Embedded Files
28 septembr/11 oktobr 1908
A s. prof. G. Peano in Turin
Sinior multe estimed!
Suetempe mi av resived votr letr afabl datu 24 semptembr ko not: „Me attende ab Vos novo observationes”.1 Regrete mi esav tro okuped in ministeri,2 in kel mi serv, tale ke mi no potesav okupar mi in aferi de Akademi. Ma mi senti nesesitet respondar vo pobreve e mi provero fasiar it sitempe diskutante detalie omni votr proyekti.
Anteriore permita mi eksprimar denove mie gaudi grand ke Akademi Internasional de L.U. av esper monstrar denove vit intensiv — sub votr direktorad. Kuande sirkular ultim de s. Holmes aparav, mi esav konvinsied ke it konten anunsi di votr selektasion e mi esav multe suprised lektar, ke selektasion no ankor es efektued. Mi pens, ke selektasion es efektued unanime, ma mi no konos it: Holmes no skribav a mi in temp ultim. Nemediate mi fasiav imprimar mie sirkularet, eksemplar de kel mi mitav et a vo ko sirkular 94 de s. Holmes.
Kelk diurni po istkos mi mitav a vo N 17 de Progres, pro kontenad de kel mi preg votr atension.
Future, kuande Akademi avero sue organ funksionant, mie Progres no plu esero neses probable.
1/14 oktobr 1908
Mi es tale okuped, ke it es kuasi neposibl korespondar. Mi esav interumped. Mi provero finiar sidiurne.
Di proyekt de statut mi av skribed letr ultim.A
Akademi deb esar libr pro omni opinioni. Sine dubi. Fortune nostr Akademi es libr. It konos noun autoritet in kuestioni linguistikal. (Cf. §2 de statuti).
Problem de Akademi (§1) es kompletifikasion e plubonifikasion de gramatik, diksionar. Sine dubi medi prinsipal a atinar istkos es publikasion de diurnal u de sirkulari de direktor a membri de Akademi; it es kuestion separat, eske ist diurnal deb operar periodike u in termini no fiksed. Mi preferav sirkulari libr, aparant kuande nesesitet eksistav, eventuale plusiorfoa3 in mens.
Et sirkulari de direktor potes avar adpendad (apendiks) kontenant artikli divers, e nome, mi pens, artikli linguistikal in kelkun lingu artifisial u natural e artikli no linguistikal in kelkun lingu artifisial (kuale prov de ist lingu). Mi pens, ke organ de Akademi deb distinguar se de otr diurnal mediu el sirkumstans, ke artikli apar no a esar imprimed e posteriore oblivied, kuale noi visav in Linguist, ma ke omni opinioni eksprimed es resumed4 per direktor e — finie — omni kuestioni es resolved per Akademi pro publikasion in form de libri.
Medi, proposed per prof. Pfaundler in Groz, a truvar lingu leplu pertinentB es medi ekselent, ma, mi pens, medi tro longdurant.
„Koresp. Int.” es diurnal multe bon, in manier de Pfaundler, ma artikli in lingui divers risk esar lekted nemulte (spesiale kausu hektograf nefasile lektabl) e esar oblivied.
Volontare mi kolaborero a obtenar 1000 membri de Akademi, ma mi potes prometar nokos, mi es propagandist5 febl.
It es multe important konosar, ke otr sirkl funksion bene ko statuti, proposed per vo pro nostr Akademi. Noi deb adaptar prinsipi generale, introdukante ili in nostr Regulativi.
Akademi potes avar in omni land un akademian pro 10 milion habitanti (§4) e kelk membri, ekstr ist numr, multe meritos (§6).
Noi no potes mutar ist paragrafi; ma noi potes krear membri ekstraordinari, kuale noi kreav ya korporasion de „protektori” (§26 de Reg.) payant kontribuad de 3 franki. Ili es sitempe kuasi abonenti6 de sirkulari. Noi potes amplifikar lor yuri (yur de publikasion de artikli in organ de Akademi e posibile et yur de votasion in kuestioni finansik de diurnal) e plugrandifiker kontribuad anuik. Yur de publikasion de artikli don a ili kuasi vok konsultativ e mi propos nomar ili „membri konsultativ” kontrastu „membri aktiv”, prevised per statuti, selekted per Akademi mediu votasion e avant yur de votasion in kuestioni linguistikal. Posible it esero plu prudent krear korporasion de membri konsultativ a lasar korporasion de protektori (abonenti sine yuri) payant s. 3 franki; — posible no.
Kream, if vo volu, et korporasion de „redaktori”. Mi no komprend bene lor funksion, ma it es detali.
If et noi admit artikli in omni lingui artifisial, mi pens, ke apostrofad de direktor e akademiani deb esar in tel lingu, kel es aksepted per Akademi; — sitempe it es I.N.
Nom de Akademi es irelevant.7 Mi pens, ke noi no deb mutar it, spesiale kause it es parti de statuti, keli noi no potes mutar. Ekspresion Lingu Universal potes esar konsidered kuale terminus technicus pro sert nosion sine avar sens de idé de un lingu pro univers total. (NB. Sert konoser prob de latin klasik dikav mi, ke „Academia pro lingua inter nationes” no potes esar konsidered kuale latin klasik).
5 anui es fiksed pro direktorad (§12). Noi deb selektar direktor pro 5 anui. If direktor deveni fatiged u malad u il av otr motiv pro finiad de aktivitet il potes presentar kuestion a Akademi e proposar person nov. Mi esper, ke vo no fasiero istkos.
Respond a votr letr d. 24 septembr 1908
Mi es multe kontent, ke vo akseptav mie opinion, ke Akademi aktual deb esar konserved.
Mi desir ko vo, ke Ak. deveni plu ampl, fort e vital e mi es parat sukursar vo sekuantu posiblitet.8
Mi pens, ke noi no potes akseptar „en bloc” votr „statuti” ko titul „Extracto ex regulamento”, ma noi deb eksaminar Regulativi aksepted (cf. sirkular 73 e.s.) e proposar a Akademi tel e tel mutasioni de ili. Mi no dubi, ke Akademi akseptero ili, if ili es bon; posible un u otr akademian fasiero sue observasioni bon, pro keli noi debero esar mersios.
Votr not relativu „socio de Academia in numero illimitato” unflanke e „Academia — redactore in numero non superiore ad 196 aut ad 100” (?) — no korespond a §28 de Regulativi — e mi no av komprended bene it.
Vo es rekt, ke vokabulari eksistant de paroli internasional es kriterium9 plu bon pro internasionalitet de parol ka opinion de mayoritet de Akademiani, ma kasui eksist (cf. Progres, p. 37-38), in keli on hesit, if on volu akseptar tel u tel radik, e kelkhom deb fasiar resolusion. Ki? Mi prefererio plebisit;10 ma kause plebisit no es posibl e arbitraritet de kelkun person es evitand noi deb esar kontent avar sosietet (Akademi) pro tal resolusioni. E, vere, noi no deb timar presentar kuestioni a Akademi, kause noi visav ya, ke un u otr akademian av doned observasioni multe bon okasionu kelkun proposasion de direktor u sert otr inisiator.11
Mi es konvinsied, ke votr labori de kolektasion de vokabli e abonenti internasional avero sekuadi bon pro form de L.U.
Generale mi pens, ke labor prim sitempik konsist in mutasion de Regulativi. Noi deb mutar imag sine mutar kadr (statuti).
Mi pens, ke it es posibl e mi rekomend a vo eksaminar omni paragraf de Regulativi (sir. 73 e otri), eske it potes restar u eske it deb esar muted e kuale it deb esar muted. Posteriore presentar tekst nov de paragrafi mutand a Akademi pro votasion.
Mi pens, ke termin de 65 diurni pro votasion (§4 de Reg.) potes esar minued, kause Turin es plu sentral ka Petersburg e kause medii de komunikasion deveniav plu rapid.
Ko salut respektos e ko preg pardonar respond tard mi rest votr serv leplu devot,
Rosenberger
P.S. Mi av diked ya, ke probable mie Progres esero superflu. Mi deb adyunktar, ke presidiurne mi av resived letr konfidensial da akademian Bonto van Bÿlevelt, kel desir fusion12 de diurnali Progres, Idei internasional e Korespondens Internasional. Mi pens, ke ist kuestion deb esar regled ko vo, direktor futur de Ak., e no ko mi. Mie Progres esav funded suetempe a publikar eksistens de I.N., i.e. a sukursar Akademi, direktor de kel publikav sirkulari multe brev, tro konsis.13 If direktorad nov publikero sue organ e donero posiblitet a mi e a omnihom publikar artikli linguistikal e if Akademi avero sue korporasion de propagandisti de lingu de Akademi — mie Progres no plu es neses.
R
—
A Otrflanke kompletifikasion e plubonifikasion de lingu (§1) no es limited.
B admitar in diurnali omni lingui e observar, kel lingui disaparero e kel lingu esero used plu e plu usk [ke] it rest viktor in konkurens.
September 28/October 11, 1908
To Prof. G. Peano in Turin
Esteemed Sir,
In due course I have received your kind letter dated September 24 with the note: “I am awaiting further observations from you.” I regret to say that I have been too occupied with work at the ministry, where I serve, and thus have not been able to attend to Academy matters. However, I feel it necessary to respond to you shortly, and I will try to do it now, discussing all your plans in detail.
First, allow me to express once again my great joy that the International Academy of the Universal Language has hope again to show intensive life under your directorship. When Mr. Holmes's last circular appeared, I was convinced it contained the announcement of your selection, and I was very surprised to read that the selection has not yet been made. I think the selection is unanimously made, but I am not aware of it: Holmes has not written to me recently. I immediately had my circular printed, a copy of which I sent to you along with Mr. Holmes’s circular No. 94.
A few days later, I also sent you No. 17 of Progres, regarding the content of which I ask for your attention.
In the future, when the Academy has its own functioning organ, my Progres will probably no longer be necessary.
October 1/14, 1908
I am so busy that it is almost impossible to correspond. I was interrupted. I will try to finish today.
Regarding the proposed statutes, I have written the final letter.A
The Academy must be free for all opinions. Without a doubt. Fortunately, our Academy is free. It acknowledges no authority in linguistic matters. (See §2 of the statutes).
The task of the Academy (§1) is to complete and improve the grammar and dictionary. Without a doubt, the main means to achieve this is through the publication of a journal or the director’s circulars to the members of the Academy; it is a separate question whether this journal should operate periodically or at irregular intervals. I preferred free circulars, appearing whenever necessary, possibly several times a month.
Also the director’s circulars could have an appendix containing various articles, specifically, I think, linguistic articles in any artificial or natural language, and non-linguistic articles in any artificial language (as a test of that language). I believe that the Academy’s organ should distinguish itself from other journals by ensuring that the articles are not printed and then subsequently forgotten, as we have seen in Linguist, but that all expressed opinions are summarized by the director and — ultimately — all issues are resolved by the Academy for publication in book form.
The method proposed by Prof. Pfaundler in Graz to find the most suitable languageB is excellent, but I think it is too time-consuming.
Korespondens Internasional is a very good journal, in the manner of Pfaundler, but articles in different languages risk being read very little (especially due to the hectographed text being difficult to read) and being forgotten.
I am willing to help recruit 1,000 members of the Academy, but I can promise nothing, as I am a weak propagandist.
It is very important to know that the other circle (group?) functions well under the statutes you proposed for our Academy. We must adapt principles in general, introducing them into our Regulativi.
The Academy can have one academician per 10 million inhabitants in each country (§4) and several members, beyond this number, of great merit (§6).
We cannot change these paragraphs; however, we can create extraordinary members, just as we have already created the corporation of “patrons” (§26 of the Regulativi) who pay a contribution of 3 francs. They are now almost subscribers to the circulars. We can expand their rights (the right to publish articles in the Academy’s organ and possibly even the right to vote on financial matters of the journal) and increase their annual contribution. The right to publish articles gives them an almost consultative voice, and I propose calling them “consultative members” as opposed to the “active members” provided for by the statutes, selected by the Academy through voting and with the right to vote on linguistic matters. It may be wiser to create a corporation of consultative members and leave the corporation of patrons (subscribers without rights) paying 3 francs; — perhaps not.
If you wish, let us also create a corporation of “editors.” I do not fully understand their function, but it is a detail.
If we admit articles in all artificial languages, I think that correspondence from the director and academicians should be in that language which is accepted by the Academy; — currently, it is Idiom Neutral.
The name of the Academy is irrelevant. I believe we should not change it, especially since it is part of the statutes, which we cannot change. The expression Universal Language can be considered as a technical term for a certain concept without implying the idea of a language for the whole universe. (Note: a certain diligent scholar of classical Latin told me that “Academia pro lingua inter nationes” cannot be considered classical Latin).
A 5-year term is fixed for the directorship (§12). We must select a director for 5 years. If the director becomes tired or ill or has another reason to end their activities, they can present the issue to the Academy and propose a new person. I hope you will not do this.
Response to your letter dated September 24, 1908
I am very pleased that you have accepted my opinion that the current Academy should be preserved.
I share your desire for the Academy to become broader, stronger, and more vital, and I am ready to support you wherever possible.
I think that we cannot accept your “statutes” titled “Extracto ex regulamento” as a whole, but we should examine the accepted Regulativi (see circular 73, etc.) and propose specific amendments to the Academy. I have no doubt that the Academy will accept them if they are good; it is possible that one or another academician will make useful observations for which we should be grateful.
Your note regarding “unlimited membership in the Academy” on the one hand and “Academy — editors in a number not exceeding 196 or 100” (?) — does not correspond to §28 of the Regulativi — and I did not understand it well.
You are right that the existing vocabulary of international words is a better criterion for the internationality of a word than the opinion of the majority of Academicians, but there are cases (see Progres, p. 37-38) where there is hesitation about whether to accept this or that root, and someone has to make a decision. Who? I would prefer a plebiscite; however, since a plebiscite is not possible and the arbitrariness of any one person should be avoided, we should be content to have a society (the Academy) for such decisions. And indeed, we should not fear presenting questions to the Academy, as we have already seen that one or another academician has given very good observations on the occassion of some proposal from the director or a certain other initiator.
I am convinced that your work in collecting vocabulary and international subscribers will yield good results for the form of the Universal Language.
In general, I think that the primary systematic task consists in modifying the Regulativi. We need to change the image without altering the frame (statutes).
I think it is possible and recommend that you review all the paragraphs of the Regulativi (circular 73 and others) to see if they can remain as they are or if they need to be changed and how they should be changed. Afterwards, present the new text of the paragraphs to be amended to the Academy for a vote.
I believe that the 65-day period for voting (§4 of the Regulativi) could be shortened, as Turin is more central than Petersburg, and communication methods have become faster.
With respectful greetings and apologies for the delayed response, I remain your most devoted servant,
Rosenberger
P.S. I have already said that my Progres may become superfluous. I must add that recently I received a confidential letter from Academician Bonto van Bÿlevelt, who desires a merger of the journals Progres, Idei International, and Korespondens Internasional. I think this issue should be handled by you, the future director of the Academy, and not by me. My Progres was founded to publicize the existence of the Universal Language, i.e., to support the Academy, whose director published very short, too concise circulars. If the new directorship publishes its own organ and allows me and everyone else to publish linguistic articles, and if the Academy has its own group of propagandists for the Academy's language — my Progres will no longer be necessary.
R
A On the other hand, the completion and improvement of the language (§1) is not limited.
B Admit all languages into the journal and observe which languages disappear and which are used more and more until one remains victorious in the competition.
NOTES:
NOTES:
1 This phrase appears to be Latino sine flexione, “I am awaiting new observations from you.”
2 The word ministeri does not agree in number with the relative pronoun kel; the sentence should either be minister, in kel (the ministry/department in which) or ministeri, in keli (the ministries/departments in which).
3 The plusior (several) in plusiorfoa (several times) is not attested in the 1902 Idiom Neutral dictionary, but does appear in the Reform-Neutral one of 1912 as well as the journal Progres.
4 The verb resumar (to summarise, sum up) is a later addition to the language, having not appeared in the 1902 dictionary. Its use however does conform with Gramatik §§71-79 concerning the formation of words: to résumé (e), résumer (f), resümieren (d), resumir (s), riassumere (i). It is later adopted into Reform-Neutral (1912).
5 Words for “propaganda” and “propagandist” do not appear in the 1902 dictionary, but are easily derivable from propag (propagate) · and (that which is to be) · ist (occupational suffix): one who is occupied with what is to be propagated.
6 The form abonent (“subscriber”) is not attested in the 1902 dictionary, where it rather appears as abonant. In Reform-Neutral (1912), it comes to be written abonnent.
7 Neither relevant nor irelevant is attested in the dictionaries of classic Idiom Neutral (1902) or Reform-Neutral (1912); however, see: (ir)relevant (e d), (ir)relevante (s), (ir)rilevante (i).
8 Sekuantu posiblitet appears to be a calque of the German nach Möglichkeit (if possible, wherever possible, etc, lit: according to the possibility).
9 Kriterium is not attested in either the 1902 or Reform-Neutral (1912) dictionary; however, see: criterium (e l), critérium (f), Kriterium (d), criterio (s i).
10 Plebisit is not attested in either the 1902 or Reform-Neutral (1912) dictionary; however, see: plebiscite (e), plébiscite (f), Plebiszit (d), plebiscito (s i), плебисцит (plebiscit) (r), plebiscitum (l).
11 Inisiator presupposes a root inisi-, which is not attested in either the 1902 or Reform-Neutral (1912) dictionary; however, see: initiate (e), initier (f), initiieren (d), iniciar (s), iniziare (i), инициировать (iniciirovat') (r), initiare (l).
12 Fusion is not attested in either the 1902 or Reform-Neutral (1912) dictionary; however, see: fusion (e f d), fusión (s), fusione (i).
13 The root konsis is not present in the 1902 dictionary, but does come to be used in Reform-Neutral (1912) as concis.
Google Sites
Report abuse