Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: minimal vocabulary

Kevin Smith ("Kevin Smith" <lingua@...>) on April 9, 2006

— In, “William T. Branch” wrote:

Hi Kevin (= if you’re still there)

Still here. Will unsubscribe in a day or two.

Wh= at prevents you from choosing a minimal vocabulary independantly and pro= moting it on your web site?

Nothing. That’s what I did a few years ago. As= ide from the vocabulary issues, I found a few syntax/grammar concerns. Afte= r a few months of serious work, I ended up with a language that had about 5= 00 Glosa words, and about 5 changes to the language itself.

But at that po= int, it’s no longer Glosa. It’s not fair to Wendy and Glosa-pe to claim I’m= promoting Glosa when it’s not really Glosa. It’s also not fair to anyone w= ho learns my dialect, because they will not be able to read most Glosa text= with its thousands of words.

So in 2003 I renamed my language “Glo”, impl= ying that it was a simplified version of Glosa. But having split from Glosa= , I then decided to switch from Greek roots to Latin, and chose the new nam= e “Tavo”. Later, Lingua Franca Nova simplified its syntax to be almost isol= ating (like Glosa), so I mostly abandoned Tavo and just decided to support = LFN.

Looking back, I think I prefer the Greek roots to the Latin, so if I

do more work, I’ll probably revert to something more like Glo.

To summariz= e: I can’t wholeheartedly support Glosa because:

  1. I am aware of perhaps = a dozen possible improvements to the language which apparently have no ho= pe of being debated and perhaps eventually accepted into the official langu= age.[1]

  2. I think that a reader should be able to memorize, or have print= ed, about 500-1000 words of an IAL, and be able to read almost any text tha= t claims to be written in that IAL. The main exceptions would be technical = words in a field. Splitting the language into “core” and “full” does not he= lp, unless the non-core words are VERY rarely used.

You mentioned your a= ims are different then the Glosa community. I’ll bet there are as many d= ifferent aims in the Glosa community as there are people in it.

Perhaps= . But Glosa doesn’t seem to fit my goals. An unofficial dialect of Glosa do= esn’t seem to fit my goals either. And a fragmented community will have gre= at difficulty promoting the language and gaining widespread acceptance.

I’= m sorry if I sound negative about all this. I really like almost all of Glo= sa. I am disappointed that it is not in a position to fulfill my own ambiti= ons for an IAL. Hopefully I will end up being wrong and Glosa (or perhaps s= ome other isolating IAL) will sweep the world.


[1] A list of some d= ifferences can be found under “Glo structures not in Glosa” on this page: h= ttp:// .eng.html But also note that I abandoned some of these ideas when I moved f= rom Glo to Tavo. I think these and other ideas are worthy of dicussion and = possible inclusion in the language. I have an open mind.

Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: minimal vocabulary - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.