Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: natural semantic metalanguage and Glosa

Kevin Smith ("Kevin Smith" <lingua@...>) on August 18, 2006

— In, “William T. Branch” wrote:

It is my (= so far unproven) suspicion that Glosa written by those who understand En= glish can be understood easily by others who understand English. Others = while understanding much of written Glosa would remain confused at the w= ay the words are used and the intended final meanings. This I suspect is= the case even when the author carefully leaves his writings free of idi= oms and perfectly adheres to the grammar set out by Gaskell.

I believe = that for many/most current English/Glosa speakers, that is true. I remain o= ptimistic that it does not have to be true. I think with some adjustments t= o the language, and adoption of common conventions, Glosa could be quite ne= utral.

I, like you Kevin, believe that a very small lexicon carefully

chosen is all that is necessary for an auxiliary language.


On a = separate but related note, I am still trying to find the right balance betw= een tight rules about word meanings (Lojban) and very loose rules (Toki Pon= a).

Thanks for clarifying. Makes a lot of sense now, and I agree with muc= h of what you said.


Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: natural semantic metalanguage and Glosa - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.