Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: heretic grammar

Kevin Smith ("Kevin Smith" <lingua@...>) on August 2, 2006

— In, Vasiliy <vabot@…> wrote:

If a conlang= is ‘completely syntax oriented’ and have not implicit and irragular add= itional resources, it should NOT COPY English.

I agree, partly. English= has one of the simpler structures, and is widely known, so it is worth usi= ng as a model in some ways. However, Glosa-pe often write Glosa that is rea= lly English but with Glosa words, and the result can be very difficult to u= nderstand.

Indeed, a completely syntax oriented language is NOT in NE= ED of NOUN marker or any articles. BUT, it is in GREAT need of subject an= d object markers.

I’m not sure I agree.

Using of subject and object mar= kers gives us an oppotunity to use the FREE order of words.

I think I l= ike the rigid SVO order of Glosa. Is there a strong reason to allow other p= atterns? SVO seems simple. As long as there is a clear marker between S and= V, and another between V and O, it is easy to understand. I think allowing= other orders would make it harder to read.

Excuse me for my bad English= .

Your English is fine. I apologize for using English here.


Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: heretic grammar - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.