Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: [glosalist] Re: official descriptions of the Glosa language

David ("David" <daveyporter@...>) on January 27, 2013

Hello Kim,

Concerning the three assumpions you refer to - I’m not too sure about the “gold standard”. Ron and Wendy had taken on the task of simplifying and improving Prof. Hogben’s Interglosa and it probably proved to be a bigger challenge than anticipated and I imagine that resources (time, money etc), were limited. A number of dictionaries were produced in which there were mistakes and alterations that consequently caused confusion for those learning the language. I think that the inet dictionary brought about the necessary clarity - and, after all -the dictionary is of fundamental importance - maybe critically more so in a language such as Glosa that has no conventional grammar and the rules are simple and easy to understand and one has to rely on words laid out in a certain way to bring about comprehension. I have copies of Plu Glosa Nota dating back to the 90’s and I have to say that I was always able to read Wendy Ashby’s contributions much easier than Ron Clark’s - (the latter of which I often had to give up on, one reason being that Ron had the habit of using words that were not in any of the dictionaries). I have to say that I am critical of one aspect of Glosa as I think it is unneccesary to use words derived from both Greek and Latin - I can’t see why Glosa needs to have e.g. “sola” and “heli” “aqa” and “hidro” - increases the demand on memory. In conclusion I think the approach to learning/writing Glosa is simply to use the words from the inet dictionary put down in such a way as to make good sense (not being a linguist myself and not having the kind of mind that makes learning a language easy I imagine that what makes sense to an English speaker may not necessarily make sense to a German/Russian/French speaker for instance who may want to put the words in an alternative order). I suppose it is true of all languages - and I know that it is of the English language - one can often read something that is ambiguous because of the way it has been written even though it may appear to be grammatically correct.

 Regards, David jp


Davidjp,

Gratia de tu responde, and for the mention of Marcel’s excellent dictionaries. I had been assuming they have an official approval attached to them.

Although you didn’t specifically comment on my working assumptions, I imagine you would have mentioned any concerns you had with them.

Even though there are a few minor confusing language usages that I’ll be asking about, for now I am quite content to learn and use Glosa at its current definition. It is a joy to learn. Coming from Esperanto, it is so refreshing not to have to parse through a word like rugxigita (rugx-ig-i-ta) = having been caused to be red = having been reddened.

Glosa-pe,

If anyone else has feedback to my 3 assumptions just below, or the earliest questions, please do comment.

Saluta, Kim

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, “David” wrote:

Kim,

The problem for Glosa as I see it is that a) Unfortunately Wendy, who is the “authority” for the language is not active (I have been in contact with her for years although not recently but I am aware of her health issues) and - obviously - the loss of Ron Clarke was a great blow to her and for the progress of the language: b) Consequently the language has sort of come to a stand-still and until such time as its future can be organised in some way or another it will remain in limbo. This is a great shame as Glosa has so much potential and is a joy to learn. In conclusion I think that to follow the basic rules as origninally set down and to use the inet dictionaries as produced by Marcel Springer are the best tools for learning the language until b) comes about and any amendments etc would be univerally accepted. Regards, Davidjp

—– Original Message —– From: Kim To: glosalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:08 PM Subject: [glosalist] Re: official descriptions of the Glosa language

Gary,

Gratia. Your answer is clear and unequivocal. I also read “Sti Logi” - thanks very much for that.

I’m sorry to learn Wendy Ashby has been sick. Also, Marcel Springer has mentioned she is good about answering questions by mail.

Glosa-pe,

Continuing with the search for official defining documents… By extension of Gary’s statements, any works written in or translated into Glosa by Ms. Ashby would constitute authoritative examples and usage. I have already seen that the language has evolved, so I would imagine we would give more weight to later works than earlier, if differences were noticed among writings (speaking here of works by her and/or Ronald Clark). I see that “18 Steps” was written between 1985-1992, so this sets a point of reference.

For some of her Glosa documents there is fortunately a date recorded; others such as “Un Hedo Prince” (which I just finished, and enjoyed very much seeing the concepts in action) do not have a date. :(

Moving to a related point, if we then read the works of others, and see differences in word order or style that seem contrary to the creators’ works (also taking into account the year of writing), then we should be able to confidently see them as incorrect (or in some cases, correct but not the best style) – right?

Again, as said at the start of the thread, some Glosa works established the wrong rules or usage at the start of my Glosa adventure. I am seeking clarification before I go further, and for others to come.

In brief then,

• Ashby and Clark’s works are the gold standard.
• Their later works, especially 1985 and after, are what we hold correct, when differences are seen in their earlier works.
• Their works establish the official usage, wherever differences are seen in other peoples’ works.

Correct? Other thoughts?

Gratia e Saluta!! Kim

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, “Gary” wrote:

Kim–

Wendy Ashby is the author of 18 STEPS and the owner of the Glosa language. Her work has been slow lately because of illness. She has the sole rights to make any changes to Glosa. I don’t think she has e-mail at the present time, but she is very good about answering questions if you send her “snail mail.” Her address can be found at www.glosa.org.

I have tried to answer some of these questions in my blog: glos-avanti.blogspot.com and click on “Sti Logi.”

Saluta, _ _ /. /\ Gary #

– I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. SPAMfighter has removed 6140 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen

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

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

Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: [glosalist] Re: official descriptions of the Glosa language - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.