Re: Glosa vs IDO etc.

Hello,

A language can be as perfect as it wants if it has no fellowship. E= speranto is linguistically one of the worst auxiliary language but on the o= ther hand still the only functioning auxiliary language because it has a fe= llowship that really practices it.

Ido is linguistically better contructed= than Esperanto, but has still a lot of unnecessary ballast from Esperanto= . As a movement Ido is small, but existing.

Glosa is linguistically totall= y different than Esperanto and Ido. But I consider it problematic that Glos= a has no mechanism to distinguish between verb, noun and adjective in its l= exic.

But the greatest problem is: Glosa is practically dead. Just look at=

this group. No real activity. Glosa has no central authority and no Wikipe= dia, even Novial, Interlingue and Lojban have their Wikipedias. Lingua Fran= ca Nova is an active community on the internet, but Glosa has nothing like = that. So Glosa has currently no signifigance at all.

The people here shoul= d think about how to change that….

Many greetings Andoromeda

— I= n glosalist@yahoogroups.com, <Jacques@…> wrote:

Hi,

Just joined= . I definitely want to learn an IAL and my preliminary screening tells me= that the two best choices are probably Glosa or IDO. I tend to prefer GL= OSA. Would you have any article or site where I could find a comparison o= f the two, showing the advantages of Glosa over IDO?

In fact if Glosa= is the most recent of the IALs, created after having looked at all the o= ther ones created earlier, is there not somewhere an article comparing ad= vantageously Glosa to all the other main IAL?

Thanks for your h= elp.

Jacques Drapeau

ex Canadian diplomat

Living in = Rome, Italy.

PS: Is there a ‘central authority’ somewhere cont= rolling the standards and the spreading of Glosa worldwide? The website w= ww.glosa.org is very limited. What is the main website(s) about Glosa? =

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]