Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: Stephan, Xavier

Xavier Abadia ("Xavier Abadia" <xabadiar@...>) on April 3, 2012

Absolutely, Ian. My criticism is especially against the GID dictionary, for= not showing a clear standard of the language. The lack of a standard is a = serious handicap to an auxiliary language. Instead, the GID seems to gather= blindly the vocabulary of all the subsequent dictionaries of Clark and Ash= by. I wonder what “significant body of content” was taken as the basis of t= he GID. Maybe “Plu Glosa Nota”? By the way, I wish I could find “Plu Glosa = Nota” online. Greetings.

— In, Ian Niles <ian_= niles@…> wrote:

A couple of comments. I think we can all agree th= at, all thing being equal, it is preferable for a derivation scheme for wor= ds of an IAL to be based on ancient Greek/Latin roots (a la LsF), rather th= an on a set of English words. For one thing, if we suppose that all speake= rs of a given IAL are fluent in English, then there is of course no point t= o an IAL. For another thing, the words of many modern languages are often = systematically derived from ancient Greek/Latin, so if you know how words i= n your language are derived from ancient Greek/Latin and there is a derivat= ion rule from the classical roots to the IAL, you can generate a good body = of vocabulary for the IAL automatically, regardless of which modern Europea= n language you start from. Incidentally, this is one feature I really like= about Occidental/Interlingue. That being said, any convincing proposal t= o revise a language, whether 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 conten= t that is expressed using the revised version of the language. This can be= seen as the experimental justification for the proposal, and the community= (or a community) can judge whether or not it’s an improvent over the origi= nal version. -Ian

To: From: gmillernd@… = Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:05:28 -0500 Subject: [glosalist] Stephan, Xav= ier


  STEPHAN: Do you mean, you can't rem= ember Latin endings, the endings I

proposed or (some) Glosa endings?

REAKTI: I used 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 like

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

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

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

(as in “manipulate”), and t= hat “nati” is “birth” and that “natio” is

“nation” and not the other w= ay round. That is the same “easiest” as

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

same in Glota (my dialect). Bu= t 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/technical 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 instead, 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 (a= s I did) when they find

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

vowel! This way the morphology of the languag= e may look chaotic. Of

course this may be due to the early Glosa textb= ooks. Anyway, the

problem remains.

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

words from varying languag= es, one would expect the ends of the Glosa

words to vary too.


XAVIER: In my viewpoint are three options:

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

ease pronunciation, s= o let’s give a certain final vowel to all words.

-E is the characteris= tic vowel of the main Latin declension (the 3rd)

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

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


I would argue that there is no characteristic vowel in the

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

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

is missing in suc= h forms as ESSE and FERRE and FAC and DIC. I agree

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

Diffe= rent international language plans have used different means of

obtaini= ng their base vocabulary. LSF did this directly from Latin,

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

modern sci= entific/technical terms, Lojban from languages all over the

world. The= re is nothing wrong with any of these plans, they are simply

different= .

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

find there is no shortage of critics out there. :-) But the rea= l trick

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

languages rarely read or write more than a few sentences.


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

to test the languages by using them. (I still use LSF a little; see Glosa was the one I

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

E= ven more important is support. No international language will be

succe= ssful without a group of people actively promoting it. Esperanto

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

= Saluta,

_ _


/\ Garx



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

Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: Stephan, Xavier - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.