Re: [glosalist] Too much plainness

At 01:04 AM 2/22/04 +0100, you wrote:

………

Each word in Glosa presents an apart notion without any specification whether it is a noun, verb, adjective or adverb. Now the task is to put these words carefully in a sentence, in order to form a logical and clear expression. I think the success depends on the way how you put Glosa words in a sentence. For example, if we say:

“Mi auxi…”

it can mean “I help…” or “My help…”

In order to understand it correctly, we must see how the words are put together. If we say:

“Mi auxi es boni” - it is quite clear that we want to say “My help is good”.

If we want to say “I help them”, it is good to put the words like this:

“Mi dona auxi a mu”. “Dona auxi” is a good way to express the notion. I have noticed that some Glosa speakers like to use this structure and I think it is a very good idea. Some other examples:

“dice u petitio” - to ask for something “dice u qestio” - to ask about something “akti adi” - to add

instead of “petitio”, “qestio” or “adi” which could be nouns as well.

Glosa is an easy language, but I think it is really very important to build a sentence carefully in order to avoid ambiguities. Saluta Holo-pe,

  Quickly in English again:

This compounding of the verb was inherent in Hogben’s Interglossa, with the use of Auxillary verbs and the verboids.

These were in early Glosa, but proved a bit difficult, and were played down. However, the plain words alone in Glosa do not tell the whole story, so, yes, Igor is right, we need to support the “VERB” by using words that fill it out a bit… and help to ‘tell a story’ using support words.

EG Mi pa dice-qestio an. I questioned him. OR I asked him a question.

Saluta,

Robin Gaskell