The common language is one of the distinguishing features that makes a people or several peoples a single nation. Someone will object: what about Switzerland? The Helvetic Confederation is actually divided into four linguistic and cultural regions: German, French, Italian, and Romansh and has no national language alongside the local idioms. In addition to linguistic diversity, there is also religious diversity based on the coexistence of Protestant and Catholic cantons. Swiss national identity therefore does not stem from a common ethnic, linguistic, and religious affiliation, but the strong sense of belonging that makes the Swiss a true nation is based on a common historical path, on shared national myths and institutional foundations (federalism, direct democracy, neutrality) and on orographic homogeneity (the Alps). We are therefore talking about a very special reality, small in size (8.5 million inhabitants spread over an area of 41,000 square kilometres) and very old if we consider that Switzerland has existed as an independent state since 1291 (it is one of the world’s oldest states). The fact that the Helvetic peoples have shared a path of history and common values for more than seven centuries certainly creates a very strong sense of belonging that goes far beyond any linguistic or religious divisions. If we set aside the Swiss case, which, as we have seen, is very special, and consider the large federations such as the United States, Russia, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and India, we see that they are all based on a common idiom, recognised as such, which in some cases complements the local idioms. Speaking the same language that is known to everyone from birth constitutes a strong unifying element. And what about Europe? How does Europe stand from a linguistic point of view? Today, the European Union has 27 member states and 24 official languages. While multilingualism undoubtedly constitutes an asset, it also represents a very high cost: according to the EU website, the current cost of maintaining a multilingual policy is EUR 1,123 million, or 1% of the EU's annual general budget. Apart from the economic costs of multilingualism, the lack of a common idiom alongside the national languages is a serious handicap for the EU. Nationalistic regurgitations seem to be asserting themselves in all states, increasingly taking on racist and chauvinist connotations that risk making us relive a sad and hateful past, and if today the idea of a united Europe appears blurred and weak, it is also because the European institutions appear distant and are seen as an artificial and bureaucratic superstructure: something that comes from above and does not correspond to the convinced adherence of the peoples. Indeed, linguistic diversity is still for many Europeans a major obstacle to direct social relations between citizens of different nations and is what makes Europeans of other nations perceive each other as 'foreigners'. Having a common language would certainly help to make us feel more united, as bearers of a common feeling, and would help to create that sense of belonging that is a prerequisite for the democratic bottom-up construction of a truly united Europe. But what essential characteristics should a common European language have? Let us look at them in detail.

1) It must not correspond to any of the national languages because otherwise it would be an expression of the domination of one national culture over the others. This excludes, for example, the adoption of English, which after Brexit is the national language of 1% of EU citizens (a minority) and is already the national language of some non-EU states (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, etc.) ;

2) It must have cultural roots that can be traced back to Europe's multi-millennial history. This aspect is important for it to be accepted as a common language.

3) It must be an easy language to learn and therefore be based on an essential grammar. Indeed, it is very important that people are enticed to study it and are incentivised by the ease of learning it. Moreover, this would also ensure its rapid dissemination through schools to the younger generations.

Some have proposed adopting Esperanto as the European language. This artificial language, born in the second half of the 19th century from the brilliant intuition of the Polish ophthalmologist of Jewish origin, Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof, certainly has the first and third characteristics, but not the second. Moreover, it was born as a universal language with aspirations to become a world language. Certainly, the fact that it has no solid, ancient historical roots, despite drawing on various world languages for the genesis of vocabulary, makes Esperanto difficult to accept because it does not have a specifically European connotation. A viable alternative could be Latin, which would correspond to requirements 1 and 2, but not 3. In fact, while it is true that Latin has had a profound impact on European culture, so much so that even the Germanic languages have some terms derived from Latin and would therefore be more acceptable as a common European language, it is nevertheless too complicated both grammatically and syntactically. So here is my idea: to adopt a planned language (created specifically) that has Latin as its starting point, but is based on a very simplified grammar and syntax. I have therefore developed a new language, called Eurizian, which is nothing but a simplified Latin on the model of Esperanto. The aim of this book is to illustrate the fundamentals of the Eurizian language in a simple and clear way, in the hope that one day it will become the common language of all European peoples.


I would like to thank Marco Mazzanti, an expert in linguistics, who has very seriously and professionally provided me with his valuable observations and timely suggestions, thus contributing to the optimisation of this popular treatise on Eurizian grammar.