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
2052	2052	2052
Gesinjoroj en la Juĝantaro,	Lords in the Jury,	Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,
Vi aŭdis la atestojn. La pruvan faktaron mi ne resumos, tio estus tempoperdo. Ĝi estas per si mem pli ol elokventa. Sed mi volas atentigi vin pri unu punkto, nome, kiel ofte la atestantoj uzis la vorton kvazaŭ : "Ili agis kvazaŭ ne ekzistus alternativo", "kvazaŭ ne estus kontrolendaj faktoj", "kvazaŭ nia propono estus ridinda", "kvazaŭ la koncerna lingvo ne ekzistus", ktp ktp. La revenado de tiu vorto emfazas, kiel persiste la akuzitoj neglektis la realon. Ili supozate apartenas al la politika, ekonomia, kultura, universitata aŭ socia elito de la mondo, ili havis postenojn kun grandegaj prestiĝo kaj respondecoj, iliaj decidoj efikis sur la vivojn de ĉiuj loĝantoj de nia planedo, tamen ili agis sen sento pri respondeco, kvazaŭ etuloj infanĝardenaj. Kaj nun - vi aŭdis ilin - ili provas defendi sin dirante: "Ni ne sciis", "Ni ne povis imagi, ke tiel estas".	You heard the testimonys. I do not abstract the sign group of facts, it would be a waste of time. It is with himself more than eloquent. But I want to draw my attention to you about one point, namely, how often the witnesses used the word as though: "They would acted as though not exist an alternative", "as though there would be not {endaj} of a check facts", "as though our offer would be ridiculous", "as though the concerned language does not exist", ktp etc. The {revenado} of that word accents, how persistently the defendants neglected the reality. They belong to the political, economic, cultural, academic or social elite of the world supposing, they had posts with huge a prestige and responsibilitys, their decisions acted on the every inhabitants's of our planet lifes, they acted but without a feeling about responsibility, as though nursery school tots. And now - you heard them - they try defending themself saying: "We did not know", "We ware not able to imagine, that thus is".	You have heard the witnesses. I will not take up your time by summing up the evidence. It speaks for itself. But I want to call your attention to an interesting point: how often the witnesses used the expressions "as though" or "as if": "They acted as though there was no alternative", "as if there were no facts to be checked", "as if our suggestion was ridiculous", "as if that language didn’t exist", and so on and so forth. The recurrence of these two expressions emphasizes how constantly the defendants disregarded reality. They were supposed to belong to the political, economic, cultural, academic or social elite of the world, they held positions of immense prestige and responsibility, their decisions affected the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet, yet they proved as irresponsible as little children. And now – you heard them – their defense is: "We didn’t know", "We didn’t realize".
Kiel eblis tia nescio? Ĉu ili neniam vidis vojaĝantojn en malagrabla situacio pro nepovo komprenigi sin de la loka loĝantaro? Ĉu ili ne rimarkis, ke la investo de nia tutmonda socio en lingvoinstruadon estas giganta, sed la rezultoj mizeraj? Kiam ili partoprenis en internacia kunsido, ĉu ili ne konsciis, ke sidas interpretistoj en la budoj, ke la voĉo aŭdata ne estas tiu de la parolanto, ke la samtempa uzo de tiom da lingvoj nepre kostas multege? Ĉu ili ne sciis, ke tra la tuta mondo, milionoj kaj milionoj da geknaboj streĉas sian cerbon provante regi la anglan, lingvon, kiu montriĝas tiel eskapema, ke, mezume, post sep jaroj da instruado kun kvar horoj ĉiusemajne, el cent lernintoj nur unu kapablas efike uzi ĝin? Ĉu ili ne legis en la gazetaro pri la aviadiloj, kiuj pereis pro lingva nekomuniko inter kontrolturo kaj piloto? Iuj el ili havas la anglan kiel gepatran lingvon. Ĉu neniam ili sentis sin superaj al la fremdlingvanoj, kun kiuj ili parolis, kaj ĉu neniam ili demandis sin, ĉu tio estas normala kaj justa? Aliaj ne estas denaske anglalingvaj. Ĉu ili neniam sentis sin malsuperaj al siaj kolegoj el anglalingvujo? Ĉu ili neniam sentis ĝenon, en diskuto, ĉar la necesaj vortoj ne venis al ili en la menson, dum la aliaj povis ekspluati ĉiujn riĉaĵojn de sia gepatra lingvo? Kiel eblas vivi en nia socio kaj ne rimarki, ke lingvoproblemo ekzistas?	How was possible that kind of ignorance? Did they never see travellers in a unpleasant situation because of a not ability explaining himself of the local population? Did not they notice, that the investment of our global society is into an education of a language huge, but the miserable results? When they shared in a international meeting, if they did not realise, that interpreters sit in the stands, that this of the speaker is not the heard voice, that the simultaneous use of so many of languages costs absolutely widely? Did not they know, that through the whole world, million, and million, of boys stretch his brain trying ruling the English, a language, which points out to be thus {eskapema}, that, averagely, after seven years of an education with four hours weekly, from one hundred personses who learned are only one able to using effectively it? Did not they read in the press about the airplanes, which perished because of a linguistic not communication between a check castle and a pilot? Someone from them have the English like a parental language. Superior did they never feel themself to the {fremdlingvanoj}, with which they spoke, and they never asked themself if, if it is normal and just? Anothers are not innately English speaking. Inferior did they never feel themself to his colleagues from {anglalingvujo}? Did they never feel a trouble, in a discussion, because the necessary words did not come to them into the mind, during the another was able to exploit every wealths of his parental language? How it is possible to live to notice in our society and not, that a language problem exists?	Why didn't they know? Didn’t they witness cases when travelers found themselves in embarrassing situations because they had no means of communicating with the local people? Didn’t they see that the investment of our global society in language teaching was astronomical and the results miserable? When they attended international meetings, were they not aware that there were interpreters in the booths, that the voice they heard in their earphones was not the speaker’s, that the simultaneous use of so many languages had to cost a lot of money? Didn’t they know that all over the world millions and millions of young people were straining their brains endeavoring to master English, a language that proved so elusive that on average, after seven years with four hours a week, only one percent of the students had a working knowledge of it? Didn’t they read in the papers about the aircraft that crashed because of the language problems between pilot and control tower? Some of them are native speakers of English. Did they never feel superior to the foreigners they were talking with and did they never ask themselves if this was normal, or fair? Some of them are not native English speakers. Did they never feel inferior to their colleagues from English speaking countries? Did they never feel annoyed, during discussion, because the words they needed eluded them while their partners could call up all the resources of their mother tongue? How can one live in our society and not realize that there is a language problem in the world?
Ni supozu ion neeblan kaj imagu, ke ili sukcesis vivi internacian vivon neniam renkontante la negativajn aspektojn de la lingva realo. Je sia nivelo en la socio, ĉu ili povis kompetente plenumi mondoskalajn respondecojn ne sciante, kiel komunikado funkcias? Estis ilia devo scii, des pli, ĉar ili havis la monon kaj la oficistaron necesan por kolekti informojn, por organizi esplorojn se necese. La kialo, pro kiu ili ne sciis, estas, ke la temo ne interesis ilin. Kaj ĝi ne interesis ilin pro manko de kompatemo : ili ne kapablis kunvibri kun sufero; kunsento kun homfrato en ili ne pulsis. Kun skandala indiferenteco ili ignoris la sorton de sennombraj rifuĝintoj kaj gastlaboristoj, ĉe kiuj la neeblo sin komprenigi, manke de komuna lingvo, estis fonto de maljusteco kaj psikologia mizero, eĉ de morto. Vi aŭdis la atestantojn. La kazo de la germana hospitalo, kie 50 elcentoj el la pacientoj mortis post grefto nur pro tio, ke, manke de komuna lingvo kun la medicina kaj flega personaro, ili ne komprenis la instrukciojn, ne facile forgeseblos. Tiajn realaĵojn ili ignoris. Se fremdlandanon la polico traktis maljuste tial, ke li ne sukcesis komprenigi sin, tio ne ĝenis ilin. Se direktoro de entrepreno ne sukcesis ricevi por sia kompanio gravan kontrakton simple, ĉar lia nivelo en la angla ne estis adekvata por la traktado, kial tio perturbus ilin? Se mono ege necesa por ĉiaspecaj sociaj celoj estis abunde enĵetata en nekredeble malŝparan sistemon de lingva komunikado, pri tio ili fajfis. Kaj tamen! Ĉu ne estis unu el iliaj respondecoj homece elekti, kion fari el la mono imposte ricevita de la civitanoj?	We should suppose impossible something and imagine, that they succeeded living a international life never seing the negative appearances of the linguistic reality. About his level in the society, if they ware able to keep efficiently {mondoskalajn} responsibilitys not knowing, how a communication works? Their duty know, the more was, because they had necessary some the money and the staff for gathering informations, for organize researchs if necessarily. The reason, because of which they did not know, is, that the subject did not interest them. And it did not interest them because of an absence of a mercy: they ware not able to {kunvibri} with a suffering; a sympathy with a man brother did not throb in them. With gross indifference they ignored the countless refugees's and guest workers, at who the not possibility himself explain, fortune missingly of a common language, there was a spring of injustice and psychological a misery, even from a death. You heard the witnesses. The case of the German hospital, where 50 percents from the patients died after a transplant only because of it, that, missingly of common a language with the medical and nurse personnel, they did not understand the directionses, it will be not easily possible to forget. They ignored that kind of realitys. If the police treated {fremdlandanon} unfairly so, that he did not succeed explaining himself, it did not trouble them. If a manager of an enterprise did not succeed receiving a for his company important deal simply, because his level was not in the English sufficient for the treatment, why it would interfere with them? If some extremely necessary for all kinds of social targets money was waste a system of a linguistic communication abundantly plunged in incredibly, about it they whistled. And but! Was not an one from their responsibilitys humanly choose, what do from the money taxly received by the citizens?	A scandalous indifference. Let’s assume the impossible and imagine that they managed to live an international life without coming upon the negative aspects of linguistic realities. At their level in society, could they really exert their global responsibilities competently without knowing how communication functioned? It was their duty to know, all the more so since they had the money and the staff required to gather information, and to organize research if necessary. The reason they didn’t know is that they weren't interested, and they weren't interested because they had no compassion. With an appalling indifference they ignored the plight of the enormous numbers of refugees and immigrant workers for whom the impossibility of expressing themselves adequately, for lack of a common language, was a source of injustice, psychological misery, and even death. You’ve heard the witnesses. It won’t be easy to forget the case of the German hospital where 50% of organ transplantation patients died because, lacking a common language with the medical staff, they simply failed to understand the instructions given to them regarding their care. They ignored such realities. If a foreigner was treated unfairly by the police because he could not make himself understood, it did not bother them at all. If an Executive lost an important contract simply because his English was not up to the level that the negotiation demanded, why should that trouble them? If money badly needed for all sorts of social purposes was lavishly spent on an incredibly complicated and expensive system of linguistic communication, they couldn’t care less. And yet! Wasn’t choosing in a humane way what to do with taxpayers’ money one of their responsibilities?
Mi elektu nur unu ekzemplon inter la multegaj, kiujn mi povus citi. Dum la akuzitoj havis la potencon, multaj afrikaj infanoj mortis pro enkorpa senakviĝo; tiu manko de korpaj likvaĵoj estis tiel ekstrema, ke la etuloj ne povis produkti larmojn, kiam ili devus plori. Kuraci unu infanon kostis nur kvin usonajn cendojn. Sed ne troveblis la mono por savi la geknabojn elmetitajn al tiu hororo. Ĉu ne strange, ke samtempe Eŭropa Unio ĉiutage elspezis milionon da eŭroj por traduki sian ĉiutagan elfluon de tri milionoj da vortoj? Kiam la akuzitoj estis informitaj pri tutmondaj tragedioj, ekzemple pri vasta malsatego, kun ŝajna kompato ili skuis la kapon bedaŭre pri la manko de monrimedoj, sed tion ili faris, sen senti ion misan, en tiuj organizaĵoj mem, kiuj tradukis milionojn da vortoj je kosto de po 2 dolaroj por vorto. Kia elito tio estas? Ĉu ne evidentas al la plej simpla menso, ke tio, kion oni elspezas por unu celo, ne plu disponeblas por alia? Kaj ke, rezulte, difini taŭgajn prioritatojn estas plej serioza morala devo? Malgraŭ tio, en ĉiuj internaciaj organizoj, kaj da ili ekzistas multege, ili neniam hezitis atribui gigantajn monsumojn al la lingvaj servoj. Cetere, neniam venis en ilian kapon la ideo efektivigi objektivan studon pri tio, kiom la multfacetaj lingvaj problemoj kostas al la tutmonda socio kaj kiamaniere solvi ilin. Ĉu la socio povus esti, lingve, pli bone organizita? Jen demando, kiun ili neniam starigis al si. "Ni faris tion, kio eblis. Ne estis alia solvo", ili asertas.	I should choose only one example between the terrific, who I would be able to quote. During the defendants had the power, many African children died because of {enkorpa} {senakviĝo}; that absence of physical liquids was thus extreme, that the tots ware not able to bear tears, when they would have to cry. Doctoring one child cost only five American cents. But the money did not present for keeping the boys exposed to that horror. Not strangely, that an at the same time European Union spent million, of euros daily for translating his daily flow out of three million, of words? When the defendants ware reported about global tragedys, for example about a vast famine, they shook the head with an apparent pity regrettably about the absence of appropriations, but they did it, without feel amiss something, in those organisations themself, which translated million, of words about a cost from by 2 dollars for a word. What kind of elite is it? Is not evident to the most simple mind, that it, what one spends for one target, is not on possible to dispose for an another? And that, consequently, there is a most serious moral duty to define suitable prioritys? In spite of it, in every international organisations, and of them exist widely, they never hesitated attributing huge sums of money to the linguistic services. Besides, the idea accomplish never came into their head solving objective a study about it, how many the {multfacetaj} linguistic troubles cost to the global society and how them. Would the society be able to be, linguistically, better organized? There a question, which they never stood to himself. "We did it, what was possible. there was not an another solution", they state.	Let me take just one example among the many that could be quoted. While they wielded power, many African children died of dehydration, dehydration so bad that a child would stop producing tears when crying. Although the treatment to save one child cost only twelve cents, they could not find the funds necessary to protect the children exposed to this nightmare. However, at the same time, every day, the European Union spent more than one million dollars in translating its daily batch of 3,150,000 words! When they were told of dramatic global problems such as starvation, they shook their heads at the scarcity of funds in apparent commiseration, but they did so, without feeling any discrepancy, in the very organizations which translated millions of words at a cost of two US dollars a word. What kind of elite is that? Isn’t it obvious to the simplest mind that what is spent for a given purpose is not available for another? And that, as a result, defining proper priorities is a very serious moral obligation? Nevertheless, in all international organizations, and God knows there are a good many of them, they never hesitated to earmark huge amounts for language services. Indeed, they never had the idea of undertaking an objective study of the cost to society of its manifold language problems and the available solutions. Couldn’t society be organized in a better way, as far as linguistic communication is concerned? They never asked themselves that question. "We did what could be done, there was no other way", they claim.
Ne estis alia solvo, ĉu vere? Sed Esperanto ekzistis! Ĝi estis uzata jam unu jarcenton. Al tiuj, kiuj montriĝis sufiĉe saĝaj por alpreni ĝin, ĝi jam havigis mirindan komunikadon sen devigi investi eĉ unu groŝon en lingvajn servojn, sen diskrimini inter la popoloj, post modera temp- kaj pen-investo (estis jam sciate, ke ses monatoj da Esperanto kondukis al komuniknivelo egala al tiu, kiu postulas ses jarojn por la angla). Sed por la eminentaj membroj de nia "elito", tiu alternativo, tiu maniero solvi la lingvoproblemon kun plej favora rilato inter kosto kaj efiko, simple ne ekzistis. Kiam iu atentigis ilin pri ĝi - kaj tio ofte okazis: la pruvoj kuŝas en via dosiero - ili sisteme kontraŭmetis serion da argumentoj, ĉiam la samaj, ĉiam forĵetaj, neniam kontrolinte ties validecon.	There was not an another solution, if indeed? But Esperanto existed! It was yet one century used. To this, who pointed out to be enough wise for adopting it, it supplied a wonderful communication yet without forcing investing even one groschen into linguistic services, without discriminate between the peoples, after reasonable {temp-} and {pen-investo} (it was yet knowing, that six months of Esperanto conducted to a even communication level to this, who demands six years for the English). But for the eminent members of our "elite", that alternative, that way solve the language problem with a most favourable relation between a cost and an effect, did not exist simply. When someone drawwed his attention to them about it - and it often happened: the signs lie in your file - they {kontraŭmetis} a set of arguments, always the same, always disposal, systematically never former checking whose status.	A solution has been available for a long time. No other way? Esperanto existed! It had been in use for a century. To those who had been wise enough to adopt it, it already afforded a splendid level of communication without the need to invest a single cent in language services, without discrimination among peoples, after a reasonably small investment in time and effort (it had already been established that six months of Esperanto study gave a communication level equal to six years of English). But for the eminent members of our "elite" this alternative, this cost effective solution to the language problem, simply did not exist. When their attention was called to it – and it was, you’ve seen the evidence – they systematically raised a number of objections, always the same, without checking their validity.
"Esperanto ne funkcias", ili diris, dum estis facile ĉeesti internacian kunvenon aŭ kongreson esperantlingvan kaj malkovri, ke tiu lingva komunikilo funkcias multe pli bone ol iu ajn el la rivalaj sistemoj, ĉu la angla, ĉu samtempa interpretado, ĉu io alia. "Ĝi estas artefarita", ili diris, rifuzante, kiam invitite, rigardi infanojn ludi kaj ridi en Esperanto kun tia esprimspontaneco, ke ilia diro tuj riveliĝus antaŭjuĝa, kaj trovante nenion strangan en la fakto paroli en mikrofonon kaj aŭskulti per aŭdiloj voĉon alian ol tiun de la parolanto, kio, vi agnoskos, ne imponas kiel maniero nature komuniki. "Ĝi ne havas kulturon", ili asertis, neniam leginte linion el Esperanto-poemo, sciante nenion pri la disvolviĝo de esperanta teatro aŭ literaturo, neniam aŭdinte sciencan prelegon tiulingvan. "Ĝi estas rigida kaj esprimmalriĉa", ili ripetadis, neniam submetinte ĝin al lingvistika analizo, kio devigus ilin konkludi, ke ĝi estas pli fleksebla kaj esprimriĉa, dank'al la plena libereco kombini elementojn, ol multaj prestiĝaj lingvoj. "Ĝi ne estas vivanta lingvo", ili argumentis, sciante nenion pri la medio, kiu ĉiutage uzas ĝin, kaj neniam sin demandante, kiuj estas la kriterioj de lingva vivo kaj ĉu Esperanto respondas al ili aŭ ne. "Estus bedaŭrinde se la popoloj devus rezigni la propran lingvon por alpreni novan kiel ĉi tiun", ili diris, ne interesate pri tio, ke Esperanto neniam celis anstataŭi la aliajn lingvojn, sed estis simple praktika rimedo superi la lingvobarilojn, same kiel la latina en mezepoka Eŭropo, kaj ignorante la raportojn pri la morto de lingvoj - mortis unu lingvo ĉiusemajne en la jaroj 2000-aj - kaŭzata de la detrua efiko de kelkaj t.n. "grandaj" lingvoj, precipe la angla, kiun multaj socilingvistoj nomis "murdema lingvo".	they said "Esperanto does not work",, it ware during easily to witness {esperantlingvan} a international meeting or a convention and discover, that that linguistic means of communication works a lot better than somewho from the rival systems, if the English, if a simultaneous interpretation, if something another. "It is artificial", they said, refusing, when inviting, look children play and laugh in Esperanto with that kind of {esprimspontaneco}, that their speech would discover immediately prejudice, and finding strange nothing in the fact speak into a microphone and you will recognize listening with hearing aids to a voice an another than this of the speaker, what,, do not impress reporting like a way naturally. "It has no culture", they stated, never former reading a line from a poem of Esperanto, knowing nothing about the development of an esperanto theatre or a literature, never former hearing a scientific talk {tiulingvan}. "It is stiff and {esprimmalriĉa}", they {ripetadis}, never former submiting it to linguistic an analysis, what would force them concluding, that it is more flexible and rich about expressions, thanks to to the full freedom combine elements, than many prestigious languages. "It is not a living language", they maintained, knowing nothing about the environment, which uses it daily, and never himself asking, which are the rules of a linguistic life and if Esperanto answers them or no. "it would Be unfortunately if the peoples would have to abandon the one's own language for adopt new like this", they said, not interesting about it, that Esperanto never aimed replacing the another languages, but there was simply practical a means top the fences of a language, equally like the Latin in medieval Europe, and ignoring the accounts about the death of languages - one language died weekly in the years 2000 - caused by the destructive effect by somes sc. "great" languages, chiefly the English, which many {socilingvistoj} called "a bloodthirsty language".	"Esperanto does not function", they said, while it was so easy to attend international meetings and conventions using it and to discover that it worked much better than any rival system such as English or simultaneous interpretation. "It is artificial", they said, refusing, when invited, to watch children laughing and playing in Esperanto with a spontaneity of expression that could only disprove their prejudice, and having no qualms about speaking in a microphone and listening to a voice other than the speaker's, which, you will agree, is not an impressive example of natural communication. "It has no culture", they asserted, having never read a word of Esperanto poetry, knowing nothing of the development of Esperanto theater or literature, having never attended a scientific lecture in that language. "It is rigid and inexpressive", they repeated, without ever submitting it to a comparative linguistic analysis, which would have forced them to conclude that it was more flexible and more expressive, due to its agglutinative structure, than many prestigious languages. "It is not a living language", they objected, without knowing anything of the environment in which it was in everyday use and without asking themselves what the criteria for life in a language were and how Esperanto met them. "It would be a shame if people gave up their own language in favor of this one", they said, lightly dismissing the fact that Esperanto never purported to replace other languages, but was simply a practical way of overcoming the language barrier, just as Latin was in Europe in the Middle Ages, and ignoring the reports of the death of languages – one language a week in the 2000’s – caused by the crushing effect of various major languages, especially English, named "a killer language" by many sociolinguists.
Ne havus sencon pli insisti pri tiuj antaŭjuĝoj. Vi scias, kion ili valoras. Dudek kvin jarojn post kiam ekribelis la civitanoj, kaj la lingva revolucio okazis, vi ĉie vidas, kiom la mondo evoluis al pli bona vivejo. Vi povas vojaĝi tra la tuta mondo kaj nenie sperti komunikproblemon. La internaciaj organizaĵoj ne plu devas alfronti la astronomiajn kostojn de siaj lingvaj servoj, tiel ke gigantaj monrimedoj iĝis disponeblaj por seriozaj, substancaj projektoj. Junuloj ĉie en la mondo, post la baza Esperanto-kurso, studas lingvojn elektitajn laŭ la propra gusto aŭ intereso, kio akcelas la pensmanieran diversecon de nia tutmonda socio -faktoron de reciproka ide-fekundigo - samtempe favorante aŭtentan reciprokan komprenon. La multaj negativaj efikoj de la monopolo de la angla lingvo sur la kulturan vivon de multaj popoloj - en la plimulto el la lernejoj de la mondo estis praktike neeble studi alian fremdan lingvon ol la anglan - pli kaj pli malaperas. Rifuĝintoj kaj gastlaboristoj nun estas komprenataj, kien ajn ili iras. Fakuloj partoprenantaj en internaciaj diskutoj estas elektitaj surbaze de faka kompetenteco, kaj ne plu de sia kapablo uzi la anglan, kiu ekskludis multajn, ĉar, kiel vi scias, multaj homoj talentaj pri matematiko kaj teĥniko nur pene sukcesas lerni lingvojn. En Usono, Britio kaj aliaj landoj anglalingvaj, studentoj malkovras eksterajn kulturojn laŭ nova angulo, kaj la devo lerni alian lingvon, rigoran sed facilan kaj psikologie tre kontentigan, havas pozitivan efikon al ilia malfermiĝo al la mondo kaj al ilia disvolviĝo intelekta kaj kultura. En Barato (Hindio), la konflikto inter kontraŭuloj kaj por-uloj de la angla, kaj de la hindia, ĉesis ekzisti, kaj la saman sorton trafis lingvaj streĉiĝoj en Belgio, Kamerunio, Niĝerio kaj multaj aliaj landoj.	Would have no sense insisting more about those prejudices. You know, what they worth. Twenty-five years the citizens catched fire after when, and the linguistic revolution happened, you see anywhere, how many the world developed to a better habitat. You can travel live to see through the whole world and nowhere a communication problem. The international organisations must not on face the astronomic costs of his linguistic services, thus that huge appropriations getted available for serious, fundamental plans. Youths study anywhere in the world, after the basic Esperanto course, languages elected according to the their own taste or a interest, what accelerates the way of thinking diversity of our global society - a factor of mutual {ide-fekundigo} - at the same time favouring an authentic mutual sense. The many negative effects of the monopoly of the English language on the cultural life of many peoples - it was the English in the majority from the schools of the world practically impossibly to study an another strange language than - more and more disappears. Refugees and guest workers are now understood, somewhere they go. Experts sharing in international discussions is elected on the foundation of specialised ability, and not on from his ability use the English, which excluded manys, because, how you know, many talented people succeed about a mathematics and a technique only with effort learning languages. In United States of America, Great Britain and another English speaking countrys, students discover outside cultures according to a new angle, and the duty learn another a language, rigorous but easy and psychologically very satisfactory, has a positive effect to their closure the other way around to the world and to their intellectual and cultural development. In India (India), the conflict between adversarys and pore persons of the English, and from the {hindia}, stopped existing, and linguistic tensions caught the same fortune in Belgium, a Cameroon, Niger and many another countrys.	A language revolution. There is no point in dwelling further on those prejudices. You know them for what they are. Twenty-five years after the citizens rebelled and the linguistic revolution took place, you see everywhere how much the world has changed for the better. You can travel all over the world without communication problems. International organizations are spared the incredible costs of their language services, so that huge amounts of money have been made available for substantial projects. Young people all over the world, after a basic Esperanto course, study all kinds of other languages according to their interests, which enhances the intellectual diversity of our global society – an important factor in the cross-fertilization of ideas – while promoting genuine mutual understanding. The many negative effects of the monopoly of English on the cultural life of many peoples – there was practically no alternative to it in schools at the time – are gradually disappearing. Refugees and foreign workers are now understood wherever they go. Experts taking part in international discussions are recruited on the basis of their expertise and no longer on their competence in English, which excluded many, since, as you know, many people gifted in mathematics and technical subjects have trouble with languages. In the United States, the United Kingdom and other English speaking countries, students are discovering other cultures from a new perspective, and the requirement to learn another, rigorous but easy and psychologically very satisfactory language, has beneficial effects on their openness towards the world and on intellectual and cultural development. In India, the conflict between rival supporters of English, Hindi and other languages has subsided, just as have linguistic tensions in Belgium, Cameroon, Nigeria and many other countries.
Vere, la homaro ŝuldas multegon al tiuj kiuj efektivigis premadon sur la ŝtatojn por ke ili organizu kunordigitan instruadon de Esperanto tra la tuta mondo. Sed ĝi havas apartan dankoŝuldon al la ŝtataj oficistoj, kiuj persisteme klopodis por ke alpreniĝu la unua Deklaracio oficiale restariganta la veron pri Esperanto. Pro ĝi nia internacia lingvo unuafoje vidiĝis laŭ ĝusta perspektivo. Kiam la publiko ekkonsciis, ke dum jardekoj oni trompis ĝin, jen ekfuroris la lingvo, pro kio ĝi rapide disvastiĝis eĉ antaŭ ol ĝia ĝenerala instruado estis organizita.	Indeed, the mankind owes a infinity to this who accomplished a pressure on the states that they should organize co-ordinated an education of Esperanto through the whole world. But it has a particular thanks debt to the state officials, who attempted doggedly that the first Announcement on record restoring the truth about Esperanto {alpreniĝu}. Because of it our international language was for the first time seen according to a right perspective. When the public realised, that one deceived it during decades, the language, because of what it spread quickly even before than its general education {ekfuroris} there was organized.	Indeed, humankind owes a lot to those who have pressured governments into organizing the coordinated teaching of Esperanto all over the world. But it has a particular debt of gratitude to those government officials whose persistent efforts ensured the adoption of the initial Declaration which officially re-established the truth about the language. For the first time it was seen in proper perspective. When the public realized that it had been deceived for decades, the now famous "Esperanto gold rush" was triggered, so that the language swiftly spread even before its generalized teaching was organized.
Se mi trovis utila citi kelkajn el la grandegaj avantaĝoj, kiujn ni ĉiuj nun ĝuas pro la ŝanĝo de sinteno rilate Esperanton, mia celo estis akcenti la respondecon de la akuzitoj pri la fakto, ke ĝi okazis tiel malfrue. Jam en 1920, la Ligo de Nacioj plenumis objektivan esploron pri la afero kaj rekomendis al la ŝtatoj ĉie organizi la instruadon de Esperanto, por ke ĝi povu fariĝi ĉies dua lingvo. Tion la Ligo perceptis kiel la plej bonan manieron efektivigi plaĉan internacian komunikadon egalecan, samtempe garantiante la pluvivon kaj prosperon de ĉiuj lingvoj kaj kulturoj. Sed la raporton de la Ligo ili ignoris. La bonaj kvalitoj de Esperanto ĉiam estis videblaj al ĉiu ajn purintenca kaj intelekte honesta. Jam en la jaroj 1930-aj la Esperanto-literaturo kaj la uzo de la lingvo en internaciaj renkontiĝoj estis tiel disvolvitaj, ke nei ĝian homan kaj kulturan valoron eblis nur, se oni rezignis sian honestecon, sian devon objektivi. Nu, dum multaj jardekoj la "elito" tiujn rezignis. Kiam iu faris proponon kun la celo akceli la uzon de Esperanto, la anoj de tiu t.n. elito reagis tute malestime kaj sen bazi sian respondon sur objektivaj konsideroj. Neniam ili havis la ideon, ke siajn asertojn ili devus pruvi. Ke Esperanto valoras nenion, tion ili taksis evidenta. Jen kial ili kondamnindas. Ĉi tiu proceso devas utili kiel ekzemplo montranta al la popoloj de la mondo, ke la manko je demokrata sinteno, la forĵeto de objektiveco, la rifuzo kontroli la faktojn, la decido malakcepti proponon antaŭ ol studi ĝin, la indiferenteco rilate al suferado kaj la neglekto de prioritatoj bazitaj sur etikaj konsideroj ne povas resti senpunaj.	If I found useful quoting somes from the huge advantages, which we every now enjoy because of the change of an attitude concerning Esperanto, my target was to accent the responsibility of the defendants about the fact, that it happened thus late. Yet in 1920, the Connection of Nations kept objective a research about the thing and recommended organizing to the states anywhere the education of Esperanto, that it should be able to become everyones second language. The Connection found it like the best way accomplish a pleasing international communication equality, at the same time warranting the survival and a success of every languages and cultures. But they ignored the account of the Connection. The good propertys of Esperanto always ware visible to someevery {purintenca} and mentally honest. 1930 the literature of Esperanto and the use of the language ware yet in the years in international meetings thus developed, that to deny its human and cultural worth was possible only, if one abandoned his honesty, his duty be objective. Now, the "elite" abandoned this during many decades. When someone did an offer with the target accelerate the use of Esperanto, the members of this responded sc. an elite quite disdainfully and without base his answer on objective considerations. They never had the idea, that they would have to his assertions prove. That Esperanto worths nothing, it they evident rated. There they deserving why sentencing. This lawsuit must avail like an example showing to the peoples by the world, that the absence can not about democratic an attitude, the disposal of objectivity, the refusal check the facts, the decision reject an offer before than study it, the indifference concerning to a suffering and the neglect by prioritys based on ethical considerations stay unpunished.	A serious responsibility. If I took some time to remind you of the immense benefits we all derive today from the change of attitude toward Esperanto, it is to emphasize the defendants’ responsibility in the fact that it occurred so late. As early as 1920, the League of Nations had carried out an objective study of the matter and had recommended that governments organize the teaching of Esperanto everywhere so that it could become everybody’s second language. This was perceived as the best means to ensure enjoyable international communication on an equal footing while guaranteeing the survival and prosperity of all languages and cultures. But they managed to ignore the League's report. Esperanto’s actual qualities were always visible to any person of good faith. As early as the 1930s Esperanto literature and the use of the language in international meetings were so well developed that negating its human and cultural value was possible only through abandoning one’s honesty, one’s obligation to objectivity. Well, for many decades the "elite" did abandon them. The response of these people to suggestions aimed at encouraging the use of Esperanto was full of scorn and completely devoid of objective basis. At no point did they attempt to prove their case. That Esperanto was worth nothing was taken for granted. This is why they should be condemned. This trial should serve as an example, showing to the peoples of the world that the lack of democratic principle, the abandonment of objectivity, the refusal to check the facts, the decision to dismiss an idea before considering it, the indifference to suffering and the refusal to establish priorities based on ethical considerations will not go unpunished.
Socio havas rajtojn. La rajto komuniki estas rajto, kiun oni prenu serioze, same kiel la rajto je egala traktado. Kiam la akuzitoj regis la socian vivon, ili manipulis la publikopinion en tre subtila maniero, enŝovante en la mensojn serion da misprezentoj, kiuj grandparte kontribuis al tio, ke neŭtrala internacia lingvo ensociiĝis tiel malfrue. Al ĉiuj vi, nuntempe, estas evidente, ke personoj metitaj en malsuperan situacion, ĉar ili ne povis esprimi sin en fremda lingvo, estis viktimoj de la monda komuniksistemo. Sed la t.n. elito igis rigardi tiujn viktimojn kulpaj. Kulpaj pri nestudemo, mallaboremo aŭ malsupera cerbonivelo. "Se ili ne kapablas komuniki, pri tio kulpas ili; estis ilia devo lerni lingvojn", ili subdiris, neniam demandante sin, ĉu regi alian nacian lingvon estas eble por ĉiuj, kaj ĉu ne ekzistas pli taŭga alternativo al la tiama monda lingva ordo, aŭ, pli ĝuste, malordo.	A society has rights. The right report is a right, which one should take in earnest, equally like the right about an even treatment. When the defendants ruled the social life, they handled the public opinion in a very subtle way, a neutral international language {ensociiĝis} a set of misrepresents, which for the greater part contributed to it, inserting into the minds that thus late. To everyone there are you, nowadays, apparently, that placed into a inferior situation persons, because they ware not able to express themself in a strange language, there ware victims of the worldwide communication system. But the sc. made an elite looking those victims guilty. Guilty about {nestudemo}, an assiduity the other way around or a inferior brain level. "If they are not able to reporting, about it they are guilty; their duty learn languages was", they {subdiris}, never asking himself, if rule an another national language is perhaps for everyone, and a more suitable alternative does not exist if to the of that time worldwide linguistic order, or, juster, a confusion.	Society has rights. The right to communicate is a right that has to be taken seriously, just as the right to equal treatment. When the defendants controlled society, they manipulated opinion in a very subtle way, introducing into people's minds a number of distortions that are to a large extent responsible for the fact that a neutral international language was adopted at such a late date. It is obvious to all of you today that people put into an inferior position because they could not express themselves in a foreign language were victims of the world communication system. But the so-called elite managed to make these victims feel guilty. Guilty of laziness, of an inability to use their brains properly. "If they cannot communicate, it is their fault, they should have learned languages", they said, without asking themselves if mastering another national language was possible to all and if there was not a fairer alternative to their world linguistic order, or rather, disorder.
Gesinjoroj, nenio povas senkulpigi la akuzitojn.	Lords, nothing can excuse the defendants.	They are guilty Ladies and Gentlemen, the defendants have no excuse.
Ili vivas en jarcento, kiam en juro kiel en scienco neniu konkludo estas alprenita antaŭ ol la faktoj estis kontrolitaj. Spite al tiu principo ili neniam integris la faktojn pri Esperanto en sian rezonadon, el kiu ili ripete konkludis, ke ne havas sencon serĉi pli bonan sistemon de interpopola komunikado ol la ĥaosan kaj malegalan reĝimon, kiu ĉie regis.	They live in a century, when in a law no conclusion is like in a science adopted before than the facts ware checked. They integrated the facts spite to that principle never about Esperanto into his reasoning, from which they concluded repeatedly, that do not have a sense searching for better a system of a {interpopola} communication than the chaotic and different regime, which ruled anywhere.	They live in a century when, in law as in science, no conclusion is reached before the facts have been ascertained. But they repeatedly concluded that there was no point in looking for a better system of international communication without ever taking into consideration the facts about Esperanto.
Ili vivas en jarcento, kiam, se pluraj ebloj prezentiĝas, oni komparas ilin, por povi elekti la proponon, kiu havas plej multe da avantaĝoj kaj plej malmulte da malavantaĝoj. Vi vidis tiujn homojn. Demandite, kiam ili komparis, en la praktiko, laŭ serio da antaŭdifinitaj kriterioj, la diversajn sistemojn de internacia komunikado, inkluzive de Esperanto, ili honteme koncentris la rigardon al siaj ŝuoj. "Pri tio ni simple ne pensis", murmuris unu. Sed ili konfesis, ke, en aliaj kampoj, kiam ili devis utiligi la monon de la impostpagantoj aŭ de la akciuloj, ili lanĉis alvokon por ofertoj aŭ proponoj, aŭ alimaniere konsideris gamon da ebloj por kompari ilin kaj elekti la plej bonan.	They live in a century, when, if plura possibilitys are presented, one compares them, for be able to choose the offer, which has a lotest of advantages and most little of disadvantages. You saw those people. Asking, when they, in the practice, compared according to a set of ahead particular rules, the various systems of a international communication, including of Esperanto, they concentrated the look shyly to his shoes. "we did not think About it simply", an one murmured. But they admited, that, in another fields, when they had to make use of the money from the tax payers or of the shareholders, they launched an appeal for offers or offers, or choose them and the best regarded differently a key of possibilitys for comparing.	They live in a century when, if various options are available, comparisons are made, so that the decision makers may choose the option with the most advantages and the fewest drawbacks. You’ve heard them. Asked when they compared, in the field, according to a set of predefined criteria, the various systems of international communication, including Esperanto, they sheepishly looked at their feet. "We just didn’t think of it", one of them mumbled. But they admitted that, when they had to use taxpayers’ or shareholders’ money in other fields, they would invite proposals or otherwise examine various possibilities in order to choose the best one.
Ili vivas en jarcento, kiam diskrimino estas kontraŭleĝa. Sed ilia sinteno rilate la homojn, kiuj provis konsciigi ilin pri la potencialo de Esperanto, kaj pri ĝia realo, konstante estis diskrimina; ili tuj forsendis tiujn homojn sen aŭskulti ilin, sen legi kaj taŭge konsideri iliajn dokumentojn. Tiel okazis notinde, kiel vi malkovris aŭdante la atestantojn, ĉe Eŭropa Unio, sed multajn aliajn ekzemplojn oni povus prezenti al vi. Ne. Neniu senkulpiga fakto ekzistas favore al ili. Eĉ nun estas dube, ĉu ili konscias la amplekson de la frustroj, de la senutila energi-elspezo, de la perdoj, de la neakceptebla malŝparemo, de la suferoj, kiujn kaŭzis ilia vola ignoro al la lingvaj realaĵoj. Ĉiujn negativajn aspektojn de la lingva fuŝorganizo, kiujn eviti estis tiel facile, kiel pruvas nia nuna vivmaniero, ili rigardis neeviteblaj, same kiel sklaveco estis dum jarcentoj rigardata kiel io normala, tiagrade, ke eĉ sklavoj aliris ĝin kiel neeviteblan aspekton de la vivo. Dum multaj jardekoj, la sennombraj viktimoj de la internacia lingva neordo estis mense manipulataj por ke ili kredu, ke al la situacio ne ekzistas alternativo. Tio estas nepardonebla, konsidere al la intelekta nivelo de la respondeculoj, same kiel al ilia jura, scienca aŭ politika trejniĝo, kiu nepre edukis ilin pri la neceso objektivi kaj la faktojn kontroli.	They live in a century, when a discrimination is illegal. But their attitude concerning the people, who tried making them about the potential of Esperanto conscious, and about its reality, it was constantly discrimination; they dismissed those people immediately without listening to them, without read and right regard their papers. Thus happened notably, how you discovered hearing the witnesses, at a European Union, but one would be many another examples able to present you. No. No exculpatory fact exists well to them. It is even now doubtfully, if they realise the extent of the frustrates, from the useless {energi-elspezo}, from the losses, from the unacceptable efficiency the other way around, from the sufferings, which their deliberate ignore caused to the linguistic realitys. They inevitable looked every negative appearances of the linguistic blooper organisation, which avoid was thus easily, how proves our present way of life,, it ware equally like servitude during centurys looked like something normal, so, that even slaves advanced it like inevitable an appearance of the life. During many decades, the countless victims of the international linguistic not order ware mentally handled that they should believe, that an alternative does not exist to the situation. It is unpardonable, {konsidere} to the intellectual level of the authoritys, to check equally like to their legal, scientific or political training, which raised them absolutely about the need be objective and the facts.	They live in a century when discrimination is supposed to be banished. But their attitude towards people who tried to make them aware of the potential of Esperanto, and of its reality, has constantly been discriminatory: those people were dismissed without being heard out, without their documents being read and properly considered. This was particularly the case, as you discovered listening to the testimonies, in the European Union, but many other examples could have been produced. No, they have no excuse. Even now it is doubtful they realize the extent of the frustrations, the useless expenditure of energy, the losses, the suffering, the humanly unacceptable wastefulness that their deliberate ignorance of linguistic realities brought about. All those negative aspects, so easy to avoid, as evidenced by our present way of life, were considered inevitable, just as slavery was taken for granted for centuries so that even slaves took it for an inescapable fact of life. For decades, the innumerable victims of the international language lack of order were manipulated into believing that no alternative existed. This is unforgivable, considering the intellectual level of the persons responsible, as well as their legal, scientific or political training, which could not but impress on them the need for objectivity and verification.
Gesinjoroj en la Juĝantaro, vi ŝuldas al justeco, kaj ankaŭ al la venontaj generacioj, senhezitan, plej klarvortan deklaron, ke tiuj homoj estas kulpaj. La prezidanto de la tribunalo nun instrukcios vin pri	Lords in the Jury, you owe to justice, and also to the forthcoming generations, without a hesitation, most {klarvortan} statement, that those people are guilty. The president of the tribunal will instruct you now about	Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you owe it to justice, and to the future generations, to declare them guilty unambiguously. The Court...