Page:Volapük stenogafik e stenogaf volapükik.djvu/2

 In formulating his system of universal language, Father Schleyer seems to have been constrained to a certain degree by existing prejudices against a change in established methods. This is, perhaps, most prominently shown in his retention of the ordinary longhand method of writing, for the written representation of Volapük. It need hardly be said that any language, to become generally accepted, must be capable of being both spoken and written. This is inherently neccesary. Whether Volapük fulfills the first requirement is disputed; but certain it is that it exists to-day as a written language only. When its sound shall be simplified and made euponiouseuphonious [sic], no doubt it may, in its own speresphere [sic], become currrentcurrent [sic] as a spoken language. But considered as a written language, is Volapük all that could be desired? Let us see. When spoken sounds represent ideas, according to any system of language, their enunciation is made with an economy of time and labor commensurate with and corresponding to toto [sic] their proper formation. An idea is formed. Instantly the tongue forms the appropriate sounds to convey the idea, which is apprehended when the sounds are heard. It is not necessary in oral communications in a familiar language to individualize and separate the constituent sounds of a word, and give detailed expression to each. The sounds of the separate letters are spoken in their entirety as words. But in the written representation of a language it is entirely different. There, the elements of each expresionexpression [sic], represented by signs corresponding to the vocal sounds, are considered necessary to be given in their primary form, as each letter in the spoken language might be separately sounded. In other words, there is an elementary method of speaking, as there is an elementary method of writing a language. But, while the oral representation is developed into a more comprehensive method of communication, the elementary mode of writing is persistently adhered to in all languages. There is no way in any language, as a part of the language itself, of writing its words as comprehensively as they are