Re: [glosalist] Plu hetero questio

At 11:20 PM 12/16/05, Stephan Schneider wrote:

Saluta! Penite, mi habe pl= u hetero questio. *** Place habe mu.

Que il es u verba “mo-ci”, e id sign= ifi quo-ra? *** Mi habe no memo de uti u-ci stru; alterno, si id ne eqa un= ero, id sembla habe u semani de ~uno-loka~. (Eng. one-place) [mo =3D one= ; ci =3D here]

Que “pato-do” e “medika-do” es u homo ra? (hospital) *** P= osi no. Id sio es ma boni si plu bi lexi habe difere semani. glos = [ it would be better if the two words have different meaning]

     = U ~pato-do~ eqa u loka pro plu pato-pe =3D hospital.

       U ~medika-= do~ es ma u loka; in qi plu-pe gene medicina =3D clinic.

Pagina 22: “Glos= a es eu fono.” -> “Glosa habe eu fono.” Que? *** ~Glosa es eu fono.~ = [Glosa is beautiful-sounding] - U-ci habe solo u proxi uti de un akti-verb= i, ~es~.

  ~Glosa habe eu fono.~
  [Glosa has good sound] - U-ci e= qa u ma normo uti de u lingua.

I think now that “u-ci” is a noun. (“Que u= -ci es tu domi?”) *** Ya, ~u-ci~ funktio iso u nomina-verbi: uti un Englan= d-lingua, na sio uti u verbi, “pro-noun”. Id eqa u speciali Glo= sa stru: u =3D the; ci =3D here. (this)

In this case a noun phrase with “= domi” would cause the first noun to become an adjective. In this case I wo= uld prefer “domi u-ci” (“housy that”) instead of “u-ci domi” (“thaty hou= se”). *** ci =3D here la =3D there u-ci =3D this = u-la =3D that

     Iso u pro-nomina-verba, ~u-ci~ habe u funktio d= e u deskribe-verbi.

     Id loka intra u nomina-grega es pre u substan= tia nomina-verbi.

Couldn’t Chinese be an interesting example of phrasing = these concepts? Their language is isolating as well. *** Id es so. U Cina= -pe pa dice a mi ke an lingua habe u homo stru de Glosa.

   Sintaxi ha= be vikto!
  [sintax has victory]    Eng.  Syntax wins.

Que “u bibli g= e-grafo ex G. B. Shaw” es “u ge-grafo ex G. B. Shaw bibli”? *** Eng. Tr= ue, but clunkily so.

     Posi:   Id es u bibli qi pa es ge-grafo ex G= .B. Shaw.

                   Id es u bibli qi     es ge-grafo ex G.B. = Shaw.

                     Id es u bibli;            ge-grafo ex G.B. = Shaw.

                   U-ci bibli gene ge-grafo ex G.B. Shaw.

 =
  Nota:   ~ge-grafo ex G. B. Shaw~ eqa u fo komplexi deskribe-grega.

= Que es “z=F2a” alo “zo=E0”? *** Un ~O~ habe un emfasi. Intra Glosa, u vok= ali; pre un ultima, habe u stresi.

Is “lose” Greek or Latin? It seems Eng= lish to me. *** Mi pa lose mi Latino verbi-bibli uno-lo intra mi domi, so = mi ne pote cerka u-ci verbi.

    Anti-co, mi kredi ke ~lose~ es ex u L= atino-lingua.

“There is” =3D “il es”, but “It’s getting dark” is “id gene= no-foto”. Why not “il gene no-foto?”. Is there any real “id” that’s getti= ng dark? *** Good question. ~il~ was a late addition to the Glosa lexic= on: the authors found the need for that indeterminate “there”.

     It=  (the weather) rains.  =3D  Id (u meteo) pluvi.

       There is moistu= re in the air.  =3D  Il es hidro intra un aero.

       It becomes dark= .  =3D  Id kresce skoto.
                                      [it  gro= ws dark]   ... it: the sky; the room; my vision

Saluta,

Robin Gaskell