Re: Glosa vs IDO etc.

Hello sybidd and Shearar!

Thank you for your answers.

1. Wikipedia I neve= r tried to create it. My Glosa is not so well. Generally Wikipedia has now = a very negative attitude against constructed languages. So it will not be e= asy, but I would support a Glosa Wikipedia!

2. Slovio

Yes, I know Slovio.= I recently became a moderator of the Slovio Group after I wrote at the Slo= vio Forum that we need it to activate the group or to create a new one.

Sl= ovio has two big problems. First it is overpolitiziced. Slovio is used as a= tool to promote Panslavism and a slavocentric pro-russian polical view. On= the other hand Panslavists and slavophiles prefer of course Russian langua= ge. So Slovio and the language development was stepping in the background a= nd political propaganda played the leading role. So the language itself sta= gnated.

Second. Slovio was created as a kind of Interlingua based on Slavi= c languages, but in fact Slovio has a lot simplistic grammar taken from Esp= eranto/Ido. So there was and is a huge pressure to make it more “naturalist= ic” slavic with a more complicared grammar. So the father of Slovio created= a modified more complicated version of Slovio with should exist parallel w= ith “basic Slovio” under the slogan “flexible grammer”. In my opinion a big= mistake, because no one knows what kind of Slovio he should use. Others we= re even more radical started to create offsprings of Slovio. The effect of = all that is complete confusion and stagnation of the very interesting Slovi= o project.

Best regards Doro

–

• In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, sydpidd@= … wrote:

  agree about lack of glosa fellowship but have you tried - w= ikipedia glosa ? syd

  [Non-text portions of this message have bee= n removed]