Rosenberger to Peano

Idiom Neutral

30 april/13 mai 1909

A s. prof. G. Peano in Turin

Sinior direktor estimed!

Mi retromit ko mersiad letri mited a mi per vo ko votr letr datu 30 mars

1) Letr de prof. Couturat d. 21 yanuar 1909
2) Letr de prof. Leau d. 16 desembr 08, e
3) mie propr datu 8/21 mars, kel vo av adyunkted erore.

Mi no potes aprobar opinion de s. Couturat, ke sie Akademi avero autoritet plu grand, ka nostr Akademi, kause omni du Akademii es funded e av membri selekted per universallinguisti suetempik; omni du es Akademii privat, i.e. no statik. 

Mi no aprob sie opinion, ke nostr Akademi no potes fasiar kelkkos bon. Sitempe on no deb propagandar kelkun lingu artifisial, ma on deb shershar form leplu pertinent, yuste okupasion de nostr Akademi. It es regretabl, ke in anui ultim ist okupasion esav interumped per direktor, kel no imprimav in sue sirkulari proposasioni nov. (Usk sitempe mi no konos kaus). Posible vo es rekt, ke sitempe Akademi no deb fasiar resolusioni, ma finie resolusioni esero fasied e Akademi resivero sue lingu nov, — resultat de labori komun!

„Ido” no es optimum relativ; sikause it esav erad krear literatur in ist lingu e propagandar it. It es erad krear sosietet grand (Uniono) eks personi, keli subskrib promet „lernar la Linguo di la D., praktikar ol en omna okazioni e difuzar ol segun mea povo e moyeni”[1] (Visa Adherilo!)

Posidiurne mi mitero a kaser nov s. prof. G. Pagliero — mon de Akademi, kel es in mie manui sumu 8 rubli 25 kopeki (= 22 fr).

Ko saluti respektos votr serv leplu devot

Rosenberger

Lingu anglik

30 April/13 May 1909

To prof. G. Peano in Turin

Esteemed director!

I am returning with thanks the letters you sent to me with your letter dated 30 March:

1) Couturat's letter dated 21 January 1909
2) Prof. Leau's letter dated 16 December 1908, and
3) My own dated 8/21 March, which you have added by mistake.

I cannot approve of Mr. Couturat's opinion that his Academy will have greater authority than our Academy because both Academies are established and have members selected by timely “universal” linguists; both are private academies, i.e. not of the state.

I do not approve of his opinion that our Academy cannot do anything good. One should not at this time promote any artificial language, but one should search for the most suitable form, exactly the occupation of our Academy. It is regrettable that in recent years this occupation was interrupted by a director who did not print new propositions in his circulars. (I still do not know the reason why). You are possibly right that the Academy should not make resolutions now, but eventually resolutions will be made and the Academy will receive its new language, — the result of common labours!

“Ido” is not a relative optimum (?); for this reason, it was an error to create literature in this language and promote it. It is an error to create a large society (Uniono) from persons who sign a promise to “learn the language of the Delegation, to put it into practice in all occasions and spread it according to my power and means” (see the entrance form!) 

Tomorrow I will send to the new treasurer Prof. G. Pagliero the money of the Academy which is in my hands to the sum of 8 rubles 25 kopeks (= 22 franks).

With respectful salutations your most devoted servant

Rosenberger