Re: [glosalist] Verba-Taxo alo Verba-Semani

At 04:24 AM 6/27/03 -0700, Nick Hempshall grafo:

A quote from Glosa 6000 (3rd edition, page 7) which may or may not(?) relate to this question (i.e. is Glosa a semantically based language?)

• A-nu u qestio resta. To qod loka intra u-la diktionari pote na detekti u verbi “sintaxi”? U problema es gene ge-seduce per qod na vide. Plu verbi eqa u solidi mero de lingua, e na pote stude mu ad u fini de tem; sed, sine puta de plu spacia inter plu verbi, na fu nuli-tem komence de loka bi verbi par aleli.

[Still, the question remains. At what place in the dictionary can we find the word, “syntax”? The problem is getting seduced by what we see. Words are the solid part of language, and we can study them to the end of time; but, without thinking about the spaces between the words, we will never start to put two words together.]

Glosa eqa u lingua; in qi il es signifi pro semani - iso u diktionari pretende. Anti-co, ko id flexi-ra, e u posi de u verbi; qi representa u koncepa, monstro ali faceta de u semani de u partikulari koncepa, so na nece habe u sistem; qi sto plu koncepa ex colapse in u kumu.

[Glosa is a language in which there is significance for semantics, as the dictionary claims. However, with its flexability, and the possibility of a word, which represents a concept, showing any aspect of the meaning of the particular concept, so we need to have a system, which stops the concepts from collapsing in a heap.]

Plu hetero lingua habe plu muta, ge-nima ‘inflexi,’ e plu-ci muta akti iso plu nima-bileta; qi indika qod faceta de u semani u partikulari verbi monstro. Alterno-co, plu Glosa verbi habe nuli muta, e, sine plu flexi, alo nima-bileta, na nece gene plu semani de plu verbi ex mu ordina.

[The other languages have changes, called “inflections,” and these changes act as labels, which indicate what aspect of the meaning a particular word shows. Alternatively, Glosa words have no change, and, without the changes, or labels, we need to get the meaaning of the words from their order.]

Tem Ron Clark tenta promoti Glosa iso u semani lingua, u reali faktu es: uno-pe nece habe kompleti ski de u semani de plu verbi an uti, ka an habe nuli nima-bileta te don auxi ad an. Kron mi pa dice de Glosa iso u “Koncepa Lingua” a plu membra de u Conlang Lista, mu respnde: mi ne pote dice u-la.

[While Ron Clark tries to promote Glosa as a semantic language, the real fact is: one needs to have complete knowlege of the words he uses, because he has no labels to give him help. When I spoke of Glosa as a “concept Language” to the members of the Conlang List, they replied: I cannot say that.]

So, dice de u lingua iso ‘koncepa ge-basi’ alo ‘semani ge-basi’ aktuali habe nuli semani. Holo lingua habe ‘semani ge-basi,’ bi u Ge-inflexi lingua e u No-ge-inflexi lingua. U difere ko Glosa sistema de semani: uno-pe nece ski u korekti verbi pro u koncepa an vo expresi. An habe nuli inflexi te dona facili ad an.

[Thus, speaking of a language as ‘concept-based’ or ‘semantically-based’ actually has no meaning. All language is ‘semantically-based,’ both Infleced Language and Non-inflected Language. The difference, with Glosa’s system of semantic, is one must know the correct word for the concept he wishes to express. He has no inflection to make it easy for him.]

Un interese ra: oligo persona puta de plu verbi mu uti, pre mu dice. U majorita de homi gene sko de lingua ex copi plu hetero-pe: fo oligo persona kogita de plu verbi, e de mu eso semani, pre uti mu. Kron Ron dice de u “semani ge-basi lingua” an dice ad u mo pro centi de homi; qi pote imagina plu verbi iso plu koncepa basi, e ne iso plu solidi objecti.

[The interesting thing is few people think of the words they use, before they speak. The majority of mankind learn language from copying others; very few people think of the words, and their internal meaning, before using them. When Ron speaks of a “semantically-based language” he speaks to the one percent of mankind, who can imagine the words as concept bases, and not as solid objects.]

Each Glosa word stands for only one concept. In the Old Languages, whole battalions of words looking and sounding different, may yet contain a large element of common meaning. In Glosa, which is a semantically based language, this common meaning is made explicit.

• Sed solo a plu-pe; qi pote kogita uti abstrakti puta.

[But only to people who can think using abstract thought.]

Alterno, na habe plu verbi; na pote vide. Plu-ci habe nuli semani de mu-se. U semani es intra u menta, e so ne pote es u sistema de gramatika.

[Alternatively, we have the words we can see. These are not meaningful of themselves. Meaning is in the mind, and so, cannot be a system of grammar.]

In brevi, sintaxi pote es ge-vide, e don a na u sistema de gramatika; ge-basi in u relatio inter plu verbi. Te logi gramatika, u semani de plu verbi habe minor signifi, tem mu funktio don u struktura de lingua.

Mo-di na fu posi habe u gramatika de semani, sed ne nu.

[In brief, syntax can be seen, and gives us a system of grammar, which is based on the the relationship between the words. In order to understand grammar, the meaning of the words has minor significance, while their function gives the structure of language.

One day, we will possibly have a grammar of semantics, but not now.]

Saluta,

Robin Gaskell