Re: [glosalist] Redundancies

     Meanwhile back to the redundancies, good and bad: originally  the authors said that, as long as there was no clash, there ought to  be, for purposes of style, one Greek root and one Latin root allowed  for each lexeme.  I tried it, originally, with preferring only the  Latin root, and the repetition was boring and became  suffocating.  The idea of only one word per lexical item is  attractive, and can be enforced on learners, but is sudden death for stylists.

     Where I discovered that Ron had been vastly over generous  with the Classical metaphors, was the time I reverse engineered the  "Glosa 6000" Glosa --> English word list.
     While all I wanted to do was prepare a corresponding English  --> Glosa list, I sometimes discovered up to five Classical roots all  related to the one English word.  The short answer is that the  discovery of this glitch led to feverish activity on the production  of word lists; and, you can find on the Net something called the GID  (Glosa Internet Dictionary).  This is considerably bigger than the  authors' 6000-word dictionary, and has been somewhat purged of  excessive synonyms.

     The golden rule to the ```simplicity``` conundrum is that,  as Ron said, the listener/reader comes halfway to the speaker/writer,  and that utterances ought to be taken in context.

     Whilst a Glosa word can function  - within reason - as any  part of speech, this dictate has to be tempered with common sense.  I  found that although Glosa could often be briefer than a corresponding  utterance in a national language or other Planned Language, it did  often work out better to *spell it out in detail* in Glosa, to ensure  clarity of communication.  For this, I found the concept of elision  very handy, and as well as that coined the term "to un-elide".  My  standard example is the English-language, abbreviated form "He went  home."  While the meaning is completely clear in English, we all know  you can't "went" a "home."  "go" is not actually a transitive verb,  even though it takes *indirect objects*.   In this example, " home"  is an elision of something like "to his home".  Thus I consider the  rough translation ~A pa ki domi.~ as poor Glosa, and the un-elided  form, ~An pa ki ad an domi.~ to be clearer and unambiguous.

     good, well:    boni [L] vs. bene [L] vs. eu [G]

This is a hang over from the days that Ron declared the terminal  vowel to be *floating* IE up to the choice of the writer.  Some Glosa  word lists have ~bene~ others have ~boni~.  As far as I'm concerned,  people will understand my Glosa if I use either.  Worse, poetically,  I imagine there is an argument for having a special case for the  adverbial form, which I feel ought to be ~bene~, while the general  purpose "good" is ~boni~, as in ~Habe u boni di.~ or ~Boni di.~ for short.

And my 1992 Glosa 6000 has:   eu   goodness, well

So, I might say ~Un eu de u di pa kausa an de voko poesi.~

Maybe ~eu~ is a more mystical "good".

While there are various qualities and styles of sweetness I'd  suggest that you take in the flavour of the sweetness of the words  and decide for yourself.

    sweet:           sukro [L] vs. dulce [L] vs. gluko [G] vs.  suavi [L](?!)

 You could resolutely stick to ~sukro~ for all instances of the  concept "sweet", or you could check the Greek and Latin dictionaries  for the etymology of these various words, and choose to use the range  for the different nuances of "sweetness".
    ) For unsubtle sweetness of taste, I go for ~sukro~.
    ) Sweet music that makes me drift off is ~Dulce~ but not  Mantiovani, who is ~sukro~.
    ) For me a beautiful woman dressed sweetly is more likely to  be ~gluko~.
    ) I have never used ~suavi~, but if I did, it would be to  describe the "sickly sweet".

 Negatives are very tricky, and need some decisive  categorisation.  I did put out a Glosa Grammar Table once, and I  think it is still on the Net.

     no(n) vs. ne vs. nuli         [this is only part of the story]

    nuli             nothing
    zero-tem, ze-tem  never
    nuli-lo          nowhere
    ne               not [before a word functioning as a verb]
    no               No!   [expletive]
    no-                       un-    [negates  an action]     ~An  habe no-akti.~
    ...              And there are probably a few more negatives  lurking about.