Page:International Language.djvu/66
Till then, any change can only cause confusion and alienate support. No one is going to spend time learning a language which is one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow. When the time comes for change, the authority will only proceed cautiously one step at a time, and its decrees will only set the seal upon that which actual use has hit off.
This, then, is the explanation of the famous adjective “ netuSebla,” applied by Dr. Zamenhof to his language, and so much resented in certain quarters. Surely not only is this degree of dogmatism amply justified by practical considerations, but it would amount to positive imprudence on the part of Esperantists to act otherwise. If the inventor of the language can show sufficient self-restraint, after long years spent in touching and retouching his language, to hold his hand at a given point (and he has declared that self-restraint is necessary), surely others need not be hurt at their suggestions not being adopted, even though they may in some cases be real improvements.
The following extracts, translated from the Preface to Fundamento de Esperanto (the written basic law of Esperanto), should set the question in the right light. - It will be seen that Dr. Zamenhof expressly contemplates the ¢ gradual perfection” (perfektigado) of his language, and by no means lays claim to finality or infallibility.
“Having the character of fundament, the three works reprinted in this volume must be above all inviolable (netuseblay)... The fundament must remain inviolable even with ifs ervors... Having once lost its strict inviolability, the work would lose its exceptional and necessary character of dogmatic fundamentality; and the user, finding one translation in one edition, and another in another, would have no security that I should not make another change to-morrow, and his confidence and support would be lost.
“To any one who shows me an expression that is not good in the Fundamental book, I shall calmly reply : Yes, it is an error; but it must remain inviolable, for it belongs to the fundamental