Re: [glosalist] Pontlingvo - Mediating language

At 12:04 PM 1/8/04 +0100, you wrote:

Mi legas la komunikadoj de nia amiko laslo kaj mi pensas ke li estas en parto korekte, ne pro la finajoj de la vortojn, sed por la ebleco de uzi ambaux lingvaj Eo kaj G, (kaj aliajn,) en la kreado de unu nova artefarita lingva. Kial? Vi jam scias, char ni (la homaro) bezonas la plej bona el ili.

Sed mi diras al laslo ke unue vi debas lerni la Glosa. mi estas komencanto en ambau lingvaj kaj mi certe vidas multe da eraroj en ambau. Tio ne gravas, dume ni estas vivaj, ni povos lerni plu. Eble tuj oni povas atingi la estonta plej bona lingva por la tuta mondo. Eble gxi estas jam la nomita Glosa… chu ne? Kiu scias? …

Mario

Esp./ Mi intertempe sukcesis konatigxi almenau generale kun Glosa, kaj mi trovis ankau gxin kiel tauga lingvo. Se gxi jam gxojus pri tiom da disvastigxo, kiom Esp-o, tiam indus pli prefere gxin pluevoluigi. Sed cxikaze, kvankam Glosa-n mi tre eksxatis pro gxia malkomplikeco, tamen gxi sxajnas jam esti malfruita…

Eng./ Meanwhile I succesed to get known of the Glosa generally, and I found that even the Glosa is a suitable and easy to learn language. If the Glosa could enjoy so spreading as Esp, then it would be worth to be developed instead of Esp. Glosa/ U-ci eqa u major problema: Glosa ne habe u ko-ordina grega; plu-pe, a-nu, dice de plu verbi lista sine progresi ad u seqe grada. Na ne habe sufici Glosa-dice-pe te permito u semani-ple diskursi uti Glosa.

Eng./ This is the main problem: Glosa does not have a co-ordinating group (Secretariat); people still talk about word lists without moving on to the next step.

Esp./ Tial, kaj nur tial, mi proponas transpreni kelkajn bonegajn solvojn el la same bona Glosa al la jam finforgxita Esp-o, cxar Esp-o jam havas rilative vastan beletron.

Eng./ For that reason, and just for that, I suggest that we should take over some very good solutions from the Glosa, which is the same good language, because Esp has already a big amount of beletristic. Glosa/ Mi ne pote face analisi pro, “beletristic”: bele = beli; tristic = tristi. Eng./ I cannot analyse “beletristic”: bele = beautiful, pretty; tristic = sad, sadly, sadness.

Esp./ 1.) La plej grava modifinda regulo estus la apartigo de la vortoradikoj per vortostreko ene de la kunmetitaj vortoj (ankau la morfemojn kaj la finajxojn escepte la finajxojn de la simpla verba konjugacio).

Eng./ 1.) As me, the most important rule that should be changed is to set apart the compound words to root words using hyphens as it works in the Glosa, even the formatives, but except the simple conjugations of the verbs.

Glosa/ Tem Glosa habe eleganti ko id separa verbi - ko un uti de plu hifena - na habe solo oligo de plu-ci uti intra u frasa-grega. Si plu-pe uti plu hifena intra plu komplexi verbi de Esperanto, na sio skope u-la lingua ple de plu hifena. U holo designa-skema de plu-ci lingua habe difere.

Eng./ While Glosa has clean lines with its separate words - through the use of hyphens - we have only a few of these usages in a paragraph. If people use hyphens within the complex words of Esperanto, we would see that language full of hyphens. The whole design plan of these languages is different.

Esp./ 2.) Devus forigi la akuzativajn finajxojn, pere de certa vortordo. Cxi tie mi emfazas, ke la vortordo rilatus nurnure al la adjektivoj kaj al ties substantivo.

Eng./ 2.) It must be removed the engings of the transitive verbs, by use of certain word-order. In this point I emphasis on it, that the word-order would refer only to adjektives and nouns. Glosa/ Asura, Glosa ne pa habe plu tali ge-fixa buta, ka id pa gene ge-designa te evita mu. U ge-asocia problema eqa u nece de ge-regulari verbi-ordina. Esperanto habe u libera ordina, so nece habe u signali te indika un objekti de u frasa. Plu-ci bi lingua ne habe oligo difere: mu habe plu toto oposi skema pro mu plu frasa.

Eng./ Sure, Glosa does not have such attached endings, because it was designed to avoid them. The associated problem is the need for regulated word order. Esperanto has free order, thus needs to have a signpost to indicate the object of the sentence. These two languages do not have a few differences; they have totally opposite planning for their sentences.

Esp./ 3.) La pluralan signon mi metus nur cxe la substantivo, same kiel en la angla.

Eng./ 3.) The plural endings I would put only to the noun, in the same way as in english. Glosa/ U tali uti pote seqe un adopti de Glosa, sed a-nu, u separa verbi te indika plurali, dona ad u lingua u simi este.

Eng./ Such usage could follow the adoption of Glosa, but, for now, a separate word to indicate the plural, gives a similarity of feel to the language.

Esp./ Sed mi lasus libere la vortordon alikaze. Same mi lasus tiun sistemon marki la vortospecojn pere de -o, -a, -i kaj -e, cxar mi trovas gxin suficxe bona ideo. Lau mi, kaze de Glosa, tiu tute strikta vortordo ne helpas la facilan lernadon.

Eng./ But I would leave non-word-orden in the other instances. Similarly, I would leave that system of marking the kind of words by special endings like -o, -a, -i, -e, because I find them a quite good idea. I think, in Glosa the total word-order don’t really helps the easy learning. Glosa./ Ci tu dice de tena plu speciali uti pro plu terminali vokali koncerne Esperanto. Akorda, iso plu-pe habe dificili ko gene sko de England-lingua ka u problema de verbi-ordina, id kausa ma dificili ko Glosa; qi habe nuli terminali ge-fixa mero-de-voka marka, e nuli flexi.

Eng./ Here you are speaking of keeping the special usages for terminal vowels in relation to Esperanto. Agreed, as people have difficulty with learning English because of the problem of word order, it causes more difficulty with Glosa, which has no attached part of speech markers, and no inflection.

Esp./ Mi spertis en Esp, ke la plej malfacila tasko por komencantoj estas alkutimigxi al la nedisigxitaj kunmetitaj vortoj. Se tio ne plu ekzistus tiele (sed ekzemple per vortostrekoj), tiam Esp estus vere facila lingvo ankau por anglalingvanoj.

Eng./ I got experience in Esp, that for the beginners the most difficult task is to learn how to komprehend that non set apart compound words. If it didn’t exist in that form (but set apart by hyphens), then Esp would by a really easy to learn language even for beginners. Glosa/ Ja, plu-pe, kliesto mi, habe dificili ko Esperanto ka id complexi struktura de plu flexi; e, id sio es veri, per un uti de plu hifena inter plu flexi, u-la lingua sio dona facili a plu lekto-pe. Anti-co, un uti de plu flexi habe fundamenta pro u-la lingua. Place nota, u muta per uti plu hifena ko ge-grafo Esperanto, dona nuli bene-ra ko tenta logi ge-dice Esperanto.

Eng./ Yes, people, including me, have difficulty with Esperanto, because of its complex structure of inflections; and it would be true, by using hyphens between the inflections, that language would be easier for readers. However, the use of inflections is fundamental to that language. Please note, the change of using hyphens with written Esperanto, gives no benefit with trying to understand spoken Esperanto.

Esp./ Mi vere ne deziras favorigi Esp, kontrau Glosa, sed nur volas apogi per modifo tiun lingvon, kiu havas momente pli da sxanco cxiuaspekte.

Eng./ I don’t really want to give preference to the Glosa, but I just want to support the that language, which has for the moment more chance in all regards.

Glosa/ Tu habe konflikti: tu ne volu auxi Glosa, sed tu ski id habe u ma boni designa de Esperanto. To u-ci momenta, il es no reali problema: Esperanto habe u forti organiza-ra, e Glosa habe nuli apare spe de oposi Esperanto tena de munda duce-ra.

Eng./ You have a conflict: you do not wish to help Glosa, but you know it has a better design than Esperanto. At this moment there is no real problem: Esperanto has a strong organisation, and Glosa has no apparent hope of opposing Esperanto’s hold of world leadership.

~~~~~~~~~ Glosa/ Esperanto ne pote face plura minor muta te gene oligo de plu qalita de Glosa, ka plu lingua habe u tali difere de designa, ke mu ne pote adopti plu itema ex alelo. Sine un akti de Teo, u munda .. si id gene ali ge-skema lingua .. fu gene Esperanto in id no-muta forma. Il sembla ke u munda habe pusi energi, to u nu-tem, pro kogita de recerka in u reforma de munda ge-dice lingua. Si plu-ci bi lingua ne pote gene beneficia ex alelo, mi pote solo habe spe ke plu-pe de u Glosa grega fu developo un organiza-ra te ofere u veri alterna-ra de Esperanto.

Eng./ Esperanto cannot make several minor changes to gain a few of the qualities of Glosa, because the languages have such difference of design that they cannot adopt each other’s features. Without an act of God, the world - if it gets any planned language - will get Esperanto in its un-changed form. It seems that the world has little energy, at the present, for thinking of research into the reform of world spoken language. If these two languages cannot benefit from each other, I can only hope that those of the Glosa group will develop an organisation to offer a true alternative to Esperanto.

Saluta,

Robin Gaskell