Re: Word Derivation

Hi Xavier, Gary and Marcel,

I was afraid you could say something like that= . But I thank you very much for your explications and examples. An etymolog= ical indication might be useful, but it only postpones the problem of a wor= d derivation scheme. For instance, if “noctu” comes from “nocturnal”, “di” = should be “diu” because of “diurnal”.

It is a difficult task to chose the = final vowel sensibly. I came up with this approach (for latin words): (Plea= se excuse that I write “c” instead of “k”.)

Let’s take the ablative form (= with -e instead of -i): mare (mari), manu, sole (sola), porta, portu. Let= ‘s elide unnecessary “-in-“ and “-it-“: lume (lumi), home (homi), nome, l= ime (*limita).

Let’s take the past participle stem with -i as a regular fo= rm for verbs: stati, facti, lecti.

Let’s form another word based on the pa= st participle only if it has a different meaning and is therefore not easil= y expressible by ordinary grammatical constuctions: nati (birth), natio (na= tion); visi (to look at), visio (to watch), visione (to see in a dream or i= n trance); lecti (to read), lectio (lecture), lectione (lesson).

Let’s use= the original verb form only if it has a different meaning: vide (to see), = visi (to look at); face (to do), facti (to make). (“lege” meaning “to read”= wouldn’t have a different meaning than “lecti”. Therefore “lege” should me= an something different, either “to collect” (which could be expressed by “c= olecti”) or it should mean “law”, from Latin “lege” (« lex).)

Let’s use t= he ablative ending -u of the -us -us declension (the new word should have a= dditional connotation to the idea of “a single/entire execution of an actio= n”): acti (to act, acting), actu (an act (theatre)). Also with -ura: statu = (state), statura (stature).

Let’s use the ending -o instead of -ore: amore=

amo, odore » odo, calore » calo. Same with -ore in combination with p= ast participle stems: cursi (to run), cursu (course), curso (cursor); (“act= o” for “actor” would be correct but wouldn’t add additional meaning, so “ac= ti-pe” should be preferred).

The original nominative ending could be used,= too: “data”, “datum”, “status”, “casus” (case in grammar vs. “casu” - “cas= e”) in case we ran out of endings.

The ending of the base word could be el= ided, for instance in poetry: act(i), sol(e), man(u), vit(a), dom(o).

I’m = not so sure about greek words yet. We could try and distinguish “fotograf” = (photograph), “fotografo” (photographer), “fotografia” (photography), “foto= grafi[c]” (photographic). On the other hand these words are so close in mea= ning that they should be simply derived in Glosa, like “fotograf(o)-pe”. Th= e ending -o may not mean anything at all and should be used only in compoun= ds, like “fot-o-graf(o)” with “fot” (light) as the base word.

Regards, Ste= phan

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, “Xavier Abadia” <xabadiar@…> wro= te:

Hi, Stephan, and Marcel.

Glosa partially inherits the morpholo= gy plan of Interglossa, which usually gives a final i to the nouns from the= Latin 2d and 3d declensions: agri, avi, bovi, cani, carni, clavi, feli, fi= li, flori, horti, igni, infanti, insecti, etc. And it gives a final a to no= uns from the 1t and 2d neuter: aqua, camera, carta, casea, cauda, nasa, etc= .

Glosa seems to develop its own morphology depending on derived words= , which were usually adopted by English, such as nocturn(al) from Latin noc= turnus. So Glosa has noktu while Interglossa has nocti. Gary has given a go= od set of examples in the previous message.

I think this morphology pl= an makes the vocabulary more difficult to memorize. So the dictionary of Gl= osa should provide the etymologic key of every word (noktu < L. nocturnus, = A. nocturnal), so we can memorize the lexicon with confidence. Now we are u= sually forced to guess why the morphology of this or that word is as it is.=

Greetings.

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, “Marcel Springer= “ <marcel@> wrote:

Ave Stephan, bene-veni e welcome und willko= mmen a Glosalist.

(I’m referring to the GID: http://www.g= losa.org/gid/glen.htm and the derivation rules described in Wikiped= ia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glosa#Word_Derivation_.5B6.5D .The= y don’t seem to fit. Are there any derivation rules at all?) =

Is the author of the wikipedia-article here in glosalist, or did a= nyone 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”. What’s the reason for -u, -i and -a in Glosa? = We got “honora”, “kalori”, “odoro”, “amo”, but the latin ablative f= orms 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 glosalist about this final v= owel problem. I like your suggestions very well and I would appreciate= a word derivation like this. But please note, that wikipedia is misle= ading here.

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

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

Saluta - Marcel