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

At 01:02 PM 7/27/03 -0700, Nick Hempshall wrote:

— Robin Gaskell drought-breaker@... wrote:

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

Check the English to Glosa section of this book page 40 INTO ad-in

Karo Nick e plu Hetero Amika, Ja, mi pa detekti plura loka intra u Glosa 6000 diktionari lo plu itema ne habe kongru. Po u publika de u “Glosa Internet Dictionary” (GID) mi pa sto refere ad un England-lingua_a_Glosa sektio de _Glosa 6000_. Te lekto Glosa textu, mi uti u major mero de _Glosa 6000_ (Glo->Eng); e, te grafo Glosa, mi uti u GID (Eng->Glo) pro refere.

Mi gene u klari idea, ex plu neo Glosa-pe, ke mu vo lekto e grafo uti Glosa .. ma de diskursi plu punkta de gramatika alo un uti de u lingua. Pro u-ci raisona, mi dona responde a tu komenta uti Glosa ne England lingua. Anti-co, mi fu don un England-lingua versio de u-ci posta, pro un auxi de plu gene-sko-pe.

[Yes, I did find several places in the Glosa 6000 dictionary where the entries didn’t match. After publication of the GID <find it on Marcel’s website> I stopped referring to the English to Glosa section of Glosa 6000. To read Glosa text, I use the main part of of Glosa 6000 (Glo- >Eng); and, in order to write Glosa, I use the GID for reference.

I get the clear idea, from the new Glosistas, that they wish to read and write Glosa .. more than discus the points of Grammar or the usage of the language. For this reason, I reply to your comment using Glosa not English. However, I will give an English version of this post, to help learners.]

E un uti de IN, INTRA e AD-IN ne nece gene plus diskursi ex mi; mi prefere de lase un uti de Glosa don u decide.

[And the use of IN, INTRA and AD-IN need not get further discussion from me; I Prefer to let the usage of Glosa give a decision.]

Saluta,

Robin