Esperantilo ĉefa paĝo

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
CLAUDE PIRON	 {CLAUDE} PIRON	CLAUDE PIRON
Psikologiaj aspektoj de la monda lingvoproblemo kaj de Esperanto	Psychological appearances from the worldwide language problem and of Esperanto	Psychological Aspects of the World Language Problem and of Esperanto
Oni povas aliri la mondan lingvoproblemon laŭ tre diversaj vojoj, ekzemple politika, lingvika, financa-ekonomia, ktp. Mi aliĝos ĝin, verŝajne pro profesia misformiĝo, el la psikologia vidpunkto, kies gravecon, miaopinie, ne estas ĝuste taksata.	One can etc. advance the worldwide language problem according to very various ways, for example political, {lingvika}, {financa-ekonomia}, I will join it, probably because of professional {misformiĝo}, from the psychological viewpoint, whose concern, in my view, it am not just rated.	We can approach the world language problem in many different ways; for example, politically, linguistically, financially and economically and so on. Probably because of the distortions of my professional training I approach it from a psychological point of view. I believe that the importance of this point of view has not been correctly understood.
Esperantistoj ofte plendas, ke la mondo ne komprenas ilian vidpunkton, ne interesiĝas pri ĝi, aŭ ke nia afero ne progresas sufiĉe rapide. Ili facile kulpigas pri tio unu la aliajn. Miaopinie, tiuj negativaj sentoj tute ne estas pravigeblaj, se oni konsideras la psikologian aspekton de la situacio. Alivorte, laŭ mi, Esperanto tute normale progresas, eĉ kiam ĝi malprogresas dum jardeko, kaj ankaŭ la konsciiĝo pri la monda lingvoproblemo antaŭeniras je normala ritmo, t.e. je la ritmo de historio.	Esperantists often complain, that the world does not understand their viewpoint, interested is not about it, or that our thing does not progress enough quickly. They blame easily about it one the another. In my view, those negative feelings are not quite legitimate, if one regards the psychological appearance of the situation. Esperanto progresses In other words, according to me, quite ordinarily, even it declines when during a decade, and also the awareness goes forward about the worldwide language problem about normal a rhythm, t.e. about the rhythm of a story.	Esperantists often complain that the world does not understand their point of view or that it is not interested in it, or that Esperanto is not making good enough progress. It is very easy for Esperantists to blame each other for this. In my opinion, these kinds of negative feelings are not at all justified when you take into account the psychological aspects of the situation. In other words, as I see it, Esperanto is progressing at a normal rate even though it may actually regress for, let us say, ten years at a time. In addition to this, awareness of the world language problem is also progressing at a normal rhythm, the rhythm of history.
La disvastigita ideo, en la esperantistaro, ke la afero ne progresas sufiĉe rapide fontas el unu el la plej gravaj eroj de la homa psiko, nome deziro. Ni deziras, ke Esperanto progresu, kaj ni reagas al tiu deziro kiel eta infano: ni ne volas vidi la amplekson de la obstakloj, kiuj staras kiel barilo inter nia deziro kaj ĝia plenumiĝo. Ni do sentas frustron. Kiam ni sentas frustron, anstataŭ fronti al la fakto, ke al ni dekomence realismo mankis, kaj sekve ke la fuŝo kuŝas en ni, ni serĉas kulpulojn ekstere: tiuj estos la cetera mondo, kiu ne atentas nin, aŭ la fuŝuloj en la Esperanto-mondo, kiuj ne agas efike kaj laŭcele.	Spread idea the, in the community of Esperantists, that the thing does not progress enough quickly springs from an one from the most important elements of the human mind, namely a want. We wish, that Esperanto should progress, and we respond to that want like a tiny child: we do not want to see the extent of the obstacles, which stand like a fence between our want and its fulfillment. We feel a frustrate so. When we feel a frustrate, instead of face to the fact, that a realism was us from the outset lacking, and the blooper lies so that in us, we search for culprits out: this will be the additional world, which does not watch out for us, or the cowboys in the world of Esperanto, which do not act effectively and smart.	The widespread idea that Esperantists have, that their cause is not going forward fast enough, has its source in one of the most important parts of the human psyche, that is: desire. We want Esperanto to go forward, and we react to that desire like a little child; we do not want to see all of the obstacles that stand like great walls between our desires and their fulfillment. So we feel frustrated. When we feel frustrated, instead of facing the fact that we were not realistic in the first place and, because of that, that the mistake was our own, we look outside of ourselves for people to blame; those will be the outside world which does not pay attention to us or in those bunglers in the Esperanto world who fail to act effectively and purposefully.
Tio estas infaneca, sed dirante tion mi ne kritikas, mi nur esprimas ion pri la normala funkciado de la homa psiko: kiam aperas forta deziro, ni emas reagi infanece. Malpacienci pri la progreso de Esperanto, serĉi kulpulojn, estas tute normale kaj nature. Tiel en la plimulto el la kampoj reagas normalaj plenkreskuloj. Ni ja estas maturaj nur pri kelkaj aspektoj de nia vivo. En multaj sferoj, kiel la politika, la metafizika, kaj la homrilata, ni daŭre reagas kiel etaj infanoj.	It is childish, but I do not criticize saying it, I express something only about the normal mode of the human mind: when a strong want appears, we have a tendency responding childishly. Be about the progress of Esperanto, search culprits, patient the other way around is quite ordinarily and naturally. Normal adults respond thus in the majority from the fields. We are rather ripe only about some appearances of our life. In many balls, like the political, the metaphysical, and the {homrilata}, we respond constantly like tiny children.	This is childish. When I say this I am not being critical. I am only expressing something about the way the human psyche normally works; when strong desires emerge, we tend to act like little children. Impatience because Esperanto is not making enough progress and looking around for guilty parties to blame is completely normal and natural. This is how normal adults react in most areas of their lives. We are really mature only in some aspects of our lives. In many areas, such as politics, metaphysics and human relations, we continually react like little children.
Nekompreno fare de la socio.	A not sense {fare} of the society.	Society does not understand
Ankaŭ kiam mi diris, ke la mondo ne komprenas nin, mi tuŝis psikologian aspekton de la situacio. Kial la mondo ne komprenas nin? Ĉar la socio ne komprenas la lingvan situacion ĝenerale. Kial? Pro multaj kaŭzoj. Ekzemple, ĉar lingva rilatado estas io tre kompleksa, kaj ne estas facile kompreni ion kompleksan. Kiam io estas tre kompleksa, la natura maniero aliri la aferon estas simpligi ĝin. Sekve, la socio ĝenerale havas tre simpligitan bildon pri la lingva situacio en la mondo. Bildon nur skeman.	Also I said when, that the world does not understand us, I touched psychological an appearance of the situation. Why does not the world understand us? Because the society does not understand the linguistic situation generally. Why? Because of many reasons. For example, because linguistic {rilatado} is something very complex, and is not easily to understand complex something. When something is very complex, the natural way advance the thing is to simplify it. So, the society has very simplified a picture about the linguistic situation generally in the world. A only scheme picture.	Back when I said that the world does not understand us, I was touching on a psychological aspect of the situation. Why doesn't the world understand us? Because society in general does not understand the language situation. But why? There are plenty of reasons. One of them is because linguistic relations are complex, and it is not easy to understand something that is complex. When something is very complicated, simplification is the natural way of dealing with it. Consequently, society in general has a very simplified picture of the world language situation. A picture that is really a sketch.
Alia psikologia kaŭzo, pro kiu la socio ne komprenas la lingvan problemon, estas timo. Tio eble mirigas vin. Kaj efektive, se vi diros al politikisto, aŭ al lingvisto, aŭ fakte al iu ajn surstrate renkontita, ke unu el la kaŭzoj, pro kiuj la mondo ne solvas la lingvoproblemon, estas timo, li aŭ ŝi rigardos vin, kvazaŭ vi estus freneza. Unue, ĉar por la alparolato lingvoproblemo simple ne ekzistas. "La angla solvas ĝin, aŭ la tradukistoj". Kaj due, se entute estus problemo, estas klare, ke ĝi neniel rilatas al timo. "Neniu sentas timon pri lingvo. Kio estas tiu frenezaĵo?" ŝi aŭ li diros al vi.	Another psychological a reason, because of which the society does not understand the linguistic trouble, is a fear. It amazes you perhaps. And actually, if you will say a politician, or to a linguist, or indeed to in the street seen somewhich, that there is an one from the reasons, because of which the world solve the language problem does not, a fear, he or she will look you, as though you would be mad. Firstly, because a language problem does not exist for the person who is addressed simply. "The English solves it, or the translators". And secondly, if there would be altogether a trouble, it is clearly, that it concerns in no way to a fear. "No feels a fear about a language. What is that folly?" she or he will say you.	Another psychological reason why the world does not understand the language problem is fear. This might surprise you. And, in fact, if you were to tell a politician or a linguist or the man in the street that one of the reasons why the world does not solve its language problem is fear, they will look at you as though you are crazy. First of all, because for them the language problem simply does not exist. "English takes care of it, or the translators do." And, besides, on the whole, if there were a problem, it is absolutely clear that it has nothing to do with fear. "Nobody feels fear about a language. What is this nonsense?" That is what they will tell you.
Sed multaj timoj estas nekonsciaj. Ni ne sentas ilin, kio estas bona afero, ĉar sen tio estus neeble vivi agrable. Sed fakto restas, ke tiuj timoj kaŭzas multajn fuŝtordojn, misgvidojn en nia maniero kompreni la realon.	But many fears are unconscious. We do not feel them, what is a good thing, because without it would be impossibly to live pleasantly. But a fact staies, that those fears cause many {fuŝtordojn}, misleadings in our way understand the reality.	However, many fears are unconscious. We are not aware of them, which is a good thing because otherwise because otherwise we would not be able to live comfortably. But the fact remains that these fears create a lot of distortions, misleading us about our way of understanding reality.
Kial lingvo elvokas timon? Refoje, pro multaj kaŭzoj. Ekzemple, lingvo estas ligita al nia identeco. Iun tagon en la infanaĝo ni ekkonscias, ke nia medio parolas tiun aŭ tiun alian lingvon, kaj ke tio difinas nin, rilate al la cetera mondo. Mi apartenas al homa grupo difinita per la lingvo, kiun ĝi parolas. Do, en la profundo de la psiko, mia lingvo estas mi. La vasta uzo de la svisgermanaj dialektoj estas maniero diri: jen kiuj ni estas, ni ne estas germanoj. Aŭ rigardu, kiel reagas la flandroj aŭ la katalunoj: "se oni persekutas aŭ kritikas mian lingvon, oni persekutas aŭ kritikas min."	Why does a language evoke a fear? Again, because of many reasons. For example, a language is joined to our identity. We realise some day in the childhood, that our environment speaks this or that another language, and that it defines us, concerning to the additional world. I belong to human a group particular with the language, which it speaks. My language is so, in the depth of the mind, I. The vast use of the {svisgermanaj} dialects is a way say: we are not there who are we, Germans. Or look, how the Flemishs or the Catalans respond: "if one pursues or criticizes my language, one pursues or criticizes me."	Why does a language evoke fear? Again, there are many reasons. For example, our language is closely linked to our identity. One day, during childhood, we suddenly realize that the people around us are speaking a particular language, and that language defines us in relation to the rest of the world. I, myself, as a native French-speaker from Switzerland, belong to a group that is defined by the language that it speaks. So, in the depths of the psyche, my language is me. The widespread use of the Swiss-German dialect is a way of saying: this is who we are; we are not Germans. Or look at how the Flemish or the Catalans react: "If they persecute or criticize my language, they are persecuting or criticizing me."
Multaj homoj havas forĵetan sintenon al Esperanto, ĉar ili sentas ĝin lingvo sen difinita gento, do lingvo sen homa identeco, do aŭ ne lingvo, aŭ lingvo, kiu estas pli aĵa ol homa, lingvo, kiu estas, rilate al veraj lingvoj, tio, kio roboto estas, rilate al veraj homoj. Kaj tio timigas. Estas timo, ke tiu roboto, pri kiu oni diras, ke ĝi havas ambicion al universaleco, prempaŝos sur ĉiu alia lingvo, sur ĉiu popolo, sur ĉio individua kaj vivanta, detruante ĉion pasante. Tio eble ŝajnas al vi fantazia. Sed estas la vero. La psikologia metodo nomata klinika interparolo, en kiu oni esploras, kiuj ideoj aŭ bildoj asociiĝas unu al la alia, se oni petas personon diri, kio pasas tra la menso deirante de unu difinita vorto, ĉi-kaze "Esperanto", rivelas la ekziston de tiu nekonscia timo ĉe multegaj personoj.	Many people have a disposal attitude to Esperanto, because they feel it a language without particular a Ghent, so a language without human identity, so or no a language, or a language, which is thinger than human, a language, which is, concerning to true languages, it, what a robot is, relevant to true people. And it frightens. There is a fear, that that robot, about which one saies, that it has an ambition to universality, on every another language, on every people, {prempaŝos} on individual and living, destroying everything passing. everything It seems perhaps to you fantastic. But the truth is. Called clinical a conversation, in which one examines, the psychological method affiliates which ideas or pictures one to the another, if one asks for a person saying, what passes through the mind leaving from one particular word, {ĉi-kaze} "Esperanto", reveals the that unconscious fear's existence at terrific persons.	Many people tend to reject Esperanto because they sense that it is a language without a particular people and because of this a language without human identity, and so, perhaps, not a language at all, or a language which is some kind of a fabrication without a human quality, a language which is to real languages as a robot is to real people. And that scares them. The fear is that this robot, which, people say, wants to become universal, is going to trample underfoot all other languages, all the peoples of the world, everything that is individual and alive, destroying everything as it goes. This might seem fantastic to you. However, it is the truth. The existence of this unconscious fear, which a great many people have, is uncovered by the psychological method called clinical free association in which you investigate the ideas or pictures that are associated with each other when you ask a person to tell what is going through their mind when they hear a particular word (in this case, "Esperanto".)
Identiĝo al la lingvo internacia.	A identify to the international language.	Identity with the international language
Unu el la problemoj de la esperantistoj devenas de tio, ke Esperanto havas trajton, kiu distingas ĝin de ĉiuj aliaj fremdaj lingvoj, nome, ke ĝi favoras identiĝon al ĝi. Svedo kiu rilatas angle kun koreo kaj brazilano sentas sin nur svedo kiu uzas la anglan, li ne sentas sin anglalingvano. Kontraste, svedo kiu rilatas per Esperanto kun koreo kaj brazilano sentas sin esperantisto kaj sentas, ke ankaŭ la du aliaj estas esperantistoj, kaj ke la tri apartenas al iu speciala kultursfero. Eĉ se oni ege bone regas la anglan, neanglalingvano ne sentas, ke tio havigas al li anglosaksan identecon. Kun Esperanto okazas la malo. Kial?	An one from the troubles Esperantists's comes from it, that Esperanto has a feature, which distinguishs it of every another strange languages, namely, that it favours a identify to it. A Swede who in English concerns with Korean and Brazilian feels himself only a Swede who uses the English, he does not feel himself {anglalingvano}. Rather, a Swede who with Esperanto with Korean and Brazilian concerns feels himself a Esperantist and feels, that anothers are also the two Esperantists, and that the belong to some particular culture ball three. Even if one rules the English extremely well, {neanglalingvano} does not feel, that it supplies Anglo-Saxon identity to him. With Esperanto the antithesis happens. Why?	One of the problems that Esperantists have stems from that fact that Esperanto has certain characteristics which makes it different from all other foreign languages, namely, that it favors identification with itself. A Swede who speaks English with a Korean and a Brazilian feels that he is a Swede who is using English; he does not assume a special identity as "a speaker of English". On the other hand, a Swede who speaks Esperanto with a Korean and a Brazilian feels that he is an Esperantist and that the other two are also Esperantists, and that the three of them belong to a special cultural group. Even if non-native-speakers speak English very well, they do not feel that this ability bestows an Anglo-Saxon identity on them. But with Esperanto something quite different occurs. Why?
Kiel kutime en la kampo, kiun ni hodiaŭ vizitas, la rolantaj faktoroj estas pluraj kaj kompleksaj, sed eble la plej grava estas, ke Esperanto integriĝas en la homa psiko je nivelo pli profunda ol ĉiu ajn alia fremda lingvo. Ne tuj, ne ĉe komencanto, sed ĉe tiu, kiun Janton nomas "matura esperantisto", homo kun sufiĉa sperto pri la lingvo por senti sin hejme en ĝi. Kial ĝi situas pli profunde en la psiko? ĉar ĝi, pli ol iu ajn alia homa lingvo, sekvas la naturan movon de la cerbo ĉe homo, kiu volas esprimi sin.	How usually are the submiting factors in the field, which we visit today, plura and complex, but perhaps the most important is, that Esperanto integrates in the human mind about a deeper than someevery another strange language level. No immediately, not at a beginner, but at this, who {Janton} "a ripe Esperantist" calls, a man with enough an experience about the language for feel himself at home in it. Why is it situated more deeply in the mind? because it, more than a somewhich another human language, follows the natural movement of the brain at a man, who wants to express himself.	As usually happens in the field we are examining today, many complex factors play a role. Perhaps the most important of these is that Esperanto becomes integrated into the human psyche integrates Esperanto at a deeper level than other foreign language. Not at once, not with beginners, but with those whom Janton calls "mature Esperantists", those who have enough experience with the language to feel at home in it. Why is it located deeper in the psyche? Because, more than any other human language, Esperanto follows the natural tendencies of the human brain when people want to express themselves.
Nia plej baza tendenco, kiam ni lernas lingvon, estas ĝeneraligi la lingvajn trajtojn, kiujn ni lernis. Tial ĉiuj franclingvaj infanoj diras "des cheval", "ĉevaloj", anstataŭ "des chevaŭ", aŭ "vous faisez", "vi faras", anstataŭ "vous faites". Tial ĉiuj anglalingvaj infanoj esprimas la koncepton "piedoj" per "foots" antaŭ ol akiri la ĝustan formon "feet", aŭ la koncepton "li venis" per "he comed" antaŭ ol akiri la ĝustan formon "he came". En Esperanto tiaj eraroj ne eblas, do oni rapide sentas sin sekura en la uzo de la lingvo.	Basicest tendency our, when we learn a language, generalize the linguistic features, which we learned is. Every French speaking children say so "the {cheval}", "horses", instead of "the {chevaŭ}", or "{vous} {faisez}", "you do", instead of "{vous} {faites}". Every English speaking children express the idea "feet" so with "{foots}" before than geting the right form "{feet}", or the idea "he came" with "say {comed}" before than get the right form "say {came}". In Esperanto that kind of mistakes are not possible, one safe feels itself so fast in the use of the language.	Our most basic tendency, when we learn a language, is to generalize the traits of the language which we are learning. That is why every English-speaking young child says "foots" instead of "feet" and "he comed" instead of "he came". That is why every French-speaking young child expresses the idea of "horses" by saying "des cheval" before they learn the correct term, "des chevaux" and express the concept of "you're doing" by saying "vous faisez" before they learn "vous faites". In Esperanto you just cannot make these kinds of mistakes. Because of this, new Esperantists quickly attain a sense of security when they use the language.
Krome en e o oni estas multe pli libera ol en aliaj lingvoj. Tio validas pri la maniero rilatigi la vortojn unu al la alia. En la angla vi devas diri, laŭvorte: "li helpas min", en la franca "li min helpas", en la germana "li helpas al mi". En la tri lingvoj ekzistas unu deviga strukturo, nur unu. En Esperanto vi povas libere elekti iun ajn el la tri.	One is besides in {e} {o} a lot freeer than in another languages. It is valid about the way relate the words one to the another. In the English you must say, verbatim: "he helps me", in French "he helps me", in German "he helps me" the. the In the three languages one compulsory structure, only one. exists In Esperanto you can choose freely somewhom from the three.	Besides, in Esperanto people are much freer than in other languages. This is true about the way words are put together. In English you have to say "he helps me"; in French you say, literally, "he me helps"; in German, "he helps to me". In each of these languages there is one obligatory structure, only one. In Esperanto you can freely choose any one of the three.
Same estas pri la elekto de la funkcio de vortoj en frazo. Vi ofte povas elekti iun ajn el la adjektiva, adverba, verba kaj substantiva funkcioj, ekzemple diri: "mi venis trajne, mi venis per trajno, mi trajnis". Ne estas devigo tiurilate.	It is equally about the choice of the function of words in a sentence. You often can choose somewhom from the adjectival, adverbial, verb and substantive functions, for example say: "I came with a train, I came with a train, I traveled with a train". There is not an obligation in that relation.	The same is true about choosing the part of speech of a word in a sentence. You can often choose to use a word as any one of these parts of speech: noun, verb, adverb, or adjective. For example, you can use the word "automobilo" as a noun saying "Mi venis per automobilo" (I came by car). You can also, by changing the ending, turn "automobilo" into the adverb "automobile" (pronounced, automobil-eh) and say "Mi venis automobile" which means, literally, "I came automobiley". In Esperanto this sounds perfectly natural. You can also turn it into a verb by using a different ending and say: "Mi automobilis" which literally means "I automobiled", and, again, this sounds perfectly natural in Esperanto. You do not have to do this. You can if you want to.
Malmultaj lingvoj disponas la rimedojn, kiuj ebligas tian liberecon, kaj se ili havas ĝin, tre ofte oni ne rajtas ilin uzi.	Little languages dispose the means, which mean that kind of freedom, and if they have it, one does not have the right very often to use them.	Very few languages provide the means which makes this kind of freedom possible. Even when a language does so, in many cases the user of the language do not have the right to use them.
Krome, la Esperanto-medio estas tre tolerema pri gramatikaj kaj vortaraj fuŝoj, en mezuro neniam renkontata alilingve. Forgeso de akuzativo aŭ fuŝa uzo de ĝi estas, praktike, rigardata normala, probable ĉar tio preskaŭ neniam ĝenas la interkompreniĝon. Nur kelkaj pedantoj faras el tiaj eraroj dramon, sed ili situas ekster la normala medio Esperantista. (Atentu! Ne miskomprenu ĉi tiun rimarkon pri lingvaj eraroj kiel rekomendon! Mi situas sur tereno pure observa.) Alivorte, ne estas rilato inter perfekta uzo de la lingvo kaj la sento de identiĝo al ĝi. Oni povas senti sin esperantisto eĉ se oni ĉiufoje preterlasas akuzativon.	Besides, the environment of Esperanto is very tolerant about grammatical and dictionary bloopers, in a measure never seen {alilingve}. An oblivion of an accusative or bad its use is, practically, looked normal, probably because it troubles the understanding almost never. Some pedants do a drama only from that kind of mistakes, but they are situated outside the normal Esperantist environment. (Watch out for! do Not misunderstand this notice about linguistic mistakes like a recommendation! I am situated on a purely observation ground.) In other words, there is not a relation between perfect a use of the language and the feeling of a identify to it. One can feel itself a Esperantist even if one omits an accusative each time.	Besides in Esperanto circles people are very tolerant about mistakes in grammar and vocabulary, much more than people are when it comes to other languages. Forgetting to use the accusative ending or using it incorrectly is practically seen as a normal thing, maybe because it almost never gets in the way of understanding. Only a few purists make a scene over these kinds of mistakes. However, they do not really belong to normal Esperanto circles. (Attention: Please do not take these remarks about linguistic errors as a recommendation. I am acting here purely as an observer.) In other words, there is no connection between using the language perfectly and identifying with it. People can feel themselves to be Esperantists even though they always leave out the accusative ending.
Ĉio ĉi, kaj ankaŭ la eblo krei vortojn laŭvole, kion oni ne rajtas fari en multaj lingvoj, kreas etoson de libereco, kiu lokas la lingvon en pli profunda tavolo de la psiko, pli proksime al ties kerno, al ties instinkta bazo.	Everything, and also the possibility create words as you wish, what one have the right to do in many languages does not, creates an atmosphere of freedom, which places the language in deeper a layer of the mind, nearer to whose pit, to whose instinctive base.	All of this plus the freedom to put together word-elements to make up new words as you like (something that you cannot do in many languages) creates an atmosphere of freedom. This puts the language in the deepest part of the psyche, much closer to its core and its basis in instinct.
Estas pli facile esti spontana en Esperanto ol en la franca, ekzemple, ĉar oni devas observi malpli da arbitraj malpermesoj. En ĝi do oni sentas sin pli facile si mem. Pro tiaj trajtoj Esperanto fiksiĝas pli profunde en la psiko ol la aliaj fremdaj lingvoj, kaj pro tio oni multe pli emas identiĝi al ĝi. Sed la homoj, kiuj ne apartenas al la Esperanto-mondo, tion ne povas kompreni. Ili ne komprenas tiun identiĝon. Tial la sinteno de multaj esperantistoj aperas al ili freneza aŭ almenaŭ tre stranga. Pro tiu sento de identeco kun la lingvo, esperantisto facile sentas sin atakata, kiam oni kritikas la lingvon, aŭ eĉ la ideon mem de internacia lingvo. Ataki la lingvon estas ataki lin mem, kaj la natura reago estas kontraŭataki, kelkfoje tre akre. Sed tion la neesperantisto ne komprenas. Li do vidas en la normala reago de esperantisto ion tro intensan, tro fortan, pruvon de ia fanatikeco, kiu estas la sola ebla klarigo de reago tiel neproporcia.	It is more easily to be spontaneous in Esperanto than in the French, for example, because one must mind less of arbitrary prohibitions. In it one feels itself so easier himself. Because of that kind of features Esperanto lodges more deeply in the mind than the another strange languages, and one has a tendency because of it a lot more identifying to it. But the people, who do not belong to the world of Esperanto, can not it understand. They do not understand that identify. The many Esperantists's attitude appears so to them mad or at least very strange. Because of that identity's with the language feeling, a Esperantist attacked feels itself easy, when one criticizes the language, or even the idea itself from a international language. Attack him himself is to attack the language, and the natural reaction is {kontraŭataki}, sometimes very sharply. But the not Esperantist does not understand it. He sees too intense, too strong, a sign of some kind of fanaticism, which is the only possible explanation of a reaction thus unproportional. something so in the normal Esperantist's reaction	It is easier to be spontaneous in Esperanto than, for example, in English, because you have fewer arbitrary prohibitions to deal with. Because of this people more easily feel authentically themselves. Because of these kinds of traits, Esperanto roots itself more profoundly in the psyche than other foreign languages, and, because of this, people feel a much stronger tendency to identify with it. However, people who do not belong to the Esperanto world cannot understand this. They cannot understand this identification. That is why the attitude of many Esperantists seems to be crazy to them, or at least very strange. Because of this identification with the language, when others criticize Esperanto or even the very idea of an international language, Esperantists easily feel under attack. Attacking the language means attacking them, and their natural reaction is to counterattack, sometimes very sharply. This is something that non-Esperantists simply do not understand. So, in these normal reactions of Esperantists, non-Esperantists see something overly intense, too strong, proof of a sort of fanaticism which to them seems to be the only possible explanation of such exaggerated reactions.
Du kategorioj.	Two categorys.	Two Categories
Miaopinie, Esperantistoj psikologie apartenas al du kategorioj. Unuflanke, estas homoj, kiuj nebone adaptiĝis al la kolektiva vivo, kiuj sentas sin iom ekster la fluoj de la modo, de la socio, de la regantaj ideoj kaj manieroj agi. Homoj, kiuj kutimiĝis al la fakto esti malsamaj ol la plimulto aŭ kiuj sentas sin forĵetitaj aŭ forĵetataj de la plimulto. Ne estas facile preni sur sin la fundan solecon de la homa vivo. Tial homoj, kiuj sentas sin malsamaj ol la plimulto, emas kuniĝi, krei kun similuloj komunumon, en kiu ili sentos sin bone. Ili tiam kunvenas kaj rediras unu al la aliaj, kiom pravaj lli estas, kaj kiom malprava la ekstera mondo. Tio estas tute normala kaj homa. Esperanto prezentis al multaj personoj ne bone adaptitaj al la socio lokon por trovi similulojn same nebone adaptitajn, ĉe kiuj eblis trovi la konsolon kaj plifortigojn necesajn por igi la vivon pli elportebla. Tio estis aparte vera en la periodo, post kiam la unuaj esperoj pri tuja alpreno de Esperanto montriĝis vanaj, kaj antaŭ ol la argumentaro favora al Esperanto iĝis sufiĉe forta kaj fakta, alivorte inter la unua mondmilito kaj la jaroj sepdekaj / okdekaj. Granda parto de la Esperantistaro, tiuperiode, konsistis el neŭrozuloj, t.e. homoj kun psikaj problemoj pli multaj aŭ pli gravaj ol oni trovas ĉe iu ordinara.	In my view, Esperantists belong to two categorys psychologically. On the one hand, there are people, who becomed adapted not well to the joint life, which feel themself some outside the streams of the fashion, from the society, from the governing ideas and ways act. People, who accustomed themself being to the fact different than the majority or which feel himself throwwed away or throwwed away by the majority. It is not easily to take on himself the thorough solitude of the human life. People, who different than the majority feel themself, have a tendency so joining, create with doubles a community, in which they will feel themself good. They meet then and repeat one to the another, how many right {lli} is, and how many wrong the outside world. It is quite normal and human. Esperanto presented many persons not well fitted to the society a place for finding doubles equally not well fitted, at which was possible to find a the comfort and boosts necessary for to make the life more sustainable. It was apart true in the period, after when the first hopes about immediate an acquisition of Esperanto pointed out to be vain, and the favourable group of arguments getted before than to Esperanto enough strong and real, In other words between the first world-war and the years seventyste / eightyste. Great a part of the Community of Esperantists, {tiuperiode}, consisted from neuroticses, t.e. finds people with psychic troubles more manys or more important than one at some common.	As I see it, psychologically Esperantists fall into one of two categories. On the one hand there are people who are not well adapted to communal life, who feel themselves somewhat isolated from what is currently fashionable, from society, from the prevailing ideas and ways of acting. They are individuals who have gotten used to the fact that they are different from most people or who feel themselves rejected by most people. It is not easy to take on the burden of the fundamental solitude of human existence. That is why people who feel themselves different from the majority tend to group together and, with others like themselves, form a community in which they can feel at home. They then get together and keep on telling each other how right they are and how wrong the exterior world is. This is perfectly normal and human. Esperanto gives many who are not well adapted to society a place where they can find others like themselves who are also not well adapted, a place where it is possible to find the consolations and the strengths they need in order to make life more bearable. This was especially true in the period after the first hopes for an immediate world-wide adoption of Esperanto were shown to be illusory and before the body of arguments favorable to Esperanto became sufficiently strong and factual; in other words, between the First World War and the seventies and eighties. A large percentage of the Esperantists of that period consisted of neurotics, that is, individuals who had either more emotional problems or greater emotional problems than you find in an ordinary person.
Al tiuj neŭrozuloj, al tiuj homoj, kiujn psikaj problemoj kripligis, ni havas grandegan ŝuldon, ĉar sen ili la lingvo simple formortus. Estas naive kaj maljuste rigardi ilin de alte, kiel emas fari kelkaj advokatoj de la Raŭma Manifesto. En la historiaj cirkonstancoj, en kiuj ili troviĝis, tiuj iom sektecaj verdsteluloj necesis, por ke la lingvo disvolviĝu. Normaluloj ne povis interesiĝi pri Esperanto, uzi ĝin kaj do vivteni ĝin. Se Esperanto ne estus konstante uzata, se neniu verkus en ĝi, se ĝi ne utilus en korespondado, kunvenoj, kongresoj eĉ konsistantaj ĉefe el stranguloj, ĝi ne povus disvolvi sian lingvan kaj literaturan potencialon, ĝi ne povus riĉiĝi, ĝi ne povus iom post iom konduki al pli profunda analizo de la monda lingvoproblemo. Mi estas certa, ke post kelkaj jarcentoj, historiistoj konsideros, ke tiuj homoj faris grandegan servon al la homaro, vivtenante la lingvon kaj progresigante ĝin, eĉ se iliaj motivoj parte kuŝis en iu psika patologio.	To those neuroticses, to those people, who psychic troubles handicaped, we have a huge debt, because the language would fail without them simply. Look naive and unjust them from high, how some lawyers of the {Raŭma} Manifest have a tendency doing is. In the historical circumstances, in which they ware located, those some {sektecaj} {verdsteluloj} ware needed, that the language should develop. {Normaluloj} ware not able to be about Esperanto, use it and so support it. interested If Esperanto would be not constantly used, if no would write in it, if it does not avail in a correspondence, meetings, even consisting conventions chiefly from odd persons, it would be not able to develop his linguistic and literary potential, it would be not able to become rich, it would be not able to conduct some after some to deeper an analysis of the worldwide language problem. I am certain, that after some centurys, historians will regard, that those people did a huge service to the mankind, supporting the language and advancing it, even if their reasons lay partly in some psychic pathology.	We owe an enormous debt to those neurotics, to those individuals who suffered from crippling emotional problems, because without their efforts the language would have simply died off. It is naïve and unjust to look down on them, as some proponents of the "Manifesto of Rauma" do. In the historical circumstances in which they found themselves, those rather sectarian wearers of the Green Star were needed so that the language might develop. Normal people could not get interested in Esperanto and use it and keep it alive. If the language were not in constant use, if nobody wrote in it, if it were not utilized in correspondence, meetings, and congresses (even if these consisted mainly of eccentrics) it would not have been able to develop its linguistic and literary strengths, it would not have been able to enrich itself, it would not have been able to gradually lead to a deeper analysis of the world language problem. I am convinced that after some centuries historians will consider these people to have rendered an enormous service to mankind by keeping the language alive and developing it, even though their motives in part lay in a kind of psychological pathology.
Apud la neŭrozuloj, la stranguloj, pri kiuj mi ĵus parolis Esperanto allogis homojn kun aparte forta personeco. Homo, kiu estas psike tute sana, povas aliĝi al grupo tute eksternorma nur, se li aŭ ŝi havas tiel fortan personecon, ke li aŭ ŝi povas fronti al la amasoj kaj bazi sian starpunkton sur bazoj klaraj, seriozaj, elprovitaj, tiel ke li kapablas senti sin prava, tamen sen orgojlo. Feliĉe, da tiaj homoj troviĝis sufiĉe multe en la Esperanto-mondo ek de la komenco. Unu el ili, ekzemple, estis Edmond Privat. Ankaŭ al ili ni havas grandan ŝuldon, ĉar ili multe helpis progresigi la aferon, kaj iom post iom montri, en diversaj medioj, ke Esperantistoj ne estas nur stranguloj fanatikaj.	Near to the neuroticses, the odd persons, about which I spoke just now Esperanto drew people with apart strong personality. A man, who is psychicly quite well, can join to a quite abnormal group only, if he or she has thus strong personality, that he or she can face base to the crowds and his attitude on clear, serious, tried, thus bases that he is able to feeling himself right, but without an arrogance. Unfortunately, of that kind of people was located enough a lot in the world of Esperanto away we go from the beginning. An one from them, for example, was Edmond Privat. We have a great debt also to them, because they helped a lot advancing the thing, and some after some show, in various environments, that Esperantists are not fanatical only odd persons.	Besides the neurotics, the eccentrics about whom I have just spoken, Esperanto attracted people whose personalities were especially strong. People who enjoy full mental health can be part of a nonconforming group only if their personalities are so healthy that they can face the great majority basing their positions on foundations that are so clear, so well-tested, of such consequence that they can feel that they are right without being arrogant about it. Happily, many people of this sort were found in the Esperanto world from the very beginning. One of them, for example, was Edmond Privat. We owe a great debt to them too, because they helped things go forward and because, in various circles, they gradually demonstrated that Esperantists were not only a bunch of fanatic oddballs.
Kaj, klare, la du kategorioj havas intersekcion, t.e. homoj kun neŭrozaj trajtoj pli multaj aŭ severaj ol ĉe la averaĝa homo, sed ankaŭ kun pli forta personeco (ofte fortigita ĝuste per la konstanta devo ekzerci sin vivi en medio, al kiu oni ne sentas sin konforma aŭ plene adaptita).	The two categorys have {intersekcion}, t.e. people with neurotic features more manys or severe than at the mean man and, clearly,, but also with more strong personality (often fortified just with the constant duty exercise himself live in an environment, to which one fitting or full fitted does not feel itself).	Clearly, the two categories have an intersection, people who have more or more serious neurotic traits than the average man does but who also possess personalities that are especially strong, personalities that are often strengthened by the ongoing need that these individuals have to train themselves to live in environments to which they do not conform or are not fully adapted.
Paradokso: kie estas mensa sano?	A paradox: there is a mental health where?	A Paradox: Where lies Mental Health
Ni do staras antaŭ paradokso: la Esperanto-mondo longe konsistis grandparte el homoj kun psika patologio, sed kiuj havis mense tute sanan pozicion pri lingva komunikado, dum la ĝenerala socio konsistas el homoj eble relative pli normalaj psike, sed kun tute neŭroza, patologia, mi eĉ dirus freneza, sinteno rilate al ĝi.	We stand so before a paradox: the world of Esperanto consisted for a long time for the greater part from people with a psychic pathology, but which had a mentally quite well position about a linguistic communication, during the general society consists from perhaps rather more normal people psychicly, but with quite neurotic, pathological, I would say even mad, an attitude concerning to it.	Here we confront a paradox: for a long time the Esperanto world consisted in large part of people who suffered from a psychological pathology but who had an entirely healthy mental attitude regarding linguistic communication while society in general consisted of people who were maybe, relatively, more normal psychologically, but who held to a completely neurotic, pathological – I might even say crazy – position about linguistic communication.
Kio ebligas fari tiel drastan aserton? Nu, la fakto, ke la socio prezentas ĉiujn simptomojn de psikopatologio en sia rilato al lingva komunikado. Kiam sentiĝas bezono, kion faras normalulo? Li agas por kontentigi la bezonon per la plej efikaj, agrablaj kaj rapidaj rimedoj. Imagu iun, kiu malsatas. Li havas en sia poŝo monujon plenan je monbiletoj. Li troviĝas en kvartalo kun multaj manĝaĵvendejoj kaj restoracioj. Se li estas normala, li iros en unu el tiuj, por servigi al si manĝon aŭ por aĉeti ion manĝeblan, kiu liberigos lin je la malsato. Kion vi opinios pri homo, kiu, anstataŭ tion fari, iras al la stacidomo, aĉetas bileton por trajnvojaĝo ĝis loko 300 kilometrojn for, kaj tie marŝas longe en la kamparo ĝis li atingas etan restoracion, kiu proponas nur malplaĉan manĝon? Kion vi opinios pri tia homo, kiu, pro sia stranga aliro al la problemo, malsatis dum horoj kaj fine ricevas ion ne tre kontentigan, kaj ĉio kostis centoble pli ol necesis? ĉiu diagnozos tiun konduton kiel neŭrozan, patologian. Kial agi tiel komplike, sen profito por iu ajn, dum eblis solvi la malsatproblemon facile kaj rekte? En la kampo de lingva komunikado, Esperantistoj agas kiel la unua, la cetera mondo kiel la dua.	What does mean doing a thus drastic assertion? Now, the fact, that the society presents a linguistic communication every symptoms of a psychopathology in his relation. When does get a want, what {normalulo} does sensual? He acts for satisfying the want with the most effective, pleasant and fast means. Imagine someone, who is hungry. He has a full about bank-notes purse in his pocket. He is located in a quarter with many {manĝaĵvendejoj} and restaurants. If he is normal, he will go in an one from this, for employ to himself a meal or for buy something edible, which release him about the hunger will. What will you think about a man, who, instead of it doing, go to the station, buy a note for a train voyage till a place 300 kilometers away, and there marchs tiny a restaurant, which offers an only nasty meal for a long time in the country till him gets? What will you think about that kind of man, who, because of his strange approach to the trouble, ware hungry during hours and finally receive not very satisfactory something, and everything cost centoble more than was needed? everyone will diagnose that like neurotic, pathological conduct. To act why thus involvedly, without a gain for somewhom, was it during possible to solve the {malsatproblemon} easily and directly? In the field of a linguistic communication, Esperantists act like the first, the additional world like the second.	What makes it possible for us to make such a drastic assertion? It is the fact that society in general presents all of the symptoms of a psychopathology in its relation to linguistic communication. What do normal people do when they feel a need? They act to satisfy that need by using the most effective, agreeable and timely means available. Imagine someone who is hungry. He has a wallet in his pocket filled with money. He finds himself in a neighborhood with a lot of food stores and restaurants. If he is normal, he steps into one of these and buys some food or orders a meal and he quickly satisfies his hunger. What would you think of a person who, instead of acting like this, goes to the train station, buys a ticket for a place two hundred miles away, and after arriving walks a long way through the countryside to a small restaurant that has mediocre food? What would you think about that kind of person who, because of his strange approach to his problem, continues to go hungry for hours and winds up in the end with something that is not very satisfying, spending a hundred times more money than was necessary? Everybody would diagnose this particular behavior as neurotic, as pathological. Why act in such a complicated way that does nobody any good when it was possible to easily and straightforwardly satisfy the hunger. In the field of linguistic communication Esperantists act like the first person, the rest of the world, like the second person.
La ekzisto de rezisto konfirmas la diagnozon.	The existence of a resistance confirms the diagnosis.	The existence of resistance confirms the diagnosis
Sed eble vi tamen havas dubon pri tio, ĉu la koncerna konduto vere estas patologia, kaj vi bezonas konfirmon pri la diagnozo. Nu, ni scias, ke unu el la karakterizoj de tiaj patologioj estas rezisto. La persono, kiu havas tiajn patologiajn trajtojn, faras ĉion ajn eblan por ne konscii, ke li aŭ ŝi ne agas sane, ke ŝi aŭ li povus agi tute alimaniere, multe pli agrable kaj efike. Kelkfoje la koncernato tamen agnoskas, ke tia konduto estas nenormala, sed diras: "Jes, mi scias, ke tiel agi estas strange, nenormale, eĉ patologie, sed alimaniere mi ne povas fari". Tiun rifuzon akcepti, ke la konduto estas nenormala, aŭ la neeblon ĝin ŝanĝi, oni nomas rezisto.	But perhaps you have a doubt about it but, if the concerned conduct is indeed pathological, and you need a confirmation about the diagnosis. Now, we know, that an one from the profiles of that kind of pathologys is a resistance. The person, which has that kind of pathological features, does possible someeverything for not realising, that he or she does not act wellly, that she or he would be able to act quite differently, a lot more pleasantly and effectively. The protagonist recognizes sometimes but, that that kind of conduct is abnormal, but saies: "Yes, I know, that act thus is strangely, abnormally, even pathologically, but I can not differently do". That refusal take, that the conduct is abnormal, or the not possibility it turn, one calls a resistance.	Maybe you have some doubts about whether this behavior is really pathological and you need confirmation of the diagnosis. Well, we know that one of the characteristics of these kinds of pathology is resistance. A person who has these kinds of pathological traits will do anything in order to not become conscious of the fact that they are not behaving sanely, that they could act in an entirely different way that would be much more agreeable and useful. Sometimes, it is true, the individual recognizes that the behavior is abnormal but claims, "Yes, I know that acting in this way is strange, not normal, even pathological, but I can't help it." This refusal to accept the fact that the behavior is abnormal, or maintaining that it cannot be changed is called "resistance".
Nu, estas interese vidi, ke la maniero, laŭ kiu lingva komunikado estas organizita en nia mondo havas ĉiujn karakterizojn de patologia konduto. Esperanto ekzistas. ĝi ebligas komuniki multe malpli multekoste ol samtempa interpretado, multe pli juste ol la angla, multe pli komforte ol iu ajn alia lingvo, kaj tio eblas post multe pli eta investo en tempon, monon kaj energion fare de la komunikontoj kaj fare de la ŝtato. Alivorte, ĝi estas la rekta vojo por kontentigi la bezonon. Sed anstataŭ uzi ĝin, la socio elektas tre komplikan kaj multekostan vojon. ĝi devigas milionojn da infanoj studi dum jaroj kaj jaroj fremdajn lingvojn tiel malfacilajn, ke nur unu el cent, meznombre, en Eŭropo, unu el mil en Azio, kapablas efike uzi la lingvon fine de la studoj. Post kiam estis investitaj tiom da penoj, da nerva energio, da tempo kaj da mono en tiun lingvoinstruadon, montriĝas, ke oni ne solvis la problemon de malegaleco, kaj ke oni tiel fuŝe atakis la lingvobarilojn, ke necesas investi ree milionojn kaj milionojn da dolaroj por pretigi tradukojn en dekojn da lingvoj kaj por prizorgi la samtempan interpretadon, sen kiu la komunikontoj ne povus interkompreniĝi. Tio estas freneza. Estas freneze uzi sian tempon, sian monon, sian penon en tiel fuŝa, tiel neefika maniero, kiam eblas tion eviti. Jam per tio la socio montras sin patologia.	Now, see interestingly is, that the way, according to which linguistic communication it is every profiles of a pathological conduct organized in our world has. Esperanto exists. it means reporting a lot less dearly than simultaneous a interpretation, a lot more fairly than the English, a lot more comfortably than somewhich another language, and it is possible after an a lot tinier investment into a time, some money and an energy {fare} of the personses who will report and {fare} of the state. In other words, it is the straight way for to satisfy the want. But instead of use it, the society chooses a very involved and dear way. it forces million, of children studying during years and years strange thus hard languages, that only one is from one hundred, meanly, in Europe, an one from thousand, in Asia Minor, able to using effectively the language finally of the studys. After when was so many of efforts, of a nervous energy, invested of a time and of some money into that education of a language, points out to be, that one did not solve the trouble of inequality, and that one attacked the fences of a language thus badly, that it is needed investing again million, and million, of dollars for prepare translations into ten of languages and for take care of the simultaneous interpretation, without which the personses who will report would be not able to communicate. It is mad. Use madly his time, his money, his effort in a thus bad, thus uneffective way is, when possible is to avoid it. The society pathological shows itself yet with it.	Well, it is interesting to see that the way in which linguistic communication is organized in our world has all of the characterizations of pathological behavior. Esperanto exists. It makes it possible for people to communicate in a way that is much less expensive than simultaneous interpretation, that is much fairer than just using English, that is much more comfortable than using any other language, and all this comes after a considerably smaller investment of time, money and energy on the part of the people and on the part of the state. In other words it is a direct way of satisfying the need. But instead of using it, society opts for a very complicated and extremely expensive path. It forces millions of children to spend year after year studying foreign languages that are so difficult that only one out of a hundred, on the average, in Europe and one out of a thousand in Asia are able to effectively use the language after all their studies. After the investment of so much effort and nervous energy and time and money teaching languages, the outcome is that the problem of inequality is not solved and the linguistic barriers have been so poorly dealt with that it is necessary to invest yet more millions and millions of dollars in order to create translations in dozens of languages and to bring about simultaneous interpretation without which the people would not be able to understand each other at all. This is crazy. It is crazy to use people's time, money, effort in such a bungling ineffective manner when it is possible to avoid all of this. By behaving in this way, society shows itself to be pathological.
Sed kio konfirmas, ke temas pri aŭtenta psikopatologio, tio estas la fakto, ke, se vi atentigas pri la afero la ĵurnalistojn, la decidantojn, la gravulojn, la respondeculojn pri la organizado de la socia vivo, kaj provas vidigi al ili, ke la sistemo estas freneza, kaj ke ekzistas mense sana maniero komuniki, multe pli facile atingebla, tiam vi estigas reziston. La homoj rifuzas konsideri vian atentigon, ili rifuzas esplori la aferon, ili forbalaas la atestojn kaj la pruvojn, antaŭ ol konatiĝi kun ili. Tiu vorto "antaŭ" estas grava, ĉar ĝi estas la pruvo, ke la diagnozo estas ĝusta, ĝi atestas pri la rezisto. La respondeculoj de la socio preferas ne scii, ke ekzistas alia maniero komuniki interpopole, ol tiu, kiun ili trudas al la miliardoj da teranoj. Ili timas alfronti la veron. Kaj ĉar ili ne volas vidi, ke ili timas, kio estas plia pruvo pri la neŭroza, patologia karaktero de ilia konduto, ili uzas ĉiajn pretekstojn por ne malfermi la dosieron. La gravuloj do rifuzas ion ne sciante, ke ili rifuzas; ili timas nesciante, ke ili timas; ili kaŭzas embarason, maljustecon, frustron, kaj nenecesajn penadon, elspezadon, impostojn, komplikaĵojn ĉiaspecajn, kaj konsiderindan kvanton da suferoj (mi aludas i.a. al rifuĝintoj, por kiuj la manko de lingva komunikado ofte estas kaŭzo de tre konkretaj suferoj), ili kaŭzas ĉion ĉi ne sciante, ke ili tion kaŭzas. Temas pri vere serioza, severa psikopatologio socia. Sed tre malmultaj personoj tion rimarkas kaj komprenas.	But what does confirm, that it handles about an authentic psychopathology, it is the fact, that, if you draw your attention to the journalists, the personses who decides, about the thing the important persons, the authoritys about the organisation of the social life, and tries showing to them, that the system is mad, and that mentally well a way report exists, a lot more easily accessible, then you develop a resistance. The people refuse regarding your notification, they refuse examining the thing, they sweep away the testimonys and the signs, before than become acquainted with them. This is a word "before" important, because it is the sign, that the diagnosis is right, it attests about the resistance. The authoritys of the society prefer not knowing, that another a way report {interpopole}, than this, who they force to the billion s of earthlings. exists They fear facing the truth. And because they do not want to see, that they fear, what is another a sign about the neurotic, pathological nature of their conduct, they use every kind of pretexts for not opening the file. The important persons refuse something so not knowing, that they refuse; they fear not knowing, that they fear; they cause an abashment, injustice, a frustrate, and needless an efforts, a spending, taxs, all kinds of complications, and considerable a quantity of sufferings (I hint i.a. to refugees, for who the absence of a linguistic communication often is a reason of very real sufferings), they cause everything not knowing, that they cause it. It handles about a indeed serious, severe social psychopathology. But very little persons notice it and understand.	But what confirms that we are dealing with an authentic case of psychopathology is this: if you draw the attention of journalists, decision-makers, public figures, people in authority to the way that social life is organized and try to get them to see that the system is crazy and that there is a mentally sane manner in which people can communicate, a way that is much more easily reached, then you discover that you have provoked resistance. The people refuse to consider what you are trying to draw their attention to, they refuse to investigate the matter, they brush the testimonials and the proofs before they get to know them. This word "before" is important, because it provides the proof that the diagnosis is correct; it bears witness to the resistance. Those in authority prefer to not know that there is another way of communicating between peoples than that which they have foisted upon billions of men and women. They are afraid to confront the truth. And because they do not want to see that they are afraid, which itself provides further proof about the neurotic, pathological character of their conduct, they employ every pretext to not open up an inquiry. So these public figures refuse something not knowing that they are refusing; they fear, not knowing that they are afraid; they cause embarrassment, injustice, frustration, and needless striving, expense, taxes, all kinds of complications and a considerable amount of suffering (I allude, among others, to refugees for whom the lack of a means of linguistic communication is often the cause of very specific suffering), they cause all of this not knowing that they are causing all of this. This is a very serious social pathology. But very few people notice this and understand it.
Tabuo.	A taboo.	A Taboo
Fakte, tabuo tuŝas la tutan kampon de interpopola kaj interŝtata lingva komunikado. Se vi studas la dokumentojn, kiuj estas produktataj tiukampe, vi konstatas, ke multe pli ol 99 elcentoj prezentiĝas, kvazaŭ Esperanto ne ekzistus, kvazaŭ la homaro havus neniun sperton pri alia maniero internacie komuniki ol la kutimaj per tradukado, interpretado aŭ la uzo de prestiĝa nacia lingvo kiel la angla. Esperanto estas tabua. Oni ree tion vidis antaŭ nelonge en Bruselo, en la Eŭropa Parlamento, dum kunsido de la t.n. Institucia komisiono, kiu pritraktis la demandon pri (ne)komunikado en Eŭropa Unio. Kio pruvas, ke temas pri io tabua, estas la rifuzo kompari.	Indeed, a taboo touchs the whole field of a {interpopola} and international linguistic communication. If you study the papers, which are beared {tiukampe}, you take note, that more than 99 percents are a lot presented, as though Esperanto does not exist, as though the mankind would have no experience about another a way internationally report than the usual with a translation, a interpretation or the use of a prestigious national language like the English. Esperanto is taboo. One saw it again before briefly in Brussels, in the European Parliament, during a meeting of the sc. Official a commission, which treated the question about (no) a communication in a European Union. What does prove, that it handles about something taboo, the refusal is to compare.	In fact, the entire field of linguistic communication between peoples and between states is touched by a taboo. If you study the documents which are produced about this area, you find out that far more than 99 percent of them were written as though Esperanto simply did not exist, as though mankind had no experience of a means of international communication other than the usual ones of translation, interpretation or the use of a prestigious national language such as English. Esperanto is taboo. This was repeatedly seen a little while ago in Brussels, in the European Parliament, during a session of the so-called International Commission which dealt with the question of (mis)communication in the European Union. What proves that we are dealing with something taboo is that they refused to make a comparison.
En scienco, kiam oni volas scii pri la valoro de io, oni ĉiam komparas al referenco. Antaŭ ol decidi pri nova medikamento, oni komparas ĝian efikecon al jam konataj substancoj. Kaj kiam oni decidis fari tiun aŭ alian grandan laboron, ekzemple konstrui novan stadion, kion oni faras? Oni lanĉas ofert-alvokon. Oni proponas al la diversaj firmaoj submeti projekton, kaj oni komparas la diversajn ofertojn por akcepti la plej racian rilate al ĝiaj kostoj kaj al la aliaj kriterioj, kiujn necesas konsideri. Tio estas la normala proceduro. Fakte ekzistas tuta scienca metodo pri la arto decidi elektante la plej bonan manieron atingi difinitan celon. Tiun sciencan metodon oni nomas "operacia esplorado" ("operations research", "recherche opérationnelle"). Ĝi naskiĝis dum la dua mondmilito kiel maniero elekti la plej bonan vojon por transporti varojn aŭ homojn plej rapide kaj kun malplej da risko. Nu, se oni aplikas la regulojn de operacia esplorado al la lingvoproblemo, oni konstatas, ke, el ĉiuj rimedoj nuntempe observeblaj en la praktiko, la optimuma, por atingi la celon estas Esperanto. Sed por tion trovi, necesas kompari la diversajn sistemojn unu al la aliaj, do vidi objektive, en la praktiko, (surterene, kiel oni nun diras), kiel Esperanto prezentiĝas kompare al gestoj, al balbutado en lingvo malbone regata, al la uzo de la angla, al tradukado de dokumentoj kaj interpretado de paroladoj, ĉu samtempa, ĉu posta, al uzo de la latina, ktp. Nur tia komparo ebligas konkludi, kiu estas la plej bona sistemo.	In a science, when one wants to know about the worth of something, one always compares to a reference. Before than decide about a new medicine, one compares its effectiveness to yet well-known matters. And one decided when doing this or another great a work, for example build new a stage, what one does? One launchs {ofert-alvokon}. One offers submiting to the various companys a plan, and one compares the various offers for taking the most rational concerning to its costs and to the another rules, which is needed regarding. It is the normal procedure. Whole scientific a method about the art decide choosing the best way get a particular target exists indeed. One calls that scientific method "an operational research" ( "{operations} {research}", "{recherche} {opérationnelle}"). It was born during the second world-war like a way choose the best way for transporting merchandises or people most quickly and with least of a risk. Now, if one practices the rules of an operational research to the language problem, one takes note, that, from every nowadays observable means there is Esperanto in the practice, the optimum, for to get the target. But for it find, it is a stuttering needed comparing the various systems one to the another, so see objectively, in the practice, ({surterene}, how one now saies), how Esperanto is presented comparatively to gestures, in a language badly ruled, to the use of the English, to a translation of papers and a interpretation of speechs, if simultaneous, if hind, to a use of the Latin, etc. That kind of comparison means only concluding, which is the best system.	In science, when investigators want to ascertain the value of something, they always make a comparison with a reference. Before making a decision about a new medication, scientists compare its efficacy with others that are already well known. And when a decision is to be made about a major piece of construction, such as building a new stadium, what do people do? They put out a call for bids. They invite the various firms to submit proposals, and then they compare the various proposals so they can choose the one that is best according to its cost-benefit ratio as well as other criteria which must be considered. This is the normal procedure. In fact there exists a particular scientific method about the art of decision-making involving the selection of the best way possible of reaching a particular goal. This scientific method is called "operational research". It was born during the Second World War as a means of choosing the best way to transport goods or people with the greatest speed and the least risk. Well, if the rules of operational research are applied to the language problem, it will be found that of all of the methods which can be presently observed in practice, the optimum one for attaining the goal is Esperanto. But in order to discover this, you have to compare the various systems with each other and so see objectively, in practice ("on the ground", as they say today) how effective Esperanto is compared to using gestures, to trying to talk in a language which has not been mastered, to using English, to translating documents and interpreting speeches either simultaneously or afterwards, to the use of Latin etc. Only when you make this kind of comparison can you figure out which is the best system.
Sed kvankam miloj kaj miloj da paĝoj troviĝas en dokumentoj pri la lingva situacio, jen en UN, jen en Eŭropa Unio, jen en lingvikaj fakoj de universitatoj ktp, la dokumentoj, kiuj aliras la problemon surbaze de komparo inkluzivanta Esperanton estas malpli nombraj ol la fingroj de unu homo. ĉar komparo de la diversaj eblaj solvoj al problemo estas io tiel ofta alikampe, ĝia foresto en la kampo de internacia lingva komunikado pruvas, ke agas tabuo.	But though thousand, and thousand, of pages is located in papers about the linguistic situation, there in UN, there in a European Union, there in {lingvikaj} branchs of universitys ktp, the papers, which advance the trouble on the foundation of comparison including Esperanto are less numerical than the one man's fingers. because comparison of the various possible solutions is to a trouble something thus frequent {alikampe}, its absence proves in the field of a international linguistic communication, that a taboo acts.	But, although many thousands of pages can be found in documents that deal with the language situation, some in the UN, others in the European Union, others in the linguistics departments of universities, and so on, the documents which approach the problem by making comparisons, including Esperanto, number less than your fingers. Because comparing the various possible solutions to the problem is something that is so common in other fields, its absence in the field of international linguistic communication demonstrates that a taboo is working.
En kio radikas la tabuo?	What does the taboo root in?	What are the roots of the taboo?
Kial tiu patologia aliro al la lingvoproblemo? Denove la kaŭzoj estas multaj. Estas politikaj kaŭzoj. La ideo, ke la intelekte plej netalentaj individuoj povu senbare komuniki de popolo al popolo malplaĉas al multaj ŝtatoj. Estas sociaj kaŭzoj. Tiu sama eblo malplaĉas al la privilegiitaj sociaj tavoloj. Homoj, kiuj scias sufiĉe bone la anglan aŭ alian gravan lingvon, havas multajn avantaĝojn super homoj, kiuj scipovas nur kelkajn lokajn lingvojn, ili tute ne deziras perdi tiujn avantaĝojn. Tio estas aparte videbla en la t.n. Tria Mondo.	Why that pathological approach to the language problem? The reasons are again manys. There are political reasons. Idea the, that most untalented individuals should be the mentally able to report openly from a people to a people please the other way around to many states. There are social reasons. That same possibility pleases the other way around the confered privilege social layers. People, who know the English or another important language enough well, have many advantages above people, who know how only some local languages, they quite not wish losing those advantages. It is apart visible in the sc. Third World.	Why this pathological approach to the language problem? Again there are many causes. There are political causes. The idea that people who are among the least talented intellectually could freely communicate across national lines is repugnant to many states. There are societal reasons. This same possibility is repugnant to the privileged social classes. People who have a pretty good command of English or of some other important language enjoy many advantages over those who only speak some local languages; they certainly do not want to give up these advantages. This is particularly apparent in the so-called Third World.
Sed mi opinias, ke la ĉefaj kaŭzoj de la tabuo estas psikaj. La kerno de la problemo kuŝas en la emocia pezo, ŝargo, etoso de la koncepto "lingvo", en ĝia povo vibrigi tre profundajn fibrojn de nia animo. Ni pensas per konceptoj aŭ vortoj. Kaj la vortoj aŭ konceptoj ne estas nur intelektaj aferoj, ili havas ian emocian, ian sentan etoson. Ne ĉiuj, sed multaj. Se mi diras "milito" aŭ "mono" aŭ "patrino" aŭ "sekso" aŭ "atomenergio", io vibras profunde en vi, kvankam vi tion ĝenerale ne konscias. Alivorte, ni ne estas indiferentaj fronte al granda parto de niaj konceptoj, ĉefe al tiuj, kiuj estas iel ligitaj al niaj deziroj, bezonoj, aspiroj, plezuroj, suferoj, potenco, ktp.	But I think, that the chief reasons of the taboo are psychic. The pit of the trouble lies in the emotional weight, a round, an atmosphere of the idea "a language", in its ability vibrate very deep fibres of our soul. We think with ideas or words. And the words or ideas are not only intellectual things, they have emotional, some kind of sensual atmosphere. of No everyone, but manys. If I say "a war" or "some money" or "a mother" or "a sex" or "an atomic energy", something vibrates deeply in you, though you do not realise it generally. In other words, we are not indifferent in front to a great part of our ideas, chiefly to this, who are somehow joined to our wants, wants, ambitions, pleasures, sufferings, a power, etc.	However, I believe that the main causes of this taboo have to do with the psyche. The heart of the problem lies in the emotional weight, burden, aura of the concept of "language", in its ability to affect the deepest fibers of our soul. We think with concepts or words. And the words and concepts are not merely intellectual entities, they have certain emotional qualities to them. Not all of them, but a lot of them. If I say "war" or "money" or "mother" or "sex" or "atomic energy", something vibrates deeply in you, although you are normally not aware of it. In other words, we are not indifferent when we face most of our concepts, chiefly those which in some way are connected to our desires, needs, aspirations, pleasures, suffering, power etc.
Inter tiuj konceptoj kun forta emocia etoso troviĝas la koncepto "lingvo". Kial? Ĉar la lingvo elvokas la fakton kapabli komprenigi sin, kaj la eblo esti komprenata estas unu el la plej bazaj deziroj de ĉiu homo. Kiam mi havas ian turmentan zorgon, aŭ suferon, se mi povas paroli pri ĝi al iu, kiu aŭskultos min kaj reagos komprene, mi sentos min helpata, okazos ia kundivido de la zorgo aŭ de la sufero, tiel ke mi ne plu sentos min sola, mi fartos pli bone kun ĝi. Kiam bebo suferas kaj krias, tre ofte, pro nekompreno, la reago de la apuda plenkreskulo mistrafas, aŭ tute ne venas reago, krom, survizaĝe, esprimo de senhelpeco. Sed kiam la infaneto akiris lingvon, kaj povas diri: "Doloras al mi en la orelo", la reago de la plenkreskulo estas tute alia. Okazas vera komunikado, kiu ŝanĝas la vivon. Tial ke tiu komunikado plej ofte kaj plej save disvolviĝas kun la patrino, la emocia etoso de la koncepto "lingvo" inkluzivas la sentojn pri ŝi. Pro tio la plimulto el la lingvoj diras "patrina lingvo", kiam fakte temas pri la gepatra aŭ la media lingvo.	Between those ideas with a strong emotional atmosphere the idea "a language" is located. Why? Because the language evokes being the fact explaining itself able to, and the possibility be understood is an one from the basicest wants every man's. When I have some kind of distressing care, or a suffering, if I can speak about it to someone, who will listen to me and will respond {komprene}, I helped will feel me, some kind of share from the care or of the suffering will happen, thus I will feel me that not on only, I will feel better with it. When a baby bears and, very often, shouts because of a not sense, the adjacent adult's reaction fires an air, or a reaction, besides, does not come quite {survizaĝe}, an expression of distress. But when did the baby get a language, and can say: "Hurts to me in the ear", the adult's reaction is quite another. True a communication, which turns the life happens. So that that communication oftenest and most safely develops with the mother, the emotional atmosphere of the idea "a language" includes the feelings about her. Because of it the majority saies from the languages "a maternal language", when indeed it handles about the parental or the environmental language.	Among these concepts with a strong emotional aura is the concept "language". Why? Because the language evokes the fact that we are able to make ourselves understand, and the being able to be understood is one of the deepest desires of each human being. When I am tormented by some worry or when I am hurting, if I can speak about it to someone who will hear me and react with understanding, then I will feel that I have been helped, that I will have shared my worry or suffering so that I no longer feel alone, and because of that I will feel better. When a baby is hurting and cries, very often adults do the wrong thing because they do not understand what is going on, or they do nothing except show by their expression how helpless they are. But when the small child acquires language and can say, "My ear hurts", then there is an altogether different reaction on the part of the grown-up. What takes place then is real communication, and that changes the child's life. Because this communication usually happens with the mother who then can do a better job of helping her child, the emotional aura of the concept of "language" takes on feelings about her. Because of this, most languages have an expression like "our mother tongue" when, in fact, it is the "parental tongue" or "the language of our environment".
Fakte, akiri lingvon, estas io tute banala. Tio okazas laŭ la normalaj vojoj de ĉia lernado. Estas nenio pli mistika en lingvoakirado ol en la asimilado de la kapablo regi aŭtomobilon. Tamen estas grandega diferenco inter la du. Pro la aĝo. Kiam ni lernas uzi aŭtomobilon, ni scias, ke ni lernas, kaj ni jam scias multegon pri la arto lerni, ĉar ni vizitadis lernejon multjare kaj lernis multon pri lernado. Sed kiam ni akiras la gepatran lingvon, ni absolute ne scias, ke ni lernas. Ni do vivas la aferon kiel miraklan. Antaŭe ni ne povis klare komuniki. Nun ni povas esprimi nin. Jen miraklo, kiu ŝanĝas la tutan vivon. Pro tiuj cirkonstancoj, en kiuj ni akiras lingvon, lernante sen scii, ke ni lernas, ke disvolviĝas tute banala lernprocezo, la lingvo fariĝas io sankta, io fea, io fabela, io mita. Io, kio situas ekster la kampo de racio. Io, pri kies deveno ni scias nenion. Por la plejprofundo de nia animo, lingvo estas donaco de la dioj, donaco supernatura. Neniu homo rajtas ŝanĝi ĝin. Neniu rajtas libervole kaj racie enmiksi sin en ion lingvan.	Something quite commonplace is indeed, get a language,. It happens according to the normal ways of every kind of learning. More mystic nothing is in an acquisition of a language than in the assimilation of the ability rule a car. There is a huge difference but between the two. Because of the age. When we learn using a car, we know, that we learn, and we know a infinity yet about the art learn, because we frequented a school {multjare} and learned a lot about a learning. But when do we get the parental language, we do not know absolutely, that we learn. We live the like miraculous thing so. We ware not ahead able to report clearly. We can now express us. There a miracle, which turns the whole life. Because of those circumstances, in which we get a language, learning without know, that we learn, that a quite commonplace learning process develops, the language becomes something holy, something fairy, something fabled, something mythical. Something, what is situated outside the field of a reason. Something, about whose lineage we know nothing. For the {plejprofundo} of our soul, a language is the gods's, a present supernatural. present No man has the right to turn it. No has the right to mix in voluntarily and rationally himself into linguistic something.	Acquiring language is really a very ordinary thing. It happens like any other kind of learning. There is nothing more mystical about the acquisition of language than acquiring the ability to drive a car. Nevertheless, there is an enormous difference between the two. It is because of our age. When we learn how to drive, we know that we are learning, and we already know a great deal about the art of learning because we have already spent many years attending school where we learned a lot about learning. But when we acquire our parental language, we do not know in any way that we are learning. This is why the experience seems like a miracle to us. Before we could not communicate clearly. Now we can express ourselves. Here is a miracle which changes our whole life. Because of these circumstances in which we acquire language, learning without knowing that we are learning, without knowing that a perfectly ordinary process of learning is taking place, the language becomes something that is holy, magical, fabulous, mythical. Something which is located beyond the field of reason. Something about whose origins we know nothing. In the deepest part of our soul language is a gift of the gods, a supernatural gift. No person has the right to change it. No one has the right to freely and rationally meddle with something that is linguistic.
Vidu, kiel emocie la homoj reagas, kiam aperas propono ŝanĝi la ortografion. Rigardu atente la argumentojn, kaj vi vidos, ke nenio vere racia intervenas tie. Temas simple pri emocioj, la emocioj, kiujn ĉiam vibrigas la koncepto "lingvo".	See, how emotionally the people respond, when an offer turn the orthography appears. Look the arguments attentive, and you will see, that indeed rational nothing intervenes there. It handles simply about emotions, the emotions, which the idea "a language" always vibrates.	Just see how upset people get when they hear of an attempt to change the spelling of words. Examine their arguments closely and you will see that there is nothing really rational about them. It is simply a matter of feelings, the feelings which the concept "language" always stirs up.
Kaŝita aŭtoritata mesaĝo.	A secret authoritative message.	A hidden authoritarian message
Tiu kerna sento pri lingvo kiel io mita, donita de la dioj, kaj do sankta kaj netuŝebla estas la plej kerna ero de la emocia aŭro de la koncepto "lingvo". Al tiu kerno aldoniĝas la fakto, ke la koncepto "lingvo" elvokas la plej unuajn rilatojn en la familio, ĉefe tiujn kun la patrino. Sed super tiuj du tavoloj alvenas tria: la rilato kun aŭtoritato. En la transdono de lingvo al infanoj, estas kaŝita mesaĝo, kiujn oni praktike neniam eksplicitas. Kaj tiu mesaĝo estas terure diktatora.	Core feeling about a language that like something mythical, given from the gods, and the coreest element of the emotional {aŭro} of the idea "a language" is so holy and inviolable. To that pit the fact gets supplementary, that the idea "a language" evokes the most first relations in the family, chiefly this with the mother. But above those two layers gets third: the relation with an authority. In the delivery of a language to children, there is secret a message, which one is practically never explicit. And that message is terribly dictatorial.	This core feeling about language as mythic, bestowed by the Gods, and thus holy and not to be touched is the innermost part of the emotional aura that surrounds the concept of "language". To this core is added the fact that the concept "language" evokes our earliest connections in the family, mainly those with mother. To these two layers we can add a third: the relationship with authority. When language is handed down to children along with it comes a hidden message that is almost never made explicit. And this message is horribly dictatorial.
Fakte ĝi diktas la respektivan situacion de infano kaj plenkreskulo en la socio. Kiam infano parolas neĝuste, oni korektas ĝin, almenaŭ ek de kiam ĝi vizitadas lernejon. Se oni ne korektas ĝin, oni ridas aŭ mokas, aŭ ridetas signife. Kia ajn la reago, ĝi sentigas al la etulo, ke, kiam ĝi uzas tian formon, diferencan de la gramatike aŭ vortare ĝusta, ĝi troviĝas ekster la normo. Se eta franclingvano diras "plus bon", oni diras al li: "Ne tiel oni diras, oni diras "meilleur"". Eble ankaŭ en la germana oni ne rajtas diri "mehr gut" aŭ "guter" aŭ "gueter" kaj verŝajne infanoj uzas tiajn formojn. Tiam oni ilin korektas per frazo kiel: "Ne tiel. Oni diras "besser"".	It dictates the respective child's and an adult's situation indeed in the society. When a child speaks wrongly, one corrects it, it frequents a school at least away we go from when. If one does not correct it, one laughs or ridicules, or smiles {signife}. Somewhat kind of the reaction, it affects to the tot, that, it uses that kind of form when, different from the grammatically or {vortare} right, it is located outside the standard. If a tiny French speaker saies "plus {bon}", one saies him: "one saies Not thus, one saies" {meilleur} "". Perhaps also in the German one does not have the right to say "{mehr} {gut}" or "{guter}" or "{gueter}" and children use that kind of forms probably. One corrects them then with a sentence like: "Not thus. One saies" {besser} "".	In fact it dictates the respective positions of the child and the adult in society. When a child speaks incorrectly, they correct the child almost from the very first day of school. If they do not correct the child, they laugh or make fun or smile meaningfully. Whatever the reaction, it makes little ones realize that when they use a form of language that differs from correct vocabulary or grammar, they are no longer within the bounds of what is normal. When little English-speakers say "more good," they are told, "We don't speak that way. We say better". Perhaps in German they don't have the right to say "mehr gut" or "guter" or "gueter" and yet, apparently, children use those forms. They are corrected: "Not like that. You say besser".
Kion tio signifas por la profundo de la psiko? Tio transdonas kaŝitan mesaĝon, jene: "Ne fidu vian spontanan, naturan tendencon, kiu igas vin ĝeneraligi lingvan trajton, kiun vi rimarkis. Ne fidu vian logikon. Ne fidu la racion. Ne fidu viajn refleksojn, vian instinkton. Ne fidu vin mem. Obeu nin, eĉ se nia sistemo estas absolute neracia, malsaĝa."	What does it mean for the depth of the mind? It hands secret a message, thus: "do Not trust your spontaneous, natural tendency, which makes generalizing you linguistic a feature, which you noticed. do Not trust your logic. do Not trust the reason. do Not trust your reflexs, your instinct. do Not trust you yourself. Obey us, even if our system is absolutely irrational, foolish."	What does this mean for the depths of the psyche? It carries a hidden message: "Do not trust your spontaneous, natural tendencies which make you generalize those features of the language that you have recognized. Do not trust your own logic. Do not trust your reason. Do not trust your reflexes, your instincts. Do not trust yourself. Obey us, even if our system is absolutely irrational and foolish."
Por la infanoj ja la lingvo estas esence komunikilo. La unua ŝtupo en ilia pensado do estas: "Se oni komprenas min, estas en ordo. Lingvo ja estas farita por ke ni interkompreniĝu". Sed la reagoj de la medio pli kaj pli sendas la mesaĝon: "Lingvo ne estas io elpensita por interkompreniĝi. Lingvo estas kampo, en kiu oni lernas konformigi sin al la arbitraj, neklarigeblaj postuloj de la grandularo." En lingvo estas tabuoj, kiujn neniu povas pravigi. Se infano, kiu volas esprimi la ideon "li venis" diras "er kommte", "il a venu", "he comed", oni atentigas ĝin, ke ĝi devus diri "er kam, il est venu, he came". Se tiam ĝi demandas: kial? Ne eblas doni al li racian respondon. Oni povas nur diri: ĉar estas tiel. Kaj tio subkomprenigas, ke la lingvo estas io regata de nekompreneblaj leĝoj, neniam klarigataj, kiuj radikas en la pratempo. Respekto al la praavoj aŭ al la dioj, kiuj donis la lingvon, estas pli grava ol logiko, ol racio, ol tendencoj spontanaj, instinktaj, do ol individua homa naturo.	For the children the language is rather basically a means of communication. The first step is in their thinking so: "If one understands me, it is in an order. a Language is rather done that we should communicate". But the reactions of the environment send the message more and more: "a Language is not something invented for to communicate. a Language is a field, in which one learns fiting itself to the arbitrary, inexplicable demands of the group of big persons." In a language there are taboos, which no can justify. If a child, who wants to express the idea "he came" saies "{er} {kommte}", "come {il} {a}", "say {comed}", draws his attention to it one, that it would have to say "{er} {kam}, come {il} {est}, say {came}". If it asks then: why? It is not possible to give him a rational answer. One can say only: because it is thus. And it implies, that the language is something ruled from unintelligible laws, never explained, which root in the prehistoric time. A respect is to the great-grandfathers or to the gods, which gave the language, more important than a logic, than a reason, than spontaneous, instinctive, so than a individual human nature. tendencys	For children language is essentially a way to communicate. So the first step in their thinking is: "If they understand me, everything's OK. We have language so we can understand each other." However, the reactions of those around them keeps on sending this message: "Language is not something that was thought up so people could understand each other. Language is a field in which you learn to conform to the arbitrary, inexplicable demands of the big people." There are taboos in language which no one can justify. If a child who wants to express the idea "he came" says "he comed", "er kommte", "il a venu", they point out that the child must say, "he came, er kam, il est venue". Suppose the child then asks "Why?" No one can provide him with a rational answer. People can only say, "Because that's the way it is." And that implies that the language is something that is governed by incomprehensible laws that are never to be explained, that have their roots in the long ago. Respect for those who lived so long ago or for the gods who provided the language is more important than logic, than reason, than the tendency to act spontaneously, instinctively, and so more important than individual human nature.
Esperanto fuŝas ĉion ĉi. ĝi naskiĝis antaŭ ne tre longe. Tio estas sakrilegio. Lingvo ne rajtas esti juna. Lingvo estas io sankta transdonita de la praavoj aŭ de la dioj, ne io, kio povas estiĝi nuntempe. Kaj oni diras, ke tiu lingvo ne havas esceptojn, tio estas krimo! Se oni povas sekvi sian naturon, sian logikon por esprimi sin, kio restos el la aŭtoritato de la prauloj? Tial Esperanto kaŭzas terurajn timojn en la profundo de la psiko. ĝi riskas perdigi al nia gepatra lingvo ĝian mitan, sanktan, fean karakteron. ĝi reletivigas ĝin, dum viglas emocia bezono, ke la gepatra lingvo estu io absoluta. Necesas ĉiarimede haltigi ĝian disvastigon. Kaj necesas ĉiarimede agi, por ke oni ne esploru pri ĝi. Oni eble vidus, ke lingvo ne estas tio, kion ni kredas, kaj tiel oni subfosus la bazon de la sociaj rilatoj. La afero estas tro emocia, por ke oni akceptu trankvile, objektive, science studi ĝin. Kaj trankvile, objektive studi la reagojn al ĝi.	Esperanto spoils everything. it was born before not very for a long time. It is a sacrilege. A language does not have the right to be young. A language is something holy handed from the great-grandfathers or from the gods, not something, what can arise nowadays. And one saies, that that language does not have any exceptions, it is a crime! If one can follow his nature, his logic for express himself, what will stay from the ancestors's authority? Esperanto causes terrible fears so in the depth of the mind. it risks wasting to our parental language its mythical, holy, fairy nature. it {reletivigas} it, an emotional want flourishs during, that the parental language should be something absolute. It is needed stoping {ĉiarimede} its expansion. And it is needed acting {ĉiarimede}, that one should not examine about it. One would see perhaps, that a language is not it, what we believe in, and one would undermine the base of the social relations thus. The thing is too emotional, that one should take studying comfortably, objectively, scientifically it. And comfortably, objectively study the reactions to it.	Esperanto messes all of this up. It was born not so long ago. That is sacrilege. A language does not have the right to be young. A language is something that is holy and was handed down by our ancestors or by the gods, not something that could come into being now. And they say that this language does not have any exceptions. That is criminal! If you could follow your natural tendencies, your nature, your logic to express yourself, what remains of the authority of your ancestors? That is why Esperanto causes terrible fears in the depths of the psyche. It threatens to deprive our parental language of its mythical, holy, magical character. It relativizes it in spite of there being a powerful emotional need that the parental language be something absolute. We need to stop Esperanto's spread by all means possible. And we need to do everything we can to prevent serious scientific investigation of Esperanto. It might be seen that language is not what we thought, and then the foundations of social relations will be undermined. This subject is too emotional for calm, objective scientific study, and also for such study of the reactions to Esperanto.
Monstro.	A monster.	A Monster
Krome, Esperanto aperas kiel monstro, ĉar oni diras, ke ĝin kreis unu viro. Alivorte, ĝi havas patron, sed ne patrinon. ĝi estas la monstra produktaĵo de iu soleca perversulo. Al tiu ideo kontribuas multaj difinoj, troveblaj en vortaroj, enciklopedioj, prilingvaj libroj aŭ Esperantistaj informiloj, laŭ kiuj "Esperanto estis kreita de Zamenhof en 1887". Fakte, Esperanto ne kreiĝis en 1887. En 1887 aperis semo de lingvo, kiu dum multaj jaroj antaŭe kreskis kaj transformiĝis en la menso de Zamnhof kaj sur liaj kajeroj. Post tiu longa procezo, kiu estas komparebla al la procezo per kiu laŭgrade kreiĝas semo en planto, la projekto publikiĝis, tio signifas, la semo estis ĵetita. Sed tiu semo povis iĝi io vivanta nur, se grundo akceptis ĝin. Kaj tiu grundo estas la patrino de Esperanto, tio estas la komunumo de tiuj unuaj vastkoraj idealistoj, kiuj akceptis la semon, kaj provizis ĝin per la medio, en kiu ĝi povis kreski, transformiĝi kaj fariĝi io sufiĉe vivkapabla por vivteni sin sendepende de iu ajn individuo.	Besides, Esperanto appears like a monster, because one saies, that one man created it. In other words, it has a father, but not a mother. it is the monstrous product of some lonely {perversulo}. To that idea many definitions, possible for a finding in dictionaries, encyclopaedias, books about a language or Esperantist informational publications, contribute according to which "Esperanto was created by Zamenhof in 1887". Indeed, Esperanto was not created in 1887. In 1887 a seed of a language, which during many years ahead grew appeared and transformed in the mind from Zamnhof and on his pamphlets. After that long process, which is comparable to the process with whom gradually a seed is created in a plant, the plan breaked, it means, the seed was thrown. But that seed was able to get something living only, if a ground took it. And the mother of Esperanto is that ground, it is the those first {vastkoraj} idealists's, who took the seed community, and provided it with the environment, in which it was able to grow, transform and become something enough viable for support himself independently of somewhich individual.	Besides, Esperanto seems to be a monster, because, they say, one man made it up. In other words, it has a father but no mother. It is the monstrous product of a single pervert. You can find many definitions which contribute to this idea in dictionaries, encyclopedias, books about language and materials put out by Esperantists. According to these "Esperanto was created by Zamenhof in 1887." Actually Esperanto was not created in 1887. In 1887 there appeared the seed of a language, a seed which had been growing and development in the mind and in the notebooks of Zamenhof for many years. After that long process, which can be compared to the process by which a seed is gradually created in a plant, the project became public. That means, the seed was sown. But the seed could become something that lives only if the soil accepted it. And that soil was the mother of Esperanto. It was the community of those first great-hearted idealists who accepted the seed and gave it an environment in which it could grow, could become transformed could become something that was viable independent of any particular individual.
Esperanto, kia ni uzas ĝin nun, ne estas la verko de Zamenhof, ĝi estas lingvo, kiu disvolviĝis surbaze de la projekto de Zamenhof per jarcento da konstanta uzado inter homoj ege diversaj. ĝi estas lingvo, kiu disvolviĝis tute nature, per uzado, per verkado, per alterno de proponoj kaj kontraŭproponoj, plej ofte nekonsciaj. ĝi ne estas monstro, kiun estigis iu homo sola, ĝi havas patron, jes ja, mirindan patron, patron, kiu sukcesis meti en ĝin nekredeble taŭgan vivpotencialon, sed ĝi havas ankaŭ patrinon, kiu flegis ĝin ame, kaj kiu, multe pli ol la patro sola povis, donis al ĝi vivon.	Esperanto, what kind of uses it we now, is not the work of Zamenhof, it is a language, which developed on the foundation of the plan of Zamenhof with a century of a constant use between extremely various people. it is a language, which developed quite naturally, with a use, with {verkado}, with an alternation of offers and reverse offers, oftenest unconscious. it is no father, yes rather, a monster, which some only man developed, it has wonderful a father, a father, who succeeded placing into it incredibly a suitable life potential, but it has also a mother, who attended it affectionately, and who, a lot more than a the only father was able to, gave it a life.	Esperanto, as we use it today, is not the work of Zamenhof. It is a language which has developed on the foundation of Zamenhof's project through a century of constant use by very diverse people. It is a language which has developed in an entirely natural way through usage, literary creation, successive proposals and counter-proposals, usually unconsciously. It is not a monster which a single person brought into existence. It does have a father, certainly, a marvelous father who successfully endowed it with an incredibly powerful suitability for life, but it also has a mother who lovingly cared for it and who, much more than a single father could have, gave life to it.
Faktoj estas pli obstinaj ol paroloj.	Facts are more obstinate than speechs.	Facts are more stubborn than words
Vi vidas, ke la psikologiaj aspektoj de Esperanto, kaj de la monda lingvoproblemo, estas multe pli kompleksaj ol oni unuavide imagus. En la psiko de la plej multaj individuoj troviĝas terura rezisto al la ideo mem de lingvo internacia. Pro tiu rezisto, preskaŭ neniu en la politika, socia kaj intelekta elito akceptas serene esplori la aferon. Kaj tamen ĝi progresos. Similaj kazoj de rezisto al io pli bona, pli oportuna, pli demokratia abundas en la historio. Plej tipa ekzemplo estas la rezisto en Eŭropo, kontraŭ la ciferoj, kiujn ni nun uzas, la hindaj / arabaj ciferoj: ankaŭ ilin la intelekta elito (kaj ne nur ĝi) sentis sakrilegio kontraŭ la romiaj ciferoj ĝis tiam uzataj. Mi estas konvinkita, ke Esperanto estos ĝenerale akceptita iam. La patologio ne eterne estos pli forta ol la kuracaj fortoj, ankaŭ kiuj agas en la socio. Inter tiuj kuracaj fortoj estas la pli kaj pli bona kompreno de la fenomeno Esperanto fare de lingvistoj, ekzemple, kaj de multaj aliaj personoj. Estas ankaŭ la postuloj de la realo. Kiel diris Lincoln oni povas kaŝi la veron al parto de la publiko dum parto de la tempo. Oni ne povas kaŝi la veron al la tuta publiko dum la tuta tempo. Esperanto, se oni komparas ĝin al ĉiuj aliaj rimedoj intergente komuniki, estas objektive la plej bona, per tre granda distanco, por ĉiuj kriterioj. Faktoj estas pli obstinaj ol ideoj. La rezisto plu daŭros kaj estos akra, jes ja, certe, eĉ se nur ĉar oni povas percepti ion nur kiam oni estas tiurilate preta, tiel ke, nuntempe, multaj homoj simple ne aŭdas, kion vi diras pri Esperanto: ilia menso ne estas preta, do viaj frazoj preterpasas sen penetri ĝin. Jes, la rezisto plu estos forta. Sed, kredu min, ĝi ne povos superi. La faktoj venkos. Vero venkos. Esperanto venkos.	You see, that the psychological appearances of Esperanto, and from the worldwide language problem, it would is a lot more complex than one at first sight imagine. In the mind of the most individuals a terrible resistance is located to the idea itself from a international language. Because of that resistance, almost no takes in the political, social and intellectual elite examining good the thing. And it will progress but. Similar cases of a resistance abound to something better, more convenient, more democratic in the story. A most typical example is the resistance in Europe, against the figures, which we use now, the Indian / Arabic figures: the intellectual elite (and not only it) then used felt also them a sacrilege against the Roman figures till. I am persuaded, that Esperanto will be generally taken sometime. The pathology will be not forever more strong than the medical forces, also who do act in the society. Between those medical forces the more and more good sense of the phenomenon is Esperanto {fare} of linguists, for example, and from many another persons. Also the demands of the reality are. How Lincoln said one can hide the truth to a part of the public during a part of the time. One can not hide the truth to the whole public during the whole time. Esperanto, if one compares it to every another means communally report, it is objectively the most good, with a very great distance, for every rules. Facts are more obstinate than ideas. The resistance will last on and will be sharp, yes rather, certainly, even if only because one can find something one is only when in that relation ready, thus that, nowadays, many people do not hear simply, what you say about Esperanto: their mind is not ready, your sentences overtake so without penetrating it. Yes, the resistance will be on strong. But, believe in me, it will be not able to top. The facts will defeat. A truth will defeat. Esperanto will defeat.	You see, the psychological aspects of Esperanto, and of the world language problem, are much more complex than you would have first imagined. In the psyche of most individuals lies a terrible resistance to the very idea of an international language. Because of this resistance, almost no one in the political, social and intellectual elite will willingly and calmly investigate the matter. And yet it progresses. Similar cases of resistance to something that is an improvement, that is more suitable and more democratic occur very often throughout history. The most typical example is the resistance in Europe to the numerals which we now use, the Indian/Arabic numerals: the intellectual elite (and not only they) felt these numerals to be a sacrilege against the Roman numerals which had been in use. I am convinced that Esperanto will someday be generally accepted. The pathology will not always be more powerful than the healthy forces which are also active in society. Among these healthy forces is the greater and greater understanding of the phenomenon of Esperanto on the part of linguists and of many other people. There are also the demands of reality. As Lincoln said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." If you compare Esperanto with other means of communicating between peoples, you find it to be objectively the best method by far according to all the criteria. Facts are more stubborn than ideas. The resistance will go on and it will be intense, certainly, even if only because you can perceive something only when you ready to. Because of this, nowadays, many people simply will not hear what you are saying about Esperanto: their minds are not ready and so your phrases pass them and do not reach them. Yes, the resistance will continue to be powerful. But, believe me, it cannot win out. The facts will win out. The truth will win out. Esperanto will win out