RE: [glosalist] Stephan, Xavier

A couple of comments. I think we can all agree that, all thing being equa= l, it is preferable for a derivation scheme for words of an IAL to be based= on ancient Greek/Latin roots (a la LsF), rather than on a set of English w= ords. For one thing, if we suppose that all speakers of a given IAL are fl= uent in English, then there is of course no point to an IAL. For another t= hing, the words of many modern languages are often systematically derived f= rom ancient Greek/Latin, so if you know how words in your language are deri= ved from ancient Greek/Latin and there is a derivation rule from the classi= cal roots to the IAL, you can generate a good body of vocabulary for the IA= L automatically, regardless of which modern European language you start fro= m. Incidentally, this is one feature I really like about Occidental/Interl= ingue. That being said, any convincing proposal to revise a language, whe= ther a natural language or an IAL, does not come in the form of an edict. = It comes in the form of a signficant body of content that is expressed usin= g the revised version of the language. This can be seen as the experimenta= l justification for the proposal, and the community (or a community) can ju= dge whether or not it’s an improvent over the original version. -Ian To: = glosalist@yahoogroups.com From: gmillernd@… Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 = 10:05:28 -0500 Subject: [glosalist] Stephan, Xavier

=

  STEPHAN: Do you mean, you can't remember Lati= n endings, the endings I

proposed or (some) Glosa endings?

REAKTI: I us= ed to be fairly fluent in Russian and German. No more!

Languages are like = most other things in life: They’re a lot easier

when you’re young. I still= remember Glosa - mostly. I’m not even sure

my own name ends in Y anymore.= :-)

STEPHAN: And, what is the easiest? Root ending derivation rules lik= e

the ones I propose wouldn’t make Glosa (or Glota) any more difficult,

b= ecause you don’t need to learn them (they are not productive as in

Esperan= to). You just need to know that “hand” is “manu” and not “mani”

(as in “ma= nipulate”), and that “nati” is “birth” and that “natio” is

“nation” and no= t the other way round. That is the same “easiest” as

before, isn’t it? Glo= sa words like “manu”, “nati” and “natio” are the

same in Glota (my dialect= ). But they do follow root ending derivation

rules, which shows that Glosa= could have had them, too, and in some

cases even gives the impression of = having them.

REAKTI: The one you remember is the easiest. It’s like this=

Glosa

derives its vocabulary from modern Latin and Greek

scientific/tec= hnical words. MANU is the preferred Glosa word. If I

can’t remember MANU, = but I remember the English word MANIPULATE and

derive the word as MANI ins= tead, I have not made a mistake. I like not

making mistakes. :-)

XAVIER=

it’s natural that this discussion is happening on and on.

People may get= astonished at the dictionary (as I did) when they find

many translations = for a certain word, some just differing on the final

vowel! This way the m= orphology of the language may look chaotic. Of

course this may be due to t= he early Glosa textbooks. Anyway, the

problem remains.

REAKTI: When one= realizes that Glosa words are derived from varying

words from varying lan= guages, one would expect the ends of the Glosa

words to vary too.

XAVIE= R: In my viewpoint are three options:

1. Since the final vowel is not im= portant, and it is only there to

ease pronunciation, so let’s give a certa= in final vowel to all words.

-E is the characteristic vowel of the main La= tin declension (the 3rd)

and it is the characteristic ending of verbs, at = their infinitive -re.

I am really testing this -E option with a reformed L= atino Sine

Flexione.

REAKTI: I would argue that there is no characteris= tic vowel in the

original Latin. Latin speakers themselves added the E to = make

pronunciation easy. This E is often unstressed in the original Latin,=

is missing in such forms as ESSE and FERRE and FAC and DIC. I agree

that= adding the E in man-made language plans is a good idea.

Differ= ent international language plans have used different means of

obtaining th= eir base vocabulary. LSF did this directly from Latin,

Esperanto from a mi= x of modern Romance and Germanic words, Glosa from

modern scientific/techn= ical terms, Lojban from languages all over the

world. There is nothing wro= ng with any of these plans, they are simply

different.

Good luck with G= lota! Maybe it will finally be the right one. You’ll

find there is no shor= tage of critics out there. :-) But the real trick

is to get people to USE = the language. Most people who criticize these

languages rarely read or wri= te more than a few sentences.

When I started studying the international = language problem, I wanted

to test the languages by using them. (I still u= se LSF a little; see

groups.yahoo.com/group/latinosineflexione.) Glosa was= the one I

learned the fastest. I also feel it most freely expresses ideas= .

Even more important is support. No international language will be

suc= cessful without a group of people actively promoting it. Esperanto

has the= most support, therefore it is the one most people hear about.

Saluta,

= _ _

/.

/\ Garx

#

[Non-t= ext portions of this message have been removed]