Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

# GRANDI INTER-DICE pro LOGI de GLOSA(Re: jhnavis@yahoo.co.uk)

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

“inflexi grama” a pre-nu posta es ero, sed es “inflexi gramatika”

— In = glosalist@yahoogroups.com, “Zhenyu” <lizhenyu_god@…> wrote:

Plu-ci gr= afo es forti GRANDI INTER-DICE pro LOGI-PE e NO-LOGI-PE de u LOGIKA de GLOS= A!

Ex John plu proto lexi, na pote detekti qo-ka Glosa ne pa es ge-ac= epta ex plu-la pe qi pa habitu un inflexi gramatika. Po-co, ex Robin un exp= lika, na detekti qo-ka es u boni e korekti mode de ski de u logika de Glosa= . 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 i= nfo 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 d= e inflexi lingua-lega(gramatika) homo plu Euro-lingua more habe. U munda ne= pote ne habe Glosa qi es reali lingua ge-designa akorda un auto de menta e= koncepti!

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

Salu= ta! Li Zhenyu

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Robin Fairb= ridge Gaskell <drought-breaker@> wrote:

At 11:23 PM 10/9/05, John A= vis pa grafo:

# — Robin Fairbridge Gaskell wrote:

At 09:09 PM 10/4/05, John Avis pa grafo: = Mi ne es glosa-pe, sed glosa interese mi.

I write this as= an outsider, but I think Glosa could have great potential.

• S= o far so good. **A nu fo boni.

## —————————-=

 Much omitted.


# Saluta holo-pe, e speciali John,

Thank you, Robin, f= or your explanation.

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

It was not the “verb= cluster” that threw me - what threw me was that I could not believe t= hat panto cina ami could not recognise Chinese syntax in Glosa ! = This made me question whether I was translating correctly.

• A pe= rfect example of the imperfectness of language for communication.

= Even from this, I am not sure if you are revising your first inter= pretation of these two Glosa sentences and possibly misreading the seco= nd to understand that Chinese people had trouble accepting that a weird= languge like Glosa could be so close to their Chinese language in its = syntax, or that you thought the sentence implied an opposite meaning, i= .e. that Chinese people could not perceive that the syntaxes of Chinese= language and Glosa were almost parallel. What should have bee= n said - and not just implied - in the original Glosa statement, is tha= t through lengthy processes of linguistic evolution, both Chinese and E= nglish 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 sentences … very notably, from East = and West, the resulting syntax - regardless of the forms of the two = languages - is very similar. Pushing the argument to an unprovabl= e level, we might conclude that syntax is really the language element t= hat is hard-wired into our brains, and that the speakers of both of the= se languages have ‘intuitively’ discovered this primacy of syntax.=

I suppose the answer is that while Glosa is similar to Chin= ese and English, it not Chinese nor English.

• This is something that = some people find hard to accept. In fact, Glosa is a language in its o= wn right, and there are expressions that can be more elegant in Glosa t= han they would be in English. Simply because the authors of Glosa are = English speakers, some critics see the similarities between the two lan= guages 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 bec= ome streamlined through the loss of inflections, as a catalyst for the = synthesis of Glosa: pushing language to the full extent of this dimensi= on - where there was no other grammar than syntax.

I do not cons= ider myself a glosa-pe as I have made no attempt to learn Glosa, but w= ith 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 describe= d as a casual reader 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 giving a grammatical prescription for Glosa, the L= inguists demand it! Ron wanted to avoid the confusions of a pedantical= ly imposed book of grammatical rules. History might show this to have = been a mistake. I did try subsequently, to explain the grammar of Glos= a, and this is on the web somewhere. However, what Ron should defin= itely have done was to research the rules of syntax; and, most people d= o not recognise that syntax does have rules. So, good syntax - good wor= d order - is what gives English its rhythm, flow and meaning. Glosa is= the same, only moreso. While Chinese people sometimes do not know wha= t to do with the “-ing” inflection, and so add it to almost everything,= with Glosa, this conundrum is removed. But, for people whose first la= nguages rely heavily on inflection, asking them to use Glosa can be aki= n to removing the crutch from a cripple. All in all, Glosa looks li= ke being the Planned Language most likely to be readily readable by the= largest proportion of the human population. Writing Glosa, on the oth= er hand takes a little skill, and also some precision of mind.

Yo= u have left me wondering whether I should make some serious effort to = learn it !

• Know that it exists, acknowledge that it is at the other = end of the language spectrum to languages which are very highly in= flected; then, consider not translating, but ‘retelling’ a well-known s= tory in Glosa. When you catch yourself thinking in Glosa, rather th= an thinking in English, and and then translating it, you will know= you are using Glosa effectively. When I use two language writing -= Engilsh and Glosa - I always write the Glosa first: for me, it is fata= l 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, re= sulting in a much more intriguing, and believable, ~Cinerala~.

= Habe u boni di.