Re: Too much plainness

Saluta Robin,

*** Not too sure of your precise meaning, but I think you= are saying there ought to be one clearcut way of indicating the possess= ive. EG Mi habe Jon bola. I have Jon’s ball. (Not satisfa= ctory to you & poss. others) Mi habe u bola de Jon. I= have the ball of Jon (Very French) Mi habe Jon-a bola.#= I have Jon’s ball. (Your suggestion; not accepted Glosa)

Unfort= unatelly you gave me too simple phrazes. It wasn’t about what you have give= n. Your simple phrases need not explanation. But it was about: “Mi” + word1=

• word2 +word3. - without “habe”; without “de”; without “a”!

** tel= efono telephone vagona car ago (to) dr= ive ** Mi vagona telefono a mi domi.

   Mi vagona id-se telefo= no mi domi.    ( If the idea of computerised  car & home are odd.) ***=   Iso mi du ago, mi telefono a mi domi.

  Mi du ago tem mi dice pe= r telefono a mi domi.

ago =3D (to) drive, (to) car.

It’s wery kin= d of you, that you gave subsequently an another more intelligible example o= f how to express what one has to got to say. But you see, the users of the = Glosa aren’t compelled to do that. This is the problem. The rules of the Gl= osa permit you to be neglectful of making phrases. And there will always be= persons who will make abuse of this feature.

I don’t have the right to sa= y: “What it means?” but: “What does it means?”

So I can make defective sen= tences, that are difficult to understand, but I can’t make gramatical corre= ct sentences that lead to misunderstanding.

So, there are two main affairs= : On the one hand, when sy writes gramatical incorrect (this is the best th= ing, because you can find easily the errors), and on the other hand, when t= he rules allow you to be shallow (this is the worst thing). This last case = leads to misunderstanding.

So, the terminal-vowel marker trick will = completely change all that.

You know it well that it’s not all true. The w= ord root will remain unchanged.

  Maybe such markers are not your no= rmal inflections .. that operate  within a VERB, or give alternative mean= ings to different versions of a  NOUN, but they are within the family of =   inflections, like '-ly' (adjective --> adverb), '-ing' (verb --> gerund=

[=3Dnoun]), and ‘-ed’ (verb –> participle [=3Dadjective]) - in English= .

The word class answers to certain question: “what is it?”; how does it w= ork?; how does it look like?; what to make?, and this system is enough to g= uide you.

And, yes, a system of vowel-marker endings could be impose= d to indicate the P-O-S usage of the word at the time in that particular= part of the sentence, but then the language produced would no longer be= Glosa.

This attitude is well known by me. Even the fanatical fundamental= ists of Esp gave me the same answer, when I proposed them to substitute the= accusative endings by some word-order. They also told me that the language= would no longer be Esp. And I answered: So what? What is wrong in it? Of = course, the diesel-engine is no longer a steam-engine. This is the way of t= he evolution.

And finally, we have to decide: what kind of language we wan= t to have? Who that language have to serve to? Should it serve to the expe= rts or to the large layers of the people? For example, Esp became so sophis= ticated, that there is hardly anyone non-expert, who is mastering that lang= uage well. It became a language for experts, and not for the most of the pe= ople. It became a language for a small layer of users.

Plu saluta,

Laslo=