Re: [glosalist] Sound "U" in Glosa

Except of flame, the only significicant thought in that esperanto-thread is that Llu�s offers to create an alternative Glosa-branch ‘cause of the neat idea of the language and its strange realization. The words “strange realization” almost concern the English-like grammar of Glosa.

Suprisingly, during last several days at http://www.e-novosti.info/forumo (it’s the russian forum about Esperanto) they debate on Glosa’s grammar defects. This is my question: is Glosa an open project and is it possible to modify it’s grammar if there will be concrete suggestions?

PS The Glosa community isn’t sufficiently open. At least publish any information about it at http://www.UniLang.org http://www.unilang.org! PPS The link to the Glosa-thread (for russian-speakers only) http://www.e-novosti.info/forumo/viewtopic.php?t=1885&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 http://www.e-novosti.info/forumo/viewtopic.php?t=1885&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

//pardon me englese mans//

Robin Fairbridge Gaskell wrote:

Dear All plus a few Glosa-pe, I do not want to appear rude, but I don’t actually read Esperanto.

While Glosa is now very much a minority language, and there is very little written in Glosa on this list, I would suggest that items might be in either Glosa or English, or both.

If a Glosa-pe wishes to use his, or her, planned language skills, I might hope that they did so using Glosa.

While Esperanto speakers are very welcome on this list, and perhaps might learn something of the Glosa philosophy while here, it would be nice if items in Esperanto were accompanied by a translation into either English or Glosa.

For some Esperanto visitors, this will not be possible, I know. However I suggest that the Esperanto only items might not be read by the Glosa-pe.

Glosa: Pro vario de plu Esperanto-dice visita-pe, mi ski ke u-ci akti ne es posi. Anti-co, mi sugere ke plu itema; uti solo Esperanto, sio posi ne gene lekto per plu Glosa-pe.

Saluta,

Robin Gaskell

–

Then the mind stuff, reflecting both the knower and the knowable, becomes omniscient. 184