Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »
Re: [glosalist] Re: Redundancies
Robin Fairbridge Gaskell (Robin Fairbridge Gaskell <drought-breaker@...>) on April 1, 2006
Hi Kevin e Plu Amika,
At 02:32 AM 3/29/06, Kevin Smith pa grafo:
[I posted a message like this a couple days ago, but it seems to have gotten lost somewhere. Possibly awaiting moderation, since I sent it right before subscribing to this group.]
— In email@example.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 vocabularies, there seem to be non-sensical redundancies.
I raised several similar issues about 5 years ago, and did quite a bit of work creating a “cleaned up” version of Glosa. Here is snapshot archive:
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 suggestions adopted as “official”, I gave up on it and found an different IAL that 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. Glosa 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 might re-join the community.
Has anything changed?
P.S. Some context 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 is when someone can author and publish text once and have it be read thousands (or millions) of times. I like simplicity. I don’t expect perfection, and understand tradeoffs, but dislike pointless imperfections. Once an IAL is “good enough”, it should be kept fairly stable. Endless tweaking is disastrous.
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »