Re: Who are now the deciders?

— In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, sydpidd@… wrote:

i agree and have s= aid so several times - i have used “du” rather than your
“nu” as it inc= ludes “dura” . one way forward is for as much glosa to appear on
glosa = etc as posiblle

OK. Before my precedent message, I have find, in the old = pages of this forum, the traces of some propositions for the verb-marker.

= “2004? “Plu bovi vora” could mean “cows eat” or “foods of the cow” “Plu bov= i pa vora” must mean “the cows ate”. I have several times been puzzled by a= glosa phrase’s meaning in the present because writers have not marked the = beginning of the time/control/verb part. To get round the problem, I used t= he word “du” with the english “do eat / did eat” in mind. However, there is= some confusion with duration etc. Durante/o, dura, du . “Du” seems to mean= “am eating” which usually suggests “at this moment” whereas I want “past += future +present intermitent” - “pa-nu-fu-frakti” ?! i should be grateful i= f someone could suggest something to introduce the verb present clearly and= briefly. Syd Pidd” :-)

We can propose a new marker, naturelly! but, I am = afraid, it seems impossible that it could be accepted without the authority= of a Comitee. Therefore, with existant markers, it is possible to make a n= ormalize by the use.

It seems to me that NU is the absolute present marker= , and may be composite, without problems, with duration DU and the markers = of past tense or future tense (pa nu =3D just-pasted and fu nu =3D immediat= e-future): U bovi nu vora Plu bovi pa vora U-ci bovi fu du vora U-la bovi = pa nu vora Plu bovi nu du vora (“Plu bovi du vora” may be also possible by= ommit of the NU markers if there are not ambiguity. The DU marker separate=

the noun-phrase and the verb-phrase)

There is no ambiguity with this sent= ence : U bovi vora which is a noun phrase because there is not a verb-marke= r inside.

For me, this solution presents the advantages of no new word, no= new rule, no ambiguity, it just need a precision for the use of the NU mar= ker.

(By the way, I note that it is, perhaps, not necessary to keep a spec= ial status at the words ES, HABE, GENE, and I feel that they can be conside= red as concept-words same the others, obeying at the same rules. But this i= s a other chapter of my Glosa adventures !)

Daniel