Idiom Neutral

APPENDIX

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF THE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE.

The International Academy of the Universal Language owes its origin to three congresses, which were held by Volapükists. The first congress of the Volapük union, to which the inventor of Volapük, Rev. J. M. Schleyer, in his “Weltspracheblatt (Volapükabled)” (¹) had invited “all friends, well-wishers and knowers of Volapük,” took place in Friedrichshafen on Lake Constance from the 25th to the 28th of August, 1884. At this congress there were present Volapükists from Germany, Austria and Alsace; German was the language used; (²) no decisions of importance were arrived at—at least none were made public—but a committee was chosen, which was commissioned to prepare for a second congress to be held at a fitting time and place, (³) and this committee at the beginning of 1887, in Schleyer’s Volapükabled and in Cogabled, issued an invitation to all Volapükists of the world to attend an international congress to be held in Munich from the 6th to the 9th of August, 1887. (⁴)

In this congress of Munich (1) some immaterial grammatical questions were decided; (2) statutes were prepared for a general international world-language club, which, however, came to nought;(⁵) and (3) in order to preserve the unity of the language and to perfect Volapük, an international society called the International Academy of the Universal Language was founded, which should begin its work the 1st of January, 1888.(⁶) Prof. Dr. Auguste Kerckhoffs of Paris, secretary of the extraordinarily active “Association française pour la propagation du Volapük” and author of the French Volapük Dictionary,(⁷) into which he had introduced some simplifications of the language, was unanimously chosen Director of the Academy, and seventeen persons from twelve different countries were chosen as kademals, that is academicians or members of the Academy.(⁸)

In § 9 of the resolutions of the congress that relate to the founding of the Academy, it is said that the Academy itself should formulate its own statutes, as a basis for which the statutes proposed by Schleyer(⁹) and all applicable paragraphs of the statutes of the “Académie française” should be used. After their ratification by the cifal (Director general: an honorary position created for Schleyer), the statutes should be communicated to the congress (perhaps a future one is intended). In § 8 of the same resolutions it was provided that a congress of the Academy should be held every third year at the beginning of August, that is at the same time with the congress of the above-mentioned general world-language club.(¹⁰) Paris or Vienna was chosen as the place of the next congress.(¹¹)

Professor Kerckhoffs had accepted his election as Director on the following two conditions: (1) that the resolutions [he erroneously calls them statutes] of the Munich congress relative to the Academy be considered as provisional and be submitted to a new examination at the coming Volapük congress in the year 1889), on the occasion of the great Paris Exposition; (2) that, besides the above-mentioned seventeen persons, seven other gentlemen proposed by him be accepted as academicians.(¹²) The seventeen academicians already chosen and Schleyer also assented to these conditions.(¹³) Thus the future congress had a perfect right to ratify statutes, and the question as to the time and place of the next congress was also decided—Paris, 1889.

The work of the Academy now began, and Schleyer was the first to propose certain questions to the Academy; among others this: Should every root without exception begin with a consonant?(¹⁴)

The Director of the Academy in his correspondence with its members made use of “Le Volapük,” a journal edited by himself, and first of all laid down the following programme for the labors of the Academy: 1. Alphabet: (a) sounds, (b) letters. II. Formation of Words: (a) roots, (b) derivatives, (c) compounds. III. Arrangement of Words. IV. Grammar: (a) declension, (b) conjugation, (c) use and signification of prepositions, adverbs, etc. V. Examination of improperly formed words of the Dictionary. VI. Proposing of new words.(¹⁵)

After this programme had been approved by the Academy, he entered upon the work proper and began with the question, whether the sounds ä ö ü should be admitted into the language or not and, in the former event, whether they should be rendered by the forms ä ö ü or otherwise.

From these questions on the part of Schleyer and of the Director it is perceived that the Academy had to decide not only a few unimportant questions, such as had been hitherto raised by Volapükists, but that radical changes in the language were imminent and that great and earnest work was demanded of the Academy; for, if the majority had answered the above two questions in the negative, all dictionaries and textbooks of Volapük would immediately have become useless, and for half the Volapük words and for many grammatical forms the Academy would have had to create new words and forms, so that an entirely new language would have arisen, for which even the name Volapük would no longer have been suitable. It may be noted in passing that the answers were such that no radical changes were immediately necessary.

Thereupon the Director, in accordance with his programme, proposed other questions to the Academy and, after the answers of the individual academicians had been received, compared them, and the opinion of the majority formed a resolution of the Academy. Such resolutions were published in the journal “Le Volapük.” In proposing questions and in announcing the result the Director made use of Volapük.

At first the Academy had labored very diligently, so that at the beginning of the year 1889 the following had been resolved: what sounds were allowable in the language, by what letters they should be represented, the accentuation of words, and some principles for the formation of words; the two leading principles for the selection of roots were as follows: (1) it is allowed to choose roots at will, but when possible, short roots existing in the natural languages should be preferred, (2) it is not necessary to retain the original form of the root, but that form which is nearest the original is the best.—Further, it had been resolved that the order of words in the sentence should not be optional, but should take place in accordance with simple, fixed rules and, as for declension, that both kinds of declension (if I may so express myself) should be permitted—by means of the endings –a, –e, –i and with prepositions—de for the genitive, and al for the dative.—Resolutions in regard to conjugation and the form of pronouns were, however, still lacking; neither had the Academy yet entered upon the examination of improperly formed words nor the proposing of new words. Thus the programme was not yet fully elaborated, and consequently the Director could not carry into effect his intention of submitting to the congress of August, 1889, a finished grammatical project for final ratification; he therefore published shortly before the congress a grammatical project, in which these important points (conjugation and pronouns) were not drawn up in accordance with resolutions of the Academy, but contained some of the Director’s proposed changes, which were still waiting ratification.(¹⁶) As, however, these proposed changes did not meet with the general approbation of the Academy, there could not be question of a ratification by the congress of the proposed grammatical project; even the discussion of questions of grammar in the congress proved impossible, for it would have led to debates taking up much time, and would have accomplished no practical result; therefore the congress contented itself with entrusting to the Academy the preparation of a simple grammar.(¹⁷)

The congress was held in Paris August 19-21, 1889, and was participated in by Volapükists from thirteen different countries: France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, England, Spain, Russia, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Greece, United States of America, Turkey and China. The language of the congress was Volapük.—The principal work of the congress consisted in a detailed examination of all the twenty-one paragraphs of the statutes of the International Academy of the Universal Language, which the preparatory committee appointed by Professor Kerckhoffs had elaborated, and in the ratification of these (after some changes) in the form in which they are here given (see below) in an English translation. They are still in force to-day; in § 1 it is expressly stated that the task of the Academy is to complete and improve the grammar and dictionary of the inventor.—According to the last paragraph these statutes can be changed only by an international congress. In relation to congresses of the Universal Language the resolution of the 20th of August runs as follows: “The Academy must decide where and when the next congress should be held; the Academy should form the preparatory committee for the congress.”(¹⁸)

Schleyer, who had not been present at the congress, announced that he ratified all paragraphs of the statutes with the exception of those which determined his rights in the Academy, and that he reserved to himself a veto in all cases.(¹⁹) As no right of ratification had been granted to Schleyer by the congress, no attention was paid to this claim.

Thus the International Academy of the Universal Language had become a viable self-existent institution, whose given right and imposed duty were: (1) to complete the grammar and dictionary of the inventor, and (2) to introduce unlimited changes in them as soon as such should be considered improvements by the Academy.

Although therefore there was every prospect that the work of the Academy, begun with such success, would be finished in accordance with the programme, it must unfortunately be stated that after the congress there was a diminution of energy in the prosecution of the work, and that it was even brought to a temporary standstill. The fault first of all lay in this, that the Director changed the manner of proposing questions, since he (1) no longer proposed to the Academy single parts of the grammar to be voted on, but a complete grammatical project at one time, and with further proposed changes, and (2) directed the academicians to come to an agreement as to the acceptance or non-acceptance of this grammar with the clubs of the countries which they represented, —a method of voting not provided for in the statutes.(²⁰) It was not possible to arrive at an agreement in this way, and if the views of the different Volapük clubs and journals and their correspondents were already, even before this, widely divergent, the strife of parties was increased by this action, and in a short time instead of one grammatical project there were many, for many of the academicians had laid their votes before the Director in the form of independent grammatical projects, and some of them had also published their projects.—It can not be denied that many of these grammatical projects contained good proposals that deserved to be taken into consideration by the Academy; therefore it was the general wish that the Director would submit the various proposals to a vote of the Academy in the journal of the Academy, which he meanwhile had founded under the name of “Calabled Kadema” (official paper of the Academy) [of which, however, only two numbers appeared]. The Director had the floor, so to speak, and the whole Volapük world waited expectantly for what would now come from Paris. Professor Kerckhoffs, however, for many months remained silent.—This circumstance and the disagreement of Volapükists had for result, that interest in Volapük ceased rather suddenly, and the ardent propaganda from this time onward constantly declined.

In order again to put in motion the interrupted work of the Academy, in November, 1890, at the instance of the St. Petersburg Volapük Club (Zilak volapüköl), a petition signed by twenty-three academicians and nineteen other Volapükists was sent to the Director with the request that he would submit to the Academy the nine leading grammatical projects (of academicians Day and Holden, Guigues, Heyligers, Kerckhoffs, Knuth, Krüger, Lederer and von Rylski,(²¹) Plum,(²²) Rosenberger) grouped in separate paragraphs, beginning with the most important, in order that the Academy might choose from the proposed forms in each individual instance those that were desired.

This request was not complied with, although § 17 of the statutes says that every proposal signed by at least six members of the Academy must be brought before the Academy; but instead of this there appeared once more, in the second number of the academic paper, of date December, 1890, a complete grammatical project with a very inaccurate account of the proposals made by the academicians, and by a circular of July 20, 1891, Professor Kerckhoffs conveyed the intelligence that he had determined to lay down his office.

Thereupon the Academy commissioned a provisional committee, consisting of Champ-Rigot, Guigues and Heyligers, three members of the Academy living in Paris, to bring about the election of a new Director.

This committee reported its work in its six circulars to the members of the Academy of November 2, 1891 to December 14, 1892. The committee issued a financial report, had a so-called normal grammar (Glamat nomik) printed, which was written in Volapük, in which are given all the rules in the form in which they had been accepted by the Academy, and by vote of the academicians brought about the election of several new members of the Academy and finally of the Director, whereby it was my lot to receive the honor of an election to this office for five years. Since one of the members of the committee, H. Heyligers, by a circular to the academicians of date January 15, 1893, announced that he knew nothing of the election of a new Director, as he had been present at no meeting of the committee for at least three months, it was decided by the Academy to submit the work of the committee, in so far as it concerned the election of a Director, to a revision; and this was entrusted to the Volapük club of Leitmeritz in Bohemia.(²³)

After making this examination the Leitmeritz club, by a circular to the academicians of date May 16, 1893, announced that I was actually the newly-elected Director.

Meanwhile the Academy had been inactive for nearly four years, interest in Volapük had materially diminished, Schleyer ignored the greater changes, the number of members of the Academy had decreased to fifteen and of Volapük papers to three, most of the Volapük clubs had ceased their activity, and the few remaining Volapükists were hostile to each other: some held to Schleyer and his Volapük, others regarded Volapük with Kerckhoffs’s changes as the ideal of an international language, the rest broke up into a number of smaller groups, each of which defended one of the many linguistic systems that arose at that period. —In spite of these conditions, so unfavorable for the labors of the Academy, convinced of the adaptability of an artificial language to international intercourse, and trusting in the feasibility of the task of the Academy and in the serviceableness of the statutes elaborated at Paris, I ventured to take up the interrupted work.

In the first place I left the grammar entirely alone and began with the most important part of the work—the examination of improperly formed words and the proposing of new words. —First I laid before the Academy for examination a list of such Volapük words as I was persuaded needed no change, e. g. delfin, legion, metal, etc., since they appear in most European languages, and in this I had noted after each word in what languages the word may be found (the following seven languages were always kept in view: English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Russian and Latin). In the second list, instead of the corresponding Volapük words, I proposed to the Academy to accept such words as by their form fitted perfectly into the Volapük system, that is began and ended with a consonant, and could thus be taken into the dictionary without detriment to the Volapük grammar, and which complied with the above-mentioned resolution of the Academy—that the original form of the word should be retained as far as possible—much better than the respective Volapük words, e. g. fabrik, manufactory instead of fablüd ; balsam, balsam instead of bain ; trup, troop instead of tlup, etc. In this I met with very little opposition: most of the words proposed by me were accepted unanimously, and objection was made by individual academicians to only a few words, that is counter-proposals were made; for instance, I had proposed frat, brother instead of blod, for which academician Plum of Copenhagen considered fratr still more suitable. In such cases I brought the question once more before the Academy, that is I had the academicians choose between both the proposed words, and that word for which the most votes bad been given was considered accepted according to § 13 of the statutes.

In my communications with the members of the Academy I did not make use of a periodical, as this had proved unsuitable, for each number of such must consist of a fixed number of pages and appear at a stated time; but what I had to say to the academicians I caused to be printed in the form of circulars of from one to twelve pages, just as they were needed, naturally in Volapük, and sent two copies to each academician with the request that in one of the copies he would record his vote on the questions proposed and return this copy signed to me as soon as possible; as to this last, the Academy had granted me the right to disregard all votes received later than sixty-five days after I sent out the respective questions. This long time was fixed upon to enable the Brazilian member of the Academy to take part in the work, and it was impossible for his vote to arrive in St. Petersburg at an earlier date.—All the questions were so worded that the academicians were obliged to answer by yes or no, so that I was able to count the votes for and against; but in case of new proposals, for instance of words or grammatical rules, 1 had requested that the academicians would never vote simply no, but, if anyone disagreed with the proposal, that he would make a better one; in which latter case both proposals were laid before the Academy to choose from, as has already been pointed out in the above-cited example of frat and fratr. In this way, on the one hand, many really good and practical proposals came to light, which is most desirable in such work, and every proposal of every academician was put to the vote of the Academy; on the other hand opportunity was given to each member of the Academy to make his own proposals and to take part in the selection of a definite proposal from among several. Thence also contentment reigned among the members of the Academy, whose number by the accession of very capable persons began to increase.

At that time, as is mentioned above, besides Volapük several other systems of artificial language had appeared. I must here name the chief among them, as they had a material influence on the labors of the Academy:

1. La lingvo internacia by Dr. Esperanto (Zamenhof) of Warsaw.(²⁴)
2. Kosmos by Eugene A. Lauda of Berlin.(²⁵)
3. Spelin by Professor J. Bauer of Agram.(²⁶)
4. Myrana by J. Stempfl of Oberreute in Bavaria.(²⁷)
5. Lingua internazional or Mondolingue by J. Lott of Vienna.(²⁸)
6. Universala by Dr. Eugene Heintzeler, principal, of Stuttgart.(²⁹)
7. Novlatiin by Dr. E. Beermann, headmaster, of Nordhausen.(³⁰)

Besides these artificial languages the works of the following persons also influenced the Academy: Dr. T. C. Winkler of Haarlem,(³¹) John Runström of Stockholm,(³²) editor Karl Lentze of Leipsic, (³³) Edgar von Wahl of Reval and Anton von Grabovski of Ivano-Vosnesensk, the accentuation of words adopted by the Academy, namely on the vowel preceding the last consonant, being a proposal of Bauer (in Spelin) and Wahl, (³⁴) and the plural ending -i, a proposal of Zamenhof(³⁵) and Grabovski.(³⁶) If the language of Dr. Esperanto was the best work in practical execution, on the other hand the best theoretical directions for creating an international language had been given by J. Stempfl. With the probable exception of Prof. Bauer, all the above-cited authors agreed in this, that the roots of words must be taken from living languages or from the Latin, and with as little change as possible.

Of the greatest importance to the labors of the Academy was the work of Dr. Alberto Liptay, “Eine Gemeinsprache der Kulturvölker,” which appeared in 1891, in which the author instituted a critical inquiry into the projects of universal language that had appeared up to that time, and laid down fixed principles for the building up of a dictionary of an international language, but did not himself proceed to the execution of this work. He then pointed out that there already exists a large number of so-called world-words, e. g. animal, which is intelligible to nearly all nations and certainly to all civilized peoples, even to those who do not, as the English, the French, the Italians, the Spanish, the Portuguese, etc., use it as a vocable of their mother-tongue;

thus the German speaks of Animalismus, Animalien, animalisieren, and of animalischen Eigenschaften.(³⁷) Further examples of such world-words were: artificial, universal, amor, color, baron, balkon, amen, volumen, merkantil, vulcan, fabricant, miserable, natur, divin, adyectiv, observatorium; celibat, evangelist, tabak, cigar, kafé, té, sport, club, astronom, logaritm, etc.—in all over 8,000 words.(³⁸)—All these words are entitled to admission to the dictionary of a language intended for international use, just as are the elements of which these words are composed.—only they must be discovered and collected(³⁹)—indeed Liptay lays down the proposition that a universal language must not be invented, but discovered.(⁴⁰) Convinced of the impossibility of creating a universal language, Liptay proposed the attaining of a common language by way of synthesis or compilation of such elements as are already within the reach of every human understanding and only await condensation into something tangible or visible and to be brought into a homogeneous form.(⁴¹)—As to the manner of writing the world-words we find in the same work directions most worthy of notice;(⁴²) what Liptay most exhaustively says as to the international value of single letters can be denied in only a few instances.

After the work of Dr. Liptay had been submitted to Professor Max Müller of Oxford, he expressed his opinion to the author in the following terms: “Your idea of choosing roots almost universally understood by men of education is excellent, and the grammatical articulation that you propose is very practicable, although here and there perhaps something simpler and more practical could be suggested. What you have to do now is to elaborate a complete dictionary.”(⁴³) —It appears that Dr. Liptay has not followed Max Müller’s advice, for no dictionary by him has yet appeared.

The International Academy of the Universal Language, however, willingly followed these practical suggestions. After I had called the attention of the Academy to the above-cited works on universal language in general and to that of Liptay in particular, and had invited the members to take them into consideration in voting, in order that the Academy might not be behind in the general movement, the leading principles of orthography were soon settled, and then the resolution was passed that for every root the international form must be sought. that is, that that root is the best which appears in the most European languages.(⁴⁴) In fulfilment of this resolution, I considered in the selection of words to be proposed the seven leading languages of Europe, as above mentioned, and after I had assured myself that still more suitable forms had not been found by the above-mentioned writers, Esperanto, Lott, Heintzeler and Beermann, I laid my proposals before the Academy to be voted upon.

As, contrary to what had heretofore been held, the dictionary and not the grammar was considered the more important, and as very many international roots begin with a vowel, I necessarily proposed such roots, although the forms of the Volapük grammar are very unsuitable for such roots; on the other hand I had to seek new grammatical forms that would suit these roots.—After much search and many trials simple forms were found, e. g. the verbal suffixes -av for the past and -ero for the future, which, borrowed from the natural languages, are as well known to educated Europeans as the artificial Volapük forms; wherefore they also, with slight changes, were accepted by the Academy. It was also possible to replace most of the arbitrarily invented Volapük prefixes and suffixes by more natural forms, and in many cases even by international ones.(⁴⁵) Most of the proposed words were accepted by the Academy, and in case counter-proposals were made, I proceeded as I pointed out above.

When the five years of my directorship were at an end, the programme of the work in essentials had been carried out; the Academy had accepted:

1. rules for orthography and pronunciation,
2. about 3,000 of the most necessary roots,
3. the most necessary prefixes and suffixes,
4. a large number of derivatives and compounds,
5. all the pronouns,
6. the most commonly used adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions,
7. all the grammatical forms,
8. rules for the order of words in the sentence.

The sum of the then-existent resolutions of the Academy could already be rightly called an artificial language. This academic language is essentially distinguished from all other artificial languages in this, that it is not the work of one man, but is the result of years of toil on the part of a whole international society. On the one hand, it can be just as easily spoken and written as Volapük, for the Volapük principles—of an almost phonetic spelling, of no exception to given rules, and of the simplicity and ease with which derivatives can be formed from roots (⁴⁶)—have been retained; but on the other hand, this language is much more easily understood both by hearers and readers than Volapük, since, for all the elements of which the words are composed, such forms were chosen as are already known to the majority of educated Europeans.—Several members of the Academy already used the new language instead of Volapük for correspondence with their colleagues, since they found that it is much easier to write in the academic language than in Volapük, although the resolutions of the Academy had not yet been brought into a form available for ready reference, and although there was no grammar in which the accepted forms were collected, nor a dictionary where the accepted words could be found in alphabetical order.

I having declined a re-election,(⁴⁷) from the persons proposed as Director of the Academy, on the 16th of May, 1898, Rev. M. A. F. Holmes, member of the Academy, resident in Macedon, New York, was unanimously elected for the term of five years.(⁴⁸)

The circulars of the new Director to the academicians no longer appeared in Volapük, but in the new academic language, to which the name Neutral Language (Idiom neutral) was soon given by the Academy.

The new Director continued the work of the Academy in the same spirit: the language was further enlarged both by changes of some things previously accepted, but which had proved unsuitable, and by the acceptance of a large number of new roots and new derivatives and compounds, and partly by means of several new prefixes and suffixes.

The language is now so far finished that it can be practically useful, and therefore it is time to publish in the form of grammar and dictionary, as here presented, the resolutions so far passed by the Academy.

The work of the Academy, however, is not ended, nor will it ever altogether cease, for the Neutral Language, as every living language, will be subject to constant growth, and accordingly the Academy will be obliged continually to add to the dictionary.

The Academy has granted me a concession to publish the German dictionary of the Neutral Language, and a similar concession for the English dictionary to Rev. Director Holmes.

Should the foregoing dictionary by its practical use in life serve to facilitate international intercourse, its task is accomplished. I consider it an agreeable duty on this occasion to express my most obliged thanks to the Director, Rev. M. A. F. Holmes, for all the friendly services which he has so kindly rendered to me during the preparation of this book.

St. Petersburg, April, 1902.

W. Rosenberger.

Since the above was written the German grammar and dictionary of the Neutral Language have appeared,(⁴⁹) and there are already many indications that Idiom Neutral is destined to become in the near future the medium of international intercommunication. Several reviews have spoken in the highest terms of the language, and Le Nouveau Précurseur, of Antwerp, Belgium, already publishes a biweekly letter, written in the Neutral Language, from a correspondent in Russia.

A concession has been granted by the Academy to W. V. Bonto van Bylevelt, one of the academicians for Holland, to publish the Dutch grammar and dictionary of the language.

I take the present opportunity of testifying to the many helpful suggestions received from Mr. W. Rosenberger, Vice-director of the Academy; all which have tended to the betterment of this book.

Macedon, N. Y., April, 1903.

M. A. F. Holmes.

(¹) “Weltspracheblatt (Volapükabled).” Editor: Schleyer, Constance, IVth year, 1884, No. 44.

(²) “Volapükabled,” 1884, No. 45.

(³) “Cogabled volapüka,” ed. by Schnepper, Munich, IId year, 1888, No. 15, p. 120.

(⁴) Volapükabled, 1887, No. 73, and Cogabled, 1887, No. 2, p. 15.

(⁵) R. Kniele, “Das erste Jahrzehnt der Weltsprache Volapük.” Ueberlingen, A. Schoy, 1889, p. 55.

(⁶) Cogabled, 1887, Nos. 9 and 10, and Volapükabled, l887, No. 81.

(⁷) A. Kerckhoffs, “Dictionnaire volapük-français et français-volapük.” Paris, Le Soudier, 1887.

(⁸) “Le Volapük.” Edited by Kerckhoffs, Paris, Le Soudier, IId year, 1887, No. 11.

(⁹) Vo1apükabled, 1887, Nos. 78 and 79.

(¹⁰) Cogabled, 1887, No. 10.

(¹¹) Volapükabled, 1887, No. 81.

(¹²) Le Volapük, 1887, No. 11, pp. 163, 164.

(¹³) Le Volapük, 1887, No. 12, pp. 177.

(¹⁴) Volapükabled, Nos. 82, 83, 84, 87.

(¹⁵) Le Volapük, No. 13.

(¹⁶) Le Volapük, 1889, No. 24. p. 324.

(¹⁷) Le Volapük, 1889, No. 26, p, 368a.

(¹⁸) Le Volapük, 1889, No. 26. p. 367.

(¹⁹) Volapükabled, 1889, No. 107, p. 462.

(²⁰) Le Volapük, No. 27, Nov./Dec., 1889, and “Calabled Kadema,” edited by Kerckhoffs, Paris, 1890, No. 1.

(²¹) “ Volapükagased,” IVth year, 1890, Nos. 5-11.

(²²) “Timapenäd volapükik plo Dän e Norgän, 1st year, 1889, No. 10/11.

(²³) My circular to the members of the Academy of date Feb. 16, 1893, No. 2.

(²⁴) Dr. Esperanto. “Internationale Sprache.” Warsaw: Gebethner and Wolff, 1887 (it appeared at the same time in French, Russian and Polish).—L. Zamenhof. “Universal-Wörterbuch der Internationalen Sprachen ‘Esperanto.’” Warsaw: printed by A. Gins, 1894.

(²⁵) Eugene A. Lauda. “I. Darf Volapük die Weltsprache werden. II. Kosmos oder neueste Lösung des Weltspracheproblems.” Berlin: Paul Henning, 1888.

(²⁶) Prof. J. Bauer. “Spelin, eine Allsprache.” Agram: Franz Suppan, 1888.

(²⁷) J. Stempfl. “Myrana und Weltsprache.” Kempten: J. Kösel, 1889.

(²⁸) Julius Lott. “Un lingua internazional.” Vienna: printed by Frankenstein and Wagner, Leipzig, 1890.

(²⁹) Dr. Eugene Heinzeler. “Universala.” Stuttgart: Joseph Roth, 1893.

(³⁰) Dr. E. Beermann. “Novilatiin.” Leipzig: G. Fock, 1895. Cf. many articles of the same author in “Linguist,” an independent journal for all friends of a universal language, edited by Max Wahren. Hannover: 1896 and 1897.

(³¹) Dr. T. C. Winkler. “Bumastöf plo vödasbuk füdik volapüka.” Haarlem: J. Inklaar, 1890.

(³²) John Runström. “Mobs teföl volapüki de Schlayer.” Stockholm: F. Mällborn & Co., 1888.

(³³) “Interpretor,” Internationale Zeitschrift für Weltsprache, herausgegeben von Karl Lentze in Leipzig, 1889. Nos. 1-12. and 1890, No. 1.

(³⁴) J. Lott. “Un lingua internazional,” 1890, p. VI.

(³⁵) “Esperantisto.” 1894, No. 2.

(³⁶) “Reforma projecto” in “Linguist,” ed. by Max Wahren, 1896, No. 3, p. 40.

(³⁷) Dr. Alberto Liptay. “Eine Gemeinsprache der Kulturvölker.” Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1891, p. 150.

(³⁸) id. pp. 151-164.

(³⁹) id. pp. 146, 147.

(⁴⁰) id. p. 128.

(⁴¹) id. p. 146. Cf. Rosenberger. “>Was wir jetzt zu thun haben” in “Linguist,” ed. by Wahren, 1896, No. 4.

(⁴²) id. pp. 126-144.

(⁴³) id. p. XIII.

(⁴⁴) My circulars of 1 Nov., 1893, No. 6, § 3, 28 Feb., 1895, No. 14, and 30 Nov., 1895, No. 19.

(⁴⁵) Cf. Linguist, 1896. No. 4. p. 56.

(⁴⁶) This facility is due to the following principles: (1) the root is never changed, (2) derivatives can be formed only by appending prefixes or suffixes, (3) there is but one prefix or suffix for each single case, (4) the given prefixes and suffixes can be annexed to a root at will, in so far as the sense allows it.

(⁴⁷) My circular No. 41 of 12 Nov., 1897.

(⁴⁸) My circular No. 45 of 15 May, 1898.

(⁴⁹) W. Rosenberger. “Wörterbuch der Neutralsprache” u. s. w. Leipzig: E. Haberland, 1902.