Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

# Re: official descriptions of the Glosa language

Gary ("Gary" <gmillernd@...>) on January 27, 2013

Kim and David–

I think you two have it right. Most of the differences fo= und in older articles and books by Clark and Ashby are mainly spelling clar= ifications and changes to the vocabulary lists of Glosa 1000/Central Glosa.= The Glosa Internet Dictionary (GID) is the most up-to-date.

Saluta, _ _ = /. /\ Gary #

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

= Hello Kim,

Concerning the three assumpions you refer to - I’m not to= o 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 (tim= e, money etc), were limited. A number of dictionaries were produced in w= hich there were mistakes and alterations that consequently caused confusion= for those learning the language. I think that the inet dictionary brough= t about the necessary clarity - and, after all -the dictionary is of fundam= ental importance - maybe critically more so in a language such as Glosa th= at has no conventional grammar and the rules are simple and easy to underst= and and one has to rely on words laid out in a certain way to bring about c= omprehension. I have copies of Plu Glosa Nota dating back to the 90’s an= d 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 aspec= t of Glosa as I think it is unneccesary to use words derived from both Gre= ek 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 langu= age easy I imagine that what makes sense to an English speaker may not nece= ssarily 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 a= ll languages - and I know that it is of the English language - one can ofte= n read something that is ambiguous because of the way it has been written e= ven though it may appear to be grammatically correct.

 Regards, Da= vid jp


Davidjp,

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

Although you didn’t specifically comm= ent on my working assumptions, I imagine you would have mentioned any conce= rns you had with them.

Even though there are a few minor confusing l= anguage usages that I’ll be asking about, for now I am quite content to lea= rn 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 lik= e rugxigita (rugx-ig-i-ta) =3D having been caused to be red =3D having been= reddened.

Glosa-pe,

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

Sa= luta, Kim

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

=

Kim,

The problem for Glosa as I see it is that a) Unfor= tunately Wendy, who is the “authority” for the language is not active (I ha= ve 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 langu= age 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 gre= at shame as Glosa has so much potential and is a joy to learn. In conclusio= n 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 fo= r learning the language until b) comes about and any amendments etc would b= e univerally accepted. Regards, Davidjp

—– Or= iginal 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 unequivoc= al. I also read “Sti Logi” - thanks very much for that.

I’m so= rry 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 e= xtension of Gary’s statements, any works written in or translated into Glos= a by Ms. Ashby would constitute authoritative examples and usage. I have al= ready 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 “1= 8 Steps” was written between 1985-1992, so this sets a point of reference. =

For some of her Glosa documents there is fortunately a date re= corded; 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’ work= s (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 b= est 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 ot= hers to come.

In brief then,

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

# Correct? Other thoughts?

Gratia e Saluta!! Kim

— In glosalist@yahoo= groups.com, “Gary” wrote:

Kim–

Wendy Ashb= y is the author of 18 STEPS and the owner of the Glosa language. Her work h= as 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 sh= e 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 ans= wer some of these questions in my blog: glos-avanti.blogspot.com and click = on “Sti Logi.”

Saluta, _ _ /. /\ G= ary #

– I a= m 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 ht= tp://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=3Dsigen

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

=

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

Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

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