Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

RE: [glosalist] Re: Stephan, Xavier

Ian Niles (Ian Niles <ian_niles@...>) on April 3, 2012

I disagree with your criticisms of the GID, Xavier. I think we owe an eno= rmous debt of gratitude to Marcel Springer and the other folks who spent lo= ng hours culling through all of the Glosa resources to compile this diction= ary. It’s not perfect, but I believe that it’s on the same level as a fore= ign language dictionary created by professional (and paid) lexicographers. = Every time I translate one of Aesop’s fables, I rely on the GID and I am e= ver grateful for its clear, comprehensive guidance in all things Glosa. By = the way, you can find several issues of “Plu Glosa Nota” here: http://www.= -Ian
To: From: xab= adiar@… Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:22:38 +0000 Subject: [glosalist] R= e: Stephan, Xavier

  Abs= olutely, Ian. My criticism is especially against the GID dictionary, for no= t showing a clear standard of the language. The lack of a standard is a ser= ious handicap to an auxiliary language. Instead, the GID seems to gather bl= indly the vocabulary of all the subsequent dictionaries of Clark and Ashby.=  I wonder what "significant body of content" was taken as the basis of the = GID. Maybe "Plu Glosa Nota"? By the way, I wish I could find "Plu Glosa Not= a" online.


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

A couple of comments. I think we can all agree= that, all thing being equal, 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 words. For one thing, if we suppose that all spe= akers of a given IAL are fluent in English, then there is of course no poin= t to an IAL. For another thing, the words of many modern languages are oft= en systematically derived from ancient Greek/Latin, so if you know how word= s in your language are derived from ancient Greek/Latin and there is a deri= vation rule from the classical roots to the IAL, you can generate a good bo= dy of vocabulary for the IAL automatically, regardless of which modern Euro= pean language you start from. Incidentally, this is one feature I really l= ike about Occidental/Interlingue. That being said, any convincing proposa= l to 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 con= tent that is expressed using the revised version of the language. This can= be seen as the experimental justification for the proposal, and the commun= ity (or a community) can judge whether or not it’s an improvent over the or= iginal version. -Ian


From: gmillern= d@…

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:05:28 -0500

Subject: [glosalist] Step= han, Xavier


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


proposed or (some) Glosa endings?

REAKTI: I used to be f= airly 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 sti= ll 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 Glo= ta) any more difficult,

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

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

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

“nation” and not the other way round. Th= at is the same “easiest” as

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

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

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

cases even gives the impression of h= aving them.

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

derives its vocabulary from modern Latin and Gree= k

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 th= is discussion is happening on and on.

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

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

vowel! This way the morph= ology of the language may look chaotic. Of

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

problem remains.


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


words from varying languages, one would expect the ends of the Glosa


words to vary too.

XAVIER: In my viewpoint are three op= tions:

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

ease pronunciation, so let’s give a certain final vowe= l to all words.

-E is the characteristic vowel of the main Latin dec= lension (the 3rd)

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

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


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

original Latin. Latin speake= rs themselves added the E to make

pronunciation easy. This E is ofte= n 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 la= nguage plans is a good idea.

Different = international language plans have used different means of

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

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

modern sc= ientific/technical terms, Lojban from languages all over the

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

diff= erent.

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

find there is no shortage 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 write more than a few = sentences.

When I started studying the international languag= e problem, I wanted

to test the languages by using them. (I still us= e LSF a little; see Glos= a was the one I

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

Even more important is support. No internationa= l language will be

successful without a group of people actively pro= moting it. Esperanto

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


_ _


/= \ Garx



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

[No= n-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

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