, kiun la cerbo atingas deirante de la verbo parler ("paroli"), se nenio blokas la naturan vojon, de kiu oni devas devojiĝi por esprimi la ideon en la norma franca lingvo, en kiu tiu koncepto vortiĝas per locuteur. Kaj kiam fremdulo lernanta la francan asimilis en hiver ("vintre"), j'y pense ("mi pensas pri tio") kaj biologiste ("biologo"), li devas inhibi en printemps ("printempe"), je lui pense ("mi pensas pri li") kaj psychologiste ("psikologo") [la ĝustaj formoj estas: au printemps, je pense à lui kaj psychologue]. La nerva fluo ne rajtas sekvi sian naturan emon, kiu igas ĝin esprimi paralelajn konceptojn per paralelaj formoj. A language is, according to the computer sense of the word, complex {interplektaĵo} of programs, whose mode constantly {inhibas} thousand, of {duanivelaj} or {trianivelaj} programs, which trouble the smooth development of the {unuanivelaj}. We do not realise it, because the gain of our parental language became unconsciously in an age, when nothing meaned us understanding, how many of a work our neurons keep. For himself express perfectly, one must constantly block the natural {neŭropsikologiajn} ways. For example, if, in the French, you want to phrase adjectivally the idea “to solve which possible is not”, a spontaneous cerebral mode conducts to irrésolvable. But that word is not right; it is needed baring so that way and install a chromium way conducting to {insoluble} “insoluble”. An another example: you heard lady {Cristina} {ĉi-matene} {del} Moral repeatedly quoting the number from {parleurs} ( "speakers") from this or an another language. Her French language is remarkable, but the natural {neŭra} mode overpowered her knowledge of our language about that accurate point: she said {parleur}, a form, which the brain gets leaving from the verb {parler} ( "speak"), if nothing blocks the natural way, from which one must go astray for express the idea in the normal French language, in which that idea {vortiĝas} with {locuteur}. And a learning stranger assimilated the French when in {hiver} ( "{vintre}"), {j'} {y} {pense} ( "I think about it") and {biologiste} ( "a biologist"), he must {inhibi} in {printemps} ( "{printempe}"), upon hire {pense} ( "I think about him") and {psychologiste} ( "a psychologist") [ the right forms are: {printemps}, upon {pense} {à} hire and {psychologue} ] {au}. The nervous stream does not have the right to follow his natural desire, which makes expressing it parallel ideas with parallel forms. A language is a complex network of programmes, in the cybernetic sense, whose functioning is constantly inhibited by hundreds of thousands of secondary or tertiary programmes interfering with the primary ones. This goes unnoticed because we acquired our mother tongue unconsciously, when we were too young to guess just how hard our neurons had to work. To speak correctly, one must keep blocking natural neuropsychological channels. For instance, if we want an adjective that conveys the notion “which one cannothear”, the spontaneous play of one's brain comes up with unhearable. But we have to learn to block that path and to put in place a detour leading to inaudible. Another example: this morning you have heard Mrs Cristina del Moral repeatedly mention the number of speakers of such and such language, using the word parleurs. Her French was very good, but at this particular point natural tendencies triumphed over her knowledge of our language: parleur is the natural outcome of brain mechanisms instructed to convey the idea that the normative language encodes as locuteur. And when the foreigners learning French learnt how to say en hiver, j'y pense and biologiste, they have to learn how not to say en printemps, je lui pense and psychologiste the correct forms are au printemps, je pense à lui and psychologue). The neural flow is not allowed to follow its natural path, which makes it want to express parallel concepts in parallel forms.
Ni nature emas ĝeneraligi ĉiun lingvan trajton. Kial ĉiuj franclingvaj infanoj diras plus bon antaŭ ol diri meilleur ("pli bona") ? Ĉar ili ĝeneraligas la strukturon en plus beau, plus fort, plus petit ("pli bela", "pli forta", "pli eta"), ktp. Lerni lingvon signifas senigi sin je la refleksoj de la gepatra lingvo, encerbigi al si aron da malsamaj refleksoj, kaj poste inhibi altan proporcion el tiuj refleksoj por povi trafi la ĝustan formon, kiu kontraŭas la spontanan inklinon al ĝeneraligo. Anglo lernanta la francan devas lerni ne diri, kiel laŭ sia lingvo, je chante / vous chante ("mi kantas" / "vi kantas"). Li devas integri en si la reflekson, kiu igos lin diri vous chantez. Sed post kiam tiu reflekso instaliĝis, li devos, por diversaj verboj, enmeti novan reflekson inhibantan la unuan. Antaŭ vous faisez, vous disez ("vi faras", "vi diras") li devas starigi aviztabulon kun la mencio "vojo malpermesita", kaj devojigon kondukantan al la ĝustaj formoj vous faites, vous dites. Sed tiel ne finiĝis lia laboro. Post aranĝo de tiu kromvojo, li devas rekomenci pri prédire ("antaŭdiri"). Li ja estis direktita al vous prédites, kio estas eraro : oni diras vous prédisez. Kiel vi vidas, lerni eŭropan lingvon estas plurtavole stakigi refleksojn. Mi diras refleksojn, ĉar ne sufiĉas kompreni kaj enmemorigi al si. Se vi devas traserĉi ĉiujn slipojn kaj ĉiujn dosierojn en via memoro por trovi la ĝustan formon, vi ne parolos flue. Estas mia dilemo, se mi devas paroli ruse. Kvankam mia praktikado de la rusa certe ampleksas milojn da horoj, mi devas elekti inter paroli ĝuste, sed malrapide, malglate, malflue, kun granda nerva laciĝo, aŭ laŭ normala ritmo, sed kun groteskaj eraroj, kiuj ridigas ĉiujn aŭskultantojn. We have a tendency naturally generalizing every linguistic feature. Why do every French speaking children say plus {bon} before than saying {meilleur} ( "better")? Because they generalize the structure in plus {beau}, plus {fort}, plus {petit} ( "more beautiful", "more strong", "tinier"), etc. Learning a language means depriving himself about the reflexs of the parental language, note to himself group of different reflexs, and next {inhibi} a high rate from those reflexs for be able to catch the right form, which againsts the spontaneous tendency to a generalization. A learning Englishman must the French learn not, how according to his language, say upon {chante} / {vous} {chante} ( "I sing" / "you sing"). He must integrate in himself the reflex, which will make saying him {vous} {chantez}. But that reflex installed after when, he will have to, for various verbs, put away a reflex {inhibantan} the first new. Before {vous} {faisez}, he {vous} {disez} ( "you do", "you say") must standing a notice board with the mention "a way forbidden", and {vous} a sidetrack conducting to the right forms {faites}, {vous} {dites}. But his work did not end thus. After an arrangement of that chromium way, he must resume about prédire ( "forecast"). He was rather directed to {vous} {prédites}, what is mistake: one saies {vous} {prédisez}. How you see, bank multilevelly reflexs is to learn a European language. I say reflexs, because do not suffice understanding {enmemorigi} and to himself. If you must search for every slips and every files in your memory for find the right form, you do not speak easily. My dilemma is, if I must speak in Russian. Though my practice of the Russian extends to thousand, of hours certainly, I must choose between speak just, but slowly, roughly, easily the other way around, with great nervous a weariness, or according to a normal rhythm, but with grotesque mistakes, which are every listeners droll. Our natural tendency is to generalize every linguistic feature. If all children say `more good' before they start saying `better', this is because they generalize the structure of `more beautiful', `more difficult', `more crooked'. Learning a second language involves deconditioning oneself from the reflexes of one's mother tongue, reintroducing in one's brain a series of new reflexes, and then inhibiting quite a few of these very reflexes to produce a normatively correct form that flies in the face of the spontaneous tendency to generalize. An Englishman who is doing French has to learn that it won't do to say je chante / vous chante the way English makes you say I sing / you sing. He must pick up the reflex that makes you say vous chantez. Once this reflex is in place, though, he must then introduce another reflex that stops it for a couple of verbs. He has to install a "No Entry" sign stopping vous faisez, vous disez, and a detour that takes him to vous faites, vous dites. Once that detour is set up, he has to start all over again for prédire. He is set on a path that takes him to vous prédites. Wrong, you've got to say vous prédisez. You see, learning a European language involves placing several layers of reflexes on top of each other. I speak of reflexes because it is never enough to have understood and memorized the words. If you have to think, to run through all the folders and files in your memory to find the right form, you do not speak fluently. This is my dilemma when I have to speak Russian. Even though I have practised for thousands of hours, I have the choice of either speaking correctly, but slowly, at a halting, hesitant, painful pace, taxing my nervous system, or speaking fluently but knowing that everybody will burst out laughing, for my mistakes at that speed are phenomenal.
Minimume 10.000 horoj At least 10.000 hours A minimum of 10,000 hours
Necesas minimume 10.000 horoj da studado kaj praktikado por fiksi la centmilojn da necesaj refleksoj, kies nombro estas nekunpremebla. Nu, la instruado de la unua fremda lingvo nombras entute inter 800 kaj 1200 horoj depende de la lando. Ni do ne miru, ke nur unu abituriento el cent kapablas senerare esprimi sin per la unue lernita fremda lingvo. Okcent ĝis 1200 horoj estas dekono de la bezonata tempo. Se oni volas, ke la lernantoj scipovu du fremdajn lingvojn, necesas dudekobligi la nunan nombron da kurshoroj. 10.000 hours of a study and a practice are needed at least for securing the {centmilojn} of necessary reflexs, whose number is {nekunpremebla}. Now, the education of the first strange language counts altogether between 800 and 1200 hours dependently of the country. We should not wonder so, that only one high-school graduate is from one hundred able to expressing correctly itself with the firstly learned strange language. Eight hundred till 1200 hours are ten of the involved time. If one wants, that the pupils should know how two strange languages, it is needed {dudekobligi} the present number of course hours. One needs at least 10,000 hours of study and practice to put in place the hundreds of thousands of reflexes one needs, whose number cannot be brought down. Now, the teaching of the first foreign language takes up a total of 800 to 1200 hours of class time, the exact figure varies from country to country. It is unsurprising, then, that at the school leaving certificate level, only one student out of a hundred can speak correctly in the first foreign language they have been taught. 800 to 1200 hours is only a tenth of what they would have needed. If we want children to learn two foreign languages, we need to increase teaching time by a factor of twenty.
Tiudirekte elektis Luksemburgio, kie en la baza lernejo el 27 semajnaj lecionoj 12 estas dediĉitaj al fremdaj lingvoj, nome al la germana kaj al la franca. Tio estas entute 3000 horoj dum la ses bazlernejaj jaroj. Ĉar la lingvostudado daŭras je la mezgrada nivelo, Luksemburgio fakte havas trilingvan loĝantaron, sed la luksemburgianoj estas malpli lertaj ol siaj samaĝuloj pri matematiko, scienco kaj aliaj gravaj fakoj. Krome, ke la gejunuloj ne perdas tiujn lingvojn, kiam ili eniras la aktivan vivon, tio ŝuldiĝas al la aparta geografia situacio de la lando, kie kontaktoj kun franc- kaj germanlingvanoj okazas ĉiutage. En landoj, kiel Hispanio, Finnlando aŭ Francio, baldaŭ venus forgeso, ĉar la kondiĉitaj refleksoj konserviĝas nur, se ili estas konstante plifortigataj. Vi konstatos tion, se vi kelkjare ĉesas paroli lingvon: kio kaŭzas, ke vane vi skanas vian menson serĉe al tiu aŭ tiu vorto, kaj ke vi faras gramatikajn erarojn, tio estas, ke dissolviĝis la kondiĉa ligilo inter parencaj konceptoj aŭ la inhiba reflekso kun devojigo ĝustaformen. Luxemburg, where in the basic school from 27 weekly lessons is 12 devoted to strange languages, chose in that direction namely to the German and to the French. It are altogether 3000 hours during the six {bazlernejaj} years. Because the study of a language lasts about the medium-grade level, Luxemburg has trilingual population indeed, but the Luxemburg members are less clever than his peers about a mathematics, a science and another important branchs. Besides, that the youths do not lose those languages, when they enter the active life, it {ŝuldiĝas} to the particular geographical situation of the country, where contacts with {franc-} and {germanlingvanoj} happen daily. In countrys, how Spain, Finland or France, an oblivion would come soon, because the stipulated reflexs are preserved only, if they are constantly fortified. You will take note it, if you stop {kelkjare} speaking a language: what causes, that you scan your mind in vain {serĉe} to this or that word, and that you do grammatical mistakes, it is, that the conditional tie dissolved between related ideas or the {inhiba} reflex with a sidetrack {ĝustaformen}. This is the choice made by Luxemburg, where primary schools teach 27 classes a week and reserve 12 of these for two foreign languages, German and French, which comes to about 3000 hours over the six primary years. Language study continues into secondary education, which means that Luxemburg does have a trilingual population, but Luxemburgers perform less well than their age-mates in mathematics, science and other important subjects. Besides, the fact that young people leaving school do not instantly lose these languages in their working life is due to the unusual geographical location of the Grand Duchy, making it a matter of daily routine that one has to keep talking to users of French and German. In countries like Spain, Finland or France, one would forget the languages learnt at school in no time, for conditioned reflexes do not stay intact unless they are regularly reinforced. You notice this whenever one of your languages has gone unused for several years: the words you have trouble remembering, the slips you make target those points where the connection between related concepts has snapped, where an inhibitory reflex coupled with a detour has faded.
Ĉu trilingveco aŭ maskita favorado de la angla? {trilingveco} or masked {favorado} of the English? Trilingualism or disguised promotion of English?
Se oni volas trilingvan loĝantaron, al kiu nivelo oni strebu? Regan nivelon en tri lingvoj per simpla lerneja instruado ne eblas atingi, kaj oni ne sukcesos financi longdaŭrajn lingvajn restadojn por la tuta landanaro. Eĉ la instruado de kelkaj fakoj en la fremda lingvo ne kondukas ĝis la dezirata nivelo. En Svislando ekzistas liceoj, kie oni instruas kvar fakojn fremdalingve dum tri jaroj. La nivelo de la lernantoj en la koncerna lingvo ja superas tiun de la tradicia instruado, sed ĝi estas ankoraŭ malproksima de plena regado. Se paroli nur pri eŭropaj lingvoj, la sola realisma solvo estus trilingveco enhavanta plenan regadon de la gepatra lingvo, kapablon elturniĝi sufiĉe efike en la dua lingvo kaj elementojn de tria lingvo ebligantajn, se ne vere uzi ĝin, tamen havi pri ĝi bazan kompreneton, kio kulture praviĝas, ĉar ju pli oni malkovras diversajn manierojn esprimi unu penson, des pli la menso vastiĝas. If one wants trilingual population, to which level one should strive for? It is not a governing level in three languages with a simple school education possible to get, and one does not succeed financing long linguistic stays for the whole compatriots's group. The education of some branchs does not conduct even in the strange language till the wished level. In a Switzerland lyceums, where one teachs four branchs {fremdalingve} during three years exist. The level of the pupils tops this of the traditional education in the concerned language rather, but it is still far from a full rule. If speak only about European languages, the only realistic solution would be {trilingveco} containing a full rule by the parental language, an ability contrive enough effectively in the second language and elements of third language meaning, if not indeed to use it, one discovers having but about it basic a sense piece, what justifies culturally, because the more various ways express one thought, the mind expands the more. If you want a trilingual population, what level should you aim for? Real mastery of all three languages is unattainable through straightforward schooling, and there is no way to fund the scale of language tourism needed for the entire population. Even teaching a few school subjects in the foreign language does not bring that level of proficiency within reach. Switzerland has some grammar schools that teach four subjects in a foreign language for three years. The students certainly do better in that language than their counterparts who have had conventional training, but they are still nowhere near full mastery. If we confine ourselves to European languages, the only realistic outcome would have to be a trilingualism involving a good command of one's mother tongue, an imperfect but reasonable knowledge of a second language and an acquaintance with a third language enabling, not proper use, but some preliminary access, an outcome that makes sense, culturally, for the more you learn different ways of expressing the same thoughts, the more you expand your mind.
Bedaŭrinde tiu sistemo trenas kun si gravegan malavantaĝon. Ĝi kreus neegalecon favore al la anglalingvaj landoj. Oni ja povas komuniki de unu lando al alia nur, se unu el la lernitaj lingvoj estas la sama por ĉiuj. Kiel alie trilingvulo kapabla uzi la portugalan, la grekan kaj la danan povus serioze interparoli kun trilingvulo finna / germana / franca? La gepatroj do postulos, ke la plej funde studota lingvo estu la angla. Siaflanke, la plimulto el la anglalingvaj lernantoj ne estos forte motivitaj lerni du lingvojn; ili ja scios, ke ili povos elturniĝi per la gepatra, kien ajn ili iros. La ĉefa sukcesfaktoro en lingvolernado estas motiviĝo. Ni do trafas paradokson: oni laŭdegas trilingvecon kiel rimedon savi diversecon kaj atingi pli bonan interkonatiĝon de ĉiuj eŭropanoj, sed fakte oni igas ilin rekte submetiĝi al la anglalingva mondo kun rezulta enmergiĝo en pensmanieron, kiu neniel rilatas al la mensaj kaj kulturaj tradicioj de kontinenta Eŭropo. That system drags a critical disadvantage unfortunately with himself. It would create inequality well to the English speaking countrys. One can rather report from one country to an another only, if an one from the learned languages is the same for everyone. How else would able use the Portuguese, the Greek and the Danish {trilingvulo} be able to converse in earnest with Finnish {trilingvulo} / German / French? The parents will demand so, that a the most thoroughly future studied language should be the English. {Siaflanke}, the majority will be not from the English speaking pupils strongly motivated to learn two languages; they will know rather, that they will be able to contrive with the parental, somewhere they will go. The chief success factor is in a learning of a language {motiviĝo}. We catch a paradox so: one admires {trilingvecon} like a means keep diversity and get better every Europeans's introduction, but one makes them indeed submiting directly to the English speaking world with eventual {enmergiĝo} into a way of thinking, which concerns in no way to the mental and cultural traditions of continental Europe. Unfortunately, there are serious problems with such a system. It would tilt the balance in favour of Anglophone countries. For one cannot communicate across countries unless one of the languages learnt is the same for all. How is a trilingual who speaks Portuguese, Greek and Danish to have a serious conversation with one whose languages are Finnish, German and French? This means that parents will demand that English should be the language most thoroughly learnt. As for students who are native speakers of English, the majority will not be motivated to learn two other languages, for they know that, wherever they go, they can manage with their mother tongue. Now, the main factor that drives language learning success is motivation. A paradox: you encourage trilingualism to safeguard diversity, to guarantee increased mutual understanding among all Europeans, but in fact you push them all into the arms of the English-only formula, which means adopting a mode of thinking that has nothing to do with the mental and cultural traditions of continental Europe.
Tio kondukus nin, ne al ĝenerala trilingveco, ĉe kiu ĉiuj troviĝus sur pli-malpli egala nivelo, sed al dulingveco pli malpli efektiva kun plifortigo de la malegaleco inter la popoloj. La popoloj ja ne staras egalnivele fronte al la angla: la ĝermanaj havas avantaĝon super la latinaj, kaj la latinaj super la slavaj kaj baltaj. La angla estas esence ĝermana lingvo, do proksima al la skandinavaj, al la germana kaj al la nederlanda. Ĝi havas multon komunan kun tiuj lingvoj, ne nur en la baza vortostoko kaj gramatiko, sed en multe pli subtilaj aspektoj. Estas, inter la lingvoj de tiu familio, komuna spirito fremda al la latinidaj kaj slavaj. La parolantoj de latinidaj lingvoj do estas en malfavora situacio rilate al la ĝermanlingvanoj, sed, por ellerni la anglan, en multe pli favora ol tiuj de orienta Eŭropo. Unu el la malfacilaĵoj de la angla fontas el la giganteco de ĝia vortaro, kiu ampleksas proksimume la duoblon de la vortaro de alia eŭropa lingvo. Sur la ĝermana bazo ja kreskis grandega alportaĵo franca kaj latina, kiu aldoniĝis al la antaŭaj formoj, sed ne anstataŭis ilin. Oni ne vere regas la anglan, se oni ne povas uzi kaj kompreni ambaŭ variantojn: fraternal kaj brotherly, liberty kaj freedom, vision kaj sight, ktp. Okcidentanoj, ĉar ili laŭdifine parolas ĉu latinidan, ĉu ĝermanan lingvon, antaŭe konas unu el la du vortoj, sed ne hungaro aŭ estono. Internacie komuniki per la angla estas krei hierarkion inter la popoloj: estas maldemokratie. It would conduct us, not to general {trilingveco}, at which everyone would be located on more or less an even level, but to more less real {dulingveco} with a boost of the inequality between the peoples. The peoples do not stand rather {egalnivele} in front to the English: the {ĝermanaj} has an advantage above the Latin, and the Latin above the Slav and Baltic Sea. The English is basically {ĝermana} a language, so next to the Scandinavian, to the German and to the Dutch. It has a common lot with those languages, not only in the basic vocabulary and a grammar, but in a lot more subtle appearances. A common strange spirit is, between the languages of that family, to the {latinidaj} and Slav. The speakers of {latinidaj} languages are so in a unfavourable situation concerning to the {ĝermanlingvanoj}, but, for master the English, in a lot more favourable than this of eastern Europe. An one from the troubles of the English springs from the {giganteco} of its dictionary, which extends to about the double of the dictionary of an another European language. On the {ĝermana} base huge French and Latin, which getted supplementary to the last forms {alportaĵo} grew rather, but did not replace them. One rules the English not indeed, if one can not use understand and both variants: {fraternal} and {brotherly}, {liberty} and {freedom}, {vision} and {sight}, etc. Westerners, because they speak {laŭdifine} if {latinidan}, if a {ĝermanan} language, an one from the two words knows ahead, but not Hungarian or Estonian. Create a hierarchy between the peoples is to report internationally with the English: it is democratically the other way around. We are then not moving into a generalized trilingualism where everybody would be more or less on the same footing; we are moving into a bilingualism that works better for some than for others and that maximizes inequality among communities. For the communities are not equally placed vis-à-vis English: Germanic speech communities have an advantage relative to Romance speech communities, and the latter are better placed than Slavic and Baltic communities. English is basically a Germanic language and thus close to German, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages. It has a lot in common with these languages, not just at the level of basic vocabulary and grammar, but at much more subtle levels. There is a shared spirit to the languages of this family that is foreign to Romance and Slaviclanguages. Even if Romance language speakers are at a disadvantage in relation to their Germanic neighbours, they are much better off than Eastern Europeans. One of the difficulties of English has to do with its enormous vocabulary, roughly twice the size of any other European language, since a massive layer of French and Latin loans have been added to a Germanic base but has not replaced the original words. You do not know English if you have not learnt both fraternal and brotherly, both liberty and freedom, both vision and sight. A Westerner knows one of these terms beforehand, but not a Hungarian or an Estonian. The adoption of English as the means of international communication creates a hierarchy among the speech communities; it is not democratic.
Solvo vere realisma A indeed realistic solution A really realistic solution
La ununura ŝanco eviti plifortigon de la hegemonia pozicio de la angla postulas konsciiĝon, ĉe la aŭtoritatoj kaj la amaskomunikiloj, pri ĝenerale ignorata aspekto de la lingvoproblemo. Bedaŭrinde tiun konsciiĝon malhelpas forta rezisto. La kampo, en kiun mi nun enkondukos vin, estas kampo, kie antaŭjuĝoj oftegas, kaj kie nur malmultaj personoj vere ekstudis la dosieron. Mi fidas je via mensa larĝeco kaj invitas vin aŭskulti kiel eble plej senigite je antaŭfiksitaj ideoj. Ĉio, kion mi diros, baziĝas unuflanke sur mia sperto, precipe adoleska, kaj aliflanke sur studado de la faktoj, en la kampoj kultura, pedagogia, lingvistika, fonetika kaj neŭropsikologia. Ĉar temas pri faktoj, ĉion, kion mi diros, eblas kontroli, eĉ se multo aperos al vi nekredebla (2). The sole chance avoid a boost of the hegemonic position of the English demands an awareness, at the authoritys and the mass medias, about generally ignored an appearance of the language problem. A strong resistance prevents that awareness unfortunately. The field, into which I will introduce you now, is a field, where prejudices {oftegas}, and only little persons {ekstudis} the file where indeed. I trust about your mental width and invite you listening like perhaps most depriving about ahead entrenched ideas. Everything, what I will say, is based on the one hand on my experience, chiefly {adoleska}, and on the other hand on a study of the facts, in the fields cultural, didactic, linguistic, phonetic and {neŭropsikologia}. Because handles about facts, everything, what I will say, it is possible to check, even if a lot will appear to you incredible (2). The only way to avoid reinforcing the hegemonic position of English is to move the authorities and the media out of a state of slumber and denial. Unfortunately, coming to one's senses involves overcoming enormous resistance. The area I am about to venture into is one in which various bits of received wisdom are widely accepted, one in which very few people have made a serious effort to make sense of the facts. I trust you to listen with an open mind; all I ask is that you hear me out without letting preconceived notions get in the way. The various things I am about to say come from my own experience, especially my childhood, and from the facts I have studied, facts of culture, of pedagogy, of linguistics, of phonetics, of neuropsychology. I will stick to facts, which means that all the points I make are verifiable, even the ones some of you will find outrageous (2).
Ekzistas realisma trilingveco, libera je la malavantaĝoj, kiujn mi ĵus menciis : la trilingveco “gepatra lingvo — Esperanto — alia lingvo”. Realistic {trilingveco}, free about the disadvantages, which I mentioned just now: exists the {trilingveco} “a parental language — Esperanto — an another language”. There is a realistic trilingualism available, one not vitiated by the difficulties of the model I have spoken about so far: the trilingualism of “mother tongue - Esperanto - another language”.
Esperanto plene baziĝas sur la rajto ĝeneraligi ĉiun lingvan trajton. El neŭropsikologia vidpunkto, tio signifas, ke la lernanto ne bezonas encerbigi al si la dua- kaj trianivelajn refleksojn, kiujn, en alia lingvo, necesas instali por inhibi parton de la unuanivelaj. Kiuj lernas alian lingvon, tiuj havas la impreson iri sur vojo, kiun sadisto prisemis per stumbligiloj intence aranĝitaj por faligi ilin. Instali la refleksojn, kiuj protektas kontraŭ falo en tiujn kaptilojn, sorbas 90 elcentojn el la tempo necesa por akiri lingvon. Esperanto is fully based on the right generalize every linguistic feature. From a {neŭropsikologia} viewpoint, it means, that the pupil does not need to note to himself the two and {trianivelajn} reflexs, which, in an another language, it is needed installing for {inhibi} a part of the {unuanivelaj}. Who do learn an another language, this have the impression going on a way, which a sadist planted with {stumbligiloj} deliberately arranged for droping them. Installing the reflexs, which protect against a fall into those traps, absorbs 90 percents from the necessary time for geting a language. Esperanto is completely based on the right to generalize every linguistic pattern. This means, neuropsychologically speaking, that it spares us all those secondary and tertiary reflexes set up in other languages to inhibit the primary reflexes you start out with. Students learning a conventional language walking on a path where some sadist has planted a series of traps with the express purpose of tripping them up. Now, setting up those reflexes that keep you from falling into these traps takes up roughly 90% of the time it takes to learn a conventional language.
Ĉar en Esperanto tiuj kaptiloj ne ekzistas, la tempoŝparo ĉe ĝia lernado estas grandega. Monato kondukas al komuniknivelo komparebla al tiu, kiu necesigas jaron ĉe alia lingvo. Alivorte, post ses monatoj da Esperantolernado, ĉe egala semajna horaro, la lernanto akiris komunikkapablon, kiun li posedas en alia lingvo nur fine de la mezgrada lernejo. Tio signifas, ke sufiĉas instrui Esperanton dum duonjaro, ĉu fine de la baza instruado, ĉu komence de la mezgrada, por stari sur la unua ŝtupo kondukanta al la celo de trilingveco: la ŝtupo dulingva: “nacia lingvo + internacia lingvo”. Poste, ĉiuj horoj nun okupataj per la lernado de la dua lingvo disponeblos por la tria. Because those traps do not exist in Esperanto, the time saving is at its learning huge. A month conducts to a comparable communication level to this, who makes necessary year at an another language. In other words, the pupil got a communication ability, which he owns in an another language only finally of the medium-grade school after six months of a learning of Esperanto, at even weekly schedule,. It means, that suffices teaching Esperanto during half year, if finally from the basic education, if at first of the medium-grade, for stand on the first step conducting to the target by {trilingveco}: the bilingual step: “a national language + a international language”. Next, every hours now busy with the learning by the second language will be possible to dispose for the third. Since Esperanto simply does not have these traps, the amount of learning time saved is enormous. If you learn Esperanto for a month, you reach a level of communicative proficiency that would take you a year to attain in any conventional language. In other words, after six months of Esperanto, if we hold the number of hours per week constant, the school children have a communicative competence level equivalent to what they would attain, for a conventional language, at the end of secondary school. This means that it is enough to teach Esperanto for one semester, say at the end of primary schooling or the beginning of secondary schooling, to implement the first stage: the bilingualism of “national language - international language”. Over the rest of their schooling, the students will now have, for the third language, all the hours the current system uses up for the second language.
Interrilataj kaj pedagogiaj aspektoj Relational and didactic appearances Relational and pedagogic dimensions
La ŝancoj atingi bonan nivelon en tiu tria lingvo estas des pli realaj, ĉar Esperanto prezentas konsiderindajn avantaĝojn propedeŭtike, t.e. kiel preparo al lingvostudado. Franco lernanta la germanan devas elŝovi sin el kompleksa, rigida kaj arbitra sistemo por enmergi sin en novan sistemon, same kompleksan, rigidan kaj arbitran. Por transiri de je vous remercie ("mi vin dankas") al ich danke Ihnen ("mi dankas al vi"), necesas modifi la refleksojn rilatajn al la loko de la pronomo kaj al la rekta aŭ nerekta eco de la objekta komplemento. Uzante la vorton “arbitra” mi celis, ke tiu anstataŭigo de refleksoj neniel rilatas al la bezonoj de komunikado. Se mi diros je remercie à vous, kio estas la laŭvorta traduko de la germana frazo, vi perfekte komprenos min, kiom ajn fuŝa tio estas laŭ la norma franca lingvouzo. Ni komunikis, kiom koncernas la transdonon de mia penso. Kio diferencas de normala komunikado, tio estas, ke mi sonas stranga, vi tuj perceptas min alilanda, ni do ne staras samŝtupe : la problemo kuŝas je la nivelo, ne de interkompreniĝo, nur de homa interrilatado. The chances get a good level in that third language are the realer, because Esperanto presents considerable advantages {propedeŭtike}, t.e. like preparation to a study of a language. A learning Frenchman must the German thrust out himself from a complex, stiff and arbitrary system for {enmergi} himself into new a system, equally complex, stiff and arbitrary. Ihnen ( "I thank to you") {vous} for crossing from upon {remercie} ( "I thank you") to {ich} thanks to, it is needed modifying the relevant reflexs to the place from the pronoun and to the straight or indirect property of the thing adjunct. I aimed using the word “arbitrary”, that that refill of reflexs concerns in no way to the wants of a communication. If I will say upon {remercie} {à} {vous}, what is the literal translation of the German sentence, you perfectly understand me, somehow many bad it is according to the normal French language use will. We reported, how many concerns the delivery of my thought. What does differ from a normal communication, it is, that I sound strange, you find me immediately foreign, we do not stand so {samŝtupe}: the trouble lies about the level, not from a understanding, only from a human interaction. The student's chances of attaining serious proficiency in this third language are now even brighter, for Esperanto has proved to be an excellent propaedeutic subject, i.e. a subject whose study heightens language awareness. A Frenchman studying German has to unlearn a complex, rigid and arbitrary system and move into the new habits of another complex, rigid and arbitrary system. To make the transition from je vous remercie to ich danke Ihnen, one needs to modify the pronoun placement reflexes and the ones that handle the directness or indirectness of the object complement. If I describe this as arbitrary, this is to stress that this replacement of reflexes has nothing to do with the needs of communication. If I were to say je remercie à vous in French, or I thank to you in English, literally translating the German formula, I would be understood without any difficulty. As far as as the communicative content is concerned, there would be nothing at all amiss. What makes such speaking fall short of optimal communication is the fact that if I were to say this I would sound odd; my audience and I would not be on the same footing; thus it is at the relational level that there would be a problem.
Tiu interrilata nivelo povas gravi. Eĉ se la konceptoj bone komunikiĝis, ĉar la aŭskultantoj ĝuste interpretis la fuŝan frazon, la enŝoviĝo de parazitaj kromsignifoj povas esti tre ĝena. Foje, dana ministrino, S-ino Helle Degn, devis prezidi internacian kunsidon tuj post kiam ŝi alprenis siajn funkciojn. Sin esprimante en la angla, ŝi celis diri: “Pardonu, mi ne bone konas la dosieron. Mian ministran postenon mi nur ĵus okupis”, sed ŝi diris "I'm at the beginning of my period" (3), kio signifas “komenciĝis mia menstruo”. Ĉiuj komprenis, sed kia bato al ŝia prestiĝo! That relational level can be important. Even if the ideas {komunikiĝis} well, because the listeners interpreted the bad sentence just, the drive of parasitical chromium meanings can be very troublesome. Once, Danish {ministrino}, Lady Helle Degn, had to preside a international meeting immediately she adopted his functions after when. Himself expressing in the English, she should aimed saying: “Pardon, I know the file not well. I took My ministerial post only just now”, but she said "I' {m} {at} {the} {beginning} {of} {my} {period}" (3), what means “my menstrual flow began”. Everyone understood, but what kind of blow to her prestige! Now, this relational level may turn out to be important. Even when the content of an utterance is understood because the listeners are tuned in, the fact that unwanted connotations get in the way can become a serious problem. A Danish minister, Mrs Helle Degn, had just taken office when she had to chair an international meeting. Speaking in English, she wanted to say, “Sorry, I haven't got my bearings yet, I took charge only very recently”, but what she said was: “I'm at the beginning of my period” (3). Everybody understood her, but what a blow to her prestige!
Kiuj parolas fremdlingve, ofte ŝajnas malpli inteligentaj ol ili estas. Kiam mi diras al vi je remercie à vous, vi komprenas min, sed vi ne vidas min, kia mi vere estas, mi estas misprezentita. Unu el la avantaĝoj de Esperanto estas, ke ĝi evitas tiajn problemojn dank'al sia granda leksika kaj sintaksa libereco. En Esperanto oni rajtas diri laŭ la franca strukturo je vous remercie, “mi vin dankas”, laŭ la angla strukturo I thank you, “mi dankas vin”, kaj laŭ la germana strukturo Ich danke Ihnen, “mi dankas al vi”. Ĉar tiuj tri strukturoj estas same oftaj, neniu el ili sentiĝas stranga. Who do speak {fremdlingve}, it often seem less intelligent than they are. When I say you upon {remercie} {à} {vous}, you understand me, but you do not see me, what kind of I am indeed, I am misrepresented. There is an one from the advantages of Esperanto, that it avoids that kind of troubles thanks to to his great vocabulary and syntax freedom. In Esperanto one has the right to say according to the French structure upon {vous} {remercie}, “I thank you”, according to the English structure I {thank} {you}, “I thank you”, and according to the German structure Ich thanks to Ihnen, “I thank to you”. Because those three structures are equally frequent, no from them gets sensual strange. When speaking a foreign language, one often comes across as less intelligent than one actually is. If I say “I thank to you”, you follow what I mean, but you do not perceive me as the person I really am, there is something out of tune between us. One of the big pluses of Esperanto is that its enormous lexical and syntactic freedom enables it to avoid this type of problem. In Esperanto you can mimic the French pattern of “je vous remercie” and say mi vin dankas, or mimic the English structure of “I thank you” and say mi dankas vin, or mimic the German construction of “ich danke Ihnen” and say mi dankas al vi. Since all three patterns are equally standard, none of them sounds odd.
Jen alia ekzemplo, ĉi-foje pri vortouzo. France mi rajtas diri vous chantez merveilleusement ("vi kantas mirinde"), sed mi ne rajtas apliki la saman strukturon vous ---ez ---ment ("vi ---as ---e") al la konceptoj `musique' ("muzik-") kaj `beau' ("bel-"): vous musiquez bellement estas perfekte komprenebla, sed neĝusta. En Esperanto, same kiel vi rajtas diri “vi kantas mirinde”, vi rajtas diri “vi muzikas bele” aŭ “vi bele muzikas”. Alidire, la lernantoj de Esperanto lernas esprimi siajn pensojn laŭ multe pli variaj formoj ol en iu ajn alia lingvo, kaj ili faras tion sen la pedagogie malfavora sperto erari. Tiel plilarĝiĝas prilingva kompreno kaj esprima kreemo sen sento pri malsukceso. Estas ege agrable kaj kuraĝige. Pri tio mi povas atesti. Esperanto estis mia unua fremda lingvo kaj mian guston por lingvoj mi dankas al ĝi. There another an example, {ĉi-foje} about a word use. I have the right in French to say {vous} {chantez} {merveilleusement} ( "you sing surprisingly"), but I do not have the right to practice the same structure {vous} - - - {ez} - - - {ment} ( "you - - - {as} - - - {e}") to the ideas ` {musique'} ( "{muzik-}") and ` {beau'} ( "{bel-}"): {musiquez} {vous} {bellement} is perfectly understandable, but wrong. In Esperanto, equally like you have the right to say “you sing surprisingly”, you have the right to say “you make music beautifully” or “you make beautifully music”. {Alidire}, the pupils of Esperanto learn expressing his thoughts according to a lot more variable forms than in somewhich another language, and they do it without the didacticly a unfavourable experience making. An a sense about a language and expression a creativity without a feeling about an abortion broaden thus. It is extremely pleasantly and heartening. About it I can attest. Esperanto was my first strange language and I thank my taste for languages to it. Let us look at another example, this time in the lexical domain. In French, I can say vous chantez merveilleusement, `you sing marvellously', but I am not allowed to use the same pattern for the concepts of `music' and `beautiful': vous musiquez bellement `you music beautifully' would be understood but is wrong. In Esperanto, just as you can say vi kantas mirinde for `you sing marvellously', you can also say vi muzikas bele or vi bele muzikas, literally `you music beautifully'. In other words, children learning Esperanto learn how to express their thoughts along lines that are much more varied than in any conventional language, and learn this without undergoing the negative pedagogic experience of making mistakes. There is an expansion of their language awareness and linguistic creativity without the feeling of failure. This is extremely pleasant and encouraging. I can vouch for this. Esperanto was my first foreign language and gave me the taste for languages.
Alia psikologia avantaĝo de Esperanto estas, ke ĝi ne devigas alpreni alian identecon. Lerni la prononcadon de la angla estas lerni simii la anglosaksojn. Multaj gejunuloj, kiuj fizike disponas ĉion necesan por dece prononci ties lingvon, ne sukcesas pro psikologia blokiĝo. Por imiti la anglan prononcadon, oni devas rezigni la kutiman manieron loki la langon, la lipojn, la palatvelon, ktp. Ofte tio sentiĝas perdo de identeco. En Esperanto ĉiu havas fremdan manieron elparoli kaj vastaj varioj en prononcado estas rigardataj tute normalaj. Sperto pruvas, ke, kontraste kun la angla, ili ne ĝenas komprenon, pro fonetikaj kialoj, kiujn klarigi ĉi tie estus tro temporabe. Alivorte Esperanto, lernite antaŭ ol la ekstudo de alia lingvo, efikas kiel gamoj antaŭ koncerto, kiel gimnastiko antaŭ ol skii ; ĝi estas rimedo serioze preni la artikadon inter du sistemoj rigidaj kaj arbitraj. Eksperimentoj montris, ke ĝi estas efika rimedo. Klaso lerninta Esperanton dum unu jaro, sekvata de kvin jaroj da germana lingvo, atingas la saman nivelon en la germana kiel klaso lerninta la germanan dum ses jaroj (4). Ĝi perdis nenion. There is another psychological an advantage of Esperanto, that it does not force adopting another identity. Learn to ape the Anglo-Saxons is to learn the {prononcadon} of the English. Many youths, who dispose necessary everything physically for pronouncing properly whose language, do not succeed because of psychological {blokiĝo}. For imitate the English {prononcadon}, one must abandon the usual way place the tongue, the lips, the palate sail, etc. It often gets sensual identity's loss. In Esperanto everyone has strange a way pronounce and vast varietys are in {prononcado} looked quite normal. An experience proves, that, rather with the English, they trouble no sense, because of phonetic reasons, explain which here would be too time-consumingly. Esperanto, learning before than the start study of an another language, acts In other words like keys before a concert, how a gymnastics before than ski; it is a means in earnest take the joint -ation between two systems stiff and arbitrary. Experiments showed, that it is an effective means. A class former learning Esperanto during one year, followed by five years of a German language, gets the same level in the German like a former learning class the German during six years (4). It lost nothing. Another psychological advantage of Esperanto is that it does not force you to wear somebody else's identity. Learning how to pronounce English amounts to learning how to ape the Anglo-Saxons. Many young people who are, physically perfectly equipped to pronounce it properly never make it, because of a psychological barrier. In order to imitate English pronunciation, one has to give up one's mother tongue habits in the placement of one's tongue, one's lips, one's velum and so on. This massive transformation is often experienced as a loss of identity. In Esperanto, everybody has a foreign accent, and great variations in pronunciation are regarded as entirely normal. Experience shows that in sharp contrast to what happens in the case of English, these variations in Esperanto do not affect intelligibility, for phonetic reasons that it would take too long to explain here. In other words, Esperanto is to a conventional language what practising scales is to a concert, what gymnastics is to skiing; Esperanto is designed to enable us to take seriously the articulation between two rigid and arbitrary systems. Experience shows that it does this enabling quite well. A class that has done one year of Esperanto plus five years of German reaches the same level of proficiency in German as another class that has done six straight years of German. The “lost” year is not a loss.
Se la aŭtoritatoj, la anoj de la eŭropa parlamento kaj de la naciaj parlamentoj, la politikaj partioj, la elitoj universitata, ekonomia kaj kultura vere volus, ke la eŭropanoj flegu sian lingvan diversecon, konservu sian identecon kun tolerema bonveniga akcepto de identecoj aliulaj, plivastigu siajn kulturajn horizontojn kaj interkomuniku, sendepende de la lando, same facile kiel propralingve, ili agnoskus, ke trilingveco “gepatra lingvo — Esperanto — alia lingvo” prezentiĝas kiel la sola realisma solvo. Al tiu konkludo oni venas, kiam oni observas de proksime, kiamaniere komunikado disvolviĝas en la realo. Mi insistas pri tiu devo observi la realon, ĉar en ministrejoj, en eŭropaj instancoj kaj en la amaskomunikiloj, oni konstante parolas pri lingvoj kvazaŭ lingva handikapo ne estus ofte serioza problemo en la ĉiutaga vivo, kvazaŭ lingvoj ne estus terure malfacilaj, kvazaŭ, por ke la problemo ĉesu ekzisti, sufiĉus tion dekreti (anstataŭ studi, esplori kaj provi praktike) kaj kvazaŭ Esperanto estus nur ideo, projekto, kaj ne lingva realaĵo facile observebla. If the authoritys, the members from the European parliament and of the national parliaments, the political sides, would want the academic, economic and cultural elites indeed, that the Europeans should attend his linguistic diversity, keep his identity with tolerant greeting acceptance identitys's another, extend his cultural horizons and, independently of the country, {interkomuniku} equally easily like {propralingve}, they would recognize, that {trilingveco} “a parental language — Esperanto — an another language” is presented like the only realistic solution. To that conclusion one comes, when one minds from near, a communication develops how in the reality. I insist about that duty mind the reality, because one speaks in ministrys, in European courts and in the mass medias, constantly about languages as though linguistic {handikapo} would be not an often serious trouble in the daily life, as though languages would be not terribly hard, as though, that the trouble should stop existing, it would suffice decreing it (instead of study, examine and try practically) and as though Esperanto would be only a idea, a plan, and a not linguistic easily observable reality. If our authorities, our representatives in the European Parliament and in the national parliaments, the political parties, the academic, economic and cultural elite really wanted Europeans to preserve their linguistic diversity, to keep their identity intact and yet become tolerant of different identities, to enlarge their cultural horizons and communicate across national boundaries with the same ease as in their mother tongue, they would acknowledge that the trilingualism of “mother tongue - Esperanto - another language” is found, on scrutiny, to be the only realistic solution. This is the conclusion one reaches when one takes a close look at how these things really work. I am insisting on this need for a close look because what is standardly said about language in the ministries, the European supranational agencies and the media is practically never connected to any examination of real life. That talk belittles the importance of the linguistic handicap in everyday life, it egregiously understates how hard it is to learn a language, it is reduced to hand-waving on all the crucial issues, and it dismisses Esperanto as an idea or a project, rather than a linguistic reality whose workings are easily inspected and judged.
La sistemo, kiun mi proponas do estas la ununura realisma substance, teknike. Bedaŭrinde, mi timas, ke ĝi ankoraŭ ne estas realisma el vidpunktoj socia, politika kaj psikologia. Unuflanke, la sociaj fortoj puŝantaj al la monopolo de la angla estas terure fortaj. Ili rilatas al politika potenco, socia situacio, ekonomiaj interesoj, sed ankaŭ al faktoroj tiel influaj, kiel modo kaj snobeco. Aliflanke sentiĝas obstina rezisto kontraŭ malfermo de la dosiero “Esperanto”. Ĉi-lasta estas kampo, kie altranguloj, sed ankaŭ ofte ĵurnalistoj kaj lingvistoj, juĝas sen studi faktojn, kvazaŭ ili antaŭe jam scius ĉion sciindan, kvazaŭ oni povus fari al si ideon pri la naturo kaj funkciado de Esperanto kaj de la kulturo ligita al ĝi (5), sen studi objektivajn dokumentojn kaj sen observi, kiel la lingvo prezentiĝas tie, kie ĝi estas uzata. The system, which I offer so is the sole realistic fundamentally, technically. Unfortunately, I fear, that it is still not realistic from viewpoints social, political and psychological. On the one hand, the social forces thrusting to the monopoly by the English are terribly strong. They concern to political a power, a social situation, economic interests, but also to thus influential factors, like a fashion and snobbery. An obstinate resistance gets on the other hand sensual against an opening of the file “Esperanto”. A latter is a field, where officials, but also often journalists and linguists, judges without studying facts, as though they would know worth knowing everything ahead yet, as though one would be able to do to himself a idea about the nature and a mode of Esperanto and by the culture joined to it (5), without study objective papers and without mind, how the language is presented there, where it is used. The formula that I am suggesting is, then, the only realistic option at the content level, what one might call the technical level. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it is not yet realistic enough from the socio-politico-psychological point of view. On the one hand, the social forces working on behalf of the monopoly of English are extremely powerful. They have to do with power, with the social situation, with economic interests, but also with such influential factors as fashion and snobbery. On the other hand, there is a tenacious resistance to opening the "Esperanto" file. This is a domain where people in power, as well as many journalists and linguists, jump to conclusions without looking at the facts, as if they already knew all that there was to know, as if one could arrive at an understanding of the nature and functioning of Esperanto as well as the culture associated with it (4) without considering the record and without investigating how it works when it is used.
Tamen ne temas pri io bagatela, konsidere al la valoro de lingva diverseco aŭ al la graveco de interpopola egaleco kaj do de demokratio . Multaj konscias pri la graveco de la vetaĵo. Sed kiuj penas serioze informiĝi pri la diversaj ebloj, studante kiel la aferoj okazas en la realo, kaj farante la komparojn, sen kiuj ne eblas ricevi objektivan bildon, tiuj estas, ho ve!, ege malmultaj. It does not handle but about something trifling, {konsidere} to the worth from linguistic diversity or to the concern of {interpopola} equality and so from a democracy. Manys realise about the concern of the stake. But which finding in earnest about the various possibilitys try, happens studying like the things in the reality, and doing the comparisons, without which possible is not to receive an objective picture, this are, oh woe!, extremely littles. And yet the stakes are very high, for it is a matter of values as important as linguistic diversity, equality among the nations, and thus democracy itself at the European level. Many people are aware of just how high the stakes are. But very few of them, I'm afraid, have taken the trouble to find out what the options are for dealing with these issues, to investigate what has been happening in practice, and to make the comparisons without which one cannot come up with an objective take.
Feliĉe, kiel diris Lincoln, eblas kaŝi la veron al ĉiuj dum parto de la tempo, aŭ al kelkaj dum la tuta tempo, sed ne eblas kaŝi la veron al ĉiuj tuttempe. Povas do okazi konsciiĝo neatendite, kaj post ĝi evoluo povas esti tre rapida. Kiu scias, ĉu proklamante la jaron 2001 “Eŭropa jaro de la lingvoj” Eŭropa Konsilio ne faris la iniciaton, kiu necesis por finfine stimuli konsciencan esploron de la vero kaj, sekve, de solvoj radikantaj pli en originala, krea pensado ol en rutina mensa enŝlositeco? It is unfortunately, how Lincoln said, possible to hide the truth to everyone during a part of the time, or to somes during the whole time, but possible is not to hide the truth to everyone {tuttempe}. An awareness can happen so unexpectedly, and a development can after it be very fast. Who knows, if 2001 “European year of the languages” European Council did not do the initiative, which was needed for rousing at long last faithful a research of the truth issuing the year and, so, from rooting solutions more in an original, creative thinking than in routine mental {enŝlositeco}? Fortunately, as Lincoln once said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” People are likely to wake up all of a sudden, and once they do, what needs to be done can in fact be done very quickly. Who knows if, by declaring 2001 the European languages year, the Council of Europe has not taken the crucial step that will at last elicit serious study of the facts, and will lead to solutions that represent genuine out-of-the-box thinking?