Dear David, Ave! Gluko de ski tu! I think, if we should add something to Gl= osa words showing the word’s parts of speech, there generally two ways: 1: = adding a function word before the following word; 2: adjusting the final vo= wel into “o” for noun, “a” for adj., “e” for adv., and “i” for verb. In my = feeling, the first way is better, coz it’s on the isolating linguage’s comm= on way like Lojban. The 2nd way could save letters but its words have to be= re-chosen. Eg: amo(to like) in way 2: amo=3Dliking,n. ama=3D of to like,ad= j. ami=3D to like,v. ame=3D likingly,adv. While original “ami(friend)” has = no way to appear for avoiding confusion, so “friend” has to be in another f= orm like “amo-pe” or “amiko”. Thus, I prefer the 1st way! “zu” for indicat= ing the following phrase a verbal phrase. This may be the only adding thing= to resolve every confusion. Mi zu doxo, si na zu muta uno-ra de Glosa, na = zu debi akti iso u mode de Lojban alo Loglan. Mi zu pa loka mi Logika-glosa= in “Files” qi zu pote gene uno gradu muta per ma-boni.

Eg: An auxi-fe=3D = His female helper An zu auxi fe=3D He helps her Here, we have no reason to= think “zu auxi fe” as “zu auxi-fe” which is impossible to have a verb like= “to helper sth.”

An pa auxi-fe=3D His past female helper An zu pa auxi fe= =3D He helped her

Zu auxi fe=3D help her Zu auxi fe!=3D help her!

“ZU” d= erives from German “zu(to)” meaning “to do sth” which could be a great sepe= rator between the proceeding noun phrase and the following verbal phrase.

=

Saluta!

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

Interesing Zhenyu - I have been thinking (particularly since you a= nd Myalee put forward proposals for changing Glosa) that all that is really= necessary to remove ambiguity is, as you suggest, simply re-phrase sent= ences. One change I would personally favour is to have “o” endings for no= uns “a” ending for adjectives etc.
Enjoy the rest of your trip - = wishing you well, Davidjp

----- Original Message -----   =  From: Zhenyu    To: glosalist@yahoogroups.com    Sent: Sunday, Novembe= r 21, 2010 2:25 AM   Subject: [glosalist] Re: Translation

= Fighting tigers can be dangerous.

This sentence is ambiguous. Doe= s it mean:

gerund / object of gerund / modal / verb / adjecti= ve Fighting tigers can be dangerous.

or:

= present participle / subject / modal / verb / adjective

Fighting t= igers can be dangerous.

Esperantists are proud of the fact tha= t such ambiguities cannot occur in their language. Does this make Eng= lish inferior to Esperanto? No, English can restate the sentences wit= h the proper information to remove the ambiguities when this is neede= d:

Fighting with tigers can be dangerous. Tigers that = fight can be dangerous.

By the way, Glosa shares the same structur= es as English:

Pugna tigri posi es risko. Pugna anti t= igri posi es risko. Tigri; qi pugna, posi es risko.

These exa= mples are quite useful and just like a similar one I thought about. In fact= , Mondlango also has the same ambiguous problem as follow: Mondlango: K= atos esan manjanta musos. Cats are eating mice. Glosa semani: /1: = Plu feli du vora plu mus. /2: Plu feli es plu (du-)vora mus. Espera= nto: /1:Katoj estas mangxantaj musojn. /2:Katoj estas mangxantaj m= usoj. Here, you can see, Glosa is more exact than Mondlango and some la= nguages having the same problem. Saluta! Li Zhenyu

— In g= losalist@yahoogroups.com, Gary R Miller <justi.miller@> wrote:

= Dear Robin,

I’m afraid you have missed the point. My translati= on of the Qo akti? article does not differ from your translation (w= hich is indeed a very understandable translation based on logic) beca= use of my perception of German, but because my perception of Glosa di= ffers from yours.

You have pointed out that Glosa semantics ar= e based more on vocabulary than grammar. What if a Glosa word has a d= ifferent meaning in my head than it has in yours? Certainly, Glosa wo= rds are not yet that clearly defined.

For example, I sai= d:

“Homo solve anti lingua difere…”

You said= :

“Iso u solutio ad difere de lingua…”

I per= ceived problems caused by language diversity as something to be “foug= ht against.” You perceived them as something a solution can be “appli= ed to.” The original German really had more the idea that you transla= ted, even though you do not know German. (German uses the preposition= f=FCr, more akin to the English “for.”) Logic is a tool that in my= hand produced one translation and in your hand produced another. On= e translation might be more understandable to one person and the other = to another. If there were a REGULAR USAGE of either preposition that = could be asserted, there would be no argument here. (Or perhaps just my = own personality or feelings about international auxilary languages is = showing through.)

There are also grammar differences. I = like Hogben’s idea of “amplifier,” as seen in my translation here: =

Cina-pe detekti id ma no-facili. [Chinese find it more difficu= lt.]

What Hogben calls an amplifier would be called an appos= itive in English in this instance. (The phrase “more difficult” modi= fies “it.”) Many languages use appositives. Your solution was a struc= ture using the preposition kausa. Both are understable to me, and b= oth use logic.

One of Noam Chomsky’s favorite sentences was:

Fighting tigers can be dangerous.

This sentence i= s ambiguous. Does it mean:

gerund / object of gerund / modal = / verb / adjective Fighting tigers can be dangerous.

o= r:

present participle / subject / modal / verb / adjective

Fighting tigers can be dangerous.

Esperantists are proud= of the fact that such ambiguities cannot occur in their language. Do= es this make English inferior to Esperanto? No, English can restate t= he sentences with the proper information to remove the ambiguities wh= en this is needed:

Fighting with tigers can be dangerous. = Tigers that fight can be dangerous.

What a headache for a = translator who gets only the ambiguous sentence! Every language cont= ains different information attached to its words. Translators must s= ometimes supply missing information or opt to leave out information t= hat is not usually contained in the second language. This leads to di= ffering translations by more than one translator and even mistakes. T= he proverbial “It loses something in the translation” also applies he= re.

By the way, Glosa shares the same structures as English:

Pugna tigri posi es risko. Pugna anti tigri posi es ris= ko. Tigri; qi pugna, posi es risko.

Using the verboid a= lso helps here:

Akti pugna anti tigri es risko. (Akti makes= pugna an object, requiring the use of a preposition to connect it = with tigri.)

I admire the flexibility of Glosa, as I do the = interesting differences in our translations.

Saluta, = _ _ /. Gary #/#

#

______= ______________ The best thing to hit the inte= rnet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!=

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

=

– I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a = community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 4995 = of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spam= fighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message

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