Re: Word Derivation

Ave Stephan, bene-veni e welcome und willkommen a Glosalist.

(I’m re= ferring to the GID: http://www.glosa.org/gid/glen.htm and the derivatio= n rules described in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glosa#Word= Derivation.5B6.5D .They don’t seem to fit. Are there any derivation = rules at all?)

Is the author of the wikipedia-article here in glosalist, = or did anyone of our group contributed to it? If so, I would like to thank=

you - for the help, that it gives to our language and, personally, thanks = for its link to the glosa.org homepage.

We got “noktu”, “lakti” and “= fonta”, but the latin ablative forms are “nocte”, “lacte” and “fonte”. W= hat’s the reason for -u, -i and -a in Glosa? We got “honora”, “kalor= i”, “odoro”, “amo”, but the latin ablative forms are “honore”, “calore”,= “odore”, “amore”. What’s the reason for “-ora”, “-ori”, “-oro”, “-o” in= Glosa? …

Over the last years, we had a lot of discussion here in g= losalist about this final vowel problem. I like your suggestions very well= and I would appreciate a word derivation like this. But please note, that=

wikipedia is misleading here.

Glosa words are NOT derived from Greek and= Latin words nor by means of methods based on classical philology. Glosa = words are derived FROM ENGLISH WORDS with Greek and Latin origin!

And so = we get words like “noktu” (nocturnal), “lakti” (lactic), “fonta” (fountAin)= and so on.

Saluta - Marcel