Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: [glosalist] glosa + english ?

Robin Fairbridge Gaskell (Robin Fairbridge Gaskell <drought-breaker@...>) on December 20, 2005

At 04:15 AM 12/13/05, Eike pa grafo:


Hi everybody, sorry for the long post, hope that some of you proceed to the end :) (skip parts ;) )

A Glosa with english words doesn’t feel like a good idea for me, if it were intended as an auxlang. While I was looking for a different auxlang after trying esperanto, I also came across Basic English, and it seems that the critics go along ….. …………………

I know that glosa doesn’t prevent you from forming too complicated sentences, but at least it gets rid of the complexity of changing words according to their role, that doesn’t help to prevent the problem anyway.

I think, the language of the future must be easily processable by a computer, and with Glosa I find this a very big advantage. Glosa could and probably should be further refined in this direction. If you could truthfully say ‘download this small program and be able to read and write texts in Glosa’, well, that would be a thing to mention ;)

Saluta, Eike

Friends, This is definitely my bias as well.

     Considring that I can meet lots of people - using English -  via the Net, it is only obvious that I will be able to meet many more  the same way ... when a sensible Auxilliary Language is adopted for  Net convenience.

     And, if people have trouble with learning another language,  then they could reach more people by having a program that plugged  them in to an auxilliary language.

     Thus the idea would be to find a Planned Language tthat was  both easy for most people to use, and which was easily programable:  such a language would, in my opinion be one whose grammar is more in  line with syntax than an inflectional system.  Glosa feels closer to  this ideal than does Esperanto.



Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: [glosalist] glosa + english ? - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.