Re: [glosalist] word order

Hi all, I still don’t like the idea of a flexible word order, it’s one of the
things that I really don’t like in Esperanto. Since this was already discussed on this list, I’ll refer to my two
cents given in http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/glosalist/message/691 and http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/glosalist/message/813

In these posts I explain why I would like both for glosa: a) a (present mode / neutral) verb marker, because it makes the
sentence structure more obvious b) a clearer and even stricter defined word order, where I don’t
really care whether it is SVO, VSO, SOV or whatever of the 6
combinations, as long as it will be only one of them

:))

Eike

On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:12 AM, lenadi_moucina wrote:

“I had some contact with hindi some time ago and am thinking of how glosa could use hindi word order -verb final, also some slight contact with welsh verb first”

I think that it could be easy to make Glosa a few independant of the word order. It need only two particules :

• one to mark the object of a verb
• one to mark the present mode of a verb.

Try “i” for the object mark and “to” [:-)] for the mark of the present mode. You can now write this Glosa clause “an frakti u botilia” by different ways. (an) (TO frakti) (“I” u botilia) (TO frakti) (an) (I u botilia) (an)(I botilia) (TO frakti) {note that AN is the subject, if it is a reflexive pronoun you have to write “I an” : [(botilia) (to frakti) (I AN)] } (I u botilia) (TO frakti) (an) And so on : (I u botilia) (PA frakti) (an) (I u botilia) (FU frakti) (an) (I u botilia) (NU FU frakti) (an) (I u botilia) (NU DU PA frakti) (an) (I u botilia) (DU TO frakti) (an)

I think it may not allways necessary to mark the object when the order SVO is the respected rule. The language IDO use a seeming system for the “accusative”, special end of word or particule before give the same logical meaning.

Saluta Daniel

Yahoo! Groups Links