398 REPORTS ON THE STATE OF SCIENCE, ETC. 
Esperanto grammar simplified, improved, and complemented by a vocabulary devised 
by numerous philologists who have worked upon the same foundation as Esperanto 
during the past fifteen years. 
The Idist Societies and Academy have, therefore, done in advance work which 
would have had to be performed in any other case in the event of the acceptance of 
Esperanto. 
The spread of Esperanto was largely due to the enthusiastic reception it received 
in France, the intellectual centre which introduced it to the rest of the world. In 
France the foremost exponent of Esperanto and its propagandist in chief was the 
Marquis de Beaufront. There was a competent International Delegation which, 
after six years of preparatory study, met in Paris in 1907 and was recognised by 
Esperantists until it gave only a qualified approval to their project. This Committee 
deliberated in 1907 and finally decided to adopt Esperanto in principle modified in 
accordance with the suggestion of the Marquis de Beaufront whose competence is 
mentioned above, and whose revised Esperanto is named Ido. The word Ido is an 
Esperanto suffix meaning ‘ derived from,’ 7.e., derived from Esperanto. 
V. Observations and Recommendations. 
A.—LATIN. 
The main advantages and disadvantages of Latin as an I.A.L. appear to be as 
follows :— 
As Latin is a neutral language, its adoption would not give an undue advantage 
to any one nation, although it would be more easily acquired by nations speaking a 
Romance language or a language containing Romance elements, such as English. 
Latin has already served, in the Middie Ages, as an I.A.L., and the cultured individuals 
who ted it apparently found it quite satisfactory ; a modern form of Latin is now in 
feneral use in the Roman Catholic Church. Thoughts and emotions can be expressed 
as lucidly and as concisely in Latin as in any modern national language or any invented 
be i New words can be built up from Latin or Greek stems on well-established 
ines. 
On the other hand, the acquirement of Latin is relatively difficult to the average 
man. Its general use as an I.A.L. has been abandoned; its revival would be very 
difficult and would entail the coining of a very large number of new words. There 
would be great difficulty in securing the adoption of a uniform pronunciation. 
The Committee is unanimous in its conclusion that the advantages of Latin as an 
LA.L. are outweighed by its disadvantages. Although there is ample scope for 
research on the relative ease of acquirement of languages, there is no doubt that to 
the English-speaking peoples, at least, even a ‘ working knowledge ’ of Latin is more 
arduous to acquire than a corresponding knowledge of, say, Spanish, Italian, French, 
German, or Dutch, and incomparably more difficult than Esperanto or Ido. It may 
be that, by improved methods of instruction and with better teaching, Latin might 
be learnt in a much shorter time than it is now ; or that a simplified form, e.g., Latin 
without inflexions, might be elaborated (which would probably lose in precision as it 
gained in simplicity) ; but these at present are little more than remote possibilities, 
and simplified Latin would belong essentially to the artificial languages and would be 
more properly considered with them. That Latin, as we know it, could be used as 
an J.A.L. to excellent advantage by the intellectual élite, appears very probable ; 
but that the average individual, including the Mongol, the Negro, etc., is capable of 
acquiring even a ‘ working knowledge ’ of it within a reasonable time, or that he could 
be induced to attempt to learn it, seems very improbable. 
The second serious objection to Latin is the difficulty of pronunciation. It is 
sufficiently hard to obtain adequate uniformity and mutual intelligibility in the 
pronunciation of ancient Latin words ; but a very large proportion of the new words 
a. 
ee ea eg a 
that would have to be coined, or taken over into the new Latin, would not be Latin — 
at all, and the pronunciation given to these words would naturally be the same as that 
which the speaker habitually employs in his own language. 
The lucidity and conciseness of good Latin are undeniable, but these attributes 
are not peculiar to Latin, and in any language they appear to depend as much upon 
the individual as upon the nature of the tongue he speaks or writes. 
