Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

IAL goals (was: minimal vocabulary)

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

— In, Robin Fairbridge Gaskell wrote:

*** Ac= tually, this Mailing List ought to be the debating board for= Glosa.

Only if this list has the power to change Glosa. It was very frust= rating a few years ago to propose changes, or debate options, only to find = out that nothing could change without Wendy’s approval, and she was not par= t of the discussion.

There also seemed to be a sense that Glosa was “finis= hed” and should not be changed further. The “18 steps” seemed to be held up= as proper Glosa for all time, regardless of what other changes might be pa= rtially adopted. Perhaps I misunderstood.

First, there must be a basic pro= cess in place. Then we could discuss specific questions and concerns about = the language.

*** We’d like to see a written statement of your goals. = Perhaps working out a commonly acceptable set of linguistic goals is th= e right place for us all to start.

Please see the front page of my Tavo= site :

At the time I wrote that (four years ago), LFN = was still a fully inflected language. Otherwise, it still seems like a good= summary.


Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

IAL goals (was: minimal vocabulary) - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.