Re: Redundancies

[I posted a message like this a couple days ago, but it seems to have gotte= n lost somewhere. Possibly awaiting moderation, since I sent it right befor= e subscribing to this group.]

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, “syntonica= “ wrote:

Ave panto-pe! I am new to Glosa and find I am attracted to it=

because of its simplicity and charm. However, delving into the voca= bularies, there seem to be non-sensical redundancies.

I raised several s= imilar issues about 5 years ago, and did quite a bit of work creating a “cl= eaned up” version of Glosa. Here is snapshot archive:

http://mysite.wana= doo-members.co.uk/glosa

As you can see, I had many of the same concerns as= you. At that time, there seemed to be no process to clarify or improve the= official Glosa language, including creating an official “core” vocabulary.= When I realized that it would be almost impossible to get any of my sugges= tions adopted as “official”, I gave up on it and found an different IAL tha= t was “good enough” and had a process for improvement.

A couple nights ago= , I looked at glosa.org and the mailing list for the first time in years. G= losa is still a beautiful language, with a few (very) rough edges. If there= were some process to clarify and simplify the official core language, I mi= ght re-join the community.

Has anything changed?

Kevin

P.S. Some contex= t about me: My focus is on written communication, because I believe that is= where IAL’s have the most promise. I believe the perfect niche for IAL’s i= s when someone can author and publish text once and have it be read thousan= ds (or millions) of times. I like simplicity. I don’t expect perfection, an= d understand tradeoffs, but dislike pointless imperfections. Once an IAL is= “good enough”, it should be kept fairly stable. Endless tweaking is disast= rous.