Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

# Re: [glosalist] Re: Introduction

At 01:37 AM 12/22/05, Stephan grafo:

          BRIEF COMMENT FROM ME BELOW >--- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Robin Fairbridge Gaskell <drought- >breaker@p...> wrote: > > > > Hello Friends, > >          Frankly Stephan, I am overwhelmed. > >          It's interesting that some people in the Planned Language > > world prefer simpler languages like Glosa because they don't want >to > > learn a lot of inflection; while others enjoy getting their tongues > > around all of the possible complexities of languages, and hence, go > > for the more complicated languages. > >          My guess is that you swallow them all whole, and don't > > notice any difficult bits. > >Hello Robin. When I learnt Esperanto I already knew about adjectives, >adverbs, nouns, verbs and their declensions. Esperanto implements >this concept very well, and I enjoyed learning it. (I "swallowed" >it.) I could always apply my knowledge about grammar in order to go >always deeper into the grammar. >Glosa is cool because it shows that a language can be even simpler. >But my little problem is that I need to know the part-of-speech of >every word in a sentence anyway in order to feel sure that I'm >uttering an actual sentence and not just a latin-greek mish-mash in >order to explain myself. Until now Glosa seems very, very flexible, >maybe too flexible. Now that I'm going to read carefully your answers >(thank you very much), I shall see if things become a little bit >clearer to me. > > >          Despite all this, Glosa was developed because there is a > > very real problem with language: most people are only ever fluent >in > > their native tongue.  And this was the reasoning behind Glosa's > > formation: It was planned to be a language that the vast majority >of > > humanity could learn to use, at least functionally. > >What do you mean with "functionally"? "Grammatically"? > >The same idea is about Esperanto, isn't it? Even though the main >organisations of Esperanto are making a policy of neutrality. But I >agree that Glosa may be more appropriate than Esperanto. But there >may be also things to improve, for example the "q". The first time I >saw a single "q" (without "u"), I thought that Glosa was some kind of >sci-fi language, without cultural or political attitude. (Also >Klingon has "q", maybe I'm preinfluenced by it.) > > >          Maybe you will be around when our leaders decide to adopt >an > > International Auxillary Language (IAL). > >They have already adopted English so far. - And we comply. :( > > >          If so, you could find your education and interests helpful > > in working with the project. > >          Have you heard of the Distributed Language Translation > > Project  (DLT, 1972)?  There was an attempt to make Esperanto the > > pivot language in a computer translation research project; the > > version of Eo used was supposed to be both computer readable and > > humanly readable.  Things didn't quite work out, however, and the > > funding was stopped.  The idea was to have all documents stored and > > transmitted around the system, only coming out as a national >language > > at the output terminal, the information previously having been >input > > into the system at another terminal that converted a different > > national language into the "distributed language". >    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Yes. I think I have learnt a more suitable language in the meantime. >It's called Latejami (and had a lot of names before that, the first >one was "Katanda"), see www.eskimo.com/~ram/Ladekwa/ >It works (for the cases studied yet) for English very well, I think. >   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >          It was my belief that the project would have been >completed > > satisfactorily had the pivot language been Glosa. > >I'm not sure... > >Regards, >Stephan Schneider Well, I am a bit surprised about the attraction to Latejami.
There was a thought that recognition of vocabulari was a  good idea: and this concept has been a large part of the Esperanto  argument, and considering that Glosa vocab is from the Classical  languages of Greek and Latin, it has also been a large part of the  Glosa argument.

However, Stephen, I detect that you expect lenguages to  have complexity, and I suspect that this is a part of your reason for  liking Latejami.

Needless to say, some people object to Glosa claiming  that it is simply English sentence structure with a changed  vocabulary.  Of course, I would not have stayed with Glosa were that  the case.  Whether we will ever get an International Auxiliary  Language adopted officially for planet Earth, I don't know.  It is my  expectation that I will be joining Ron - on the other side - before  the world is ready to use an IAL.  So, Glosa could just be an  experiment before its time.


Saluta,