Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »
Re: [glosalist] Sound "U" in Glosa
Robin Fairbridge Gaskell (Robin Fairbridge Gaskell <drought-breaker@...>) on July 14, 2005
At 09:50 PM 7/13/05, you wrote:
Except of flame, the only significicant th= ought in that esperanto-thread is that Llu=EDs offers to create an altern= ative Glosa-branch ‘cause of the neat idea of the language and its strang= e realization. The words “strange realization” almost concern the English= -like grammar of Glosa. *** Nothing strange about Glosa’s English-like gram= mar. Ron Clark with an encyclopedic knowledge of language decided tha= t the home team won on points, when it came to logical syntax. So, Glosa = does not have English as its main guide to grammar … because the authors= are English. Glosa was designed to be a language with minimal grammatica= l morphology: it followed the minimal inflections of English to end up wit= h virtually NO inflections; thus it can be seen as having a structure, whi= ch is a streamlined, standardised version of that of English. The cl= ausal/phrasal structure of English is considered to be both simple and log= ical; also, English has a reasonably well formed syntactic foundation. Th= e odd thing is that this syntax is not codified as pure syntax; instead; t= he word order of English is described in the complex terminology of gramma= r.
Ron Clark hated grammatical complexity so much that he created a =
language with no noticeable morphological grammar; and, worse than that, h= e refused to write a grammar book for Glosa claiming that a person with a= verage intelligence will intuit its fundamental syntax.
Sadly, most = adults have lost their childhood flexibility, and need to be told the "rul= es" of a new language, while, of course, they were NEVER told the rules of= the language they learnt at mother's knee. Ron made a big mistake in ass= uming that people retained the creativity they had when toddlers. I = did, belatedly, acknowledge that a Glosa Grammar must be written, so, I cr= eated one 'after the fact.' I looked at written Glosa, deduced the syntac= tical relationships, and recorded them. A Glosa Grammar does exist somewh= ere in the Internet. Ron said that "A word is modified by its preceden= t," and he thought that such wisdom would flow to everyone's understanding= of how his language worked. Basically, within a phrase, the less signifi= cant words are at the start, the modifiers (etc) are added in logical orde= r, and then the phrase ends with its most significant word. The phrase bu= ilds up, with each new word adding to the meaning, progressively. Tec= hnically, Linguists describe this as "head final" structure. It works bot= h for NOUN PHRASES and VERB PHRASES in Glosa. The catch: in Glosa, a word= represents a concept, and, within reason, a word can be used as any 'part= of speech.' So, for descriptive purposes, in Glosa, a word - according t= o its position in the sentence - can be a 'noun' =3D a word functioning as= a noun, or a 'verb' =3D a word functioning as a verb. The word "modifier= " covers adjectives and adverbs, with modifiers in NOUN PHRASES doing what= adjectives do in English, and those in VERB PHRASES doing what English-la= nguage adverbs do. ~ridi~ =3D 'laugh' to laugh - ridi ; do laugh - ak= ti ridi ; he laughed - an pa ridi ; give a laug= h - don u ridi ; the laughing man - u ridi andro ; = she told it laughingly - fe ridi dice id Also in the Net there a= re Seminar #1 and Seminar #2, giving more detail on this. Logically,= if a language has "Syntax-based Grammar," then a set of guides to good sy= ntax (not to good grammar) should be available to learners. I did produce= a set of non-verbal symbols to reduce language to a somewhat algebraic fo= rmula --- to analyse the syntax without getting caught up with the words -= -- but this concept was not in the ordinary Grammar Books, so it was compl= etely ignored. Anyone with a strange mind can find it on the Net as GAS (= Gaskell Analysed Syntax).
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. *** It is a shame I don’t read Russian: = this would be interesting.
This is my question: is Glosa an open p= roject and is it possible to modify it’s grammar if there will be concrete= suggestions? *** Basically NO! However, Ron Clark died with his gift to = the world still a work in progress. When you push something to an ex= treme, Glosa is possibly the only “civilised” language completely without = inflections, then its a bit hard to compromise and have just a little bit = of inflection. On the other hand, Glosa could be augmented with one o= r two more categories of affixes, which modify the MEANING of a word [not = alter its grammar]. At present we have the two-letter affixes, which chan= ge the category of a word; there probably is ample space for a list of fou= r-letter affixes to modify meaning at a higher level. EG pani =3D bread = pani-bo - baker’s shop (bread shop) pani-bo-pe - baker = (bread shop person)
Meanwhile a person can tinker with Glosa and re-= make it in his own image, but I suspect that Ron is a hard act to follow. = Presently Glosa does not appear to be going anywhere, and the idea of fin= ding a language that is easy for the vast majority of mankind to speak see= ms an altruistic one, which is quite off the radar of Economic Rationalism= . On a scale of one to a hundred, of problems in urgent need of solution,= Glosa, and the whole International Auxilliary Language story, rates about= a one, while Depleted Uranium scores a ninety-nine. When, or if, peace e= ver descends on the land, it will be time for me to dust off the Glosa boo= ks, and resume where I left off. In pure linguistic theory, however,= there are still a few things to say: In its strict form, Glosa appea= rs to be an ideal Meta-language; its syntax and 'no-nonsense' grammar make= it very suitable for communication with intelligent machines. There= is the continuing niggle about the possibility of there being a "Universa= l Grammar". Chomsky's writing is so dense that a UG might be in his books; = but, reading through his impenetrable prose to find it is virtually imposs= ible. I have learnt from Chomsky, and have dedicated myself to writing ve= ry clear prose, so that if there is a glimmer of truth within my writing, = then it will be accessible to those who try to find it. The UG will b= e found when we come to terms with the syntactical elements of language: I= believe that, of all of the Planned Languages, Glosa is the one that come= s closest to revealing the nature of a Universal Grammar -- if one exists.= And even more heretically, I imagine that there really is a "languag= e of thought." It might be close to the concept of a UG; it could be a p= icture language; or it might even be an articulation of concepts. Come to =
think about it, Glosa is concept-based. Hmm!
In a stand up fight, = however, everyone know Esperanto wins: it's got the books, the academy, an= d the armies of speakers. And it's got the organisation. Glosa has none = of this: no contest! There are just one or two matters. Some people= simply can't stand all of Esperanto's inflected endings. For those who l= ove its old-world feel, and have the capacity to juggle the possibly multi= ple affixes, Esperanto is fantastic. Something at the other end of the li= nguistic spectrum, might, on the other hand, suit the mental gearing of a = larger fraction of the world's people. We may never know.
PS The Glosa = community isn’t sufficiently open. At least publish any information about = it at http://www.UniLang.org http://www.unilang.org! *** I became inactiv= e linguistically before UniLang developed. This explains my not knowing a= bout it until now. I am training for my retirement job; when this is all = sorted out, I’ll have time to spare to tell the world about Glosa via UniL= ang. Thanks for this idea.
PPS The link to the Glosa-thread (for russi= an-speakers only) http://www.e-novosti.info/forumo/viewtopic.php?t=3D1885&= postdays=3D0&postorder=3Dasc&start=3D0
<http://www.e-novosti.info/forum= o/viewtopic.php?t=3D1885&postdays=3D0&postorder=3Dasc&start=3D0> *** Also a= nice idea. I did have an idea once for teaching Glosa using Glosa! = this would be quite a challenge, but highly possible. This has overtones = similar to those of the “immersion teaching” of a foreign language. But..= . there is no Glosalandia, so I’ll have to improvise.
//pardon me engles= e mans// *** Certainly.
Robin Fairbridge Gaskell= wrote:
Dear All plus a few Glosa-pe, I do not want to appear r= ude, but I don’t actually read Esperanto.
While Glosa is now ver= y 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 Engli= sh, or both.
If a Glosa-pe wishes to use his, or her, planned la= nguage skills, I might hope that they did so using Glosa.
Whi= le Esperanto speakers are very welcome on this list, and perhaps might l= earn something of the Glosa philosophy while here, it would be nice if i= tems 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 vis= ita-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.
Then the mind stuff, reflecting bo= th the knower and the knowable, becomes omniscient. 184
Ya= hoo! Groups Links
____ NOD32 1.1168 (20050714) Informa= tion ____
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. htt= p://www.eset.com
Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »