Re: [glosalist] Re: Word system

   Basically, I suspect that the members of the Glosalist wish to avoid  negative criticism and would prefer to hear criticism of the positive kind.

   So, yes, there are apparent efficiencies within the Esperanto  system, but not everyone's mind works in this "filing cabinet" way.  A  quick, sharp mind, on hearing a sequence of highly inflected words in a  sentence, skips from one inflected additive to the next, gaining  ever-sophisticated complexity of meaning during the fraction of a second  that each incoming word has to play across their mind, be processed and  understood, then clearing the mental slate, while the mind is made ready to  receive the input of the next multivalent word.

   The ultra-logicality of language works in books where the mind can  slow down and decode each word - at its own pace - finally assembling the  collection of multifaceted signals into the meaningful encoding of these  complexities into a string of ideas that blend into a satisfying  communication called a sentence.  ... and then on to the next sentence  composed of a new set of puzzles to be decoded and resynthesised into  meaning.   Each successive, solved sentence-meaning must be added  reflexively back to interact with the whole thread of thought created by  the contribution of previous sentences.

   These comlicated sentences in English cannot possibly match the  systematic logicality of Esperanto, but then, I might not want them to.

   Without getting caught up in wars between the languages, I make a  plea here that when we speak, as well as conveying very precise meaning to  the listener, we also wissh to keep him, or her, cool.

    DON'T OVERHEAT THE LISTENER'S BRAIN BY FORCING THEM INTO PLAYING  MIND-GAMES WITH EVERY WORD.   This has the effect of turning the receiving  of incoming communication into an experience similar to that of running  through a minefield.

    We, as potential givers to the world, could ponder the gift we offer.
    Will the designed language adopted by the world for the purpose of  global communication be efficient, soft and folksy, or virtually invisible?

     I plunk for the happy medium: when reading or hearing the "lingua  munda," receivers of communication will, I hope, retain the idea  communicated --- not a memory of the process by which the contained ideas  came to them.  Time is a factor in this, and the inflection/additive  process is also involved in the complexity, or otherwise, of the  communication process.

    So, in an 'invisible' communication process, concepts are  introduced into the brain at a rate at which they can be processed  comfortably; also, the presence of additives to meaning - either within  words (inflections), or as separate words themselves (particles) - add  complexity to the concepts, not too quickly, and not too slowly.  This is  Gaskell's Theory of Time: the rate of input of meaningful verbal signals  ought to match, and certainly not exceed, the rate at which these signals  are comfortably processed into meaning in the brain.

    How do our favourite languages score on the basis of this Time  Theory?  Of course if we understand a language well, it is probably coming  in at a rate that we find comfortable, with no mental 'heat' being produced  by neurological friction during the communication process.

   But, if we genuinely wish to offer international communication on a  truly global scale, we need to do so on the basis of properly conducted  tests on the learning of, and communication in, the various contenders for  adoption.
  Though concepts of efficiency, simplicity, standardisation, and  lexical economy are exciting academic components of Linguistic discussion,  they may not wash in the marketplace, or bazaar, of reality.

  One suggestion states that the adoption of any designed language  would be a vast improvement in the world scene.  While this is definitely  true, I wish that the 'good guys' offering the world an alternative  tongue  consider NOT selling the wworld short, by promoting a designed  language for wrong, or inccompletely thought-out motives.  Should I promote  Glosa because it will lead to my appointment as the principal of the Sydney  Glosa Institute... researching Glosa, and promoting and teaching it to the  world?  [Economically this might be the only motivation that makes  it  feasible for me put all of my effort into Glosa.]

   But, as a scientist, I would have to ask if all the tests had been  done; and, the answer is "No."  It is virtually impossible to have  disinterested research done in the area of spoken/written Planned  Language.  Just about everyone has personal biases that skew them in favour  of one designed language or another.

   I guess it is too late to ask members of the Glosalist to be  disinterested in the quest for psychologically cool designed language, but  I think it is worth a try.