every learned profession, has remained essentially the same language as in olden times.

The history of Latin in its relation to the Romance languages finds a close parallel in the linguistic conditions existing in Ancient and Modern India. The almost endless variety of languages and dialects found in Modern India is generally admitted-as far as they belong to the Indo-European familyto be descended from the language spoken about 1500 в. с., and preserved in the Sacred Books of the Hindus, such as the Rigveda or Atharvaveda. While modern languages, like Hindi or Gujarati, spoken by many millions of people, betray at the first glance little similarity with their original source, the ancient language has been preserved with comparatively few changes through the Middle Ages to this day as the language of learning, both theological and secular, as well as that of polite literature and as the language of every day conversation among scholars.

While Sanskrit enjoyed the backing of the orthodox Hindu Church, the Buddhists preferred to use a language of their own, based on one of the popular dialects. This language too, the so-called Pali, in course of time, suffered a fate similar to that of Sanskrit, by gradually becoming a dead language except in literary and sacred use.

The lesson to be learned in Western Europe no less than in India, is to the effect that it is possible to prevent a language from undergoing any radical changes for a thousand years or longer, though only under favorable circumstances and special conditions. The two chief requirements are: first, it must be taken out of the hands of the people and entrusted instead to the care of a privileged class of priests or scholars; secondly, it must have the support of a literature, be it sacred or secular, that is worth while preserving, studying, and imitating. Wherever these safeguards are lacking, the language in question, however widespread and authoritative at a certain time, is bound to share the fate of all languages. Whether we apply to its evolution the term of growth or decay, it surely will not remain the same and will at best look as much similar to its former self as a child to its father.

I would deem this a valuable lesson, especially with regard to recent efforts in behalf of a language to be used by everybody. While we may experience some difficulty in spreading one and the same language all over the world, this difficulty is small as compared with that in preventing this language from being changed after its general adoption. Difficult or impossible as the former may be, it is safe to say that the latter would prove even more impossible.

Before parting from the ancient languages we may find it instructive to take notice of an interesting attempt, made at an early date, to cope with the difficulties due to the co-existence of several languages in one and the same country. Though in this instance we are not exactly concerned with a world language at large, yet the problem to be solved was more or less the same, even if on a smaller scale. I am referring to a language or a system of writing which for quite a while was the cause among modern scholars, of a hot controversy. Should the language in question be counted as Semitic or Indo-European? If Semitic, it would have to pass for an Aramaic or Mesopotamian idiom; if Indo-European, for a variety of Persian. The problem, meanwhile, has been solved by the discovery that we are essentially concerned with a system of writing in which the Persian words are in part represented by their Semitic equivalents. This system goes by the name of Pahlavi, a noun derived from the adjective Pahlav, the latter being the regular equivalent in Persian of the older Parthava, meaning "Parthian." The name would seem to indicate that we are concerned with a method of writing and a language in use at the time of the Parthian monarchy. This is correct in so far as Pahlavi seems to have been the official language at the court of the Parthian rulers. Obviously, however, the system is much older. In fact, an identical alphabet is found on coins and in rock inscriptions dating from the early Sassanid period, i. e., from the third and fourth century of our era. Very likely we must go back for an explanation even further to the time when the cumbersome cuneiform writing was being abandoned in favor of the Semitic alphabet, and more particularly the Aramæan letters. Instead of adopting only this alphabet, it seemed expedient to retain a limited number of Semitic words in their Aramaic form, so as to allow the Median and Persian population to substitute for them the equivalents in their own idiom. Practically, then, we have a "two in one" language, in as much as the written characters could be interpreted in two different ways. Strange as this method, at the first glance, may appear to us, we must not forget that a similar practice is found to a certain extent in present-day English, especially with regard to abbreviations taken over from Latin. We employ in writing the letters etc., pronouncing them either in the Latin way as et cetera, or substituting the English equivalent "and so forth." Other familiar instances of the same description are the two letters E. G. as abbreviation for "to wit" or "namely," a ligature (&) made up of the letters e and t pronounced "and," a similar ligature (lb or lb) containing the first and third letter of the Latin word libra and pronounced "pound" or "pounds," and so forth. Abbreviations of this kind are always based on the spelling of the corresponding Latin words; and, many of them having been retained from Latin in other European languages, we may regard them as specimens of an international written language, a system of graphic values meant primarily for the eye, and adjustable to the vocabulary of more than one country. If the system were extended from mere initial letters to entire words and if these were selected in such a manner as to include the most familiar Latin words, we should have the principle of the Pahlavi on a larger scale.

Abbreviations, however, like those I have dwelt upon, must carefully be distinguished from another group, however similar the two may appear at the first glance. Let us use as a typical example of the second group the familiar SOS. We may render its meaning in regular words by something like: "We are in great distress: hurry to the rescue of our vessel," or more briefly: "hasten to our assistance!" An attempt, to be sure, has been made to connect it with abbreviations by initials, interpreting the three letters as "Suspend Other Service." Another possible guess would be: "Save Our Ship." But let us keep in mind that we are not concerned with a Latin term. The correct explanation seems to be that the apparent letters of the alphabet are nothing but arbitrary signs chosen for the reason that they are easily transmitted. We are concerned then with a method of conveying a meaning by agreeing on the use of certain ciphers or signs to take the place of ordinary words. This device must not be regarded as a modern invention; for it is nothing else than the method known long since by the name of "pasigraphy," a term which has been defined as a system designed for universal use, employing signs or symbols to represent ideas only, not words. A well known work in this line is the stately folio by Bishop John Wilkins entitled An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language, and published by the Royal Society of London in 1668. By a "real character" the author understands a system of writing based on philosophical notions instead of words. The main body of his comprehensive work, accordingly, consists of an attempt at analyzing and systematizing the notions found in human speech. For these notions he devises a system of mathematical symbols chosen in accordance with the categories revealed by his analysis. Maybe he overestimated the value of his particular system and underrated the difficulties likely to be caused by his notations in comparison with ordinary letters or numerals or current ciphers. For these reasons, then, we should probably want to proceed on entirely different lines in case we attempted to devise a system of pasigraphy at the present day. Above all, we would keep it independent of any philosophical system, and as to notation, would rather follow the model of the present international telegraphic codes. At all events such a system would never presume to take the place or restrict the use of any living language.

Much as I feel tempted to dwell at length on the possibilities and prospects offered by pasigraphic methods, I am afraid we must now pass on to a class of world languages or rather wouldbe world languages that have received much attention in recent times. The most widely known representatives of this class probably are Volapük, Esperanto, and Ido, the latter being a simplified and improved form of Esperanto. Other so-called international languages of a similar type are, e. g., those named by their inventors Idiom neutral, Interlingua or Cosmoglott, Kosmos, Monolingue, Novilatin, Occidental, Parla, Pasilinguist, Spokil, Universala. This list may easily be added to, the number of artificial languages devised with a view toward universal adoption having been estimated, several years ago, at about one hundred. Nevertheless, I shall confine myself to discussing briefly the three I have named first, these having gained at least a number of adherents large enough to engage our interest.

All three belong to the synthetic or eclectic type of artificial languages, their vocabulary and to some extent their grammar having been borrowed from more than one language. The credit for devising this method belongs to the originator of Volapük, a Bavarian pastor named Johan Martin Schleyer. In order, however, to fit Schleyer's principles, many of the words he made use of, had to change their original form. The name Volapük, e. g., is meant to be the equivalent of "World Speech." The adjective "American" is shortened and changed into Melop, the letter I being substituted for r, for the reason that the latter is reserved for prefixes and suffixes. Much as Volapük was hailed by many with enthusiasm at the time of its first appearance, in 1879, it is at present more of historical interest than of practical importance.

As a matter of fact, it was more and more abandoned since 1887, in favor of Esperanto, the system invented by a Polish physician, Dr. Zamenhof. This system, indeed, meant quite a step in advance, especially for the reason that the words borrowed from actual languages looked less disfigured than in Volapük and that its grammar appeared simpler and more natural.

Yet Esperanto on its part again seemed capable of improvement on similar lines, both as regards its structure and its vocabulary. In the first decade, therefore, of this century, an international committee, elected by the Delegation (founded in 1901) for the adoption of an auxiliary international language, set to work to bring about a modified form of Esperanto. The Committee began to publish the results of its labors in 1907, giving to the modified language the name of "Ido," the first two letters of which are meant to be interpreted as "International Delegation."

Contrary to the expectations of this Committee, the inventor of Esperanto refused to accede to the changes suggested by its members. While he succeeded in inducing many of his followers to take the same attitude others were ready to accept Ido instead. As a consequence we find the former advocates of Esperanto divided into two opposite camps. To an impartial observer it would seem that the changes agreed upon by the Committee are well considered and mean an essential improvement on the original Esperanto.