dear lizhenyu_god

your opinions are illuminating and interesting! I like a= lso LFN(read about it in wikipedia): its words are always natural (from rom= ance languages), grammar is the simplest I have seen, very clear to read an= d write. Anyone can suggest changes (Mr Boeree the creator, is there to dis= cuss changes)! It is user-generated, like wikipedia, youtube!

saluta

:-)

Myaleee

From: Zhenyu <lizhenyu_god@ho= tmail.com> To: glosalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, April 8, 2010 5:58:17 A= M Subject: [glosalist] Re: Glosa’s Improvement and Progress (An Answer to O= leg)(Revised thrice!) :(

Dear Oleg, Firstly about me,Haha! regrettably = I’m not a lawyer! However, I want to be a lawyer, judge, especially improve= r for Auxlangs! Haha! All those roles are finally for the only easiest and = most exact perfect communication. In my mind, Glosa and Mondlango are more = advanced than other ones, but which both need to be furthermore improved in= a contrary way. Glosa needs some improvement for even more exact expressio= n by changing the old mechanics into the new ones(as I proposed before). Mo= ndlango needs to reduce some unnessary and irregular forms, Exp: “mias, yia= s, hias, xias, jias, lias, muas, yuas, huas, xuas, juas, luas, sias; kius, = tius, ius, and nius” should be regularly replaced by “mio, yio, hio, xio, j= io, lio, muo, yuo, huo, xuo, juo, luo, sio, kiuo( Adj.=3Dkiua), tiuo( Adj.= =3Dtiua), iuo( Adj.=3Diua), and niuo( Adj.=3Dniua) (“-s” forever for “plura= l”. kius=3Dplural of “kiu”, tius=3Dplural of “tiu”, etc.).

Haha! Funny! No= ? Maybe I should put my words on Mondlango at the Mondlango’s forum, but no= t here! :D

Mr. Miller is right on his discription of Esperanto trying to = be “Exact”and Glosa “the Fastest”. My own opinions are as follows:

Esperan= to’s word order can be changeable maximally as speakers wish, just by havin= g a complex grammar which is a must for that to show every word its own gra= matical function. People have to pay much attention to every complex word’s= form, which really makes too much touble in speaking and writing (Maybe al= so hard in hearing, I haven’t tried before!). For me, I hate to afford its = complication, even it’s exact enough in expression!

Glosa’s word order, c= ontrarily to Esperanto, is stable, therefore it’s grammar can be simple and= without parts of speech. In most of the situations it can clearly show eve= ry word’s invisible part of speech–the grammar function, but still has sev= eral leaks or loopholes(unclear expressing ways) as I indicated before. For= me, Glosa’s really simple in speaking and writing, but occasionally some s= ituations make me puzzled in hearing and reading! I still think Glosa has a= greatest prospect! (My proposals given as per the Glosa’s own way, theoret= ically should be acceptable for making itself even more exact in expression= . )

Mondlango (including other Esperanto’s offsprings) is just between Glo= sa and Esperanto, quite near Esperanto in grammar but too far from the word= sourcing of Esperanto and the clever words-compounding of Glosa, as it’s q= uite pro-English so that some call it the Fake English. I think Mondlango c= an learn even more from Closa in words-compounding. Exp:aktwordo=3D verbo(a= ction- word,verb) ,kwalitwordo/ deskribwordo=3D adjekto(quality- word,descr= iption -word, adjective), yerdeko=3Ddekado( year-ten, decade) {derives from= “yercento=3Dcentury, yermilo=3Dmillenium” } mon-dekuno/mon- 11=3Dnovembro(= november) {Numerals after nouns for distinguishment from “dek/cent/mil yer= o(s)”–(ten, hundred,thousand years),yercento was centyero in the early tim= e of MDL}, maxinhumo=3Droboto( machine-man, robot),langjuro=3D gramatiko( l= anguage- legal,grammer) .In the end, basically the current Mondlango has no= confusion and also is easier in grammar, but with a lot of English-like wo= rds which need people to memorize purely. Mondlango will continually go gr= eater after it gets more improvement like I proposed above!

There is anoth= er type of auxlang named Lojban, literally “Logical Language”, which is qui= te fresh and different to the pro-native ones like Glosa, Mondlango, Mondla= ngo, etc. in grammar and words. I just began studying it and hard to tell w= hether it’s good or not, however it has given me some puzzles at the beginn= ing in its words and grammar.

Finally, as I said at the beginning, Glosa a= nd Mondlango are the two best auxlangs currently.

Saluta! Li Zhenyu

—= In glosalist@yahoogrou ps.com, “topdeboo” <topdeboo@.. .> wrote:

= Hello, Li Zhenyu,

Thanks a lot for your clever and detailed explanati= ons of the way the Glosa words are pronounced in those sample files from gl= osa.org. Are you not a lawyer, by the way? :-)

Sometimes, just like= what happens to many languages usually, people don’t follow the rules = of the common or unpassionate standard stress which means the stress w= ouldn’t be on where it ought to as in dictionaries but on the passiona= te syllable that people want to as their mood.

You’ve persuaded me= completely that the readers must have made those shifts of the stressed vo= wels in the heat of passion, which provides them with the most convincing e= xcuse. As for myself, I’m rather an impassive person, so I’ll always try to= observe the regulations given in the official guide; judging by your remar= ks, I understand them correctly.

I’ve read your other posts of today, = they are all very interesting. I wish I had knowledge of Glosa enough to as= sess your proposals. I can only say that at the Russian forum about Esperan= to where I heard of Glosa for the first time one of the members gave an exa= mple of the indistinguishable (by ear) words “an bovi” (his ox) and “an-bov= i” (male ox) as a proof of the insufficient accuracy of Glosa. For now, I w= onder if Glosa grammar allows to translate two of your examples (from your = another post) in this manner (to convey the meaning more precisely): his= or her friends =3D plu ami de an alo de fe he or her friends =3D an alo = plu ami de fe.

Best regards, Oleg

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