Esperanto and Interlingua compared
From Freepedia
| edit |
| <center>This article is part of the Esperanto series |
| |
| Esperanto | Grammar | Letters | Phonology | Orthography | Vocabulary |
| <center>History |
| History | Zamenhof | Proto-Esperanto | Unua Libro | Declaration of Boulogne | |
| <center>Culture and media |
| Culture | Esperantists | Esperantujo | Film | Flag | La Espero | Libraries | Literature | Music | Native speakers | Pop culture references | Publications | Zamenhof Day |
| <center>Organization and services |
| Amikeca Reto | Esperanto Academy | Kurso de Esperanto | Encyclopedia | Pasporta Servo | Pen pal service | Plouézec Meetings | TEJO | UEA | World Congress |
| <center>Criticism |
| Esperantido | Propedeutic value | Riism | Vs. Ido | Vs. Interlingua |
| <center>Related topics |
|
Auxiliary language | Constructed language | Ido | Interlingua | Volapük |
| <center>Wikimedia |
|
Portal | Vikipedio | Vikivortaro | Vikicitaro |
This article attemts to highlight the main differences between Esperanto and Interlingua, two planned languages which have taken radically different approaches to the problem of providing an International auxiliary language. For more detail about the languages themselves, see their respective articles (linked above).
Contents |
Learnability versus comprehensibility
Some speakers of Interlingua argue that, although Esperantists can communicate with other Esperantists, Interlingua is suitable to communicate with many more people than only speakers of Interlingua itself. Nevertheless, this design aim of comprensibilitate a prime vista (comprehensibilty at first sight) is not without drawbacks. While Interlingua is easy to read for people familiar with Romance languages, it is less easy to learn to write or speak it, especially for those without such familiarity.
Interlingua's grammar is less regular than that of Esperanto – some verbs retain Latin double stems, and abbreviated forms exist for three of the most commonly used verbs. The basic amount of necessary root words for everyday conversation is much larger, because Interlingua mostly doesn't use regular affixes, but depends on the roots of the Romance languages:
| Esperanto | Interlingua | English |
| sana | san | healthy |
| sano | sanitate | health |
| malsana | malade | sick, unhealthy |
| malsano | maladia | sickness, disease |
| malsanulejo | hospital | hospital |
| saniĝi | recovrar | to become healthy, recover |
| sanigi | curar | to make healthy, cure |
| malsaniĝi | cader malade | to become sick, fall ill |
To the reader who speaks English or a Romance language, the middle column of words is much more understandable. The middle column also is much more international: for example, hospital exists in nearly all languages (even in Esperanto!), but malsanulejo in only one language: Esperanto.
But to a speaker or writer of any other language, the left column is much easier to learn because it uses one root (san-) with regular affixes. The words of Esperanto are mostly regular: sana → sano, sana → malsana, malsana → malsano. But in Interlingua, the words aren't as regular: san → sanitate, san → malade, malade → maladia (and not *maladitate).
Neutrality of vocabulary
The vocabulary of Esperanto, mostly taken from Romance, Germanic, and Slavic languages, can be considered more neutral than that of Interlingua, which as a general rule only takes words of Latin origin (there are some words taken from elsewhere if a pan-Romance word is unavailable, but even these must be re-Latinized, for example English blockade, German Blockade, Russian 'блокада' -> Interlingua 'blocada'). Nevertheless, the most frequently used words in Esperanto are also of Latin origin.
Alexander Gode (the creator of Interlingua) aimed to preserve the international scientific vocabulary, which was almost entirely of Greco-Latin origin. Also, the comprensibilitate a prime vista design objective precluded using a mixture of roots, as the end result would not be understandable by native speakers of any language grouping. [1]
Neutrality of grammar
Both languages are generally considered to use Indo-European derived grammars, but Esperantists would claim greater neutrality due to its method of word formation (see below).
Neutrality of word formation
Interlingua forms its vocabulary based on a "consensus" between English, French, Italian and Spanish/Portuguese words for the same concept. While Esperanto draws on the same roots, and also includes many Germanic and Slavic roots, new words are often formed by agglutination, in the same manner as, for example, German, Hungarian, and many Asian languages. As an example, take the Esperanto word for hospital: in Esperanto, mal·san·ul·ej·o which breaks down into smaller root words, mal (opposite), san (health), ul (person), ej (place), o (noun): thus, a place for a person with the opposite of health. This method of word construction (which would be familiar to speakers of many Asian and East European languages) allows for a larger vocabulary, using fewer root words.
Orthography
The orthography of Esperanto is inspired by that of the Roman-alphabet Slavic languages, and is completely phonemic (one sound, one letter). Interlingua, by contrast uses an orthography inspired by the Romance languages, sacrificing phonemicity in order to obtain spellings more familiar to speakers of western European languages.
For example, the Esperanto kontakto and the contacto of Interlingua mean the same thing and are pronounced the same, but when written appears differently, because the orthography of Esperanto is simpler — one sound, one letter —while that of Interlingua is more difficult. The letter "c" of Interlingua, for example, can have the sound of /k/, /ts/ or /s/ depending on the surrounding letters and the main language of the speaker. These details make Interlingua more difficult to learn and speak for non-Romance native speakers, but at the same time more easy to read: the letters show the history of the Romance influence. To the Romance mind, the "k" of Esperanto appears ugly, unnatural and barbaric, but to the learner the "k" is much more reliable than the "c".
Expressiveness
Supporters of Interlingua note that their language not only conserves the natural aspect of the Romance languages, but also their rich, subtle treasury of meanings. Interlingua flows regularly from the Romance languages, and thus it possesses their expressiveness.
Esperanto, by its liberal use of affixes and its flexible word-order, is equally as expressive as Interlingua (or indeed any natural language), but is more internationally neutral. Certainly Esperanto is a product of rational construction, not historical evolution, but after prolonged usage, (more than 100 years), it has become a living human language
Number of speakers
As a spoken language, Esperanto is and remains the only constructed language, during the last century, to have more than some thousands of speakers. That is not a small achievement. Only one other constructed language possibly passed this mark: Volapük (which allegedly had 200,000 speakers in 1890; but that number possibly concerned only beginners). Nowadays Esperanto has somewhere between 100,000 to 3 million speakers, while Interlingua has about 1,000 to 1,500, however the number of people able to understand written Interlingua may be numbered in the millions.
Sample texts
<tr><td> <tr><td>Interlingua
Nostre Patre, qui es in le celos,
que tu nomine sia sanctificate;
que tu regno veni;
que tu voluntate sia facite
super le terra como etiam in le celo.
Da nos hodie nostre pan quotidian,
e pardona a nos nostre debitas
como nos pardona a nostre debitores,
e non duce nos in tentation,
sed libera nos de malo.
Esperanto
Patro nia, kiu estas en la ĉielo,
via nomo estu sanktigita.
Venu via regno,
plenumiĝu via volo,
kiel en la ĉielo, tiel ankaŭ sur la tero.
Nian panon ĉiutagan donu al ni hodiaŭ.
Kaj pardonu al ni niajn ŝuldojn,
kiel ankaŭ ni pardonas al niaj ŝuldantoj.
Kaj ne konduku nin en tenton,
sed liberigu nin de la malbono.
