yes we can

Ave, Karo Miller! Mi fo amo gene panto nova-grama de “plu glosa nota” te = lekto mi poesi e pan-ra de hetero-pe!

Changes can be emotional and chaotic= , which only leads to harming the simplicity and clarity of the language! = But change and improvement to a language is greatly useful if done with con= sensus of many glosists and approved finally by Sra Ashby(or other)! Refusa= l to change leads to a rigid language with flawed features: look at esperan= to, Fundamento is unalterable: you accept ugly words like sciencisto , scii= gi, malmultekosta, and “havas multajn florojn” accordance of adjective! Cha= nge can be done slowly as in lingua franca nova:few changes were done to g= rammar slowly and carefully, but alot of new words and word changes is bein= g done continuously! Result: LFN reaches perfection now(very beautiful, cle= ar, expressive, more so because of CHANGES). Mr Boeree the creater refuses = and accepts ideas, while controlling the decision, unlike glosa.

All lang= uages differentiate “ the book, a book “; why “u” for both? why un andro no= t u andro, since 2 adjacent vowels occur galore already in dictionary eg m= a-amo, ge-elekta etc etc? Better use ONE article :le(the) and un(a book), i= n one form!

All languages have suffix for plural, why ugly plu before and = far from noun ? u plu boni e grandi andro e gina: better use “sa”(or other = 2-letter suffix)le boni e grandi andro sa e gina sa!

Youtube and wikipedi= a succeeded because it used talents of people(i.e user generated!), LFN is = also a user gererated language and glosa can be so also! believe me change = is easy!!!

I would be grateful if you let Sra Ashby know of my suggestions= !

Penite de vexa