Dear Gary,

I see that you’re right about those problems of the book “CENTR= AL GLOSA. 5000 English into Glosa 1000 with Etymological Notes” (1993). It’= s a pitty.

By the other hand, according to the GID the word “qod” continue= s to be okay ! what (that which) =3D qod

Xavi.

— In glosalist@yahoogrou= ps.com, “Gary” gmillernd@... wrote:

Karo Xavi–

I really liked t= he vocabulary in the BACK of the book CENTRAL GLOSA, “5000 English into Glo= sa 1000,” when it first came out. But some problems were always apparent t= o me:

1) It contains much more than 1000 Glosa words.

2) This voc= abulary and the vocabulary of “Glosa 1000” at the FRONT of the book are not= well coordinated. For example, front/DOMINA and back/CEFA have the same m= eaning.

Some of these problems have been corrected in the Glosa Intern= et Dictionary (GID). For example, CEFA is now the preferred word.

Wor= ds marked with both ++ and + in the GID should approximate the vocabulary o= f “5000 English into Glosa 1000.”

Saluta, _ _ /. /\ Gary # =

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, “Xavier Abadia” <xabadiar@> wrote:

Hello!

The word QOD is okay according to the dictionary I’m = using (“CENTRAL GLOSA. 5000 English into Glosa 1000 with Etymological Notes= “, 1993) :

WHAT, THAT WHICH =3D QOD … WHICH … =3D QI

= Xavi.

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, “Kim” <kimesperan= to@> wrote:

Ave Glosa-pe!

I am trying to work out = exactly what ‘qod’ means, comparing and contrasting it to ‘qi’. It is not = used in the “18 Steps” document. In the online dictionary, it means “what = (that which)”. I found 2 uses among Ashby/Clark documents:

1.= Plus, id sio evita excesi specializa per face mo verba akti qod in Plu P= alaeo Lingua gene face per tri alo ma. It would also steer clear of = over-specialization by making one word do what in natural languages is of= ten [done] by three or more.

(from Paraleli Textu, Wendy Ashb= y & Ronald Clark, =A9 GEO, 1993)

Here it is the object of the = first phrase ‘mo verba akti’, and the subject of coming verb ‘gene face’. = It is sort of a relative pronoun, like ‘qi’, but larger than that.

=

1. “Mi ne es tu, e ne ski; qod tu ski,” reakti Huitze, … “ “= That I, not being you, do not know what you know,” replied Huitze…” =

(from Piski Hedo, Wendy Ashby & Ron Clark, =A9 GEO, 1994)

= Here it is the direct object of ‘mi … ne ski’, and the direct objec= t of the coming ‘tu ski’.

So to me it seems equivalent to ‘u-l= a; qi’ - that which. Thus we could have the equivalent rewritings:

= 1a. Plus, id sio evita excesi specializa per face mo verba akti u-la= ; qi in Plu Palaeo Lingua gene face per tri alo ma.

2a. “Mi = ne es tu, e ne ski u-la; qi tu ski,” reakti Huitze, …”

Is = that how you all understand qod’s meaning? Other thoughts?

(N= ote - I realize 2a violates the rule in 18 Steps stating that ‘qi’ should b= e omitted in this case. please overlook so we can focus on the main point.= )

Gratia!! Kim