Rosenberger to Peano

21 novembr/4 desembr 1908

A s. prof. G. Peano, in Turin

Sinior kar!

Presidiurne mi av resived kart postal de s. dr. E. M. Earle, kontenant intr otri: „Votr postkart de 7 nov. esav resived simatine. Regardu publikasion de sirkular 95 mi kred ke material pro it es parat e it esero imprimed po brev temp1 if tipograf no deveniero denove lunatik. Regardu selektasion de direktor nov s. Holmes informav mi, ke s. Peano esav selekted e il no mensionav kelkun vot kontrar tale mi kred ke selektasion esav unanim. Mi esper ke s. Peano no perdero pasiens. – Mor in publikasion de sirkulari de anui 1907 e 1908 no es totale kausu kulp de direktor. Kelk sirkumstansi neevitabl aveniav, keli kontribuav multe a mor.” Mi no konos, kel sirkumstansi aveniav e probable ili restero pro mi sekret etern. Ye it es irrelevant.2 It prinsipal es, ke informasion resived da sekretar de Akademi s. Earle, ke vo esav selekted (e nome probable unanime) kaule direktor e publikasion de ist fakt es sole afer de temp e mi esper esar prim, kel felisit vo okasionu selektasion e mi desir, ke votr kuinkanuad deveni era important in histor de Lingu Universal sekuantu labor ferv e placid,3 i.e. sine kuereli personal.

Mi mersi multe pro votr letr afabl d. 16 nov. Mi es multe kontent, ke vo donero pobreve vit nov a nostr Akademi. Posible manier nov de labor donero resultati4 bon. It es nefasil afirmar, ke anarki deveniero, kause vo, kaule direktor, av yur e posiblitet fasiar sesar anarki grasu [forsu] nostr organisasion.

Mi es multe kontent, ke vo korespond ko s. Couturat relativu fusion5 u konvension de du Akademii. – s. Couturat skrib a mi „La grava malfacilajo, por fuzo reciproka esas ke nia Akademio (same quale esis nia Komitato) esos elektita (de la futura Uniono) dum ke la vua ne esas elektita (Videz nia definitiva proyekto di Uniono en la N10 di Progreso). Pro to ni ne povus elektar en nia Akademio omna membri di vua Akademi. Reflektez pri to!”6 Mi deb konfesar, ke mi no komprend istkos, spesiale kause N10 de Progreso no ankor aparav. – It es multe important pro mi lektar in votr letr, in kel vo parl di labori individual, ke „l'Akademi par ses publications ne pourra que faire connaître ces travaux.”7 — Sekuantu istkos mie „Progres” deveni superflu, kekos mi avav mensioned ya in un de mie letri anterior. Mi preg multe no refusar tale pobreve kuale posibl votr opinion di ist afer (posible vo informero mi di resultati de votr korespondens di diurnal Akademik ko s. Bonto) a fini ke mi potes redaktar artikl di ist afer in numr sekuant, 18,A de Progres, kel eventuale deveniero numr ultim; mi desir in tal kasu dirigar atension de abonenti8 a diurnal de Akademi, in kel ili potesero truvar kontinuasion. Ki esero sekretar? Ki esero redaktor u redaktori?

Ko saluti respektos,

votr leplu devot,

Rosenberger

Eske vo volu fiksar kontribuad 10 franki et pro membri korespondant? Eske vo volu konservar ekstr membri korespondant et protektori ko kontribuad de s. 3 franki?

—
A It es neses publikar it pobreve!

21 November/4 December, 1908

To Prof. G. Peano, in Turin

Dear Sir!

Yesterday, I received a postcard from Dr. E. M. Earle, containing among other things: “Your postcard of 7 November was received this morning. Regarding the publication of circular 95, I believe that the material for it is prepared, and it will be printed shortly, provided the printer does not go mad again. Regarding the selection of the new director, Mr. Holmes informed me that Mr. Peano has been selected, and he did not mention any opposing votes, so I believe the selection was unanimous. I hope Mr. Peano does not lose patience. – The delay in the publication of the circulars for 1907 and 1908 is not entirely the fault of the director. Some unavoidable circumstances occurred, which contributed greatly to the delay.” I do not know what circumstances occurred, and they will probably remain an eternal secret for me. Yet it is irrelevant. The main point is that information has been received from the Academy's secretary, Mr. Earle, that you have been selected (and probably unanimously) as the director, and the publication of this fact is just a matter of time. I hope to be the first to congratulate you on your selection and I wish that your five-year term will become an important era in the history of the Universal Language through diligent and peaceful work, i.e., without personal quarrels.

Thank you very much for your kind letter dated 16 November. I am very pleased that you will give new life to our Academy. Perhaps a new way of working will yield good results. It es difficult to claim that anarchy will arise because you, as director, have the right and possibility to stop anarchy by the grace (force) of our organization.

I am very pleased that you are corresponding with Mr. Couturat regarding the merger or meeting of the two Academies. – Mr. Couturat wrote to me: “La grava malfacilajo, por fuzo reciproka esas ke nia Akademio (same quale esis nia Komitato) esos elektita (de la futura Uniono) dum ke la vua ne esas elektita (Videz nia definitiva proyekto di Uniono en la N10 di Progreso). Pro to ni ne povus elektar en nia Akademio omna membri di vua Akademi. Reflektez pri to!” I must confess that I do not understand this, especially because No. 10 of Progreso has not yet appeared. – It is very important for me to read in your letter, in which you speak of individual works, that “l’Akademi par ses publications ne pourra que faire connaître ces travaux” — According to this, my Progres becomes redundant, which I had already mentioned in one of my earlier letters. I kindly ask you not to delay and to give me your opinion on this matter as soon as possible (perhaps you can inform me of the results of your correspondence regarding the Academy’s journal with Mr. Bonto), so that I can write an article on this matter in the next issue, No. 18,A of Progreso, which may possibly become the last issue; in such a case, I would like to direct subscribers’ attention to the Academy’s journal, in which they will be able to find its continuation. Who will be the secretary? Who will be the editor or editors?

With respectful greetings,
your most devoted,

Rosenberger

Would you like to set a contribution of 10 francs for corresponding members as well? Would you also like to keep, besides corresponding members, patrons with a contribution of c. 3 franks?

—
A It is necessary to publish it soon!

NOTES:

1 Po brev temp should read po temp brev if the adjective is to follow the noun.
2 Neither relevant nor irelevant are 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).
3 Placid is the Reform-Neutral spelling of what would be the regularly derived plasid in Idiom Neutral.
4 Resultat comes to be used as the Reform-Neutral version of the original resultad in Idiom Neutral.
5 Fusion is not attested in either the 1902 or Reform-Neutral (1912) dictionary; however, see: fusion (e f d), fusión (s), fusione (i).
6 This sentence is written in Ido: “The major difficulty for mutual fusion is that our Academy (same as was our Committee) will be elected (by the future Union), while yours is not elected (see our final plan of the Union in №10 of Progreso. For this reason, we would not be able to elect into our Academy all members of your Academy. Consider that!”
7 This sentence is written in French: “The Akademi, through its publications, can only make this work known.”
8 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.

Google Sites

Report abuse