Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: [glosalist] Too much plainness

Manuel Valderrama (Manuel Valderrama <cp46tan@...>) on February 24, 2004

Saluta a glosa-pe.

Well, in theory you can use any Glosa word either as a = noun, verb, adjetive, adverb and whatever you want. But this perfect simme= try is broken due to the fact that words have some “core” meaning, that is= not always suitable for all the functions a word can take. So, it is easy= to use “matri” as a noun or adjective, but it is somewhat difficult, at = least for my limited mind, to use it as a verb. What would this verb mean?= “to be a mother”, “to cause someone to become mother”?

Igor Wasilewski p= a grafo:

Saluta a plu lista-pe,

T=F3th L=E1szl=F3 pa grafo:

Th= ose expressions you have to learn in advance, otherwise you will be incapab= le of using, understanding the Glosa.

“Mi dona auxi a mu”. - dona a= uxi =3D> it is an expression that you have to learn by all means, otherwis= e you will not be able to use the Glosa.

“dice u petitio” - to ask for= something =3D> it is an expression “dice u qestio” - to ask about somet= hing =3D> it is an another expression

Otherwise you could get an anot= her meaning of the words, like:

“dice u petitio” - to say a petition = (not: to ask for sg.) “dice u qestio” - to say a question (not to ask abo= ut sg. )

Thanks for your comment. As far as the expressions “d= ona auxi”, “dice u petitio” or “dice u qestio” are concerned, I think they = are not any additional study material to memorize. I use the words “dona” o= r “dice” only according to logic, not because it is decided so. You can use= a word “akti” instead of “dona” without any special change of its meaning.=

I agree with Igor. The phrase “mi dona auxi a tu” is not idiomatic.= The difference with “mi auxi tu” is the same that there is between the e= speranto phrases “mi donas helpon al vi” and “mi helpas vin”. None of them= is idiomatic, I think.

I think, there is only one thing that the = Glosa should introduce: the >use of endings for marking the word class (for= example: -o, -a, -e, -i >or other solution). This kind of using words will= not change the basic >concept of the Glosa on the multi-sense of the words= .

In that case you would not have Glosa anymore, but a wholly d= ifferent language. It is true that is easy to construct ambiguous sentence= s in Glosa, but this is also true for almost any natural language (and al= though I have not played enough with esperanto, I think that is also true = for constructed ones, maybe with the exception of logical languages like L= ojban, Loglan et al).

Anyway you can brake the ambiguity if you wish to do= so. One can do changes like “u matri de mi” instead of “mi matri”, and so= .

It seems that you can see such a structure in Sasxsek language.

O= ne more thing: I have spent some time comparing the International Auxiliary= Languages which may be regarded as isolating and I see they are really ver= y few. For example, Lingua Franca Nova, a quite popular IAL, has many isola= ting features but it maintains the letter “s” to form the plural, it also u= ses special suffixes to form the active and passive participles and it has = some other useful affixes. I also took a closer look at a very interesting= language Sona and I see it is only partially isolating, with a very sophis= ticated agglutinative system. In such comparison Glosa seems to be complete= ly isolating, so it is a quite unique IAL. The question is not which gramma= r structure is the best. Every IAL has its advantages. An interesting quest= ion here is why the IALs like Glosa are so few.

Appart form Glosa= , I know another auxlang which could be regarded as isolating, and that is= “Latino sine Flexione”. But, as it is the case with Lingua Franca Nova, i= t maintains things like the “s” for the plural. I myself find particulary = interesting this language. I know a bit of latin, and for my delight and g= reat surprise, when I discovered the book about “Latino sine Flexione” wri= tten in “Latino sine Flexione”, I could read it with more ease than Latin!= (another language that exploits the parallelism with some natural languag= e is slovio, but since I don’t speak any slavic language I cannot say noth= ing about its ease).

But when I discovered Glosa, I realised that “Latino = sine Flexione” what just a joke compared with a pure isolating language li= ke Glosa (the same kind of joke as English compared to Glosa, more or less= ). We all should take too seriously Ron Clark’s advice “play with Glosa”. = In my opinion Glosa is, in some way, a unbounded language we have not play= ed enough with.

As an easy example. Let’s suppose that my cat is here and = my dog there. It could be possible to say in Glosa something like: “mi-ci = feli e mi-la kani”. For us, first and not very experienced Glosa speaker t= his sentence could seem incorrect, but I think that for a “native” Glosa = speaker it could seem natural. If you have things like “u-ci, u-la, pan-ci= , pan-la”, why not “mi-ci”? In the same way, if we have “ci -> u-ci, mi ->= u-mi”, why not “u-co”?

Another example is the great richness of the “-co”= constructions. This is probably one of the best ideas behind Glosa. The m= ost difficult problem common to all indoeuropean languages are the complex=

subordination schemes, and the great variety of subordination patterns.

In the indoeuropean language one can construct with ease very complex and = long sentences (just read Cicero, Proust or Kant either on their own langu= ages or in translations to other indoeuropean languages; to express comple= x thought they use really complex sentences). I don’t know the case of Hun= garian, Finnish or Basque, three non indoeuropean languages. They are very= difficult languages, but mainly for other reasons. On the other side you h= ave the semitic languages, that prefer coordination patrons over subordina= tion. You can note this in almost any translation of the old testament (an= d also in the new, because, although they were written in Greek, their wri= ters had a strong semitic background). If I’m not wrong, chinese have litt= le subordination too. In this sense Esperanto is too much indoeuropean may= be. Glosa with the “-co” derivatives provides almost and endless way of co= mbining sentences and of chaining thoughts, and a way by far more easy tha= n the indoeuropean subordination patterns nightmare!

I would also like to= speak about the verbal system of Glosa. In all indoeuropean languages you= have both aspectual (perfect, imperfect and sometimes even aorist) and te= mporal differentation (past, present and future tenses). One of the two se= ries is indeed not needed. The semitic languages like classical arabic and= biblical hebrew use only aspect, and have no tenses in the normal sense. = The just have perfect and imperfect. Modern hebrew, although being semitic= , use the imperfect with future tense value, the active present participle= with present tense value, and the perfect with past tense value. This is = the case of a language that only make tense distinction. The option of onl= y having pasr, present and future is a really wise option in Glosa, and th= at is also a reason why I consider that the use of “pra” could be dangerou= s; you now introduce aspectual differentations in Glosa.

Anyway, the verb= al system of Glosa, although simple, is powerful. “pa” e “fu” can be combi= ned for creating things like “an pa fu ki ab, kron tu pa apari”. If you pu= t the other particles (sio, nu, du, more, proto…), auxiliar verbs and ve= rboids, the result is an easy and powerful verb system, capable of express= ing its own nuances.

So I think that its pure isolating nature is a great = advantage for Glosa. Maybe other day I would talk more about the issues ab= ove.

Plu saluta,

Igor Wasilewski

Plu saluta, Manuel.

Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: [glosalist] Too much plainness - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.