Re: Redundancies

Hi Robin, and thanks for your reply.

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Rob= in Fairbridge Gaskell wrote:

     The difference is that some new thi= nkers have joined the  stayers in the Glosa field, and it looks as if som= e new thinking has  come up.  So, we could be ready to move up from the v= ocabulary  formation plateau, and get a bit more organised about promotin= g the  language.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure the language is quite ready= to be promoted. I still have a few concerns about the grammar/syntax, such=

as verb markers being optional. Endless tweaking is bad, but one round of = interactive group tweaking might be good.

     Likewise, the idea of=  using one Glosa word per concept in  the Core Vocab. would simplify thin= gs 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.

I guess it really= depends on what type of material you are writing. For literature and poetr= y, you may be right. When you simply want to convey information, synonyms a= re purely harmful.

The problem is: if Glosa has 10000 words, and people a= ctually use them in writing, then you can’t read Glosa text without memoriz= ing tons of words. That’s exactly what I want to avoid. I want people to be= able to learn Glosa quickly (<1000 words, preferably more like 500), and b= e able to read almost any Glosa text. I guess my goals are different from= those of the folks in charge of Glosa.

I believe efficient communication = of non-fiction material will be the best (only?) way to make an IAL popular= , I would like to see an IAL focus on that market first, and only grow a la= rge vocabulary after many people have learned and are using the basic langu= age.

Just my opinions, of course.

Cheers,

Kevin