— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Robin Fairbridge Gaskell <drought- breake= r@p…> wrote:

Pagina 22: “Glosa 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-verbi, ~es~.

  ~Glosa habe eu=  fono.~
  [Glosa has good sound] - U-ci eqa u ma normo uti de u lingu= a.

It irritates me that in Glosa you can say “is sounding” and “sounds”.

They are both the same, in my opinion.

“Glosa eu fono.” - “Glosa is beauti= fully sounding.” =3D “Glosa sounds beutiful.” “Glosa habe eu fono.” - “Glo= sa has a beautiful sounding.”

I think “Glosa is beutiful(ly) sounding” is = an angicism that is not appropriate for an auxlang. “Glosa sounds beautifu= l” should do. “Glosa es eu fono.” should mean only “Glosa is a beautiful = sound.” Or is this only possible when you say “Glosa es u eu fono.”?

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 England-lingua, na sio uti u verbi, “= pro-noun”. Id eqa u speciali Glosa stru: u =3D the; ci =3D he= re. (this)

Gratia, sed … *verbi -> verba - or does “verbi” exist, too?

=

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

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

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

= So in a noun phrase the adjective comes first, and then comes the noun, ri= ght? But this rule doesn’t always apply, I will look for examples.

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

Cool!

   Sintaxi habe vikto!=

  [sintax has victory]    Eng.  Syntax wins.

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

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

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

                     Id es u bibli;            g= e-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 ko= mplexi  deskribe-grega.

Gratia. Id es u bibli qui pa es ge-grafo ex G.B. S= haw. Ergo “qui pa es ge-grafo ex G.B. Shaw” equa u deskribe-grega, que? Pl= us-co “ge-grafo ex G.B. Shaw” equa u deskribe-grega. Sed mu es poste subst= antia-verba.

“There is” =3D “il es”, but “It’s getting dark” is “id gen= e no-foto”. Why not “il gene no-foto?”. Is there any real “id” that’s ge= tting dark? *** Good question. ~il~ was a late addition to the Gl= osa lexicon: the authors found the need for that indeterminate “there”.

B= y the way, where are the authors now? Do they still develop Glosa?

Thank y= ou for all the answers.

Regards, Stephan Schneider