Rosenberger to Peano

Idiom Neutral

29 april/12 mai 5 mai/18 mai 1910

A s. prof. G. Peano in Turin

S. direktor estimed!

Mi deb pregar pardon, ke mi no av responded plu po anteriore a votr letr datu 4 mai; mi esav tro okuped; dat koriged de ist letr monstr, ke mi voluav skribar a vo ante 6 diurni — ma it esav neposibl. 

Et sidiurne mi skribero breve.

Sekuantu kelkun miskomprendad vo skrib di „vos articles recemment paru dans les journaux russes“. Mi no av publiked kelkun artikl in kelkun diurnal rus.[1] — Probable vo skrib di mie raport in sosietet politeknikal in oktobr 1909, kel es imprimed in protokoli de ist sosietet „Ueber den Bau künstlicher Sprachen“. — no in lingu rus, ma in lingu german. — Mi konos nohom, kel skriberio recension[2] di ist raport. 

Mi av interoged „Eske it es permit?“ ma vo no av responded. It sembl a mi, ke vo voluav pregar sub ist form, ma mi afirm, ke fras, kel komens mediu paroli „Vous pouvez...“ = „Vos pote...”, esero konsepted per mi sempre kuale permit e no kuale preg. — If vo volu pregar mi, mi preg komensar votr fras mediu „Je vous prie” = „Me pete vos...”

If vo In mie letr datu 4/17 mars 1910 mi av refused redaksion de N4 de Discussiones, ma mi av ofred sukursar vo, p.e. fasiar korekturi. Po ist ofr vo av mited a mi dufoa folii de korektur de pagini prim de N4, kontenant „Prepositiones in discussione” sine kelkun indikasion. It es klar, ke vo av mited ist folii a fini ke mi fasi korekturi tipografik — e mi av fasied it tante ke it esav posibl sine manuskript, di kekos mi skribav dufoa. Sole sitempe vo skrib, ke vo av mited el folii „a fin que vous y ajoutez vos contre propositions”. Mi konos labori de Akademi durantu 23 anui, ma nokuande votasion di kelkun kuestion esav fasied in tal manier — mediu folii de korektur.   

Sekuantu §1 de Regulativi, omni proposasioni de Direktor es fasied mediu sirkulari, mited a omni membri in du eksemplari, sekuantu §3, ma no mediu un foliet de korektur, kontenant erori tipografik. 

Mi av mited a vo mie opinion di votr proposasioni no in „lettre privée” ma ofisiale, sekuantu §5 de Regulativi, i.e. proposisioni nov (kontrproposasioni) ko motivi. 

Votante di votr §4 mi av voted „Form plu konvenabl pro plural es -i, ya aksepted per Akademi in Resolusion 47, e -e pro paroli in -a”. Ad ist kontrproposasion mi av adyunkted motivi. — Mi no komprend kekos vo volu ankor.

Kuande mi esav direktor — omni opinion de omni membri esav doned in mie sirkulari.

Mi av diked klare in pagin 2 de mie letr d. 16/29 april, ke „mi no mitero diksionar a membri korespondant de Akademi”. Kekause vo interog ankor? Probable vo lekt mie letri no ko atension. Tekause miskomprendadi tale mult! — Mi preg no anunsar[3] di mie „cadeau” a membri de Akademi.

In mie letr d. 4/17 mars mi av proposed 1) fasiar korekturi[4] 2) dismitar Discussiones, if vo donero instruksion[5] presis e list de adresi. Et future, sine esar visedirektor, mi es parat sukursar vo in ist relasioni. Votr parol „farce” no es konvenable. — Evitam tal ekspresioni! 

Okasionu miskompendad[6] e §20. Mi av parled di §20 de statuti e no di §26 de Regulativi. Mi proposav mitar gratis a omni membri aktiv de Akademi — sirkulari de direktori anterior. Vo konos (Disc. N2. pag. 15 inferiore), ke kelk sirkulari es ad mi e kelk sirkulari ad s. Holmes.[a] If vo aprob mie proposasion on deb konstatar kuant eksemplari eksist; probable kauntitet restant de kelk sirkulari no sufisero e on debero imprimar edision sekund; ergo ist kuestion es kuestion finansik; kuestioni finansik sekuantu §20 de statuti, es resolved per direktorad. 

Mi es kontr mutasion de statut. Statut potes esar muted sole per Kongres internasional. Mi av voted ya kontr Kongres internasional. — Mi konos, ke on potes laborar bene ko notr statuti [e ko nostr Regulativi].

Mi no av Internaciona Pioniro. Mita it, if it plis! Mi retromitero it po lektasion.

Membr de Akademi K. Lentze in Leipzig (Körnerplatz 6) skrib a mi datu 7 mai, ke il av resived da vo sole votr sirkular prim. Ergo il no av resived sirkular 97. Ergo il no potes esar eksklosed eks Akademi. Il skrib, ke il ekspekt komunikasion, kuant mon il debt a Akademi e a ki il deb pagar. — Il skrib istkos okasionu mie regret, ke il av abandoned Akademi. — Mi preg multe vo komunikar a s. Lentze respond. 

Okasionu Prop. 6 de Circulare 97 mi avav voted ko kontrproposasion. Permita kuestion, kekos vo av resolved okasionu ist kontrpropasasion? 

Ko estim grand votr leplu devot,

Rosenberger

_______
[a] Lor pris es indiked su pag. 15. In omni kasu kuestion es finansik. 

Lingu anglik

29 April/12 Mai 5/18 May 1910

To prof. G. Peano in Turin

Esteemed director!

I must beg your pardon that I have not responded earlier to your letter dated 4 May; I was too busy; the corrected date of this letter shows that I wanted to write to you six days ago — but it was impossible.

I also will write briefly today.

Following some misunderstanding, you write about “vos articles recemment paru dans les journaux russes”. I have not published any article in any Russian journal. — You are probably writing about my report in the polytechnical society in October 1909 which is printed in the proceedings of this society “Über den Bau künstlicher Sprachen.“ — not in the Russian language, but in German. — I know no one who would write a review of this report.

I have asked “Is it allowed?” but you have not responded. It seems to me that you wanted to request under this form, but I assert that the sentence which starts with the words “Vous pouvez...” = “Vos pote...” will be understood by me always as permission and not as a request. — If you want to request something of me, I ask you to start your sentence with “Je vous prieʼ” = “Me pete vos...”

In my letter dated 4/17 March 1910 I have refused the editing of №4 of Discussiones, but I have offered to help you, e.g. to make corrections. After this offer, you have twice sent me the correction sheets of the first pages of №4, containing “Prepositiones in discussione” without any specification. It's clear that you've sent these sheets in order that I make typographical corrections — and I have done it so much that it was possible without the manuscript, about which I have written twice. Only now you write that you have sent those sheets “a fin que vous y ajoutez vos contre propositions” (so you can add your counterproposals). I have known the works of the Academy for 23 years, but never was a vote about any question made in such a manner — by means of correction sheets.

According to §1 of Regulativi, all propositions of the director are done by means of circulars, sent to all members in two copies, according to §3, but not by one small correction sheet, containing typographical errors. 

I have sent to you my opinion of your propositions not in a “lettre privée” but officially, according to §5 of Regulativi, i.e. new propositions (counterproposals) with reasons.

Voting on your §4, I have voted “The more suitable form for the plural is -i, already accepted by the Academy in Resolution 47, and -e for words in -a”. To this counterproposal I have added reasons. — I don't know what else you want. 

When I was director — every opinion of all members were given in my circulars.

I have stated clearly on page 2 of my letter dated 16/29 April that “I will not send the dictionary to corresponding members of the Academy”. Why are you still asking? You are probably not reading my letters with attention. So many misunderstandings because of this! — I ask you not to make an announcement about my “gift” to the Academy's members.

In my letters dated 4/17 March, I have proposed 1) to make corrections, 2) to disseminate Discussions, if you will give precise instruction and a list of addresses. Also, in the future, without being vicedirector, I am ready to help you with these communications. Your word “farce” is not appropriate. — Let us avoid such expressions!

On the occasion of misunderstanding and §20. I have spoken about §20 of the statutes and not about §26 of the Regulativi. I proposed to send freely to all active members of the Academy — circulars of the previous director. You know (Disc. №2, p. 15 below) that some circulars are with me and some circulars are with Mr. Holmes.[a] If you approve my proposition, one should establish how many copies exist; the remaining quantity of several circulars will not be sufficient and one will have to print a second edition; therefore, this matter is a financial one; financial matters according to §20 of the statutes are resolved by the directorate. 

I am against the changing of the constitution. The constitution can only be changed by an international Congress. I have already voted against an international Congress. — I know that one can work well with our statutes [and with our Regulativi].

I do not have Internaciona Pioniro. Please send it! I will send it back after reading.

A member of the Academy K. Lentze in Leipzig (Körnerplatz 6) writes to me on 7 May that he has received from you only your first circular. Therefore, he has not received circular №97. Therefore, he cannot be excluded from the Academy. He writes that he is awaiting communication about how much money he owes to the Academy and who he should pay. — He writes this on the occasion of my regret that he has abandoned the Academy. — I ask you very much to communicate a reply to Mr. Lentze.

On the occasion of Prop. 6 of circular №97, I had voted with the counterproposal. Permit the question: what have you resolved on the occasion of this counterproposal?

With great esteem, you most devoted

Rosenberger

_______
[a] Their price is indicated on page 15. In any case, the matter is financial. 

NOTES:

[1] The 1912 form here would be rusik (relating to the Russian language); however, as is clear from the Manual of the Practical Universal Language (a textbook on Reform-Neutral), geographic and demonymic terms were the subject of subsequent changes; see Suplement a Diksionar (1906).
[2] Recension does not appear in the original 1902 dictionary, but does in the Reform-Neutral (1912) dictionary.
[3] Anunsar is a misspelling of anunsiar.
[4] Korektur is not attested in the 1902 dictionary; however, correctur is a noun derived from the Reform-Neutral verb corrigiar through the suffix -ur (which takes over some of the functions of the suffix -ad in Idiom Neutral). In the Idiom Neutral of 1902, “correction” would be korigasion or koreksion (or possibly, though nowhere attested, korektad for an individual correction).
[5] Instruksion appears to be an accepted variant of Idiom Neutral's instruasion.