Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

# Re: [glosalist] Hello all!

At 02:01 AM 8/18/05, Nikhil Sinha pa grafo:

Well the only reason I could not learn Glosa is I did not get the opportunity and time.

Yes and I do like to learn about complicated languages but when it comes to language-learning I wud prefer simpler ones. Well,Sorry Nik, I guess I made an incorrect assumption. I’ve probably got a bit touchy over time with people sniping at Glosa. In the past I especially got annoyed, though I never said anything about it, over people who made comments about Glossa. I know That Ron Clark took his initiative from Hogben’s Interglossa, and didn’t start work on Glosa until after he’d got permission from Hogben to continue the work he had already done on Interglossa. In the early days, the authors had called the new language, Glossa; but in line with Ron and Wendy’s policy of avoiding the use of double-letters, the name was updated. Unfortunately the brains of some of the linguists studying designed languages failed to make the upgrade.

  And just a historical point on that: the two languages, Glosa and  Interglossa, do not look as similar as we might have thought; this is  explained by the fact that, although Ron did try very hard to develop  Hogben's scheme, he simply found it was not workable as it was, so he  decided to go back to ^square one^ and start again from first  principles.  The Glosa first principle were, however, quite close to those  of Interglossa, but somewhat more streamlined.

I wondered how many of our readers have thought about the idea of a  language that has its grammar shown through its syntax.  This is the  premise behind Glosa, and one that has had very little discussion.  While a  number of people have suggested throwing out a some of Glosa's basic  tenets, and adding complication, very few Glosa-pe have actually used the  word "syntax," and considered researching further the refinements of syntax  in human communication.

So, for this reason, Nik, I would raise this question with you ...  and anyone else who wishes to comment on it: have you had any thoughts  about syntax as a common denominator in language (and communication) and as  a principle suitable for basing an auxillary language on?

Without trying to be rude, I suspect that syntax is an area of  linguistic research that professional Linguists have rather avoided up to now.


Saluta,

Robin

Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: [glosalist] Hello all! - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.