314. [Deei7; 
it is much more euphonious than the creation of Schleyer, and to 
those who favor a language on any such plan must commend itself by 
its greater consistency. It requires but six vowels and fifteen consonants 
to express its repertory of sounds. Of course, its synthetic and inflec- 
tional character is, in our opinion, a return to worn-out and barbarous 
expedients certain not to be acceptable to the civilized man of the 
future and contrary to linguistic evolution. 
It was to be expected that the opinions advanced by your Committee 
—opinions in many respects both novel and positive—should have been 
met in various quarters with opposition. This has been the case. The 
most noteworthy rejoinder is that of the well-known linguist, Mr. 
Alexander J. Ellis, speaking for the Philological Society of London. 
In a paper, some forty pagesin length, published in the Transactions 
of that Society, this writer actively combats both the theories advo- 
cated by your Committee, and the call for a Congress to consider the 
question. Not, however, that Mr. Ellis underestimates the desirability 
of a universal language or considers the project utopian or untimely. 
On the contrary, he is an earnest advocate of the scheme. He heartily 
coincides with everything in that direction which any one will urge. 
What, then, is the animus of his long, labored and acrid opposition to 
the modest proposal that a Congress of competent men should be con- 
vened to consider it ? The explanation isin a word. He isa Volapiikist, 
a committed Volapiikist, and the Philological Society is hasty enough 
to allow itself to be officially committed likewise to the imperfect in- 
vention of Schleyer, not even opening its mind to the consideration 
of any other and perhaps better plan. If this is the position assumed 
by a society calling itself scientific, its appreciation of the spirit of 
science is indeed unfortunate. 
What are Mr. Ellis’ censures of the Committee’s Report ? He makes 
much of some typographical errors; he meets a number of our censures 
of Schleyer’s Volapiik by stating that ‘‘ other writers’? upon that inven- 
tion do not adopt the features to which we objected; a statement 
totally irrelevant, as our remarks applied solely to Volapiik proper, and 
not to its dozen variants and imitations; he cannot and does not deny 
the needless diffigulties of the Volapiik alphabet; and he takes great 
offense that we recommended the Aryan languages, especially the half- 
dozen most cultivated and extended of them, as the proper basis for 
the hoped-for universal tongue. This latter is really his main objec- 
tion, and it is an objection which we shall not pretend to answer in 
this connection. It is enough to reaflirm what seem to us the two 
sun-clear principles for the formation of a world-language, if one ever 
is formed: First, that it should be based, phonetically, grammatically 
and lexicographically, on the languages of the five or six most culti- 
vated nations in the world (all of whom happen to be Aryan); and, 
secondly, that these languages should be studied for this purpose in 
their most recent evolutions, in order to imprint on this world-speech 
