Re: [glosalist] na lupu doso

Mi pa inkontra tu mesage fo interese, Robin! Penite ke mi ne pote reakti a panto ra; de qi tu pa dice, sed mi du grafo subo lento in Glosa (e mi kredi; id fu es ma boni pro mi Glosa, de reakti in Glosa vice Angli).

Robin Gaskell pa grafo:

When I was browsing widely into Planned Languages, I looked at a range, and could see that the major difference in linguistic requirements was between comfortable recognition of a language with a human-like feel, and on the other side more of a regularised predictability about the form and make-up of words.

After thinking about it, I came down on the side of human-like language. I decided that the rules and short made-up words took more memory than those taken from a source vocabulary. The thing about Glosa is probably thaat it is very close to the normal way humans think, but it has had the unnecessary sophistications removed, so it looks very regularised. It is simplified almost to absurdity, and relies for its grammar almost completely on word order, not word form. While Glosa looks standardised and regularised, I prefer to think of it as being streamlined and slimmed down.

So, if you have a reasonable personal vocabulary of the Indo-european /Classical root words, then glosa is sorted out vocab-wise, and if you have a reasonable feel for the structure of language, you have the syntax sorted out. This explains why I feel sad about Glosa: it definitely seems like the pick of the bunch to me.

Considering that you have been with Glosa longer than I have, and still have not clicked in happily, this suggests that Glosa does not naturally suit you. And thus, your mind tangentialises to finding different ways of writing Glosa, and even tugs you in the direction of exploring completely ways of designing planned languages.

Il es mo gravi problema ko Glosa: te gene sko de lingua, pe nece poli stude-materi. Sed il ne es sati stude-materi alo lekto-materi pro Glosa! U gene sko de lingua ne pertine ad u tipo de aktivi; qi nece forti e profundi praxi, sed nece lati e freque praxi. Si pe pote lekto mo pusi Glosa textu singu di, pe fu proto sensi u natura de u lingua, qo es korekti e qo ne,e u boni Glosa habe qo-feno.

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.

Mi ne kredi ke u-ci difusi gene origi de u facili de Angli lingua. In u pa (e in u nu, plus), poli natio uti auto lingua iso mediu te face ma-forti auto politika e ekonomi gravi. U kultura vikto es u maxi mega vikto, e te gene id, u lingua es u maxi boni arma. Qe uno-pe pote kredi; u difusi de latina lingua pa acide ka u latina lingua es fo facili? Sura, id es ma facili de ali lingua; qi gene dice in u-la paleo tem, e plus mei facili de hetero. Sed, klu si u latina lingua pa sio es ma facili de panto peri lingua, pe ne sio sto dice auto lingua pro u latina. Id pa acide ke plu romani, kron mu vikto uno landa, mu proto u romani-face de u-ci landa: mu krati, inter poli ra; pe debi dice latina lingua. Mei paleo, ali exempla es u pa difusi de u Gali lingua; qi ne pa acide tanto tem retro. Kron u Esperanto pa apare, poli Gali-pe pa dice; qo-ka pe volu dice Esperanto, kron jam il pa es mo internatio lingua: u Gali lingua (in u-la tem, u Gali lingua pa es, homo exempla, u lingua de skience, de filosofi e de politika). E nu, u homo ra eveni ko un Angli lingua.

Si nu-tem mi volu gene u boni ergo (boni fortuna, ne panto ergo, sed sura poli), mi debi dice Angli lingua. Si mi volu face skience, plus mi debi dice Angli lingua. Si mi ne sio logi Angli lingua, posi ke mi ne pa pote gene sko de Glosa! Plus-co, mi ne sio logi u mega mero de info; qi es in inter-reti. Plus mi ne sio pote ko-labora in poli inter-reti ge-duce projekti iso Linux, KDE, Gnome, plu *BSD, e poli ali. Plu maxi boni dokumenta de poli ra es solo in Angli lingua! U gene-sko de Angli es u nece in nu-tem, e u-ci es u cefa basi de id difusi.

Sura, un angli lingua es facili, sed ne ta facili homo poli angli-dice-pe doxo. Id habe poli idio; qi face id subo rari e ne-facili. U verbi-fa, homo exempla, es poli mega, u maxi mega de panto lingua; qi gene dice nu epi geo. Pro pene singu verba, id pote gene detekti ali verba; qi habe u proxi semani de u mo, sed u difere inter plu bi es ke mo habe u germani radi e ali habe u latina radi (uno mali exempla: awareness/conciousness, feel/sense, feeling/atmosphere, about/concerning, begin/commence, …). Plu kompositi akti-verba (phrasal verb) es fo-dificili de gene sko, e mi, homo romance-lingua-pe, more uti plu no-kompositi akti-verba vice plu kompositi, mode-co mi angli feno subo rari alo no-tekno a plu angli-pe. Plus, il es u mixa inter verba-muta e verba-ne-muta; qi kausa ke u angli ne feno fo gru.

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!

U inter-reti nu pa aporta a na plu mira ra homo Linux, homo libera flexi-ma, homo ke na pote dice ko hetero pe in Glosa per reti-Grama, e homo ma importa pro Angli lingua. Qo-ra u fu-tem fero a nu, mi ne ski. Posi id acide ke u gravi de Angli fu kresce ma, alo posi ke id fu no-kresce, ka il es ma mega numera persona;qi ne dice Angli, in u reti, alo posi ke u cina-lingua, alo ali, es u fu-reti-lingua, alo posi ke uno auxi-lingua vikto a fini. Qo-pe ski!

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.

U numera de auxi lingua es sati mega nu-di! Sura, uno-pe pote face neo auxi-lingua; qi habe tali alo ali virtu. Sed mi kredi; id es ma boni detekti uno lingua; qi place tu, e dona auxi te id kresce.

 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?

Mi kredi; il es poli glosa-pe; qi este plu simila interese de lingua, in u-ci lista. Minima, mi. Sed in u-ci grama tu proposi poli dificili ra; qi debi gene puta ko poli kura! Mi spe dice ko tu e ali glosa-pe de plu-la ra ali-kron.

Vale!