Who are now the deciders?

I began to learn Glosa and Ido the same week. Some months later, I can rea= d easily an Ido text, but not a Glosa one. I have past very more time in l= earning Glosa than Ido : with the same brain !!!

At the beginning, the “no= -grammar” seems to be more easy. But I have realized that this “no-grammar= “ is a untrue advertising. In fact, glosa use a tyranic grammar (and any P= art-of-Speetch markers : u, plu, ge- …) but sometimes inoperant.

This = is the big bug into the programm : It is very hard, and by the way impossi= ble, to separate the subject-phrase and the verb-phrase, if the tense is “= present”. This question is recurrent on this forum, Kevin Smith and others= have imagined solutions.

I thing that Glosa need some changes : 1) a fu= ndamental : a marker of beginning of the verb-phrase; 2) and some others w= hich are not an absolute necesity, but useful (eg: make a differencie betw= een suffixies and conjonctions or prepositions [te -te …]).

For the ve= rb-marker, the MINIMAL change is to considerer that NU is the marker of th= e present tense, and that it is an OBLIGATION to use it.

Perhaps it’s no= t the better maner, I will explain a more perturbant system some day, but = using NU present the avantage of no-changing the rules, nor the vocabulary= , just use them more rigorously.

Nobody use Glosa on this forum, only some= times Syd Pidd and yesturday Himalayanpussicat? Perhaps because Glosa is n= ot so easy that it would to seem.

Ultima qestio: Where are now the decid= ers? If they are phantoms who never write on this group, Glosa is a dead-i= diom. I think that an evolution of Glosa is better than a momification and= the multiplications of variants, but no-change is Glosa’s died and many r= ebirths.

Daniel