Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: [glosalist] Too much plainness

Robin Gaskell (Robin Gaskell <drought-breaker@...>) on February 24, 2004

Saluta Holo-pe,

At 11:24 PM 2/22/04 +0100, Igor grafo:

Saluta a Laslo,

If I am right, your suggestion is to use the possessive pronouns by adding a letter, for example “a” to the personal pronouns (mi-a, tu-a, and so on) and to mark the parts of speech by similar letters at the end of the word. Of course, you can do it if you want. But then appears a question: why not add some special suffixes denoting tenses to the verbs and eliminate the particles “pa”, “fu” or “sio”? Why not make some further changes? The question is what for. There are lots of very good IALs that function this way - Esperanto, Ido, Volapuk, Interlingua etc. Why change Glosa if you can use another IAL with a better result? I am an Esperanto speaker and consider it an excellent language. I do not need to change Glosa to make it another Esperanto, because Esperanto which already exists is sufficient. I think that if you start changing Glosa, it will not be Glosa anymore. Besides, there is always a question, how far one can reform a language not being the author herself/himself. If Glosa changes some aspects officially, the Glosa speakers will use the new Glosa and I will have nothing against it. Let’s ask the other Glosa speakers ;) *** I agree with Igor’s comments. The “-a” for possessives is a possibility: in writing it would be distinctive, in having the hyphon; in speech it should stand out. However the assumed possessive with no mark seems to work, but I am a little unsatisfied with it.

You have shown the following example: (I don’t know how to say “car” and “telephone”): /Mi “car” “telephone” domi./ => “My car phones to the home.” [It is an intelligent, computerised car!] or “I am driving while I am making a call to the home.” or “I am phoning to the home during my driving.” - In many languages the verb “to car” functions, and it does mean “to drive”. That’s not a sleng! There are plenty of nouns that functions in the same manner in several languages.

These four words in a sentence are not Glosa, because you still need some necessary particles. “Mi vagona telefono a domi” would indeed mean: “My car is telephoning home”. However if you want to say: “I am driving while I am making call home” you can say “Mi du vagona…”, where “du” clearly indicates that “vagona” becomes a verb. And finally, if you want to form an active participle, you must not forget about the particle “tem” - “Mi du vagona tem telefono a domi”. “Tem” added to a word makes it a participle. If you want to say: “I am telephoning home during my driving”, you say: “Mi du telefono a domi tem du vagona”. Although Glosa has polifunctional words, you must not forget about the use of the particles, which are necessary.

*** Yes, I’d say that Igor has the feel for Glosa.



Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

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