Embedded Files
3/16 septembr 1908
A s. prof. G. Peano in Turin
Sinior multe estimed!
Ko gaudi grand mi resivav plupresidiurne votr letr afabl datu 9 sept. ko proyekt de statut de „Academia pro Lingua inter Nationes” kause ist letr don esper pro vit nov in nostr Akademi dormant.
Vo preg mie opinion di punkti mult; sidiurne mi respondero sole di punkti prinsipal. Generale votr proyekti es multe simpatik e mi esper, ke vo avero sukses efektuar votr proyekti:
Pardona, if mi fasiero kelk obyektasioni relativu flank formal de votr proyekt: If mi no er, vo av intension proposar statut nov pro „Akademi Internasional de L. U.” Ma statuti de ist Akademi, statued 19-21 aug. 1889 per kongres internasional de volapükisti in Paris, sekuantu §21, potes esar muted sole per kongres internasional. Relativu kongresi, Kongres nomed de Paris resolvav, ke „Akademi deb resolvar, keloke e kuande kongres sekuant deb avar lok; Akademi deb esar komited1 preparativ pro Kongres”. — Eske vo pens efektuar istkos sitempe? Mi pens, ke it esero neposibl sitempe.
Ma if noi aut aksept statuti nov sine formalitet nomed — it esero ekivalent a fundasion de Akademi nov,A kekos mi no potes rekomendar. — Mi deb adyunktar, ke, it sembl, nesesitet no eksist pro mutasion de statuti 1) kause sistem de labori, proposed per vo, no es kontrar, u nemulte kontrar, a statuti eksistant, keli es multe brev e don libritet grand pro detalii 2) kause pro regulasion de detalii noi es libr statuar Regulativi; tal regulativi eksist ya (cf. Sirkulari NN. 72, 73, 74 and 92, keli mi pregav presidiurne s. Holmes mitar a vo), ma if vo truv, ke on deb mutar kelkkos u adyunktar, proposa it e mi es konvinsied, ke Akademi akseptero volontare meliorasioni.2 Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Ko votr permitasion mi eksprim mie opinion, ke direktor deb aktar energie sekuantu statuti (e regulativi) ma il deb evitar severe omni arbitraritet. Nostr direktor prim, Kerkchoffs, esav arbitrar e sie labor kausav pretensioni3 yust de membri de Akademi e de otr personi, ma it no avav resultat,4 durante ke in mie kuinkanuad protesti no eksistav kause ili no potesav eksistar e mi avav resultat sine mutasion de statuti. — Mi pensav, ke omnikos es permited, kekos no es inhibied. Talmaniere p.e. korporasion de Protektori de Akademi (§26 de Reg.) esav kreed, keli av protekted multe aferi finansik.
Mi pens, ke noi potesero amplifikar ist korporasion e donar a it sert funksion, p.e. relativu skribasion de artikli pro diurnal fundand de Akademi u pro imprimasion nemediate in sirkulari de direktor (Mi av introduked sirkulari no periodik [loku diurnal omnimensik de Kerckhoffs, kel no potesar5 eksistar] a esar libr relativu temp de publikasion, kause moment pro publikasion de periodik frekuente no koinsid6 ko resivasion de omni voti desired e.s.) u relativu propagasion de lingu ekslabored per Akademi, kel funksion no es prevised per §1 de statuti (i.e. it no es in program de problemi de membri de Akademi,B ma sine dubi it es desirabl, ke lingu ekslabored per Akademi es propaged, sikause it eserio multe konvenabl avar sue korporasion de propagandisti, kel potes esar ad Akademi e funksion de kel potes esar indiked detalie in Regulativi, statued per Akademi.
Numr de membri de Akademi es limited — maksimum 196 personi (§4 de statuti e §28 de Regulativi), ma numr de protektori (posible vo inventero otr nom pro ili)C no deb esar limited. Kontribuad anuik de membri es fiksed per statuti (§20) — 10 franki e no potes esar muted (setre §20 don libritet a direktorad de Akademi resolvar kuestioni finansik; sikause direktorad potes donatar a membri, p.e. a mebri povr, lor kontribuad), ma kontribuad de protektori, 3 franki, es fiksed per §26 de Regulativi e potes esar muted per Akademi aut. — Prova ekslaborar proyekt de mutasioni de Regulativi in spirit de votr statut-proyekt e proposa it a Akademi!
Nom de Akademi es kuestion no multe important. Mi pens, ke nom es parti de statuti, kekause it no deb esar muted. — Kuinkanuad de direktor es et parti de statuti; mi no potes rekomendar mutasion. — „Visedirektor es vikar de direktor” (§20 de Reg.)
Ko salut respektos, votr serv leplu devot
Rosenberger
—
A e abandonasion de institut bon eksistant!
B keli deb esar plu linguisti ka propagandisti.
C protektori debero esar plu propagandisti ka linguisti.
September 3/16, 1908
To Prof. G. Peano in Turin
Esteemed Sir,
With great pleasure, I received yesterday your kind letter dated September 9 with the proposed statutes for the “Akademia pro Lingua inter Nationes,” as this letter brings hope for a new life to our dormant Academy.
You ask for my opinion on many points; today, I will respond only on the main issues. Overall, your proposals are very appealing, and I hope you will succeed in implementing them.
Forgive me if I make some objections regarding the formal side of your proposal: If I am not mistaken, you intend to propose a new statute for the “International Academy of the Universal Language.” However, the statutes of this Academy, established on August 19-21, 1889, by the international Volapükist congress in Paris, according to §21, can only be amended by an international congress. Regarding congresses, the Paris Congress decided that “the Academy must decide where and when the next congress will take place; the Academy must serve as the preparatory committee for the Congress.” — Do you plan to carry this out at the present time? I think it would be impossible right now.
But if we adopt new statutes without the mentioned formality — it would be equivalent to founding a new Academy,A which I cannot recommend. — I must add that, it seems, there is no necessity to change the statutes because:
The working system you propose is not contrary, or only slightly contrary, to the existing statutes, which are very brief and provide great freedom for details.
For the regulation of details, we are free to establish Regulativi; such regulativi already exist (see Circulars Nos. 72, 73, 74, and 92, which I asked Mr. Holmes to send to you yesterday), but if you find that something needs to be changed or added, please propose it, and I am convinced that the Academy will willingly accept improvements. Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
With your permission, I express my opinion that the director should act energetically according to the statutes (and regulativi) but should strickly avoid any arbitrariness. Our first director, Kerckhoffs, was arbitrary, and his work caused justifiable grievances from Academy members and other people, but it did not yield results, whereas during my five-year term, no protests existed because they could not exist, and I achieved results without changing the statutes. — I thought that everything was permitted if it was not prohibited. Thus, for example, the Corporation of Patrons of the Academy (§26 of the Regulativi) was created, which has supported many financial matters.
I think that we will be able to expand this corporation and give it a certain function, e.g. in relation to the writing of articles for the Academy's journal, which is to be founded, or for immediate printing in the director’s circulars (I introduced nonperiodic circulars [in place of Kerckhoff’s monthly journal, which was not able to exist] in order to be free regarding the time of publication, because the moment for the publication of a periodical often does not coincide with the receiving of all desired votes, etc.) or in relation to the propagation of the language developed by the Academy, which function is not foreseen by §1 of the statutes (i.e. it is not in the program of tasks of the Academy’s members,B but without a doubt, it is desirable that the language developed by the Academy is propagated, thus it would be very convenient having its own corporation of propagandists, which can be attached to the Academy and whose function can be indicated in detail in the Regulativi, established by the Academy.
The number of Academy members is limited — a maximum of 196 people (§4 of the statutes and §28 of the Regulativi), but the number of patrons (you might invent another name for them) should not be limited. The annual contribution of members is fixed by the statutes (§20) — 10 francs and cannot be changed (moreover, §20 gives the Academy's directorship freedom to resolve financial issues; thus, the directorship can provide concessions to members, e.g., to poor members, regarding their contributions), but the contribution of patrons, 3 francs, is fixed by §26 of the Regulativi and can be changed by the Academy itself. — Try to develop a plan for changes to the Regulativi in the spirit of your proposed statutes and propose it to the Academy!
The name of the Academy is not a very important issue. I believe the name is part of the statutes, so it should not be changed. — The five-year term of the director is also part of the statutes; I cannot recommend changing it. — “The vice-director is the deputy of the director” (§20 of the Regulations).
With respectful greetings, your most devoted servant,
Rosenberger
A and the abandonment of an existing good institution!
B who should be more linguistic than propagandistic.
C Patrons should be more propagandistic than linguistic.
NOTES:
NOTES:
1 This seems to be a misspelling of komitet (committee) since the original Volapük (rigik) reads kademalef osludom kiöp e kiüp Kongef nilikün ozitom: obinom komitef (committee, commission) plepalöl.
2 Meliorasioni presupposes a root meliorar which is nonexistant in the original 1902 dictionary. In Idiom Neutral klasik this might be rendered plubonifikasioni (improvements). The supposed root meliorar is reflected in ameliorate (e), améliorer (f), migliorare (i), meliorare (l).
3 Pretensioni appears to be a more international variant of pretendasion.
4 Resultat comes to be used as the Reform-Neutral version of the original resultad in Idiom Neutral.
5 This seems to be an incorrect use of the infinitive, perhaps potes, potesav, or potesero was intended.
6 Koinsidar is not in the original 1902 dictionary nor in the 1912 Reform-Neutral dictionary; see, coincide (e), coïncider (f), coincidir (s), coincidere (i l).
Google Sites
Report abuse