Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »
Re: [glosalist] Re: Too much plainness
Robin Gaskell (Robin Gaskell <drought-breaker@...>) on February 29, 2004
Saluta Plu Amika,
At 10:37 PM 2/22/04 +0100, Laslo pa grafo:
Saluta Igor,
Sorry, but you didn’t explained me why my proposal would not work. Why that is a bad solution. It seems to me that you have gotten round the kernel of the question.
Plu saluta, Laslo *** Laslo, as a line of discussion, I suggest that this is the right place to include the one, or two, last messages that precede it.
So, I do recall adding a comment to this thread. Perhaps Igor did not wish to say too much, simply because the suggestions for directly joining affixes to Glosa substantive words goes against the whole foundation on which the language was built.
There is NO AGREEMENT in Glosa EG they run he runs ~mu kursi~ ~an kursi~
Likewise ... "words do not change for reasons of grammar." EG run ~(nu) kursi~
---> Here I quote Ron Clark word for word. ran ~ pa kursi~
Also, particles are not joined directly onto substantive words, they might be hyphenated, but in writing this is seen, and in speech each word maintains its integrity and is separately pronounced.
EG is moved ~es ge-moti~
(not move-ed) (not ~gemoti~)
<And for the Computer doing a spot of "machine handling of language", the hyphen is a handy, and easily programable, marker; the computer does not have to interpret inflections, nor decide where the join is, so that it can decide at which point to separate the parts of a 'compounded' word.>
As well as avoiding forcing words into a standardised format, although that might be what Laslo would prefer to have, not using vowels as Part-of-Speech markers also avoids possible etymological mismatching and the formation of some unpleasant-sounding words.
This may not be what Igor did not say, but it is more of what I would say in answer to suggestions for the use of some agglutination in Glosa.
Saluta,
Robin
Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »