Re: [glosalist] na lupu doso

While we may never find a Planned Language that the world can agree on  for adoption, the funny thing is thaat in each different country, whole  groups of people with widely varying psychologies all learn to speak their  national languages.

So the old question arises: what makes a good Planned Language?
But the question does not stop there: what makes the most suitable  Planned Language for the whole world to use?  This is a little harder.

But if we had any really good linguists, they would be able to  scientifically analyse the language faculty, and come up with what I call a  "line of best fit" between the possibilities for global adoption.  OR they  might start again and come up with the language that was easiest for all to  learn and use, and which also gave people the opportunity of expressing  themselves very well.
Such a language might not exist, but if it does, the language  scientists ought to make it their job to find it.

I personally believe that there really is a 'Language of Thought' and  that the brain has a natural syntax of its own.   If we ever discover them,  my guess is that they will be the basis of the Lingua Munda. And either  because I am skewed towards creativity and simplicity, OR because I am  reading the signs correctly, I feel that the finally successful Planned  Language will have a specification much like that of Glosa.

While other have tried to dissuade me, and have extolled the virtues of  inflection, I still wonder why English, the least inflected of the national  languages, has done so well.

It is fairly obvious that I will die before an International Auxilliary  Language is adopted, so I have stopped worrying about the Human Race:  they'll have to carry on without me.

My guess is that we'll find a cure for cancer before we learn to talk  to one another all around the globe, and  that the astronaughts visiting  Pluto will still have communication difficulties because of differences  between their national languages.

 I have met a few bright spark, hot-shot computer geeks, and I really  did think they would have intuitively pushed the envelope and created a new  age, Internet language through sheer mental ability ... but it hasn't  happened yet.  Oh well, that's another science fiction book to write one day!

 So, I marvel at your perseverence, Sid: Glosa with what seems to me to  be an extremely elegant design, has taken twenty years and still has no  significant community of Glosa speakers, and yet people are still prepared  to launch out into the unknown of language planning ... to be approximately  where Ron Clark was in 1975.

  I remain mystified by the fact that the language ability still  mystifies us.  It does seem that intuitive introspection OR some form of  very sophisticated statistical analysis of the language function will  finally yield the secrets of the human mind and how it converts ideas into  linear symbols of sound or sight.

 But, for the moment I'll keep with Glosa.  I'm sorry to have muffed my  retirement: by now I should have hoarded my cash, and having stopped  working, should have been able to indulge in my fantasies like developing  Glosa, writing science fiction and playing jazz regularly, but no, I'm  chasing the dollar even after I've stopped earning.  Still got my fingers  crossed though: maybe I'll find the pot of gold, and then concentrate on  Glosa, and whatever.

 One thing I know: I won't be tangentialising away from Glosa: at 67 I  haven't a chance of seeing a a language I create even get to second  base.  But then, I like Glosa, so would concentrate on perfecting it and  growing its user-base and corpus of published works, rather than dividing  my energies between Glosa and my own new language.

 Once I've discovered financial security for my retirement, I could get  into serious linguistic research: there has to be an interesting  articulation between syntax and semantics.  And again I'd plunk for  simplicity.  I'd say I know the brain's grammar is syntactic, but there has  to be some parallel operation of the interaction between concepts and ideas  - of semantics - running close to, but slightly apart from, the rules of  syntax.

 Is anyone else on the Glosalist thinking about language at this level?