Esperanto could make the EU democratic

A comment by Birger Jørgensen

P-Code

Some twenty years ago a new computer language was introduced: Pascal, - named after the famous French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662).

A computer language is a definition of how the a human being can describe a procedure to be carried out by a computer. It is meant to be easy to use by man, but it cannot be understood by a machine.

To enable a computer to carry out the instructions, they have to be translated to machine language. This process is carried out on a computer by means of a special translating program called a compiler.

The compiler is normally written by a software company, and each company must develop their own compiler. Since each type of computer uses their own special kind of computer language, each software company must write a compiler for each combination of high-level computer languages (Algol, FORTRAN, Basic, Cobol, C, APL, RPG....) and each type of computers (IBM, Digital, Pr1me, Mackintosh, Sun....).

The number of machine / language combinations grew very large, and therefore the creators of Pascal proposed a rather clever idea: P-Code.

For each type of computer was written one and only one program, that could simulate and interface with the computers machine language in a standardized way. Thus all computers - despite their differences - would look alike. They would be a machine using P-Code as the machine language.

Thus each company that made Pascal compiler(s) only had to write one compiler: From Pascal to P-Code.

In this way the use of P-Code on computers would be very similar to the use of Esperanto in the EU and other places.

Unfortunately the idea of using P-Code never really succeeded.

But the failure of P-Code can not be used as an argument against using Esperanto as a bridge between existing languages. There are many differences between computers and human beings, - also regarding the use of language!

Writing a compiler is a one time process. After that, you can translate as much as you like with no more use of human manpower. The process of natural language translation requires the use of human resources each time a new translation is done.

Since you always loose a little in efficiency and speed when you translates through a third language, the extra cost of writing many compilers was compensated by the long term gain in efficiency. This is not the case with human languages due to the demand on manpower each time a translation is done.

As time went by, the numbers of different computers decreased, due to competition and standardization. Therefore the number of combination of machine and language decreased even more.

In the EU you have exactly the opposite development: The numbers of languages increases and the number of combinations between them increases even more.

Even a direct translation between only two languages introduces small errors. Subtle differences creep in. Since the use of language in EU to a large extent is concerned with legislative matters, these small differences can become rather important. Often lawyers battle in court over the precise interpretation of a law text. And in EU you have the further complication of the law being written in several languages. Is it the English, the German, the Italian or even the Danish version, that is the correct one? - I would say, it is the Danish ;-)

The use of Esperanto as a legislative standard language would solve the ambiguity.

To use Esperanto as the "P-Code" of the EU is therefore a proposal worth considering.