Dear Sir --

I beg your pardon that I did not immediately answer your important 
letter of Feb. 14, because I am always terribly busy.

I heartily thank you for the circular you sent about M. Corret's 
project. Let's hope that the undertaken matter will bring much good tsperanto.

In re Javal, I have already send an obituary article to the "Revuo"; 
for "Lingvo Internacia" I could only repeat the same thing, which of 
course would be interesting for the readers.

Now about the corrections in the Universala Vortaro. The majority of 
the corrections made I completely accept; only about a few do I wish 
to make the following observations:

1) I don't understand very well, why you suggest (for "infekti") the 
translation "contaminer" instead of "infecter". Can one "contaminer" 
someone with his ilness, his good humnor, etc.? It seems to me that 
"contaminer" has a somewhat different meaning. Am I wrong?

2) Next to several words (pumpi, elspezi, grio, komunii, marko, 
s^uldi) I found the expression "a good translation in all languages", 
which I don't understand at all. What did you mean by this? If the 
translation is good, then why are you talking about it?

3) "Stamp" can be equally well translated by a verb (stampi) and a 
noun (stampo); if you find that it's necessary to give for this root 
in languages an *equal* translation, then I would prefer to give for 
all languages the translation with a *verb* (like the translations in 
German, Russian and Polish). The action is: *stampi*; the result: 
*stampo*; the tool: *stampilo".

4) "StTuckaturen" is not a plural, but a *verb*. [added footnote: 
"The addressee here quite correctly notes: "ce verbe n' existe pas en 
allemand".] For this word (as for "stamp") I intended to give the 
root a *verbal* meaning.

5) For "akus^i" I advise conserving its *in*transitive meaning (which 
it has in the Universala Vortaro). The uncertainty about this word 
was caused by the following circumstance: five or six years ago M. de 
Beaufront wrote me that because of the word "akus^istino" it's 
necessary to give "akus^i" a transitive meaning. Because M. B.'s 
reasoning at that time seemed correct to me, and because the 
Universala Vortaro at that time did not yet have any kind of 
character of untouchability, so, confused by M. B's arguments, I 
agreed that he should give "akus^i" a transitive meaning in his 
dictionary. In that sence the word afterwards also went into all 
other dictionaries and caused confusion, and I also put it into the 
German-Esperanto dictionary. Now, because the Universala Vortaro has 
to remain untouchable, I advise conserving for the word its 
*previous" meaning, the more so becaus that meaning is also more 
correct, logical and convenient. The existence of the word 
"akus^istino" should not confuse us at all, because everyone will 
easily understand that "akus^istino" means not "a woman who 
professionally gives birth", but "a woman whose professional business 
consists of matters of giving birth" (does not occupy herself with 
the process of giving birth but with the occurrences of giving birth).

6) "Domag^o" does not have the meaning of "loss" (malprofito). The 
real meaning of the Esperanto "domag^i" is approximately: not to want 
to spend, not to want to lose, not to want to damage. For example: 
"li ne ac^etis la libron, c^ar li domag^is la monon; li ne eliris en 
la plurva vetero, c^ar li domag^is sian veston; li forkuris de la 
batalo, c^ar li domag^is sian vivon". Sometimes the meaning of 
"domag^o" is very near to the meaning of "bedau^ro" (e.g.: "kia 
domag^o!" = kiel bedau^rinde = what a loss (or damage) that I didn't 
want to have!).

7) "Ekstr' can be not only adverbial, but also adjectival.

8) "Gargari" - to wash by *shaking* a fluid; consequently one can 
"gargari" not only the throat, but also a glass, etc.

9) "Lui" means only *to take* a rental; (to let = luigi).

To publish the list of the corrected words together with all my 
observations in the "Lingvo Internacia" I on my part give my complete 
permission; but I would advise you also to ask M. Boirac's permission.

From: L. L. Zamenhof
To: Th. Cart
Date: 1907.02.24

[Commentary by Gaston Waringhien: A technical letter about the 
corrections that Cart, on commission from the Language Committee, was 
proposing for several erroneous national-language translations in the 
Universala Vortaro. From this letter it becomes obvious that for 
Zamenhof the naked roots have categories, sometimes verbal, sometimes 
substantival, sometimes adjectival, sometimes adverbial.]

Opinions (in English):
Esperanto (in English):
Literaturo (Esperante):