Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »
Re: IAL goals (was: minimal vocabulary)
William T. Branch ("William T. Branch" <bill@...>) on April 12, 2006
Only if this list has the power to change Glosa. It was very frustratin= g 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 part= of the discussion.
There also seemed to be a sense that Glosa was “fi= nished” and should not be changed further. The “18 steps” seemed to be he= ld up as proper Glosa for all time, regardless of what other changes migh= t be partially adopted. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I’ve also been wonderin= g what the general consensus is regarding this, since I’m pretty new here, = but have been too shy to ask. Is Glosa considered a closed book or is it st= ill open for modifications?
Does anyone know Wendy or her thoughts on this= ?
First, there must be a basic process in place. Then we could discus= s 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 the right place for us= all to start.
I think an ideal language language that is an IAL first mus= t be maximally if not ridiculously easy to learn to read. Secondly, easy to=
learn to speak and write in.
Any considerations that don’t interfere with= the above should go to making it a beautiful language that appeals to both= the right and left brained, the artistic and scientific, the minimalist an= d expressionist.
It should be thoroughly tested for a period in various wa= ys. One example is for someone to make translations from a natural language= to it and someone else to translate it back. Then compare the input/output= . As many different people as possible should do this. People should active= ly speak in it fluently before the language is considered done because ther= e still may be many hidden flaws.
It’s easy to talk theory, but only testi= ng shows unexpected design consequences. As such, there should be a willing= ness up front, to allow the language to go back to the drawing board to fix= flaws.
All concerns are posted in a central document where one by one the= y are addressed.
Those who are contributing to its creation should be read= ing and studying various linguistic books and anything else pertaining to t= he language. This is where a book exchange would be great. If everyone shar= ed books and research material, they’d be on the same page when discussing = concepts such as grammar, syntax, information theory, etc.
Eventually all = discussions should be done in the language to allow international input. Th= ere could be inert English influences that are blaringly obvious to outside= rs. It would be great PR to say the language was designed internationally u= sing itself as the medium.
I think Glosa goes a quite a way on this, but j= ust how far, I don’t know. I’m still learning and don’t really have the abi= lity to critique it fully. Various oddities or hick-ups turn out not to be = as I learn more. (ie. the concept of umbrella idea behind the words) Others= stay.
Also, I was up and reading Glosa enough to get a vague idea of what=
was being said within a few weeks. This was much faster then Esperanto. Th= is is why I love with Glosa. It also seems to have a warm homey feel to it.=
I don’t have any clue in the least how the language was formed as far as= actual testing it out and such. I know of several newsletters written in G= losa, and a few stories on the net. but that’s about it.
Anyway, just my = 2 cents.
Please see the front page of my Tavo site : http:/= /tavo.org/
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 »