Re: Pontlingvo - Mediating language

Dear Mr. Robin,

Glosa/ Mi ne pote face analisi pro, “beletristic”: bel= e =3D beli; tristic =3D tristi. Eng./ I cannot analyse “beletristic”:= bele =3D beautiful, pretty; tristic =3D sad, sadly, sadness.

Eng./ You= are right, I missed the spelling, because it is written by two “l”, so it = is “belletristic”, “belles-lettres” and it means imaginative literature, li= terary (at least by my english dictionaries). Maybe in USA or in Australia = it is not used.

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-g= rega. Si plu-pe uti plu hifena intra plu komplexi verbi de Esperanto, n= a 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 th= ese usages in a paragraph. If people use hyphens within the complex wor= ds of Esperanto, we would see that language full of hyphens. The whole = design plan of these languages is different.

Of course, in this way we won= ‘t obtine an usual language, but a designed language can’t be by all means = an usual language.

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 ha= be 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 o= rder. Esperanto has free order, thus needs to have a signpost to indica= te the object of the sentence. These two languages do not have a few di= fferences; they have totally opposite planning for their sentences.

There = are some languages, which use word order concerning to adjectives and nouns= , but in all other cases there are no word order.

Glosa/ U tali uti pot= e seqe un adopti de Glosa, sed a-nu, u separa verbi te indika plurali, d= ona ad u lingua u simi este.

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

Eng./ The existing of two ways to= express the plural is not absolutely a bad thing. I know language in which= it has a frequent usage.

Glosa/ Ja, plu-pe, kliesto mi, habe dificili = ko Esperanto ka id complexi struktura de plu flexi; e, id sio es veri, p= er un uti de plu hifena inter plu flexi, u-la lingua sio dona facili a p= lu lekto-pe. Anti-co, un uti de plu flexi habe fundamenta pro u-la ling= ua. Place nota, u muta per uti plu hifena ko ge-grafo Esperanto, dona n= uli bene-ra ko tenta logi ge-dice Esperanto.

Eng./ Yes, people, inc= luding me, have difficulty with Esperanto, because of its complex struct= ure of inflections; and it would be true, by using hyphens between the i= nflections, that language would be easier for readers. However, the use= of inflections is fundamental to that language. Please note, the chang= e of using hyphens with written Esperanto, gives no benefit with trying = to understand spoken Esperanto.

Eng./ What you have written is an another = thing. The understanding of a spoken text is a difficult thing, independent= of the concerning language. When you are listening to a speach, you can’t = distinguish the appropiate words as independent words, in spite of they are= really separated. As this point of view, it is entirelly all the same if i= t is about a language which uses joined words, or it’s about one which does= n’t use its.

Glosa/ Tu habe konflikti: tu ne volu auxi Glosa, sed tu sk= i id habe u ma boni designa de Esperanto. To u-ci momenta, il es no rea= li 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 con= flict: you do not wish to help Glosa, but you know it has a better desig= n than Esperanto. At this moment there is no real problem: Esperanto ha= s a strong organisation, and Glosa has no apparent hope of opposing Espe= ranto’s hold of world leadership.

Eng./ I think, you didn’t understand me.= You can be sure that I would abandon immediatelly Esperanto, if a have had= an alternative possibility of coresponding in a high standard of knowledge= of the language, with an enough big amount of coresponding pals using an e= asier, much rather European language as it is Esperanto. It’s because I hav= e had enough of the tiring use of endings, and permanent care of not making= spelling errors. But the best thing that I hate in Eo is the difficulty wh= en you are trying to read the phrases in a fast manner. Spite of my bad eng= lish, I can read the English phrases faster then Eo phrases, although I mas= ter much better Esperanto as English.

I used to corespond with many peopl= e all over the word, so I need to have many partners. Even “Ido” doesn’t pr= ovide for me enough koresponding partners because of the small number of it= ‘s users. Could you granted to me in Glosa that big number of possible pen = colleagues as in Esperanto? I could guess that you can’t do it.

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 g= ene ali ge-skema lingua .. fu gene Esperanto in id no-muta forma. Il se= mbla 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 be= neficia ex alelo, mi pote solo habe spe ke plu-pe de u Glosa grega fu de= velopo un organiza-ra te ofere u veri alterna-ra de Esperanto.

Eng.= / Esperanto cannot make several minor changes to gain a few of the quali= ties of Glosa, because the languages have such difference of design that= they cannot adopt each other’s features. Without an act of God, the wo= rld - if it gets any planned language - will get Esperanto in its un-cha= nged form. It seems that the world has little energy, at the present, f= or thinking of research into the reform of world spoken language.

Eng./= You are right, in this way it isn’t possible to make the whole changes tha= t needs Eo, bat perhaps it isn’t really secessary to be made all of them. I= t needs to be changed only the most important things that causes difficulti= es while the people are learning the language, and those which made you to = do frequent spelling errors.

I only want to select the less bad way of the= two existing possibilities.

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.

Eng./ Why the= Glosa group which belongs to one of the most spreaded language community (= English language enviroment), doesn’t have enough support to elaborate the = necessary infrastructure of the planned language Glosa during the last deca= des?

Regards, Laslo