In a passage from the "Antaŭparolo" of the "Fundamento de Esperanto", Zamenhof said (as translated into English),

“When our language has been officially accepted by the governments of the most important countries and these governments have through a special law ensured Esperanto an absolutely secure future as well as usefulness and a complete protection against every personal fancy or dispute, then an authorised committee, unanimously appointed by said governments, shall be given the right to once and for all introduce the changes in the desired parts of the language’s foundation, if such changes should prove to be necessary, but until this point in time Fundamento de Esperanto must remain absolutely unchanged…”

So, we could say that if the UN will adopt Esperanto, it (the UN) or the mentioned "governments of the most important countries" (which, according to Helmut Welger, would be the current 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council) will have the right to appoint the members of such a committee and thus to change the "Fundamento". This will be indeed a reform project.

So, my questions are:
1) What would be the future of the current Esperanto, the one that we have been using for more than century, if such a scenario takes place?

2) What role would we (the current speakers of Esperanto, the "praparolontoj") assume in this scenario? Would we support this kind of undertaking, or go against it, like our forespeakers (!) did?

3) If we were to support this undertaking, what reforms should we introduce to make Esperanto more acceptable or more palatable to the rest of the world?

4) If we were to oppose this undertaking, should the movement go on in promoting the Esperanto of the Old "Fundamento", if the whole world would be speaking the Esperanto of the New "Fundamento" which is more acceptable to them? [This question is somewhat disturbing to me.]

I want to hear (or rather, read) your opinions on this, because this is very much relevant to us.

I think you've brought up a very thought-provoking issue, patrik.

I've gone through the Fundamento, and tend to regard it as law as far as the language is concerned, because I agree with Zamenhof when he says that without an untouchable foundation, the language would face a very shaky future. So I am a loyalist, but not fanatically so.

A fanatic loyalist of the Fundamento would unconditionally accept any and all changes that a UN-appointed committee might propose or implement, because all of the conditions mentioned in the Fundamento will have been met, and so, he'd have no 'excuse' to not accept them, even if he personally didn't like some of them. Because I'm not a fanatic, I'd be much more guarded about accepting such changes.

When I think of a committee modifying the language, I feel uneasy. It's true that once in a while, some of the oft-discussed could-have-been-better characteristics of Esperanto make themselves starkly evident. I don't even think about 'changing' these things and coming up with a new esperantido, because I know very well how futile that is. But it's tempting indeed to have such 'desirable' changes brought about at such a time as having the Fundamento's sanction.

The reason I feel uneasy is that having entrusted our beloved language to a committee, I'd hate to see it come out grotesquely disfigured. It's unlikely, but one never knows.

I think Esperantists will be faced by quite a difficult choice indeed. I feel reasonably sure that plenty of people will choose to doggedly continue speaking the 'old' Esperanto if they find the changes introduced too extreme. Meanwhile, the above-mentioned 'fanatics', along with others who actually find the changes to be a positive development, will quickly adopt the new speech. In such a situation, Old Esperanto will probably fall into disuse with time and become extinct, being studied primarily in universities and literature courses.

I haven't really answered your questions, patrik, but have just stated my thoughts concerning this issue.

It is true that Esperanto speakers of the past rejected a reform project, but that reform project was hardly a UN mandate of Esperanto. I think the group that was looking at a single IAL for everyone to agree upon had considerably less power than the UN (and even the UN doesn't have very much power).

Having said this, maybe I'm naive, but I find it hard to believe that the UN would throw away more than a century of literature and use of the language in favor of a "reformed version". Plus, the UN can barely agree upon anything at all, let along agreeing on a language reform. It would probably die in committee. I think it's a moot point because I do not foresee the UN ever declaring any form of official support for Esperanto, or any variant thereof. The UN simply has too hard a time deciding on anything. And whichever countries have veto power in the distant future - I can't believe they would all let this pass without a veto, because of strong nationalism.

I think in that scenario aforementioned, the main goal of Esperanto would have been reached, which would be the adoption of an international auxiliary language, easy to lern and culturally neutral. With or without major changes, if the philosophy of Esperanto kept untouched, I'd be happy to follow that new fundamento - even if, rather than Esperanto they chose another auxlang, such as Ido, Novial, Interlingua, LFN, or if they decided to make a brand new one, more important than which language is having one Esperanto-like auxlang.

Assuming UN would create a totally new language, I assume they'd include some features such as:
- More radically neutral: Esperanto uses Latin alphabet and most of its vocabulary derives from European Languages. As Asian countries are increasingly more powerful, maybe they'd desire an auxlang more international and culturally balanced than Esperanto. I bet our new auxlang would make more use of radicals from chinese, japanese, arabic and hindi, like Lojban does, and possibly a new alphabet would be introduced.
- Simpler syllable structure: Esperanto has some consonantal clusters quite troublesome even for Westerners, while a large amount of people are used to languages with a consonante-vowel-consonant-vowel structure. Also, consonants that are not easily distinguished by speakers of some major languages (such as l/r for mandarin and japanese speakers) would be eliminated - in this point Toki Pona would be a great reference.
- Simpler grammatics: Esperanto have a simple grammatics, but it could be even more simple without an accusative case and with no adjectival concordance, but those are minor changes that could be implemented even if UN keep Esperanto.

1. The antaŭparolo to the Fundamento was written in July 2005, before the first World Congress, and before Zamenhof handed ownership of the language over to the committee of users, and before the Lingva Komitato, now the Akademio, was formed. The situation is therefore not the same as when Zamenhof expressed this view about reform.
2. Is the antaŭparolo in fact part of the Fundamento? The antaŭparolo itself says:
"..three works are regarded as the fundamento of Esperanto: 1.) the 16-rule grammar; 2) the Universala Vortaro; 3) the Ekzercaro.
Therefore, it seems that the antaŭparolo, and in particular Zamenhof's views concerning the conditions and circumstances for the 'final reform', are not part of the netuŝebla fundamento.
3. As for my own view: if Esperanto is ever adopted as an international language, and if any reform is thought necessary, it would have to something of which a moral consensus of the Akademio, as the traditional guardians of the language, would have to be persuaded. In my view there would also have to be a referendum among Esperantists, in much the same way that far-reaching changes in a country's constitution merit seeking the consent of the people, and I don't necessarily mean a simple majority here but a moral majority, perhaps two-thirds. This would of course raise the question 'How to decide who is an Esperantist?' The time-honoured reply is 'All users of the language', but something more specific would be called for here. I would suggest that anyone who passed the intermediate language examination on this website (or the 'basic' examinations of ILEI) should qualify.

erinja: The UN simply has too hard a time deciding on anything. And whichever countries have veto power in the distant future - I can't believe they would all let this pass without a veto, because of strong nationalism.

I hope that a thorough reform of the UN, that would include the removal of the veto and addition of new permanent seats to the Security Council, would push through. As things are now, a veto from either the U.S. or the U.K. is very much likely.

Miland:2. Is the antaŭparolo in fact part of the Fundamento? The antaŭparolo itself says: "..three works are regarded as the fundamento of Esperanto: 1.) the 16-rule grammar; 2) the Universala Vortaro; 3) the Ekzercaro. Therefore, it seems that the antaŭparolo, and in particular Zamenhof's views concerning the conditions and circumstances for the 'final reform', are not part of the netuŝebla fundamento.

Helmut Welger, in his "Kontribuoj al la Norma Esperantologio", cited this from the Antaŭparolo:

Leĝan sankcion ili ricevos nur en tia okazo, se ili estos akceptitaj de la unua internacia kongreso de esperantistoj, al kiu tiu ĉi verko kune kun sia antaŭparolo estos prezentita.

and interpreted this as follows...

...ke la Antaŭparolo estas leĝo kaj apartenas al la Fundamento. Tamen ĝi, lau sia celo, ne estas senpere lingvonormiga (gramatika, vortenkonduka), sed "metagramatika" kaj institucia regularo. Krome, lau A11.2 [Ed. - la citaĵo] kune kun A11.1, ĝiaj "ideoj" - do ne ĝia lingvo! - ricevis leĝan sankcion.

I hope that would suffice.

The complete last paragraph of the Antaŭparolo, from which the quote omits the first sentence, but which is important and deserves to be emphasized, is:

La ideoj, kiujn mi supre esprimis pri la Fundamento de Esperanto, prezentas dume nur mian privatan opinion. Leĝan sankcion ili ricevos nur en tia okazo, se ili estos akceptitaj de la unua internacia kongreso de esperantistoj, al kiu tiu ĉi verko kune kun sia antaŭparolo estos prezentita.

The antaŭparolo is to be presented to the first International Congress as a distinct entity from the Fundamento, and Zamenhof makes it clear that his ideas are only a private opinion. Therefore Welger is wrong in presenting them as one of a piece.

Miland:3. As for my own view: if Esperanto is ever adopted as an international language, and if any reform is thought necessary, it would have to something of which a moral consensus of the Akademio, as the traditional guardians of the language, would have to be persuaded. In my view there would also have to be a referendum among Esperantists, in much the same way that far-reaching changes in a country's constitution merit seeking the consent of the people, and I don't necessarily mean a simple majority here but a moral majority, perhaps two-thirds. This would of course raise the question 'How to decide who is an Esperantist?' The time-honoured reply is 'All users of the language', but something more specific would be called for here. I would suggest that anyone who passed the intermediate language examination on this website (or the 'basic' examinations of ILEI) should qualify.

I think that would be a mistake for esperantists to feel more owners of Esperanto than anyone else. Esperanto was meant to be an international language, not a private property of a single community, we have no right to hinder it's goal. In my point of view, more important than which language is having one neutral & easy to leran international auxiliary language - today Esperanto is the best candidate, but as I have said, to me it doesn't matter if the one to be chosen is Esperanto or another IAL.

Additionaly, if UN were inclined to adopt an IAL and if Esperanto community were too uncooperative, they'd simply elect another language or create a new one, rather than organizing such a referendum.

Miland:The complete last paragraph of the Antaŭparolo, from which the quote omits the first sentence, but which is important and deserves to be emphasized, is:

La ideoj, kiujn mi supre esprimis pri la Fundamento de Esperanto, prezentas dume nur mian privatan opinion. Leĝan sankcion ili ricevos nur en tia okazo, se ili estos akceptitaj de la unua internacia kongreso de esperantistoj, al kiu tiu ĉi verko kune kun sia antaŭparolo estos prezentita.

The antaŭparolo is to be presented to the first International Congress as a distinct entity from the Fundamento, and Zamenhof makes it clear that his ideas are only a private opinion.

But it doesn't change the fact, that these private ideas are approved during the First Esperanto Congress, and thus are legally binding. If we could discard the "Antaŭparolo" just because it is only a private opinion, then anybody would had done so long ago, especially during the Ido crisis. It is in this part, that Zamenhof said that the Fundamento is untouchable until that certain time, and to discard this would had greatly helped Couturat and Beaufront in their cause.

patrik: these private ideas are approved during the First Esperanto Congress, and thus are legally binding.

Where does it say that the First Esperanto Congress approved the private ideas? They approved the Fundamento, of which they are not a part.