Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: minimal vocabulary

Kevin Smith ("Kevin Smith" <lingua@...>) on April 11, 2006

— In, “William T. Branch” wrote:

Hello Kevi= n,

After staying up all night looking at the three languages you re= ferred to, I have a greater appreciation for what you’ve been advocating= . It seems that Tavo and Glo both fit your design requirements.

Thanks= . It’s nice to hear that my explanations are clear, and that my hundreds of= hours of work had some value.

I don’t understand why you say you’ve aba= ndoned them.

Two reasons: 1) Lack of time, and 2) I really didn’t want to = be yet another individual pushing his own IAL. When it looked like LFN was = “good enough”, I decided to support it instead of Tavo. The biggest advanta= ge of LFN over Glosa is that if I have a specific suggestion, it’s much eas= ier to get the language author to either agree, or to explain why he doesn’= t agree.

p.s. Do you have an email address you might share? I would like= to possibly share some ideas I’ve had down the same line as you.

Sure.= tavo@… is probably best for that.


Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

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