Re: Redundancies

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Robin Fairbridge Gaskell wrote:

*** = I did try writing in Glosa when Glosa 1000 was the only available dict= ionary, and I actually gave up, because such a basic vocabulary proved t= oo repetitively boring for me to get any joy out of writing.

I enjoyed = writing more after creating my own ~1000 word core list than when I was try= ing to use any of the other Glosa materials. The resulting text was also hi= gher quality. I realize that many/most writers enjoy using a variety of wor= ds, so I’m unusual there. But I also believe that any reader who hasn’t yet= mastered the language would prefer as few different words as possible. Com= peting goals. I think the writer needs to make the sacrifice to make life e= asier for the reader. There will never be more writers than readers. A sing= le person will never write more than s/he reads (because one must always re= ad one’s own writing).

I tried hard to whip up a "market" for Glosa,=  but it didn't seem  to be there.  Eventually, some whiz-kid will discove= r Glosa, and  realise it is just the thing for his communication need.  U= ntil  then, there is no 'product' to be 'marketed'.  By such time, most  = of us who now have Glosa buzzing around in our heads will probably  be = dead.

Too bad. I still believe that the right “product” with the right “ma= rketing” could stand a chance of becoming at least moderately popular today= . The internet is a HUGE advantage over attempts to promote IAL’s even ten = years ago.

But the product has to be compelling and require minimal effor= t to achieve enough mastery to start getting benefits. So far, I haven’t se= en any IAL focus on those attributes. It appears that those are not the goa= ls of the Glosa community at this time, so I’m going to unsubscribe (again)= . I’ll look in occasionally to see if anything has changed.

Thanks, and be= st wishes,

Kevin