Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2471Re: Central Glosa

Expand Messages
  • Xavier Abadia
    May 21 6:09 AM
      Dear Gary,

      I see that you're right about those problems of the book "CENTRAL GLOSA. 5000 English into Glosa 1000 with Etymological Notes" (1993). It's a pitty.

      By the other hand, according to the GID the word "qod" continues to be okay !
      what (that which) = qod

      Xavi.

      --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, "Gary" <gmillernd@...> wrote:
      >
      > Karo Xavi--
      >
      > I really liked the vocabulary in the BACK of the book CENTRAL GLOSA, "5000 English into Glosa 1000," when it first came out. But some problems were always apparent to me:
      >
      > 1) It contains much more than 1000 Glosa words.
      >
      > 2) This vocabulary and the vocabulary of "Glosa 1000" at the FRONT of the book are not well coordinated. For example, front/DOMINA and back/CEFA have the same meaning.
      >
      > Some of these problems have been corrected in the Glosa Internet Dictionary (GID). For example, CEFA is now the preferred word.
      >
      > Words marked with both ++ and + in the GID should approximate the vocabulary of "5000 English into Glosa 1000."
      >
      > Saluta,
      > _ _
      > /.
      > /\ Gary
      > #
      >
      > --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, "Xavier Abadia" <xabadiar@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hello!
      > >
      > > The word QOD is okay according to the dictionary I'm using ("CENTRAL GLOSA. 5000 English into Glosa 1000 with Etymological Notes", 1993) :
      > >
      > > WHAT, THAT WHICH = QOD
      > > ... WHICH ... = QI
      > >
      > > Xavi.
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" <kimesperanto@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Ave Glosa-pe!
      > > >
      > > > I am trying to work out exactly what 'qod' means, comparing and contrasting it to 'qi'. It is not used in the "18 Steps" document. In the online dictionary, it means "what (that which)". I found 2 uses among Ashby/Clark documents:
      > > >
      > > > 1. Plus, id sio evita excesi specializa per face mo verba akti *qod* in Plu Palaeo Lingua gene face per tri alo ma.
      > > > It would also steer clear of over-specialization by making one word do *what* in natural languages is often [done] by three or more.
      > > >
      > > > (from Paraleli Textu, Wendy Ashby & Ronald Clark, © GEO, 1993)
      > > >
      > > > Here it is the object of the first phrase 'mo verba akti', and the subject of coming verb 'gene face'. It is sort of a relative pronoun, like 'qi', but larger than that.
      > > >
      > > > 2. "Mi ne es tu, e ne ski; *qod* tu ski," reakti Huitze, ... "
      > > > "That I, not being you, do not know *what* you know," replied Huitze..."
      > > >
      > > > (from Piski Hedo, Wendy Ashby & Ron Clark, © GEO, 1994)
      > > >
      > > > Here it is the direct object of 'mi ... ne ski', and the direct object of the coming 'tu ski'.
      > > >
      > > > So to me it seems equivalent to 'u-la; qi' - that which. Thus we could have the equivalent rewritings:
      > > >
      > > > 1a. Plus, id sio evita excesi specializa per face mo verba akti *u-la; qi* in Plu Palaeo Lingua gene face per tri alo ma.
      > > >
      > > > 2a. "Mi ne es tu, e ne ski *u-la; qi* tu ski," reakti Huitze, ..."
      > > >
      > > > Is that how you all understand qod's meaning? Other thoughts?
      > > >
      > > > (Note - I realize 2a violates the rule in 18 Steps stating that 'qi' should be omitted in this case. please overlook so we can focus on the main point.)
      > > >
      > > > Gratia!!
      > > > Kim
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic