Re: [glosalist] Re: Redundancies

     I checked your site from the URL given; also I remember  discussions with you.  BTW thanks for including my 1999 description  of Glosa's grammar; and especially thanks to Andrey Roganchov for  translating it into Russian.

     However, little might appear to have changed.

     The difference is that some new thinkers have joined the  stayers in the Glosa field, and it looks as if some new thinking has  come up.  So, we could be ready to move up from the vocabulary  formation plateau, and get a bit more organised about promoting the language.

     Your idea of a Core Vocabulary was more or less what Ron  Clark was thinking about, when he first published Glosa  1000.  Forming new words by using words derived from core words  rather than introducing unique new words is a good idea: e.g.  ~pato-do~ rather than ~hospitala~ for `hospital'.

     Likewise, the idea of using one Glosa word per concept in  the Core Vocab. would simplify things for learners.  However the  regular repetition of Glosa words in such a "Basic Glosa" will soon  lead Glosa-neo-pe to want to take the step up to a language that  allows synonyms, if not metaphors. >         The "non-sensical redundancies" mentioned by <syntonica>  > were explained to me by Ron Clark as stylistic latitude allowing  > one Latin roott and one Greek root.
     This might have been acceptable, with such alternatives as  ~hidro~ and ~aqa~ for "water", but the redundancies became obvious to  me when I used a bit of crude 'reverse engineering', and converted  the _Glosa 6000_ Glosa to English list into an English to Glosa  list.  I did find that some English language words had up to five  Greek/Latin equivalents.
     So, if one concept = one Glosa word in a "Core Glosa", then  some sort of managerial decision would need to be made about how, and  when, an alternative Classical root can be introduced into the  experience of a neo-pe.

     From the personal experience of writing children's stories,  I found the restriction of using only one Glosa root word for a  concept, to be deadly dull, repetitive, and boring.

     Core Glosa has a place, and frankly it does not matter if  "water" is ~aqa~ or ~hidro~: pick one by tossing a coin; but...  remember that the seasoned Glosa user will want to upgrade to  recognising, and being able to write, both, or either.

     I will agree whole-heartedly with Kevin's final sentence,  "Endless tweaking is disastrous."

     So, if people can co-operate in a spirit of creative  pragmatism, a lot of worthwhile decisions can be reached .. and  quickly so.  It is not the ^nitty-gritty^ of a perfect vocabulary  that we ought to be thinking of giving the world, but the general  outlines of a beautiful, and workable, syntax-based inter-language.