Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: Better grammar discussion

lenadi_moucina ("lenadi_moucina" <lenadi_moucina@...>) on June 20, 2008

Hello Patrick,

Thanks for your attentive reading of pan-glosa.

I still = contemplate if “jo” and “li” are needed.

Jo Pan-glosa go es li u evol= ve de Glosa …

is more complicated than

Pan-glosa ge u evolve de= Glosa …

or even shorter:

Pan-glosa ge evolve de Glosa …

= OK, so me I prefer the third, but in my idea, it is important that one use= pan-glosa as he feel, and the three forms are good.

Therefore I continue= d thinking about that, and during a month I traveled in Spain, without int= ernet connexion, so the ultimate changes are not yet on line. For example,= the appartenance-marker “de” need to be compounded with -co or -ce: X de-= co Y =3D (english) X’s Y X de-ci Y =3D (english) X of Y

Naturelly, I am = not sure that all the reforms I propose may be keeped, but I know that Glo= sa need some grammatical change.


Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: Better grammar discussion - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.