Note, however, that many of the coinages that have been considered (often by Aavik himself) as words concocted "ex nihilo" could well have been influenced by foreign lexical items, for example words from Russian, German, French, Finnish, English and Swedish. Aavik had a broad classical education and knew Ancient Greek, Latin and French. Consider • "relv" ‘weapon’ versus English "revolver", • "roim" ‘crime’ versus English "crime", • "siiras" ‘sincere’ versus English "sincere"/"serious" • "embama" ‘to embrace’ versus English "embrace", and • "taunima" ‘to condemn, disapprove’ versus Finnish "tuomita" ‘to judge’ (these Aavikisms appear in Aavik's 1921 dictionary). Consider also • "evima" ‘to have, possess, own’ (cf. also Estonian "omama" ‘to own’, and "mul on", lit. ‘to me is’, i.e. ‘for me there is’, meaning ‘I have’) versus English "have"; • "laup" ‘forehead’ versus Russian лоб lob ‘forehead’; • "mõrv" ‘murder’ and "mõrvama" ‘to murder’ versus English "murder" and German "Mord" (these Aavikisms do not appear in Aavik 1921); and • "laip" ‘corpse’ versus German "Leib" ‘body’ and German "Leiche" ‘body, corpse’. These words might be better regarded as a peculiar manifestation of morpho-phonemic adaptation of a foreign lexical item. The often irregular and arbitrary sound changes could then be explained not as subconscious foreign influence but rather as conscious manipulation by the coiner. Aavik seems to have paid little attention to the origin of his neologisms. On occasion, he replaced existing native words or expressions with neologisms of foreign descent. Therefore, Aavik cannot be considered a purist in the traditional sense, i.e. he was not ‘anti-foreignisms/loanwords’ as such.