Re: [glosalist] Place critique(?) PART A.

At 05:57 AM 7/25/03 -0700, Nick Hempshall wrote:

— Robin Gaskell wrote: …..

dona kritici = give criticism [criticise]

or perhaps ~verifi~ [check for correctness]

** Firstly Folks, I feel that such linguistic discussion might play a smaller role in the Glosa saga, nowadays, considering that the dictionaries and GID have been around for a while, and perhaps it is time to concentrate on upgrading newcomers. May be there is one word that is the right word for a concept, or perhaps there are alternatives. I could live with the “alternatives” idea, as long as both are listed in dictionaries such that people can choose either of them. And eventually, by usage one or the other will prove more popular. I remember raising the “in”/”into” | ~intra~/~in~ confusion with Ron all those years ago, and he simply stated that that was just the way it was in Latin. But, with all the water that has flowed under the bridge since then, this is just a bit of ancient history about ‘Old Glosa’ now.

Unless a hard and fast rule about usage is made to cover cases:-    the milk is in the glass    pour the milk into the glass    we don't want that inside the house    move it into the inside of the jar    go inside (the house)    go into the house    after skinning the carcase remove the insides there could be a period during which a range of usages is extant.

While Glosa 6000,1992 p93,94 lists, IN in,into INTRA inside

the GID Eng.->Glosa, 2001-12-30 lists, in in 1++ inside endo (prefer intra) G; eso (prefer intra) G; intra 1++ into ad-in 1++; in 1++

So, until enterprising glosa-pe write definitive, no-synonym dictionaries, and create rule-stating, instructional manuals, in which simplifications teach just one usage per concept, we would probably be better off to accept the present latitude in the published dictionaries and word lists - and concentrate on the development of a corpus of Glosa texts. Needless to say, such texts could readily be edited, retrospectively, to bring them into line with subsequently agreed standardisations.

tipo /tEEpOR/ : type(of), (to)type, (a)type, ; ge-tipo = printed

~tipo~ basically means hitting, and hence typing and printing, where things hitting the paper come into play. [Gk. typos “dent, impression, mark, figure, original form,” from root of typtein “to strike, beat.”]

** Agreed, there does appear to be a multiplication of English-language concepts now within the word, “type”, and this multiplicity of meanings has flowed over into the Glosa word, ~tipo~. However, by seeing the idea of metaphor at work here, we have a lot more ways, nowadays, of imprinting a mark onto a surface .. than did the ancient Greeks .. and we could even say we “type” a picture from our computer screen onto the paper in the attached computer-printer. And if things are all of the same type, we can metaphorically say they are stamped out using the same mould; alternatively if there are different types of the same thing, we can see the analogy with different ‘fonts’ of ‘typeface.’ And my small dictionary of Modern Greek transliterates from the Greek:- type [taip] typical [tipicel] tipify [tipifai] typing [taiping]

Possibly Nick and I are approaching the same thing from different ends.  But I feel the main thought should be how we  accomodate, in the modern language, Glosa, what has become of the concept, which originated with the Ancient Greek root, [taip].

~speci~ [brand; kind (sort, species); sort (n); species]

~speci~ is one of the (some-what misnamed class of) �articles� in Glosa. So ~tri speci ergo-pe~ is standard Glosa [three kinds of worker(s)].

** Yes, there might be better concept/words to convey some of the peripheral modern English words that are part of the current spread of the original Greek root, ‘taip.’ But in the above example I was simply attempting to show the possible breadth of usage of the Glosa word, ~tipo~.

in; ad-in = into %I prefer the Old Glosa, ~in~ = “into”%

~in~ in (for example ~Mi fratri eko in Paris.~ or ~in domi~ [at home] or ~in trena~ [on the train]) ~ad-in~ into (for example ~An bali id ad-in meso fluvi~ [He throw it into the middle of the river]) ~intra~ inside, indoors, internal (for example ~Fe pa resta intra.~ [She stayed indoors])

** So, having this level of variability within the concept of “in-ness” can we say Glosa is stable enough for general use, or must further standardisation occur before people can meaningfully tell stories using the language? If the general feeling - on this List - is that clear, unambiguous translations, with no synonyms, must be decided upon before the language is properly usable, then how is a decision to be reached? Is Wendy Ashby’s decision to be final?

Saluta,

Robin Gaskell