Dear Gary and dear Glosa-people,

I can see you point, which was my problem= with Glosa in the first place. Arbitrary endings are not an option for me,= I find them too hard to memorize. On the other hand, it is difficult to ch= ose a meaning for a root like “stat” for instance: It could mean anything f= rom “stand”, “station”, “state”, “status” including their different meaning= s. Which is why I came up with forms like “stati”, “statio”, “statione”, “s= tatu”, “statura”, “stato”, “status” based on Latin (Interlingua). Glosa doe= s something similar with “nati” (birth) and “natio” (nation). I have made s= imilar modifications to greek words with regular formations of “grafi”, “gr= afia”, “grafa”, “grafe”, “grafo”.

This is why a made my own dialect of Glo= sa - “Glota”, which you can find here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/g= lotalist/

You’re all invited. :)

Thank you very much for your answers.

R= egards, Stephan — In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Gary Miller <gmillernd@..= .> wrote:

Stephan-

So far the Glosa authors have taken a different= attitude toward the last vowels of words. They have said:

1) Since = the last vowel of the word is simply there to ease pronunciation, it is n= ot important (except for a few words such as HOMO/HOMI, AMO/AMI). Therefo= re the words NOKTU, NOKTE, NOKTO should all be understood as “night” to a= Glosist.

2) The vocabulary of Interlingua is also useful for use in G= losa. This again shows a lot of freedom in picking the last vowel.

S= o you see the attitude is actually toward allowing a variety of word endi= ngs, rather than narrowing the endings to just one. I don’t think they wo= uld care if you used many of the word endings you proposed.

Saluta,

_ _ /. /\ =A0 Gary #