Rosenberger to Peano

Idiom Neutral

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 no 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 plusiorfoa[3] in mens.

Et sirkulari de direktor potes avar adpendad (apendiks) kontenant artikli divers, e nome, mi pens, in kelkun 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 resumed[4] 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 pertinent[b] p.. 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 propagandist[5] mal 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 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 abonenti[6] 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 il potes 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 kriterium[9] plu bon pro internasionalitet de parol ka opinion de mayoritet de Akademiani, ma kasui eksist in keli (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 kel sert otr inisiator.[11]

Mi es konvinsied, ke votr labori de kolektasion de vokabli e abonenti internasional avero sekuadi bon pro L.U. 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 preg 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 fusion[12] 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.

_______
[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.

Lingu anglik

28 September/11 October 1908

To Prof. G. Peano in Turin

Much esteemed sir!

I have received in due course your kind letter dated 24 September with the note: “Me attende ab Vos novo observationes”. Regrettably, I was too occupied in the ministry (department) I serve in, such that I was not able to occupy myself in affairs of the Academy. But I feel the need to respond to you soon and I will try to do it now, discussing all your plans in detail.

Before that, allow me to express again my great joy that the International Academy of the Universal Language has hope again to show intense life — under your directorship. When Mr. Holmes' last circular appeared, I was convinced that it would contain an announcement of your election and I was very surprised to read that the election is not yet completed. I believe the election is carried out unanimously, but I don't know it: Holmes did not write to me last time. I got my little circular printed immediately, a copy of which I also sent to you with Mr. Holmes' circular 94.

Several days after this, I sent to you № 7 of Progres, for whose contents I ask your attention.

In the future, when the Academy has its functioning organ, my Progres will probably no longer be necessary.

1/14 October 1908.

I am so occupied that it is almost impossible to correspond. I was interrupted. I will try to finish today.

Concerning the statue plan, I have written the last letter (?)[a]

The Academy must be free for all opinions. Without a doubt. Fortunately, our Academy is free. It knows no authority in questions of language. (Cf. §2 of the statutes).

The task of the Academy (§1) is the completion and improvement of the grammar, dictionary. Without a doubt, the main way to attain this is the publication of the journal and of the director's circulars to members of the Academy; it is a separate question whether this journal should operate periodically or in nonfixed time periods. I preferred free circulars, appearing when the necessity existed, possibly several times in a month.

Also, the director's circulars can have appendices containing diverse articles, namely, I think, linguistic articles in some artificial or natural language and nonlinguistic articles in some artificial language (as proof of this language). I think that the organ of the Academy should distinguish itself from the other journal by having articles appear not to be printed and afterwards forgotten, as we saw in Linguist, but by having all opinions expressed summarised by the director and — finally — all questions resolved by the Academy for publication in the form of books.

The means, proposed by Prof. Pfaundler in Groz, to find the most pertinent[a] language is an excellent method, but, I think, a method that takes too long.

“Koresp. Int.” is a very good journal in the manner of Pfaundler, but articles in diverse languages risk being rarely read (especially because of the hard-to-read hectograph) and being forgotten.

I will collaborate voluntarily to obtain 1000 members of the Academy, but I promise nothing, I am a weak propagandist.

It is very important to know that the other circular (?) functions well with the statutes, proposed by you for our Academy. We should adapt the principles generally, introducing them into our Regulativi.

The Academy can have in all countries one academician for every ten million inhabitants (§4) and several very meritous members outside of this number (§6).

We cannot change these paragraphs; but we can create extraordinary members, as we already created the corporation of “supporters” (§26 of Reg.) paying a contribution of 3 Franks. They are now all but subscribers of the circulars. We can extend their rights (the right of publication of articles in the organ of the Academy and possibly also the right of voting in financial questions of the journal) and increase the annual contribution. The right of publication of articles gives them an almost consultative voice and I propose to name them “consultative members” in constrast to “active members”, foreseen by the statutes, elected by the Academy by means of voting and having the right to vote in linguistic questions. Maybe it would be more prudent to create a corporation of consultative members to leave the corporation of supporters (subscribers without rights) paying around 3 Franks; — possibly not.

Let us also create, if you want, a corporation of “editors”. I don't understand their function well, but it is a minor detail.

Even if we admit articles in all artifical languages, I think that the addresses of the director and academicians should be in that language which is accepted by the Academy; — at this time, it is Idiom Neutral.

The name of the Academy is irrelevant. I don't think we should change it, especially since it is part of the statutes which we cannot change. The expression Lingu Universal can be considered as a terminus technicus for a certain notion without having the sense of the idea of one language for the whole universe. (NB. A certain proficient specialist of classical Latin told me that “Academia pro lingua inter nationes” cannot be considered as classical Latin).

5 years are fixed for the directorship (§12). We should select a director for 5 years. If the director becomes tired or ill or he as another reason for finishing his activity, he can present the question to the Academy and propose a new person. I hope that you will not do this.

Response to your letter dated 24 September 1908.

I am very happy that you have accepted my opinion that the current Academy must be conserved.

I desire with you that the Academy become broader, stronger and more vigorous and I am ready to help you whenever possible.

I think that we cannot accept “en bloc” your “statutes” with the title “Extracto ex regulamento”, but we must examine the Regulativi accepted (cf. circular 73 etc) and propose to the Academy such and such changes of them. I do not doubt that the Academy will accept them if they are good; maybe one or another academician will make their good observations, for which we must be thankful.

Your note regarding “socio de Academia in numero illimitato” on the one hand and “Academia — redactore in numero non superiore ad 196 aut ad 100” (?) — does not correspond to §28 of Regulativi — and I haven't understood it well.

You are right that the existing vocabulary of international words is a better criterium for the internationality of a word than the opinion of the majority of academicians, but cases exist (cf. Progres, p. 37-38) in which one hesitates about which radical to accept, and someone must make a resolution. Who? I would prefer a plebiscite, but because a plebiscite is not possible and the arbitrariness of any one person is to be avoided, we must be content to have a society (Academy) for such a resolution. And, indeed, we must not be afraid to present questions to the Academy, because we have already seen one academician or another giving very good insights on the occassion of some proposition of the director or a certain other intiator.

I am convinced that your labours of collecting vocabulary and international subscribers will have good consequences for the shape of the International Language.

Generally I think that the foremost labour of the current time consists in changing the Regulativi. We should change the image without changing the frame (statutes).

I think that it's possible and I recommend that you examine each paragraph of the Regulativi (circular 73 and others) as to whether it can remain or whether it should be changed and how it should be changed. After that, to present the new text of the paragraph to be changed to the Academy for voting.

I think that a time period of 65 days for voting (§4 of Reg.) can be lessened because Turin is more central than Petersburg and because the means of communication have become quicker.

With a respectful salutation and with a request to excuse the late response, I remain you most devoted servant,

Rosenberger

P.S. I have already said that my Progres will probably be superfluous. I should add that yesterday I received a confidential letter from academician Bonto van Bÿlevelt who desires the fusion of the journals Progres, Idei internasional and Korespondens Internasional. I think that this issue must be ruled on by you, the future director of the Academy and not by me. My Progres was founded in due course to make the existence of Idiom Neutral known, i.e. to help the Academy, whose director published very short circulars, too concise. If the new directorship will publish its organ and give me and everyone else the opportunity to publish linguistic articles and if the Academy will have its corporations of propagandists of the language — my Progres will no more be necessary.

_______
[a] On the other hand, the completion and improvement of the language (§1) is not limited.
[b] To admit into the journals all languages and observe which languages disappear and which language is used more and more until it rests victorious in competition.

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.
[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 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).
[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.