Microsoft Word llz-bio-En doc

Accents (Esperanto sen supersignoj) to Zamenhof, Javal and Michaux. Zamenhof 

thanked Couturat for the project, which arrived just in time to be considered in the 

circular About Neologisms (Pri neologismoj) that was to be sent to the Language 

Committee. Michaux approved of Couturat's reforms, but did not wish to use them 

without Zamenhof's approval. Javal and Lemaire both agreed with the proposals. Louis 

de Beaufront was interested in Esperanto Without Accents, although he had been until 

then the most anti-reformist among the influential Esperantists. 

On November 22

nd

, Zamenhof sent Boirac the circular entitled Pri Neologismoj 

(About Neologisms) for the latter to pass on to the Language Committee members. 

Influenced by the many recent proposals and experiments, Zamenhof had removed all 

accented letters from the alphabet and even promised to use the new version. 

Boirac, however, refused to distribute the circular to the Committee members, who, 

it will be remembered, had been chosen by Zamenhof. Furthermore, Bourlet refused to 

publish Zamenhof's reform project in La Revuo (The Review). Zamenhof dropped his 

---

28 

 

reform proposals, thinking that, by so doing, he was avoiding a split between the reform-

minded Esperantists and the conservatives. The reformist fever had infected the 

Esperantists, however, and even the death of the leading reformer, Javal, on 20

th

 January, 

1907, did not assuage their thirst for reform. 

De Beaufront, Moch and Lemaire elaborated on Couturat's ideas. Because 

Zamenhof was hesitant, Couturat asked de Beaufront to publish his project. In May 

1907, de Beaufront published Couturat's project and signed it as “Ido” (Esperanto for 

“offspring”). While “Ido” was formally de Beaufront's pseudonym, Couturat was, of 

course, the real author. 

Having attracted registrations from 1251 professors and academicians and from 307 

associations, the Delegation for the Acceptance of an International Auxiliary Language 

turned to the International Association of Academies (IAA) for help in making its 

decision. On the 29

th

 of May, 1907, the IAA decided at its Vienna congress that it would 

not deal with the question. 

Subsequently, on June 25

th

, the Delegation elected its own Committee. The 

Committee was chaired by Wilhelm Ostwald, a well-known chemist and later Nobel 

prize winner (1909). The vice chairs were the outstanding linguists Jan Niecisław 

Baudouin de Courtenay and Otto Jespersen. The fourteen committee members included 

several linguists (Hugo Schuchardt, among others), politicians and representatives of 

planned languages. Couturat and Leopold Leau held office as secretaries. 

The Committee met in Paris from the 15

th

 to the 24

th

 of October, 1907. It defined the 

basic principles required of an international language: an international character 

(Jespersen), monosemy

12

 (Ostwald), reversibility

13

 (Couturat) and tested each of the 

languages against them. The authors of each of the languages to be examined were 

invited to the session. Zamenhof delegated the “second father of Esperanto”, Louis de 

Beaufront, to represent him. 

At its final meeting on 24

th

 October, the Committee concluded that none of the 

languages it had examined could be accepted in its present state. Nevertheless, it did 

decide to accept Esperanto because of its relative state of perfection and its wide use, on 

condition that it be modified by the Permanent Commission in the direction defined by 

the conclusions of the Secretaries' Report and by the Ido project. The Commission was 

to make an effort to acquire the Language Committee's agreement. 

The Permanent Commission began its work with Ostwald as chair, Baudouin de 

Courtenay, Jespersen, Couturat and Leau as members, and de Beaufront, who was co-

opted “for his special competence”. 

The Commission's negotiations with Zamenhof and the Language Committee were 

not easy. Zamenhof suggested reforms several time, but only as Esperanto's author. He 

was not prepared to accept suggestions from others. Even Baudouin de Courtenay, who 

---

29 

 

visited him in Warsaw the 30

th

 of October, 1907, was unable to persuade him. Boirac 

had no real power, since the hundred-member Language Committee he chaired was 

unworkable. Ostwald, Couturat and de Beaufront had little interest in expending effort to 

reform Esperanto when their own language project had received recognition for its 

superior qualities. Additionally, the Commission was hindered because it was unclear 

who spoke for Esperanto; it was never sure whether it should be dealing with Zamenhof 

or with the Language Committee.  

Zamenhof's behaviour became unstable. One day he proposed a conference to rid 

the language of the most serious flaws that drew constant attacks, the next day he 

declared the conference unnecessary. He asked Boirac to activate the Language 

Committee, then told him the Committee had no right to deal with an external authority, 

etc. Boirac decided to resign from his position, but remained in office at Zamenhof's 

insistence. Finally, on January 18

th

, 1908, Zamenhof and Boirac, in separate letters, 

informed Ostwald that negotiations with the Delegation were definitively broken off. No 

compromise was reached and, instead of an improved Esperanto, the world got yet 

another planned language, Ido. 

The Delegation Committee's decision caused a schism among Esperantists. 

Approximately five percent of Esperantists converted to Ido. Up to twenty percent of the 

Esperanto movement's leaders were among the converted. Several periodicals and 

associations converted to Ido. Among the latter was the Nuremberg Club, which 

converted to Ido, abandoning Idiom Neutral, to which it had converted from Esperanto 

in 1894 after abandoning Volapük. In the May 1908 issue of L'Espérantiste, Louis de 

Beaufront identified himself as the author behind the pseudonym “Ido”, and in 

November he resigned as president of the French Association for the Promotion of 

Esperanto. Despite these conversions, Idists never outnumbered Esperantists in any 

country and the membership of the world-wide Idist association never exceeded 600.