Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »


Zhenyu ("Zhenyu" <lizhenyu_god@...>) on April 13, 2010

Plu-ci grafo es forti GRANDI INTER-DICE pro LOGI-PE e NO-LOGI-PE de u LOGIK= A de GLOSA!

Ex John plu proto lexi, na pote detekti qo-ka Glosa ne pa es = ge-acepta ex plu-la pe qi pa habitu un inflexi grama. Po-co, ex Robin un ex= plika, na detekti qo-ka es u boni e korekti mode de ski de u logika de Glos= a. Mu inter-dice es forti profunda e detaila;de u klavi-logika de Glosa!

= Mi pa retro-vide plura pa-grafo de ci. Fo interese, mi pote detekti ma info= de profunda-libela diskusi de Glosa e plu hetero lingua.

Glosa es u holo-= neo koncepti lingua! Na ne pote skope id per na paleo vista-punktu de infle= xi lingua-lega(gramatika) homo plu Euro-lingua more habe. U munda ne pote n= e habe Glosa qi es reali lingua ge-designa akorda un auto de menta e koncep= ti!

Pro Mondlango, id es u ple gramatika de habe absoluti sati ra pro sin= gu lexi-morfo iso “-o(-os),-a,-i(-an,-in,-on,-ant-,-int-,-ont-,-at-,-it-,-o= t-,-uz,-ez),-e,ect.” u traditio Euro-lingua koncepti.

Saluta! Li Zhenyu


— In, Robin Fairbridge Gaskell <drought-brea= ker@…> wrote:

At 11:23 PM 10/9/05, John Avis pa grafo:

— Robi= n Fairbridge Gaskell wrote: ——————————— At 09:= 09 PM 10/4/05, John Avis pa grafo:

Mi ne es glosa-pe, sed glosa intere= se mi.

I write this as an outsider, but I think Glosa could

have great potential.

  • So far so good. **A nu fo boni.


 Much omitted.

Saluta holo-pe= , e speciali John,

Thank yo= u, Robin, for your explanation.

My first thoughts were that the = two sentences meant what you said and that panto cina ami were agreeing = with the criticism in the first sentence.

It was not the “verb cl= uster” that threw me - what threw me was that I could not believe that p= anto cina ami could not recognise Chinese syntax in Glosa ! This made= me question whether I was translating correctly.

  • A perfect example= of the imperfectness of language for communication.
Even from thi= s, I am not sure if you are revising your first  interpretation of thes= e two Glosa sentences and possibly misreading the second to understand th= at Chinese people had trouble accepting that a weird languge like Glosa c= ould be so close to their Chinese language in its syntax, or that you tho= ught the sentence implied an opposite meaning, i.e. that Chinese people c= ould not perceive that the syntaxes of Chinese language and Glosa were al= most parallel.
 What should have been said - and not just implied - i= n the original Glosa statement, is that through lengthy processes of ling= uistic evolution, both Chinese and English have dropped out most of their=

inflections. Thus, they have shown a form of convergent evolution in= that they have both come to rely on syntax for the sense of their senten= ces … very notably, from East and West, the resulting syntax - regardle= ss of the forms of the two languages - is very similar. Pushing th= e argument to an unprovable level, we might conclude that syntax is reall= y the language element that is hard-wired into our brains, and that the s= peakers of both of these languages have ‘intuitively’ discovered this = primacy of syntax.

I suppose the answer is that while Glosa is simila= r to Chinese and English, it not Chinese nor English.

  • This is somet= hing that some people find hard to accept. In fact, Glosa is a language = in its own right, and there are expressions that can be more elegant in G= losa than they would be in English. Simply because the authors of Glosa = are English speakers, some critics see the similarities between the two l= anguages as a function of author First Language. On standing back, I= tend to see the fact that Ron and Wendy spoke a language, that had becom= e streamlined through the loss of inflections, as a catalyst for the synt= hesis of Glosa: pushing language to the full extent of this dimension - = where there was no other grammar than syntax.

I do not consider mysel= f a glosa-pe as I have made no attempt to learn Glosa, but with a rough = idea of its syntax I have been reading it and, as I said, most of the= time I can read it easily.

  • John you can be described as a casual read= er of Glosa. How many other languages can be picked up, without tuition,= by the casual reader? While Ron Clark went out of his way to avoid g= iving a grammatical prescription for Glosa, the Linguists demand it! Ron= wanted to avoid the confusions of a pedantically imposed book of grammat= ical rules. History might show this to have been a mistake. I did try s= ubsequently, to explain the grammar of Glosa, and this is on the web some= where. However, what Ron should definitely have done was to research = the rules of syntax; and, most people do not recognise that syntax does h= ave rules. So, good syntax - good word order - is what gives English its = rhythm, flow and meaning. Glosa is the same, only moreso. While Chinese= people sometimes do not know what to do with the “-ing” inflection, and = so add it to almost everything, with Glosa, this conundrum is removed. B= ut, for people whose first languages rely heavily on inflection, asking t= hem to use Glosa can be akin to removing the crutch from a cripple. = All in all, Glosa looks like being the Planned Language most likely to be = readily readable by the largest proportion of the human population. Writ= ing Glosa, on the other hand takes a little skill, and also some precisio= n of mind.

You have left me wondering whether I should make some s= erious effort to learn it !

  • Know that it exists, acknowledge that it i= s at the other end of the language spectrum to languages which are ver= y highly inflected; then, consider not translating, but ‘retelling’ a wel= l-known story in Glosa. When you catch yourself thinking in Glosa, ra= ther than thinking in English, and and then translating it, you will k= now you are using Glosa effectively. When I use two language writing =
  • Engilsh and Glosa - I always write the Glosa first: for me, it is fatal= to write the English first, then try to find translations into Glosa for= my vernacular English. You could be in for a pleasant shock. I was = when I explored “Cinderella” in Glosa: my imagination took off, resulting= in a much more intriguing, and believable, ~Cinerala~.

Habe u boni = di.

Robin Gaskell

Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

GRANDI INTER-DICE pro LOGI de GLOSA(Re: - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.