Re: [glosalist] Glosa ISO code

At 09:21 PM 2/19/06, you wrote:

From the stub-article at http://en.wikipe= dia.org/wiki/Glosa :

ISO 639-1: none ISO 639-2: art ISO/DIS = 639-3: either: igs =97 Interglossa gls =97 Glossa

Saluta, Eike

wil= liamtbranch wrote:

Does anyone know if Glosa has an ISO code or propose= d ISO code? -bill

Mi plu Amika, I guess that some examples of writ= ten Glosa be included in the entry given above.

The word “syntax” gets on= ly a single mention: this could seem odd, since a description of its gram= mar (which I coined) is ‘Syntax-based Grammar’. Also, the rule that ‘a wo= rd is modified by its precedent’ also could be added; this concept leads = to the clinically linguistic statement that Glosa has “Head Final” phrase = structure.

I do not know who submitted this very brief entry on Glosa to = the Wikipedia, but, had Ron Clark had a say in it, I guess he would have m= entioned that Glosa was first conceived as a language for science - in th= at it uses the same Classical source vocabularies as those that were used = as the basis of scientific nomenclature.

The reference to “Glossa” is qui= te historical: I clearly remember saying to Ron and Wendy that even thoug= h this name historically related the new language to its predecessor, Inte= rglossa, it was inconsistent with the rule eliminating double letters fro= m ‘native’ Glosa words. The ~Glosa~ name took over shortly afterwards.

O= ne addition that might be hard to put into words compares Glosa sentence s= tructure with that of English - which, in its pure form, is the model for= sentence structure in Glosa - that, while one can ‘map’ English words ont= o a Glosa sentence, and produce a reasonably acceptable sentence in Engli= sh, the reverse process does not produce good Glosa.

Saluta,

Robin