In 1887, Warsaw was under the thumb of the Russian empire.
In that year, an obscure Polish eye-doctor,
Ludovic Lazarus Zamenhof,
published identical pamphlets in
Russian, Polish, French, and German,
the easy-to-learn neutral second language for every country.
Today, Esperanto is alive and well around the world,
and throughout the Internet.
This is the 1889 English version of that “First Book” where it all began,
reprinted for a new millennium.
“My whole grammar can be learned perfectly in one hour.”
[Inside front cover]
Permitted by the Censor Warsaw 5 January 1889
Printed by Ch. Kelter Nowolipie Str. N. 11
For a language to be universal,
it is not enough to call it that.
An international language, like every national one,
is the property of society, and the author renounces
all personal rights in it forever.
1) Author: Zamenhof, Ludovic Lazarus (1859-1917).
2) Translator: Geoghegan, Richard H. (1866-1943).
3) Editor: Keyes, Gene (1941- ).
5) Language and Languages.
Pamphlet edition published 2000-09-24
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
NB: Footnotes are gathered at the end, but hotlinked so that you can read each one in turn,
then be hotlinked back to where you left off. Those with a single asterisk, e.g. (*1), and in plain type,
are the originals; those with a double asterisk, e.g. (**2), and in italics, are my extra "GK" notes.
Esperanto—the easy-to-learn international second language
for every country—is alive and well around the world and throughout the Internet.
When I first wrote this on September 9, 2000, Esperanto in Google yielded
more than one million results. Now on November 28, 2006, Googling Esperanto gets over 31 million. (Google
itself has an Esperanto interface.)
The Esperanto version of Wikipedia,
begun in November 2001, already has over 61,000 articles, ranking #15 among Wikipedia’s
250 language-versions. At www.esperanto.net, Esperanto
is introduced in any of 62 languages.
And here is the booklet where it all began. In July 1887, Esperanto
made its debut as a 40-page pamphlet from Warsaw, published in Russian,
Polish, French and German: all written by a Polish eye-doctor under the
pen-name of Dr. Esperanto (one who hopes). Ludovic Lazarus Zamenhof (1859-1917)
had a gift for languages, and a calling to help foster world amity: by
a neutral Internacia Lingvo that anyone anywhere could readily
use as a second language: neither forsaking a mother tongue, nor imposing it.
In 1889 Zamenhof published an English translation by Richard H. Geoghegan,
a young Irish linguist. All five are respectively considered
the First Book. (**1) This classic sets forth Esperanto pretty much as we know
it today (except that we no longer use internal apostrophes for composite words).
Its original repertoire of 900 root words has grown tenfold in the past
century, but you can still almost make do with the vocabulary herein.
Just as a key aspect of the Industrial Revolution was interchangeability
of parts, so Esperanto is built with a relatively small set of interchangeable
root words, prefixes, and suffixes (plus 16 grammatical rules with no
irregularities): in which any human nuance can be expressed, from Winnie the Pooh to the Bible.
Zamenhof translated the entire Old Testament into Esperanto—see
a bit of Genesis below. All of La Sankta Biblio appeared in 1926.
Now it is on the Net:
Since 1887, there have been thousands of books and periodicals in Esperanto:
a vast library of original and translated literature: novels; poetry; song;
theater; even Nobel Prize nominations for William Auld (1924-2006), a renowned
writer in the world culture of Esperanto.
Of course, English (neither neutral nor easy) in some ways is surpassing
Dr. Esperanto’s dream of an international language. But that may not always
be so: as journalist Harry Bruce points out, English spins off so many
weird but hardy variations of itself that, rather than becoming the language
of universal communication, it’s repeating the tower of Babel story.
Meanwhile, Esperanto has been slowly gathering strength over the decades.
It has weathered deadly opposition from Hitler and Stalin, and too much
indifference elsewhere. But the Internet has enabled Esperanto to spread
its wings further and faster. The new Millennium is a good time to look
back at the very first appearance of Zamenhof’s social invention. A masterwork
Berwick, Nova Scotia, Canada
gene.keyes AT gmail.com
2000-09-09; updated 2006-11-28
Many thanks are due to Dr. Stevens Norvell Jr., proprietor of North America’s
largest active Esperanto library, Libraro Ludovika,
in Halifax, Nova Scotia, where I obtained the source materials for this; and to Mary Jo Graça, who
prodded me to do the online version, and helped a lot with the HTML formatting.
Oddly enough, this seminal pamphlet of the Esperanto movement—indeed, of
world civilization—has long been out of print (except for the scholarly multivolume
set of Zamenhof’s works, Ludovikologia Dokumentaro, compiled by “ludovikito”, cited in footnote **1.)
I first read a photocopy of the English pamphlet itself in 1993, and decided
to do a new edition rather than a facsimile. For instance, in the original,
the vocabulary was printed in small type on a folded sheet (about 10" x 14"),
and “ludovikito” reduces that to an illegible 75%.
Using the pamphlet photocopy, plus “ludovikito”, I followed the original (Geoghegan) text and layout
almost exactly as they were, with these exceptions:
North American instead of European quotation marks;
Inside front cover passages restored, from the other four editions;
Improved spacing in the 16 rules of the grammar;
A few obvious typos corrected (or new ones added);
Four of Zamenhof’s reply coupons included, not eight;
Some “GK” footnotes and clarifications inserted (mine are in italics; others are not);
A redesigned cover, identifying Zamenhof as the author;
Increased type-size for the vocabulary: 11 pages in my print version,
instead of the four in “ludovikito”, or the eight-page equivalent of that
original 10" x 14" sheet (which, as Zamenhof mentions, was intended to facilitate
mailing to a pen-pal, or carrying in one’s pocket in lieu of a dictionary).
I made two additional changes in the HTML version, besides updating the preface and footnotes:
Still more spacing in the Vocabulary;
Apostrophes instead of internal commas: at first, Zamenhof signified
root-word combinations and affixes with an internal comma, e.g., frat,in,o
(sister): a crutch for beginners which was soon to be dropped. Because that internal sign
had to be smaller than a real comma, I chose another Zamenhof usage:
internal apostrophes, e.g. frat'in'o, because they are more practical in HTML
than a mini-comma. (His original pamphlet had mini-commas in the text part,
apostrophes in the Vocabulary; this one has apostrophes in both sections.
It’s all moot anyway, since they are no longer used, but those separation-marks
show Esperanto in its original form.)
My printed version was produced on a 1989 Macintosh IIcx computer with
ClarisWorks 4, and an Esperanto font by Peter Hull, ISOTempoj. Website
HTML version was produced on a 1998 OS 9.2 Mac G3 Beige, with Netscape 7
Composer, BBEdit Lite 3.5, and iCab 3.0, plus ClarisWorks 5, and Word 9.
Boulton, Marjorie, Zamenhof: Creator of Esperanto (London: Routledge, 1960) 223 p.
Mullarney, Máire, Everyone’s Own Language (Ireland, 1999) 188 p.; orig. Esperanto for Hope (Dublin: Poolbeg, 1989) 184 p.
*Available from Esperanto League for North America
(via first website above, or snail mail:)
Box 1129, El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA
e-mail: info AT esperanto-usa.org
The reader will doubtless take up this little work with an incredulous
smile, supposing that he is about to peruse the impracticable schemes of
some good citizen of Utopia. I would, therefore, in the first place, beg
of him to lay aside all prejudice, and treat seriously and critically the
question brought before him.
I need not here point out the considerable importance to humanity of
an international language—a language unconditionally accepted by everyone,
and the common property of the whole world. How much time and labour we spend
in learning foreign tongues, and yet when travelling in foreign countries,
we are, as a rule, unable to converse with other human beings in their own
language. How much time, labour, and money are wasted in translating the
literary productions of one nation into the language of another, and yet,
if we rely on translations alone, we can become acquainted with but a tithe
of foreign literature.
Were there but an international language, all translations would be
made into it alone, as into a tongue intelligible to all, and works of an
international character would be written in it in the first instance.
The Chinese wall dividing literatures would disappear, and the works
of other nations would be as readily intelligible to us as those of our own
authors. Books being the same for everyone, education, ideals, convictions,
aims, would be the same too, and all nations would be united in a common
brotherhood. Being compelled, as we now are, to devote our time to the study
of several different languages, we cannot study any of them sufficiently
well, and there are but few persons who can even boast a complete mastery
of their mother-tongue; on the other hand, languages cannot progress towards
perfection, and we are often obliged, even in speaking our own language,
to borrow words and expressions from foreigners, or to express our thoughts
How different would the case be, had we but two languages to learn;
we should know them infinitely better, and the languages themselves would
grow richer, and reach a higher degrees of perfection than is found in any
of those now existing. And yet, though language is the prime motor of civilisation,
and to it alone we owe the having raised ourselves above the level of other
animals, difference of speech is a cause of antipathy, nay even of hatred,
between people, as being the first thing to strike us on meeting. Not being
understood we keep aloof, and the first notion that occurs to our minds is,
not to find out whether the others are of our own political opinions, or
whence their ancestors came from thousands of years ago, but to dislike the
strange sound of their language. Any one, who has lived for a length of time
in a commercial city, whose inhabitants were of different unfriendly nations,
will easily understand what a boon would be conferred on mankind by the adoption
of an international idiom, which, without interfering with domestic affairs
or the private-life of nations, would play the part of an official and commercial
dialect, at any rate in countries inhabited by people of different nationalities.
The immense importance, which it may well be imagined, an international
language would acquire in science, commerce, etc., I will not here expatiate
on: whoever has but once bestowed a thought on the subject will surely acknowledge
that no sacrifice would be too great, if by it we could obtain a universal
tongue. It is, therefore, imperative that the slightest effort in that direction
should be attended to. The best years of my life have been devoted to the
momentous cause which I am now bringing before the public, and I hope that,
on account of the importance of the subject, my readers will peruse this
pamphlet attentively to the end.
I shall not here enter upon an analysis of the various attempts already
made to give the public a universal language, but will content myself with
remarking that these efforts have amounted, either to a short system of mutually-intelligible
signs, or to a natural simplification of the grammar of existing modern languages,
with a change of their words into arbitrarily-formed ones. The attempts of
the first category were quickly seen to be too complicated for practical
use, and so faded into oblivion; those of the second were, perhaps, entitled
to the name of “languages”, but certainly not “international” languages.
The inventors called their tongues “universal”, I know not why, possibly,
because no one in the whole world except themselves could understand a single
word, written or spoken in any of them. If a language, in order to become
universal, has but to be named so, then, forsooth, the wish of any single
individual can frame out of any existing dialect a universal tongue. As these
authors naively imagined that their essays would be enthusiastically welcomed
and taken up by the whole world, and as this unanimous welcome is precisely
what the cold and indifferent world declines to give, when there is no chance
of realising any immediate benefit, it is not much to be marvelled at, if
these brilliant attempts came to nothing. The greater part of the world was
not in the slightest degree interested in the prospect of a new language,
and the persons who really cared about the matter thought it scarcely worth
while to learn a tongue which none but the inventor could understand. When
the whole world, said they, has learnt this language, or at least several
million people, we will do the same. And so a scheme, which had it but been
able to number some thousands of adepts before its appearance in public,
would have been enthusiastically hailed, came into the world an utter fiasco.
If the “Volapük”, one of the latest attempts at a universal tongue, has indeed
its adepts, it owes its popularity solely to the idea of its being a “universal
language”, and that idea has in itself something so attractive and sublime,
that true enthusiasts, leaders in every new discovery, are ready to devote
their time, in the hope that they may, perchance, win the cause.
But the number of enthusiasts, after having risen to a certain number,
will remain stationary (*3) and as the unfeeling and indifferent world will never
consent to take any pains in order to speak with the few, this attempt will,
like its predecessors, disappear without having achieved any practical victory.
I have always been interested in the question of a universal language,
but as I did not feel myself better qualified for the work than the authors
of so many other fruitless attempts, I did not risk running into print, and
merely occupied myself with imaginary schemes and a minute study of the problem.
At length, however, some happy ideas, the fruits of my reflections, incited
me to further work, and induced me to essay the systematic conquest of the
many obstacles, which beset the path of the inventor of a new rational universal
language. As it appears to me that I have almost succeeded in my undertaking,
I am now venturing to lay before the critical public, the results of my long
and assiduous labours.
The principal difficulties to be overcome were:
1) To render the study of the language so easy as to make its acquisition mere play to
2) To enable the learner to make direct use of his knowledge with persons
of any nationality, whether the language be universally accepted or not;
in other words, the language is to be directly a means of international communication.
3) To find some means of overcoming the natural indifference of mankind,
and disposing them, in the quickest manner possible, and en masse, to learn and use the
proposed language as a living one, and not only in last extremities, and with the key at hand.
Amongst the numberless projects submitted at various times to the public,
often under the high-sounding but unaccountable name of “universal languages”,
no has solved at once more than one
of the above-mentioned problems, and even that but partially. (Many other
problems, of course, presented themselves, in addition to those here noticed,
but these, as being of but secondary importance, I shall not in this place
Before proceeding to enlighten the reader as to the
means employed for the solution of the problems, I would ask of him to reconsider
the exact significance of each separately, so that he may not be inclined
to carp at my methods of solution, merely because they may appear to him
perhaps too simple. I do this, because I am well aware that the majority
of mankind feel disposed to bestow their consideration on any subject the
more carefully, in proportion as it is enigmatical and incomprehensible.
Such persons, at the sight of so short a grammar, with rules so simple, and
so readily intelligible, will be ready to regard it with a contemptuous glance,
never considering the fact—of which a little further reflection would convince
them—that this simplification and bringing of each detail out of its original
complicated form into the simplest and easiest conceivable, was, in fact,
the most insuperable obstacle to be coped with.
The first of the problems was solved in the following manner:
a) I simplified the grammar to the utmost, and while, on the one hand,
I carried out my object in the spirit of the existing modern languages, in
order to make the study as free from difficulties as possible, on the other
hand I did not deprive it of clearness, exactness, and flexibility. My whole grammar
can be learned perfectly inone hour.The immense alleviation
given to the study of a language, by such a grammar, must be self-evident to everyone.
b) I established rules for the formation of new words, and at the same
time, reduced to a very small compass the list of words absolutely necessary
to be learned, without, however, depriving the language of the means of becoming
a rich one. On the contrary, thanks to the possibility of forming from one
root-word any number of compounds, expressive of every conceivable shade
of idea, I made it the richest of the rich amongst modern tongues. This I
accomplished by the introduction of numerous prefixes and suffixes, by whose
aid the student is enabled to create new words for himself, without the necessity
of having previously to learn them, e.g.
1) The prefix mal denotes the direct opposite of any idea.
If, for instance, we know the word for “good”, bon'a, we can immediately form
that for “bad”, mal'bon'a, and hence the necessity of a special word
for “bad” is obviated. In like manner, alt'a, “high”, “tall”;
mal'alt'a, “low”, “short”; estim'i, “to respect”,
mal'estim'i, “to despise”, etc. Consequently, if one has learned this single word mal
he is relieved of leaning a long string of words such as “hard” (premising
that he knows “soft”), “cold”, “old”, “dirty”, “distant”,
“to hate”, etc., etc.
2) The suffix in marks the feminine gender, and thus if we know the
word “brother”, frat'o, we can form “sister”, frat'in'o: so
also, “father”, patr'o; “mother”, patr'in'o. By this device
words like “grandmother”, “bride”, “girl”, “hen”, “cow”, etc.,
are done away with.
3) The suffix il indicates an instrument for a given purpose, e.g.,
tranĉ'i, “to cut”, tranĉ'il'o, “a knife”; so words like “comb”,
“axe”, “bell”, etc., are rendered unnecessary.
In the same manner are employed many other affixes—some fifty in all—which
the reader will find in the vocabulary at end of this tractate. (*4) Moreover,
as I have laid it down as a general rule, that every word already regarded
as international—the so-called “foreign” words, for example—undergoes no
change in my language, except such as may be necessary to bring it into conformity
with the international orthography (**5) , innumerable words become superfluous,
e.g., “locomotive”, “telegraph”, “nerve”, “temperature”, “centre”, “form”,
“public”, “platinum”, “figure”, “waggon”, “comedy”, and hundreds more.
By the help of these rules, and others, which will be found in the grammar,
the language is rendered so exceedingly simple that the whole labour in learning
consists in committing to memory some 900 words—which number includes all
the grammatical inflexions, prefixes, etc. With the assistance of the rules
given in the grammar, any one of ordinary intellectual capacity, may form
for himself all the words, expressions, and idioms in ordinary use. Even
these 900 words, as will be shown directly, are so chosen that the learning
them offers no difficulty to a well-educated person.
Thus the acquirement of this rich, mellifluous, universally-comprehensible
language, is not a matter of years of laborious study, but the mere light
amusement of a few days.
The solution of the second problem was effected thus:
1) I introduced a complete dismemberment of ideas into independent words,
so that the whole language consists, not of words in different states of
grammatical inflexion, but of unchangeable words. If the reader will turn
to one of the pages of this book written in my language, he will perceive
that each word always retains its original unalterable form—namely, that
under which it appears in the vocabulary. The various grammatical inflexions,
the reciprocal relations of the members of a sentence, are expressed by the
junction of immutable syllables. But the structure of such a synthetic language
being altogether strange to the chief European nations, and consequently
difficult for them to become accustomed to, I have adapted this principle
of dismemberment to the spirit of the European languages, in such a manner
that anyone learning my tongue from grammar alone, without having previously
read this introduction—which is quite unnecessary for the learner—will never
perceive that the structure of the language differs in any respect from that
of his mother-tongue. So, for example, the derivation of frat'in'o, which
is in reality a compound of frat “child of the same parents as
one’s self”, in “female”, o
“an entity”, “that which exists”, i.e., “that which exists as a female child
of the same parents as one’s self” = “a sister”—is explained by the grammar
thus: the root for “brother” is frat, the termination of substantives in the
nominative case is o, hence frat'o is the equivalent of “brother”; the
feminine gender is formed by the suffix in, hence frat'in'o
= “sister”. (The little strokes, between certain letters, are added in accordance
with a rule of the grammar, which requires their insertion between each component
part of every complete word). Thus the learner experiences no difficulty,
and never even imagines that what he calls terminations, suffixes, etc.,—are
complete and independent words, which always keep their own proper significations,
whether placed at the beginning or end of a word, in the middle, or alone.
The result of this construction of the language is, that everything written
in it can be immediately and perfectly understood by the help of the vocabulary—or
even almost without it—by anyone who has not only not learnt the language
before, but even has never heard of its very existence. Let me illustrate
this by an example: I am amongst Englishmen, and have not the slightest knowledge
of the English language; I am absolutely in need of making myself understood,
and write in the international tongue, maybe, as follows:
Mi ne sci'as ki'e mi las'is la baston'o'n; ĉu vi ĝi'n ne vid'is? I
hold out to one of the strangers an International – English vocabulary (**6), and
point to the title, where the following sentence appears in large letters:
“Everything written in the international language can be translated by
the help of this vocabulary. If several words together express but a single
idea, they are written as one word, but separated by [apostrophes]; e.g., frat'in'o,
though a single idea is yet composed of three words which must be looked for
separately in the vocabulary”.
If my companion has never heard of the international language he will probably
favour me at first with a vacant stare, will then take the paper offered
to him, and searching for the words in the vocabulary, as directed, will
make out something of this kind:
sign of the present tense
sign of the past tense
sign of a substantive
sign of the objective case
employed in questions
sign of the objective case
sign of the past tense
And thus the Englishman will easily understand what it is I desire.
If he wishes to reply, I show him an English – International vocabulary,
on which are printed these words: “To
express anything by means of this vocabulary, in the international language,
look for the words required, in the vocabulary itself; and for the terminations
necessary to distinguish the grammatical forms, look in the grammatical appendix,
under the respective headings of the parts of speech which you desire to
express”. Since the explanation of the whole grammatical structure of
the language is comprised in a few lines—as a glance at the grammar will
show—the finding of the required terminations occupies no longer time than
the turning up a word in the dictionary. (**7)
I would now direct
the attention of my readers to another matter, at first sight a trifling
one, but, in truth, of immense importance. Everyone knows the impossibility
of communicating intelligibly with a foreigner, by the aid of even the best
of dictionaries, if one has no previous acquaintance with the language. In
order to find any given word in a dictionary, we must know its derivation,
for when words are arranged in sentences, nearly every one of them undergoes
some grammatical change. After this alteration, a word often bears not the
least resemblance to its primary form, so that without knowing something
of the language beforehand, we are able to find hardly any of the words occurring
in a given phrase, and even those we do find will give no connected sense.
Suppose, for example, I had written the simple sentence adduced above, in
“Ich weiss nicht wo ich den Stock gelassen habe; haben Sie ihn nicht gesehen?”
Anyone who did not speak or understand German, after searching for each
word separately in a dictionary, would produce the following farrago of nonsense:
I need scarcely point out that a lexicon of a modern language is usually
a tome of a certain bulk, and the search for any number of words one by one
is in itself a most laborious undertaking, not to speak of the different
significations attaching to the same word amongst which there is but a bare
possibility of the student selecting the right one.
The international vocabulary, owing to the highly synthetic structure
of the language, is a mere leaflet, which one might carry in one’s note-book,
or the waistcoat-pocket.
Granted that we had
a language with a grammar simplified to the utmost, and whose every word
had a definite fixed meaning, the person addressed would require not only
to have beforehand some knowledge of the grammar, to be able, even with the
vocabulary at hand, to understand anything addressed to him, but would also
need some previous acquaintance with the vocabulary itself, in order to be
able to distinguish between the primitive word and its grammatically-altered
derivatives. The utility, again, of such a language would wholly depend upon
the number of its adepts, for when sitting, for instance, in a railway-carriage,
and wishing to ask a fellow-traveller, “How long do we stop at —?”, it is
scarcely to be expected that he will undertake to learn the grammar of the
language before replying! By using, on the other hand, the international
language, we are set in possibility of communicating directly with a person
of any nationality, even though he may never have heard of the existence
of the language before.
Anything whatever, written in the international
tongue, can be translated, without difficulty, by means of the vocabulary
alone, no previous study being requisite. The reader may easily convince
himself of the truth of this assertion, by experimenting for himself with
the specimens of the language appended to this pamphlet. A person of good
education will seldom need to refer to the vocabulary; a linguist, scarcely
Let us suppose that you have to write to a Spaniard, who neither knows
your language nor you his. You think that probably he has never heard of
the international tongue— No matter, write boldly to him in that language,
and be sure he will understand you perfectly. The complete vocabulary required
for everyday use, being but a single sheet of paper, can be bought for a
few pence, in any language you please, easily enclosed in the smallest envelope,
and forwarded with your letter. The person to whom it is addressed will without
doubt understand what you have written, the vocabulary being not only a clue
to, but a complete explanation of your letter. The wonderful power of combination
possessed by the words of the international language renders this lilliputian
lexicon amply sufficient for the expression of every want of daily life;
but words seldom met with, technical terms, and foreign words familiar to
all nations, as, “tobacco”, “theatre”, “fabric”, etc., are not included in
it. If such words, therefore, are needed, and it is impossible to express
them by some equivalent terms, the larger vocabulary must be consulted.
2) It has now been shown how, by means of the peculiar structure of
the international tongue, any one may enter into an intelligible correspondence
with another person of a different nationality. The sole drawback, until
the language becomes more widely known, is the necessity under which the
writer is placed of waiting until the person addressed shall have analysed
his thoughts. In order to remove this obstacle, as far as practicable, at
least for persons of education, recourse was had to the following expedient.
Such words as are common to the languages of all civilised peoples, together
with the so-called “foreign” words, and technical terms, were left unaltered.
If a word has a different sound in different languages, that sound has been
chosen which is common to at least two or three of the most important European
tongues, or which, if found in one language only, has become familiar to
other nations. When the required word has a different sound in every language,
some word was sought for, having only a relative likeness in meaning to the
other, or one which, though seldom used, is yet well-known to the leading
nations, e.g., the word for “near” is different in every European language,
but if one consider for a moment the word “proximus” (nearest), it will be
noticed that some modified form of the word is in use in all important tongues.
If, then, I call “near”, proksim,
the meaning will be apparent to every educated man. In other emergencies
words were drawn from the Latin, as being a quasi-international language.
Deviations from these rules were only made in exceptional cases, as for the
avoidance of homonyms, simplicity of orthography, etc. In this manner, being
in communication with a European of fair education, who has never learnt
the international tongue, one may make sure of being immediately understood,
without the person addressed having to refer continually to the vocabulary.
In order that the reader may prove for himself the truth of all that
has been set forth above, a few specimens of the international language are
Patr'o ni'a, kiu est'as en la ĉiel'o, sankt'a est'u Vi'a nom'o, ven'u reĝ'ec'o Vi'a, est'u vol'o Vi'a, kiel en la ĉiel'o, tiel ankaŭ sur la ter'o. Pan'o'n ni'a'n ĉiu'tag'a'n don'u al ni hodiaŭ, kaj pardon'u al ni ŝuld'o'j'n ni'a'j'n, kiel ni ankaŭ pardon'as al ni'a'j ŝuld'ant'o'j; ne konduk'u ni'n en tent'o'n; sed liber'ig'u ni'n de la mal'ver'a, ĉar Vi'a est'as la reg'ad'o, la fort'o, kaj la glor'o etern'e. Amen!
El la Bibli'o.
Je la komenc'o Di'o kre'is la ter'o'n kaj la ĉiel'o'n. Kaj la ter'o est'is sen'form'a kaj dezert'a, kaj mal'lum'o est'is super la profund'aĵ'o, kaj la anim'o de Di'o si'n port'is super la akv'o. Kaj Di'o dir'is: est'u lum'o; kaj far'iĝ'is lumo. Kaj Di'o vid'is la lum'o'n ke ĝi est'as bon'a, kaj nom'is Di'o la lum'o'n tag'o, kaj la mal'lum'o'n Li nom'is nokt'o. Kaj est'is vesper'o, kaj est'is maten'o —unu tag'o. Kaj Di'o dir'is: est'u firm'aĵ'o inter la akv'o, kaj ĝi apart'ig'u akv'o'n de akv'o. Kaj Di'o kre'is la firm'aĵ'o'n kaj apart'ig'is la akv'o'n kiu est'as sub la firm'aĵ'o; kaj far'iĝ'is tiel. Kaj Di'o nom'is la firm'aĵ'o'n ĉiel'o. Kaj est'is vesper'o, kaj est'is maten'o—la du'a tag'o. Kaj Di'o dir'is: kolekt'u si'n la akv'o de sub la ĉiel'o unu lok'o'n, kaj montr'u si'n sek'aĵ'o; kaj far'iĝ'is tiel. Kaj Di'o nom'is la sek'aĵ'o'n ter'o, kaj la kolekt'oj'n de la akv'o Li nom'is mar'o'j.
Mi prezent'as al mi kia'n vizaĝ'o'n vi far'os post la ricev'o de mi'a leter'o. Vi rigard'os la sub'skrib'o'n kaj ek'kri'os: ĉu li perd'is la saĝ'o'n? Je kia lingv'o li skrib'is? Kio'n signif'as la foli'et'o, kiu'n li aldon'is al si'a leter'o? Trankvil'iĝ'u, mi'a kar'a! Mi'a saĝ'o, kiel mi almenaŭ kred'as, est'as tut'e en ordo.
Mi leg'is antaŭ kelk'a'j tag'o'j libr'et'o'n sub la nom'o Lingv'o inter'naci'a. La aŭtor'o kred'ig'as, ke per tiu lingv'o oni pov'as est'i kompren'at'a de la tut'a mond'o, se eĉ la adres'it'o ne sol'e ne sci'as la lingv'o'n, sed eĉ ankaŭ ne aŭd'is pri ĝi; oni dev'as sol'e al'don'i al la leter'o mal'grand'a'n foli'et'o'n nom'at'a'n vort'ar'o. Dezir'ant'e vid'i, ĉu tio est'as ver'a, mi skrib'as al vi en tiu lingv'o, kaj mi eĉ unu vort'o'n ne al'met'as en ali'a lingv'o, tiel kiel se ni tut'e ne kompren'us unu la lingv'o'n de la ali'a. Respond'u al mi, ĉu vi efektiv'e kompren'is kio'n mi skrib'is. Se la afer'o propon'it'a de la aŭtor'o est'as efektiv'e bon'a, oni dev'as per ĉiu'j fort'o'j li'n help'i. Kiam mi hav'os vi'a'n respond'o'n, mi send'os al vi la libr'et'o'n; montr'u ĝi'n al ĉiu'j loĝ'ant'o'j de vi'a urb'et'o, send'u ĝin ĉiu'n vilaĝ'o'n ĉirkaŭ la urb'et'o, ĉiu'n urb'o'n kaj urb'et'o'n, kie vi nur hav'as amik'o'j'n aŭ kon'at'o'j'n. Est'as neces'e ke grand'eg'a nombr'o da person'o'j don'u si'a'n voĉ'o'n—tiam post la plej mal'long'a temp'o est'os decid'it'a afer'o, kiu pov'as port'i grand'eg'a'n util'o'n al la hom'a societ'o.
Sur la kamp'o, for de lmond'o,
Antaŭ nokt'o de somer'o
Amik'in'o en la rond'o
Kant'as kant'o'n pri lesper'o
Kaj pri viv'o detru'it'a
Ŝi rakont'as kompat'ant'e, —
Mi'a vund'o re'frap'it'a
Mi'n dolor'as re'sang'ant'e
* * *
Ĉu vi dorm'as? Ho, sinjor'o,
Kial tia sen'mov'ec'o?
Ha, kred'ebl'e re'memor'o
El la kar'a infan'ec'o?
Kio'n dir'i? Ne plor'ant'a
Pov'is est'i parol'ad'o
Kun fraŭl'in'o ripoz'ant'a
Post somer'a promen'ad'o!
* * *
Mi'a pens'o kaj turment'o,
Kaj dolor'o'j kaj esper'o'j!
Kiom de mi en silent'o
Al vi ir'is jam ofer'o'j!
Kio'n hav'is mi plej kar'a'n — La jun'ec'o'n — mi plor'ant'a
Met'is mem sur la altar'o'n
De la dev'o ordon'ant'a!
* * *
Fajr'o'n sent'as mi intern'e,
Viv'i ankaŭ mi dezir'as, —
Io pel'as mi'n etern'e,
Se mi al gaj'ul'o'j ir'as . . .
Se ne plaĉ'as al la sort'o
Mi'a pen'o kaj labor'o —
Ven'u tuj al mi la mort'o,
En esper'o — sen dolor'o!
En sonĝ'o princ'in'o'n mi vid'is
Kun vang'o'j mal'sek'a'j de plor'o, —
Sub arb'o, sub verd'a ni sid'is
Ten'ant'e si'n kor'o ĉe kor'o.
* * *
De lpatr'o de lvi'a la kron'o
Por mi ĝi ne est'as hav'ind'a;
For, for li'a sceptr'o kaj tron'o —
Vi'n mem mi dezir'as, am'ind'a!
* * *
— Ne ebl'e! ŝi al mi re'dir'as:
En tomb'o mi est'as ten'at'a,
Mi nur en la nokt'o el'ir'as
Al vi, mi'a sol'e am'at'a!
Ho, mi'a kor.
Ho, mi'a kor, ne bat'u mal'trankvil'e.
El mi'a brust'o nun ne salt'u for!
Jam ten'i mi'n ne pov'as mi facil'e
Ho, mi'a kor!
* * *
Ho, mi'a kor! Post long'a labor'ad'o
Ĉu mi ne venk'os en decid'a hor!
Sufiĉ'e! trankvil'iĝ'u de lbat'ad'o
Ho, mi'a kor!
~ ~ ~ ~<><><>~ ~ ~ ~
I have now completed my analysis of the
more remarkable features of my international language. I have shown the advantages
to be derived from a study of it, and proved that its ultimate success is
altogether independent of the opinions that may be formed as to its right
to the title “international”. For even should the language never come into
general use, it gives to every one who has
learned it, the possibility of being understood by foreigners, if only they
be able to read and write. But my tongue has yet another object; not content
with internationality, it aims at universality, and aspires to being spoken
by the majority of educated people. To count on the aid of the public in
a scheme of this nature would indeed be to build on a tottering—nay, rather,
an imaginary— foundation. The larger part of the public does not care to
aid anyone, it prefers to have its wishes gratified without inconvenience
to itself. On this account I made my best endeavours to discover some means
of accomplishing my object, independently of the help of the public. One
of my plans, of which I shall now speak more at large, is a kind of “universal
If the reader consider all that has been said above,
he must come to the conclusion that the study of the international language
is practically useful, and completely remunerates the learner for the small
amount of trouble he has to expend on it. For my own part, I am naturally
wishful that the whole of mankind should take up my language, but I had rather
be prepared for the worst, than form too sanguine anticipations. I suppose
therefore, that, just at first, very few will consider my language worth
the learning, so far as practical usefulness is concerned, and for abstract
principles no one will lose even a single hour.
Most of my readers will, either pay not the slightest attention to my
proposition, or, doubting whether the language be of any use, never “screw
up their courage to the sticking-point” of learning it, fearing that they
may be dubbed “dreamers”, a sobriquet dreaded by most people more than fire.
What, then, is to be done, to dispose this mass of indifferent and undecided
beings to master the international language? Could we, in imagination, look
for a moment into the mind of each of these indifferent ones, we should find
their thoughts to be taking somewhat of the following form. In principle,
no one has anything to oppose to the introduction of an international dialect;
on the contrary, all would give it their fullest approval, but each wishes
to see the greater part of the civilized world able to speak the language,
and himself able to comprehend it, without any preliminary “wearisome bitterness
of learning”, on his own part. Then,
of course, even the most indifferent would set to work, because to shirk
the small amount of labour necessary for learning a language possessed of
such valuable qualities, and above all, considered “the thing” by
all the educated, would be regarded as simple stupidity.
order to supply a language ready for immediate use, without any one
having to initiate the study, and to see on every hand people either already
proficient in the tongue, or having promised to take it up, we must proceed
somewhat in the following manner. Doubtless this little book will be scattered
through various countries, and fall into the hands of various readers. I
do not ask any of my readers to spend time, labour, or money on the subject
now brought to their notice. I merely beg of you, the present reader of the
pamphlet, to take up your pen for a moment, fill in one of the appended “Promes'o'j”
(below) and send it to me (Dr. Esperanto, c/o Dr. L. Samenhof, Warsaw, Poland).
The “Promes'o” is to this effect:
“I, the undersigned, promise to learn the international language, proposed
by Dr. Esperanto, if it shall be shown that ten million similar promises
have been publicly given”.
If you have any objections to make to the present form of the language, strike
out the words of the promise, and write “kontraŭ”
(against), beneath them. If you undertake to learn the language unconditionally,
i.e., without reference to the number of other students, strike out the latter
words of the “Promes'o”, and write “sen'kondiĉ'e”, (unconditionally).
On the back of the promise write name and address. The signing of this promise
lays no obligations upon the person signing, and does not bind him to the
smallest sacrifice or work. It merely puts him under an obligation to study
the language, when ten million other persons shall be doing the same. When
that time arrives, there will be no talking about “sacrifice”, everyone will
be ready to study the language, without having signed any promises.
On the other hand, every person signing one of these “Promes'o'j”,
will—without any greater inconvenience to himself than dipping a pen in ink—be
hastening on the realization of the traditional ideal of mankind, the universal
language. When the number of promises has reached ten millions, a list of
the names of those who have signed will be published, and with it, the question
of an international language—decided.
Nothing actually prevents
people from inducing their friends and acquaintances to sign a promise in
any cause, yet how few, as a fact, ever do sign anything, be the object ever
so important and advantageous to mankind. More especially, when, as in the
present instance, the act of signing, while contributing to the realization
of a sublime ideal, at the same time requires no moral nor material sacrifice,
can one see no very clear grounds for a refusal.
no one has anything to say, in general, against the introduction of an international
language; but, if anyone does not approve of the present form of the language,
by all means let him send me, instead of his “Promise”, his “Protest”. For
it is, manifestly, the duty of every person able to read and write, of every
age, sex, or profession, to give his opinion in this great undertaking; the
more so, as it requires no greater sacrifice than that of a few moments for
filling in the promise, and a few pence for sending it to me.
I would here beg of all editors of newspapers and magazines to make
known the cause to their readers, and at the same time, I would request my readers
to mention the subject to all their friends.
I need not say any more. I am not so conceited as to suppose that my
language is so perfect as to be incapable of improvement, but I make bold
to think that I have satisfied all the conditions required in a language
claiming to be styled “international”. It is only after having solved successfully
all the problems I had proposed to myself—concerning the more important of
which only, I have been able to speak above, owing to the small compass of
this pamphlet—and after many years spent in a careful study of the subject
that I venture to appear in public. I am but human; I may have erred, I may
have committed unpardonable faults. I may even have omitted to give to my
language the very thing most important to it. (**10)
For these reasons, before
printing complete vocabularies and bringing out books and magazines, I lay
my work before the public, for the space of one year, addressing myself to
the whole intelligent world with the earnest request to send me opinions
on the proposed international language. I invite everyone to communicate
with me as to the changes, corrections, etc., which he deems advisable. All
such observations sent to me, I will gratefully make use of, if they appear
really advantageous, and at the same time, not subversive of the fundamental
principles of the structure of the language—that is to say, simplicity, and
adaptability to international communication whether adopted universally
At the end of the alloted time, an abstract of the proposed changes
will be published and the language will receive its final form. But if, even
then, anyone should find the language not altogether satisfactory to himself,
he should not forget that the language is by no means proof against all further
changes, only that the right of alteration will be no longer the author’s
personal privilege, but that of an academy of the tongue.
It is no easy task to invent an international language, but it is a
still less easy one to persuade the public to make use of it. Hence, it is
of the utmost importance that every possible effort be made for its furtherance.
When the form of the language has been decided, and the language itself has
come into general use, a special academy can introduce—gradually and imperceptibly—all
necessary changes, even should the result be a total alteration of the form
of the language. On this account, I would pray those of my readers, who may
be, for whatever reasons, dissatisfied with my language, to send in their
protests only in the event of their having serious cause for it, such as
the finding in the language objectionable features, unalterable in the future.
This little work, which has cost much labour and health, I now commend
to the kindly attention of the public, hoping that all, to whom the public
weal is dear, will aid me to the best of their ability. Circumstances will
show each one in what way he can be of use; I will only direct the attention
of all friends of the international languge, to that most important object,
towards which all eyes must be turned, the success of the voting. Let each
do what he can, and in a short time we shall have, that which men have been
dreaming of so long—“A Universal Tongue”.
~ ~ ~ ~<><><>~ ~ ~ ~
NB: The author requests his reader to fill in one of the
“Promises” on the following page, and send it to him, and to distribute the
others amongst friends and acquaintances for the same purpose.
c/o Dr. L. Samenhof,
~ ~ ~ ~<><><>~ ~ ~ ~
Mi, sub'skrib'it'a, promes'as el'lern'i la propon'it'a'n
de d-ro Esperanto lingv'o'n inter'naci'a'n, se est'os montr'it'a, ke dek
milion'o'j person'o'j don'is publik'e tia'n sama'n promes'o'n.
Mi, sub'skrib'it'a, promes'as el'lern'i la propon'it'a'n
de d-ro Esperanto lingv'o'n inter'naci'a'n, se est'os montr'it'a, ke dek
milion'o'j person'o'j don'is publik'e tia'n sama'n promes'o'n.
Mi, sub'skrib'it'a, promes'as el'lern'i la propon'it'a'n de d-ro Esperanto
lingv'o'n inter'naci'a'n, se est'os montr'it'a, ke dek milion'o'j person'o'j
don'is publik'e tia'n sama'n promes'o'n.
Mi, sub'skrib'it'a, promes'as el'lern'i la propon'it'a'n de d-ro Esperanto
lingv'o'n inter'naci'a'n, se est'os montr'it'a, ke dek milion'o'j person'o'j
don'is publik'e tia'n sama'n promes'o'n.
strongly aspirated h, “ch” as in “loch” (Scotch)
I i i as in “marine”
J j y as in “yoke”
Ĵ ĵ z as in “azure”
K k k as in “key”
L l l as in “line”
M m m as in “make”
N n n as in “now”
O o o as in “not”
o = o as in “note” —GK
P p p as in “pair”
R r r as in “rare”
S s s as in “see”
Ŝ ŝ sh as in “show”
T t t as in “tea”
U u u as in “bull”
u = oo as in “too” —GK.
Ŭ ŭ u as in “mount” (used in dipthongs)
V v v as in “very”
Z z z as in “zeal”
If it be found impracticable to print works with the diacritical signs ( ^ , ˘ ), the letter h
may be substituted for the sign (^), and the sign ( ˘ ) may be altogether omitted
; but at the beginning of works so printed there should be this note: “NB:
ch = ĉ; gh = ĝ; hh = ĥ; jh = ĵ; sh = ŝ.” (**11)
When it is necessary to make use of the “internal” sign ( , ), care
should be taken that it cannot be mistaken for a comma. Instead of ( , ),
may be printed ( ' ) or ( - ), e.g., sign,et,o, sign'et'o, or sign-et-o.
B. Parts of Speech
1. There is no indefinite, and only one definite, article, la, for all genders, numbers, and cases.
2. Substantives are formed by adding o to the root. For the plural, the letter j must be added to the singular. There are two cases: the nominative and the objective (accusative). The root with the added o is the nominative, the objective adds an n after the o. Other cases are formed by prepositions; thus, the possessive (genitive) by de, “of”; the dative by al, “to”; the instrumental (ablative) by kun, “with”, or other preposition as the sense demands. E.g., root patr, “father”; la patr'o, “the father”; patr'o'n, “father” (objective), de la patr'o, “of the father”, al la patr'o, “to the father”, kun la patr'o, “with the father”; la patro'j, “the fathers”; la patro'j'n, “the fathers” (obj.), por la patr'o'j, “for the fathers”.
3. Adjectives are formed by adding a to the root. The numbers and cases are the same as in substantives. The comparative degree is formed by prefixing pli (more); the superlative by plej (most). The word “than” is rendered by ol, e.g., pli blank'a ol neĝ'o, “whiter than snow”.
4. The cardinal numerals do not change their forms for the different cases. They are:
The tens and hundreds are formed by simple junction of the numerals, e.g., 533=kvin'cent tri'dek tri.
Ordinals are formed by adding the adjectival a to the cardinals, e.g., unu'a, “first”; du'a, “second”, etc.
Fractionals add on, as du'on'o, “a half”, kvar'on'o, “a quarter”. Collective numerals add op, as kvar'op'e, “four together”.
Distributives prefix po, e.g., po kvin, “five apiece”.
Adverbials take e, e.g., unu'e, “firstly”, etc.
5. The Personal Pronouns are mi, I; vi, thou, you; li, he; ŝi, she; ĝi, it; si, “self”; ni, “we”; ili, “they”; oni, “one”, “people”, (French “on”).
Possessive pronouns are formed by suffixing to the required personal,
the adjectival termination. The declension of the pronouns is identical with
that of substantives. E.g., mi, “I”; mi'n, “me” (obj.); mi'a, “my”, “mine”.
6. The verb does not change its form for numbers or persons, e.g., mi far'as, “I do”; la patr'o far'as, “the father does”; ili far'as, “they do”.
Forms of the Verb:
a) The present tense ends in as, e.g., mi far'as, “I do”. b) The past tense ends in is, e.g., li far'is, “he did”. c) The future tense ends in os, e.g., ili far'os, “they will do”. ĉ) The subjunctive mood ends in us, e.g., ŝi far'us, “she may do”. d) The imperative mood ends in u, e.g., ni far'u, “let us do”. e) The infinitive mood ends in i, e.g., far'i, “to do”.
There are two forms of the participle in the international language,
the changeable or adjectival, and the unchangeable or adverbial.
f) The present participle active ends in ant, e.g., far'ant'a, “he who is doing”; far'ant'e, “doing”. g) The past participle active ends in int, e.g., far'int'a, “he who has done”; far'int'e, “having done”. ĝ) The future participle active ends in ont, e.g., far'ont'a, “he who will do”; far'ont'e, “about to do”.
h) The present participle passive ends in at, e.g., far'at'e, “being done”.
ĥ) The past participle passive ends in it, e.g., far'it'a, “that which has been done”; far'it'e, “having been done”.
i) The future participle passive ends in ot, e.g., far'ot'a, “that which will be done”; far'ot'e, “about to be done”.
All forms of the passive are rendered by the respective forms of the verb est (to be) and the present participle passive of the required verb; the preposition used is de, “by”. E.g., ŝi est'as am'at'a de ĉiu'j, “she is loved by everyone.”
7) Adverbs are formed by adding e to the root. The degrees of comparison are the same as in adjectives, e.g., mi'a frat'o kant'as pli bon'e ol mi, “my brother sings better than I”.
8) All prepositions govern the nominative case.
C. General Rules
1) Every word is to be read exactly as written; there are no silent letters.
2) The accent falls on the last syllable but one (penultimate).
3) Compound words are formed by the simple junction of roots,
(the principal word standing last), which are written as a single word, but,
in elementary works, separated by a small line (,) or ('). Grammatical terminations are considered as independent words, e.g., vapor'ŝip'o, “steamboat”, is composed of the roots vapor, “steam”, and ŝip, “a boat”, with the substantival termination o.
4) If there be one negative in a clause, a second is not admissible.
5) In phrases answering the question “where?” (meaning direction), the words take the termination of the objective case; e.g., kie'n vi ir'as? “where are you going?” dom'o'n, “home”; London'o'n, “to London”; etc. 6) Every preposition in the international language has a definite
fixed meaning. If it be necessary to employ some preposition, and it is not
quite evident from the sense which it should be, the word je is used, which has no definite meaning; for example, ĝoj'i je tio, “to rejoice over it”; rid'i je tio “to laugh at it”; enu'o je la patr'uj'o, “a longing (**13) for
one’s fatherland”. In every language different prepositions, sanctioned by
usage, are employed in these dubious cases; in the international language,
one word, je, suffices for all. Instead of je, the objective without a preposition may be used, when no confusion is to be feared.
7) The so-called “foreign” words, i.e., words which the greater
number of languages have derived from the same source, undergo no change
in the international language, beyond conforming to its system of orthography.—Such
is the rule with regard to primary words; derivatives are better formed (from
the primary word) according to the rules of the international grammar: e.g.,
teatr'o, “theater”, but teatr'a, “theatrical” (not teatrical'a), etc.
8) The a of the article, and the final o of substantives, may be sometimes dropped euphoniae gratia, e.g., de lmond'o for de la mond'o; Ŝiller’ for Ŝiller'o; in such cases an apostrophe should be substituted for the discarded vowel.
INTERNATIONAL – ENGLISH
Vortar'o por Angl'o'j
written in the
international language can be translated by means of this vocabulary. If
several words are required to express one idea they must be written in one,
but separated by [apostrophes]; e.g., frat'in'o, though one idea, is yet
composed of three words, which must be looked for separately in the vocabulary.
(a) Over the past century, some of these words
have acquired better or different translations, but I have not attempted
to update them. This is the original 900-root Esperanto repertoire. (Nowadays
10 times larger.)
(b) By 1889 when Geoghegan’s translation appeared, Zamenhof had replaced
the “n” in a set of time-correlative words with “m”, to avoid confusion with
the accusative: iam, sometime; kiam, what time; tiam, that time; ĉiam, always; neniam, never. Geoghegan had left “ian” etc. in parentheses; I have omitted them.—GK
bearing, containing (i.e., a thing, containing
or bearing something, as a tree bearing fruits, a country with inhabitants);
e.g., cigar'—a cigar, cigar'uj'—a cigar-box; pom'—an apple, pom'uj'—apple-tree; Turk'—a Turk, Turk'uj'—Turkey.
a man, possessing some quality; e.g., riĉ'—rich, riĉ'ul'—a rich man
an affix without definite meaning; it may be translated by various words
Clicking on "Back" will return you to the text at the point that refers to this footnote.
Those with a single asterisk, e.g. (*1), and in plain type, are the originals; the ones with a
double asterisk, e.g. (**2), and in italics, are my extra "GK" notes.
(**1) In 1889 a similar translation by Henry Phillips, Jr. of the
American Philosophical Society, also appeared, but Geoghegan’s is a bit better.
[Phillips: An Attempt Towards an International Language by
Dr. Esperanto (N.Y.: Henry Holt, 1889); reprinted in v. 2, of Ludovikologia Dokumentaro,
compiled by “ludovikito” (Kyoto, Japan: Eldonejo Ludovikito). p. 90-146.] Volume I, Unuaj Libroj
(1991, 483 p.) has facsimile reprints of rare editions of these “First Books”,
including the Russian, Polish, German, French, English and Swedish versions.
Despite some plusses noted below for Phillips, the Geoghegen version is more
akin to the other four Unuaj Libroj pamphlets: all five published by Zamenhof himself.
An online version [2002, Jesuo de las Heras] of Phillips'
has been available at
in three parts, but its Vocabulary link
appears to be dead.—GKBack (**2) Purists Better Learn to Talk the Talk (Halifax Herald, 1997-09-12).—GKBack
(*3) One cannot, of course, reckon the number of those who learned the language as
equal to the number of instruction-books sold.
(*4) To facilitate the finding of these affixes they are entered in the vocabulary as separate words.
Back (**5) international orthography = Esperanto spelling: see footnote (**6) below.—GKBack (**6) Note that the name Esperanto did not yet apply to what Zamenhof
calls the International Language; so the International – English Vocabulary in
this pamphlet is an Esperanto – English Vocabulary. Likewise, international
orthography (**5 above) means Esperanto spelling.—GKBack (**7) The original pamphlet contained the International [Esperanto] – English Vocabulary
(herein), but not vice versa; such compilations for many languages were soon to follow. For example, unlike Geoghegen,
Henry Phillips, Jr. in his version [see (**1) above] had himself compiled an English – International Vocabulary,
besides the other one. —GKBack
(*8) In correspondence with persons who have learnt the language, as well as in works written for them
exclusively, the [apostrophes], separating parts of words, are omitted.
Back (**9) In his American translation [see (**1) above], Henry Phillips, Jr. added a remarkable footnote
Translator wrote a letter in this language to a young friend who had previously never seen
nor heard of it, enclosing the printed vocabulary; he received an answer in the same tongue, with
no other aid. This was a crucial test. (p.13)—GKBack (**10) Yes—he omitted giving it a name! (A one-word proper name, that is.) And so his
pseudonym soon came to fill that gap.—GKBack (**11) In recent years, this fundamental “h” rule has been violated on the
Internet by over a dozen different improvisations which ignore both the letter
and spirit of Esperanto’s phonetic alphabet. According to the “untouchable”
Fundamento de Esperanto, adopted at the first Universala Kongreso in 1905,
one must either use the circumflex letters, or an “h”. “No person and no society can
have the right to arbitrarily make in our Fundamento even the very smallest
change!” [Translated; italics in original; 1963 ed., p. 43-44: actually the
first page of the Fundamento itself. (Marmande: Esperantaj Francaj Eldonoj)]—GKBack (**12) The internal-sign was dropped in the early days and not included in the Fundamento.—GKBack (**13) A mistranslation, because enu' in the vocabulary herein is to be weary, annoyed.
The Esperanto word for longing is sopir', but that was not available until Zamenhofs
Universala Vortaro of 1894, an updated Vocabulary, with each Esperanto word in five languages on
the same line: part of the Fundamento, op.cit., (**11). From the prior list, perhaps one could
have said dezir'.—GKBack