Re: Glosa vs IDO etc.

Hogben’s critique is summed up as:

Too much grammar of the wrong sort. By = that he means the flexions taken over from Indo-European and prefixes and = affixes

His argument is an analytic language shares the highest common de= nominator of grammar among languages as different as Chinese, Japanese, Ar= abic, Bantu and Spanish

Glosa is fully flexion-free

And the essential voc= abulary is too big (more than 1000) and too unfamiliar (mainly words taken= from German and Russian) and prefixes and affixes again (which he sees as= duplications of existing root words)

Glosa has word economy to reduce th= e essential words to a minimum. And it takes these words from Latin and Gr= eek because these are becoming familiar around the world with the spread o= f scientific terms into everyday life