and _vidadi_ used in many cases where the simple _vidi_ would be sufficient) are to be accounted for by Russian usages. Naturally I do not object to the importation of national peculiarities into the international auxiliary language when the latter is enriched thereby. For example, one must make use of the facility for forming compound words common to the Germanic and Slavonic languages in preference to the poverty of Romance languages in this respect, and combine it with the more Romance characteristic of forming new words by means of derivative syllables. But peculiarities of national language which render mutual comprehension and international usage difficult must be most carefully avoided. The unpractical nature of the circumflexed letters has been indicated previously. It may be remarked here, however, that in point of system Zamenhof's letters are very inferior to the similar ones employed in the Czech language, since the parallelism in sound between _s_ and _ŝ_, _z_ and _ĵ_, _dz_ and _ĝ_, is disguised by the choice of letters. This produces a very amateurish effect. Besides the familiar parts of speech which are indicated by special terminations, Zamenhof invented a new class characterised by the termination _-au_ (_kontrau_, _almenau_); but the limits of this class, which includes some, but not all, adverbs and prepositions, are not clearly defined. Many words taken from existing languages are disguised, almost after the fashion of Volapük: _boji_, F. _aboyer_; _parkere_, F. _par cœur_; _shvit_, G. _schwitzen_, E. _sweat_; _char_, F. _car_; _faruno_ instead of _farin_; _lerta_, F. _alerte_ (with a changed meaning), etc. In this category is to be classed the astonishing _nepre_ (entirely) which is derived from the Russian _nepremenno_, just as if one were to take from the German word _unbedingt_ the two first syllables and propose _unbe_ as an international word instead of _absolute_. The economy in the use of stems was carried much too far in Esperanto, necessitating the employment of all sorts of compound words, the discovery of whose meaning requires much racking of one's brains. The employment of all the derivative syllables also as independent words is very ingenious, but produces a very strange impression on the uninitiated. The method of word formation is greatly wanting in precision, the limits of the so-called direct derivation in particular being not sufficiently clearly indicated. One example will suffice. Starting out from _kroni_ = to crown, _krono_ ought properly to mean crowning, instead of which it signifies crown, so that one is forced to use _kronado_ for crowning, whereas, according to the rules of Esperanto, _kronado_ must mean continuous or repeated crowning, as if a king were being constantly or repeatedly crowned.[4]